Its also noteworthy to point out, that whatever 'sacrifices' Rome has done up to this point, as read in the article, would not have been permitted if someone was not willing to accept such a sacrifice. That is, if BXVI has been "risking his reputation" this entire time, by whatever means, as a means to show his good faith to the Society this should be a red-flag indeed; it is reason enough to be cautious of regularizing with Rome.
Would not true 'good faith' and a pope who would be worth reconciling with have done the Motu Propio, the lifting of the excommunications, etc. on his own? Let us remember, it is not the traditionalists who have left Tradition, but the other way around. Should not the the unity between Society and Rome be a natural phenomenon; And its the fault of the Society leadership for permitting the appearance of dialogue which would indicate that 'that' is what it was after; that ordinary jurisdiction was its objective.
If it can be proven that all the Society has wanted since its inception was to form priests in the traditional method, yet be able to continue living in a state of 'normality' with Rome, then there's nothing else to be said.
But this is not the case. If it were, ABL would never have gone so far as to danger himself with what he know would be an 'excommunication'. He consecrated four bishops, knowing full well what the reaction from Rome would be; lets not forget, this is a man who worked closely with these people before all of this happened. He knew how they worked, and he'd had enough of of the trampling on the Faith.
The point is, if he only wanted a traditional formation, with regularity with Rome being equally important, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. And it seems as if this is now the mentality of the superiors of the Society. That 'regularization' is what's most important, not the safety of the Priesthood and tradition from would-be destroyers, the modernists.
ABL allowed himself to separate from NewRome for a reason. Has that reason truly disappeared?