The SSPX is cooked.

The SSPX has been cooked since they signed on for those clandestine meetings with GREC in the 1990's. 

The point of comparison for the consecrations by Bishop Williamson should not be 1988, but 1991.
That was when the long-forgotten consecration of Bishop Rangel (Campos) by the SSPX took place.
It is impossible for the SSPX to justify the 1991 consecration and simultaneously criticize the consecrations by Msgr. Williamson. This is probably also the reason why it is never mentioned.

I, for one, had forgotten all about this, not about Rangel himself, but about the time frame.

Did the 2009 protocol lift both the 1988 putative excommunications, and the subsequent ones incurred in 1991 with the consecration of Rangel?

If there is any difference between the SSPX and Resistance, I'd say it is summed up in that pdf; that the SSPX still recognizes the Church authorities at the Vatican in act, while the Resistance hardly recognizes them in word only.

So, the SSPX can say; "we tried asking for bishops, out of respect for Church authority", while the Resistance can say; "we do what we want without any regard for the current authorities of the Church, while further disrespecting them by calling the [supposed] Pope by his birth name."

Feel free to correct my over simplification, but don't be blinded by the pride you have in your side of the matter. Dialogue and attempting to respect authority are two different things, and it appears to me that the SSPX gets the latter right, while the Resistance doesn't.

No, not at all. It is the Resistance, in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's position after the consecrations, that gets it right.

The villains in Rome, to use the wonderful vocabulary of Bishop Williamson, so systematically abuse their authority and undermine the truth that it is dangerous to go anywhere near them. We can see how close the great Archbishop himself came to shipwreck in 1988. Which is why he said afterwards "if anything, I went too far", that "our truest friends warned me against going to Rome, warned me that it was dangerous" or words very close to that. New Rome has made it abundantly clear for many decades that they want to destroy Tradition and that they cannot be trusted. We must completely separate from them if we want to keep the Faith, that was the Archbishop's final counsel.

"We do what we want without any regard for the current authorities of the Church, while further disrespecting them by calling the [supposed] Pope by his birth name" - this is not at all the position of the Resistance, but the position of the sedevacantists.

No, not at all. It is the Resistance, in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's position after the consecrations, that gets it right.

The villains in Rome, to use the wonderful vocabulary of Bishop Williamson, so systematically abuse their authority and undermine the truth that it is dangerous to go anywhere near them. We can see how close the great Archbishop himself came to shipwreck in 1988. Which is why he said afterwards "if anything, I went too far", that "our truest friends warned me against going to Rome, warned me that it was dangerous" or words very close to that. New Rome has made it abundantly clear for many decades that they want to destroy Tradition and that they cannot be trusted. We must completely separate from them if we want to keep the Faith, that was the Archbishop's final counsel.

"We do what we want without any regard for the current authorities of the Church, while further disrespecting them by calling the [supposed] Pope by his birth name" - this is not at all the position of the Resistance, but the position of the sedevacantists.

The sedevacantists do not consider those in the Novus Ordo to have any authority, let alone to be called 'authorities of the Church'.

Nice gaslighting.  The new-sspx “asked” new-Rome about bishops.  lol.  We all know what the answer would be. 

Their “asking” is about as constructive as a student “asking” the principal if he can skip school on Wednesday to avoid a test.  What do you think the principal is going to say?  And then when the student skips school, he can say “Well, I asked nicely.”

You guys are so ridiculous. 

It's important to actually demonstrate your respect to authority, even if you already know the answer; then it is on them as to whether they used their authority correctly or not. This isn't about seeking permission to do something evil, rather seeking permission to do a necessary good, a good that the authority is obligated to approve. It's an act of humility and a sign of faithfulness and obedience to God. This is not dialogue where there is the risk of subversion, so long as the candidates for bishop are non negotiable and sufficiently suitable for their role.

It's important to actually demonstrate your respect to authority, even if you already know the answer; then it is on them as to whether they used their authority correctly or not. This isn't about seeking permission to do something evil, rather seeking permission to do a necessary good, a good that the authority is obligated to approve. It's an act of humility and a sign of faithfulness and obedience to God. This is not dialogue where there is the risk of subversion, so long as the candidates for bishop are non negotiable and sufficiently suitable for their role.

No, it would be an act of stupidity.

Everything is at the service of the Faith. Now to seek permission to continue Tradition from those who have clearly demonstrated they want to destroy it is to put the Faith in danger, as has been proven too many times. Seeking permission necessarily puts you in dialogue with this cunning enemy, and if permission is granted it straight away puts you in a compromised position, since they would know how to make you feel obligated to them.

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old definitively abandoned this path when the dangers became clear. The example cited by GB above is all the evidence you need.

Whats so weird about the statement of the SSPX against Bishop Faures consecration is that they don't explain how they are not comparable.

Because there was not as many tv cameras? Because they didn't create as much of a fuss?

The consecration was done publicly and with many witnesses. It's totally consistent with Archbishop Lefebvre because he said after his first consecrations that they shouldnt talk to Rome unless Rome had clearly converted.

Also ridiculous is that they consecrated Bishop Rifan in Brazil shortly after that and there was no fuss, or consulting with Rome about it. They just did it.