CathInfo.com

The fact is that the Archbishop was a human being, and an incredibly holy one. He always sought to see the best in people, and the same went for Rome and the newpopes. For decades, he held out hope that things would get better, as any Catholic should have done. Once it became apparent, particularly at Assisi, that the Romans were interested primarily in smashing the First Commandment and making war on the Faith, the Archbishop realized that collaboration would be impossible. 

Justifying the relentless pursuit of an agreement by using the Archbishop's careful negotiations throughout the 70s and 80s is capitalizing on his good will. He was a man of good will, but also smart enough to recognize that by 1988, the gulf between the newchurch and the Society was so large that an agreement was simply not possible, even if offered carte blanche, doctrinal conditions aside. The argument that the Society is just fine simply because they're doing what the Archbishop did is unacceptable.

The archbishop was testing the waters throughout the 1970s. Assisi hadn't happened yet, and a bunch of other events hadn't taken place. The circuмstances were a little different. The were still (a few) cardinals and bishops who seemed genuinely sympathetic towards tradition. These cardinals died, or simply changed their positions, and the newpopes continued their destruction of the Church. I'm sorry, but your argument is very disengenuous, and again, demonstrates that you don't really understand what the Archbishop was about. 

'Oh, Archbishop Lefebvre met with rome in the 1970s so therefore the Society has the obligation to resume negotiations in 2019' is the epitome of wishful thinking. 

This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Don't forget that we're talking about doctrine here. To suggest that the Society is spiritually and doctrinally sound simply because they're building fancy new seminaries and big chapels is flat out wrong.

Glad you raised this point.  You may have missed the earlier thread where I called him out for PRECISELY THIS.  I asked him, given his theological positions, what reason does he have of being with the SSPX rather than in full communion with Rome in the FSSP?  I told him that he would have to have serious theological reasons, reasons of conscience, to justify this to absolve him from schism.  His answer then was the same, that it was essentially due to the size of the SSPX's seminary.