The topic of "why is the Resistance so small" is a large one, and one short email can't do it justice. So I at least need to write a quick followup (since I don't have time for a book)

Take the group "Catholic" -- the majority are Novus Ordo, some shouldn't even be called Catholic (because they would actually reject the Catholic Faith if someone were to corner them and confront them about Church teaching, and the falseness of Vatican II) and a thin sliver of the whole are loosely traditional.

From that loosely traditional group, you have a bunch who think you need Roman permission to attend a Tridentine Mass -- they depart for the FSSP and other Indult groups.

You are left with Traditional Catholics. How many of them spend much time and energy on "church stuff" outside of getting ready for Mass on Sunday morning, attending Mass, and driving home? I think some Catholics believe that anything more would be "extreme", "overdoing it", being a "holy roller", or "if I'm going to go that far, I should have been a priest". I hate to say it, but only a thin remnant of the Traditional Catholic remnant expend any time or energy in reading, discussing, understanding the position, or really CARING AT ALL about matters of Faith.

You are left with a smaller subset of Integral (7 day a week) Traditional Catholics who not only consider themselves Catholic, but Catholicism would also qualify as a main hobby, insofar as they spend a lot of their free money and/or time on matters related to it (study, discussion, reading, volunteering, etc.) Everyone in this group develops principles (leading to favorite positions, favorite groups) due to their intense INTEREST and CARING about the subject.

But in this group of serious, Integral Trads, you still have large variations in terms of education, intelligence, strength of emotions, personal experience, and accidents of location or chance (I met a great priest with the SSPV...)

Some in this group decide (or "feel") that sedevacantism is the only way.

The rest of the group, getting pretty small by this point, decide with the more cautious, balanced (some would say prudent) Recognize and Resist position.

Now in days of yore, this would be the SSPX. But today, the SSPX is visibly losing it, which necessitates the creation of the Resistance or continuation of the old SSPX position. But how many SSPX attendees have actually left and attached themselves firmly to the Resistance? At my chapel (San Antonio, chapel dating back to 1975, population somewhere between 250 to 300) it's just my family that left -- unless you count 1 additional family that went Pfeifferite. One couple has started coming regularly to the last several (Bp. Zendejas) Masses here, so I'll give them credit at least for supporting the Resistance. There are a few other individuals/families which come to the Resistance chapel "part time", but they all still attend the SSPX.

At least 8 vehicles/famlies have left the San Antonio SSPX chapel to join the Indult, and let me point out this isn't one of those awesome-sermon-giving FSSP priests you may have heard about. No, this is INDULT, said by older priests who aren't very good at it. One of the priests there (no longer there) dabbled in the Charismatic movement as well as the Latin Mass. We're talking about a shared facility, too -- the same building is used for Novus Ordo (with particles -- or Particles -- of Communion in the Hand all over the floor)

When you consider all the obstacles -- the gauntlet -- that a Catholic has to run in order to arrive at the Resistance position, it boggles the mind.

Dimond Brothers
SSPX "obedience", pro-modern Rome, pro-accord propaganda
1962 Missale vs. 1954
Una cuм issue -- to mention the Pope during the Canon or not?
Novus Ordo Watch and other Sede sites
Other dogmatic, schismatic sedevacantists on the Net (Pope Michael, etc.)
Indult groups in every major city "we have to obey the Pope"
Pfeiffer cult

That last item is of particular note: of all those SSPX Catholics who "woke up" to the Crisis in the SSPX, how many of them went with Fr. Pfeiffer? Keep in mind that Fr. Pfeiffer was a Resistance pioneer. The most alert and awake SSPXers would have had no other choice if they wanted to resist the new SSPX orientation back in 2012 or 2013. Now it's true that some or many (most?) of these have since left Fr. Pfeiffer and joined the mainstream, worldwide Resistance under the 4 faithful bishops. But a lot of the principled, especially emotional, ones stuck with Fr. Pfeiffer to the present day. Even those who aren't 100% emotion might be convinced by Fr. Pfeiffer -- cult leaders are often very convincing in person, and that includes Fr. P. Catholics are naturally very hesitant to believe a priest could lie to them. So that also takes a noticeable number away from the main Resistance population.

Long story short, serious minded Catholics are likely to do research, form strong opinions, and many of those opinions are going to conflict and go different directions. It's also hard to give credit to your opponents without implicitly admitting that you might be wrong. If you give credit to Sedevacantists for example, then why? Is it because you want to give credit to those who fail to respect the Pope? Of course not. Or if it's because they are holding the true position, then you would obviously be holding an INCORRECT position, since yours is in conflict with theirs. So when I give any credit/respect to the Sedes, either I'm giving aid to enemies of the Catholic Pope, or I'm admitting I'm wrong. See the problem?

Of course I would offer a TERTIUM DATUR (a third option to solve the dilemma) -- that both sides can be of good will, but the Crisis is so confusing that we can't know for certain who is right. So we respect each other as Catholics even as we disagree with how to deal with (sometimes important) elements of the Crisis.

Matthew

these are very confusing and baffling times to live in indeed. Even just being a Catholic, never mind a good Catholic, these days is near impossible. I long for the days when you could just trust the Clergy and the Church, before all these Vatican 2 shenanigans. 

When one refuses to tolerate points of view that do not agree with the theology of thier particular sect and even go further to characterizing other Catholics as evil for this reason, well what can be said?

We are living in the time when all men have become thier own authority and feel free to interpret the Church's taeching to conform to their own ideas.  R&R was the Archbishop's emergency idea to deal with a crisis which had not yet shown its true nature. It has now been adopted as a permanent way of being for most of the mainstream traditional movement and indult Catholics.  

It is not the Theology of the Church. On this scale and for this long, it is unheard of. Neither is sedevacantism or any other lesser derivitive.  They are all theorys and they have contributed to the fragmenting of the remnants of Catholicism.

For one theory to be right, all others have to be wrong.  There are generally speaking no uncompromised clergy left who have not been affected by modern cultures, theological modernities, or this crisis as a whole. and you do have to be carefull who you follow and what demands that makes on your Faith.

It is hard to see the Faith of Traditional Catholics enduring and holding when things get worse and the Mass and sacraments be come scarce or non-existent. Those who will survive it will be those who do not measure their Faith by the integers of this or that sectarian grouping, but rather those who hold the Faith of the Church explicitly and above and outside of partisan interests.

Eternity is forever, those who fail to grasp the paramount importance of persevering towards that goal will be lost. When giving account of ourselves at the end, we will not be saying, "I am in the resistance, or I was a sedevacantist, but hopefully Lord, I tried to live and die as a follower of Christ. One has nothing to do with the other.

The sectarian church is yet one more adornment of Vatican II. A most effective tool of Lucifer with which to demoralize and separate Catholics.

I agree, Matthew and JPaul.  Great posts.  The devil surely knows how to divide and conquer.  He preys on our pride, which leads to disunity and then splits.  Certainly many of these theories matter and should be discussed, but they are far LESS important than we make them.  If more people grasped this, we could be united.  Alas, most of this division starts with the Traditional clergy and filters down to the laity!  May God have mercy on the clergy!  

We didn't have these problems in the 70s and early 80s because people were just concerned with "catholic basics".  It's hard to fight about the Faith when you're worried about finding a mass.  Then God blessed us with chapels and schools and some level of 'normalcy' to our Faith.  The crisis was averted and we return to bickering and moaning, just like the Israelites of old.  I guess it's human nature but it's pathetic.  And we wonder why God sends us suffering and crisis?  If he didn't, we'd devolve into tribal warfare and eventually cannibalism...

Excerpt from a Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre in Angers, France (1980):

If you accept the V2 Popes, then why do you pay any heed to an excommunicated man?

By the way, if some Catholics come to CathInfo and are convinced by Sedevacantism etc. that's not my fault.

They are going to do their research. CathInfo has just made itself a large, established site full of content, that's all. If CathInfo didn't exist these sedevacantist converts would have just clicked on another link in Google and ended up just as sedevacantist. They were obviously leaning that direction in the first place.

Certain types are going to be attracted to the simplicity of the sedevacantist solution, as well as the satisfying nature of dismissing the pope completely. Human nature is human nature.

You can't keep Catholics in a bubble. They are grown men and women with free will.

That's like saying it's sinful to run a library, because many errors and sins are found in the books within. Nevertheless, when a person sins after getting an idea from a library book, the sin is solely THEIRS ALONE and the librarian, library owner, etc. does not share in that sin.

An excerpt from 1980 is of limited value today. On the first premise, you must first agree with his views on the matter, and the situation has drastically changed, not in the general but, in those factors by which those distinctions that he talks about, should be made.

And his position has, not by design but its application far beyond its practicle life, has come to cause its own divisions among Traditional Catholics whilst embracing indult and conservative Novus Ordo types.

More confusion and disarray.