Shortly before this, I received photographic evidence from a Resistance priest of a text message thread/conversation he had with an SSPX priest, who wrote that Fr. Pagliarani had instructed priests to prepare/condition the faithful for the eventuality of episcopal consecrations.

All I know for sure:

You will NOT have, at any time in the near future, a GLORIOUS consecration of bishops like in 1988.

By "glorious" I mean:

Uncompromising, steadfast fortitude standing up for the Catholic Faith and Tradition, in heroic opposition to Modernist Rome, with a saintly bishop at the center, acting like St. Athanasius of old. No compromise, instilling hope in all who attended and watched the ceremony.

No, any neo-SSPX consecration of bishops would be tainted, compromised -- the only question is, in WHAT way(s).

Shortly before this, I received photographic evidence from a Resistance priest of a text message thread/conversation he had with an SSPX priest, who wrote that Fr. Pagliarani had instructed priests to prepare/condition the faithful for the eventuality of episcopal consecrations.

Dear Sean,
Fr. Pagliarani will be in Sanford, Florida the week of Oct. 8 to rest, according to Fr. Vernoy.

All I know for sure:

You will NOT have, at any time in the near future, a GLORIOUS consecration of bishops like in 1988.

By "glorious" I mean:

Uncompromising, steadfast fortitude standing up for the Catholic Faith and Tradition, in heroic opposition to Modernist Rome, with a saintly bishop at the center, acting like St. Athanasius of old. No compromise, instilling hope in all who attended and watched the ceremony.

No, any neo-SSPX consecration of bishops would be tainted, compromised -- the only question is, in WHAT way(s).

.
If--and that's a big if, I think-- SSPX leadership is indeed giving instructions to prepare the faithful for consecrations, that makes me think SSPX leadership is prepared to perform the consecrations with or without the Vatican's permission. 
.
15 years ago no such preparation would be necessary. The frogs are boiled by now though. Consecrating without Bergoglio's permission would, I think, be a bigger shock to the rank and file than consecrating with his permission. Hence the need for "preparation".
.
As far as the consecrations being compromised, retrospect tells us that 75% of the men +ABL consecrated ended up reshaping the society to be a pleasing debutante for the conciliar church. You can technically get more compromised than that, I guess. But not a whole lot. 

Uh, no. You can get a WHOLE LOT more compromised than +ABL.

And his failure rate was 25%, not 75%. Only +Fellay turned out to be an accordista. That's 1 out of 4. And the "failure" (+Fellay) was tacked on at the end, at the last minute, at the urging of Swiss benefactors, you will note.

Have you seen the writings of +Tissier de Mallerais? His problem was more "old and retired" and "not hero material" -- but certainly not as you say "reshaping the society to be a pleasing debutante for the conciliar church".

Indeed, what has +De Mallerais been up to since 2012? Sidelined, retired, out of public view. Has he been working or preparing, moving the SSPX *in any way* towards the Conciliar Church? I think not.

I beg to differ: It is crystal clear that 3 of the 4 bishops are accordista.

And as regards +de Mallerais, I quoted his as saying in 2016: "But now there is obviously on the part of Pope Francis , a provision to recognize us without these conditions.  We say go!" (As We Are?, p. 26).

There couldn't be a clearer example of +de Mallerais desiring an accord with modernist Rome.

   
As you know, Texana, the Sanford Priory, and the Florida missions are a mess. Let's hope Pagliarani does something about it, but I doubt it.  More likely, he's getting ready to introduce the new Novus ordo/SSPX bishops.

Like this one... "bishop" Thomas Gullickson. Good friends with "bishop" Huonder and the neo-SSPX. Was Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland just a few years ago. Now, conveniently, "retired" and living in South Dakota. 

https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgull.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gullickson

https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/switzerland-new-nuncio-judged-too-traditionalist-23377

I beg to differ: It is crystal clear that 3 of the 4 bishops are accordista.

And as regards +de Mallerais, I quoted his as saying in 2016: "But now there is obviously on the part of Pope Francis , a provision to recognize us without these conditions.  We say go!" (As We Are?, p. 26).

There couldn't be a clearer example of +de Mallerais desiring an accord with modernist Rome.

Yes, right on.
Ironically, Bishop Tissier has perhaps done more damage than anyone in terms of steering the sinking ship into the harbour of Newrome.
I recall a conference given by Michael Davies in the 1980s at Powers Lake with Fr Nelson, in which he explained that the revolution in the Church owed its almost complete success to the most conservative priests - the ones that the faithful loved and trusted, who reassured the faithful and encouraged them to 'stay in the Church' and submit to authority, obey the Holy Father etc. The faithful would never have followed the out and out modernist revolutionaries, he said, but because these good parish priests that they trusted reassured them they stayed put and resistance was nullified. How many of the 'conservative wing' of the SSPX priests and faithful owe their fidelity to the neo-SSPX to Bishop Tissier, who would have otherwise been resisting? Bishop Tissier long ago changed his tune from anti-accord to pro-accord and anti-resistance.