Is this priest (P.Robinson) still pastor at St Isadore the Farmer in Watkins CO?
I haven't been out there in a while and wasn't sure.

"On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith.
Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their spirit, their preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the priesthood and episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful."

What a crock of shit.

Unless you're talking about Fr. Pfeiffer, this charge is completely bogus. But my condemnation is correct: he specifically says most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses fit the category of being a "grave danger to the faith".

The Resistance outside Pfeifferville hasn't ordained many priests. And Bp. Williamson was just as circuмspect and wise in his choice of candidates -- as well as reserved in number -- as Archbishop Lefebvre was in 1988. And in fact, they both consecrated bishops for the same reason.

Do you realize how long it's been since the last of the 3 bishops was consecrated? It's been 4 years! And the SSPX hasn't shown the slightest indication it is still willing to consecrate a single bishop without Roman Conciliar Church approval. Bps. +Tissier and +De Galarreta are getting older every year. Time has only vindicated +Williamson, showing him to be absolutely correct in his judgment.

How the SSPX has changed!

I remember an SSPX priest shook me out of my pride in 2002 or so, when I was talking down an independent priest who had himself consecrated a bishop. The priest rightly pointed out that, if he was doing so for the good of the Church, it would be hypocritical for we in the SSPX to condemn him. I remember being taken aback by his response -- I was hoping we'd have a nice little "bash the unprofessional independent priest" session. This was from Fr. Robert MacPherson of Canada (when he was still a Deacon). How balanced and objective was his thinking! True, we might get uncomfortable when you don't have large congregations, large bank accounts, professional organizations with a strict Rule, tons of hierarchical structure and oversight, etc. but when it comes right down to it, fundamentals are fundamentals.

The SSPX with all their reputation, money, congregation size, years in business, is NO MORE JUSTIFIED in running an uncanonical chapel than a single independent priest saying Mass in someone's garage.

In other words:

The SSPX's largest chapel in the USA with hundreds of (or even several thousand) parishioners, 4+ resident priests, 4 million in the bank, worldwide fame, and the chapel going back to 1975

vs.

A new Mass center where an independent priest says Mass twice a month in a garage, basement, or warehouse owned by a layman -- for just 2 families.


There is NO DIFFERENCE in legitimacy between these, since both are un-canonical. Yes, the accidentals are quite different. But in every meaningful metric that matters, they are absolutely identical.

Yes, Matthew, the SSPX lie and try to give the impression to the faithful that they are in Communion with the “Church” simply because Bergoglio made a concession in supplying official jurisdiction for Confession and Matrimony.  XavierSem peddles the same lies here.

I’ve heard NO prelates repeatedly denounce that assertion, saying it was just Bergoglio showing compassion to the confused SSPX faithful who may have been born into it and not known anything else.

It’s been repeatedly affirmed that the SSPX have no legitimate ministry in the Church.

The part which struck me most was the complete disregard for the merely probable (ie., doubtful) validity of the Ecclesia Dei ordinations coming from questionably ordained bishops.

He doesn’t even make mention of it.

That’s the NWO-SSPX.

When Ladislaus, Matthew, and I were in the seminary, this would have been the very first concern mentioned by practically every SSPX priest.

Let's be fair. Same thing in Williamson's pockets of resistance. What about Williamson's disregard for the invalidity of the NOM as a whole?

The per se invalidity of the NOM was never Lefebvre’s or the SSPX’s position, therefore neither is it Williamson’s.

You feel that "merely probable (ie., doubtful) validity" is enough to accuse the neo SSPX. To be fair, you would have to treat Williamson the same way.

Oh, I see what you’re saying now.  Never thought of that before.  I guess that makes sense.

Ok. 

The Sedevacantists are conspicuous by their absence 

He actually mentions sedevacantist chapels in the  video/podcast corresponding to this article.  He explicitly says it is preferable to attending a Resistance Mass, which is quite comical and impossible to explain outside of "bad blood."  
On another note, while I definitely find it absurd for the neo sspx to consider the "validity" of Novus Ordo sacraments to be a dogmatic fact, it does flow necessarily from their assertion that the papacy of bergoglio is a dogmatic fact. 
Here is a link to the video, for those who can stomach it.  I dont recall the timestamp.
  https://youtu.be/lgCv5Rohu24