If we are to work from the inside, can we not keep a respectful silence about the modern mistakes spread by the authorities while preaching the right doctrine?

To be honest, respectful silence is only morally possible to avoid a worse evil. The story of Saint Pius X provides us with an example of this with the Action Francaise, when he considered that a conviction was inappropriate and would have caused far more inconvenience than benefit. However, in the present case, the circuмstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (negligence for the common good of the faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of the error (the apparent banishment from the visible society of the conciliar Church).

The answer therefore lies in one word: the good of faith. The good of faith today implies the condemnation of error for two reasons:

- To keep it yourself. Unfortunately, experience proves that it is not enough to preach the truth but that mistakes must also be condemned;
- Prevent the fall of those who may be tempted to succuмb to it.

Let us add the following arguments that weigh in the balance and show that a true love of faith cannot be combined today with respectful silence:

1. Truth demands the condemnation of error: "the preachers of truth must do two things, namely, to exhort according to a holy doctrine, and to overcome contradiction"(1).
2. The good of the faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority falls into it: "In case of necessity, where faith is in peril, anyone is obliged to make his faith known, either to instruct or strengthen the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of the unbelievers" (2), "If there was a danger to the faith, the superiors should be taken up by the inferior, even in public. Paul, who was subject to Peter, therefore, took it back for this reason"(3).
3. The truth is much better highlighted by the distinction from and condemnation of error(4).
4. The truth must not be hidden for fear of the criticisms that will always exist no matter what happens: "It is better to cause scandal than to abandon the truth" (5).
5. The policy of searching only for traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner that only detects traditional passages) is at the root the same policy that supports ecuмenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (so as not to risk harming an understanding that would foster rapprochement).
6. The rational foundations of our position are based on Rome's betrayal and its abandonment of Tradition. To mention only the good sides of Rome would gradually lead us to forget the reasons for our struggle and to fall back imperceptibly into the mistakes fought.
7. The best service we can do in Rome is not to remain silent about the conciliar errors and to remain firm. What would one say about a wife or children who would not warn their husband and father when the latter would engage in a deadly path? Is this not love but a servile and cruel cowardice?
8. This clarity of exposition and therefore this condemnation of errors is made more necessary because of the increase in confusion in the Church and in particular in traditional circles. This confusion is explained by:

- The bone of contention Ecclesia Dei who, more than 20 years later, does not stop achieving its goal: to upset convictions and divide forces. From there.
- An increasingly varied palette of doctrinal nuances and thus a greater confusion of minds, minds that have difficulty forming an idea, which was not the case when the two "camps" were well divided;
- A youth who has not experienced the battles of veterans, have not had to position themselves and therefore needs more precision;
- A loss in some of the habit of fighting and with it to reflect on the reasons for it since the last crisis which dates back to 1988 had made it possible to renew convictions.

9. To mention only the good sides of Rome would lead first to believe that the crisis is coming to an end, and then in the near future, not to understand the refusal of the Fraternity authorities to conclude an agreement with Rome, and thus to mitigate this resistance force.

That being said, on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether the rallies have at least maintained their starting positions. [...]

Notes:
(1) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, lesson 3, n°72.
(2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.
(3) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.33, a.4, ad 2.
(4) It is the process of Saint Thomas that raises the objections, the affirmation of the truth and the response to objections.
(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezekiel.

Obviously, this could have made the CCCC, insofar as it contradicts not only the message Bishop Fellay sent in forwarding the letter of Archbishop DiNoia, via the Cor Unum, to his Society, telling his SSPX priests to cease preaching against modernism and the Roman modernists, and also the entire spirit of Fr. Wegner’s/SSPX’s branding campaign.

Shameless bump, because the contrast needs to sink in..