When +W was here he said if there were talks with Rome, they should be "you're a pack of damned liars." Rats, he called them.
And now if Bergoglio calls on him to "fix the Church" he'd come running? What's the difference between +W and +F then? One's "bad willed" and Bishop Williamson is just naive? I'm seriously asking. I don't see it.
If memory serves, Archbishop Lefebvre had a limo sent for him in 1988 during the talks over the protocol. He didn't get into the limo. Think he'd have lived long enough to get out of it?
And Bishop Williamson thinks something has changed between April last year and now where if he's called to "fix the Church" he'll come running to the people he calls liars and rats?
I thought the driving force behind the SSPX Resistance was that there could not be a "deal" until Rome converted. Is that true or not? Depends on who you ask, I guess.
ETA: If a "deal" with Rome is acceptable before it converts, then the whole "principle vs. prudence" canard is just that, a canard. There is no principle by which a deal cannot be reached before Rome converts, it's just a question of how prudent such a deal would be.