CathInfo.com

THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE behind their position BECAUSE IT'S POLITICAL NOT DOCTRINAL.

They pretend to be in communion with the Pope because they want the money necessary to operate and they don't want their novus ordite donators to become scared of not being in communion with the Pope.

That is all there is to it and your so-called "Resistance" is the same.

No, it's always been about the needs of the faithful and supplying the sacraments. And Fr. Pagliarani just issued a Declaration of Faith to bring the issue back to doctrine. A very strong position on doctrine. What evidence is there that money comes from the diocese to the SSPX, or from the collections to Rome? They operate independent financial structures. Each church has its own local corp. A percentage of SSPX collection goes to SSPX headquarters, yes, but not to Rome or the diocese. Why would the diocese give money to an organization that is not "in communion"? I keep hearing this accusation, and nobody can back it up by facts. It's all hearsay. 

If they were worried about excommunication, loss of parishioners, financial support, etc. the SSPX would have postponed the consecrations. I think it's very clear that they care about the faith and the faithful, and not about "heads in the pews and money in the basket". I'm not saying that everything is right as rain in the SSPX. It has its systemic problems like veins of modernism seeping in, but what organization is perfect? Any human organization is going to have problems. Yet the Holy Ghost will continue to guide the church in spite of the frailty of man. They need prayers and not criticisms. The Resistance is even more fragmented and chaotic though their work is commendable. They need prayers also.   

Saint Augustine, Sermon 82  :

« If you are silent, you are worse than he. He has done injury by insult, you cure not the wounded. He has sinned and by sinning has wounded himself grievously; do you despise your brother's wound? »

Are you aware that by calling SSPX fαɢɢօts you are guaranteeing going to hell? You are aware of the meaning of the word "fαɢɢօt".

This is a mortal sin.

How long will this lunatic be allowed to pollute the forum with his nonsensical ramblings?

That word in this context just means a stupid person, although the etymology obviously has homo origins. Is it sinful to call them that? Yes, it is, but not in the same exact way that you are talking about. When talking to people such as Tom, we need to make sure that we're not exaggerating things. Hope you understand. Obviously, I'm not defending him.