Unlike others perhaps, I do not belong to the society of priests called the SSPX. I merely attend one of the chapels their priests provide the sacraments in. Having experienced the Vatican II reformation I needed somewhere to rear my five children in the Catholic Faith, that is, taking them to Mass and other celebrations I had enjoyed since I became an altar boy in 1949. I first found an indult with the Latin Mass but one day the priest in his homily said the Muslim religion had the same God as Catholics. After I asked him since when did Muslims believe in the Trinity. He said, 'here you get Vatican II catechism. If you want tradition find an SSPX church, I replied 'thank you Father, that is the best advice I have had in years. Soon I and my whole family found one of those churches and all still attend Mass in their 30s, unlike most of my old friends whose have lost the faith and their children no longer go to church. Other things essential to Catholics like the proper baptisms (including exorcism), marriages, last rites, burials also came with my church, but most of all that moral support from other like-minded Catholics.

To this day, thank God, in my little SSPX chapel, and I have seen a dozen or more priests come and go, I have not heard one word of modernism and criticism of Vatican II is very frequent. I understand from others on this forum that is not the situation elsewhere and I am quite shocked at that.

A very learned friend who has studied and understood Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and its methods told me that the only way to fight anything within an institution is to stay in it and fight from within. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ however, encourages 'stalking horses' who draw all the opposition out of the organisation so they will no longer present a problem to the reigning leaders. Then, like Protestants, when one who leaves falls out with the first 'stalking horse' he will leave with his followers and set up another place of resistance. This way even the opposition gets broken up and a collective war against the real enemy is no longer a problem for them.

Now each one of us has to solve our own problem to remain and exercise our Catholicism. I have a big problem today with a Fr Paul Robinson SSPX, a teacher of seminarians in Australia, who had written a book full of inherent old Pythagorean heresies condemned by popes and the Fathers for centuries after Christ, but long forgotten about within modern Catholicism. This book and its Modernism is supported by the SSPX itself by way of their websites, so I have lost that 'traditional' confidence in the society itself and am very angry with their claim of total Tradition. I have no doubt Archbishop Lefebvre would have agreed with my opinion.

What I decided to do was to continue to get my Mass and sacraments in their chapel but to no longer support anything to do with the Society itself until that Fr Robinson is exposed for what he is. It is my duty to support my pastors, that is the priests who provide the Mass etc., but not their Society worldwide.

Cassini:

Unlike others perhaps, I do not belong to the society of priests called the SSPX. I merely attend one of the chapels their priests provide the sacraments in.

This seems to be the name of the game among trads who still attend sspx masses.  It is a marriage of convenience. i.e.  I've got a family.  They need the sacraments.  SSPX is there to provide that.  Let what goes on in hierarchical ranks of the Society be damned.  I don't personally condemn the position.  But don't expect the sspx to change and become better.  The Society's rank and file faithful keep it from having to return to the founding principles of the Archbishop.  These folks, IMO, are the RINOs, who run on one platform, but always give in eventually to the Dems.  Crude analogy, perhaps, but I think it may fit.

My conclusion?  The majority of Catholics wanting to be 100% traditional tolerating no connection to Vat. II in even the remotest manner have to be home-aloners.  There are not enough independent or resistant priests or chapels.  There are fewer now than in the period between 1965-1980 when at least the older priests were certainly ordained and knew the Latin Mass.  Unless you are blessed to have access to one of the few certainly legitimate venues, you're on your own.  If you have no family or friends available, and moving isn't a possibility, you go it alone as an individual.

Those of us in the US who are unable to travel long distances and have not been able to rally enough supporters to form our own chapel are stuck in the proverbial desert. Since Fr Pfieffer went pear-shaped on us we are pretty much orphans. If it weren't for CI and tertiary groups we would be completely cut off.

So what did you do to get kicked out of the chapel? Two sides to every story.

Don't expect a pity party from me.

Didn't you say you've never been married? If you would have shed your feminist spirit a long time ago, maybe a Catholic man would have proposed to you.  

I bet you've had short hair all your life, too. Yeah, you're one of those "baby boomers" or "silent generation".

You're way out of line with this tripe. 

Get over yourself! And stop being mean. It’s not her fault you can’t find someone to marry. It’s not any woman’s fault you are so bitter towards women. It’s not women’s fault you’re ALONE. Maybe you’re the one who is not worthy to be married!

Strawman argument. Try again.

#JEWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It’s wrong how you keep tearing women down! It’s wrong how you demand all women to submit to your liking. You have no power over woman. All you do is say rude things to the, and act shocked when you can’t find a wife. You are the only reason you’re alone.

LOL. Calm down, woman. Stop with your strawman.

Btw, I'm not alone or lonely. It seems you want me to be lonely as you keep bringing up the other strawman that I blame "being alone" (that doesn't exist) on women. I've had the opportunity to marry on several occasions 2 different women, but they just didn't have what it takes...

I'm a very content man. I'm not married by choice because I would much rather not be married than be trapped by Jezebel who is all too ubiquitous in these latter days.

The fundamental difference between a younger man, who chooses to be single, and an old woman, who never married, is that in this current age, Western women are, almost, completely infected with a diabolical pig spirit. It's wise for the man to remain unmarried. Conversely, the old, lonely woman lived much of her life in a prior age where there were still plenty of decent, real men, yet she failed to attract such a man to marry her. The problem lies with the old, lonely woman, especially when she still exhibits the same yappy and feminist spirit that turned off many men who came across her throughout her life.

Women need men a lot more than men need women.  A normal woman has the biological instinct to attract a man and bear his children, and remain with him so he can protect and provide for her and her children. She has no real meaning in life, if she doesn't accomplish this natural order. The man's biological instinct is to give his seed to woman, subsequently, go off and give his seed to another woman. He can do such a thing without really needing the woman, yet, the woman needs the man.

The Church even permitted man to have a concubine and not a wife. Hark:

"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001).

And stop sending me PMs like we're friends, then you resort back to your attacks against me in the public forum.

Hahaha you mean when I tried to understand arguments better? Sorry for trying to be nice to you. It honestly seems like it’s a waste of breath, and time. Excuse me while I enjoy the rest of Christmas.

#BelieveWomen