Sure, but the fact is there would be no FSSP, in fact no Indultarian/Motarian movement at all were it not for +Lefebvre.  With a handful of independent pre-V2-ordained  priests passing away now, the Tridentine Mass would have been all but exstinct.

All these Motarians who are so critical of the SSPX "schism" would not exist, and they would not have what they have, were it not for the "disobedience" of Archbishop Lefebvre.

I know this is all hypothetical -- I realize that God prepared +ABL for the mission His Divine Providence had planned for him, which was from the 60's at Vatican II itself until his death in 1991.

But indulge me for a moment --

Things are worse than they have ever been, INCLUDING the past 50 years of Crisis.

With regards to the Crisis in the Church and Tradition, in most ways, the 70's and 80's were "the good old days" compared to today.

Just look at the first 10 years of the SSPX, vs. the first 10 years of the Resistance -- you'll see what I mean. SAME DOCTRINAL POSITION. But +ABL was living on EASY MODE compared to Bishop Williamson and the other Resistance bishops.

The only single advantage -- a lifejacket, if you will -- is the existence of the Internet now. Which is both a blessing and a curse, of course. Ebay makes it easy to get equipment for new chapels -- but it also means that closing churches will sell stuff on eBay now instead of donating it to a poor chapel. The Internet makes it easy to advertise and find new parishioners -- but you also get errors and proselytizing from rival groups, taking away parishioners from you. So the Internet giveth, and the Internet taketh away -- as it were.

But here's the clincher:

Imagine if +ABL had to compete with an entrenched FSSP with 550 priests and hundreds of chapels, offering the "Latin Mass" in union with Rome, usually less than 1 hour from most people? The SSPX would never have taken off.

The problem with Pfeiffer isn’t what he thought, but how he reacted to not getting his way.

Theres a Resistance priest shortage because nobody sees a future in an independent, slowly dissolving Resistance.

There are no priests because Bishop Williamson told some not to join, didn’t want seminaries, and declared he didn’t want to grow a large Resistance.

Those are facts.

By the time we got seminaries 3+ years later, it was too late.  Priests fell in love with independence, and those who made Resistance lists in 2012 haven’t been heard from in 7-8+ years.

Of course, no advertising, publicity, active apostolate (eg., conferences, websites, newsletters, etc) were all part of the strategy of not growing.

Where Pfeiffer/Hewko went wrong is to accuse WILLIAMSON of working for Fellay/Rome with all these self-destructive policies.  They were wrong: It was just a combination of Williamson not being comfortable starting a congregation without canonical approval, on the one hand, and his “end is near “ perspective which made/makes apostolic activity pointless, on the other.

But what I refuse to believe is that the Resistance disintegrated because today, there just aren’t any vocations or that integral Catholicism holds no appeal. 

It’s no criticism to say the Resistance ended up the way it’s leaders wanted it to.  Just plain history.