Sean, I'm a bit confused -- in your description of "the 3 types of SSPXers", you describe BOTH the 2nd and 3rd categories as "2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers". Are categories #2 and #3 really both from the same generations? Just wondering if there were any typos there.

I would add another group -- FIRST GENERATION SSPXers, mostly Baby Boomers, who have so much invested in the SSPX (time, youth, money over decades of putting money in the collection) they are suffering from the Sunk Cost fallacy -- they've invested so much, they're committed, even if the outlook today for the SSPX is objectively hopeless. Also, they're getting old and tired, and have no energy for "The Fight" (Tradition) -- according to Boomer culture, they have worked hard all their life, and by gum they DESERVE an easy, laid-back retirement for their Autumn years. "I worked hard to build up this church, and by gum, I'm gonna enjoy it!" They are frequently found saying things like, "I ain't goin' back to the catacombs! I paid my dues back in the 70's. We did the garage Masses, basement Masses, hotel Masses."

Baby Boomers are the same way (entitled) when it comes to having worked hard, "done their time" and therefore "deserve" a period of leisure and retirement in the work world as well. They're just extending this particular cultural belief/value to the realm of Church/religious practice. It actually makes sense, from their perspective.

But don't get me started on the Boomers. hahaha  I must point out again, there are many good Boomers, including on CathInfo. Please don't take it personally, Boomers out there. But when I draw big-picture patterns about the whole generation, you gotta admit I'm spot on. And no, it's not a universal belief/value that by working hard from 18-60 you "deserve" any kind of ease or retirement in this life. Individualistic "retirement", where you are well-off for a couple decades before death, completely independent, not needing children-nuns-charity-or anyone to take care of you, living a life of travel, pleasure and leisure is a recent, American phenomenon that only existed since the US Gov't started the welfare state and "safety net" programs simultaneously in the 1960's. Even the Boomers didn't pay in enough to justify what they're going to get out of the system. So yes, it's basically an entitlement program, like food stamps or other welfare. It's just that the Boomers maybe paid in 20-40% of what they're getting out. But Social Security is an insolvent ponzi scheme, and that's a fact.

And there are yet others who perceive real, alarming problems, agreeing in part and denying in part, the accusations made in the book.  Some of the points made are valid, others are rash and ill-considered.  These people take a "wait and see" approach realizing that it is premature to denounce the entire SSPX and start their own group.  They see the threshold for departure is not yet met, with a view to history and what would justify an adverse separation with fellow catholics.  In other words, we ask: what is the standard by which one is forced to "relocate" historically speaking?  The only answer is when the Faith is endangered.  Look at the history of religious congregations and you will clearly see a pattern of health and decline.  Many saints were members of corrupted congregations but through their work, a restoration was effected.  

The reasons set forth by those who have separated are insufficient thus far, even agreeing with some of the assessments.  They understand that there is a range of opinions and a disagreement about practical matters doesn't necessarily involve an evil to be avoided.  We may be approaching a time when separation will be necessary but we have not arrived there yet.  I know others who think along the same lines.  The problem with those who "jumped ship" is that it is purely natural to look for any reason at all to justify their position no matter how unjustified and consequently censure anyone who may disagree.  This of course is a dangerous precedent especially when their priests eventually disappoint on some matter.        

See attached

Or better still:

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/no-spiritual-nourishment-at-the-new-mass/

(A prisoner of the Bergen-Belsen cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ eats bread; you will understand the picture after you read the article)

Of all the offenses Bishop Williamson is alleged to have made at his 2015 Mahopac, New York conference, the suggestion that one could, in certain circuмstances, still find "spiritual nourishment" at a Novus Ordo Mass was judged by his adversaries to be the worst of all. A Catechetical Refutation  defended that comment (particularly at points #7-8). Reacting against this claim, the Pfeifferites went on to invent a new heresy, claiming against the de fide declarations of the Council of Trent (and the unanimous consent of the manuals) that there is no transmission of sanctifying grace to well disposed Novus Ordo communicants at a valid Mass.

To bolster that error (after the fact), they extracted two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre from context, and held them out in a univocal sense.  Those attempts were refuted Here and Here.  Finally, an old Angelus letter of Fr. Pulvermacher was unearthed, and advanced in support of this error, which was refuted in two parts Here and Here.

Between the Catechetical Refutation and the four subsequent refutations rectifying the Pfeifferien errors on the operation of grace, we were content to have let the matter rest, having vindicated not so much the comments of Bishop Williamson, as the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church these errors attack.

However, Samuel recently posted a translation of a 1974 Econe spiritual conference of the Archbishop which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre (like Bishop Williamson) believed the new Mass could still impart spiritual nourishment (i.e., sanctifying grace) to its communicants in certain circuмstances, Here.

Neither will it avail the Pfeifferites to note that the Archbishop's position on the new Mass later hardened, since what changed was not the Archbishop's theology (i.e., grace passes/grace does not pass), but his prudential decision regarding attendance of the new Mass, given the worsening circuмstances and conditions in the Church as the fruits of Vatican II manifested themselves more clearly over the years.

[On this latter point, it is worth recalling Archbishop Lefebvre's May 9, 1980 comment in Michael Davies' classic Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. II, Ch. 40) positively endorsing Novus Ordo Mass attendance that "Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation" here.  I make the same observation regarding the quote the Pfeifferites pull from "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" in one of the refutations above, in which the Archbishop makes his comments on grace specific to sacrilegous and desecrated Masses, not all Novus Ordo Masses.]

As always, I suppose it is obligatory to state that that which is said above is in no sense a defense of the new Mass, but rather, a defense of Catholic sacramental theology.
Here follows Samuel's translation of Archbishop Lefebvre's conference, which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that he taught his seminarians/priests that grace can pass to Novus Ordo communicants:

"But if, on the other hand, as happens for example, they mentioned a case to me of.. some of you gave me the case of a priest who always says the old offertory, who always says the old canon, but he says the mass, he uses the new mass, he says the mass facing the people but he does not give communion in the hand. Well, if there are any seminarians that don’t have any other mass, can they attend a mass like that ? I think yes, what do you expect ! The priest who makes such an effort would be a little discouraged, hurt to see the seminarians close to him, whom he loves very much, to see that they don’t come and attend his mass under the pretext that he does not say [the old mass] absolutely from beginning to end.. I believe there are some circuмstances we have to consider !

The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circuмstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circuмstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"

Despite this, however, I strongly agree with Sean’s assessment of the overall shift.  I was at STAS right after the consecrations but was also with SSPX (knew Father Williamson) for a few years before.  There is no question that +Lefebvre and the SSPX were intransigent regarding the errors of the Conciliarists ... similar to the Resistance mindset ... and the +Lefebvre shifting had only to do with the practical consideration of whether and to what extent to be in communion with the putative hierarchy ... given that, in their mind, they both were and were not the Catholic hierarchy ( something that the material vs. formal distinction and Fr. Chazal’s approach resolve nicely ).

Having experienced both, I firmly agree with Sean that the true spirit of the SSPX is with the Resistance ... while the SSPX has morphed into an FSSP type of group with very little difference.