"Regarding the differences among us (SSPX, CMRI, etc) it occurs to me that we don't differ about the facts. The Vatican II Vatican has sown and reaped and it is a matter of record. We don't dispute that. What we do dispute is our conclusions as to the position those people hold. We dispute our conclusions, no more, no less."
I disagree. The differences go far beyond the validity and the impact of Vatican II: they range from such a simple, basic practice such as whether or not women should cut their hair short and wear pants, to the larger, more complex issues such as whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass is valid or whether or not we indeed have a Pope. Mr. X says we do, Mr. Y says we dont. Both think they're right.
"It is probably a whole lot easier for me to say, "The Vatican II popes abused us," than it is for others, because I've been down this road before. I think it would be positively wonderful to have a Vicar of Christ again, but I don't need one so desparately that I am willing to overlook the facts and bury myself in a dream. And it is just a whole lot healthier to get on with my life than it is to wait for them to come around. The chances just aren't very good."
Here is a perfect example. When you say "...it would be positively wonderful to have a Vicar of Christ again", you are stating or strongly implying that we DONT have a Pope right now. How is someone who does believe in fact we have a Pope, albeit not a very good one, supposed to "set our differences aside" where such a fundamental matter is concerned?