But wasn't exactly this issue (i.e. whether all priests who come to Tradition have to be conditionally re-ordained) the controversy between the Nine and Abp. Lefebvre when Abp. Lefebvre allowed Fr. Philip Stark to function in SSPX without conditional re-ordination? So how can you claim to follow the line of Abp. Lefebvre (which is what Resistance always claims to do) when your argument against the SSPX is basically the same as one of the arguments of the Nine for abandoning SSPX?
Also, what about Fr. Perez, Fr. Sretenovic, Fr. Gruner and Fr. Hesse? Majority of people in Resistance support at least one of those priests... Abp. Felebvre was a friend of Fr. Hesse and Bp. Williamson (nor any other SSPX priest) ever warned the faithful about Fr. Gruner's supposedly doubtful sacraments...
Although this is a Resistance forum, I don't swear by any particular group.
While I believe that Abp. Lefebvre was a very wise and saintly man, I don't think that he was perfect in everything he did. Apparently, he never took the time to study the new ordination rites, nor he had a strong position in them. That is why he allowed "new rite priests" into the SSPX.
The more you study, the more you find inconsistencies in the "Recognize and Resist" logic. Actually, all the traditionalist positions have some problems, and that's why this whole crisis is so terrible.
I always knew that there was this validity problem in the SSPX, but we tend not to worry sp much about certain things until they are happening to us.