From the prior of our chapel:

“You may have heard about the upcoming project of the SSPX to consecrate more bishops.  Tomorrow I will let you know what the priests have been told about it.”

Let us all know what he says.  

I don’t doubt they said it, but it is inconceivable that after condemning the consecration of +Faure for having proceeded without papal approval, they themselves would do so.

I could, however, imagine them pretending to consecrate without explicit approval (with a wink from Rome), to pretend to have escaped Roman subservience, but rest assured, whomever is consecrated will have at least tacit permission from Rome.

I’m not commenting on if they will or won’t, or who’s right or who’s wrong.  Above my paygrade frankly.

but I can see an internally consistent logic under which modern sspx could condemn williamsons consecrations and yet eventually do their own

it seems like sspx current  logic, for better or worse, is that the Holy Father (and they accept Francis as such) should be obeyed UNLESS obedience is impossible or sinful

so the idea is we can’t celebrate the NO because that’s sinful, we can’t celebrate the Indult because that’s sinful (because the precondition for doing so is accepting the NO as licit which it’s not) and we can’t leave our faithful without sacraments or priests because that’s wrong.  The sspx probably (for better or for worse) thinks that the new rite ordinations are valid, but you still wanna have priests that don’t believe/teach V2 errors and so on

It’s a trickier case to make that you “have to” consecrate bishops when you still have four of them.  It’s a trickier case to make that this is an act that is absolutely necessary to save souls.  Sspx could think this is wrong, but could still think consecrations would be justified if the alternative was leaving the faithful without any bishops at all

this seems to me internally consistent, even if it may be wrong or naive or whatever.  When Benedict (again, if you wanna say it was deceptive, fine) seemed willing to meet sspx in the middle, giving wider permission for Latin masses, lifting the excommunications, etc, the sspx was willing to try to work with him.  When Francis gave faculties for confessions, the sspx may have felt like they could be regularized without having to concede anything (I kinda understand the logic also, IF Francis is a consistent liberal, he might be just as willing to allow Sspx as to allow leftist priests to operate.  I think increasingly NOW we are seeing he is not consistently liberal/lax, by virtue of his investigation of Strickland and whatnot).  If I recall, David pagliariani took a harder line against Rome post traditiones custodes.  Maybe not as hard as you’d like, but harder

now to be clear I’m not really trying to argue sspx is right and resistance is wrong.  I’m just arguing that it seems like a divergence of two different principles.  Sspx reaistance (by analogy) says “the father is abusive so we don’t have to do anything he says” while Sspx says “father is really bad and negligent so sometimes we have to fend for ourselves.”  I actually think the former more quickly:/likely leads to SV as at least a theoretical possibility but I feel like I’m getting too close to taking sides (which I kinda didn’t want to) if I push this too far 

From the prior of our chapel:

“You may have heard about the upcoming project of the SSPX to consecrate more bishops.  Tomorrow I will let you know what the priests have been told about it.”

So. What he said was:

Father Pagliarini recently gave a conference at Econe where he confirmed with certainty that the Society is moving ahead with the consecration of Bishops. What was left unsaid was:
-whom the candidates will be
-how many candidates there will be (though the word Bishops was explicitly used so fair to assume it will be more than 1)
-when the consecrations will take place, although the implication was that it will be within 1 year.

The Society will submit the list of candidates to be consecration to Rome to petition their approval, but the consecrations are a certainty regardless of whether this approval is given. 

So. What he said was:

Father Pagliarini recently gave a conference at Econe where he confirmed with certainty that the Society is moving ahead with the consecration of Bishops. What was left unsaid was:
-whom the candidates will be
-how many candidates there will be (though the word Bishops was explicitly used so fair to assume it will be more than 1)
-when the consecrations will take place, although the implication was that it will be within 1 year.

The Society will submit the list of candidates to be consecration to Rome to petition their approval, but the consecrations are a certainty regardless of whether this approval is given.

To others:

See my previous comments.

If I said it, it’s a fact.

If I said it, it’s a fact.

 ... just like the June 30 consecrations.

The Society will submit the list of candidates to be consecration to Rome to petition their approval, but the consecrations are a certainty regardless of whether this approval is given.

I have no reason to doubt your report, I believe that you are telling the truth of what you have heard, but I really cannot see this part happening at all.

"Giving obedience to Rome" is also subjective, depending on the question, depending on the person (from Rome) you're dealing with.  How many times over the last 6 decades has someone from Rome told the sspx "Yes, we agree."  and then, someone else from Rome steps in, and says, "No, you can't do that."  This happened numerous times when Benedict-then-Ratzinger was negotiating with +ABL prior to the 1988 consecrations.  +ABL was getting the run-around and new-rome was purposefully stalling.  Finally, +ABL saw through the deception and cut off discussions.

And how many other times have multiple new-rome "theologians" said the sspx is "in schism" (and it's reported all over the news).  And then, someone else who is sspx-friendly, says, "Well, no they're not."

Lies, deception, confusion.  We Trads can't give "obedience" to new-rome even if we wanted to.  Because "obedience" and their "commands" constantly change, depending on which Modernist is talking.

At this point, after 60+ years of this nonsense, (with +Francis being the most anti-Trad "pope" in Church history), we are well within our rights/common sense to just ignore new-rome until God grants the Church some normalcy again.  It's new-rome's fault that we can't trust them.  They're the Modernists; they're the liars.