CathInfo.com

I honestly don’t see why a solid priest couldn’t be identified and ordained as at least a simplex priest after 3-4 years.  Perhaps at that point he offers Mass but doesn’t give sermons of hear Confessions ... until getting some more time studying moral and dogmatic theology.  We are in an extreme emergency situation and don’t necessarily have the luxury to wait 6-7 years for each priest.

Except the priest could run off and become "independent", and plenty of Faithful would be ready-and-waiting to put him up and have a priest to say Mass. He'd then be "free" of any artificial restrictions. There is only one priestly ordination -- it's not like computer systems where you can be given different levels or fine-tuned access (like Permissions in Android apps)

A partly-formed priest -- who, let's face it, would have the same complete Holy Orders that any priest has -- would then have the temptation to be the boss, say Mass, meet people, be independent, enjoy your favorite weakness (socializing, travel, money, food, wine -- priests are only human!) those dusty books aren't going to look so attractive. Human nature will step in.

It's like a young man at High School graduation who decides to enter the workforce instead of going to college -- barring some dramatic life intervention, college ain't gonna happen. Especially if said young man goes off and gets married and starts having kids as well.

One could argue, for the Resistance side, from the fact that Our Lord trained His Apostles, who were to be the first Priests of His Church, within 3 1/2 years, that a requirement of that many years alone is divine law. Nevertheless, I agree 6-7 years has been prudently established by Church law. Another thing: I feel a Priest should not be a "Superior" to Bishops, even though it is almost unavoidable now, within the Society, that someone other than a Bishop becomes Superior General, and thus "Superior" of Bishops. I love Fr. Pagliarani, but I think a Bishop should be selected, simply because a Bishop is sacramentally superior to Priests, and a Bishop has a certain authority over Priests simply by virtue of his Episcopal Consecration. Priests should be firmly united around their Catholic Bishop.

Hello Sean. Happy Easter! I would start earlier than 1988. Here are two principles from Archbishop Lefebvre still applicable today imo. +ABL said, during the crisis with the Nine, (1) "It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." and (2) "I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out." http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/long_island_conference_1983.htm

The SSPX can correctly say both of these to the Resistance today. And in fact, the Society Bishops and Priests have: "The description lacks a supernatural spirit. To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work? Now, the pope has let us know that an abiding concern for the regularization of our situation for the good of the Church lies at the very heart of his pontificate, and also that he knew very well that it would be easier both for him and for us to leave things as they stand now. And so it is indeed a decided and legitimate will that he is expressing ... We do pray for each one of you, that in this battle which is far from being over we may find ourselves all together for the greater glory of God and for the love of our dear Society. May our Risen Lord and our Lady deign to protect you and bless you,

+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+ " https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-general-council-of-society-of.html

This letter beautifully expresses the twin principles on which the Society operates. First, there has to be a bond with Rome, per +ABL, if we wish to remain Catholic, even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome. Conciliar Church - as Fr. Gleize, Professor of Ecclesiology at Econe explained - refers to a modernist spirit within the Church, from which spirit alone we separate; not from the authorities themselves, which is impossible. Second, that there should not be NEEDLESS divisions in Tradition, as the Split of the 9 was.

As to what I choose, I choose Catholic Tradition in Full Communion with the Pope. Is there any reason I cannot choose both? If the Society was Canonically Regular at its founding in 1970, if it was legitimate to seek Canonical Normalization in 1988, then especially today, especially after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, freeing the true Mass, it is legitimate to be Canonically Regular Catholic Traditionalists. Why should it not be?

Great, we agree. So, in other words, if we are consistent traditionalists, we should be, if we are sedeplenists, Indult Traditionalists. That's my position exactly. Broadly speaking, there are three traditionalist positions (1) Sede traditionalism (2) Resistance traditionalism and (3) Indult traditionalism. Of course, as you note, Ladislaus, Resistance traditionalism usually resolves itself into either (1) or (3).

By divine law, SO, Ordinary Jurisdiction can only be granted through the Pope, as the Resistance agrees. Since there are advantages to having Ordinary Jurisdiction, we hold our Bishops have a right to obtain it. Why was it ok to found a canonically regular society in 1970?

Why was it ok to almost approach full normalization in 1988? Even after 1988, the Society has often sought canonical normalization before 2012. Bishop Fellay said something like Apostolic Administration was offered to the Society around 2000. Was that not legitimate?

God Bless.

Yes, you would have to start earlier than 1988, because after 1988, you have no support from Lefebvre for your position.

But let me ask you this:

When someone asks you what St. Augustine taught, do you cite/argue from his early Tractates, or do you cite his later Retractates (which contain his final and matured teachings on the same matters)?

Every honest writer who wanted to present the saint’s teaching would only cite from the latter.

Same thing with Lefebvre:

Returning to earlier positions he later amended, in order to find support for the ralliement, is simply dishonest.

When someone asks you what St. Augustine taught, do you cite/argue from his early Tractates, or do you cite his later Retractates (which contain his final and matured teachings on the same matters)?

 Interesting you raise this example.  Xavier takes whatever "Tractates" of St. Augustine agree with his position.  So, for instance, very early on, St. Augustine tentatively floated an opinion in favor of BoD.  Later, after he had matured in the faith and battled the Pelagians, he forcefully rejected the opinion.  But Xaiver upholds that initial opinion because it agrees with what he wants to believe and presents it as authoritative teaching when St. Augustine clearly says, "Having considered it over and over again, I find that ..."  But Xaiver pushes this as teaching with authority.  That's not unlike he presents Bishop Williamson as "teaching" in his favoring of Valtorta.  Xavier approaches "evidence" with a clearly confirmation bias.