You're making a leap or connection that wasn't there.
In the paragraph you quoted, I was talking about the "new SSPX Catholics" filling the pews in 2020 who weren't there in 2010. Where were they? Why didn't they go ahead and join in 2010, when the SSPX was still in the "before" stage? Then I listed some ways in which the SSPX changed. Any person who *requires* those changes as a prerequisite to get on board the SSPX is not a real Trad, and not to be treasured by any Trad organization.
I also want to clarify because you are very confused: I wasn't criticizing anyone for asking for Mass location/time information on CathInfo. Don't be ridiculous. I'm not two-faced.
I get upset when people say un-called-for things about the good bishops of the Resistance, yes. That's a different matter altogether.
I'm sorry if there was some nuance involved in what I said today, but it does seem to be eternally true that "easy come, easy go". The easier it is to come by something (say, a Tridentine Mass in the 1950's) the more human beings take it for granted. What is the answer, to make everything difficult? Who knows. It's just one of those things to ponder.
Also, you don't get something for nothing. When you work for something, there's an appreciation there (and a commitment) that you simply can't get when something comes easy. That is also completely true, regardless of how much anyone likes it.
Easier is not always better.
It is easier to watch "The Passion of the Christ" than to make a 20 minute meditation. It is easier to watch a bunch of video tutorials than to get out the equipment and practice/play around with it yourself (for ANY skill or hobby). When you spend 20 minutes trying to troubleshoot a problem, you always remember that solution for next time!
Kids have low test scores? "We must not be making learning easy enough. Throw a few more million dollars into computers and tablets!" Or just maybe there are other reasons for those low test scores... Making things easier or more accessible isn't always the answer.
Churchmen were even convinced in the 1960's that the Church wasn't accessible enough if it wanted to expand further and be even more successful. They were convinced that the Church needed to be brought down to man's level so it could blossom and expand its numbers in a "new springtime". We all know how that went! The Church asked for less and less -- and people tuned out more and more and many even left the Church altogether.
Fair enough, I spoke a prematurely not fully understanding your position. So sorry for the misrepresentation. I'd also like to add it's not me doing the downvoting.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this post, but I still don't think inaccessibility is a virtue in and of itself. There's a difference in compromising accessibility, changing your ways to conform to the standards of the world, and simple accessibility in the form of just making yourself easy to find and learn more about. Having nice, flashy websites like the SSPX isn't a virtue. But does it help discerning and confused Catholics looking for Tridentine Masses find the information they want easily? I don't think anyone would disagree. Not all the new people lining up the SSPX pews in 2020 are there because of the compromises. Many of them are there because they didn't understand the Crisis in the Church a decade ago. Not every Catholic is so well educated and up-to-date, and that's not exactly ideal in the information age where research is easy, but can we really blame parishioners for making the assumption that the world hadn't turned upside down and the Church desecrated?
For the vast majority of Catholics, even the devout and active ones, the minutiae that make a rite valid or not are well beyond them. And while they can see the crazy things the Church preaches today, there are hordes of NewChurch Theologians rushing to equivocate and spread sophisms to trick Catholics into thinking these innovations are fine. So I wouldn't blame anyone for not knowing about the Crisis and the SSPX and all that in the past. Many people only realised/found out about all this stuff relatively recently and I think many of them would still be attending Novus Ordo masses today if it wasn't for the reams of information and, yes, the flashy SSPX websites. Perhaps these people should've and could've found out about the Crisis and all these issues sooner if they had paid more attention and searched harder, but does that mean we'd be better off if they just stayed in the NO? While of course it's not worth it to sacrifice and compromise on your beliefs to attract late-comers, website's don't really fit into that category.
Anyway, the Resistance is even much more niche again than the SSPX, and very few Catholics have ever heard of it. As it stands, it's hard enough to learn more about it, but even when you do learn about it and wish to start attending Masses and events, you have a very awkward time of it. It's true that having it take effort to find out means that it's more likely only dedicated and serious people will show up, but it's also important to "preach to all nations" so to speak. There are many Catholics and even Trads who aren't dedicated and serious enough. But then the mission should be to try and get more of them to be more serious in their faith and join the Resistance. Not just metaphorically hide out in the mountains with the people who already are and let only the hikers find it. If the the early Church did that then Christendom would've been very small indeed. People need to be converted. Many will ignore the sermons and go back to their daily lives. Some will stick around. As long as you don't compromise your beliefs in desperate attempt to keep those who'd otherwise walk, then there's no harm in any of that.
Topic: Attacking the canard - "Waaah, nobody told me about Resistance Mass in my area!" (Read 2439 times)