Neo-SSPX turn out to not be compromisers after all, eh?
Walty, this is such a dumb comment, and you're not a dumb guy, so I can only imagine that it's made out of ignorance.
The only reason any of this is an issue is that
A) it contradicts the massive 'defense of the deal' campaign (viz. Fr Themann's conference at SSPX mecca St Mary's and the subsequent mass mailing campaign which included copies of said conference and a defense of the deal-- though more an attack on the Resistance). Fellay and Co has put A LOT of effort into defending the deal-- Fr Themann's conference, the mailing campaign, local priests going on 'vacation' while a visiting priest came to chase the resistors out of the chapel...
B) Fellay has switched his stance dozens of times. I think on average we're looking at a monthly switch. And we're talking contradictory positions. One day the NO is licit, the next day it isn't. One day we're going to make a deal with Rome, one day we're not. One day Rome doesn't have to convert, the next day they do.
And of course, all of this is in the face of GREC, the expulsion of H.E. Williamson, the expulsion and effective expulsion of very holy priests who would not stay silent while Menzingen plotted, the docuмented liberalising of the society proper (from the seminary formation to the removal of 'sensitive' articles from their site, the approval of the NO, VII wasn't all that bad, etc.).
Hopefully we can get a reply out of you, and not have you pull a Someone1776 quasi-'gotcha' post.