"before retiring to England."

How's that for a blatant lie in the SSPX obituary?

Right, PV.  This is a total lie.  +W didn't retire; the new-sspx "retired" (i.e. fired) him.  The integrity level of the new-sspx gets smaller by the day.

THEREFORE, if the SSPX were totally dissolved, say they were shut down by the government, sued for 500 billion and thus had to collapse, it would be 100% good, 0% bad, a total blessing for the world.

If the SSPX were to be dissolved, then what would our options be for the sacraments? You might say that there are plenty of sedevacantist chapels that we could go to, but what if we aren't sedevacantist?  And because there are so few Resistance chapels in the U.S., it's not an option for most of us.

At least the SSPX said something about Bishop Williamson. I didn't think that they would say anything at all, having kicked +W out of the SSPX many years ago now.

Bishop Williamson will be missed and I enjoyed my three years at seminary under his rectorship.  We all know that Lord Williamson denied the great modern day dogma, "No salvation for those who deny the gas chambers."  He was an Episcopus non gratus, "a bishop not in grace," and I am surprised that he was not ousted from the SSPX much earlier. 

And then after the events of 911, when he called out the Bushes for their complicity in a masonic, deep state, adventure, this at last sealed his fate. He had become the dreaded "conspiracy theorist."  Lord Williamson was never expelled from the SSPX for doctrinal reasons, in fact when I was in seminary ('94-97') the general consensus among the seminary professors was, "Let us not preach against the New Mass, calling it a sin, because, after all, we want to gain converts to tradition." 

I remember our first year at seminary and the bishop gave us a blind quiz, asking us, "How many J's died in the gas chambers?"  I was the only seminarian who put a big fat "0" on my piece of paper.  I had already done my Auschwitz homework before arriving at the seminary.  The bishop wanted to know who answered "zero" on the quiz, and as I raised my hand, the bishop smiled.  What really disappointed me about the quiz is the fact that nine other seminarians had not done their homework prior to arrival at the seminary.

THe question should have been:

How many civilian supply lines/innocent people did the US/UK/Soviet Union Murder with no intent to worry about them to begin with?

Are heretics members of the Catholic Church?

"Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as you may see, with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the formation of Catholics but for the plunging of Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal to any religion."

Now, who are the "Resistance sedevacantists" for real - I want to find out more about them please...

So Pope St. Pius X never said that the Modernists aren't Catholic, but you insist that they aren't Catholic. You know better than Pope St. Pius X?

Is Modernism a condemned heresy?

Pope St. Pius X never said, that I have heard of, that Modernists aren't Catholic. But then, he wasn't a sedevacantist, and he did not advocate sedevacantism as a way to fight against the Modernists. 

Sedevacantist doctrine is based only on indirect quotes from various Church sources. And that means that these quotes require interpretation. Of course the sedevacantist interpretation is going to be different from that of non-sedevacantists. 

Meg,

Pope St. Pius X said that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies and that it's goal is the destruction of DOGMA. Heresy is the denial of Dogma. He gave us the Oath Against Modernism to be taken by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. The word "definition" (or dogmatic definitions) he says, should be understood today as they were in 1910 or the original meaning.


https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm


                                                                   
                                                             
                                THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM,  Pope St. Pius X 1910

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical docuмents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

"We recommend the eternal rest of his soul to your fervent prayers."

Am I reading this wrong or does this last sentence smack of indifference or worse?
Could they not have at least offered an "Eternal Rest" or a "Let us pray" for him?

Good catch.  There's a lot of things "not right" about that release.  How brief it was, to the point of being insulting for a man who had labored for deacdes for Tradition, various spins like his (willing) "retirement" (because he was too old?) and the separate "paths' +Williamson and SSPX took (rather than a unilateral expulsion by SSPX of +Williamson), and now this here as well.  YOU pray for him, but we're not going to.  While we had very public funerals for Huonder and +Tissier de Mallerais, +Willamson will get nothing of the sort.

If the SSPX were to be dissolved, then what would our options be for the sacraments? You might say that there are plenty of sedevacantist chapels that we could go to, but what if we aren't sedevacantist?  And because there are so few Resistance chapels in the U.S., it's not an option for most of us.

I tried to make that clear.
I'm talking about a hypothetical that takes a lot of imagination.
Imagine tomorrow the SSPX is dissolved. Someone sues them for 750 billion, the victims are awarded the whole amount, and the SSPX is forced to be sold off and liquidated. Again, we're NOT talking about a nuke dropped on Menzingen during a rare "100% of their priests" meeting there. That wouldn't be good at all. That's why I'm specific about the organization/bank accounts/real estate/propaganda outlets being destroyed, and nothing more.

That would be 100% good. Some growing pains, yes -- but it would be GOOD FOR ALL PARTIES.

The consequences would be:
- hundreds of priests now outside the SSPX and its control. Each priest would obviously set up shop somewhere, to serve the Faithful.
- the Faithful would largely have to give up their beautiful buildings and illusion that "the Crisis is over". That would be 100% good, in my opinion. People *need* a bit more basement, spare room, garage, and hotel Masses in their lives. WAY TOO MANY TRADS are bombarded with evidence all around them that there is no Crisis in the Church any longer -- what with the size, manpower, equipment, and professionalism of the SSPX, which rivals that of the Catholic Church before Vatican II!
- Like in the 1970s and 1980s, Trads would learn to appreciate having the Mass once again, and would have to stop taking it for granted.

My point is that the SSPX adds nothing, over and above what GOD gives in the Mass, and what the Priests give by their ministrations. All the SSPX adds is evil, corruption, lies, propaganda, enabling of crimes against children, etc.
Yes, the world would be better off without all that.

Even the least of their "evils" -- propagating the illusion that the Crisis is over -- is not exactly good for most Trads. Because of their material success, years in business, war chest, and real estate portfolio. If that were all taken away, it would be better for Tradition -- and the world -- as a whole.