Student of Qi, thank you for the thoughtful response.
Here are some problems I see within it:
(1) Vatican 2, as a Council, is not something that can/must/should be rejected or accepted in its totality. If one actually reads through the Council Docuмents, one will find that even the Conciliarists don't "accept" Vatican 2 in its totality. If they actually followed what the Council Docuмents recommends the Novus Ordo wouldn't look anything like the way it did in the 70s. Archbishop Lefebvre himself didn't see any problems with entire sections of the Council Docuмents. The concept of Vatican 2 as a homogeneous, heretical Colossus that must either be rejected or accepted "as is" isn't traditional. Unless a dogma is being defined, there's nothing that one *must* believe. The people we call Conciliarists themselves only cling to whichever ambiguous parts of the Council allegedly support their positions. Now, does that mean Vatican 2, or rather that which is called the "Spirit of Vatican 2" *shouldn't* be resisted? Not at all. Resist away, but there's no point in exaggerating the situation. Someone could say, "I agree with 70% of Vatican 2" and be an orthodox Catholic (i.e. because he agrees with the majority of the Council Docuмents which are boring and exasperatingly orthodox); someone could say "I reject 90% of Vatican 2" and be a raving Modernist.
(2) If the pope and everyone that recognizes his authority is *de jure* schismatic, the Church will have completely failed. That doesn't exclude the possibility that many bishops and, possibly even this pope, either flirt dangerously close to schism or even fall into it. However, it's likely that most cases are matters of "de facto" schism, i.e. non-official. it's the same issue with manifest vs. implicit heresy. These are complex legal issues, which I certainly don't comprehend fully. I don't that either you or I can honestly say with 100% certainty who and who isn't schismatic. If it you premise was totally true in its entirety, over 90% of Catholics would never have access to licit sacraments. Bishop Williamson recommended attending the Novus Ordo if that was all that one had. I'm not sure if he's since recanted that statement, but it *was* made. That would go directly against the view that you can't attend masses which recognize the pope's authority. You would essentially be negating even the Resistance's own principles because they still offer mass "una cuм".
(3) I prefer to "ignore" and "separate" from the idiocy simply by not going out of my way to indulge it. I don't run into any of these problems at the FSSP and have hardly ever encountered them at Diocesan TLM. I'm rather cosmopolitan when it comes to where I attend Mass. Convenience is usually the deciding factor. If there is daily mass available at a solid FSSP parish with good priests, I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to attend mass occasionally at a Resistance chapel hours away - that is assuming there is even one available. Hopping on board the Resistance-only train is consigning yourself to a life of Sacramental desiccation. You see the total disintegration of the liturgical life which completely permeated life during the Middle Ages; you cut yourself off from the motions of liturgical seasons which the Church in her infinite wisdom has ordained to silently and slowly transform the souls, bodies, and minds of the faithful to become like unto Christ. You *need* smells and bells. Anyone who says otherwise is a Puritan. It's not merely an aesthetic or symbolic preference. The externals not only make manifest the interior, they also help to form it. Who has a better understanding of the spirit of Catholic liturgy? Resistance folk raised on low mass or understaffed high masses with electric keyboard and bad/out of tune singing or the faithful of Westminster Cathedral (Novus Ordo) who hear their all male choir sing through 1,000 years of Catholic musical-cultural heritage every Sunday? When/if the day comes for the Resistance to "restore" the Church, I'm afraid they will be like cavemen crawling out from their subterranean catacombs, blinded by the magnificence of the sun. I'm afraid *they* will be the ones that need to accustom themselves to the way things ought to be done. Now, all that was a bit tangential, but you get the point. Let's put music aside. What about basic and ancient devotions like First Friday, First Saturday? Important feasts that fall during the week - Ash Wednesday. Even Holy Week - Holy Thursday at Night, Good Friday at 3pm, the Easter Vigil at midnight? You start chipping away at those things and you rob your children of a Catholic formation. Personally, I see no need to live like the Catholics of early modern Japan, cowering in fear and slowly slipping into heresy for want of the sacraments.
(4) Issues involving individual priests need to be taken case by case. I can't judge hearts, and I'm certainly not privy to all the information necessary to make a wise decision. That being said, I know multiple "outcast" priests who are just kinda floating around here and there. Some of them have done nothing wrong, but are merely in weird positions due to a stroke of bad luck (I know one priest who was kicked out of his order after his identity was stolen and the thieves used up quite a bit of funds in his name - he's just living in retirement now). Other priests I'm not so sure. I realize that the SSPX doesn't require a vow of obedience, but I would be very inclined to put the blame on lack of prudence in the case of clerics like Bishop Williamson and Fr. Zendejas. I'll give an example: Williamson *was not wrong* to state his opinion, or rather the historical fact, that six million Jєωs did not die via gas chambers. That doesn't make it prudent to do so on public television with the full knowledge that one's words will be twisted. It certainly doesn't make it prudent to adamantly beat this dead horse year after year and make into something of almost dogmatic significance. I honestly don't care. It has no bearing on my salvation and doesn't make me holier. On top of that, historical records are so convoluted, it wouldn't be possible for laymen like you and I to be absolutely certain on what happened and what didn't. There very well be a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Conspiracy to overthrow the Church. Um....ok? There very well may be multiple communities of Bigfoot living throughout the state of California, seeing that reported sightings of Bigfoot are more common than mountain lion sightings, but what does that have to do with me saving my soul?
(5) I certainly don't say that I have all the answers. Frankly, I think anyone who says he does needs 10 more years of experience trying to live holy life of rigorous intellectual study and spiritual development. My concern with the Resistance, based on my close interactions with many of the faithful who identify with it, is that it tends towards a solipsistic worldview and spirituality which will ultimately lead to de facto schism. Why do I emphasis the need for a rigorous and broad intellectual foundation? It's not because I'm elitist or look down on the virtues of humility and simplicity. It's because supporters of the Resistance are throwing around some pretty serious views - "them's fightin' words" and you really, really, really, really, really need to be able to back up these assertions with solid arguments based on ecclesiastical history, Sacred Tradition, magisterial docuмents, Patristics, Canon Law, Thomism, etc. On top of that, one should also display a superior level of spiritual progress to show for the superiority of the Resistance position. If you're still flopping around in and out of mortal sin like dying fish, I think there are much more pressing issues you need to take care of before tackling the Crisis in the Church. You can't even begin to comprehend the Crisis in the Church until you've mastered the Crisis within yourself. Here's one example of solipsistic spirituality: I can't count the number of times I've heard people on this forum complain about Fr. So and So's sermon and how this or that sermon, or the lack of this or that sermon, was proof that he was a spiritual danger to the family, comprised with Rome, etc. I call bull. First of all, the sermon is not even a part of the mass (hence the priest removes the maniple, and formerly the chasuble as well). Developing on that point, the sermon wasn't even *included* during mass for many centuries (they either delivered it before or after mass). Second (or is it third?), you cannot simply write off a priest because you didn't like his sermon. People on this forum complain about priests when their sermon doesn't mention Joos and Vatican 2 in every paragraph. You have serious spiritual issues if you aren't content with a sermon that "merely" explicates the Sunday Gospel and offers guidance in the spiritual life. Serious, serious issues. You basically foster the vice of curiosity and the restless spirit of the world when you feel a constant need to hear these rumors and arguments, even when you are in the physical presence of God in the Eucharist. I love controversy. I love history. I love all these juicy conspiracy theories. Let's save it for our free time, chatting with some bud's over dinner and alcohol.
More later, thank you for the thoughtful responses. I will try to continue this friendly dialogue - between Catholic men, brothers in Christ mind you - so long as I have time, and so long as discussion remains productive.