CathInfo.com

Show me where any of these are official SSPX positions vs. various individuals of the society opining on these matters, to the point where a priests are not permitted to disagree with these.  And show me where these are matters of faith / conscience vs. theological opinion.

I'll go back to the others whe I have time, but let's start with #12, as others have already pointed out.

Bishop Williamson was the chief enforcer of +Lefebvre against The Nine, whose biggest complain in fact centered around an NO priest, Mr. Stark, who was imposed upon them despite his having refused conditional ordination.  So now Bishop Williamson will do a 180 and start forcing priests to be conditionally ordained?  Even when he has done conditionals, for some unknown reason he has always done them in secret.  Apart from the couple of breakaways like +?Pfeiffer and Father Hewko, Bishop Williamson has been adamant that the NOM is valid, and therefore at least implicitly holds that NO ordinations are valid ... given that the Eucharistic miracles he cites as proof could not have occurred had the priest been invalid.

And someone cited a recent case where this is not true.

So I call hogwash on #12.

This is just semantics, politicking, spin, etc.  Both groups reject the exact same errors in Vatican II.  Heck, the SVs also reject the same errors in Vatican II.  [They're all missing the core error, but that's a side issue.]
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recognizing-sspx-questioning-vatican-ii-2380
Start reading Lumen Gentium and let me know of when you find the first erroneous statement.  When you find it, perhaps you could keep a word count so we can get the exact number.  In fact, if you look at the text of Vatican II, Bishop Fellay's number is very likely materially correct.

There's no statement there about whether this means the Council can be "fixed" by simply deleting this 5% or amending it.  This was just +Fellay playing politics, no different than a lot of the statements that Archbishop Lefebvre made when he was in talks with Rome.

WIth regard to your "hermeneutic of continuity", +Lefebvre himself said that he accepted Vatican II "in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church" (Letter to JP2, March 8, 1980 and reiterated in Letter to Cardinal Seper, April 4, 1981).  Of course, he would later say this was a mental reservation.  +Lefebvre too, like +Fellay, was politicking in the interests of recognition by the Vatican, even boasting of cracking down on the evil sedevacantists, some of whom like The Nine were sacrificed on the altar of these negotiations with Wojtyla).

So we have +Lefebvre stating that he accepts the Council per se.  +Fellay rightly points out (as even SVs would have to agree) that materially speaking only about 5% of Vatican II is technically erroneous, and is spinning it in the interests of reunification with Rome, just as +Lefebvre was in the early 1980s.

I'm not sure how someone can categorically reject a Ecuмenical Council given full approbation by the man whom you claim to be the Vicar of Christ, but much less do I understand condemning as non-Catholic someone who claims that we must accept everything in it that isn't contrary to the faith, as that's classic R&R, namely, to obey and accept everything that's Catholic.

This is merely a squabble about the implications of the same thinking, that this Council proceeded from legitimate authority but taugth some things that were contrary to Tradition.

At the end of the day, however, this is not some huge matter of faith, but merely a theological disagreement about the implications of a legitimate Pope calling a legitimate Ecuмenical Council and issuing a body of teaching, some of which is contrary to Tradition.  Do you accept the teachings in it that are good, i.e., not contrary to Catholic faith, or do you reject the entire thing?  You could argue either way, but it's a theological dispute based on the same premises.  This disagreement is not a matter of faith or a matter of conscience, but something that R&R seminarians could argue about over lunch in the refectory.

False: Fellay believes religious liberty is acceptable; resistance denies it.

Citation in CCCC thread.