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.