For the record, ultima ratio had publicly stated on Free Republic that he disagrees with many of the SSPX priests with respect to their position on the war in Iraq. He has also expressed disagreement with some of the opinions held by Bishop Williamson.
Nineot, your post was disingenuous.
5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
So on the bright side, UR is an American Patriot, as opposed the treasonous French jackals we have proclaiming themselves the true remnant of the Catholic Church who run the SSPX?
Dissent from the SSPX on Iraq makes one not in adherance to their schism?
The post is NOT disingenous, and it doesn't deal with the twaddle and feint/dodge garbage you cite.