Call me what you will, but in MY book that is NOT FAIR.

That chapel was started by Abp. Lefebvre and his group, and they did all the work building it up. THEY should get to keep it. If someone with a personal opinion (anti-Sede, choice of Missale, opinion on what to do about annulments during the Crisis, etc.) they are always free to leave -- and start over. The burden should be on THEM with the picky opinions.

I have the same question. Any doubt surrounding SSPV sacraments?

You've obviously heard their arguments first. There's a very sane and reasonable answer to all those objections.

A superior general can't have chaos in the organization. Imagine if some SSPX chapels had the 1962 Missal and others used different older versions. And then, let's say you're happy with the version used at your chapel -- then a new priest moves in! Now the chapel changes what version is used. It would be chaos.

And the annulments issue touches on the Crisis in the Church. If we don't respect the Marriage Tribunals of the Catholic Church, then whose Marriage Tribunals DO we respect? Because life goes on, including marriage (and marriage problems), during the Crisis in the Church. Humans are still humans. Humans are as fallible and slipshod as they come. Anything involving humans is GOING to have problems.

It's not the job of a priest at a Trad chapel to play God. It's his job to shepherd this particular lost flock (sheep without a shepherd), bringing them the Mass and sacraments. But it's the responsibility of EACH INDIVIDUAL where they will go to Mass, what Missal they insist on, whether they're in the state of grace and fit to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, etc. But some priests put additional burdens on would-be communicants. See the problem?

God is God. He can take care of Himself. He doesn't need us to "protect Him", or withhold communion from this or that Trad Catholic. The Church is clear on this matter: unless a would-be communicant is a *public sinner*, the priest is to administer Communion. As for preventing sacrileges to this Holy Sacrament, public sinners are the only low-hanging fruit we're allowed to "pick" as it were. For the rest, God has decided that it will be on the conscience of each communicant. Read St. Paul -- he speaks about this very topic. 1 Corinthians chapter 11


  27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.  28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord

While I agree with Matthew that what the Nine did to ABL was nefarious, I can't help but notice that certain Resistance locations are following in the footsteps of the Nine when it comes to their fight against the SSPX on the topics of the liturgical books, tradcuмenism with sedevacantism, and civil lawsuits.

No need to guess.

"The overwhelming majority of lay members in each place supported our stand against Abp. Lefebvre and his organization."
https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf

I don't know and maybe, somehow I completely missed this back in the day, but because it sounds like a lie to me, I would have to see this "general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation." 

I know of at least one annulment a long time ago, maybe 20-30 years ago or so that was investigated, I do not know what the outcome was.