If you think the staff at One Peter Five don't greatly respect the SSPX, all I can say is you're hopelessly mistaken on that. There is a necessary conversation to be had. I'm all for attacking Modernism with firmness and severity and making proper appeals to authority.

However, some of you just want the SSPX to sink, that's quite clear by now. And that's a rotten approach. Dr. Lamont is not saying that. Dr. Lamont's view is that Pope Francis is more radical than his predecessors and therefore a further step is needed. Fr. Gleize is saying we need to analyze the roots of some of the errors being promoted today by Pope Francis and they go back at least 50 years. It's those who think (or want) the SSPX to sink or "lose it" who are themselves in danger of losing it.

Right, Meg. It's still a learning process for many of the good Catholics at 1P5. I just want to note even Dr. Lamont still agrees that Abp. Lefebvre was the Athanasius of our time, which is what Fr. Gleize was trying to prove, since these errors go back about 50 to 60 years.

I think anyone who reads the SSPX site will see that the criticisms of the Amazon Synod etc have gone on. Dr. Lamont's letter does critique the errors being spread today. But the SSPX criticism of the method being followed now is mainly the unwillingness to criticize anything more than 6 years old, when a careful look at least the last 60 years is necessary. For e.g. Rev. Fr. Pagliarani, Superior General, said recently, to the question, "In your opinion, what should these prelates and faithful do who have at heart the future of the Church?

First of all, they should have the lucidity and courage to recognize that there is a continuity between the teachings of the Council, the popes of the post-conciliar era, and the current pontificate. Citing the magisterium of "Saint" John Paul II, for example, to oppose Pope Francis's innovations is a very bad remedy, one that is doomed to failure from the outset. A good doctor cannot simply use a few stitches to close a wound without first evacuating the infection inside the wound. Far from despising these efforts, it is a matter of charity to indicate where the root of the problems lies.

To give a concrete example of this contradiction, it is sufficient to mention one name among others: that of Cardinal Müller. He is presently the most virulent opponent of Amoris lætitia, the Instrumentum laboris, and the Curia's reform project. He uses very strong language, even talking about "breaking with Tradition." And yet, this cardinal who has the fortitude to publicly denounce these errors is the same one who wanted to impose the acceptance of the whole Council and the post-conciliar magisterium on the Society of Saint Pius X (in continuity with his predecessors and successors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Regardless of the Society and its positions, Cardinal Müller’s criticism, which focuses only on the symptoms without going back to their cause, gives rise to a most damaging and illogical situation." https://sspx.org/en/church-its-head-50632

See also: Although arguing at great length that the cause of the disaster of this pontificate lies squarely at the feet of the Second Vatican Council, the Superior General is not dismissing the radical nature of the current pontificate. He describes Amoris Laetitia in the following dramatic fashion: “Amoris lætitia represents, in the history of the Church in recent years, what the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the modern history of Japan: humanely speaking, the damage is irreparable. It is undoubtedly the most revolutionary act of Pope Francis.” https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/09/17/a-true-doctor-of-souls-diagnoses-the-cancer-that-produced-the-malignant-tumor-of-the-pope-francis-pontificate-an-interview-of-father-davide-pagliarani/

I think there's an important conversation to be had, but maybe it should be engaged in a little differently. Namely, recognizing that the SSPX has been right in making the criticisms it has been making for nearly 50 years now, and that the just basis of those criticism is now finally at last being more widely acknowledged by many.