Here is the full article:

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=4367

Point of interest:

"Most of those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and attack the SSPX refer to themselves as the Resistance. From the time that I first learned about them, it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.

Even Bishop Williamson, who must have a great deal of SSPX internal information from before his break with the Society, has never offered testimony for any of the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.

In regards to thinking, in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope. But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics."

I wonder if this means that the SSPX now considers Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX "to look schismatic."

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of August, 1976:
“All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father’s name last June 25th.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium)

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X:
“We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missae… The faithful indeed have a strict right to know that priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church.”

The Angelus, May, 2000:
“This current of renewal has given birth to a new church within the bosom of the Catholic Church, to that which Msgr. Benelli himself called ‘the conciliar church,’ whose limits and paths are very difficult to define… It is against this conciliar church that our resistance stands. We do not refuse our adherence to the Pope as such, but to this conciliar church, for its ideas are foreign to those of the Catholic Church.”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid ɛƖɛctıon are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Aug. 29, 1976: “The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests…”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with Paul VI, Sept. 11, 1976: “[The docuмent of Vatican II on religious liberty] contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI, and Pius IX.”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Feb. 22, 1979: “Insofar as it is opposed to Tradition, we reject the Council [Vatican II].”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”

 

Is it possible for anyone who knew the SSPX of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s to recognise the same institution in what uses that name in 2021?

To identify the Resistance as "schismatic" is necessarily to infer that the SSPX of decades past, that the position of Msgr. Lefebvre, that the early pioneers of the Traditionalist Movement (e.g., Fr. DePauw, Fr. Fenton, Fr. Barbara, Fr. Nelson, et al.) were schismatic.

"Most of those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and attack the SSPX refer to themselves as the Resistance. From the time that I first learned about them, it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.

I do not think it is a coincidence Mr. MacFarland and the Democrats and the Communist allies in the media are using the same line of argument by denying the truth. Both say of their opponents "it was obvious that they had no proof".

Mr. McFarland admits to being in the Opus Dei for 20 years.   It sounds like he left around the time that JPII canonized Escriva.

I wonder what insight John could give us on the inner workings of this secret society operating within the Church?

"But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics."

Anyone who can make such an ignorant statement does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Of course Bishop Williamson and his "followers" do accept the authority of the Pope, but the Pope so abuses that authority, and is such a grave danger to faith and morals, as to make it necessary to separate from him and resist him, just as Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX did as a matter of principle from the time of the 1988 Consecrations until a disobedient Superior General undermined the mission given to him by the General Chapter of 2006 and went in pursuit of an accord with modernist Rome.

Bishop Tissier quoting Archbishop Lefebvre in his New Year's Day sermon 2015:
“It is a strict duty for every priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the Conciliar Church, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!” These are the words of our founder. (End of quote). I guess that looks schismatic too, Mr MacFarland?

Bishop Tissier in the same sermon sums up the traditional thinking of the SSPX which the neoSSPX and Mr MacFarland no longer understand:
Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church.  The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back. But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church. That is my sixth point.

Rhetorical question:

Why is The Angelus suddenly (seemingly randomly) bringing up the Resistance, with this latest pablum from McFarland?

Could it be an attempt to block defections to the Resistance brought on by their scandalous endorsement of the abortive CÖVÌD19 ναccιnє?

UPDATE: Minitruth has now modified the article, and the excerpts contained in the OP above have been removed: Best not to mention the Resistance at all, lest the faithful become aware of other alternatives.