What are your thoughts on this clip of Bishop Williamson giving the FSSP the benefit of the doubt because they were “trying to be Catholic”? I feel like it’s contradictory to what Lefebvre and Williamson said in the past about the Fraternity and other Rome-approved groups.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_1_I6HWhTOI

Giving something the 'benefit of the doubt' means that you're not going to condemn them.  It does NOT mean you approve of them.

Right ... it just means you assume lack of culpability on their part in the internal forum, which we should do in all cases anyway unless there's evidence to the contrary.

And opinions do change with time as more knowledge and wisdom are gained. To not change except in dogmatic matters would be a great act of hubris.

And please notice that Msgr. Williamson is neither agreeing with the position and path of the FSSP nor is he approving them. He is acknowledging that they made a prudential decision consonant with their knowledge and wisdom at the time.

Correct.  At the time, in 1988, +ABL's actions of consecrating bishops against new-rome's approval was unique and ground-breaking.  (But then, V2 was unique and ground-breaking as well).  At the time, in 1988, the FSSP thought they were doing right, by sticking with new-rome and JP2. 

As the old saying goes:  "Desperate times (i.e. V2/new mass) call for desperate measures (ABL's consecration of new bishops to save Tradition)."

But can we say, after Francis' papacy, after seeing the end of JP2's papacy and the "results" of 50 years of V2...can we still say that FSSP made the right decision, to stick with new-rome.  I don't see how.  They have chosen Traditional liturgy, but have forsaken the Traditional doctrines.  

Doctrine > Liturgy.  This the true Traditionalist stance.  This is the choice all the English catholics had to make, in the face of Anglican martydom.  The FSSP is not Traditional.

Having been to just about every TLM in my area of the Midwest I was surprised that the FSSP were
the most conservative and pretty much sede in that they don't display a picture of Bergoglio, have never mentioned his name once and barely said anything when Ratzinger died.
Of course this is going to vary from church to church.

What do you mean "most conservative"?  Obviously, you're referring only to outward appearances of the laymen, or reverence of the liturgy, or the priest's sermon, etc.  This is all surface-level stuff.  Doctrinally, they hold (per the FSSP website) the principles of V2 and also use new-rite sacraments.  God cares more about doctrine than surface-level stuff.

The orthodox liturgy/church can also appear "conservative" but they're heretics.  The FSSP are material heretics, at best.  Formal heretics, at worst.

Nope, you don't know that..unless you're St Peter. I've listened to all the pro and cons of every position
that is attempting to maintain the traditional Catholic faith in these chaotic times and the fact is nobody
knows what the right path is with absolutely certainty. Not Lefebvre, Sanborn, Williamson, the Diamonds,
the FSSP, SSPX, You, Me and everybody else reading this.
If someone like Fr Hesse couldn't figure it out with his immense knowledge of canon law how do you expect some lay person just trying to humbly practice their faith?

Yes, we do know the right path, which is based on doctrine.  You're making the error of defining the right path according to "view of the crisis", i.e. sspx vs sede.  That's too granular.

The high-level view of the crisis is known with certainty. 

Major categories:  Traditionalists vs Non-Traditionalists.  ...Orthodox vs non-orthodox.  Pre-Vatican 2 vs Vatican 2.  ...+Lefebvre vs FSSP.  ...True Mass vs new mass.
--  The differences between the above are essential and substantial differences.  They disagree on doctrine.


Minor differences:  Lefebvre vs Sanborn.  ...Diamonds vs Sanborn.  ...Sede vs non-sede.  ...classic sspx vs Sede.
--  The differences between these groups is minor and non-essential.  Because all are "Traditionalists" and they reject V2 and the new mass.  They all agree on doctrine.

If you want to argue that the FSSP/Indult is somewhere between the Major and Minor, then i'd agree.  But their acceptance of V2's doctrines/ecclessiology is a substantial difference from Trad groups, even if they hold the pre-V2 liturgy.

As I said before.  Doctrine > Liturgy.

Here is a picture of an FSSP parish in France in the Palm Sunday procession, from Wikipedia. They don't look conservative to me at all. All the women in pants, with none of them wearing veils. They have a dog sitting there watching the procession (?!!!). Everyone looks bored. Not one person has their hands folded in prayer.

Yes, we do know the right path, which is based on doctrine.  You're making the error of defining the right path according to "view of the crisis", i.e. sspx vs sede.  That's too granular.

The high-level view of the crisis is known with certainty. 

Major categories:  Traditionalists vs Non-Traditionalists.  ...Orthodox vs non-orthodox.  Pre-Vatican 2 vs Vatican 2.  ...+Lefebvre vs FSSP.  ...True Mass vs new mass.
--  The differences between the above are essential and substantial differences.  They disagree on doctrine.


Minor differences:  Lefebvre vs Sanborn.  ...Diamonds vs Sanborn.  ...Sede vs non-sede.  ...classic sspx vs Sede.
--  The differences between these groups is minor and non-essential.  Because all are "Traditionalists" and they reject V2 and the new mass.  They all agree on doctrine.

If you want to argue that the FSSP/Indult is somewhere between the Major and Minor, then i'd agree.  But their acceptance of V2's doctrines/ecclessiology is a substantial difference from Trad groups, even if they hold the pre-V2 liturgy.

As I said before.  Doctrine > Liturgy.

You summarized that well but I would add that charity is more likely to open the gates of heaven than having a perfect knowledge of doctrine. I think that's something we tend to overlook because we have had to defend doctrine and the liturgy from the very church that is supposed to uphold it. 

We know that FSSP come under the bishop of dioceses.  Rotten