The Society has made it clear that they are not going to accept Modernism or Vatican 2.

Why did Bishop Fellay say" We ,The SSPX accepts 95% of Vatican II. Does Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty and Collegiality fall within that 5% that the SSPX does not accept. Why did Bishop Fellay after witnessing a Novus Ordo in Rome ,say that if Archbishop Lefevre had witnessed this same mass he would never have left Rome. Why was Archbishop Lefevre's and Bishop dE Castro Mayer's name not mentioned in the lifting of the so called false and illegitimate excommunications .Why ask for them to be lifted if the SSPX has wasted time and money to have books written in their defense of no real excommunications happened. Books on how they the SSPX have supplied jurisdiction according to much research by Fr. Angles. Why did Bishop Fellay throw out over 100 Priests and one Bishop for doing what they've always done, "speaking the truth" in season and out.
I would say from the visual evidence Bishop Fellay is maneuvering the Society for a merger with Rome, the sooner the better in his eyes. This latest chapter election is a reprieve toward an eventuality, The communist method seems to fit "two steps forward ,one step back ". We are now at the "one step back " period. A matter of time !

V2’s double-speak, contradictions, and ambiguities are not harmless or meaningless.  They are the essence of Modernism - that truth can change, be modified or altered “for a given situation”.  You obviously don’t even know what Modernism is.  

.

And none of you kooks can prove that the Society is accepting this. When did I ( or the SSPX) say truth can change?

.

.

Look man, I was at the seminary for several weeks in August. I’ve spoken to the priests on these questions. There’s not even a hint of Modernism.

.

Still Sliding The Newsociety has not changed direction. From Truth, it still intends the same defection. “No enemies on the left” is a classic saying of Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc. It means that in politics, nobody fighting on the left should fight anybody else fighting on the left, unless they are going over to the right. In religion, the same saying should apply as follows: nobody fighting the good fight for Catholic Tradition should fight anybody else fighting for Tradition, unless they are in the process of abandoning Tradition. This means that no Catholics of Tradition should normally be attacking the Society of St Pius X which for over 40 years rendered outstanding service to Tradition. Alas, its interim Chapter of 2012 showed it to be sliding away from that Tradition in which it had been founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now the elective Chapter of last July seems to show the same slide to be continuing. Therefore with no intention here to harm the Society, let Catholics learn of the officially continuing slide. [That is, unless they don't WANT to learn.] The evidence is in a circular letter from Society Headquarters in Menzingen which begins to tell details of policy decisions taken by the Chapter of last July concerning relations of the Society with Rome. The policy is in five sections, of which the first three and the fifth contain a variety of pious considerations to frame the fourth section, which could not be a more official presentation of the Society’s policy towards Rome. Here is the fourth section, quoted in full. It is so important for the Society’s immediate future that every word will have been chosen by the Chapter with special care, and every word may be analysed:— 4a It is within the rights of the Superior General to decide if it is expedient to have contacts with the Holy See. It is up to him, in prudence and when the hour has come, dictated by Divine Providence, to take into consideration a modification of the canonical status, without prejudice to the prior convocation of a Chapter. 4b The Society is a work of the Church. Therefore, she has no agreement to conclude with the Holy Father. However, when the time comes, the true rights of the Society will be recognised and codified canonically. This is why the Society’s members are invited to speak more specifically about a “normalisation,” a “recognition,” a “solution or modification of the canonical status,” or a “renewal of our canonical approval.” As to 4a – Indeed the Society’s Superior General must decide on what negotiations with Rome serve the Faith, and on how to conduct them, but in all Society Chapters prior to 2012 (1994, 2000, 2006), it was clearly repeated that any final submission to official Rome, or re-integration into it, or agreement with it, was something of such momentum for the Society that the Superior General could not alone decide on it without a full General Chapter also voting in its favour. Now note the phraseology of 2018: “modification of the canonical status” is a fig-leaf expression to cover over the placing of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of Truth under Conciliar Rome’s Authority of Lies. And “without prejudice to” (i.e. not excluding) is a poor substitute for “never without” (i.e. necessarily including). And note the assumption that the Superior General is guaranteed to decide in accordance with Providence. Did Paul VI have any such guarantee? As to 4b – Indeed normally no subject makes an agreement with his Superior as though they are equals, but Neo-modernist Rome is not normal Rome! The Archbishop’s Society of Truth has no business to be putting itself in the position of a beggar with regard to the modernists now holding office in Rome. Truth does not beg from lies, unless it is ceasing to be Truth. In fact the Newsociety of 2018, has lost all real grip on the truth of the overwhelming crisis in the Newchurch of Vatican II, and it is losing its grip on Truth in general. So the four fig-leaf expressions that the Chapter here chooses to replace words expressing the reality of the Newsociety HQ’s intended sell-out to the enemies of the Faith now in Rome, are wholly out of place. They absolutely do not correspond to the reality of that sell-out. Kyrie eleison.