Catholic Man responded:
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. But what we know for sure is what the church taught and teaches and that the hierarchy is responsible for teaching the face and we are responsible to live in the face, receiving the sacraments worthily, and spreading the gospel.
So again, if the sspx and the other options I presented are not Catholic enough, then to whom should we turn?
I am sincerely inquiring.
Well, I can tell you what I'm doing personally, but you are the man of your own house, responsible for guiding your family (especially in the Faith) using the virtue of prudence. You are responsible before God for your family; I am responsible before God for my family.
Prudent decisions are not black-and-white or the same for all and sundry. They depend on your own situation, your options, etc.
So I can't tell you what to do, nor will I attempt to.
Personally I've been supporting the good priests who have stood up for the truth, and determined to carry on the old SSPX position of +Archbishop Lefebvre. The FSSP position has been available for years (since 1988) and I have politely declined it until now. I have no interest in changing my prudent reaction to the Crisis in the Church. I do not wish to adopt the FSSP position; I see no reason to change. The SSPX is trying to force us all to change, and that's not good.
I believe the SSPX ("recognize and resist") position is as necessary, prudent, and valid as it ever was. The FSSP doesn't do enough "resist" and the sedevacantists don't "recognize". So I stick with the blessed, fruitful, and prudent position of +ABL which is the old SSPX position.
There are priests around the world who have left the SSPX (so they are well-trained, validly ordained, etc.) but they aren't part of the new SSPX machine. They got off the SSPX train headed back to Rome. So I support these priests and attend Mass with them, as often as possible.
There are some who say that no one should attend the SSPX under any circuмstances. This is nicknamed the "Red Light" position. I do not hold that position.
I hold the "Yellow Light" position, which means that attending the SSPX Masses -- or not -- is a question of prudence, not dogma. Some can still attend their Masses, but it is also permitted to stop attending. Also, we should be preparing for a world without the SSPX as an option. Today the SSPX should be considered a lifeboat that has sprung a leak. You may stay for a while, but please be careful! Don't end up drowning.
I am helping to build up a new chapel close to me, another option for the Tridentine Mass, served by priests faithful to +ABL. We only have monthly Mass at the moment, but thanks to our efforts and perseverance, we hope (by God's grace) to eventually get weekly Mass. But we need to work hard and stay faithful, to show God we care about the Faith and the future of Tradition. I have a large family with young children to be raised Catholic.
What happens if some SSPX chapels are merged with Indult locations, for example? Once the SSPX is fully merged, why would they maintain old, inadequate chapels (few SSPX chapels are true "churches" in terms of architecture) when the Indult is saying Mass at an actual church or cathedral? That would serve the needs of "Latin Mass Catholics" on paper, but it would mean attending a church with Novus Ordo banners all over the place. It would be harmful to the Faith just to attend such a place on a weekly basis. Even the simple idea that the Novus Ordo is "ordinary" and the Latin Mass is "extraordinary" is toxic to the Faith.
These are very realistic dangers and logical outcomes -- almost a best-case scenario -- of where the SSPX is headed. I believe it would be foolish to not take heed and prepare.
I hope this helps,
Matthew