I disagree. When a priest is expelled from the SSPX, he simply HAS TO find another bishop to be subject to (if possible), otherwise he becomes a vagus priest. And when a priest refuses to be subject to any bishop, then all he can claim is lip service to some "imaginary hierarchy in the sky", like the protestants do.

The operative clause being, "if possible".

Is it fair to say the SSPX split-off factions still lack doctrinal clarity?
(e.g., Valtorta poems, Novus ordo miracles, implicit baptisms, partial acceptance of Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae).  

It's dangerous to think the SSPX and it's split-offs, have the only license for Traditional Catholicism.

Bp. Williamson laments he does not have jurisdiction and that Tradition cannot be centralized at this point in history.
So, where does that leaves us?  

This is why we ask for Apostolic action!

In such a state of emergency, we're reduced to getting our hands on any validly ordained priest, SSPX, Thuc line, pre-VII to hold onto the Sacraments.

Incardination to a Bishop is becoming a luxury.

Thanks for your input Sam.  This forum is about the exchange of opinions, ideas and perspectives.

>> Is it fair to say the SSPX split-off factions still lack doctrinal clarity?

I would rather call it disagreements on non essentials, which you will find just as much (if not more) outside of the Resistance. Look for example how some sedes condemn and excommunicate each other.

I submit that the SSPX has always been shaky on doctrine, especially VII.  But the implicit Baptism issue needs to be rectified.
I honestly think, Menzingen infiltrators plugged the Implicit Baptism into +ABL's book after the fact. I'm incredulous that +ABL ever believed this heresy.  I make this comment simply because Bp. Fellay's group was caught red handed doctoring +ABL's 228 sermons, which were justifiably harsh on Rome.

>> (e.g., Valtorta poems, Novus ordo miracles, implicit baptisms, partial acceptance of Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae).

To prove my point about non essentials, consider that the Archbishop spent a mere 10 minutes of his long public life talking about (and disagreeing with) Maria Valtorta, without ever saying one single negative word about Fr. Barielle who was a staunch fan of that "poem". This clearly shows that good Catholics can still disagree without splitting from, and excommunicating each other. If the Archbishop managed to rise above these trivialities, why should we settle for less?

Most on this forum know Bp. Williamson lost a significant amount of support after his condescending remarks to a teary-eyed Catholic lady who wanted to hold onto the Novus ordo missae.  The event was not trivial, but rather a display of softening, at a time when the Resistance needed hardening.

>> This is why we ask for Apostolic action!

What Apostolic action were you thinking of? Since our bishops have no ordinary jurisdiction, all they can do is "lead the horse to water", which I believe is what bishop Faure has done with the SAJM.

How to measure Apostolic action?  The objective way to evaluate it, is by counting the number of priests in the field.
Msgr. Williamson and the three Bishops, can recruit new priests from the tyrannical SSPX. A windfall of priests are at hand, now. They can also accelerate seminary training, ordain and help with the administration of relocating priests and the mentoring of seminarians under de-centralized priestly guidance.

>> In such a state of emergency, we're reduced to getting our hands on any validly ordained priest, SSPX, Thuc line, pre-VII to hold onto the Sacraments.

I hope you have more criteria than just "validly ordained". So what are these criteria? In the good old days it used to be "in communion with" all the other Catholics. But some revolutionaries now think that is cultish. As for me, it is "communion with the other priests and bishops of the Resistance". If they're not team players, they're not Catholic imho.

To keep Catholic tradition alive, Our Lord does not require that the Sacrament of the "laying of hands", to be SSPX kosher.
Even newChurch would like you to believe this.


In conclusion, there are a number of "Resistance 3" supporters who suspect the Bishops of benign neglect.

Would that Fr. Pfeiffer's apostolate "Resistance 2" not have gone of the rails, because he has the fighting spirit.

For all practical purposes, it seems the traditional movement, will be left to "Resistance 1" The original, independent TLM/SSPX break-off groups that intuitively opposed any and all neo-SSPX compromises with newChurch.

This last group is a better fit for the reality of Our Lady of Fatima's warning:
That things will get so bad, we will lose the Holy Mass (Symbolized by the Sacred Heart of Jesus) an be left with her Rosary and Devotion to her Immaculate Heart.

>> I honestly think, Menzingen infiltrators plugged the Implicit Baptism into +ABL's book after the fact. I'm incredulous that +ABL ever believed this heresy.

I think you are wrong there. I have some audio recordings of the Archbishop talking about baptism of blood and baptism of desire, in 1974, 1987 and 1988. I don't think Menzingen infiltrators would have been able to plug his microphone.