Sorry, ggreg, but I don't have time. Maybe someone else can do it. However, I will comment on this part.

Father Girouard says:

"And, therefore, they will tone down everything wrong that Rome and the Pope do, and they will extoll, and they will praise to high heaven, everything, the little things good that they can do. In other words, they will adopt the same attitude that the Fraternity of St. Peter has adopted, and all the other communities Ecclesia Dei: Tone down the bad things, lift up and extoll the good things that happen in Rome. Because they want to justify their own compromise with Rome. They want to show to their faithful: "You know, finally, Rome is not that bad. We can work with them. We can change them from the inside." But they will be silenced. And if we look at the Society, they already have changed.

The Society is now doing exactly the same process of saying something good about the Pope and toning down the bad things."

At my SSPX chapel, the sermons are still okay (on prayer, charity, etc.) and we still don’t hear any errors or any pro-Pope, pro-Rome, pro-Vatican II statements yet, so it’s easy to be lulled into thinking that nothing has changed and things continue to go on as before.

However, when I go look at the SSPX.org website and see all the articles about Pope Francis, Vatican II, Rome, etc., I have no doubt whatsoever that I took the right decision when I joined the Resistance (a couple of articles that really stood out were “Some positive points in Lumen Fidei” and “Sept 7: a day of Prayer and Penance”). It is so obvious that the SSPX is on a new path – a path that I don’t want to take. Ten years ago, the Society wasn’t doing this – pointing out the good and ignoring the bad in what was coming out from Rome

In the book, Liberalism is a Sin, in the chapter on Liberalism and Journalism, Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany talks about “the good” in bad journals (but which can be applied to many things)

“Bad journals (we include doctrinally unsound journals under this head) sometimes contain something good. What are we to think of the good thus imbedded with the bad in them? We must think that the good in them does not prevent them from being bad, if their doctrine of their character is intrinsically bad. In most cases this good is a mere artifice to recommend, or at least disguise, what in itself is essentially bad. Some accidentally good qualities do not take away the bad character of a bad man. An assassin and a thief are not good because they sometimes say a prayer or give alms to a beggar. They are bad in spite of their good works, because the general character of their acts, as well as their habitual tendencies, is bad and if they sometimes do good in order to cloak their malice, they are even worse than before.”

The linked sermon is followed by a transcription.

The linked sermon is followed by a transcription.

THANK YOU!  

I know it takes a long time, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is much more likely to read or at least skim a sermon than I am to watch a video.

Fr. G:

The Society is now doing exactly the same process(as FSSP) of saying something good about the Pope and toning down the bad things."

We have left the Society for basically three reasons:
1) The neo-SSPX is, for all intents and purposes, another Ecclesia dei community,  and differs little in sermon content and practice from your average FSSP chapel.
2) Bp. Fellay, in our opinion, wants eventually to reunite with modernist Rome.  He won't admit that now, because he has difficulty telling the truth.  We don't want to reunite with the Conciliar church under any circuмstances.
3) The U.S. District Superior has already announced to us that both SSPX chapels and priests belong to Bp. Fellay.  They are his.  We are not his, nor do we wish to attend chapels which are his, or to be ministered to by priests who are his.

Fr. G:

Quote

The Society is now doing exactly the same process(as FSSP) of saying something good about the Pope and toning down the bad things."

Who can deny it.  I challenge anyone on this site, who still attends an SSPX Mass, to post an excerpt from a recent SSPX sermon, or an entire sermon if you want, pointing to, or condemning or firmly criticizing anything which Frances and New Church say or do.  These sermons, we can assure everyone, are as scarce as hens' teeth.

Our recently transferred priest (Fr. Steven Webber) would have been one such example.

He gave sermons on the errors of Vatican II weekly.

Of course, some at our parish considered him "resistance" for doing so, complained to the District about him, and now he is gone.

At any rate, I find that interesting, since to suspect your priest of being "resistance" for condemning Vatican II implies that they perceived Bishop Fellay was heading in the direction of convergence with Vatican II, and desired to rally behind him toward that end.

They say he was at fault for not taking one side or another, and therefore causing division in the parish.  To see things in such a light requires a special talent in mistaking effect for cause.  Strange that Fr. Webber's chapels never had divided parishes before Bishop Fellay started negotiations; neither have his sermons' content changed.

In the 6-7 weeks since his transfer, you would not know there was a crisis in the Church, based on the sermons (given by 3 different priests in this time).

The sword has been dropped, and the spirit of combat branded away.

Vatican II has yet to be addressed, and Archbishop Lefebvre's name mentioned only once (in a passing reference to his having mentioned that the Mass is a catechism; a comment that ought to have been qualified, since over-emphasizing the catechetical nature of the Mass was one of the errors of the early liturgical experimenters of the 1920s).

But enough time has passed to see what the District wanted: A priest in St. Paul who speaks of the virtues, devotions, and perhaps someday even of the Protestants.

But it becomes clear that Cardinal Canizares' "via media" (which was sent to all priests of the SSPX) calling for them to stop haggling about Vatican II, as also the branding campaign did, is being implemented in St. Paul.

I hold no ill will towards our new priest.

He is very nice.

The formation he received is not his fault.

But he is an example of what the new branded SSPX is looking for (just as our old priest Fr. Webber is what they are trying to sweep under the carpet).

Great comment Seraphim...sums up the current state of the new, non-militant SSPX..Milquetoast....the fighting priests of tradition will now come fm boston, Ky...SSPXMC.

Of course, some at our parish considered him "resistance" for doing so, complained to the District about him, and now he is gone.

Where is Fr Webber now?