I heard him say these things back in 1990, just a short time after +Lefebvre had passed away, much to the astonishment of the young zealous SSPX seminarians ... who all felt that the SSPX would save the Church.  +Williamson said that opposite, that God would save the Church in due time, and that the SSPX merely served as a lifeboat for His faithful in the meantime.

He also wrote about it at times in his Rector's Letters.  Here's an excerpt from his 1st letter after +ABL died. 

April 1, 1991:

Will [the SSPX] fail? If it depends on human weakness, yes; if it depends on God's grace, no. And what does the Lord God have in mind? Only He knows. We had fondly thought he would conserve the Archbishop to guide us for many years yet, but the Archbishop was right, it was not to be. We may now fondly think that the Society is meant by God to be His light-bearer until the Church's crisis is over, but the Lord God is not short of alternatives, and He may have in mind still more darkness. It would not be undeserved.


However, it is never to be forgotten that, as St. Augustine said, He abandons nobody who has not first abandoned Him. With or without the great Archbishop, with or without his little Society, no sheep that seeks the Good Shepherd will be forced to lose Him. That is an intrinsic impossibility. "Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom" (Lk XII, 32). 

Another, later example:

 

July 1, 1998:

Chaos in people's hearts and minds swirls all around us. Sister Lucy of Fatima called it "diabolical disorientation", and the Archbishop's dear little Society of St. Pius X is going to need a miraculous protection if its faith is not also to perish in the universal storm, still rising.  The old-fashioned barometer, reading lower and lower, is beginning to sway on the wall!

Question: can the Society withstand this tornado-force dream? Can Society Catholics, especially priests, withstand the mighty suction of Fiftiesism, that glossy version of Catholicism without the Cross, all the outer trappings of Tradition, but with none of the substance (cf. II Timothy Ill, 5)? The glamorous modern world which seduced so many priests and bishops into Vatican II is more glamorous and modern than ever - what guarantees that the Society will not in turn go the way of all conciliar flesh? ...

Listen to a Society priest now working in the U.S.A.: "Here, either a priest fights like a hero, or he slips into Fiftiesism without even realizing it. It's strange, but that's how it is. A priest must have unusual strength of character and rock-solid convictions to stand fast, or he will slide the way the whole modern environment encourages him to slide. So a polarisation is inevitable in all our parishes. That was not so yesterday, when a comfortable conservatism was still possible, but the days of those good conservative priests are gone.  Today it's all or nothing.  This or that priest may vigorously deny they are liberal, but if they are incapable of serious, steady, almost heroic action, they will give way in practice.  You may even not be liberal, but if you do not do what you should do, you will still act like a liberal."

I have long asked myself whether the Society will last until the Chastisement. If it does, God will have given it a special protection. Time will tell if that is His will.

Obedience has been emphasized since my days in the late 80s / early 90s.  That's because it's the only way to maintain cohesion in a group that is itself in a chronic state of disobedience to the Pope and the hierarchy.  So they emphasize blind obedience to the SSPX leadership while at the same time promoting "faith is greater than obedience" to justify rebellion from Rome.  Bishop Williamson pointed out (even while he was still there) that the SSPX is destined to break up because it relies on an artificial principle of unity ... at one time, the personality of one Archbishop Lefebvre.  This was right after the Archbishop had passed away.  +Williamson predicted that the SSPX would fall apart after his death, since his cult of personality could no longer unify the group, in as much as Catholics can be united only under one Pope and one hierarchy.  I always think back about those lectures to explain why +Williamson didn't constitute a formal group for The Resistance.  He didn't believe that it was appropriate or even viable, considering the Traditional movement just a loose-knit group of Catholics trying to keep the faith.

This makes me think of the section in the "Letter of the Nine" (1983) dealing with "Loyalty":
Loyalty 

The fundamental reason for the Society's existence is to promote loyalty to the Church and her teachings. Unfortunately, it seems that the distinction between the primary loyalty which we owe to the Church and the subordinate loyalty we give to the Society has become somewhat blurred in the practical order. 

Priests, seminarians, and the faithful associate themselves with the Society to the extent that the Society is loyal to Tradition; they associate with it because they want the traditional Mass, the traditional sacraments and the traditional teachings and practices of the Church. The trust we have received from them is based on this. It is the trust under which we have labored in the United States these past ten years. We have received this trust from them in a true contractual sense. The support we have asked from them and received was a conditional support. The condition was that we be loyal to Tradition and the people would be loyal to us. It is not loyalty to persons or organizations, but loyalty to the Church and her traditions that counts in their eyes. 

We believe it should be the practice of the Society to avoid giving the impression that loyalty to the Society is on the same level as loyalty to the traditions of the Church and the Church itself. We priests cannot propose loyalty to the Society as equal in value to loyalty to the traditional rites and doctrines. Therefore, the primary motive of everything we do is loyalty to the Church. 

To the extent that any organization, including the Society, would do things which conflict with the traditions and immemorial practices of the Church, to that extent we reject these things without hesitation or reservation.

Personally, I think the 9 made some good points, just not their conclusion about the pope.

Well, I'll be.....
That's more than I would have expected....I'll take it Sean.....Merry Christmas to you!

Well, I'll be.....
That's more than I would have expected....I'll take it Sean.....Merry Christmas to you!

Merry Christmas 2V!!

Delicacy - I see this as a kind of prudence that says the right thing at the right time. A good example of this type of prudence ...
Disinterestedness - This could be related with the virtue of detachment.
Dependence - One way that this could be understood would be in total dependence on the will of God. What does God want? What does God want me to do? "Fiat mihi secundum voluntatem tua" - The Blessed Virgin Mary
 

.
If he meant prudence, he should say prudence, not delicacy.  We wouldn't be trying to figure out what he means by "delicacy" (ugh) if he said prudence.
.
If he meant detachment, say detachment.  
.
And if he meant what you say in the 3rd case, call it resignation to the Will of God.
.
Sorry it wouldn't be a cutesy "3 Ds", but it would be much clearer, more Catholic in that it aligns with virtues commonly taught in Catholic Tradition, and certainly less effeminate-sounding (and effeminate-attracting as Matthew pointed out).  

I have to wonder if SSPX priests and seminarians are even allowed to grow facial hair.  Wasn't it the traditional norm for Latin Rite priests to be clean-shaven?

Ladislaus must know this already, but no, seminarians weren't allowed to grow any. It's a Roman Rite thing.

I think almost every ex-seminarian, 6 months after they left, sported some kind of facial hair. I grew a full beard as soon as I left. I might have even stopped shaving 1 day before I left. hahaha

The same was my experience in JROTC in public high school. No facial hair allowed. At my graduation a few weeks after my last day of class, I already had a pathetic 18-year-old's beard (as an aside, it's amazing that you're not really "full grown" at 18).

Fr. Doran was one of those who chafed at this particular Roman Rite custom (he said "They want their priests to look like they're 12..." or something to that effect)
Years later, he joined the Maronite Rite, and quickly had a full beard. He even grew a beard during a short vacation from the seminary. I forgot what country he was going to.

It might be a Roman Rite thing, but in the secular world it's very much a Baby Boomer (and maybe earlier) custom. Note how many millennials have facial hair. It seems like facial hair is coming back into style.

Why would men want to look like women anyhow? Male lions have a MANE. Lionesses do not. God put facial hair on (most) men. It's not jewelry, makeup, or any man-made accessory. You can't criticize that which happens naturally *when you do absolutely nothing*.

Just what the world needs more effeminate French priests

It is agreed upon by all sides that it was the personal charisma and leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre that held the SSPX together amidst the warring factions of R&R, sede, accordist, and other factions (particularly in the 70’s and early 80’s), since lacking ordinary jurisdiction, there was never any ecclesiastical/canonical compulsion which would normally enforce unity:

If eventually you found yourself disagreeing with Lefebvre, you could just leave, and there was nothing anyone could do about it (whereas for fully approved communities, defecting from one community to join or start another would have required the consent of both superiors).

And so, over time, half the priests Lefebvre ordained eventually cut ties with the SSPX for one reason or another, and all he could do is say goodbye.  Consequently, one Society priest tells me that overall, the average lifespan of priestly service in the SSPX is only 10 years (ie., on average, priests leave the SSPX after 10 years).

It seems that the “solution” to this problem was to attempt to transfer the veneration SSPX members formerly had forLefebvre to his successors, and I think the process Ladislaus describes was/is their attempt to do that very thing.

Obviously, the principle of unity sought for could and should have been the faith, but then disagreements about the faith naturally ensue because it is by authority that the rule of faith is transmitted, from the pope on down.

This problem of authority is that of which Bishop Williamson speaks when he shrinks from founding congregations:

If authority is daily made more and more unstable by the passage of time (ie., silently inculcating a stronger and stronger spirit of independence as individual clergy continue to form their own personal postures and positions in response to the growing list of Roman and diocesan scandals, thereby creating more and more opportunities for disagreements with each other and their would-be superiors), then the phenomenon of departures experienced in Lefebvre’s day should logically be exacerbated today.

This is why Bishop Williamson speaks of “herding cats” and concluding “it may be better not to try” in response to the request of those like me who fear to abandon Lefebvre’s model, despite the anticipated defections and divisions which are sure to come (personally, I believe we are obligated to try with congregations, because independence is opposed to the hierarchical constitution of the Church, but it is not worth falling out over, and perpetuating the phenomenon of division I have been discussing).

The neo-SSPX, therefore, really could not do otherwise in inculcating this hero worship of the Superior General, unless it was regularized by Rome...a course it has long pursued, and which is almost accomplished.