1) Traditionally, the SSPX taught us that we could not attend Ecclesia Dei chapels;

2) One of the reasons was that, even if everything said and done were Catholic and orthodox, they were still omitting to teach the faithful about the poisons contained in the doctrines of Vatican II;

3) And through this omission, these chapels represented a danger to the faith;

4) By refusing to inoculate the faithful, leaving them susceptible to the sophisms and heresies of the modernists and Vatican II.

5) Now consider your SSPX chapel;

6) Where perhaps no sign of compromise has yet appeared;

7) And perhaps your priest even privately sympathizes with Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre;

8) Yet he refuses to publicly condemn the doctrines contained in the recently revealed doctrinal declaration (which substantially declared that the doctrines of Vatican II are implicitly contained within tradition);

9) Do not his omissions represent as much a danger to the faith as an indult chapel, insofar as both refuse to condemn doctrinal error?

10) And if that is the case, was not the SSPX wrong to have formerly condemned indult chapel attendance on this account;

11) Or if they were correct, does it not hold perfectly true against the chapels manned by silent priests today?

12) Or perhaps this particular reason for avoiding indult chapels was simply another reason to avoid them, but not sufficient to ban attendance at them?

 :scratchchin: