This is an excerpt from the latest Miles Christi posted by Matthew:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-fr-chazal's-newsletter-for-the-sspx-resistance-in-asia-mcspx/msg928307/?topicseen#msg928307

Can anyone enlighten us on the reported recent split among the followers of Bishop Dolan (God rest his soul)?

I guess it relates to this comment which comes later in Fr Chazal's bulletin which I don't entirely understand:

As I write these lines, Bishop Sanborn is even
putting into question the validity of Novus Ordo baptisms (to undercut the
validity of the episcopal line of his Dolanist confrere Bishop Rodrigo da Silva,
who just consecrated two non-Cassiciacuм bishops, Bishop Roy and Bishop
Altamira).

How would that undercut the validity of these consecrations?

As I write these lines, another split has occurred in the Dolanist branch of
sedevacantism, which is a splinter with the Sanbornite faction within the
McKenna branch, which is a split within the Thuc line; the Thuc line being a
split with the Mendez line, the Costa Duarte line and other lines which lines,
being non-conclavist, are split with the conclavist (pope-electing) lines of
sedevacantism. Other sedes became house churches, and some outright
schismatics, by joining the Orthodox Church.

Yet another gross mischaracterization of SVs, making it seem like there are significant numbers, even groups, becoming home-aloners and Orthodox and conclavists.  One could easily point out the splitting of the Resistance between the Pfeifferite cult and then Hewko splitting off from Pfeiffer, the bizarre nonsense regarding "Bishop" Moran, the "Bishop of Broadstairs" letter from Fr. Pfeiffer, his consecration via the Palmar-Thuc line (by a Feeneyite sedevacantist bishop), which was botched, and Bishop Williamson's response to Fr. Pfeiffer showing up at his house, Bishop Williamson's letter to Father Hewko about the Eucharistic miracles, the Resistance harboring a credibly-accused sɛҳuąƖ predator in England, Bishops Williamson's latest letter stating that Catholics can receive doubtful Sacraments when "in need" of them (without further qualification) etc. etc. etc. ... the Resistance being a much smaller movement with far fewer adherents and a much shorter history.  There aren't even many Duarte Costa types out there, just a small handful here and there.  There's also no split between the "Thuc" line and the "Mendez" line, but rather between different priests that happen to derive from those lines.

While I respect Father Chazal, I wish he would stop this puerile divisive nonsense.  He's in a position where he could reconcile somewhat with the Sedeprivationist SVs but keeps pushing them away with nonsense like this that, quite frankly, comes across as childish.

Thirdly, we don’t see him joining, or
appearing to be joining the Mater Boni Consilii Institute, or any other
sedevacantist contraption. It would be interesting to have his opinion on them.
Fourth, he still grants Francis some administrative capacity within the Cath-
olic Church, like the nomination of bishops, the running of Roman Dicasteries,
refraining to declare that the Catholic Church is bereft of a visible leadership,
even if the one sitting on the throne of Peter is an imposter and tyrant.

Uhm, the Mater Boni Consilii group and Bishop Sanborn's group also grant "some administrative capacity".  What's he talking about?

Father Chazal, please grow up and stop this divisive nonsense.  There's a lot that can be thrown back into the face of the Resistance if you want to play that game (as listed above), the same stuff that neo-SSPX regularly do use against them ... and yet rational people do not hold it against "the Resistance" because some of them split off and became crackpots.

Father Chazal, you agree with the SVs on the most core principles, that the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic institution, that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic ... so why are you being so divisive about academic disagreements, where the SVs adhere to the Bellarmine opinion while you opt for your variation on Cajetain/John of St. Thomas, with privationism on one side impoundism on the other, which should amount to a disagreement among friends who are essentially on the same side where it comes to the core principles?

Uhm, the Mater Boni Consilii group and Bishop Sanborn's group also grant "some administrative capacity".  What's he talking about?

Father Chazal, please grow up and stop this divisive nonsense.  There's a lot that can be thrown back into the face of the Resistance if you want to play that game (as listed above), the same stuff that neo-SSPX regularly do use against them ... and yet rational people do not hold it against "the Resistance" because some of them split off and became crackpots.

Father Chazal, you agree with the SVs on the most core principles, that the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic institution, that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic ... so why are you being so divisive about academic disagreements, where the SVs adhere to the Bellarmine opinion while you opt for your variation on Cajetain/John of St. Thomas, with privationism on one side impoundism on the other, which should amount to a disagreement among friends who are essentially on the same side where it comes to the core principles?

He does that to any other group not aligned with his, so it's not surprising. I'm shocked he even claimed 2 of SSPX bishops are deaf. Seriously, Father? Please substantiate your claims!

I just don't understand the point of being divisive when the differences between sedeprivationism and sedeimpoundism amount to academic hair-splitting that should not be an impediment to at least charitable recognition of the other side as a legitimate Catholic response to the crisis.  In fact, there's no reason they couldn't even cooperate more closely, since Father Chazal has agreed that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic who has no authority and that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and to harbor a negative attitude toward those who simply adopt the Bellarmine position regarding the status of Bergoglio.  Father Chazal made a big point (with which I agree) that the Church has not decided among the "5 Opinions" (though Vatican I strongly suggests the Bellarmine opinion) and says he's entitled to side with Cajetan / John of St. Thomas.  So, then, are the SVs not entitled to side with Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine?

There's absolutely no need for this division over academic trivialities that are far from settled by the Church, and it all appears to be based on "bad blood" from the past that they need to get over.  Get over this nonsense.  You have souls that need saving.

Father Chazal made a big point (with which I agree) that the Church has not decided among the "5 Opinions" (though Vatican I strongly suggests the Bellarmine opinion) and says he's entitled to side with Cajetan / John of St. Thomas.

The Church has indirectly adopted the Fifth Opinion in her teaching that a public manifest formal heretic is not a member of the Church.  A member of the Church cannot be its head.