From Bishop de Galarreta's "Reflections on a Roman Proposal" tendered to the major superiors -sans +Williamson- gathered in Albano, Italy in October/2011 to decide on accepting or rejecting Rome's secret "doctrinal preamble" (later to become the "April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration"):

IV.  ENTRY INTO CONTRADICTION: To move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra. There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.  It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings. Otherwise, one would think that Msgr. Rifan and Father Aulagnier were right.  Such an approach would show a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the Fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and moral authority we enjoy.  

V.  IMPLOSION OF THE FRATERNITY:  The mere fact of going down this path will lead us to doubt, dispute, distrust, parties, and especially division. Many superiors and priests have a legitimate problem of conscience and will oppose it.  Authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned, undermined.  We cannot join the caravan [**aller a la remorque] in our contacts with Rome, we must keep the commands, mark the time and conditions. So we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of stress and possible Roman maneuvers.  Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing minds otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise it will only cause division and, by reaction, squabbling, anarchy.


Commentary:

1) I wrote a book showing that not long after Bishop Fellay's election as Superior General, there were already forces (including the new Superior General) working at attaining Bishop de Galarreta's "consensus and decision to change."

2) +BdG mentioned that there was no change in Rome which could justify the SSPX changing, despite the March/2012 Cor Unum article a few months later, selling the deal.

3) It appears that Bishop Fellay used Bishop de Galarreta's objections as a list to overcome, and contrive justifications for chasing an accord anyway.

4) And Bishop de Galarreta -despite a momentary act of courage following upon the March/2013 Cor Unum, as evinced by his signature in the Letter of the Three Bishops imploring +Fellay not to sign with modernist Rome- allowed +Fellay to contrive "solutions" for his objections.

5) And today, SSPX priests are still regurgitating the moronic idea (as a consequence of LeRoux's "Three D's?) cited by the Cor Unum as justifying the betrayal of their founder (and the prospects for the recovery of the Church, by allowing themselves to be absorbed and amalgamated into the great pluralistic and ecuмenical church).

Obviously, +Fellay was successful in achieving +de Galarreta's "conviction and consensus to change."