Agreed. "Squeaks" seem to be the best that they can do. Kind of amazing that they said anything at all, but they needn't have bothered. Archbishop Lefebvre would have given them (Rome) what-for, I'm sure.

Yes, I totally agree with all the above comments. Menzingen's protests, which are few and far between, are always expressed so calmly, so serenely, out of all due proportion to the monstrous and diabolical darings of this Pope. The SSPX ought to marching on Rome. As is said above, he says enough to maintain a facade of traditionalism to deceive those who want to be deceived. We see this same kind of calm and gentle criticism from New Bishop Huonder, lacking all due measure and holy indignation. It is what one would expect of a Freemason, in fact, if he had infiltrated the SSPX and wanted to destroy it. I'm not saying Fr Pagliarani or Bishop Huonder are Freemasons, but there can be no doubt they are in the SSPX and largely responsible for its new direction.

We can judge all these interventions of the Superior General in light of what Bishop Fellay declared in an interview over 10 years ago, now: "Rome has asked that we criticise less, and I agree". Extraordinary words. The enemy asked me to put down my weapons so he could walk all over me and I agreed. I'm a lover not a fighter after all. I'm the new SSPX.

The will just resist harder! 

How does someone "resist harder"? That doesn't make sense.

To be historically forgotten to history would be to do the bare minimum,  protect Faith and morals.  The Vatican II religion struck out. 

I still don't understand how someone is supposed to "resist harder." What does that mean? 

Does not the SSPX already bless sinful unions? Do they not accept invalid annulments from the local bishop and bless adulterous unions?

I'm not aware, is that a fact? My experience with the old SSPX was to the contrary which I witnessed on more than one occasion, absolutely guided by sound principles on this matter. They also had the St Charles Borromeo Commission set up to investigate the Conciliar annulments. It would not surprise, though, since there is a gradual drift of the neo-SSPX towards recognition of things conciliar.

It is poking fun at people that are always losing battles yet never change their tactics. It’s like the people after the 2020 election who still think voting is the solution. “We just need to vote harder next time”

Basically, it is certain sedevacantists putting other traditional Catholics down, and trying to make them look stupid, right? Same old SV tactics.

Still, no one can really resist harder, which is why I wanted to know how resisting harder is supposed to be done. We already resist error, as Stubborn has pointed out many times, just as Scripture tells us to do.

Basically, it is certain sedevacantists putting other traditional Catholics down, and trying to make them look stupid, right? Same old SV tactics.

Still, no one can really resist harder, which is why I wanted to know how resisting harder is supposed to be done. We already resist error, as Stubborn has pointed out many times, just as Scripture tells us to do.

It's rightfully "putting down" the R&R position.  If anyone employs the tactic of making gratuitous drive-by insults without any substance, it's you.  This "resist harder" expression is a very concise and cleverly pithy expression of the problem that SVs have with the R&R position, in principle.

It's rightfully "putting down" the R&R position.  If anyone employs the tactic of making gratuitous drive-by insults without any substance, it's you.  This "resist harder" expression is a very concise and cleverly pithy expression of the problem that SVs have with the R&R position, in principle.

It's quite funny that SV's are trying to tell us how to resist, when they believe that we are not supposed to resist a valid pope.

I suppose that because SV's, such as yourself, believe themselves to be superior to pretty much everyone, so they can tell us how we are supposed to resist. You call it clever and concise; I call it arrogant.