One of the thought-experiments I do in order to check my own sanity when making significant decisions/judgements is to think what chain of events, outcomes or revelations in the future might convince me I was wrong.  In other words, I decide when I am making the decision, the sorts of outcomes I might expect to see if I am correct and conversely the sort of outcomes I would expect to see if I have screwed up and made a bad judgement or picked the wrong horse.  In this way I am less likely to "drink my own Kool-Aid", which I think we call ALL agree some groups of people are prone to do.  I make a concerted effort to be honest with myself and either write down or remember those reasons/outcomes and not modify them over time to suit the changing circuмstances.

When I screw up I review and revise and try to learn from the experience so as to be better in my decision-making in future.  Like any other skill, good judgement is a skill that can be sharpened with practise.

The act of considering what would define a poor decision and a negative outcome also helps keep one's decision making rational, logical and objective (as possible), rather than emotional.  I was puzzled myself at Bishop Fellay's optimism at negotiating with B16 (my forum posting history confirms this).  I just could not see any likelihood of B16, his successor or the living Roman bureaucracy treating the SSPX with justice and honesty.  The previous 40 years, after all, had almost been a case study in Roman injustice.  And life has taught me that leopards almost never change their spots.

I've listened to half a dozen Fr, Pfieffer sermons on this trip, because I like to understand as much as I reasonably can before having or developing an opinion, and, listening to the man speak, not just his messages via a third party, does give you a better understanding of what might be his motivations.

Fr. Pfeiffer talks frequently about SSPX chapels where 70% of people are dressed immodestly and the fruits of liberalism and feminism  He is keen to point out the "bad fruits" of "liberalism" and "feminism" in the SSPX.  Thus, one might expect bad fruits of those errors to appear within a decade in the SSPX as they certainly appeared in the mainstream Church (divorce, abortion, pederasty, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity).

Let's assume that Pope Francis lives another seven years and no deal is struck between the SSPX and Rome.   It is now 2020 and the SSPX has grown 20% in that time. whilst the resistance is still limited to a handful of chapels and a diminishing number home-aloners or perhaps disintegrated into a half dozen splinter groups.   Or, paint your own positive or negative scenario(s) about what could potentially happen.  It does not really matter what scenario you paint, simply that - in that scenario - would you doubt, reverse your decision or change your mind?

If in 2020 or 2030 the SSPX's liberalism and feminism have not actually caused a greater number of them to lapse, they are still getting married having children, opening new chapels and mass centres; then do you conclude they need another 7, 20, 50, 100 years for the rot to really take effect, or, do you conclude that if the fruits were not bad then the tree cannot have been bad either?

Is it reasonable to compare the growth and relative success of the resistance versus the SSPX over the next decade and use them to measure the veracity of your choice? After all, this is exactly what Traditionalists have done with Novus Ordinarians for the last 40 years.  If folk-guitar strumming Novus Ordinarians had produced a vibrant and healthy church, increased Church attendance, fewer divorces, less abortions and annulments and no whiff of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs scandal, Vatican Banking scandals, then one would have to admit that they had delivered their much hoped for new springtime for the Church.

Once the principles of the SSPX officially changed, it was right to take action and that officially started with the SSPX General Chapter of 2012.

Quote from: ggreg

Is it reasonable to compare the growth and relative success of the resistance versus the SSPX over the next decade and use them to measure the veracity of your choice?

No.

Can you expand on this?

If the resistance was incredibly successful, found a billion dollar financial backer who made his fortune in survival foods, started up rival mass centres and grew through conversions, then resistance priests and laity would surely suggest that these good fruits were signs of them being a good healthy tree and that they were enjoying to Providence of God for their 'fidelity' and 'courage'.

Why does this reasoning not work in the reverse scenario?

Presumably, if The Resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principles and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless, then God has to make The Resistance reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery which 99% of Trads have no chance of winning.

Why would God reward a principled stand (made according to the resistance in the same mind as ABL) to less growth, success and the ability to deliver the sacraments and convert souls than ABL and the SSPX enjoyed over the last 40 years?

If failure is disconnected from doing the right thing, then every heresy over the last 2000 could lay claim to the truth, couldn't it?

Presumably, if the resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principle and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless then God has to make it reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery.

Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? What does it do? Runs around. There is still movement to the chicken that is the SSPX. But it is cut off from its head, the Archbishop. It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.

Why would God reward a principled stand (made according to the resistance in the same mind as ABL) to less growth success and the ability to deliver the sacraments and convert souls than ABL and the SSPX enjoyed over the last 40 years?

Its impossible to answer why to all things within human understanding, right? Why would God chose only a handful of people to hold the Truth before the time of Christ, through many millennia? Why not let all peoples of the Earth know about the coming Saviour? That's a definite scenario too. Something that happened. Remember- in your scenario- we are still dealing with hypotheticals. Even then, you still have rationalized whether or not you equate Truth with quantity.

Quote

Presumably, if the resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principle and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless then God has to make it reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery.

Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? What does it do? Runs around. There is still movement to the chicken that is the SSPX. But it is cut off from its head, the Archbishop. It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.

Have you ever seen a headless chicken still running around after seven, ten, fifty years and laying eggs into the bargain?

All headless chickens stop moving after a fairly short period of time.  There are no exceptions.

Truth is independent of, and hold not loyalty to, quantity. Its only the latter often follows it over time.  Do you agree or disagree?

If it "often follows", then it is not independent.  If it was independent there would be no correlation between Truth and Growth.

I think growth is a lagging indicator of truth.  Otherwise one could not judge a tree by its fruits.  A good tree could produce just one fruit or no fruits at all and still be "good".

Quote from: s2srea

Quote

Presumably, if the resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principle and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless then God has to make it reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery.

Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? What does it do? Runs around. There is still movement to the chicken that is the SSPX. But it is cut off from its head, the Archbishop. It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.

Have you ever seen a headless chicken still running around after seven, ten, fifty years and laying eggs into the bargain?

All headless chickens stop moving after a fairly short period of time.  There are no exceptions.

I was trying to use an analogy. But analogies aren't perfect, that's why they're 'analogies'. I actually agree with you. All headless chickens stop running eventually. I'm trying to answer your question as best as I can, but you don't seem to be responding to what I have to actually say. Please, read the rest of what I said, again:

It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.

And address the other points, please, that I have made in my other posts.

No, I don't think they are based on truth.

It's my opinion that some people are minded such that they wish to simplify complex problems so they perceive they are more in control of situations that are difficult to comprehend.  I know around a third of the signatories of the British Open Letter to Fr. Morgan and Bishop Fellay, so I have a pretty good idea of the common thread that those people share.  I know something about their history, their prudential judgement, their nuttiness.  I also know that a significant number of those signatories are people who have signed the letter because someone asked or told them to and they could not even begin to describe what the resistance were resisting.

The wisest and most prudent SSPX members I know are not in the resistance, nor do they support it.

The ringleaders behind the resistance in the UK, like Fishwick and Taylor, are a bunch of ex national front international third position racists who were told to cease and desist with their racist politics back in the late 1980s and early 1990 by Father Edward Black.  When Father Black was sent to Australia a few years later they wheedled their way back in.

Father Black was an absolutely excellent priest and a man with very sound judgement who ran both the UK and Australian SSPX very well.  He always kept the laity at arms length and avoided extremist positions of every colour.  If he supported the resistance I would totally reconsider my opinion because I consider him a wise priest with a great deal of experience and a portfolio of good results.

You see a similar behaviour with conspiracy theorists who almost regardless of what happens in the news find some angle whereby it is part of a conspiracy or a mind control experiment.  It becomes habitual to distrust the media to the point where they assume that every school shooting is a fαℓѕє fℓαg mind control experiment.

I've experienced the SSPX in the UK, US, France and Australia since 1978.  That is longer than some of the more opinionated posters here have been alive.  I've got a pretty good understanding of the historical problems, frictions, leadership style.  In my view the "resistance" was an inevitability, if it had not been over a non-realised "deal" it would have been over something else.

I am willing to change my mind if the resistance can lift itself up by the bootstraps and succeed but I am not holding my breath, because the people I know who are leading and running it are not builders, leaders, creators, innovators, inspirers.  They are people who, in the most part, are generally good at moaning, pulling down, griping, fearing, worrying, obsessing and plotting.

That is why I am confident that if the SSPX don't do anything overtly modernist and just continue chugging along doing what they have done for the last 35+ years, that the resistance will start resisting itself and falling to pieces.  Father Pfeiffer has already accused Bishop Williamson, his only source of confirmations and ordinations of giving "demonic advice", hardly the most prudent thing to do.  Like sawing a limb off when you are standing on it.

It does not look remotely possible under Pope Francis that any deal can be done, even if Bishop Fellay is a secret Freemason, so I am not sure what wind can fill the resistance's sails and give it a reason d'être and a common purpose.  I don't think Francis wants the SSPX back on any terms.

That's just my opinion of course, just strategising out loud, but I put it out there for the reader's consideration; and bragging rights when I am proven correct by future events.