CathInfo.com

.

I thought I saw a newsletter or something published on here maybe a couple of weeks ago about a Novus Ordo priest who joined the Resistance, who would not be required to receive conditional ordination. I believe he was French. The newsletter was written by one of the Resistance bishops explaining why re-ordination was unnecessary. Anyone remember this?

If I recall correctly, Bp. Thomas Aquinas said something like that. I may have seen it here on CI.

Although Bp. Williamson collaborates with these groups, I haven't heard of him actually being a member (or the head) of any of them.

I guess all of them look towards Bp. Williamson as the unofficial head. Although Bp. Williamson refuses to set up any structures, his progenies are all into structures. It remains to be seen how this will work out in the long run.

Just with 2 minutes reflection, here's a dozen or so important differences between theSSPX and SAJM (the doctrinal ones are bolded):

1) SSPX believes the "official church" is the Catholic Church; Resistance believes it is the conciliar church;
2) SSPX believes 95% of V2 is OK; Resistance believes V2 is irredeemably corrupted by modernism;
3) SSPX believes a limited religious liberty is OK; Resistance believes no religious liberty is OK;
4) SSPX believes in doctrinal pluralism (takes its place in the conciliar pantheon); Resistance does not accept doctrinal pluralism: Rome must convert;
5) SSPX believes we must no longer be separated from Rome; Resistance believes it is a strict duty to remain separated until Rome converts;
6) SSPX has no problem with tradcuмenism; Resistance rejects tradcuмenism;
7) SSPX has no objections to the morality of the clotshot; Resistance rejects the moral arguments justifying the clotshot;
8) SSPX accepts the hermeneutic of continuity (per the April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration); Resistance rejects it;
9) SSPX says we can't consecrate any more unapproved bishops; Resistance obviously disagrees;
10) SSPX believes it can reform Rome from within (well, they know damn well they can't, but they say it to justify themselves); Resistance knows this is nonsense;
11) SSPX believes the state of necessity is receding; Resistance believes it is increasing;
12) SSPX uses conciliar (i.e., ecclesia dei) priests to man its missions; Resistance would never do this.

Show me where any of these are official SSPX positions vs. various individuals of the society opining on these matters, to the point where a priests are not permitted to disagree with these.  And show me where these are matters of faith / conscience vs. theological opinion.

I'll go back to the others whe I have time, but let's start with #12, as others have already pointed out.

Bishop Williamson was the chief enforcer of +Lefebvre against The Nine, whose biggest complain in fact centered around an NO priest, Mr. Stark, who was imposed upon them despite his having refused conditional ordination.  So now Bishop Williamson will do a 180 and start forcing priests to be conditionally ordained?  Even when he has done conditionals, for some unknown reason he has always done them in secret.  Apart from the couple of breakaways like +?Pfeiffer and Father Hewko, Bishop Williamson has been adamant that the NOM is valid, and therefore at least implicitly holds that NO ordinations are valid ... given that the Eucharistic miracles he cites as proof could not have occurred had the priest been invalid.

And someone cited a recent case where this is not true.

So I call hogwash on #12.