Arrogant? Ok, I'll take that shot for want of clarification.
The majority of XSPX faithful don't frequent these fora, Zenit, Mundy's blog, Rorate Coli, the rapidly imploding Vortex, Remnant, or the site of a quack seer (etcetera). They watch the evening news.
Leaving the job of instructing his flock to the shepherd.
If it's been addressed at your chapel, well and good. That's all H was asking, whether facetiously or not doesn't really matter much.

"I cannot believe you would be unaware of all this, so you must simply think that what they're doing is not enough.  To say there is a "complete absence" is an untruth."
 
I personally don't think it's enough. They should be shouting it from the rooftops, and using strong, unambiguous words in doing so. As SG +F should be (imo) holding conferences and interviews with any who will listen about this evil Synod and it's implications, and of Pope Francis teetering on the edge heresy. (I say teetering since I don't think it has been determined to be Formal Heresy yet, but I may be mistaken in that. If so, +F has even more responsibility to speak out.)  But that might not get him invited to any more nice lunches in Rome.

(But I do think it was good for the priests to administer the series of sermons on marriage. I was pleasantly surprised when I heard it had been ordered in response to the Synod.)

I agree Tenant of Heaven.

What we get from SSPX homilies depends on the priest. Some are not of this world and remain silent about controversal subjects, keeping them out of the Mass. Others, like one of ours, is different and addresses the problems of the day.

On the synod we got from our priest the pre-Vatican II teaching on marriage and the post Vatican II on marriage. The former had children as the first object, the latter had the relationship between the man and the woman as first priority, with children as the second.

Father explained once 'love' between the two was supposedly God's purpose in marriage, and children secondry, then the 'love' between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and lesbians takes on a new meaning and thus the attempt by the 2014 synod to recognise their 'love.'

On the beatification of PPVI well that had been covered when JXXIII and JPII were canonised. Father recognised the problems involved for traditionalists in trying to understand how God would allow two public modernists to be canonised.
The reason they were canonised was of course to canonise Vatican II, just as PPVI intended canonisation is meant to do. Given the few popes in history canonised since Peter, to have the three who championed Vatican II canonised one after the other is beyond belief. Father said there is no point in trying to understand it, and all we can do is keep our tradition, our saints and leave it to God to sort out in His good time.

But back to Tenant's point, why are the SSPX silent outside the pulpit and their newsletters? What we need surely is a public defence of traditional Catholicism when necessary. Are they that boxed in that they must allow error free reign out in the public media. I am sure they have their reasons and are as frustrated as we are at the situation. Nevertheless, I would love to see them defending the traditional teachings.

Frances,

If I had written, "Has anyone noticed the complete absence of crucifixes in SSPX chapels?", it would indicate that I think there are no crucifixes in SSPX chapels.  The "all" is clearly implied.

Another difficulty with the English language that you seem to have is the distinction between speaking an untruth and being a liar.  One may unknowingly say something that is untrue.   To knowingly speak an untruth is being a liar.  I did not call you a liar.  

I am not Frances but I would like to point out that Merriam-Webster defines untruth as:

: a statement that is not true
: the state of being false or a lie

1 archaic :  disloyalty
2 lack of truthfulness :  falsity
3 something that is untrue :  falsehood

Synonyms
    delusion, error, falsehood, falsity, hallucination, illusion, misbelief, misconception, myth, old wives' tale, fallacy

But why do you argue grammar?  That's not the issue.  The issue is that the SSPX has abandoned its mission to preserve the faith.   All Frances was doing in her original post was pointing out one more example of the SSPX failing to address another danger to the faith manifested by the V2 church thus giving us another reminder of why the Society should not be considering placing itself under the authority of the lunatics in Rome.

Marsha

To stretch this thread somewhat here is what a non-SSPX priest has said:

loucam61@gmail.com

Dear Friends,

My sermon for Sunday, October 19, is attached.

God's Blessings,
Fr. Campbell

Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, October 19, 2014
An Abomination of Desolation
 
Many are in a state of shock about the deliberations of the Synod of Bishops, which has been taking place in Rome for the past two weeks. Questions about welcoming those involved in same-sex unions into the family of the Church because “they have gifts and qualities to offer,” and the possibility of some invalidly married couples being admitted to Holy Communion were dealt with, among other things. But does this Synod have any legitimacy? This information about the Synod of Bishops is from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
 
“The Synod of Bishops is a permanent institution of the Catholic Church. It was established by Pope Paul VI in 1965, shortly after the close of the Second Vatican Council, to continue the spirit of collegiality and communion that was present at the Council.”  
 
May the Lord help us! We could ask, then, did Vatican II have any legitimacy? And was Paul VI a legitimate pope of the Catholic Church?
 
Considering the fact that Paul VI is scheduled to be beatified at the close of the Synod by Francis I, today, Sunday, October 19, 2014, this is a question of the highest importance. The process for his beatification was once stopped in 1998 by Padre Luigi Villa, when he published his exposé of Paul’s scandalous personal life and devious plotting, in the book, Paul VI Beatified? (http://www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com). But now that Padre Luigi has left this life the Vatican is once again free to pursue its goal of having all the Vatican II popes canonized. But to raise this man to the altars of the Church, which Francis is expected to do today, would be a horrendous blasphemy, a grievous insult to our infinitely Holy God. One would almost expect the skies over the Vatican to darken and the dome of St. Peter’s to be struck.
 
Padre Luigi Villa was encouraged by Padre Pio and appointed by Pope Pius XII to investigate the activities of the Freemasons within the Church. By the time he was ready to start his investigation, Padre Pio told him that the Freemasons had already made it “into the slippers of the pope.” The pope referred to was Paul VI. During his investigations, Padre Luigi survived seven attempts on his life. But by God’s grace he was able to write many books and articles on the Vatican II “popes” and the Vatican II Church, including those on Paul VI.
 
The young Fr. Giovanni Montini (later Paul VI) became the close collaborator and associate of Pope Pius XII. But unknown to Pope Pius, Montini was making undercover contacts with Russian Communists, and releasing to them the names of bishops and priests whom Pope Pius had sent secretly into Russia. Many of these bishops and priests were apprehended and executed. When Pope Pius finally discovered this horrible betrayal, he wept for days. Unable to demote Montini, he sent him to Milan as archbishop, but without naming him a Cardinal, so that he would not be eligible to be elected pope upon the death of Pope Pius. But when Angelo Roncalli became the first of the Vatican II “popes” as John XXIII, he conferred the cardinal’s hat on Montini, thus making him eligible to succeed Roncalli, which he did as “Pope” Paul VI.
 
Montini already had a police record in Milan because of his illicit encounters. But at the Vatican he was able to entertain his nighttime visitors of disreputable character behind the closed doors of the papal apartments. So who is being raised to the altars at the Vatican today for the veneration of the faithful? The Angelic Pastor, Pope Pius XII? No, but his “Judas”, Paul VI!
 
Montini had already influenced John XXIII concerning the Vatican II Council, and after the death of John XXIII he became its architect in chief, and the one to implement its decrees. At the end of the Council in 1964 he established the group “Consilium” under Annibale Bugnini, known to be a Mason. From Consilium came the Novus Ordo Mass. Its Canon was based on the sketchy canon ascribed to the sometime heretic of the third century, Hippolytus, who was later reconciled to the Church and is venerated as a martyr.
 
Changes in the Sacraments included changes to the rites of ordination. Pope Pius XII in the decree Sacramentum Ordinis, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM) had designated which were the essential words within the ordination ceremony required for the validity of the Sacrament, and declared that no one should have the audacity to change them. But less than twenty years later, who had the audacity to change them but Paul VI. Considering the deviousness of Bugnini, no doubt the purpose of the changes was to make the rites of ordination invalid. Today there remain few bishops or priests who were validly ordained. Nevertheless these non-bishops have just concluded their Synod in Rome under the leadership of another non-bishop – “Pope” Francis I.
 
Fr. Luigi Villa does not address the question as to whether or not a manifest heretic could be elected pope in the first place, but at the end of his book Vatican II – About Face, he questions the validity of the papacies of Paul VI and John Paul II, based on their manifest heresies, quoting from several canonical experts, as this one:
 
“Giovanni the Teutonic, a great decretist, asks the question of whether it is allowed to accuse ‘the Pope’ in case he falls into heresy, and answers that yes, it is, because, otherwise ‘it would endanger the good of the entire Church, which is not lawful’ and furthermore, ‘due to the heresy the Pope would cease to be the Head of the Church, as long as the crime is known for ‘confessionem vel pro facti evidentia’” (p.200).
 
And this is Padre Luigi’s conclusion at the end of the book (in which he could have included the Synod of Bishops established by Paul VI, and the Bishops’ Conferences of various countries):
 
“This, however, poses the problem that the Church, tomorrow, will need to clear up this dark period of its History and must, therefore, also verify the invalidity of the docuмents of Vatican II, of the false  liturgical reform, of the vacuous Canon Law, of heretical Catechisms and the twenty encyclicals. May Jesus Christ-God, Founder of His Church, enlighten and direct this solution for His Church!” (p. 203).