faithful who attend the Masses of the SSPX, except
Third Order Members, are not subordinate to the superiors of the SSPX in any way.

The ad hoc condition and state-of-necessity status of the SSPX leaves its faithful unbound under the official laws of subordination but Society governing structure is nevertheless easily recognized as hierarchical. Within any group of human beings, those not governing are considered to be among the governed. SSPX faithful are de facto subordinate and among the governed to the degree they participate in institutions governed by the SSPX.

The de facto condition of their subordination exempts SSPX faithful from official punishment for disobedience that might otherwise apply under de jure subordination. However, SSPX faithful can still be justly punished by unofficial means such as social ostracization.

My point is that even such unofficial punishment would be unjust if applied against concerned faithful urging the SSPX to realistically safeguard its own survival by adapting to the likelihood of Rome remaining unconverted for the foreseeable future.

Ok, I admit it.  I'm dense as a doorknob.  I don't see anything in that statement that says SSPX will not consecrate any new bishops.  It doesn't open the door to any, but neither does it close it.

What am I missing?

Re-read my post on page 1, which starts off, "It's more of a logical consequence."

Put simply, SSPX would be transparently hypocritical (so blatant that not even their biggest fanboys could justify it) if it condemned the Faure consecration but then at some point in the future consecrated a bishop without Rome's permission. Pot calling the kettle black? Hypocrisy? You get the idea.

What could the SSPX possibly say to the Resistance?

"Your valid bishop's publicly-witnessed consecration, without papal approval, of an auxiliary bishop-without-jurisdiction for the sake of maintaining Tradition is naughty and schismatic. See you in hell...from heaven! Being excommunicated is a bummer, isn't it?
--- but ---
Our valid bishop's publicly-witnessed consecration, without papal approval, of an auxiliary bishop-without-jurisdiction for the sake of maintaining Tradition is a beautiful thing. *sigh* Now get out your checkbook. Just remember, we're SSPX and we're awesome."

Who would buy that? Only those whose minds were befuddled by years of cult propaganda. But certainly no one with a sane mind!

Since the Society has three hale and hearty Bishops, it is unlikely that there will be any need for further episcopal consecrations any time soon, probably not for another 15 years at least (Bishop Fellay, for example, is only 57, while Bishop Williamson is around 75 by comparison), and the situation in the Church may well have improved by that time. Besides, one essential requirement laid down as such by the General Chapter is the perpetual guarantee of at least one bishop. So, in the case of any new canonical structure offered by Rome and accepted by the Society, a Personal Prelacy or more preferably, an Apostolic Administration, the guarantee of bishops to head the society will be part of the constitutions of the new structure. Also, bishops who have ordinary power can do things auxiliary bishops cannot, for example, convene marriage tribunals to pass juridical declarations on annulments and other such things. That was one of the reasons for the desirable condition, “ecclesiastical tribunals in the first instance” beside "“exemption of the houses of the Society of Saint Pius X in relation to the diocesan bishops”. It is divine law that no bishop becomes an Ordinary save through appointment or confirmation by the Pope.  All in all, there remains no reason in principle why such an offer should be refused, in the unlikely event that Rome at some future time becomes ready and willing to make and honor them according to the six conditions. Contrary to Fr. Pfeiffer's claim, the SSPX has not stated it will not consecrate new bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre's position - in 1973, in 1988, and beyond - was that it is preferable to have canonical approval and do everything within that structure, and only if that is unjustly denied to us, we disregard the unlawful command and carry on anyway, and that's what the Society's approach still is.

Menzingen's scatter-shot criticism went beyond questioning the subjective judgement behind of Bp Williamson's renewed Operation Survival and thereby undermined any future justification for their own Operation Survival. However, Menzingen has proven it can bend and mold reality with a skill matching the most adroit of modernists so I agree there is nothing really preventing a reversal justifying their own unapproved consecration if it suited their purpose. Perhaps objective-minded resistors naively imagine that constraints of reality applying to them might also apply to Menzingen. This very fluidity of Menzingen is the hallmark of St. Pius X-defined modernism and clearly exposes an internal compromise to those with eyes to see.

Williamson's greatest "sin" was not doubting the h0Ɩ0h0αx, but exposing the subjectivism behind otherwise seemingly orthodox trad movements. Even an apparently flawless theology falls short when built atop a false philosophical framework.

Very good point. It appears to be evidence that Modernism has found a crack and poured in to the SSPX itself.

I have often pointed out the similarity between the words/actions of the Freemasonic world governments and those of the SSPX.

When the SSPX starts acting/sounding like the Modernism-infused, ʝʊdɛօ-Freemason-controlled conciliar church, you know you have a problem.

One might question the said bishop's subjective judgement, but if his judgement was informed and honestly made, is he not obligated to act?

Sure, but by the same token, if not one bishop, but three, several district superiors, and essentially over 500 priests now formed the informed and sincere judgment that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted the proposal of a canonical structure under the General Chapter Norms, are they not likewise obligated in good conscience to act on that judgment? And if in the same measure, you say that you judge that and are subjectively convinced that there is a need for more bishops today - which I do not doubt - the SSPX is likewise subjectively convinced, and consistently so, that there is not an urgent and pressing need for more bishops at this moment in time. So, who is right? That will depend on who is ultimately right on relations with the Roman authorities according to Catholic principles and in fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre. This is +ABL in 1990, “Someone was saying to me yesterday, ‘But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops’ jurisdiction?’ But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But i do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been till now the difficulty is precisely their giving us a traditionalist bishop.” and that is exactly the same principle the Society still operates on. With regard to Bishop Williamson, I actually think the Society leadership was imprudent on this one, they should have ignored it and said nothing.

But, it couldn't be more clear that Fr. Pfeiffer's distaste for the Society leadership comes from emotional repugnance to the SSPX more than it does from intellectual conviction. He's said the SSPX is worse than the FSSP in the past, and some posters here seem to think the SSPX is worse than Rome, worse than the Freemasons, worse than anything. That isn't a balanced judgment by any means! Disagree with the Society if you must, but the SSPX remains a group of traditional Catholics. The SSPX has not said it will not consecrate new bishops, that is Fr. Pfeiffer's vivid imagination running wild. Should the real need arise in the future (consecrations can only be justified in a real state of necessity), there is no reason why the SSPX will not consecrate more bishops.