I received conditional Confirmation from Bishop Williamson in 1989, and it was automatically granted for anyone requesting it, no questions asked.  I'd suspect that now they'd give you the third degree to interrogate whether you might be some closet sedevacantist or something.

Based on the letter Bishop Tissier wrote, perhaps you contact him and pay him a visit, and it sounds like he may be able to accommodate you in secret ... though I'm not 100% sure he's still in the US.  Last time I heard he was in Chicago, but that may have changed.  Or else you could find some other Traditional bishop of the SV variety, who would certainly accommodate you.

Does the Neo-SSPX do conditional confirmations anymore? I don't think they have for a very long time

Combine that letter (which pertains to intention) with this one (which pertains to form in the new rite of episcopal consecration) of +de Mallerais in 1998:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/




"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”

After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.

The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.

As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.

Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!

And what is the atmosphere at this point? Is it tense?

Oh very. No back-slapping. So I passed out the copies of the resolutions. So the first resolution was about the doubtfully ordained priest. So we wanted to talk about Fr. Philip Stark, S.J. who was a Jesuit, interestingly enough an erstwhile secretary to Thomas Merton, who had gone to work for Fr. Bolduc. We found out, through a letter from a layman, that Stark had been ordained in the new rite by Cardinal Sheehan in Baltimore. We had done a study some years before on the New Rite of Ordination, and Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of our views and that as far as we were concerned, he was doubtfully ordained. So the Archbishop tried to schmooze us and be diplomatic. “Well, it’s a very delicate question…it would be better if he got re-ordained…it would preserve the peace,” and so on. I pressed him, though and I asked if he was going to make it a policy to re-ordain, and he flatly said “No.” So that was that. So we moved on.

Source: https://www.truerestoration.org/an-interview-with-fr-anthony-cekada-regarding-archbishop-lefebvre-and-the-1983-split-with-the-sspx/

If and I say if, Huonder was conditionally ordained and consecrated by the SSPX, it will still be in secret because I think when it comes to conditional ordinations and consecrations, the SSPX never publicly announces it.

An English translation of +de Mallerais’s letter can be found here:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/

Or, if you were referring to the principle significatio ex adiunctis, it is referenced in the index of Michael Davies’ Order of Melchizedek.

There could be subject to reasons that we may not be privy to. One that I heard of regarding a Novus Ordo priest who received conditional ordination in the SSPX in secret was to avoid issues with the priest's superiors in the Novus Ordo.

Politics.  They don't want to give Rome the impression that they have any doubt about their Bogus Ordo "Sacraments".  That would certainly scuttle any hopes of a practical agreement.