Interesting excerpt from "Joseph" on the French Resistance forum [machine translation]:
http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t967-Le-profit-de-l-erreur-le-plaisir-de-la-verite.htm



"The second card that the devil offers to the dissatisfied is less noble, but it is psychologically important and explains the defection of those who are dissatisfied but do not want to go any further. This weapon is called "the profit of error". 

What is this "profit error"?

It is simply the fact of being in a false or erroneous situation, but to find a profit in it. The devil will be able to present this profit with all the artifices and the best possible appearances, and the deprivation of this profit as an unbearable evil and to be avoided absolutely.

That's what Menzingen understood so well..... a little late. 

In 2012/2013, telling the truth was like losing all the profits: trials, expulsions etc... But after Bishop Williamson's exclusion, the neo-FSSPX superiors (and their Roman correspondents) realized that the overly heavy sanctions imposed on the disgruntled were likely to create a global counter-current hostile to the ongoing rally. 

Menzingen's policy therefore changed: it was necessary to give a kind of safety valve to the dissatisfied by giving them the possibility (within a certain limit) to express their anger. This is how the dissatisfied were left "the pleasure of the truth". For example, we will tolerate a former dean publishing criticisms about the rallying or other similar things, but we will not touch their "profit". 

As for the "profit of error": for the moment most priests of the FSSPX take advantage of this worldwide structure and can be exhilarated by a certain sociological and financial comfort. But what is this profit from error worth in the eyes of God?

This is a serious moral matter, because there is a deception of the faithful. A priest knows that his situation is false because the work in which he finds himself is 70% rallied, but he continues to act as if he remains a priest faithful to the Catholic heritage.

How does God see such priests? Does He look at them with kindness or anger?"

It’s truly sad, because I know good priests still in the Society who say “Well there’s no official change, the statues are still the same” and see that as a “loophole” when in reality it’s death by ten thousand tiny paper cuts. 

...except for the reduction in time for perpetual engagements to conform to the 1983 CIC; the addition of "Councilors" to keep +Fellay in Menzingen; extra-statutory measures like submitting internal decisions (e.g., General Chapter elections) to Rome for ratification; overturning of the 2006 General Chapter; etc; etc.

Most of these priests are proving themselves unworthy of their founder.

Well exactly. They excuse this one, they have to excuse the next one until they’re all living in Huonderland and still say “oh but nothing has substantially changed!” Because they ignored or accepted every little change along the way. 

Menzingen is employing Vatican II-type tactics.

These following slogans have been used effectively in the NewChurch to control the population and to keep them captive:

1. Do not try to be holier than the Pope.

2. If you do not work with us, you are working against us.

3. If you are not part of the solution, you become part of the problem.

4. If you leave, you become part of the problem.

5. If you leave the Pope and his Bishops, who are the representatives of Christ, you have lost your salvation, and you will burn in Hell.

Would there be any way of getting a "100 words or less" summary of the original article?  It reads like a machine translation (because it is) and French is not exactly a terse, concise language.  It's kind of convoluted and hard to understand the points being made.

That the denizens of Menzingen (with a couple non-threatening exceptions) no longer bother attempting to infiltrate this forum is a bad sign (and possibly related to the above):

They are already assured of victory, so no point combating Resistance apologists.

Best now to preserve and market the new branded/friendly image.

You almost have to admire the skill with which Menzingen has played the game.

"The second card that the devil offers to the dissatisfied is less noble, but it is psychologically important and explains the defection of those who are dissatisfied but do not want to go any further. This weapon is called "the profit of error".

What is this "profit error"?

It is simply the fact of being in a false or erroneous situation, but to find a profit in it. The devil will be able to present this profit with all the artifices and the best possible appearances, and the deprivation of this profit as an unbearable evil and to be avoided absolutely.

That's what Menzingen understood so well..... a little late.

In 2012/2013, telling the truth was like losing all the profits: trials, expulsions etc... But after Bishop Williamson's exclusion, the neo-FSSPX superiors (and their Roman correspondents) realized that the overly heavy sanctions imposed on the disgruntled were likely to create a global counter-current hostile to the ongoing rally.

Menzingen's policy therefore changed: it was necessary to give a kind of safety valve to the dissatisfied by giving them the possibility (within a certain limit) to express their anger. This is how the dissatisfied were left "the pleasure of the truth". For example, we will tolerate a former dean publishing criticisms about the rallying or other similar things, but we will not touch their "profit".

As for the "profit of error": for the moment most priests of the FSSPX take advantage of this worldwide structure and can be exhilarated by a certain sociological and financial comfort. But what is this profit from error worth in the eyes of God?

This is a serious moral matter, because there is a deception of the faithful. A priest knows that his situation is false because the work in which he finds himself is 70% rallied, but he continues to act as if he remains a priest faithful to the Catholic heritage.

How does God see such priests? Does He look at them with kindness or anger?"

Interesting. He makes many good points. This is the problem with any group that compromises. They think they have it both ways.