Sean, I'm an old timer and I can assure you, my wife and I have no inkling to abandon the 'The Faith of Our Fathers', We married a few months before the close of Vatican 2, that's a considerable span of time ago, and we have witnessed and lived through in England, Ireland and Australia, the associated trauma manifested on Catholics, Yet here we are, still, albeit in a less physical capacity, fighting the good fight and will continue to do so until our last breaths. Don't write us oldies off too quickly. Lastly, we have never been convinced an 'existential threat' on the SSPX existed, which required the setting up of a counter resistance movement.

Sean Johnson: His Grave Archbishop Lefebvre signed an accord with Rome. Yes, he was forced to renege on it, but he did sign it. In fact Lefebvre tried his very best to work with Rome. As for Fr. Pagliarani, you are making assumptions - playing the fear card as always. And why? So the faithful will back into the Resistance like a mouse-trap? Do you get commission for this? Your little Resistance "bunker" near destroyed our parish and traumatized our children. Your General sent a pedophile to a family of young boys and then defended his actions with the words "he may be flawed but his doctrine is sound". Another Resistance priest interrupted adoration so that the faithful could sing a "te deum" for their new "bishop". Another Resistance priest defended bad films being shown to minors. Another resistant priest turned a blind eye to homosexuals being accepted into the seminary. Another resistant priest defended worldly books such as 1984 to be read by 16 year olds. Another resistant priest mocked nuns. I have witnessed most of this. Your little "safe " place that you persistently campaign for is actually not very safe...and yet you would have us all desert the SSPX because of your ....assumptions...

Carol-

Lefebvre said the deal he signed would have sunk the SSPX, and after he realized the Romans were negotiating in bad faith, he ceased attempting practical arrangements, and kept the conversation at the doctrinal level, refusing any accord until Rome returned to Tradition.

As for me making assumptions, hardly. I wrote a 400 page book filled with examples of compromises and contradictions compared to former SSPX positions, most of which was supported by citations from the SSPX’s own websites.

As regards queers and pedophiles in the Resistance (and by Resistance I only include those aligned to the bishops), someone shilling for the SSPX ought to be the last one casting stones, given the glass house you’re living in.

Williamson will have to answer for Abraham if anything ever happens there, and I’d not be going to his venues. Not sure who else you might be referencing with your unsupported litany of anonymous violators, but even if there were thousands of pedos and queers in the Resistance, it still wouldn’t change the fact that the SSPX is captured, infiltrated, and sunk (and betrayed by those who should have defended it).

Sean, my two main points were: (1) Bishop Fellay only did what Archbishop Lefebvre tried to do. Under Benedict they thought the time was more favourable to give it another go. It turned out not to be the case. At least though the spirit of wanting to work with the Church is there. That is a good thing. That is a Catholic thing. (2) You want the faithful to step out of the alleged frying pan into the fire so to speak. You harp on and on at how the SSPX is betraying Archbishop Lefebvre's legacy and then in the same breath encourage all the faithful to leave their traditional parishes and their traditional schools for a fringe group who can offer them nothing but the cultivation of "we will not serve" against the Papacy (like the early Protestants) and clergy who, for all their talk of "holding the line" are as liberal in their thinking and actions as our conciliar priests and bishops.
Yes, there is a serious element of that within the SSPX hierarchy (and they need to be made accountable), but leaving the Society - and all the structure it offers for our children - for an unstructured and more concentrated version of that same problem is NOT the answer. You have been played. You clearly take your faith very seriously and are willing to speak out against injustices and errors when you see them. And I applaud that. But you are exactly the type that the Resistance was set up to capture. Someone in the SSPX wanted all the militant types out. And Bishop Williamson worked perfectly as the Pied Piper.

Hi Mary-

I simply present the facts to reveal the ongoing deception. What you do with them is up to you.

Sean, You miss the point that Mary and myself have made, there is no plan B for those loyal to the SSPX. The so-called 'Resistance' leads to what? What's the end game? Williamson is not in negotiation with Rome. You are not recognised as representing anyone within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church. So simply because a little die-hard band of rebels believe, (whatever it is, it believes)- Books have been written in an attempt to justify your position. Frankly, the situation reminds me of the conflict of Northern Ireland- nothing can be achieved, until both parties sit down and negotiate. Rome recognises the legitimacy of the SSPX. It does not recognise 'The Resistance', aka 'The Real IRA.' So. again, what is the END GAME of the resistance?

Sean, Being in the 'wrecking ball' resistance, one has to have some sort of resemblance of a rationale, that's a given. However, from my viewpoint, any resistance rationale is a layer of argument that detracts from the fragility of Williamsons character. Personally, I had thought more highly of him, had he remained within the SSPX structure and argued his case in a more manly, and shepherd like manner instead of 'heading for the hills.'