+Lefebvre accepted it, too. So what? NOM exists and is exclusive of ability for one to be holy.

No, not in the same way.

Just because +Lefebvre said that the NOM could be valid, doesn't mean he signed anything approving it, Vatican II, or the Conciliar Church.

The FSSP was born from a Judas-like act of betrayal, and I (for one) will always hold that against them.

Several priests (and Faithful) walked away from +Lefebvre after the 1988 Consecrations, like the disciples who walked away from Our Lord in John chapter 6, and accepted a deal from Rome in which they accepted the New Mass and Vatican II.

You can tell me about great priests in the FSSP today, but the organization was born of a Judas betrayal and I'll never forgive the organization for that. I must oppose them for that perfidy. +ABL deserved fidelity and support at that juncture, and FSSP denied it to him.

I agree that the modern SSPX has no reason not to cooperate with FSSP.

But there used to be a difference.  SSPX USED to believe it WRONG to allow Tradition to be intermingled with the Conciliar movement, to accept that the Traditional Mass and NOM are just two different expressions of the Catholic Mass, to pretend that NOM is not a non-Catholic Protestant-ized bastard rite.  It was considered wrong to accept that the Conciliar errors are just a matter of some Modernists exploiting ambiguities in Vatican II.

Sean Johnson wrote an entire book on the shift from +Lefebvre SSP to neo-SSP, so I need not go into all of it.

In fact, given the new direction of SSPX, they should just go ahead and merge already.  There's not a lick of difference between the two groups.

I believe that Xavier's mindset is in fact quite representative of the neo-SSPX ... which tells me all I need to know about them.

I haven't read Sean's book, so take this with a grain of salt, but I feel like the issue here is that "Old SSPX" is based on Lefebvre 1988, while "New SSPX" is based on Lefebvre 1982 (or so.)  

I feel like its hard to really blame one side or the other when both are basically arguing over "which side of their founder."  And to be clear I say that with the highest respect for Lefebvre.  These are rough times. But he wasn't fully consistent, and I know you know that.

I think the "Neo SSPX" would still say there's errors in V2, and that the NO is objectively wrong, even if they don't extend that "guilt by association" to the Motu masses, and I think that's a meaningful distinction from FSSP.  I've also seen people who have met Bishop Fellay apparently say he expressed a willingness to consecrate new bishops without Roman approval, again, if he had to, something you wouldn't see from FSSP.

So I'm not convinced these organizations really are just identical just because they might work together in some ways.

1. You admit you are completely ignorant and don't know what you're talking about. You realize, of course, that even if you're penniless you can essentially read the whole book online: https://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm

2. Your argument about "which side of their founder" is bizarre. Time flows in one direction. Generally speaking, one's naive, youthful, rash, foolish, or other mistakes happen EARLIER in one's life, and as one matures these flaws are rejected in favor of wiser and better decisions. How many people do you know whose "old self" is better than their "latest self"? I'm not talking about health or being in-shape (including being physically quick to learn things: one's brain declines with age too). I'm talking about wisdom and things spiritual. And with these things, you improve with age, generally speaking.

3. Believing that Bishop Fellay is willing to consecrate new bishops doesn't just require a leap of faith or trust in the man, it would require going AGAINST reason and the evidence of your own eyes. My proof? The SSPX (under +Fellay) coming out publicly against recent episcopal consecrations in the Resistance, including the consecrations of Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Zendejas. How could the SSPX *ever* consecrate a bishop in the future without papal mandate, since they basically condemned both +Williamson and +Lefebvre for what they did? There were no fundamental differences, by the way, between the 1988 Consecrations and the recent consecrations by +Williamson. The only differences were trivial and accidental. All the fundamentals were IDENTICAL: done publicly, for the good of the Church, from a state of necessity*, without Papal mandate, with the consecrator not intending to confer any jurisdiction, etc.

4. If Bp. Fellay told anyone he was willing to consecrate more bishops in the future under *any* circuмstance, he was not being honest. He was probably trying to keep various parishioners content/happy, to keep the money flowing in.

*Fun fact: the consecrator being personally convinced of this "state of necessity" is sufficient to avoid any automatic excommunication. This was clearly the case for both +Lefebvre and +Williamson.
Another fun fact: In 1988, no one was actually excommunicated. If you read the text of John Paul II's "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta", you will note that he only says, in so many words, "Behold, they have incurred the automatic excommunication" which was obviously false. Besides, the Pope can't legitimately excommunicate someone without a fair trial. Cutting someone off from the church isn't like grounding your teenage daughter for getting a tattoo. It's not something that can be done in anger or on a whim. Even Luther got a trial. In short, there has to be a mortal sin involved. You can't cast out a friend of God from the Catholic Church. That's not how it works.

What Catholic dogma(s) did +Lefebvre deny? What heresy did he make up and teach others? That is what would be discussed in a trial. But he never got a trial. How convenient. It's because it would come out that he was just being a faithful Catholic, and that Vatican II was the true schism and heresy. Every saint, book, Doctor of the Church, and dogma would be on +Lefebvre's side, and the only thing(s) condemning him would be the New Religion of Conciliarism which was hatched by the devil at Vatican II.

As for +Lefebvre's "disobedience" or "problems" with the Pope, he had no such "problems" before the Popes went off the rails. Also, that's like αrrєѕтing a man for NOTHING, and if he puts up a fight for being αrrєѕтed innocent, the police charge him with "resisting αrrєѕт". Isn't that kind of circular? So an innocent man refuses to go quietly since the police fail to tell him what he's being αrrєѕтed for -- so he's αrrєѕтed for "resisting αrrєѕт".

Somehow I thought that XavierSem was the OP because I had neglected to go back to Page One and see what had prompted this debate.  My bad.

I think the problem -- my problem, perhaps -- is that I don't know what is meant by "collaboration."  Maybe it means one thing to the OP (and many others here) but something else to our poster XavierSem.  The three major trad apostolates have different ways of doing things.  What they all SHOULD "band together" about, with respect to their individual and joint missions, is the exclusivity of the TLM.  Once they start promoting modernism in liturgy or teaching or spirituality, they have ceased to represent Tradition, because Traddom is incompatible, at root, with New Church.  "Promoting," in my view, would consist of publicly encouraging attendance at the NOM or the false modernizing of the TLM in any way, as well as (obviously) using the V2 docuмents as teaching sources.

I have no idea what the "musical performance" that the OP mentioned involves.  As he said, and as I also read, the bulletin issued by the FSSP mentions only the pre-55 liturgy, missal usage with respect to it, etc.  Musical performances outside of the liturgy and held within the church, as if these are integrated within that liturgy, are not in keeping with Tradition.

1. You admit you are completely ignorant and don't know what you're talking about. You realize, of course, that even if you're penniless you can essentially read the whole book online: https://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm

2. Your argument about "which side of their founder" is bizarre. Time flows in one direction. Generally speaking, one's naive, youthful, rash, foolish, or other mistakes happen EARLIER in one's life, and as one matures these flaws are rejected in favor of wiser and better decisions. How many people do you know whose "old self" is better than their "latest self"? I'm not talking about health or being in-shape (including being physically quick to learn things: one's brain declines with age too). I'm talking about wisdom and things spiritual. And with these things, you improve with age, generally speaking.

3. Believing that Bishop Fellay is willing to consecrate new bishops doesn't just require a leap of faith or trust in the man, it would require going AGAINST reason and the evidence of your own eyes. My proof? The SSPX (under +Fellay) coming out publicly against recent episcopal consecrations in the Resistance, including the consecrations of Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Zendejas. How could the SSPX *ever* consecrate a bishop in the future without papal mandate, since they basically condemned both +Williamson and +Lefebvre for what they did? There were no fundamental differences, by the way, between the 1988 Consecrations and the recent consecrations by +Williamson. The only differences were trivial and accidental. All the fundamentals were IDENTICAL: done publicly, for the good of the Church, from a state of necessity*, without Papal mandate, with the consecrator not intending to confer any jurisdiction, etc.

4. If Bp. Fellay told anyone he was willing to consecrate more bishops in the future under *any* circuмstance, he was not being honest. He was probably trying to keep various parishioners content/happy, to keep the money flowing in.

*Fun fact: the consecrator being personally convinced of this "state of necessity" is sufficient to avoid any automatic excommunication. This was clearly the case for both +Lefebvre and +Williamson.
Another fun fact: In 1988, no one was actually excommunicated. If you read the text of John Paul II's "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta", you will note that he only says, in so many words, "Behold, they have incurred the automatic excommunication" which was obviously false. Besides, the Pope can't legitimately excommunicate someone without a fair trial. Cutting someone off from the church isn't like grounding your teenage daughter for getting a tattoo. It's not something that can be done in anger or on a whim. Even Luther got a trial. In short, there has to be a mortal sin involved. You can't cast out a friend of God from the Catholic Church. That's not how it works.

What Catholic dogma(s) did +Lefebvre deny? What heresy did he make up and teach others? That is what would be discussed in a trial. But he never got a trial. How convenient. It's because it would come out that he was just being a faithful Catholic, and that Vatican II was the true schism and heresy. Every saint, book, Doctor of the Church, and dogma would be on +Lefebvre's side, and the only thing(s) condemning him would be the New Religion of Conciliarism which was hatched by the devil at Vatican II.

As for +Lefebvre's "disobedience" or "problems" with the Pope, he had no such "problems" before the Popes went off the rails. Also, that's like αrrєѕтing a man for NOTHING, and if he puts up a fight for being αrrєѕтed innocent, the police charge him with "resisting αrrєѕт". Isn't that kind of circular? So an innocent man refuses to go quietly since the police fail to tell him what he's being αrrєѕтed for -- so he's αrrєѕтed for "resisting αrrєѕт".

Points 1 and 2 are fair.  I'll try to read through that thread at some point.

I am *not* arguing that the Lefebvre excommunication is valid, much the opposite.  I'd also agree that Bishop Williamson's was probably invalid for the reason you state.  

All that said I do think there's a difference between the Lefebvre consecrations and the Williamson ones, namely that Lefebvre was facing the iminent obliteration of the TLM, while there are still *three* bishops left in the SSPX as well as a pretty clearly established acceptance of the TLM by the Vatican now.  I'm not arguing therefore that Williamson was wrong, I am not sure.  I'm just saying it seems like a grayer area than the Lefebvre consecrations.

That wouldn't be the first time they'd have applied a self-serving double- or even triple- standard.  They'll just fabricate some "distinction" about how the circuмstances have changed.  Don't you see how much closer the Vatican has come to Tradition under Bergoglio?

Like this, Ladislaus?

All that said I do think there's a difference between the Lefebvre consecrations and the Williamson ones, namely that Lefebvre was facing the iminent obliteration of the TLM, while there are still *three* bishops left in the SSPX as well as a pretty clearly established acceptance of the TLM by the Vatican now.  I'm not arguing therefore that Williamson was wrong, I am not sure.  I'm just saying it seems like a grayer area than the Lefebvre consecrations.

With all due respect, GIVE ME A BREAK.

The First Dibs argument? Really?

3 bishops in the SSPX -- how does that help the Resistance or any other non-SSPX group? So it's "first come, first served?"

So that would imply that the SSPX bishops got some kind of de-facto Jurisdiction by the sole fact of their "going first" or getting "First Dibs".

The SSPX got "First Dibs" on the State of Necessity, and everyone else better form a nice organized line, bow and make obeisance to the SSPX Bishops, or else they're out of luck for more priests, Confirmations, and Holy Oils?

So the SSPX could do it in 1988, but if ANYONE ELSE wants to consecrate bishops the same way, in the same state of the world, it's TOO LATE, BUB. THE SSPX ALREADY DID IT. WORK WITH THEM, OR TOUGH LUCK PAL.

That would be ludicrous.

No, there is no "First Dibs" in Catholic doctrine or Moral Theology. Something which is a moral act for one person, is a moral act for another, regardless of who goes first.

...

That is my main argument. But there's also --

+Fellay is a Judas traitor. He was formerly the SSPX Bursar, so he ACTUALLY held the purse and the things that were put therein (might as well count him as a Conciliar bishop at this point, in all categories except for Validity), and +de Mallerais is basically on death's door. Is he still alive?  And how is +de Galarreta doing? +Fellay was the youngest of the 4, and that's NOT a good thing. He's the most pro-Vatican II and pro-Conciliar of the 4. So as such, he no longer counts as "we have a Trad bishop".

The other two SSPX bishops are as close to death as +Lefebvre considered himself back in 1988. Plus they belong to a specific group, so they don't belong "to the whole Trad world".

It could easily be argued that by saying "Vatican II is 95% good" you disqualify as Trad. I certainly hold this. VATICAN II DELENDUM EST. *that* is the Trad position, always has been since the 1970's. You don't go praising the cyanide-laced kool-aid as being 99% healthy. It has been contaminated by cyanide, it must be dumped out. Period.