I was saying in another thread --

Fr. Jurgen "Vatican II isn't so bad" Wegner.

He came to my local SSPX chapel a couple years ago and gave a conference, during which he attempted to lower our collective resistance to Vatican II.

Forget it! Since the SSPX has lost its savor, I will cast it out in the street to be trodden upon by men.

The downfall of a large Traditional Catholic organization is a terrible thing, not good for anyone (but satan), but reality is reality.
Pretending, ignoring a festering wound, or ignoring a huge hole in the bottom of the lifeboat is certainly not the answer!

Here is my thought for today, and why I started this thread:

If the SSPX has stopped standing up for Tradition -- for Catholic Tradition "cost what it may", for the right of Catholics to reject Vatican II wholesale and attend Mass in "illicit" Mass centers, then what good are they? If they have stopped shouting from the rooftops that Vatican II is dangerous and evil, then what good are they?

I don't need the SSPX to bring me back to Modernist Rome. First of all, I've never been part of Modernist Rome (thanks be to God). Second of all, if I want to stop being Traditional, I can go join my closest Novus Ordo parish, the Indult, or the FSSP without any help from the SSPX. Those things are fully functional today and have no need of the organization known as SSPX.

So the SSPX wants to become another FSSP. Just one problem: we already GOT the FSSP. Why do we need another one? A good number of Catholics don't choose that particular answer to the Crisis in the Church. They want a path with less spiritual danger, less compromise, better training, more certain sacramental/priestly validity, and more principles.

It's hard to be uncompromising in the Faith when your organization is under the thumb of Modernists including the Pope. That's the fatal flaw of the FSSP that no one can counter. The most I've seen convincingly argued about the FSSP is "Oh, let me tell you...this priest over here...his sermons are great and rival those I've heard at the SSPX! He's so holy, so traditional..."

But that's a personal, specific case, anecdotal, and frankly a feminine argument for the FSSP. A man looks at the fundamentals and principles. The fact is that no matter how good or holy the priest, if he's a member of an organization that is UNDER the modernist, heretical, Conciliar Church, he will be hamstrung to a greater or lesser degree, and will probably have to make a major choice someday. The hypothetical "holy, FSSP" priest has simply kicked the can down the road, regarding the big choice between pleasing God and pleasing men. Pray that your favorite FSSP priest makes the right choice. But I assure you: if he chooses God, he will end up in an identical situation to the Resistance priests you criticize today. There is no other end-game. You can't be on the fence.  You can't have it both ways.

You can't be under Modernist Rome and be hunky-dory in perfect canonical regularity and communion with the Conciliar Church authorities. It simply isn't possible long-term.

To be fair, as someone who attends a Society chapel, I've heard nothing but scathing criticism of Vatican II and the New Mass. We actually spent a lot of months in Sunday Catechism discussing the un-Catholic-ness of it.

Again, just like with FSSP priests, such praise can only be applied to individual priests or chapels, and not the organization as a whole. Objectively, according to its recent actions and policies, the organization has compromised and is now beginning to bring its many priests and parishioners around to acceptance of Vatican II.

At the highest levels they know exactly what they're doing: They represent the "slow" path to Vatican II, and they know it. They don't want anyone to leave, they don't want to freak out the congregations at their various chapels. But the goal is there nevertheless.

If an SSPX priest is doing an objectively good job, he's being a bad priest from his superiors' point of view. That's the sad truth. How long will such intransigent, conservative behavior be tolerated? Who knows.

.

.

Bp. Fellay dreams of packing his chapels with thousands and then he can do his huge part to save the world. Then he can "succeed where +ABL failed".

.
So then after he packs his chapels, what can he do to "save the world" when he agrees with Vat.II?
.
+ABL's opposition to Vat.II wasn't his failure, it was his success.

My conclusion?  The majority of Catholics wanting to be 100% traditional tolerating no connection to Vat. II in even the remotest manner have to be home-aloners.  There are not enough independent or resistant priests or chapels.  There are fewer now than in the period between 1965-1980 when at least the older priests were certainly ordained and knew the Latin Mass.  Unless you are blessed to have access to one of the few certainly legitimate venues, you're on your own.  If you have no family or friends available, and moving isn't a possibility, you go it alone as an individual.

Seraphina, it is a bad situation for many.
You have a right to voice your opinions and concerns. There are Catholic gentlemen and ladies who can listen and give support. I would like to think that is what Matthew has in mind with this forum. 

Agreed. Some have no bishop they work under. There have been cases of criminals posing as Trad priests.

Yes! It’s a very hard situation to find ourselves in....
Sometimes independent priest become their own church too. They make their own rules, and slowly become cult like.

Oh, absolutely. A lot of independent priests get their orders from a dubious, if not schismatic bishop. Thankfully, the vast, vast majority of traditional priests were ordained by solid bishops whom came from a pre-Vatican II episcopal lineage.

And then there is the whole controversy over the men ordained by Bishop Thuc (very long story). Basically, one has to really watch where they're getting their sacraments.

yes! That is a crazy story indeed!

The devil can only deceive you if you desire it!  Pray for discernment.