The modifications made are more a matter of housekeeping changes. The underlying weakness of the SSPX is untouched in that they still conditionally accept Vatican II, still believe in the error of "read in the light  of Tradition", and conditionally accept the conciliar ritual, and sacraments.  As such they do not represent anything new, they are not objectively a counter revolutionary force, but a re-creation of the status quo faction of the SSPX.

This declaration proves that. And any priests that they form will be of the same mind and orientation.

I scrolled down, but cannot find the english translation. Help.

Bishop Williamson is not too good to be true, and it would actually be wiser for us to be grateful for that.  The good Bishop Williamson has to speak words beyond counting all the time endlessly for the remainder of his days. Were he always some ideal of oracular perfection, we would probably have some kind of Bill Clinton on our hands and some such slick Tartuffe is exactly the last thing the Catholics need at present in our few remaining still-legitimate bishops.  


But wait... this is brilliant idea FS!   "Bishop Bill Clinton"



A man of vision and action to lead the Resistance.

If he'd convert, it's not too late to fast-track through seminary and be consecrated.

"Archbishop Lefebvre miraculously managed to build a classical congregation, a small pyramid below the Great Pyramid, while the Great Pyramid did everything to crush the small pyramid. He held. This is a "tour de force" of Archbishop Lefebvre. Could Archbishop Lefebvre do that today, would he try to do that today? Probably. Myself, I did not try to do a seminary, I would not have had the courage that Bishop Faure had to form a seminary, because I do not believe in the young people of today. But I have just visited the seminary [of Bishop Faure] and I think that I give myself wrong. I believe that Bishop Faure was absolutely right, it is necessary. And he also formed an association - the SAJM - I think he was right. "

Original in French

« Mgr Lefebvre a miraculeusement réussi à construire une congrégation classique, une petite pyramide en dessous de la grande pyramide, alors que la grande pyramide a fait tout pour écraser la petite pyramide. Il a tenu. C'est un tour de force de Mgr Lefebvre. Est-ce que Mgr Lefebvre pourrait faire cela aujourd'hui, est-ce qu'il essayerait de faire cela aujourd'hui ? Probalement. Moi, je n'ai pas essayé de faire un séminaire, je n'aurais pas eu le courage qu'à eu Mgr Faure de former un séminaire, parce que je ne crois guère dans les jeunes d'aujourd'hui. Mais je viens de visiter le séminaire [de Mgr Faure] et je crois que je me donne tort. Je crois que Mgr Faure a eu absolument raison, c'est nécessaire. Et il a formé aussi, une association - la SAJM - je crois qu'il a eu raison. »

1) This curtailing of authority is an administrative correction, one that was needed but nevertheless a matter of process.
2) Does the SAJM reject the false council?  Do they cling to the idea that it can be seen as Traditional?
Do they see the Novus Ordo as a work of the Church or as the non-Catholic ritual that it is?
3) To secure canonical recognition from an entity which they have defied for over fifty years?  Whereas the new group sees no need for it?
Now this begs the question, were they wrong all along?
If the SSPX held these compromised positions as a matter of strategy to secure approval, then we fall back to the questions raised in number 2. If they still hold these positions now, how then, have they removed their weaknesses?

I agree with +Williamson's independent pockets prediction as well. But I don't understand why you think that means they have to be formed individually. The other half of his perspective is that these independent priests will form a loose network. Wouldn't a seminary or two be a critical aspect of this loose network? If they are working together, why not work together on a seminary?

What "people" are you referring to who want to sit back and have everything done for them? If you mean us, what difference does it make in our workloads if the priests are formed individually or in the seminary? We are not the ones forming them either way. And either way we provide prayer and financial/material support. Maybe I am lacking in imagination but I am curious about your vision and what practical differences would be so onerous.

Franciscan Solitary:

 Time for our often much too grumpy laymen to get to work, praise the Lord and pass the ammo.


I know this is an expression, but I think "many a truth is said in jest" in your case. Again, you seem to be alluding to some kind of lay activism, along the lines of what is most commonly associated with radical Muslims -- i.e., terrorism, blowing things up.

As I've said before, just out with your plan. If you mean terrorism, just say terrorism. You can't describe terrorism without using the term. That's not going to fly. For the sake of honesty and clarity, please don't beat around the bush.

I'd like to know how a few, impatient, deeply principled but vastly outnumbered laymen are going to "radically change the world" without some kind of "asymmetrical" tactics.