CathInfo.com

From what I understand, it started as explained above, with back and forth about the Thesis. Then it escalated over the Jab. Bp Dolan was very vocally against the clot shot, and Bp Sanborn basically said that as clergy, they should stay out of it since they aren't medical experts. And rather than call each other on the phone to work things out, they both decided to trade shots on Twitter, in their respective bulletins, on their websites, and with YT videos. All extremely public, unnecessary, and unfortunate. I think someone mentioned in another thread that Bp Dolan and Bp Sanborn were never all that close, but Fr Cekada was the mediator keeping good relations between them, and all of this public fighting really spilled over after Fr C's death.

It does pain me that the two good bishops never resolved their conflict, and +Dolan had to take it with him to the grave.

I agree that with each passing year/decade the Thesis becomes more difficult to defend. Pure speculation and personal opinion here, but I think Bp Sanborn's zealous clinging to the Thesis is primarily due to the fact that he comes from the Des Lauriers line. So, when people criticize the Thesis, he feels he more compelled to defend it. Again, just my opinion.

I think the Thesis is patently absurd to hold to in 2023 (and while I believe this, I hold no ill will towards any of the wonderful clergy who adhere to it, as they are certainly more intelligent and learned than I am). In order to adhere to it today, you have to believe that non-Catholic invalid bishops who were appointed as Cardinal LARPers by the previous false popes are somehow able to validly elect a non-Catholic to the Papal office. The solution to the crisis in the Church then hinges on the validly elected non-Catholic to have a change of heart and to then intend to do as the Pope does, in addition to receiving valid ordination and consecration. The thesis made some sense when it was first conceived, but too much has changed now between Montini and Bergoglio for it to still work. Fr Lehtoranta's criticism of the Thesis on his blog is a great writeup on the subject.

It is so sad to see these needless public squabbles. We already have much to suffer through in this crisis without all of this drama. To his credit, Bp McGuire has handled all of this very well (IMHO) since taking over at SGG. He instructed his clergy to no longer engage in social media debate about the Thesis.

I've been a huge fan of Bishop McGuire's leadership since his consecration. His leadership style reminds me a lot of +Pivarunas's meek yet firm style.

Perhaps Bp Pivarunas can invite SGG, RCI, SSPV, etc to the annual Fatima conference and they can hash out some things and bring some unity to the Sedes. I pray

I will pray for that as well. I don't think that +Pivarunas is opposed to inviting them. He wanted to go to then-Fr McGuire's consecration, but he said he never received an invite, so I don't know if relations are rocky between the CMRI and SGG. I know that +Sanborn has a problem with the CMRI because they didn't change their name after the scandal with the founder of the CMRI during its early years, so I don't think he will be collaborating. And then there's +Kelly and the SSPV who still don't recognize the validity of the +Thuc line of bishops, so that kills any chance of them going to the Fatima conference. The Sede infighting is tiresome, but it's to be expected when there's no Pope for any of them to appeal to. In fact, I dare say the Sede infighting is a prime example that proves the necessity of the Papacy 

Actually one can make the case that ordinary jurisdiction exists somehow among the eastern rite Catholic bishops, because they never changed their rites of ordination and episcopal consecration, hence they have certainly valid bishops who are capable of receiving ordinary jurisdiction.

Don't ever tell an Eastern bishop that he "receives" jurisdiction as something outside his episcopal dignity. Byzantine ecclesiology does not admit subordination to the Papacy, but rather communion with Peter. Their theology posits that they hold jurisdiction directly from Christ through episcopal ordination. They are not Romans like us, and do not think or behave like us. Same Faith; different theologies.

Don't ever tell an Eastern bishop that he "receives" jurisdiction as something outside his episcopal dignity. Byzantine ecclesiology does not admit subordination to the Papacy, but rather communion with Peter. Their theology posits that they hold jurisdiction directly from Christ through episcopal ordination. They are not Romans like us, and do not think or behave like us. Same Faith; different theologies.

With the exception of the Maronites, who are more Roman in their thinking (to a fault since Vatican II).  Maronites have Chor Bishops, basically Auxiliary Bishops, who lack jurisdiction, something which is less common among the other Eastern Rites, making it more likely for them to associate jurisdiction with the episcopal orders.  I believe that the distinction between Orders and Jurisdiction derives specifically from the use of Auxiliary Bishops in the West, particular in order to help confer Confirmations.  Since, in the East, priests confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, there's much less need for assistant bishops.