Let us practice our faith and devotions openly and not worry if they make someone uncomfortable.

Dear friend ArmandLouis, when quoting someone, esp a cleric, please provide a link to your references...or a screenshot of some docuмent... How can we ascertain that the person in question, ie. Father, or whosoever in your future posts, really said this or that? Is it TRUE? When "he" said it is likewise crucial, as opinions can and do evolve with the passing of time...i.e. + Lefebvre.  WHERE is also useful, but of course not too important.

Ultimately, you could have made all this up (I'm exaggerating  of course) so please show some actual  PROOF, EVIDENCE, CORROBORATING FACTS etc.. CathInfo is a sort of encyclopedia...we need facts, real info to seek the truth; not info that might send the Trad world reeling, like when 2 bishop Williamsons died at about the same time


PS. To create smooth format, just before posting select ALL the text and then, up in the menu, clic A- [Remove formatting]. I really like that feature. jus'sayin ...Then you can see the final layout.

Keep up your great research, I like it!

****************************
Check this out in Members Only: Timeline of SSPX Sinking, April 15

*********************
SOURCE: https://seraphim54.substack.com/p/29-resignation-sermon-of-fr-patrick

Excerpt:
...In it, Fr. Girouard lists three primary objections to the new SSPX orientation toward conciliar Rome:

• The abandonment of the 2006 General Chapter resolution to resolve the doctrinal issues before considering any practical agreement;
• +Fellay’s scandalous response to the Letter of the Three Bishops, and the subsequent “April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration” published the next day, which convinced him there was no hope for SSPX leadership;
• +Fellay’s insistence on identifying the conciliar church (aka “official church”) with the Catholic Church.

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ the King,

On this day when the Holy Church solemnly commemorates the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament of Holy Orders, I take this opportunity to inform you of my decision to place myself outside the official structure of the Society. My intention is neither to abandon nor to vilify it. The Society is victim of an enterprise that aims to bring it under the power of the Conciliar Church, despite repeated warnings of its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Following my sermons and interventions against a rallying,1 my district superior, Fr. Jürgen Wegner, transferred me from the Priory of Langley (near Vancouver) to District Headquarters (St-Césaire, near Montreal) with the expressed intention of “closely monitoring” me. He also said that I could no longer criticize the superiors. In his letter to Canadian priests regarding his decision, he attacked not only my public statements, but also my emails and private conversations with the faithful. It is clear that I was being offered to exchange the material welfare of remaining in the Society for my silence in public and in private. This would be no more no less than a form of spiritual prostitution. But I have a soul, and I want to save it. I cannot do that by accepting this deal because, as the saying goes: “silence is tantamount to consent.” This is basically why I see it as a moral obligation to refuse the transfer. This is the only way for me to continue to work towards achieving the true goal of the Society, which is not to convert modernist Rome, but to preserve and transmit the true Mass and the true priesthood. So I put myself in the hands of Providence, convinced that Our Lord will take good care of His priest.
Much has been written on the subject of a “purely practical” agreement with Rome. Suffice to say that I fully endorse the statements and studies by other colleagues who are opposed to this new orientation of the Society. I shan’t repeat them here. I would, however, like to share some personal reflections on the three aspects of the crisis of the Society:
1. Society authorities want to justify the abandonment of the resolution of the General Chapter of 2006 (”No practical agreement without conversion of Rome”), by saying that the situation is not the same today. They would have us believe that many new bishops, priests, and seminarians are no longer interested in Vatican II and prefer the traditional Mass and theology. Yet they are unable to produce a serious and independent study to demonstrate this. We are being asked nothing less than to accept what Archbishop Lefebvre termed “Operation ѕυιcιdє.” The General Chapter of 2012, far from correcting this change of direction only wrapped it up in cosmetic “conditions”. The only condition that mattered, the conversion of Rome, was abandoned. In addition, this chapter occasioned a reversal of the balance of strength between bishops: From the 7th April 2012 when we had on one side three bishops against a “practical” agreement and on the other, an isolated Bishop Fellay, we found ourselves on the 14th July, with three bishops in favor of such an agreement against an ostracized Bishop Williamson, who had moreover been excluded from the said Chapter. The final statement about the newfound unity actually signaled the end of a period of grace for all “resisters”. Henceforth, from 15th July 2012, all opposition vis-à-vis a purely practical agreement, any criticism of the authorities of the Society on this subject, became a crime against the Society itself. A law of silence was instituted. The rest is history. This law of silence is so powerful that Menzingen doesn’t even bother to respond to the arguments and accusations; opponents are simply demonized as vulgar rebels of subversive deeds! Exit H.E. Bishop Williamson and a score of priests!

2. H.E. Bishop Fellay’s secret docuмent (14th April 2012 letter to the three other bishops, Preamble the following day2), which were published unofficially, allowed us to understand the extent to which frequent relations with today’s Rome are dangerous. If even before the signing of an agreement such contacts have changed the Superior General, his assistants, and, by extension, other Superiors, what would happen to simple priests and faithful when they would be officially, legally, permanently under the control of the Roman authorities? One has only to see how Menzingen already persecutes those who oppose this new direction even while we still enjoy a degree of independence vis-à-vis Rome, to understand how far they will go once under the authority of the conciliar Church!

3. Recently, it was asked of us to accept the theory that the term “conciliar Church” does not mean a separate institution of the Catholic Church, but rather a “movement” within it




God bless+

There has always been independent priests.
And now we are back to a time when, thank God, there are more.
This is what Bishop Williamson wanted.
And he was right.
Ideally, we will not have any more groups. They end up becoming cults as we are seeing with some members of the SAJM already.

SAJM is Bishop Faure's group which includes Bishop Zendejas and is Euro-centric. 

Perhaps you're able to at least consider another perspective?

Bp. Williamson's decentralized association of priests in the war to save Catholic tradition was analogous to the militarized anarchists communes in Spain during the Spanish cινιℓ ωαr.

  They had no organization, plan or ranks and Franco easily "cleaned their clocks".

From 2012 to now. the SSPX has cleaned the Resistance's clock.

Independent priests are nothing to rely upon.

They are unstable in their fraternal priestly formation and have been historically called "vagus"..