Anyone who has been around for the past 15-20 years knows the SSPX has TOTALLY changed.
That is anecdotal and subjective. There have been Priests likes Fr. Schmidberger who've been with the Society for 47 years, knew the Archbishop well, and still are. There are other very strongly Traditional Priests like Fr. Peter Scott etc who still disagree with the Resistance.+ABL was also accused of changing: "they always had the same Mass there - the one we say today. So, we have not changed a thing. How can they now say, "The Archbishop is changing"? What? What am I changing? They know perfectly well - they spent years at Econe - that they had there the liturgy which we now have, that we have not changed one iota, not one thing ... So it is very sad to think that these priests who were ordained by myself and who, after all is said and done, receiving everything from Econe and the Society, should now be turning against the Society. Why? They say we are making compromises, they say we are going to accept the New Mass, they say things of this kind, which are absolutely false. You can see that for yourselves ... 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.htmSo, firstly, there is and has been no substantial change in the Society, and the SSPX is not going to start offering the New Mass, no matter what its detractors say, just as they said it of +ABL. Secondly, there are accidental changes which do happen from time to time as a result of further study - before 2007, there was not absolute unanimity among SSPX Priests (at least negative doubts were entertained by some, since a study such as the one +ABL asked to be done had not been completed) about the new rite of consecration.
But after that time, thanks to no less than a Dominican Father, Fr. Pierre Marie of the Avrille Dominicans, that doubt was cleared. You can call that a "change" if you want to, but it's actually more of clarity on a disputed matter emerging as a result of prayerful study.
I should have made Fr. Rostand's letter an Afterword to my book (i.e., to highlight how ridiculous it is)
Maybe you should have highlighted some of Archbishop Lefebvre's warnings about the Nine, too, in your book, Sean. Some of you resistance folk would certainly have "resisted him to his face" just as you are currently in rebellion against your legitimate superiors in the SSPX.
+ABL on the Nine in 1983, from the link above: "Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests - may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. 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.
That is what I wished to say to you."