I don't think the new-sspx will make a deal with +Francis.  I'm betting that +Fellay has been given back-room assurances that the next pope will be "conservative" (moreso than +Francis, which isn't saying much) and they'll make a deal with him.

The thing to remember though, is talk of "a deal" as in a fancy parchment scroll with the Superior General's signature, the General Council's signatures, and various Roman officials' signatures, is an outdated idea. It's "so 2012".

Lately, it has become increasingly clear that a different strategy is being employed:

1. Change the SSPX so that it can exist inside the Conciliar body without "rejection" or triggering any Vatican II antibodies or white blood cells.
The equivalent of "you want a promotion? Start being more competent, more valuable, and the promotion will follow." This works in business, why not here? The SSPX isn't going to start being nice to Rome AFTER the SSPX is approved by the latter. They have to be nice FIRST, and the approval will follow.

2. Get Rome to admit more and more than the SSPX is not schismatic, not problematic, increasingly legitimate, etc.

3. Rome is officially approving SSPX sacraments, one by one. Confession, Marriage, etc.

Why is it important for us to realize this new strategy? Because unlike the "parchment signed on the dotted line" which everyone agrees HAS NOT HAPPENED, the strategy outlined above is in the PAST or PRESENT tense -- not something that might happen in the future.

Just look at the thread of all the evidence of SSPX changes. You can see #1 has occurred, and a perusal of official news sources will give you evidence of #2 and #3.
http://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm

If the SSPX has changed to become more like the FSSP (or indistinguishable from it), and the deal is being done piecemeal, so as not to upset the Trad SSPX Faithful, how can it be said that a deal hasn't been done? How can one say the Resistance was wrong, if the "deal" is actually 66.6% consummated already?

Agree.  They are using the same tactics as the communistic post-V2 atmosphere.  Look at any major revolution (in a country or group) and you’ll see the same approach.  1) all known and potential opposition (+W and others) are removed, chastised and degraded.  2) immediately the leadership lies about why people in #1 left, 3) reiteration of “principles” to calm the people, 4) slowly make changes while reiterating that principles have not changed, 5) accept “gifts” from the enemy and soften the stance against certain principles (20%), while continuing to reiterate the other 80% “will never change”.  6) continue this process, adding 5-10% of principles to the softening category every few years, as the people will accept.  7) if internal opposition arises, repeat step #1...

Banezian,

You are ignorant, a die-hard SSPX partisan who would stick with them if the SSPX started offering the Novus Ordo Missae. I do not exaggerate when I say that even if the SSPX literally signed on the dotted line on parchment, you would then -- without missing a beat -- begin to attack the Resistance as being schismatic, modern-day Old Catholics, etc. for failing to return to Modernist Rome with the SSPX.

You are extremely proud and you seem to take pride in the fact that you can argue any side, regardless of reality or the evidence. Fine. You want to make excuses even for blatant contradictions and blatant, docuмented changes in the SSPX. Fine. You want to be willfully blind. Fine.

But don't expect me to give your nonsense a platform on my pro-Resistance forum. Your nonsense already has a voice: Angelus Online, SSPX.org, Cor Unum, and any other official SSPX or SSPX-friendly website. I don't worry about your "view" getting squashed out of existence. I think those websites have much more visibility and traffic than CathInfo. Just call me heartless for not worrying about Goliath as he goes out to battle David! (Let's face it, if God hadn't been with David, Goliath would have been picking pieces of David out from between his toes.)

I, on the other hand, am well aware that when error and truth are presented equally, truth does NOT always prevail in the mind of every viewer. The idea that "let all the ideas compete on the free marketplace of ideas -- the truth will prevail!" is a non-Catholic idea which denies Original Sin and its effects.

The fact is the opposite: given Original Sin and the consequent darkening of the intellect, our meat brains often get it wrong.

If you don't like my moderation style or my forum, there's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out. The wisdom and insight offered by a teenager who subjects himself to regular SSPX brainwashing is worth about zero to me. I don't think you add anything useful to the forum. You are in the stage of life where you need to be silent, listen, and learn -- not presume to teach others (much less your elders!), whether by written or spoken word.

I would feel sorry for any individual so ignorant and pathetic that they found the words of a teenager to be enlightening, informative, or insightful!

Matthew


P.S. Since I know a post like this won't end well with someone like you, I'm going to go ahead and do the deed right now. Namely, to ban you.

Ban Banezian (I know you already did, I just like the ring of it).

Banezian showed himself a Modernist on this forum, which is why has has no issues with the incipient/nascent Modernism of the neo-SSPX.

Perhaps poche could go with him?  

I oppose the ban of Banezian because I value the differences of opinion on the forum. I did not agree with him on most of the contentious issues and understood why he had so many dislikes, but it is good hearing from a different perspective. But I don't like bans usually except for obvious trolls and Classicom.

Well, from where I stand he was a troll. 

One thing he said seemed strange to me. I believe he said he sometimes attended resistance Masses. That surprised me.

Who was he?  Some of you seemed to know him and details of his life.