CathInfo.com

I do not have the quotes you're looking for but I must point out that the SSPX has always been like this. It's something people have complained about (and we have defended, I might add) for years.

The problem is that when they discourage attendance at the Fraternity or the Sedevacantist chapels, those differences in philosophy towards the crisis are easier to point out and discourage. The line between the SSPX and the Resistance is so much finer that it's tough for them to justify discouraging attendance. "Oh that Resistance! Wanting doctrinal solution before practical agreements! So misleading!" I mean, really, what can they say? The only effective argument against the Resistance is the lie about schism or sedevacantism etc... And we know very unfortunately that that is not above some of the priests. The more honest ones will have a tougher time of it and rightly so. But their solution seems to depend on the, ahem, virtues of obedience and prudence.

Whatever you say in a nutshell you have to include the Resistance's raison d'etre. Clarify that +Fellay thinks the SSPX can be safe with a practical agreement whereas +ABL in the end knew that only Rome's conversion would keep the SSPX safe. So the Resistance is in effect that part of the SSPX that is holding out for the conversion of Rome whereas +Fellay believes an SSPX agreement will help bring about the conversion of Rome. Opposing quotes would amazing if you could find them.

Whatever view appeals to people (be they following their heads, their hearts, their guts, their ideals, their hopes or dreams) is where they will go. But clarity on the differences is what's going to draw people who think alike. After all that's what always drew and still draws people to the SSPX instead of the Fraternity or sedes.
 

The bottom line is....all the chapels are uncanonical, and therefore private enterprises, which means you choose which ones you want to go to, unlike canonical parishes where you go to the parish that has jurisdiction in your territory (unless travelling of course). In a real parish, the priest can order you to do things. In a uncanonical setup the priest gives his advice, just as a spiritual director would give advice. Giving advice not to go to another uncanonical parish is not a contradiction (as long as the reason isn't because the other is uncanonical).  Just like a mother who orders her son to not play with the Catholic boy next door because he tells dirty jokes and uses profanity, this doesn't mean the mother is declaring anything about his Catholicity, just the danger of corruption.

However, it might be another story going to confession to a priest in an uncanonical mission church. He is given supplied jurisdiction to be the judge of your sins, and you should do as he says in regard to those sins. What happens if he tells you it is a mortal sin to go another uncanonical parish and you don't agree? Well, that may be the point to choose another chapel/confessor. That is just hypothetical, not sure if this is really happens.