The Resistance is also nothing more or less than the continuation of the old SSPX position, which dates back to the very beginning of the Crisis in the Church (and hence, is legitimate).

What we must have primary loyalty to, is the Catholic Church. Well, the Catholic Church was undermined and taken over by Freemasons in the 1960's. So enter "The Traditional Movement".

So for Catholics living in 1970 - present, our first loyalty must not just be to "The Catholic Church" but specifically the Traditional Movement. We reject all errors including Modernism, but also the various errors contained in dogmatic Home Aloneism ("the Traditional movement isn't legit", "You can't just set up chapels without permission", "we must avoid the Conciliar Church BUT ALSO all so-called Traditional chapels", etc.)

If we are to love the Church, we must love the Church in our own age. We must love the Liturgy, the Mass. We can't reject our only options for experiencing that Mass in our own age. Keep in mind this Crisis has persisted 52 years and counting. The dogmatic Home Aloners have basically been proven wrong -- proven to be foolish and stupid in their opinion to reject the Traditional Movement and "wait it out" -- wait for God to end the world or whatever. Even if THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN RIGHT in the beginning, the last 52 years of history -- hindsight -- proves them to have been wrong *all along*.

In my opinion, such dogmatic Home Aloneism is *more* dangerous for one's soul/salvation/family than "doing one's best" in the Conciliar Church. Just for starters, there have been Indult options for decades now, which takes the evils of the Novus Ordo Missae out of the equation. Everyone knows my opposition and problems with the Indult -- but I must say, it's far superior to dogmatic Home Aloneism.

I am a firm believer that the Catholic Faith is "a habit of life".

I also believe that the SSPX was the most popular Trad Movement option for so many Catholics for various *good* reasons, not base ones. Yes, more people prefer the Broad Path to the Straight and Narrow Path. But the majority of people also prefer water to urine, as a beverage. So the majority is NOT automatically wrong.

As I've said before, if you take 100 men who have given their lives to follow Christ (arranged their lives, homes, career where they can be practicing Trad Catholics), who fear God, put Christ first, and have already to-date made thousands of sacrifices -- if you take polls among those 100 men, you better believe I'm going to pay attention to the will of the majority! Because not all majorities are created equal. Heck, the Catholic Church Herself goes by majority vote on who should become Pope. But it's the majority of CARDINALS, who have presumably given their lives for Christ.

+ABL had his priorities straight: resistance to Modernism, formation of true priests. Everything else happened by God's will after that (setting up a professional network of chapels, etc.) That was all a testament to +ABL's prudence and wisdom in how he set up his organization, his Rule. But also: +ABL didn't go one step further than he needed to, i.e., demanding everyone adhere to this or that opinion on the Pope, the Crisis, etc. Which is proven by the fact that even as recently as 2015, plenty of sedevacantists attended SSPX chapels.

Thanks for all the answers everyone, it really broadened my vision. One last thing, is the 1962 missal 'bad'? I'm not too familiar with anything older or why some people don't like it.

There are multiple versions of the 1962 missal, so it depends which one you're talking about.  If you're talking about the original edition, this one did NOT add St Joseph to the canon.  I'm not sure if it deleted the 2nd confiteor prayer but most Trad priests add that back in anyways.

The Holy Week changes are also lumped into this discussion but those were in use before 62, and only affect 3 days, but not the actual mass for the rest of the year.  The big change of the 62 missal is to the calendar.  Many vigils were deleted but also the calendar feast days were simplified.  The changes to the calendar are not uber-liberal, even if they aren't Traditional.

Fr Wathen said that he saw no major issues with the 62 missal (assuming you don't add St Joseph to the canon and you add back the 2nd confiteor).  He said it wasn't the best but there was no danger to one's Faith.  In other words, there are bigger fish to fry.

I agree with Fr. Wathen on this point. I think this is a very sane, balanced take on the '62. It's not that big of a deal. CERTAINLY not a danger to one's Faith. In other words, if your only option for Mass is said with the '62 Missale, and you stay "home alone" for this dumb reason -- good luck at your Judgment.
It's akin to avoiding Sunday Mass because the priest has bad breath, or is the "wrong" race according to you. NOT a good enough reason!

I think that almost everyone to a person on this board disagrees with Traditio's characterization of the 1962 Missal as "Half Novus Ordo".

I think that almost everyone to a person on this board disagrees with Traditio's characterization of the 1962 Missal as "Half Novus Ordo".

With all due respect to the priest who claims that, his assertion is asinine ("of or pertaining to a donkey"). It is an insult to anyone who has been spiritually harmed by the Novus Ordo. It downplays the evil of the Novus Ordo. 

With all due respect to the priest who claims that, his assertion is asinine ("of or pertaining to a donkey"). It is an insult to anyone who has been spiritually harmed by the Novus Ordo. It downplays the evil of the Novus Ordo.

He's also mathematically challenged.  I think that it's probably .01% Novus Ordo at best if you do the math around 2 words out of however many there are in the Mass.

Many Resistance members are/were resisting the changes in the SSPX starting in the mid 2000's and culminating with the acceptance of Novus Ordo ordinations into the SSPX priesthood and the slow acceptance of the conciliar church within the society itself. Potential invalid ordinations were the last straw.

This was one of the reasons "The Nine" wrote their letter to ABL in 1983.  They saw some of the same issues/concerns mentioned in this thread at that time.