For those here who accuse the SSPX for not speaking against the modernist church ...

So yet another case where the exception proves the rule, where this type of thing is so unusual that you feel the need to call attention to it.

While I haven't seen your video, the fact is that condemnations of the Modernists are quite rare, and in the past 15 years or so of attending SSPX chapels (with about a half dozen different younger priests -- Fr. Burfitt is older), I can't recall a single time where the priest went after the Modernists, not even during the Bergoglio era where even the stones were crying out for a condemnation, and yet the crickets chirped.  There are a handful of old schoolers here and there, but the SSPX per se, they've absolutely gone silent, and your absurd "those here who accuse" nonsense.  There's no accusation ... just fact.  Closest I've heard is literally a passing mention of the New Mass being bad and the Tridentine Mass good, without any further detail, just mentioning the fact.

So ... I listened to that sermon, and I really have no idea what you're talking about.  It was weak and soft, with some general explanation of the error of Modernism, with a passing mention or two of Bergoglio.  He spoke of Benedict in a very positive light, and very softly discussed the errors that Bergoglio taught (mentioning even his name in passing), and then say about Prevost that they were hopeful, are now somewhat disappointed, and that Prevost is at a crossroads.

If YOU think this is some kind of hard-hitting sermon "against the Modernist Church", then you've been percolating like a frog in the waters of SSPX too long and have no clue.  While this is undoubtedly the strongest you're going to get out of SSPX, it was weak and utterly pathetic, and for you to tout this as if this was SSPX on fire against the Modernists, that's a very poor reflection on where you've ended up.

I personally liked Father’s sermon. He laid out what is being done in the NO to merge it with the modern world.

I think he wasn’t so much supporting Benedict as he was letting us know what happened to him (Benedict)when he didn’t follow the dictates that were prescribed by Vatican II. What he (Fr. Burfett) personally felt when he pushed back, even slightly, on the two priests he met in San Diego. They made him feel rejected and out of touch. This is what they did to many of the priests and people who had a traditional point of view when the Vatican II changes were first ushered in. Now however, it’s almost to the point that it doesn’t matter, because most of those who fought against the changes are not with us anymore.

Maybe Father realizes that the SSPX is going down the same path and that the younger generations have next to no idea what the Church taught and fought for in the past. He is saying that we as traditionalists still need to study and remember. We are far from the preVatican II Church days. Christ is not central anymore. Instead, through synods and other practices Theology of the People has become the focus.

What to do? Well don’t expect Leo to be much help. Initially, some traditional Catholics had hopes, but find he, like Francis, is focused on the present life, on things like climate change. He is a deceiver, just like all the other post Vatican II popes.

The focus must go back on Christ. The Holy Name Society will meet with Father to discuss this. He also gives the invitation to the rest of the congregation to talk with him about what they can do. There’s only so much he can do. At least he’s doing something. He’s not capitulating.
Possibly a fierce sermon would find him following the footsteps of Benedict. 

May God bless all of our priests and make them holy. 

The SSPX no longer favors priests whose preaching style is to “thunder” in condemnation of anything. They know the preferences of their well-off parishioners. 
Do I have a point?