Ok. Now you are actually referring to something. Thank you.
So what's your problem with Bishop Fellay's preamble? And did you compare it with the Archbishop's protocol of agreement? Just click the box up in the righthand corner.
How is Bishop Fellay a "Judas Goat" and the Archbishop with his protocol not?
Because the Archbishop correctly realized that it would be an absolutely wrong move
on the part of the Society to reconcile with Rome in 1988. That's why he took back his initials on the May 5, 1988 Protocol and went ahead with the consecrations on June 30, 1988 - not even waiting until the date given to him by Rome: August 15, 1988. From then on, the Archbishop vowed never again
communicate with Rome unless they first returned to Tradition. This has been verified countless times over the years by people who had been very close the Archbishop during these final years of his life.
With that being said, why would + Fellay even think about
reconciling with this Rome? Does anyone honestly believe that Rome is more Traditional in 2018 than it was in 1988? Quite the contrary! That's why, IMO, if + Fellay reconciles the SSPX with Rome (and gets his little Personal Prelature which he is so desperately seeking) then the SSPX will be recognized by that same Rome
which still considers excommunicated the man who had made + Fellay a bishop in the first place! That alone is stabbing your mentor in the back! Also, if the Archbishop adamantly refused to reconcile with Rome when he was given the chance to do so 30 years ago because of its horrible modernism, what in the world would possess + Fellay to want to reconcile with a Rome that is 1000 times more modernist today?
Maybe it's because of his own ego...maybe he wants to be always remembered in Church history as "the one who finally brought the Society into full communion with Rome."
But at what cost??
For years, the SSPX constantly told their faithful that they should not
attend FSSP Masses (one main reason being because they were in full communion with the Holy See). If and when the SSPX becomes in full communion with the Holy See, not only will they be no different from the FSSP in validity and practice (despite what the SSPX PR tells their members so they don't leave the Society) but they will have also gone against absolutely everything the Society has stood for since their inception nearly 50 years ago
Archbishop Lefebvre could've easily brought the Society into full communion with Rome on August 15, 1988 but he chose not to do so. Do you need to still ask yourself "why"
he decided not to reconcile with Rome all those years ago?? How can anyone NOT SEE
that joining in full communion with Rome today
will be a definitive admittance that everything the Archbishop had done from 1988 until his death was "all for naught??" Do you really think the SSPX will get more members once they are in full communion with Rome?
Don't you think many people will say things such as: "I'll stick with the FSSP, at least they've always been in full communion with Rome" or "I prefer the FSSP because they've been in the Church for 30 years while those SSPX misfits just joined up."??
If you think the answer is "no," and that more and more people are going to come pouring into the SSPX now that it's finally in full communion, then you are sadly mistaken. Judging by your inquiry into my opinions of Bishop Fellay, it's most likely that you either support the SSPX or are a member. If so, I can only recommend that you get a new Superior General this July who will not make any deals with Rome and therefore will save the Society from the embarrassment and ridicule it will receive the minute Rome fully accepts them. On that day, every member of every SSPX chapel should be downright ashamed to hang on their walls a photograph of Achbishop Marcel Lefebvre: the man whose actions kept the SSPX free from Roman Modernism (and the man who suffered a painful excommunication because of doing so) will, on that day, all have been for nothing.
And the SSPX will have only themselves to blame for it.