Any Catholic chat board can become a potential "gutter of sewage."  If some guy posts a phonographic image, the moderator catches it late, then a rumor starts, "Cathinfo allows porn..."  Fr Hewko was a little sore about something posted on Cathinfo, and made a generalization about some particular thing which displeased him.  It is not the most logical comment, but priests and bishops are allowed some latitude in their sermons.  The "Resistance" is really a collection of priests of bishops and priests on the run, and we cannot expect polished oratory at every turn. 

Lefebvre worked with independent priests who were refugees from the conciliar church, not with those ordained to independent apostolates (and the fact that he never ordained any such priests was not accidental).

I agree wholeheartedly.
My comments were directed more at the example you gave of Fr G, who might have been a refugee from the SSPX!
But is what Bishop Williamson has done really against the constitution of the Church as you noted before?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a Society to ordain priests for, and it was the closest thing to a diocesan priest as could be had under the circuмstances, and then there was a choice of religious communities faithful to Tradition. Rightly he refused to ordain priests who wanted to be a law unto themselves.
However, could it not be argued that the crisis has advanced to another level? Must Bishop Williamson erect a Society to accept all the candidates he ordains and consecrates? Perhaps the state of the Church and world being what they now are, the situation is more like to times of persecution? Could not the state of necessity justify all the means necessary to continue to spread the Faith and minister to souls? Is one large traditional stronghold like the SSPX of old the only solution, the best solution?
There still exists the moral authority of the Bishop over those he ordains, and perhaps it is difficult to ask for much more under the current circuмstances. They are certainly ordained for a specific resistance apostolate, even if not for some order of the Church.
Likewise, he consecrates bishops who in turn establish little churches everywhere they are required to continue to spread the Faith and give us the means of salvation.
If you think I am writing these lines to defend Bishop Williamson, I am! Because I don't know the answers, I don't think it's dogma, and I believe Bishop Williamson is more likely to know than I what is required, and what is in-keeping with his mission as a successor of the Apostles. I might not have written so ten years ago...

What was wrong with Thuc's approach, fundamentally?

What was wrong with Thuc's approach, fundamentally?

Um... you do know that +ABL did the same thing in 1988, don't you? He consecrated FOUR bishops WITHOUT papal mandate. Zero permission was given by the Pope for that action. Which is REQUIRED. Normally, under normal circuмstances.

The SSPX is in the same canonical status as any Thuc-line independent priest offering Sunday Mass for 50 people in a converted trailer. Just that the SSPX is on a much larger SCALE, with many more parishioners, enough real estate to make our Old Testament brethren jealous, and a bigger bank account (again, the Red Sea Pedestrians are jealous).

But canonically there is literally no difference between their respective apostolates. Both are operating with no official jurisdiction, outside Church hierarchy and authority, with supplied jurisdiction on account of the unprecedented Crisis in the Church.

Imagine that: The brand-new St. Mary's church, or St. Isidores (a full church built by the SSPX) with hundreds of parishioners, EXACTLY THE SAME STATUS as some independent priest saying Mass for 20 people in a hotel room. Kind of humbling, isn't it?

Just saying.