I've met some at my SSPX chapel who hold this position -- that it's "dangerous" for us to be irregular for so long. They don't outright complain about the SSPX position, but they say it's only good "for a time".

I ask them: On what magic date do you wake up and R&R is no longer good? When do you draw that line?

I think that is ridiculous. If it's good today under circuмstances X, it will be good in 100 years if the circuмstances are still X. R&R doesn't have an "expiration date".

What is this, some twisted reactionary form of Modernism? Where truth changes over the years and certain disciplines are only good "for a certain time period" or "a given era" but not today?

I just want to tell them right to their face, "WHO ARE YOU to tell God that this Crisis drags on too long! If you are weary of the Crisis, pour out your heart in prayer to God. But after lovingly complaining to God and praying for His Church with all your heart, you should dry your tears and re-join the good fight. React with sadness rather than anger, and cry to God, not to us! We didn't think up this Crisis -- just remember that. One mustn't complain PUBLICLY that "in my opinion, this Crisis has gone on too long!" Considering that God is firmly in control, such a person is LITERALLY committing a public act of insubordination against God!

The truth is that these individuals are uncomfortable with the SSPX position, and have been for a while. They don't have the cajones to be in the SSPX to begin with. They need to join the Indult or some other less gutsy group, where they can soothe their sensitive nerves -- a nice position as FAR from the front-lines as possible, to accommodate their level of courage (or lack thereof!)

I formally challenge anyone who dares to a debate on the merits of the "Resistance".

Lets see if YOU have the spheres to accept that challenge. :argue:

And yes, soulguard, even allowing for "difference of opinion" you have crossed the line.

Namely, I'm OK with people disagreeing with the Resistance.

HOWEVER --

Anyone who starts mindlessly spouting propaganda like a babbling idiot, even though there is reams of evidence to the contrary (even on this site!) is not welcome here.

What I'm trying to say is: Some things are not open for debate. Claiming the Resistance is a spontaneous, mysterious movement explainable only by the Mystery of Iniquity and the infernal ambitions of the devil is NOT a valid opinion on CathInfo. It proves that the adherent is completely detached from reality.

There is plenty about the Resistance that you can debate -- even the premise of this thread, interestingly enough!

This is a discussion forum. One cannot have discussions unless he can be SOMEWHAT reasonable. I realize that emotions are often present here. With humans this is unavoidable.

But one must be able to be SOMEWHAT reasonable at least most of the time.
Emotions are ALWAYS a hindrance to discussion. So a person who is mostly emotional is mostly dysfunctional, at least for purposes of carrying on rational message board discussions.

One could theoretically be a great guy and still be the bane of message boards. Again, I can think of family members I love that this applies to. So, no offense.

It's that simple.

I wish you all the best, Soulguard. I shall miss thee.

Learn from thy banishment and follow through on thine holy plans.

So, soul 'guard' , you were finally honest enough to expose your real loyalty. Like Fellay, Rostand, LeRue, Pflugger and their cohorts, you RESENT arbp Lefebvre for bringing you into this dessert for forty years, and like the Israelites of old you complain that Moses is going to allow you to 'die' a horrible death as a Traditionalist , rather than live in peace and prosperity amongst the heathens of Rome(Egypt).

Well, we accept your challenge! Bring us a formal acceptance from either Bishop Fellay, Father Rostand, Father LeRoux, Father Lorans, Father Schmidberger, or Father Pflugger, and we will debate them on the issues-- openly, fairly, and squarely.

We suggest the primary topic: "resolved, the words and actions of Fellay and his advisors toward
Rome within the contexts of the Preamble of 2011 and the Declaration of Fellay of April 15th, 2012 were destructive to the mission and the spirit of the SSPX, and a violation of the trust put into Fellay by Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX faithful."

We will arrange an open, public, impartial debate venue, and professional, impartial debate moderators. I propose each side presenting their statement, the opposing side to follow up; and then each side to then present their distinct, succinct arguments of ten minutes each, with rebuttal by the opposing side.
  Following which, the audience will have been allowed to submt questions to the moderators, to which each side will be allowed to address. I propose that the dabate expenses be
Carried by the nominal admission fee of the audience. I heartily agree with you-- the fraud of Fellay has gone on way too long. Because he is able to prevaricate consistently and say different things  to different people, he and Rostand always claim " you don't know what Fellay meant"

Finally, by your generous offer, the faithful will at long last find out what  "Fellay meant"

I await His Excellency's acceptance; and wil correspond with whomever he designates to make all necessary arrangements. If Bp. Fellay desires to have someone else speak for him, that is okay,he must send me a letter saying that "so and so will speak in my stead and represent all my interests in this debate; so and so is fully authorized to speak for me and to answer officially for me and my advisors in the SSPX."

Let the debates begin-- and stop this enless gobbledeguck from robo-writers on the net and in the SSPX publications.

I have a question. How would you answer an objection by a Fellayite that they're just doing what the Resitance is doing - recognizing him as Superior General, and resisting his liberal tendencies? I have no idea if such people exist but for the sake of argument let's say they do. Would you say that recognition of the pope as pope is necessary because no one can judge him except a future pope, whereas a Superior General can fairly be judged to be in error? That would make sense to me.

The Indult groups on the other hand organize and fight an ongoing war for the soul of the establishment.  They have done much more for tradition and the church
than the SSPX ever has.

Quite an impressive claim.  Do you have some data that conclusively supports it?

It is only the Catholics left in the establishment that who hold back the tide of modernism.

That's "hold back" only in the most optimistic analyses: Sheeple are notoriously unsuccessful as warriors.  By stubbornly continuing to graze among the Novus Ordo pews, sheeple remain profitably available to be fleeced to support the financial demands of Novus Ordo infrastructure & causes.  But only if the "establishment" can avoid frightening them away when factual reports of parochial or diocesan theft, or perverse sex with subadults, come to light.

If it was not for them, the Catholic church would be protestant by now.

It's not?  Well, that's a relief! 
Oh!  Mea culpa!:  "It's not for me to judge".