At this point not many trust any of what you say.
Mr. Ross said it yourself from the first page of this thread:
"Our own reputations have been destroyed"
We can understand why. It's because you're wrong! The more you say the deeper the hole you're digging yourself in because it makes it all the more clear.
'The ultimatum' you speak of goes for everyone and it's not how you describe and explain it.
I'm reading the new Recusant May issue. I think they are in the situation as OLSC that OLMC is miles away and the priests visit when they can often many months between. Looking at the pictures in England I see other priests of the true resistance offering Mass. OLMC goes there and they have no problems because all are on the same page of the true resistance. Proofs that Fr. Pfeiffer does approve other priests to visit in other groups. Is G.B. not under OLMC? Your problem is bigger than what you are telling people. Secret and clandestine activity has been the trademark of the false resistance working and finagling with priests who have ulterior motives to undermine the true resistance. Do Fr. Zendahas, Fr. Ortiz, Fr. McDonald, etc ring a bell? All were welcomed to join in with the resistance and like Fr. Ortiz, Fr. McDonald were accepted as sincere, but we learned later that they were sent in to subvert. We learned from the first day what (then)Fr. Z was up to. Are you not paying attention?
While you are trying to get people to believe you're innocent little victims the truth is, the problems of OLSC started years ago as we all know with the other priests who refused to submit to your authority which is unordered and un-Catholic way of working and thinking. When they decided to stick with B.W. and be silent regarding his errors that made it convenient to say they are bad because they are of the false resistance. But that's where the problems of OLSC started.
The 'ultimatum' you speak of goes back to your refusal to submit to Catholic hierarchy. Non of the priests you point fingers at fall into that category. Fr. Chazal, Fr. Picot, Fr. Pfeiffer all recognize their authorities the same as ABL did. Fr. Pfeiffer still refers to the Bishop over him and has explained for years why he disobeys him. Fr. Pfeiffer even visits district superiors when he can, reminding them that he recognizes them and the reasons he disobeys them. Haven't you heard Fr. Pfeiffer say it? because he has said it so many times. ABL did the same. Archbp Lefebvre told Pope Paul VI to his face, "Holy Father you put me in a bad situation wherey I must choose between disobeying 262 popes, OR you. I choose to disobey you."
Mr. Ross you can repeat your false arguement as many times as you want but it won't change the fact that it ain't so. Fr. Pfeiffer does not make himself his own authority. The authority he stands on is Church Magisterium. To be under the person of authority who is in error doctrinally is of no use. It is the Church magisterium we all must follow.
As you already know, with the false resistance as fine example, they may have a person of a bishop to claim as their superior, but it's the false doctrine that is the problem. Do you want to blame Fr. Pfeiffer as the origin of the problem that his superiors are doctinally wrong? The only ones who can fix the problem of his superiors are those superiors themselves.
Why is it that you keep hinting about a true resistance priest that Fr. Pfeiffer has told you you cannot invite? We'd like to know whose authority that priest is under since you want to make a big deal about it.