While he definitely is against the new direction in the SSPX, criticizing the Society will not be a big focus with him. He just wants to provide the Sacraments and teach the Faith to the same groups every week. He emphasized how important stability is, especially for children.
He is not at odds with Fr. Pfeiffer, and would be happy if Father ever came to the NorthEast to help with confessions or anything else, but he is not interested in doing much if any traveling.
I myself have some problems with the whole Resistance position, which I am not interested in getting into here, but Father is a tremendous priest, and this is a great shot in the arm to the core group of members who have been having holy hours every week, when a priest was not available.
I want to address these points.
1. It almost sounds like a good Resistance priest would attack Bishop Fellay from the pulpit on a regular basis. That hasn't been my experience with...pretty much every Resistance priest who isn't Fr. Pfeiffer
Even Fr. Pfeiffer I'd cut some slack because he was the one who got the movement started, and was trying to wake up as many priests as possible, etc.
But, long story short, MANY priests have "moved on" and are going about the business of being classic "Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX"-style priests, teaching the Faith, fighting Modernism, giving the Sacraments, and leading us to holiness.
I guess what I'm saying here is that Fr. Zendejas is NOT somehow unique in this regard.
2. Fr. Zendejas sounds like many other priests aligned with the Resistance.
How many of them DO travel? I can list them on one hand, and still have a couple fingers to spare! I think the only traveling priests are Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, and Fr. Girouard. Fr. Voigt, for example, has dedicated Mass circuits in Minnesota and Texas. Maybe this is how the Resistance is developing? Plane tickets are expensive. It's developing away from the primordial "we have 20 Mass centers, and two priests fly all over the country to try to meet them". I suppose that's a good thing!
3. Regarding the "Resistance" -- I won't be getting a large, full back tattoo that says "Resistance" any time soon either. I don't care what a given priest calls himself -- what kind of "coat" he wears -- as long as he is a good Traditional priest who makes NO compromise with modernism or modernist Rome. That is to say, any priest who understands the Traditional movement and its reason for being (who understands, for example, that Tradition needs no special permission from Rome!) will have my full support.
Although I was a fervent cheerleader for the SSPX for many years, I'm kind of sour on "groups" at this point myself. In other words, I haven't transferred my old cheerleading fervor to the Resistance or any other target. If anything, I've redirected it to the Catholic Church/Traditional movement in general. I'm trying to focus on the basics of being a Traditional Catholic as much as possible. I'm done with patriotism for a given group. I will cheer any individual priest, bishop, or location that fights the good fight for Tradition against the sewer of all heresies, Modernism.
That's why I'm rather fond of Bishop Williamson's idea of a loose network of independent chapels. I'm a small government guy myself! Back in the day, (like, 200 years ago) the individual States had much more power vis-a-vis the Federal Government than they do today. The concept is simple: Don't have the federal government do something that the state government can do; don't have the state government do something the local county government can do, etc.
(Really, the adjective Traditional
is redundant when applied to Catholic
, as the Catholic religion is intrinsically traditional, but we have to use that term to distinguish ourselves from the Conciliar religion these days... such is life.)