If the SSPX ever consecrates more bishops +ABL style, without Papal mandate, they will be the WORLD'S WORST hypocrites. Up there with jet-setting across the world in a private plane to an Environmental conference where they talk about Zero Carbon and so forth. Or hosting a weight loss seminar at an All You Can Eat buffet. Complete hypocrisy.
They came out against the consecration of the first Resistance bishop, +Faure, and possibly the others as well.
You can't be AGAINST some "consecrations for the sake of Tradition, without papal mandate" but be FOR other "consecrations for the sake of Tradition, without papal mandate". And no, just because one set of bishops represents a group worth billions of dollars does NOT make it different. At all.
And no, there's no "first dibs", "winner take all", or "King of the Hill" when it comes to State of Necessity justification for consecrating a bishop without papal mandate. If it's OK for ONE to do it, it's OK for ALL to do it.
Consecrating a bishop without papal mandate, because of the Crisis in the Church is fundamentally the same whoever is doing it. Even bishops with almost no fame or followers, like Bp. Slupski (RIP) -- if they consecrate a bishop because they want to make sure Tradition continues, it's the EXACT SAME THING as +ABL doing it for his large organization (SSPX) to great media controversy and fame/infamy.
Accidentals like "how many Faithful does he serve", "how rich is he", "how famous is he", "can he grow a beard", and "how tall is he" make NO difference at all to the fundamental reality of the situation.