On another extreme are those who think +Williamson wasn't even validly baptized ∵ he came from Anglicanism. 🤦‍♂️

I don't believe for a minute that he himself and the Archbishop didn't take that possibility into consideration and took steps to rectify it.
I believe the Archbishop made sure every candidate was validly baptized and confirmed before he ordained them.

"He never said that sedevacantism was the answer to the heresy of Modernism. He never mentioned sedevacantism at all."

What do you mean by this?

To me it sounds like you're saying, 
"The man occupying the Chair of St. Peter didn't mention the Chair of St. Peter being vacant."

Well, you're right. The man occupying the Chair of Peter [Pope St. Pius X] never said anything about the Chair of Peter EVER being vacant.

I don't believe for a minute that he himself and the Archbishop didn't take that possibility into consideration and took steps to rectify it.
I believe the Archbishop made sure every candidate was validly baptized and confirmed before he ordained them.

They make sure each Seminarian is *confirmed* validly, for crying out loud. Even more so they'd make sure about baptism.
A couple seminarians in my class received conditional Confirmation -- just weeks after entering the Seminary.

At least as of 2000, they were like that. I don't know what the neo-SSPX would do today. I can't speak to that.

They make sure each Seminarian is *confirmed* validly, for crying out loud. Even more so they'd make sure about baptism.
A couple seminarians in my class received conditional Confirmation -- just weeks after entering the Seminary.

At least as of 2000, they were like that. I don't know what the neo-SSPX would do today. I can't speak to that.

100% certain they do not go out of their way to conditionally confirm new Seminarians anymore, and perhaps refuse to even if the Seminarian requests ... since that would be "not nithe" in its implications toward Bergoglio.

Read old threads here on CI where the old and new code says "donations for a specific purpose must be used for that purpose" yet money raised for a new church was taken from the parishoners, the church was closed and the money used for another church miles away where the parishoners couldn't reach it.  Also a fully paid for church was signed over to the society who mortgaged it to the hilt and are now going to close it (sell it) and the parishoners will have to go to the indult.
There are several examples of when the code on donations wasn't adhered to.

Yes, the SSPX have engaged in this thievery for a long time.  So the Cleveland-area chapel had raised several hundred thousand dollars about 15 years ago now, since they had been operating out of basically a gutted out house.  At at some point that money evaporated, and then 5 years later, after another priest transfer, they had to start raising money all over again.  They should have had their church paid for LONG AGO, and in fact could have paid for it almost completely with what things cost 15 years ago.  SSPX will take money that the faithful donate to specific things, like building funds, for a church at their location, and shuffle it off to service the absurd debt at the seminary or even at St. Mary's.  I supposed their reasoning is that the individual chapels benefit from the seminary, but, as you point out, that's contrary to Canon Law ... nor would anyone have consented to that $50-million and counting monstrosity in Virginia (that has one of the lamest chapels I've seen for a 50-million-dollar complex), when Winona was perfectly fine and $1 million could have easily solved the artificially-created overcrowding problem.  See, they were only overcrowded when they added the separate Humanities year, and if you take those folks out of the mix, there's no overcrowding.  But even then, there was a ton of land up there and they could easily have just built another wing onto the building or put up another building for house an extra 20-30 people for about a million dollars, not 50 million.

Now, if I were building a seminary, THE focal point of the entire complex, its heart, would be the church/chapel, but the one they have there is absolutely lame, almost an after-thought, an add-on, to their living quarters and refectory, which evidently took top priority.

I read somewhere, I don't remember where, several years ago, when the new seminary was being built, that their "chapel" is actually slated to be the refectory but that they are using the future refectory as a chapel until they get the church built.   

I have long since wondered, if the purpose of the SSPX is the priesthood and it's spirituality is the Mass, as their statutes proclaim, why in the world would they solicit funds from the faithful, millions of dollars, to spend on a new church at St. Mary's rather than finish the church at the seminary and, frankly, finish the seminary all together, which as I understand, it still not finished?  

The SSPX has a very bad habit of starting projects and not finishing them.  

The SSPX has a very bad habit of starting projects and not finishing them. 

That’s very much true, in my experience. The reason is the constant rotation of priests and resultant infighting among the laity. Projects just about get off the ground when the founding priest is replaced by another with different goals and different supporters from among the faithful. 
I’ve resigned myself to being content with having valid traditional priests who give valid Sacraments, whether they be SSPX, Resistance, SSPV, independent, or by whatever label or lack thereof. It’s a condition that results from the failure of earthly authority at the top.

Having to check is a pain in the neck.
If in doubt, I do without. 
It’s a punishment for corporate sin. 
Who are we to resist God’s discipline?
Welcome to the Church Chaotic!

”…having food and raiment, let us be there with content.” ~St. Paul

Sorry but this looks neither serene nor religious.
Looks like all you have to do is add a surrounding wall and guard towers.