Your first paragraph implies that placing oneself under modernist authorities is not harmful to the faith.  Yes, we would fundamentally disagree on that point.

Your second paragraph exposes the difference between accordist SSPX priests (such as the one mentioned), and the Seven Deans (and allied congregations who also signed on to the letter.

In both instances, I would ask you to now reflect on whose position -yours or mine; accordist or resistance- better reflects Lefebvre's post-1988 position.

This perspective overlooks the fact that the willingness to subject oneself to uncatholic authority is already a concession, and danger to the faith:

"And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which have spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?

-Letter of the Three Bishops to the General Counsel

If the devil wants to give me soup, and soup is in itself good, and the devil requires nothing more of me that that I request the soup from him, do I endanger my soul by making this request of the devil?

But, but soup is good!

Hi Trento-

I didn't expect to convince you.  Just wanted to show you how your faction has departed from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

I realize you think that's justified (i.e., you drank +Fellay's KoolAid), and are perfectly content to ignore the founder in deference to his unfaithful successor.

At least you have the honesty to admit your departure (unlike most of your colleagues/side).

Like Fr. Barrielle warned: Religious congregations last about 40 years before they go astray, and require a reform movement to return to fidelity,

You are the former; we are the latter.

This about says it all.  This is precisely what's going on, where the "Tradle" crads no longer feel that there's a battle between Tradition and Modernism, the Modern world.

Those priests who knew what the battle was about, from the trenches and the front lines, as the Conciliar Revolution rolled out ... those are starting to die off, leaving with us those who not only have no clue but who are being boiled in the pot like the proverbial frogs.  Most of these Tradle Crads are simply Modernists who prefer the smells and bells.

How else do you get the book of Modernis Heretic Fr. Paul Robinson actively promoted by the SSPX?

I will not go into the subjective point of view of individual laity whom you termed the "SSPX couple" (note - there is no such thing) but will only argue what can be objectively known.

Between 1970 and 1975, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X who had to celebrate a wedding ordinarily asked for and received the necessary delegation from the local pastor. From 1975 on, after the alleged “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X, this delegation was usually denied the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (except by a few priest friends) under the false pretense that their status in the Church was irregular.
......

Nevertheless, as its name indicates, the “extraordinary form” is outside of the ordinary; it can not become ordinary. It can exist only in the case where the “ordinary form” is not possible. Canon 1094, which deals with the “ordinary form”, is an “absolute” canon, which begins quite clearly: “Only those marriages are valid....” Canon 1098, about the “extraordinary form”, is only a “conditional” canon, which starts: “If...cannot,” and includes still more restrictions, such as “provided it is prudently foreseen....” The absolute and unconditional norm of marriage is therefore the “ordinary form”, whereas the “extraordinary form” is only exceptional, relative, and occasional.
......

The fourth objection insists that agreeing to make use of Cardinal Müller’s Letter would ipso facto be tantamount to putting marriages according to the traditional rite into the hands of the bishops and of the Roman Curia (fierce enemies of Tradition), since these marriages would henceforth depend on the permission that they would grant...or not. This objection would be pertinent only if the Society of St. Pius X absolutely and definitively renounced the usage of the “extraordinary form”. But there are no plans whatsoever to do that. The grave state of necessity created by the crisis in the Church remains more valid than ever, and without any possible doubt it authorizes recourse, if necessary, to the “extraordinary form”. What Cardinal Müller’s letter accomplishes therefore is not a restriction of the possibilities, but rather the addition of the possibility of the “ordinary form”. And since in some cases the use of this “ordinary form” will prove to be difficult or impossible, recourse to the “extraordinary form” will remain perfectly justified. The bishops therefore will not be able to “blackmail” the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its marriages, inasmuch as an unjustified refusal of a delegation, in addition to other objective circuмstances, would altogether authorize the use of the “extraordinary form”, as has been so until now.
.........

The seventh objection assumes that agreeing to marry according to the “ordinary form” while requesting delegation would be a failure to profess the Faith publicly and to criticize the errors of Vatican II. In effect, the state of separation, contradiction, and conflict between Tradition and the “conciliar” Church, manifested by the canonical sanctions and the refusal of the official authorities of the Church to grant to the Society of St. Pius X what would be just and normal (for example jurisdiction, delegation for marriages, etc.), is like a “catechism in pictures” of the crisis in the Church. Upright souls who are seeking the truth, upon observing that the Society of St. Pius X is persecuted while adhering to what the Catholic Church has always taught and done, are led to think correctly that the official authorities of the Church are in error. By marrying according to the “ordinary form” thanks to a delegation received from an “official” bishop, the Society of St. Pius X would weaken in its battle against the errors of Vatican II.

This objection confuses the reality of the radical opposition between the Catholic Faith and the errors of conciliar liberalism with certain concrete situations that may accidentally manifest it. In the 1970’s, Tradition had taken refuge in makeshift shelters; then, in most localities, they bought or built a church: is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith grew lukewarm as a result? When a priest of the Society of St. Pius X requests the use of a shrine for a pilgrimage, is anyone going to say that the battle for the Faith is diminished if he obtains permission, as compared with a refusal to grant it? When Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges that the old rite was never abolished, is anyone going to say that the defense of the traditional liturgy by the Society of St. Pius X and the heroic resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre to preserve it are discredited as a result? And so on.

........

The context you used to generalize on the matter of delegation wasn't an "if else" scenario. I would be convinced by your arguments if you could show me a case where the SSPX did not receive the delegation with an objectively good reason and still refused to proceed with the extraordinary form.