http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php

Now, twenty-five years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, where is the future of the Society?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - Things are clearer. During our pilgrimage to Rome in 2000, we experienced the charm offensive on the part of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who was pushing John Paul II to unilaterally recognize the Brotherhood. Benedict XVI then gave us our two 'pre': recognition of the freedom of the traditional Mass and withdrawal (more or less happy, for us and for him) of the 1988 excommunications In 2010-2011 , we had doctrinal discussions scheduled: and disagree! Our Superior General Bishop Fellay felt good to continue the negotiations and this has caused enough concern among us, until it was clear, in May and June 2012 , Benedict always asked as a condition, as the had said earlier bluntly, the acceptance of the Council and the legitimacy of reforms. It was failure. But now there is obviously the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say 'Go!' Because things are moving and they still need progress.

Archbishop Lefebvre has never posed as a condition of recognition by our new Rome, Rome abandons errors and conciliar reforms. Even if he said something like that to André Cagnon in 1990, he would have never done, because it had never been its policy, strategy with modernist Rome. He was strong in faith, he did not give in on its doctrinal position, but he knew to be flexible, patient, careful, in practice. To achieve his ends, prudence told him to push the opponent, harass, to the back, to persuade, but not block it by requirements still found unacceptable. He did not refuse the dialogue and was willing to take advantage of any door opened by the speaker. It is in this sense that pointed at him a certain opportunism, we spoke of 'pragmatism', and it's true: it's a small annex under the cardinal virtue of prudence, sagacity, a practical wisdom, it is close to the solertia , spoken of Aristotle, St. Thomas (2-2, q. 48, a. unicus ) and 'Gaffiot', which is the ability to find the means to achieve its ends .

Archbishop Lefebvre asked with that sagacity "we are at least tolerated" "It would be a major advance," he said. And "we are accepted as we are," that is to say with our practice that stems from our doctrinal positions. Well, today we see from Rome a provision to support our existence and our theoretical positions and practices. I say 'support' to avoid 'tolerate' because it tolerates bad!

Doctrinally, already, we no longer forces us to admit 'the whole Council' or religious freedom; some errors we denounce is about to be considered by our interlocutors as food for free discussion or debate continued. This is progress. We discuss, but we must admit that we do not change and that it is unlikely that we change. And in practice, we ask these Romans: "Recognize our right right to reconfirm the faithful conditional" and again: "Acknowledge the validity of our marriage! "You see, these are serious irritants. It will be necessary that we recognize these things. Otherwise how would our gratitude livable?

This may take time, but there is a God!

“Benedict always asked as a condition, as the had said earlier bluntly, the acceptance of the Council and the legitimacy of reforms. It was failure. But now there is obviously the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say 'Go!'”

He makes himself very clear.He’s only  open to a potential agreement if “the Council and legitimacy of the reforms” are not conditions for an agreement. If the Society is regularized without these conditions, no harm done.

Problem: There is no requirement of conversion on the part of Rome (which, as several other posts in the Catalog thread have already shown, entails an entry into the same doctrinal pluralism Archbishop Lefebvre rejected.  Bishop Fellay was quite explicit in his several acknowledgements of that).

Today, however, the SSPX no longer cares: It wants a deal it (mistakenly) thinks will be good for them.

Conversely, post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre refused to enter into any such agreements, because he was fixated not on the good of the SSPX, but on the good of the whole Church (which, with the only voice of sanity being neutralized by a "regularization," there is nobody left to recall Rome to its senses).

The SSPX lost focus, and started gazing at itself in the mirror, rather than thinking about the good of Rome (whatever lip-service it may pay to the contrary):

It wants a deal, and that's the end of the story.

Carry on!

-X