CathInfo.com

The basis for the bishop's position is the Roman incuмbent heads two churches, traditional and conciliar. He dismisses the latter and relies on the former. I believe the Society now makes no distinction: Rome is not so broken that it needs rebuilding and recommissioning. The bishop and the Society can then only limit their disobedience and Rome even at her worst controls how far they can resist.

The solution outside the SSPX (which keeps pressing for special treatment inside a chaotic church) then means at best scattered independent parishes well into the future. The thinking is no parallel entity claiming the eternal truths of the Church can be allowed to organise and grow unless all ties with Rome are severed. ABL no doubt gave much thought to how far he could take this, as far as consecrating four bishops in fact. Since then there has been much drawing back and I suspect Bp. W is reluctant to go as far as ABL. Maybe because today's trads are not like yesterday's and SSPX copies would also end up as more inauthentic revivalist entities preoccupied with market share.

Interestingly, the bishop dismisses the authority of the SSPX while reverting to that embedded in two church/one pope theory. This is good because it restores some equality among various parts of the remnant even if that theory is not for them.

Steve Jobs has been booted out of Apple, Inc.  Some would claim unjustly.

He can either sit around moaning about it and living off his millions staring angrily at his one remaining Apple stock certificate or he can start NeXT and finance Pixar animation and move on with his life.

I met Jobs around 1989 when I was working for a US firm called Businessland.  Had brief chat over a dinner he attended because Businessland had just agreed to sell the Mcintosh computer and I had hit my target by closing a deal with Chiat Day Mojo an advertising agency in London.  I have never subscribed to the bastard theory, I found him simply very focused and driven to achieve his goals.  But he was not dismissive of me or an arrogant a$$.  I didn't suck up to him either, but I did realise that he must have something special about him and there was probably something I could learn.  I observed, asked questions, listened.

The resistance need to do the same.  Stop bitching about the SSPX and go out and build a better mousetrap.  Chapels where the priests are holier and draw people to them like the Cure d'Ars did when he inherited a broken down parish.  The SSPX is far from perfect.  I have a list of stories as long as both of my arms of injustices, calumnies, clashes, denunciations from the pulpit, lunacy etc,.  The FSSP is not perfect either, some of their priests are wishy washy and compromised.  Pope Francis probably has another 7-10 years and he says Masses with inflatable dinosaurs so change seems unlikely from the direction anytime soon.

Chastisement might come and save us, but people were hoping that with even greater vigor back in the 1980s, I recall.

Talk is cheap and hotheaded statements on the Internet prove nothing.  Resistance supporters should eat rice or pasta for Lent and Advent, and donate what they save in groceries to the resistance priests.  Unemployed Internet pundits should go and get a job, even one flipping burgers and donate every extra dollar they make to the resistance's travel fund.  Priests should focus on getting around, delivering the sacraments and being holier.  Not fighting each other, not picking on parishioners or allowing them to pick on each other.

If the resistance could produce a Cure of Ars then most Trads would be won over, myself included.  In principle, I can see where you are coming from, much like I can see the arguments of the SVs are credible and have merit.  The problem is that I know some people in the resistance in the UK and have observed comments on here and a significant proportion, especially those with the loudest voices, are incompetent tossers who have failed at many of the things they have tried to do in life.  People who cannot hold down a job or function effectively in the world.  I don't think they are likely to surprise me.

I don't understand some of ggreg's thinking (I am still hoping he will respond to what I wrote earlier regarding his views about the faith). I also don't understand why he must constantly refer to his successes in the world.

However, I do think he makes a point. Can the resistance's raison d'etre simply be an attack on the failure of the SSPX? Is that it?

What will the resistance offer to the world which is starving for truth? This doesn't mean a watering down of the Faith. Nor does it mean a "re-branding."

I believe Fr Patrick Girouard has a good take on things.

I also believe Bishop Williamson's course of action is wise.