I disagree respectfully with this and I think, Matthew, that this is the core area of disagreement between the Society and the Resistance. So let's have a brief discussion on it, though the sedevacantist issue is irrelevant to the SSPX-Resistance dispute.
1. The First Principle is the Sanctification and Salvation of Souls. This is why the Church Herself exists. I love the Firefighter Analogy given by His Excellency Bishop Fellay to explain what should be the principle of the traditional apostolate vis-a-vis relations to Rome:
"How do we understand this gesture? Allow me to make use of an image. When a fire is raging, everyone understands that those who have the means to do so must endeavor to put it out, especially if there is a shortage of firefighters ... As a result of the Pope’s act, during the Holy Year, we will have ordinary jurisdiction. In the image I mentioned, this has the effect of giving us the official insignia of firefighters, whereas such a status was [unjustly] denied us for decades.
Who can reasonably dispute the applicability of this analogy to the situation of the crisis in the Church? Suppose somebody was in a burning building, Matthew. Would even we not do all that was possible to save him? Suppose a professional firefighter had been unjustly fired and his uniform had been wrongly confiscated. If he saw a fire and souls in danger of perishing, absolutely he has the right and the duty to do all that is necessary for them to be delivered from the fire, and it is commendable and praiseworthy for him to do it. But if at a later time, if the nation or state recognize it was wrong to persecute such firefighters, why should they then refuse the insignia, as Bishop Fellay says?
That is the equivalent to what is being disputed here; one could add the "firefighters" here have a right to be part of the visible hierarchy of the only Church.
2. And therefore the Second Principle could be: If the Pope wants to grant the Bishops and Priests of the Society Ordinary Jurisdiction and Habitual Authority over the Faithful who are their Subjects, then this is the correction of an injustice; something good and not evil.
As Fr. Laisney argued on the behalf of the Society, that with a wrong understanding, "One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing—indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent
—the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the pope wants to regularize the place of the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) ... https://sspx.org/en/various-churches-fr-laisney-rebuttal
3. The Traditional Sacramental rites, imho, give much Greater Glory to God, obtain far Greater Graces for the Church and the world and have perfect "integrity". As we know, theology distinguishes integrity and essence of the rite. A study of the new rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination in particular makes clear that, after infiltration by Freemasons and through the machinations of Bugnini et al, integrity has been very badly wounded in the new rites generally, from Baptism to Holy Mass. The rite remains valid, but validity is not enough; with wide use of the new inferior rites, there is a massive loss of graces in the world.
Since we each individually have the obligation to give the greatest possible glory to God in our short lives on this earth, and since we will need the necessary graces of the sacraments in the highest possible measure, we have the right and duty to preserve Tradition. But we should do it in the way that one would preserve a Priceless Treasure when an indefectible Ark was being partly flooded; namely, first, we should preserve the Treasure itself, so that first it is not drowned in the flood, by God's Grace. Second, we should see to it that that Treasure is more widely restored in the Ark, so that all those it may be kept afloat and saved in the end.
No doubt supplied Jurisdiction supplies for confessions and marriages, Rome itself has admitted this. Supplied Jurisdiction, as authors on the subject describe for us, is a delegatio a iure
, a delegation operative by the law itself, that comes from the Church. Ordinary Jurisdiction, as we know, is habitual authority, a relation in which subjects are permanently under their superiors.
For an imperfect analogy: Suppose a parent willed to adopt a child, and the government wrongly prevented this at first; then, the parent should continue to love the child and desire to adopt it, but would not actually stand in permanent authority over the child until adoption was complete. In a roughly similar way, the Apostolate will go on, but full normalization need not be rejected, imo.
So, if the Pope is ready to grant Ordinary Jurisdiction to our SSPX Bishops, which they most certainly have a right to, is it not a good thing? Auxiliary Bishops have less power and rights than Bishops who are Ordinaries strictly so called. Is it not right that our Bishops should have Habitual Authority over us and full power to command us? Even Natural Authority is Good. Divinely established Authority is Excellent, Unique and Necessary. Therefore, Traditional Catholic Bishops have a right to that Divine habitual Authority.
And yet, by divine law, and the Pope's Universal Primacy of Jurisdiction defined at Vatican I, only he can grant Ordinary Jurisdiction. This, imho, is the basis on which the Society justifies its periodic relations with the Roman Authorities, which seems to have caused much misunderstanding among some sections of the Faithful. If I may ask, Matthew, where do you disagree with any of the above?