It is agreed upon by all sides that it was the personal charisma and leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre that held the SSPX together amidst the warring factions of R&R, sede, accordist, and other factions (particularly in the 70’s and early 80’s), since lacking ordinary jurisdiction, there was never any ecclesiastical/canonical compulsion which would normally enforce unity:

If eventually you found yourself disagreeing with Lefebvre, you could just leave, and there was nothing anyone could do about it (whereas for fully approved communities, defecting from one community to join or start another would have required the consent of both superiors).

And so, over time, half the priests Lefebvre ordained eventually cut ties with the SSPX for one reason or another, and all he could do is say goodbye.  Consequently, one Society priest tells me that overall, the average lifespan of priestly service in the SSPX is only 10 years (ie., on average, priests leave the SSPX after 10 years).

It seems that the “solution” to this problem was to attempt to transfer the veneration SSPX members formerly had forLefebvre to his successors, and I think the process Ladislaus describes was/is their attempt to do that very thing.

Obviously, the principle of unity sought for could and should have been the faith, but then disagreements about the faith naturally ensue because it is by authority that the rule of faith is transmitted, from the pope on down.

This problem of authority is that of which Bishop Williamson speaks when he shrinks from founding congregations:

If authority is daily made more and more unstable by the passage of time (ie., silently inculcating a stronger and stronger spirit of independence as individual clergy continue to form their own personal postures and positions in response to the growing list of Roman and diocesan scandals, thereby creating more and more opportunities for disagreements with each other and their would-be superiors), then the phenomenon of departures experienced in Lefebvre’s day should logically be exacerbated today.

This is why Bishop Williamson speaks of “herding cats” and concluding “it may be better not to try” in response to the request of those like me who fear to abandon Lefebvre’s model, despite the anticipated defections and divisions which are sure to come (personally, I believe we are obligated to try with congregations, because independence is opposed to the hierarchical constitution of the Church, but it is not worth falling out over, and perpetuating the phenomenon of division I have been discussing).

The neo-SSPX, therefore, really could not do otherwise in inculcating this hero worship of the Superior General, unless it was regularized by Rome...a course it has long pursued, and which is almost accomplished.

That makes sense.

When I try to see the consequences of this, I cannot help but think that catholic traditionalism is unsustainable in the long term. 

A congregation that is not under the pope's authority is apparently doomed to failure. A congregation that is under the pope authority is a failure. How can we survive then?

It is hard to imagine that we will have a catholic pope in the near future.

This line of thinking seems to fit very well with Bp. Williamson's predictions that chastisement is near. I think that this is the way that he imagines that we will get out of this mess, and it makes a lot of sense. 

If chastisement takes too long, catholicism apparently will disappear. Traditionalism will turn into heresy and schism. I cannot see it happening any other way.

That makes sense.

When I try to see the consequences of this, I cannot help but think that catholic traditionalism is unsustainable in the long term.

A congregation that is not under the pope's authority is apparently doomed to failure. A congregation that is under the pope authority is a failure. How can we survive then?

Yes, the whole "Traditional" package is hardly ideal. However, focusing too much on its flaws, dangers, inherent irregularity, etc. will lead one to Bishop Fellay's path. "We gotta make a deal with Rome STAT! They're still Modernist? Who cares! We're all going to end up schismatic like the Orthodox..."

We have to trust in God. Talking about "What if God took too long and the Catholic Faith were extinguished?" is more than just academic or theoretical talk, it is outright blasphemous!

A good God -- which accurately describes God, need I point out -- would not put us in a no-win situation. And by "win" I mean "save our souls". God WILL give us the necessary grace(s) for salvation; that is de fide. God doesn't ask or require anything of ANYONE without also giving them the means to accomplish it!

God has given us the Traditional movement as a lifeboat for the Faith during these dark times. When that movement fails, the chastisement will be "nigh, even at the doors" because "unless the days were shortened, not even the elect would be saved".

This line of thinking seems to fit very well with Bp. Williamson's predictions that chastisement is near. I think that this is the way that he imagines that we will get out of this mess, and it makes a lot of sense.

If chastisement takes too long, catholicism apparently will disappear. Traditionalism will turn into heresy and schism. I cannot see it happening any other way.

Hi, Giovanni. While some chastisement may likely come, since the weight of man's sins and offenses are very great, unless they are counter-balanced by proportionate prayers and sacrifices, imho, it is a mistake to WANT chastisement to come. Not saying you or H.E. wants that to happen, or are waiting for it; but I have seen such an attitude, among some Laity, of an "it's all over mentality". Either, chastisement, or end of the world, and there's nothing to do but wait for it. I think we should strive to inculcate a "Restoration mentality" in Tradition instead.

The former almost leads to despair. The latter gives hope. God has promised, and Our Lady has guaranteed, the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart, the Conversion of Russia etc will happen in the end, so our hope is solid, being based on the Immaculata's Promise.

Imo, we have to be ready, however long it takes. Perhaps, in 10 to 15 years, we will see some chastisement followed by Restoration. Perhaps, alternately, it may take as long as 30 to 50 years. But till the end, those devoted to the Church and to Tradition must go on. And God is Faithful and will give the necessary graces to all who co-operate with His Will. Restoration will come from Him in His Time.

He has already promised also, by the Mother of God at Quito etc, to send a holy Pope, at the end of the prophesied 20th century crisis.

The Holy Ghost gave him a healthy blessing of Wisdom and Prudence, that's for sure, maybe even some Prophecy. Talk about

graces of state! The Holy Ghost dished out graces/blessings to +Williamson from the same heavenly treasure chest that He dished out graces/blessings to one +Marcel Lefebvre years earlier. In fact, they may even be the self-same graces/blessings, that had been returned to the treasure chest after +Lefebvre was done with them after he entered his eternal reward!

Matthew, as is clear from the above, You venerate Bp. Williamson as a living saint full of the Holy Ghost's graces, or at least as a very holy Bishop completely faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. And that's fine, the Resistance needs that. So why are you opposed to us likewise believing Bp. Fellay is a holy and perhaps even Saintly Successor to Archbishop Lefebvre? From our perspective, everything changes after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, not to mention Doctrinal Discussions since then. Thereafter, it is reasonable and right to pursue canonical normalization and normal relations with Rome in due time, in our opinion.

Any way you look at it, any organized society, beginning from a natural family, requires authority and order in order to function. Imagine if sons were constantly trying to undermine their Father's paternal authority in the house. The household couldn't function like that, could it? Granted, Faith is greater than Obedience; but obedience is required in all things not contrary to the Faith, and normal relations with Rome, in the post SP era, manifestly is not contrary to the Faith; otherwise pure self-will can result, and that is nearly fatal in a religious Fraternity or order, all of whose members should be absolutely dead to self-will, living to do only the Will of God, which is normally made known through Superiors. We know the Fourth Commandment is the First Commandment with a Promise, as St. Paul says; Eph 6:"[1] Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just. [2] Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise: [3] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest be long lived upon earth.

The Catechism of Trent says the honor and reverence we give to our Superiors in the Church is a spiritual extension of this Commandment. Why do Monks take vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, if obedience is not intrinsically necessary for an order's functioning? Only in the case when something is manifestly contrary to God's Commandments was, as the Sanhedrin's command not to preach Jesus Christ Our Lord, can we rightly say with the Apostles, Acts 5: [29] But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men."

I don't see the SSPX in any respect telling anyone to disobey the commandments of God; otherwise, I would not belong to it. As it is, the SSPX wants to obey, as far as is reasonably possible in these times, what Our Lord Himself said in Mat 18:17. The SSPX is preparing for a long, long fight ahead; perhaps, many decades still.

This is clear from the Letter of the General Council: "When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church ... This dialectic between the Truth and the Faith on the one side and Authority on the other is contrary to the Spirit of the Priesthood ... We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society."

Could someone here give a thumbnail definition of "Fiftiesism"?

It's one of those terms that I think I know what it means --- Dad goes out to work every day, Mom stays home with several kids, everything is very clean and well-organized, the whole family sits down at a decent hour to a nourishing, home-cooked dinner, television in the home is either non-existent or severely restricted, the family goes to the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday (at the very least) in dress clothes, many families produce a vocation to the priesthood or religious life, and the priest's word is law, no further discussion necessary.  In other words, Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best dressed up in Catholic clothing.  Is that it?

I understand it to mean a superficial Catholic Faith, that one displays in the exterior, as a matter of habit or routine, but not out of conviction. All bishops at the Council were offering the Latin Mass in the 1950's and teaching the Traditional Faith, yet, almost all were mondernist on the inside and their modernism came out once they got the chance in the 1960's.

Delicacy - I see this as a kind of prudence that says the right thing at the right time. A good example of this type of prudence comes from the life of St Hugh of Lincoln;
 Hugh was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln on 21 September 1186^[4] at Westminster.^[1] Almost immediately he established his independence of the King, excommunicating a royal forester and refusing to seat one of Henry's courtly nominees as a prebendary of Lincoln; he softened the king's anger by his diplomatic address and tactful charm. After the excommunications, he came upon the king hunting and was greeted with dour silence. He waited several minutes and the king called for a needle to sew up a leather bandage on his finger. Eventually Hugh said, with gentle mockery, "How much you remind me of your cousins of Falaise" (where William I's mother Herleva, a tanner's daughter, had come from). At this Henry just burst out laughing and was reconciled. As a bishop, he was exemplary, constantly in residence or travelling within his diocese, generous with his charity, scrupulous in the appointments he made. He raised the quality of education at the cathedral school. Hugh was also prominent in trying to protect the Jews, great numbers of whom lived in Lincoln, in the persecution they suffered at the beginning of Richard I's reign, and he put down popular violence against them—as later occurred following the death of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln—in several places.
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5936
Disinterestedness - This could be related with the virtue of detachment. Think of the holy people of Acadia who chose exile and imprisonment rather than to deny their Catholic Faith. Or rather the Catholics of Mosul who chose exile rather than to accept the false religion of Islam.
Dependence - One way that this could be understood would be in total dependence on the will of God. What does God want? What does God want me to do? "Fiat mihi secundum voluntatem tua" - The Blessed Virgin Mary
 

poche sometimes you surprise me.

Could someone here give a thumbnail definition of "Fiftiesism"?

.
Here is a clip from one old +BW letter, and an entire letter where he spoke of it:
.

...Fiftiesism, that glossy version of Catholicism without the Cross, all the outer trappings of Tradition, but with none of the substance (cf. II Timothy Ill, 5)...

.
Excerpts from the letter below: 
.
"...the Fiftiesism of our own time, the pre-Vatican II shell-game was the end-product of 150 years of Liberal Catholicism blending Church and world, attempting to combine the values of the Faith with those of the Revolution..."  
.
"At the heart then of Fiftiesism in our own time is that while outwardly the Faith in the 1950's seemed to be lived, practised and defended, and the Mass was the Mass of all time, nevertheless inwardly too many Catholics' hearts were going with the world."

.
"To how many "Catholics" in the 1950's was "religion" what one did on Sunday morning while in real life the world was being saved, for instance from Communism, by the American Constitution, free enterprise, etc. etc.? No doubt the Faith was believed in, every article of it, but how many "Catholics" let that Faith form their character and define their view of the world? ...  How many on the contrary seek to "enjoy" the world as much as they can, to have all possible "fun", while keeping just short of mortal sin?  That is pure Fiftiesism, and it will have the same disastrous results."
.
The full letter: 

What is Fiftiesism?
August 3, 1998

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Following on the mention of "Fiftiesism" in last month's letter, a reader reasonably asked what it is, and if there is anywhere he can read up on it. Since Fiftiesism is a serious threat to "Traditional" Catholics, and since little has to my knowledge been written about it as such, let us examine it here.

"Fiftiesism" is a name for the kind of Catholicism that was generally practised in the 1950's, between World War II and Vatican II. To many Catholics who can look back that far, the 1950's seem like a golden age for the Church, because all kinds of Catholic systems were still up and running that crashed a few years later. On the other hand, precisely because so many Catholic systems crashed in the 1960's and 1970's, not all can have been well with the Church in those 1950's. There must have been "something rotten in the State of Denmark".

For instance the magnificent building now housing the Seminary in Winona was put up by the Dominicans, sparing no expense, in the early 1950's, only to be abandoned by them in 1970, and sold for a song. And this Novitiate for their central United States Province was merely one Catholic institute amongst thousands all over the world that followed this path from riches to rags. Can the 1950's really have been such a golden age as they seem?

Fiftiesism is then the name for what was wrong alongside - or inside - all that was right in the practice of Catholicism in the 1950's. Church structures stood tall but termites were burrowing away within, so that with one strong push from Vatican II, the structures were all ready to fall over. Traditional Catholics today must take thought to avoid re-building a Church of the 1950's all ready to fall over again!

To illustrate what was good as well as bad in the Catholicism of the 1950's, let us think of English Catholicism in the 1520's, just before the Reformation in England of the 1530's and 1540's.

On the good side, England looked in the 1520's like a completely Catholic nation. It had been Catholic for nearly 1,000 years, with the result that for an Englishman then to be Catholic was the most normal and simple thing in the world. Young King Henry VIII was so Catholic that he was awarded by Rome the title of "Defender of the Faith" for his refutation of Luther's errors! As for the English people, a scholarly book was written a few years ago to prove how Catholic they still were, as though the Reformation was none of their fault.

Alas, on the bad side, what were the fruits of this 1520's Catholicism? By the end of the 1550's Catholics were being persecuted, and Queen Elizabeth I was skillfully and ruthlessly maneuvering England into national apostasy, wherein to remain Catholic was a glorious but highly dangerous avocation. Catholic priests were hunted down by her secret police, hanged, drawn and quartered as traitors, so that while an English priest in the 1560's had to have the same Catholic Faith and priesthood as a priest in the 1520's, nevertheless in the transformed circuмstances he was called upon to be a quite new kind of priest. Hence the Jesuit Order, "old and new".

What had happened?  The Catholicism of English Catholics in the 1520's had been tried by the Lord God and found wanting.  As events of the 1530's and 1540's proved, their Catholicism, which we might call "Twentiesism", had been too much of a shell-game. The clergy had "lacked grace" (Thomas More). As for the people, they had resisted, for instance in the Pilgrimage of Grace, but not enough. So God punished English Twentiesism by letting it turn into the permanent shell-game of Anglicanism (known in the U.S.A. as Episcopalianism), founded on Elizabeth's Anglican Establishment.

Now imagine a Jesuit priest in England of the 1560's saying to the small congregations of his faithful remnant, "My dear people, all is changed, changed utterly, a terrible beauty is born. No more Twentiesism!", and you can see why a Traditional priest would say to Traditionalists in the 1990's, "No more Fiftiesism!"

In fairness to English Catholics of the 1520's, the problem of their shell-game had been building up over many generations before them, and it did not mean that every English Catholic was losing or would lose the Faith, because of course there was a glorious first harvest of martyrs under Henry VIII, and a second under Elizabeth I.

In fairness likewise to the Fiftiesism of our own time, the pre-Vatican II shell-game was the end-product of 150 years of Liberal Catholicism blending Church and world, attempting to combine the values of the Faith with those of the Revolution, and not every Catholic of the 1950's proved to be deep-down in love with the world, because, as in Reformation England, a by the grace of God faithful remnant pulled through Vatican II to constitute the bedraggled but glorious remains of the Tridentine Church known to us as "Tradition", or the Traditionalists"!

At the heart then of Fiftiesism in our own time is that while outwardly the Faith in the 1950's seemed to be lived, practised and defended, and the Mass was the Mass of all time, nevertheless inwardly too many Catholics' hearts were going with the world. Thence it was simply a matter of time before all those strict priests celebrating the ancient liturgy with every detail in place, would throw away their birettas and loosen up with eucharistic picnics improvised from one moment to the next. Americans old enough remember how suddenly this change could take place, almost overnight. The inside was rotten. Many Catholics pretended to love God, but really they loved the world. God spat them out at Vatican II.

But why in the 1950's were so many Catholics inwardly loving the world? Because the modern world, industrialized and suburbanized, is too much with us, all-glamorous, all-powerful, all-seductive. For even if a man and his family are intent upon remaining Catholic, still man remains a three-layered creature, not only individual and familial but also social, and all three layers are connected. Hence society exerts an enormous anti-Catholic pressure upon Catholics when it has been, like ours, largely in the grip of Masonic Revolutions for the last 200 years.

To illustrate Fiftiesism here in the U.S.A. (since most readers of this letter are Americans, but of course Fiftiesism was worldwide, as was Vatican II), let us quote three anti-Catholic principles firmly believed in by many American Catholics of the 1950's (and 1990's?), one social, one familial, one individual, amongst many others.

False social principle: separation of Church and State. This deadly error means that Jesus Christ is no longer King over society, He is only King of the sacristy. Society can supposedly do as it likes, and Our Lord has nothing to say! On the contrary read in the Bible the history of the People of God from Abraham and Moses through David, Solomon and Ezra to see if God's religion tells peoples what as peoples they must do!

False familial principle: co-education. Boys are designed by God quite differently from girls because He has quite different parts for them to play in life. So the Catholic Church has always known and taught that from as early an age as possible, let us say no later than seven or eight, they should be taught differently and separately. Yet how many "Catholics" in the U.S.A. were accustomed to coeducation in the 1950's and still see no problem with it in the 1990's? Not even in the most primitive tribes will you find coeducation! They have too much sense!

False individual principle: the split between "religion" and real life. To how many "Catholics" in the 1950's was "religion" what one did on Sunday morning while in real life the world was being saved, for instance from Communism, by the American Constitution, free enterprise, etc. etc.? No doubt the Faith was believed in, every article of it, but how many "Catholics" let that Faith form their character and define their view of the world? How many "Traditionalists" to this day really put their trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ to solve problems of home, family, politics, education, economics, the arts, etc., etc.?  How many on the contrary seek to "enjoy" the world as much as they can, to have all possible "fun", while keeping just short of mortal sin?  That is pure Fiftiesism, and it will have the same disastrous results.

What is the solution to Fiftiesism, then and now? It is not complicated. The problem lies in pretending to put God first but not really doing so. The solution lies in obeying the First Commandment first, in loving the Lord God - Jesus Christ - with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength and with all our mind, and in putting no other gods or solutions before Him. Nor is it impossible to do so. The world, the flesh and the Devil may dominate our environment as never before in all history, but God remains God and we remain children of His Mother.

A powerful and practical means she obtained from her Son to help us put the First Commandment back in place is the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. These were given only twice at the Seminary this year, but they brought forth a bouquet of testimonials from which we shall quote next month to encourage you to make use of one of the Society's three retreat houses in the U.S.A.. Go to the retreats where you hear they really knock down, drag out the retreatants! Those are where the action is!

And may Our Lord pull all of us back from the world, the flesh and the Devil, lest His Chastisement catch us still in Fiftiesism, ready for Hell!

Sincerely yours in His Sacred Heart,

So why are you opposed to us likewise believing Bp. Fellay is a holy and perhaps even Saintly Successor to Archbishop Lefebvre?

Thank you for the good laugh!

Considering St. Ignatius' advice on the matter, calling ANY of the vagus clerics of Traddieland "saint" is absurd.