SSPX Resistance

[Larry]

As time passes I think the "resistance" increasingly resembles a cultist sect. We even hear various priests who identify with the movement now telling their followers to not go to "neo-SSPX Masses". What possible justification can they conjure up for that?

What's a fella to do, right?  Find a "Resistance" priest in the nearest state and go once a year?

I've been listening to them on these various Web Sites that have been set up.  But what more can I do, really.

We just showed up at our local SSPX Chapel - Only to find out after narrowly escaping the Vatican II sect with our very lives,

we now must join the "Resestance" and seek refuge elsewhere.  Does it ever end? 

I mean, it is what it is.  And that's fine. We'll follow Christ wherever He goes.

We just want to fulfill our obligations as Catholics and avoid hell.  We can't do that in the SSPX?

The Vatican II people here locally sure say Hell No!   And now the "Resistance" is saying the same thing...

God help us...

Even if you hold to the principles of the Resistance movement in the SSPX, you can receive the Sacraments worthily in any SSPX chapel, or wherever there is a Traditional Mass or Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy celebrated validly. If anyone says you MUST go to a resistance Mass and have to avoid other means of receiving the Sacraments, I wouldn't listen to them.

[RbM]

Sooner or later the SSPX will have to be given the left foot of fellowship once and for all - and then what? No more riding the fence..

I think that has pretty much happened already. Bishop Fellay was prepared to sign a deal, but the Vatican slammed the door in his face -- pretty much literally -- when he went to Rome last June. So for now, at least, that is over.

Ocean liners don't turn on a dime, and so it will take some time for the SSPX to change their approach after a decade of conciliation, but the recent speech by Bishop Fellay seems to be a very strong indicator that the tide has turned. Looks like the SSPX will soon be back to "no more Mr. Nice Guy."

Everyone who takes their cue from Bishop Fellay will soon be giving sermons on how Francis is a modernist. That will be quite a sea change from a year ago when the Angelus Press Conference featured "The Papacy," and the literature had photos of Benedict surrounded by a halo of divine light with adoring throngs behind him.

Seems that I'm just now seeing your response here.  Slipped by somehow.


Yea, The SSPX was touting the Papacy of Benedict XVI as Rome going Tradition, and good reason for the Society to peruse an agreement.

Word was it's not 1988 anymore.  Well, there were right - It's not 1988 anymore.  It's not 2012 either - It's 2013.  What a difference a Gay makes...

[RbM]

You have said some rather profound things here. 

The solution will come only through Grace.
What nave are you attempting to enter, friend?
Are you working on getting in the Vatican II Church - converting from Orthodoxy?
Could you please talk about this some more...

Friend, anything that sounded profound is my parroting someone i've read or heard.  I've learned not to trust my own  opinion. That is the problem with criticizing the Vatican II documents.  Abp Lefebver said they must be interpreted in light of Tradition.  Now the SSPX says they can't be interpreted in the light of Tradition.  Until there is an infallible pronouncement from the pope or future ecumenical council, we have only opinions.  Was it the Vatican II documents that destroyed the church, or was it removal of divine protection?  Or both?  It's debatable. 

In the Orthodox Church catechumens are traditionally not allowed beyond the narthex.  I don't know if this is still practiced in traditional latin churches or not, it was just an expression.  My hope is to be accepted into the RC church, and from there i will probably make the commute to attend a TLM, at least part of the time.

Thanks for the reply.  You bring a unique perspective to say the least, ok.

A question I would have for you would be why you don't seek acceptance into the SSPX ?  Is this a possibility for someone as yourself?  Can one "Join the Catholic Church" by joining the SSPX ???


Vatican II Douuments:

Futhermore - You say:    "Abp Lefebver said they must be interpreted in light of Tradition."  What did the Arch-Bishop mean by this?  Could you place this quote in context for me, please.

You then go on to say:  "Now the SSPX says they can't be interpreted in the light of Tradition."   Really?  Just where is the problem here as you see it. 

I thought the "Resistance" was forming because the SSPX leaders were now saying what you say the Arch-Bishop said himself? 

When did the SSPX go wrong?  And why is the "Resistance" taking shape today? As you see it...


Bishop Fellay says the NO Mass is evil.  Do you intent to attend one yourself in the future as a Catholic?

The Vatican II approved "Latin" Mass.  Is this what you wish to do?   What is the TLM Mass to you?

"At least part of the time", you say..   "Part time Catholic" ?


What do you intend to do as your Sunday obligation?   


You have a very interesting take on Mary and Her involvement in the Vatican II at Fatima.


I've always said that Vatican II was the Judgement of God.

Tell us more of what you really believe.  Especially about Mary.  Why are you becoming Catholic, sir?

What did Mary have to do with this...

I'm converting to Catholicism because i believe the Orthodox are schismatics.  But you understand, the Orthodox teach that the Catholics are schismatics.  I had to make an educated guess, along with some divine guidance.     
I think you see the SSPX and the RC Church  and the "resistance" as different churches, but i believe they see each other as the same Catholic church, in varying degrees of heresy or schism.   So you will have to make an educated guess, or receive divine guidance as to where you will attend mass, i think it is possible to get to heaven in either, but one or the other may be more "signally favored" (a new expression i've learned).  As i said earlier, i'm converting to the Roman Catholic Church, warts and all.   Hopefully things will become more clear as the Holy Ghost begins the purge we all feel coming.  It's not much, but i hope it helps.   
As far as the Blessed Mother and Fatima, Fr Nicholas Gruner is probably the best source of interpretation, along with the late Fr Malachi Martin.

Hey, Thanks so much for your input around here.  I appreciate it, really.


It seems that the the Traditionalists see the Vatican II sect as false because of the NO mass.


The "Resistance" sees the SSPX as compromised because of their acceptance of the NO mass as valid but evil in some way.

(That's why I was surprised when you attributed the proper interpretation of the Vatican II documents "to be done in light of tradition"

to the Arch-Bishop, when I though that he had always rejected them outright from the get go...)


While the RC Church sees the SSPX as schismatic at best; the members of the Vatican II sect by and large could care less about

the SSPX and don't know anything about them.


I've found that Religious, or those who have "apostolates" of varying sorts within the Vatican II sect are especially impatient in discussing

the SSPX and its standing within the RC Church.  They don't like the idea that they even exist and don't want them to.  It's kind of a turf war kind of thing.

To give the SSPX your attention is a mortal crime to them, much less to have any sort of fellowship with them.


But your take on Mary and Her involvement in all of this is especially intriguing to me, as one who was Rescued By Mary.

Anyway, thanks for your attention.  I look forward to learning more about how you see things as you journey along here.

RbM

[RbM]

As time passes I think the "resistance" increasingly resembles a cultist sect. We even hear various priests who identify with the movement now telling their followers to not go to "neo-SSPX Masses". What possible justification can they conjure up for that?

What's a fella to do, right?  Find a "Resistance" priest in the nearest state and go once a year?

I've been listening to them on these various Web Sites that have been set up.  But what more can I do, really.

We just showed up at our local SSPX Chapel - Only to find out after narrowly escaping the Vatican II sect with our very lives,

we now must join the "Resestance" and seek refuge elsewhere.  Does it ever end? 

I mean, it is what it is.  And that's fine. We'll follow Christ wherever He goes.

We just want to fulfill our obligations as Catholics and avoid hell.  We can't do that in the SSPX?

The Vatican II people here locally sure say Hell No!   And now the "Resistance" is saying the same thing...

God help us...

Even if you hold to the principles of the Resistance movement in the SSPX, you can receive the Sacraments worthily in any SSPX chapel, or wherever there is a Traditional Mass or Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy celebrated validly. If anyone says you MUST go to a resistance Mass and have to avoid other means of receiving the Sacraments, I wouldn't listen to them.

Thanks for jumping on my thread, Larry.

I see your point clearly.  What had me puzzled was the "Resistance" telling people not to go to SSPX masses anymore.  No mention of any other type of Mass.

They were just intent on keeping the SSPX faithful away from the poison as they see it.  And you can't blame them as this is how they see it.  They should know, right?


It seems that perhaps the "Resistance" may have jumped the gun as it were, with Bishop Fellay now seemingly returning to the old line.

Bishop Williamson was waiting to Consecrate for this very reason, don't you think?


Man, I sure hope they get this thing worked out. 

Divide and Concur - We know who's behind that...

RbM

[RbM]

Here is Michael Matt from the Remnant coming to the defense of Bishop Fellay concerning the "Resistance" that has been gaining momentum...

Wondering what the Forum thinks about these comments...






There is really no one else speaking out about the SSPX situation except maybe Mike Voris with his interviews concerning Anti-Free Masonry etc..

Just not a whole lot being said about Bishop Felly and the SSPX in the Mainstream Catholic Media or the - what is it - Alternative Catholic Media ?

Just one guy with a I-Phone camera at a motel meeting posting on his YouTube channel is all we have about what is probably the most significant

opposition to what is going on in Rome to date.  The Arch-Bishop and his Society is really the only thing that the Vatican has had to deal with in any

significant way concerning a "Catholic alternative" to what one can find in Rome over the last 40 years.  And it's brushed aside.  A missed opportunity

for the SSPX to "come back home" is the picture many of those with their Vatican II apostolates would like to paint for the rest of us.  But those in the

"Catholic Tradition" community aren't really saying much about all of this and I'm just wondering why.  What's really going on...

[Gerard]

I don't know if something new is going on with Michael Matt or whether the situation changing is just showing a different side to him but I see a problem.

Roughly, since the election of Pope Benedict, there has been what I would call a willful myopia concerning Modernists and Liberals in the Church.

A blind eye was turned on virtually everything scandalous Pope Benedict did or at least a toning down and minimalizing of the level of scandal went on. 

Bishop Williamson was completely thrown under the bus against all right reason.  The Remnant wasn't simply an observer and recorder of events but rather participated in the running down of the Bishop.

This was reiterated with a wishy washy mealy mouthed speech Matt gave at the Fatima conference called something like "There will be Martyrs" in which cowtowing and apologizing to the Jewish grievance industry for "holocaust deniers" was the order of the day.  With a joining in on the "race to victimhood" by legitimizing the grievance industry but insisting that Catholics be allowed to join. 


And of course, the most important thing concerning the SSPX is that they get canonical recognition, over and above an actual change in attitude from Rome. 

Now Matt is calling Mark Shea an excellent and orthodox Catholic since the Voris/Shea exchange at the Argument of the Month Club.  I don't have a problem with being gracious towards Shea, especially if you get along, but Shea might be a sincere and zealous Catholic but calling him orthodox is simply false. 

My own personal opinion from looking on and as a Remnant reader over the last decade plus, tells me that Matt and Ferrara both have a problem that stems from their generational positions.  They seem to look at the situation in the Church and the solutions to be part of a sixties style "movement."  And they are movers and shakers in that "movement" and they have to try and steer that "movement" to where they think that "movement" can grow in numbers.  And if you have to allow some liberalism and let some things slide in order to be attractive, show a little more leg so the boys like you, then so be it.  It's a small compromise, it can't possibly lead to larger ones. 

The whole thing have high school as its model.  Separate yourself from the unpopular kids.  (Can't be seen with them.)  Cowtow and apple-polish the teachers. (The media and grievance industry.)  And get the cool kids (mainstream neo-Catholics ) who already have an in with the staff to like you and you can get the attention of the whole student body. 

On that side you have high school as the model.  On the "Resistance" side you have the Angelic war as a model in which a complete purge is the goal. 

Do we prefer St. Michael to be our President of the Student Council or the being that completely decimates the enemy and chains the evil one in the pit forever? 

[Kaesekopf]

Gerard, you seem pretty smart.  Haven't you realized people may graduate high school, but they never leave high school?

[Gerard]

Gerard, you seem pretty smart.  Haven't you realized people may graduate high school, but they never leave high school?

By the grace of God, I was never fully "there" in High School anyway.  I vividly remember wanting nothing more than to get it out of the way from the first day till graduation.  After that, I had time to retrain myself to think and the re-education of myself began. 

But, am I imagining things or has another side of Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara been prominent? I won't say it's a flip flop in the way I believe Bishop Fellay has done, but rather an imbibing in neo-Catholic habits.

[Kaesekopf]

Gerard, you seem pretty smart.  Haven't you realized people may graduate high school, but they never leave high school?

By the grace of God, I was never fully "there" in High School anyway.  I vividly remember wanting nothing more than to get it out of the way from the first day till graduation.  After that, I had time to retrain myself to think and the re-education of myself began. 

But, am I imagining things or has another side of Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara been prominent? I won't say it's a flip flop in the way I believe Bishop Fellay has done, but rather an imbibing in neo-Catholic habits.

Honestly?  I cannot remember.  I've never subscribed much to the 'traditional Catholic print media," so whenever people talk about the Remnant or the Wanderer or Latin Mass Magazine, I just get them all confused.  Especially since they've all had a falling out in one way or another.

[RbM]

But, am I imagining things or has another side of Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara been prominent? I won't say it's a flip flop in the way I believe Bishop Fellay has done, but rather an imbibing in neo-Catholic habits.

Interesting take on things here, Gerard.  And thanks for chiming in.  You're saying that Bishop Fellay has flip-flopped in the way his "Resistance" has accused him of doing?

And that Mike Matt and Chris Ferrara have done so also?  Everyone kind of 'imbibing' the spirit of neo-II ?

I don't know if something new is going on with Michael Matt or whether the situation changing is just showing a different side to him but I see a problem.

Roughly, since the election of Pope Benedict, there has been what I would call a willful myopia concerning Modernists and Liberals in the Church.

A blind eye was turned on virtually everything scandalous Pope Benedict did or at least a toning down and minimalizing of the level of scandal went on. 

Bishop Williamson was completely thrown under the bus against all right reason.  The Remnant wasn't simply an observer and recorder of events but rather participated in the running down of the Bishop.

This was reiterated with a wishy washy mealy mouthed speech Matt gave at the Fatima conference called something like "There will be Martyrs" in which cowtowing and apologizing to the Jewish grievance industry for "holocaust deniers" was the order of the day.  With a joining in on the "race to victimhood" by legitimizing the grievance industry but insisting that Catholics be allowed to join. 


And of course, the most important thing concerning the SSPX is that they get canonical recognition, over and above an actual change in attitude from Rome. 

Now Matt is calling Mark Shea an excellent and orthodox Catholic since the Voris/Shea exchange at the Argument of the Month Club.  I don't have a problem with being gracious towards Shea, especially if you get along, but Shea might be a sincere and zealous Catholic but calling him orthodox is simply false. 

My own personal opinion from looking on and as a Remnant reader over the last decade plus, tells me that Matt and Ferrara both have a problem that stems from their generational positions.  They seem to look at the situation in the Church and the solutions to be part of a sixties style "movement."  And they are movers and shakers in that "movement" and they have to try and steer that "movement" to where they think that "movement" can grow in numbers.  And if you have to allow some liberalism and let some things slide in order to be attractive, show a little more leg so the boys like you, then so be it.  It's a small compromise, it can't possibly lead to larger ones. 

The whole thing have high school as its model.  Separate yourself from the unpopular kids.  (Can't be seen with them.)  Cowtow and apple-polish the teachers. (The media and grievance industry.)  And get the cool kids (mainstream neo-Catholics ) who already have an in with the staff to like you and you can get the attention of the whole student body. 

On that side you have high school as the model.  On the "Resistance" side you have the Angelic war as a model in which a complete purge is the goal. 

Do we prefer St. Michael to be our President of the Student Council or the being that completely decimates the enemy and chains the evil one in the pit forever? 

So with the advent of Benedict XVI everybody developed a, "willful myopia concerning Modernists and Liberals in the Church' as you say...

Bishop Williamson goes under the bus and now, "the most important thing concerning the SSPX is that they get canonical recognition" still holds the day...?


Where are things going as you see it, Gerard?  Do you support the "Resistance"?

Thanks again...


P.S.  It seems that Voris can't help but criticize the Pope just about every time he opens his mouth but will never admit it. Or is it just me?

[Gerard]

Right after the election of BXVI, John Vennari gave a strong talk saying that because of his traditional aesthetic sensibilities and his modernist influenced mind, BXVI was going to potentially split the traditionalist camp.

That seems to have happened, because there are traditionalists that don't mind the idea of being allowed to exist and thrive on their own and be treated with respect, and there are traditionalists that are interested more in actually fighting the errors that are causing the troubles and winning back the souls as well as the parishes and churches. 

I remember some friends at my SSPX wanted nothing more than to live and die with the chapel and wanted nothing to do with the diocese.  I, on the other hand always viewed the chapels as refugee camps that are not proper of themselves but only temporary stations while the battle to drive out the invaders, win the faithful back and reclaim the buildings, parishes and episcopal sees from the modernists. 

But Ferrara and Matt have had a strange selective criticism of BXVI, they would never have gone after him like Guimareas or Vennari did by looking at the man's books and not expecting a big change when he became Pope. 

My guess is Bishop Williamson will be martyred one way or the other, probably white but I wouldn't rule out red martyrdom and it might not be known to us until we pass through judgement. But he'll have done the work God wanted him to do before that time.  I personally believe our Lord has determined that he's a pivotal player in this whole crisis and history will show him to have done critical work for the Church.   

The "resistance" may take off or it may sputter out.  It may be "reconciled" with the SSPX if there is some unforeseen change there.   I don't know how God has determined He wants to pull things out.  Francis might provoke some real conversions as an antidote to his "style" and they might be surprising ones.  God may set him and archbishop Muller against each other and one of them may wind up doing something completely and wonderfully orthodox despite their best efforts. 

Do you have any specific examples of Voris taking aim at the Pope directly or is he just letting people connect the dots themselves? 

[RbM]

Right after the election of BXVI, John Vennari gave a strong talk saying that because of his traditional aesthetic sensibilities and his modernist influenced mind, BXVI was going to potentially split the traditionalist camp.

That seems to have happened, because there are traditionalists that don't mind the idea of being allowed to exist and thrive on their own and be treated with respect, and there are traditionalists that are interested more in actually fighting the errors that are causing the troubles and winning back the souls as well as the parishes and churches. 

I remember some friends at my SSPX wanted nothing more than to live and die with the chapel and wanted nothing to do with the diocese.  I, on the other hand always viewed the chapels as refugee camps that are not proper of themselves but only temporary stations while the battle to drive out the invaders, win the faithful back and reclaim the buildings, parishes and episcopal sees from the modernists. 

But Ferrara and Matt have had a strange selective criticism of BXVI, they would never have gone after him like Guimareas or Vennari did by looking at the man's books and not expecting a big change when he became Pope. 

My guess is Bishop Williamson will be martyred one way or the other, probably white but I wouldn't rule out red martyrdom and it might not be known to us until we pass through judgement. But he'll have done the work God wanted him to do before that time.  I personally believe our Lord has determined that he's a pivotal player in this whole crisis and history will show him to have done critical work for the Church.   

The "resistance" may take off or it may sputter out.  It may be "reconciled" with the SSPX if there is some unforeseen change there.   I don't know how God has determined He wants to pull things out.  Francis might provoke some real conversions as an antidote to his "style" and they might be surprising ones.  God may set him and archbishop Muller against each other and one of them may wind up doing something completely and wonderfully orthodox despite their best efforts. 

Do you have any specific examples of Voris taking aim at the Pope directly or is he just letting people connect the dots themselves?

I need to think more about all of this you have said here.

Yea, Bishop Williamson is solely responsible for preventing the deal with Rome by choosing to make his comment about the Holocaust.  He knew exactly what he was doing. 

Sacrificing himself for the good of the Society.  Think about it.  That comment assured a slam-dunk for those in Rome to stop any agreement. 


Voris' criticism of what is happening in the Church is a criticism of the Pope in that he agrees with everything Voris is exposing as a problem, although Voris

never comes out and admits this.  He will never openly criticize a sitting Pope as I have been told by my daughter who knows about Mike...  Mike doesn't reveal any dots to connect...

[Gerard]

Yea, Bishop Williamson is solely responsible for preventing the deal with Rome by choosing to make his comment about the Holocaust.  He knew exactly what he was doing.

No deal was on the table, no excommunications had been lifted at the time of his answering a question honestly.  He knew what he was doing in so far as answering the question he was asked in a straightforward way.  He figured out he was being set up when that question popped up after an hour long interview. (the rest of which we unfortunately have never been able to see, I bet it was good. )

I would say our Lord used the phony hysteria drummed up by the media using that question to  expose Fellay's weakness and set the secular allies of the modernists against the modernists in the Church. 

BXVI did not want the SSPX incorporated into the structure of the Church to help roll back Vatican II. He wanted them to abandon the faith as formulated prior to the Council and adopt his thinking and keep some of the smells and bells. 

The enemies of the Church did not want the SSPX incorporated into the Church because they know that the faith is their enemy and they viewed any agreement as a giving of ground knowing that watered down Catholicism will not stand against "the fullness of the faith" to use a neo-Catholic term.

Sacrificing himself for the good of the Society.  Think about it.  That comment assured a slam-dunk for those in Rome to stop any agreement.

I wish that were the case.  But Fellay exposed himself as weak when he initially treated Williamson's comments as no big deal and then succumbed and silenced him and made threats about him and went on and on denouncing anti-Semitism instead of pointing out that it was irrelevant and Williamson is not an anti-semite. 

The fact that Williamson did not bend nor break made the enemies of the Church and their knowing and unknowing aids from within realize that Fellay was the weak one and Williamson the strong and they used Fellay to disable Williamson as much as possible and create chaos in the SSPX. 

It was the SSPX that cracked because of the Judas Complex being alive and well among the leaders of the SSPX. 

With Williamson out of the way, a weakened SSPX was ripe for plucking by Rome except that Williamson's influence and the lessons of the Archbishop were not lost on the laity nor all of the clergy. 

Probably without knowing it, Williamson had dug himself into the fibre of the SSPX with consistent sermons and interviews pointing out the gamesmanship of Rome and how there simply was no evidence that they should be trusted.  And Williamson was right. 

Unfortunately people being mesmerized by seeing Pope Pius IX's crozier being used made them turn a blind eye  or at least tamp down their criticism of new Assisi meetings, the loss of the papal Tiara in the coat of arms, the dropping of the title "Patriarch of the West."  More bizarre appointments, and some really weird stuff that went on. 

Voris' criticism of what is happening in the Church is a criticism of the Pope in that he agrees with everything Voris is exposing as a problem, although Voris

never comes out and admits this.  He will never openly criticize a sitting Pope as I have been told by my daughter who knows about Mike...  Mike doesn't reveal any dots to connect...

I didn't think so and that's been my only real complaint about Voris is the concealment of the source of the problem.  The buck stops anywhere but where Jesus intended it to stop. 

I remember when the conclave was going on and Cardinals, bishops and priests were being interviewed by the media.  The only question I wanted to ask one of them on camera was, "If it's a bad choice, will you tell us?" 

it's like the opposite of Spiderman, "With great power comes no responsibility."

[RbM]

Yea, Bishop Williamson is solely responsible for preventing the deal with Rome by choosing to make his comment about the Holocaust.  He knew exactly what he was doing.

No deal was on the table, no excommunications had been lifted at the time of his answering a question honestly.  He knew what he was doing in so far as answering the question he was asked in a straightforward way.  He figured out he was being set up when that question popped up after an hour long interview. (the rest of which we unfortunately have never been able to see, I bet it was good. )

I would say our Lord used the phony hysteria drummed up by the media using that question to  expose Fellay's weakness and set the secular allies of the modernists against the modernists in the Church. 

BXVI did not want the SSPX incorporated into the structure of the Church to help roll back Vatican II. He wanted them to abandon the faith as formulated prior to the Council and adopt his thinking and keep some of the smells and bells. 

The enemies of the Church did not want the SSPX incorporated into the Church because they know that the faith is their enemy and they viewed any agreement as a giving of ground knowing that watered down Catholicism will not stand against "the fullness of the faith" to use a neo-Catholic term.

Sacrificing himself for the good of the Society.  Think about it.  That comment assured a slam-dunk for those in Rome to stop any agreement.

I wish that were the case.  But Fellay exposed himself as weak when he initially treated Williamson's comments as no big deal and then succumbed and silenced him and made threats about him and went on and on denouncing anti-Semitism instead of pointing out that it was irrelevant and Williamson is not an anti-semite. 

The fact that Williamson did not bend nor break made the enemies of the Church and their knowing and unknowing aids from within realize that Fellay was the weak one and Williamson the strong and they used Fellay to disable Williamson as much as possible and create chaos in the SSPX. 

It was the SSPX that cracked because of the Judas Complex being alive and well among the leaders of the SSPX. 

With Williamson out of the way, a weakened SSPX was ripe for plucking by Rome except that Williamson's influence and the lessons of the Archbishop were not lost on the laity nor all of the clergy. 

Probably without knowing it, Williamson had dug himself into the fibre of the SSPX with consistent sermons and interviews pointing out the gamesmanship of Rome and how there simply was no evidence that they should be trusted.  And Williamson was right. 

Unfortunately people being mesmerized by seeing Pope Pius IX's crozier being used made them turn a blind eye  or at least tamp down their criticism of new Assisi meetings, the loss of the papal Tiara in the coat of arms, the dropping of the title "Patriarch of the West."  More bizarre appointments, and some really weird stuff that went on. 

Voris' criticism of what is happening in the Church is a criticism of the Pope in that he agrees with everything Voris is exposing as a problem, although Voris

never comes out and admits this.  He will never openly criticize a sitting Pope as I have been told by my daughter who knows about Mike...  Mike doesn't reveal any dots to connect...

I didn't think so and that's been my only real complaint about Voris is the concealment of the source of the problem.  The buck stops anywhere but where Jesus intended it to stop. 

I remember when the conclave was going on and Cardinals, bishops and priests were being interviewed by the media.  The only question I wanted to ask one of them on camera was, "If it's a bad choice, will you tell us?" 

it's like the opposite of Spiderman, "With great power comes no responsibility."

I was just saying that I thought that Bishop Williamson told the truth in the interview knowing that it wouldn't go good for him or the deal in Rome.  Sure, there was no deal on the table at the

time, but it was in the works behind the scenes, right?  Bishop Williamson would have been against it all along, for sure.   He stood his ground and didn't compromise on his convictions knowing full

well what would be in store for him "back home"... 

Bishop Fellay says he's glad no deal was reached.  What does he have to thank for that?

Hmm...

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

As time passes I think the "resistance" increasingly resembles a cultist sect. We even hear various priests who identify with the movement now telling their followers to not go to "neo-SSPX Masses". What possible justification can they conjure up for that?

There are SSPX priests who tell people not to attend Resistance Masses. There's even one who says the Resistance and their supporters are going to hell.