Bishop Fellay was barely 30 when consecrated.

The age of Fr. Ribeiro is only ONE issue with his choice.  He’s basically a neophyte to tradition, only 3.5 years a priest, and of questionable theological stability (in addition to what Williamson says of him).

Says the man who ordained Carlos Urrutigoity, when he was provided with enough evidence beforehand to warn him against such an ordination.

By a sedevacantist rector whom he thought was trying to destroy the anti-sedevacantist Urrutigoity (and who’s decision was backed by Lefebvre)?

By a sedevacantist rector whom he thought was trying to destroy the anti-sedevacantist Urrutigoity (and who’s decision was backed by Lefebvre)?

Anything but sedevacantism. Time will tell how this plays out, but as less and less baptized Catholics believe Bergoglio is a believing Catholic and valid pope, wait till the next one comes. The modernists are only moving further from Catholicism. Not closer. It's pretty apparent that Ecclesia Dei is not the future of the Church. The "resistance' was started and formed to oppose the SSPX's deal with the Vatican modernists; their very raison détre is founded on something that never happened and apparently never will. Just a reminder that there is no more hermeneutic of continuity. The SSPX won't be regularized any time in the foreseeable future. The Latin Mass has again been banned by the Modernist Vatican and is on the way to being phased out of the Novus Ordo religion, which will quite possibly have women 'priests' any day now; they already have plenty of queer ones. Not to even mention the pachamama idol worshipping nonsense. People love to make Archbishop Lefebvre speak from the grave. "Well the Archbishop was anti-sede". What would a Saint Robert Bellarmine say about a Bergoglio?
The future of the Church. Where is it headed? We can't know. Probably just recognizing that there is no pope by all believing Catholics would be a great start to unity and the road to recovery. As long as a great segment of Tradition is so bull-headed and insistent on defending the legitimacy of the apostate papal claimants, at a great detriment to unity of other faithful Catholics, we only perpetuate this crisis longer. Remember seeing the articles 40 years, 40 years in the desert. Now 50. Let's go for sixty years following around modernists thinking they are the legitimate Vicars of Christ, representative of Christ on earth, while writing encyclicals promoting sacrilege and adultery, the crisis will never end. A little humility goes a long way. Every priest of the resistance has probably wondered "what if Francis isn't pope." Which leads me to believe the "resistance" exists to keep the priests in the SSPX from inflating the numbers of the the sedevacantists. Oh how the tide will change when sedevacantists laity become the majority and the eclipse ends with two distinct entities that no one will deny are two totally opposite religions: one Catholic and the other New Age gnostic, protetstantized garbage with no subtleties and no appearance of Catholic.

Yes, Ribeiro and Urrutigoity were mistakes.

Apart from moving to the sedevacantist position, what else has Fr Ribeiro done for Bp Williamson to make this warning?  Has he done evil?  Has he prevented a good being done?

I don't know much about him, and it is unusual for such a young priest to be chosen to be consecrated a bishop (although we are in perilous times with border closures etc so makes sense for a country or continent to have at least one validly-consecrated bishop), but what else has he done?

Apart from moving to the sedevacantist position, what else has Fr Ribeiro done for Bp Williamson to make this warning?  Has he done evil?  Has he prevented a good being done?

I don't know much about him, and it is unusual for such a young priest to be chosen to be consecrated a bishop (although we are in perilous times with border closures etc so makes sense for a country or continent to have at least one validly-consecrated bishop), but what else has he done?

Your post beat mine by about 1 minute.  Exactly right.

Anything but sedevacantism.

Actually, I would unironically say yes, especially in situations like this. When I see this kind of partisan divide-and-conquer it makes me SICK.

"Rah-rah my team. And my team is sedevacantism."  What motivates a man to be so partisan? Were sedes responsible for you finding and marrying a wife, or something? Were sedes responsible for your job and/or career? There has to be some human, earthly reason for this motivation.

Because I would say to sedevacantism, "you're no prize yourself". As you mentioned 40 years, 50 years, 60 years -- that's how long of an "interregnum" Sedevacantists say there is. With every passing year, sedevacantism becomes more flawed and unlikely as an answer to the Crisis. The distorted, epic length of "interregnum" is one of the main Achilles' heels of the Sede position. And given the flow of time in one direction -- that Achilles' heel becomes larger with every passing year!

I'm tempted to get all rah-rah MY team and bash sedevacantists right now. But frankly that's become tiresome. Nowadays, instead, I preach in and out of season that the Crisis in the Church is a supernatural mystery that can ONLY be solved/untangled by Our Lord Himself. DIRECTLY.

The answer is not to find flaws in each of the "positions" and stay aloof from all practice of religion -- no, we need the Sacraments. The Faith is a habit of life. We need Mass and the Sacraments. So pick your poison -- the position that seems best to you -- and go with it.

Here's something else to chew on: when you've cut yourself off from, and completely vilified all the other "positions" except yours, you're just ONE BAD PRIEST away from ceasing practice of the Catholic Faith. Imagine if someday you are sorely disappointed in sedevacantism? You would then have nowhere left to turn.

Matthew, it’s ridiculous to blame sedevacantists for this dispute here.  They’re simply defending themselves from the attack initiated by R&R.  If there’s other evidence for Fr. being branded as unfit other than his being a sedevacantist, then bring it on.  If there’s video of him giving a sermon about how road rage is caused by the sin of self-abuse, then I’d be the first one to sound the alarm ... or if it’s pointed out that a voodoo witch doctor has him under a spell.  Bring the information out if there is any.

So it's the classic "He started it!"

Some might retort that Bp. Sanborn started it. He is anything but conciliatory to non-sedevacantists. Having skimmed a couple of his bulletins, he seems to be "rah rah Sedevacantism", making hay out of every situation to bolster his "team". In fact, I'd go one further and say that he clearly distorts the truth about his "enemies", the better to bolster his own position.

I'm just saying: It's hopeless and pointless to try to place the blame based on "who started it".
The perennial battle between sedevacantists and recognize-and-resist has been going round-and-round for decades.

I am neither in favor of nor against his being consecrated.  I am neutral due to lack of information ... and have a problem with those here who are assailing the man with no more knowledge of the situation than what I have.

Apparently Bishop Williamson knows a bit more about him than you or I...