Incredible blindness.

I'm all done.

I have seen enough.

Incredible blindness.

I'm all done.

I have seen enough.

Again? For real this time? 
Gotcha.

IMO, this is just more insincere eyewash. Bp W. can not bring himself to admit that the sspx game is over. Always the eternal optimist. Can anyone really believe at this point that Fr. P has the “vision and fortitude,” that “he still needs to be given time,” that he “truly means to take on the heavy task in front of him of straightening out the Society?” I certainly do not. The Society is over. +W tries feebly to keep hope alive, but he succeeds only in cruelly prolonging the agony of doubt and indecision for numbers of sspx trads who look for clear guidance, but, alas, find little or none from the pen of the good bishop. Inadvertantly, perhaps, +W puts more time on the clock for an organization whose time is up, and for whom, clearly, the bells have already tolled.

 

I don't share his optimism. But a few thoughts.

1. He clearly points out that the real issue is one's ACTIONS, not one's words. So you should be looking at the SSPX and probably concluding the actions aren't there, and so they're hopeless. Or you will. He's just being fair, or "giving the devil his due". That's something to be commended.
2. As for when to declare the SSPX "dead", I think that is a matter of opinion rather than dogma. Even if I feel strongly about that opinion. Is it impossible to "approve of" a bishop with whom you disagree on something like this (i.e., a matter of opinion rather than dogma?)
3. To extend on #2, if you decide you can't approve of a bishop with whom you disagree on some minor point (pretty pathetic if you ask me), does that also extend to the whole group he associates with, all the priests under him, etc.? If so, it's pathetic to the 3rd power. Many Americans unfortunately fit into this category.
4. One could argue that +W is setting up Fr. P for a future verbal beatdown. That is, if Fr. Pagliarani fails to take the ACTIONS that are necessary to validate such stretched out, long shot hopes, wouldn't +W then have a clear cut case -- the kind that should convince most, if not everyone -- that the SSPX is hopeless?

Speaking of actions speaking louder than words (a concept everyone should know and understand), I have a few words for the Sean Johnsons of the world. He (and maybe a few others?) are freaking out that +W is giving the SSPX any credit or hope at all.

To Sean (and any others who agree with him) I would say: +W hasn't Green-lit the SSPX, he never said the SSPX is overall fine, and he hasn't returned to the organization himself. He continues to be one of the main figures in the Resistance, for whom he has consecrated 3 bishops (so far) and has apparently provided (given? lent?) resources to start Resistance chapel(s). He has put his money where his mouth is, and he is certainly in the right place morally, spiritually, and theologically.

This isn't the first time that headline-readers and Attention-Deficit-sufferers have sized +W up wrong. The man is nuanced and precise in his arguments and criticisms. That is a good thing. It is only justice and TRUTH to "give the devil his due". I know the modern world likes to take anyone they disagree with and frame him as 100% evil (as if that could even exist) and a literal reincarnation of Hitler (who, in turn, has been cast as the devil incarnate). But that's not how it works in the real world.

In the real world, bad guys get a few things right, and even good guys get a few things wrong. I'm sorry if that means you're going to have to think (to quote +W, "It huuuuuurts!") but: you have to think. If that's devastating news for you, then too bad. And we're all going to have to continue to exercise the not-so-glamorous virtue of Patience.

Good guys can't be like the NPCs (non-playable characters) in video games, whose speech is limited to what the programmers put in: "Orange man bad."
Or sports fans -- it's all so simple for them as well: "Bears good. Packers bad."

Going around saying "SSPX bad" and never distinguishing or saying WHICH things they're bad in, IN WHAT WAY(S), TO WHAT EXTENT or IN WHAT DEPARTMENTS aren't doing the Church, the Truth, or God any favors.

When you go around with a team mentality, you're expecting people to join your team out of emotion, religious fervor, because they're impressed with this or that person, etc. and then you wonder why you don't get any converts! You'd have to set up tents and have a Southern Baptist-style religious revival if that's what you're after. You'd need some good emotional propaganda too. But if you want to win reasonable people over, you have to use reason. You have to distinguish, which St. Thomas Aquinas said was proper to the wise man.

About the only thing I can say about the SSPX is that they are valid priests, and being as they are young, they'll be around for a good while. 

Actually you can't even say that anymore.  There are a number of priests in the SSPX who were not ordained in the Old Rite/ordained by a bishop consecrated in the Old Rite.  The SSPX does not regularly perform conditional ordinations as they once did.  Before going to any of their sacraments, a Catholic must investigate the priest's orders.  Right now, I think the only priests that are certainly valid are the sedevacantist and Resistance priests.

I think that a lot of people don't understand that Bishop Williamson barely acknowledges the existence of something called The Resistance.  From the beginning he has resisted calls to spin up a formal organization of which he would be the head.  He sees, instead of a group, merely "Catholics doing their best to keep the Faith" (his phrase above).  He has been providing Sacraments to various groups, including some Ukrainian Catholics.  He seeks to serve Catholics in their needs.  Period.  Even while still rector at Winona he often spoke of how he didn't believe any group would work after the death of +Lefebvre because his person was the only thing that had, somewhat artificially, served as a glue to bind together some Traditional Catholics.  +Williamson has an apocalyptic view of the present crisis as necessarily involving a diaspora of faithful Catholics around the world ... in which organised groups serve little purpose except for practical reasons.  He sees these are nothing more than "support groups" for individual Catholics struggling to keep the Faith.  It's important to understand the bishop's mind and to put his words into that context.  He doesn't think it appropriate for himself to hold the leadership position in some organization, since the only true organization is the Church, while others are completely artificial.

From the beginning people (apart from the Bishop himself) had these visions of +Williamson spinning up a rival group to the SSPX ... not unlike what the SSPV tried to do.  Maybe he would start an SSPI?  People had visions of it growing rapidly in size, taking people from the SSPX, building large chapels and seminaries and convents under the banner of this new organization.

You act like it's hard to distinguish SSPX priests from Novus Ordo priests converted to Tradition. It's pretty easy to know who the "real" SSPX priests are. SSPX Ordinations are high profile and public, and past issues of the Seminary newsletter, articles on SSPX.org, the Verbum newsletter, etc. are often enough to figure out what year a given priest was ordained. All from the comfort of your home using the Internet and a search engine (and/or CathInfo if necessary).

And the majority of priests serving SSPX chapels are still SSPX-ordained priests. In fact, the few exceptions are usually well-known, like the Monsignor in Ridgefield, CT.

And this is coming from me. Read my other posts to see my opinions of the SSPX.

Well, I think that what she's saying is that you do have to investigate.  You can't just show up at an SSPX chapel and have confidence in the validity of the Sacraments ... without some investigation, even if it's relatively easy nowadays with the Internet.  Wouldn't it be nice to just show up at any chapel under the auspices of the SSPX and not feel the need to do prior research?  Also, even if a chapel happens to have a regular priest-in-charge, it's not uncommon for the SSPX to substitute them out on little or no notice.  Ah, longing for the days when you could just walk into any Roman Catholic Church and receive the Sacraments without having to be concerned about whether you actually did.

Well, I think that what she's saying is that you do have to investigate.  You can't just show up at an SSPX chapel and have confidence in the validity of the Sacraments ... without some investigation, even if it's relatively easy nowadays with the Internet.  Wouldn't it be nice to just show up at any chapel under the auspices of the SSPX and not feel the need to do prior research?  Also, even if a chapel happens to have a regular priest-in-charge, it's not uncommon for the SSPX to substitute them out on little or no notice.  Ah, longing for the days when you could just walk into any Roman Catholic Church and receive the Sacraments without having to be concerned about whether you actually did.

Exactly Lad.  Thank you.