While I take exception to your shot at Father Feeney (let's leave that completely aside)...

Actually, earlier this thread you did bring up an interesting point about varieties of "R & R" which, although I don't see "thousands" of varieties thereof, there are certainly some limited range of variations, for example that which sets apart Bp. Williamson from the rest of the SSPX (which I find difficult to distinguish, apart from his being more "hard line" - or the SSPX now being more "soft line" - than the other, a difference more of emphasis more than anything else).  But there is one major distinction within "R & R" which does merit some specific mention, and this is a division which first came along way back in the days when Bp. Antonio de Castro-Meyer was forced to part company with him former associate Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and his TFP (and the Abbe de Nantes).  de Castro-Meyer and Abp. Lefebvre both saw to the hierarchical and sacramental needs for the Church into the future, while de Oliveira's group rejects all attempts to sustain them, but relying only on what few (now very few) clerics as were originally accepted before all this whole mess broke out.  The one (SSPX and SSPX-like and SSPX-sympathetic) is clerical and labors to keep the sacramental power and juridical authority of God's Church in this world while the other (anti-clericalist) is by now almost exclusively lay and has nowhere to go but a "church" of scattered and all-independent laity with no sacraments, no authority, no certainty, no leadership (except that everyone in it is their own personal leader), and no future.  Needless to say, on this "quasi-divide" I am wholeheartedly on the SSPX pro-clerical side.  We sedevacantists have had the same problem, the same "quasi-divide" between those who are (or support and assist at the Masses of) our clergy versus those who are anti-clericalist and likewise have nowhere to go but a "church" of scattered and all-independent laity with no sacraments, no authority, no certainty, no leadership (except that everyone in it is their own personal leader), and no future.  And again, I wholeheartedly support the pro-clerical side.  There can be no real ecclesial unity (in that sense of the Mark of Unity) without authority, truly held and properly exercised on the one side, and properly recognized and obeyed on the other.

Ubipetrus/Griff Ruby was a Judaizer last time I checked:

He's correct about the term perfidious Jєωs.  Some Jєωs accepted the Messiah; this is merely a reference to those who did not.  Latin root of the word means those who broke the faith.  There's no need to pray for the conversion of those who are already converted.

Here's a thread I created a while back about Ubipetrus/Griff Ruby if anyone's interested...

What IS it with you and Jєωs?  Why is hatred of them obviously more important to you than love of God?
And by the way (if you don't mind me getting a little personal), what kind of "name" is "rum"?  Maybe you could have called yourself "whisky" or "vodka" or "cocaine" on this forum?  To me, it connotates the 1920's prohibition era, when "Catholics" were associated with "Democrats, Gangsters, and Demon Rum." Is that it?

What IS it with you and Jєωs?  Why is hatred of them obviously more important to you than love of God?
And by the way (if you don't mind me getting a little personal), what kind of "name" is "rum"?  Maybe you could have called yourself "whisky" or "vodka" or "cocaine" on this forum?  To me, it connotates the 1920's prohibition era, when "Catholics" were associated with "Democrats, Gangsters, and Demon Rum." Is that it?

"Griff Ruby" makes me think of the word grifter and the Jєω Jack Ruby.

I don't put much thought into usernames. I like El Dorado overproof rum, so perhaps I was sipping some when I chose the name.

People who aren't Judaizers or cryptos thank you when you point out error to them. They don't ignore you or get aggressive.

This guy needs basics taught to him, and yet he postures as a teacher to traditional Catholics.

It's a joke.