Some on CI have been impatiently waiting for Bishop Williamson to chime in on the recent events in the neo-SSPX: the General Chapter, and the election of the new Superior General Fr. Pagliarani and his team.

But I don't see why +Williamson needs to drop everything and comment on this.

1. What difference does it make? Yes, the SSPX is the 800-lb gorilla in the Trad world, and the difference between "Mass" and "no Mass within a 200 mi. radius" for many Trads around the country. But what practical difference is this General Chapter going to make? -- for example, the decision to attend SSPX Masses or not?

2. If you are attending SSPX Masses, you will continue to do so, because your reasons will still hold. Unless they announced a formal deal with Rome at the end of the chapter -- which they didn't.

3. If you are concerned about the future of the neo-SSPX, you should be -- ever since 2012. Nothing has changed. The ship was sinking before, and nothing was repaired or plugged during the last General Chapter. So if you needed to make backup plans for Mass before, you still need to make those plans today.

4. If you were NOT attending the SSPX before, because they were going liberal, becoming FSSP, soft on Vatican II, etc. then you will continue to do so, again for good reason.

5. If you were hoping for a miraculous turn-around, change of direction, or even a changing of the guard in the SSPX, your hopes have been dashed. This has been well-covered on CathInfo thanks to Fr. Girouard and others. Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger have been placed in the novel positions of "General Councillors" by the General Chapter. Fr. Pagliarani defended +Fellay during the 2012 Chapter. And all 3 members of the old General Council are closely linked to Argentina in some way (NOTA BENE: the current Pope is from Argentina). Does that answer your question?

6. If you didn't support the Resistance before, you still won't. If you were sympathetic to it, you still will be.

7. If you supported the Resistance like your access to a solid Trad Mass depended on it (a Mass with priests that oppose liberalism and Vatican II), then you will continue to do so. The neo-SSPX barque is only sinking deeper into the ocean, and will continue to do so.

8. As for knowledge about the background of Fr. Pagliarani and his 2 new Assistants, Fr. Girouard has done a great job of remembering key details for us and bringing them to the forefront. Read his recent letters (found on CI) from the last couple weeks. Does +Williamson have to do and say everything personally? I'm sure he would prefer that others step in and help out.

9. For Bp. Williamson, he SHOULD be able to merely supervise at this point (and at his age), dropping everything to shout things from the housetops *only when it isn't being done by someone else*. After all, he won't be on this earth forever, so we need to get used to life without him (as unpleasant as that idea sounds). If your successors are doing their job, let them keep doing it. Intervene if necessary, but why micro-manage when you don't have to? It wouldn't even be preferable; it would collectively "spoil" us. Just like parents who don't expect their children to do any work. When are they magically supposed to start doing work, if they are used to the parents always doing everything?

10. I really have to wonder about some people. Was their support of the Resistance contingent on the man Bishop Fellay being Superior General? Was it all just a personality conflict for them? Did they just dislike Bishop Fellay personally? To such people I say: "Goodbye and good riddance! You never understood the Resistance to begin with, and therefore you were a lousy supporter all along. The Resistance doesn't need or even want you. You give the Resistance a bad name by reducing our noble fight to a vulgar personality conflict."

The Resistance has almost nothing to do with Bishop Fellay the man. It's not a personality clash. It's about doctrine, a true understanding of the Traditional Movement, a true understanding of Vatican II and the Conciliar Church -- and the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

11. Last of all, for every topic chosen for his latest Eleison Comments, there are an infinity of topics he had to reject! Are we to criticize +Williamson for all the topics he doesn't write about every week? And why should we try to morally compel His Excellency to be REACTIVE rather than ACTIVE? Why should he lower himself to merely reacting constantly to events in the world? That would be the tail wagging the dog. Why can't +Williamson instead continue to be like a stone fortress, well-founded on the rock of Tradition, not changing his schedule or his plans for Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pagliarani, or any other liberal?

12. Related to #11, men are the active principle, while women are the passive principle. Men should be active and proactive; being passive and receptive makes one more like a woman. Bishop Williamson is no woman.

13. While the SSPX was the 800lb gorilla of the Traditional World, it's also true that we can't obsess over their every move. At some point, and to some extent, we have to move on. Shake the dust from our feet. Let the dead bury their dead.

The above post is just how I see and understand the issue.

If I'm missing something here, please enlighten me. I'm open to criticism.

You did an excellent job, Matthew!

I agree.  To quote Hillary Clinton, "What difference does it make?"  Nothing's really changed.  What is there to say about this, really?

What do you know about the Resistance, sedevacantist?

I've been with the Resistance from the very beginning, so I (unlike you) know what I speak of, when I talk about the Resistance.

The Resistance was NOT founded on the shaky platform of, "my SSPX priest doesn't talk against a Rome-SSPX deal often enough!"
Give me a break!

What do you know about the Resistance, sedevacantist?

I've been with the Resistance from the very beginning, so I (unlike you) know what I speak of, when I talk about the Resistance.

The Resistance was NOT founded on the shaky platform of, "my SSPX priest doesn't talk against a Rome-SSPX deal often enough!"
Give me a break!

.
You memory is failing you, Matthew.  I supported the local "resistance cell" dating back to when we first discovered it in 2013 or so.  Was accused of committing "calumny against Archbishop Lefebvre" from the pulpit by the resident priest when we signed a letter to all the chapel attendees asserting that the new direction was contrary to what ABL would have wanted.  Attended the tailgate masses of Frs. Hewko, Pffeifer, and Voigt.  Went to the local conferences, including Bishop Williamson's.  (And yes, all while being a "sedevacantist").  You can confirm all of this with our mutual friend.  Or, just go through my posting history, for goodness' sake. 
.
If you'll accept that as "resistance currency" allow me to invite you to re-read what I said, and dispassionately:
.

A lot of the infant Resistance rhetoric was fuelled by what topics priests would and wouldn't talk about. Orthodoxy became something deterimimable by the degree to and rate at which a priest disfavorably discussed a deal. There wouldn't have ever *been* a "resistance" if Catholics were content to allow priests to address and respond to issue at their own pace.
.
In other words, sounds like the chickens are coming home to roost.

.
Not at all the same thing as:
.

The Resistance was NOT founded on the shaky platform of, "my SSPX priest doesn't talk against a Rome-SSPX deal often enough!"
Give me a break!

.
I know that the resistance (by which I mean, and I suppose you mean, the detectable exodus, both material and spiritual, from the SSPX by many priests and laity in direct response to GREC, the AFD, etc.) was not founded on this "shaky platform."  I said that much of the early rhetoric (which, I might add, maintained and encouraged the resistance as a growing movement in the early days) was indeed based on this, and I can't believe saying so is regarded as controversial.  Just go through Fr. Pfeiffer's sermons. You used to complain that they never came to visit you-- well, they visited us well enough, and I've sat through enough sermons about how the SSPX doesn't talk about this, doesn't talk about that, etc. to last a lifetime and if it's any consolation you didn't really "miss anything." 
.
Go through the forum 2013-2015 and see how many people are complaining about silence.  It was a really big deal.  Going to a Resistance mass was about "getting the truth."  People put up with apartment masses and all the rest because they were going to talk about what your local SSPX priest wouldn't.
.
So, with that in mind, is it any surprise that people are critical of Bishop Williamson's silence on the SSPX right now?  I don't even necessarily disagree with what you and Ladislaus said.  I'm just saying that "resistance people" have been conditioned to read a great deal into silence.  Do you disagree?

+Williamson doesn't need to. and B) he will likely talk about it eventually.

.
Will hollingsworth get his comeuppance by next weekend, perhaps? 

The above post is just how I see and understand the issue.

If I'm missing something here, please enlighten me. I'm open to criticism.

Not all priests will stay in the SSPX once it's fully in with the Modernists. For those lay folk who have already quit the SSPX things will perhaps get better. More priests will be available for Mass.
But why the desperation of the SSPX to join up with the destroyers of the Faith?. This is a recent item:
https://gloria.tv/article/8rGiKUqN7Kbw2kugCEw2DxEWo
Radical Vatican About to Take Vengeance on Father Stefano Manelli

Sanctions against Father Stefano Manelli, 85, the founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, are imminent, writes Marco Tosatti (July 21). Manelli’s order languishes under a Vatican commissioner since July 2013.

The reasons for this crack down, never explained by the Vatican, are evident: for the present Vatican nomenclature, the Friars are “too Catholic”.

According to Tosatti, a docuмent containing sanctions against Manelli, authored by the Congregation for the Religious, is currently on Francis' table.

After the sanctions are imposed, the Vatican will push for a General Chapter. The plan is to change the Friars' constitutions and to abolish the vow of consecration to the Immaculate and the vow of poverty. The latter has created a situation in which all material goods of the friars belong to lay-people. The Vatican has tried in vain to get hold of this patrimony but lost all juridical battles in Italian courts.

Therefore, the Vatican tried to use Father Manelli in order to put pressure on the assets' owners. After this failed, it seems, Francis wants to punish Manelli which reveals Francis’ strange sense of justice.

One of the leading Vatican bureaucrates who fights against the Friars is Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo OFM, the secretariy of the Congregation for the Religious, a Francis intimate, who was one of the main protagonists of the huge financial scandal hitting the Franciscans (OFM) in December 2014. The scandal was quickly hushed up.

Because Carballo is a radical-liberal, nobody touched him, on the contrary, Francis promoted him to become an archbishop.