That their sellout would most certainly take the form of an agreement with Rome.

No agreement, no sellout.

How is this logical?

Can't an organization change itself radically on the inside, changing its official statements, beliefs, teachings, docuмents, sermons, etc. regardless of the relationship between itself and some outside organization (e.g., the Vatican)?

What does the relationship between the SSPX and the Vatican have to do with the SSPX's position on Vatican II, modernism, etc.? Nothing.

I posit that it's entirely reasonable that a complete sellout could be effected without any agreement with Rome. Futher, I hold that this is precisely what has taken place.

Fr. P addresses this in the "The SSPX is Dead" talk.  He says that from the day the Pharisees decided to kill Our Lord until the Day of the Crucifixion THREE AND A HALF YEARS passed.  During that time, the mind of the mob had to be prepared.  

All done without the Pharisees making an announcement.  It was announced by Pilate.

I'm confused, why would the SSPX want to convince you?

Their usual MO is to wash their hands of priests and laity who don't tow the line and forget about them.  That is what I witnessed over 30 years and I never saw a departure from that policy.

They didn't chase and try to convince the 9, Pope Michael, the people who left after the 88 consecrations or the people who left for the FSSP or The Transalpine Redemptorist Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer.  ( I do hope their Scottish island is big enough to fit their nameboard)

So what motivation would the SSPX have to convince the resistance?  What makes you think they want you back?

Wasn't Judas a bursar for Jesus and the apostles?

He was the one who "carried the money bag" - which is why St. Francis never wanted his disciples to carry money bags if I recall correctly. Too much like Judas.

So I suppose that could be a bursar of sorts.

The SSPX sent out a large mailing of Father Themann's talk,

"Resistance to What"

(something ggreg commented on and is well aware of)

Whom are they trying to convince?  Not the people on cathinfo?  Maybe it's true the SSPX doesn't care about particular people here, but they argue their case nonetheless.

I can't understand why disingenuous trolls are allowed on this forum.

In two hours time I am going into a meeting to sell a technology company to a large Indian IT company.  The CEO and CFO are with me and their lawyer.  The deal might happen, it might not, it probably will at this late stage.

Whatever happens, I could theoretically be accused or maligned of manipulating the players and selling the company too cheap or two expensive.  I need a paper trail to show I have acted in good faith.

Bishop Fellay was approached by Rome, he considered it prudent to negotiate, he did that, he kept part of the negotiation secret, ( a mistake in my opinion which allowed the resistance to imagine what the reasons might be for that).  Rome played silly buggers and no agreement could be reached.

I negotiate such deals frequently and I can't remember the last one which went to plan.  There is good will, bad lawyers, bad will good lawyers, sharks, saints, politics at both companies, sabotage, it's a minefield.  CEOs can lose their job or career if a deal goes wrong or fails.

Obviously, the SSPX has to be able to adjust its position according to the prudential circuмstances of the moment.  So, for example, when the Internet first exploded in the late 1990 they were dead against it.  It was evil, unknown, full of porn.  Now, they have 10-20 websites and post videos to YouTube and make podcasts. Prudence won over principle.

Looked at with the glasses of the mid 1990s people might think Williamson was on drugs to allow such a proximate occasion of sin to occur and wonder why he did not send the videos out on VHS tape.  It is a prudential judgement.  Most Catholics can avoid clicking on Rhianna's hot pants, we hope.

Barring a Divine chastisement and the destruction of Rome, at some point Rome will have a Pope who is good willed and ready to accept the SSPX back without compromise, but the time will never be perfect, because Rome has never been perfect.  There will always be risk in any rapprochement.

Some people will always imagine bad will on the part of one or both parties.

BS artists are very dangerous.  They change the subject to obfuscate when they're shown to be flatly wrong.

Most people don't have very good recall, they can easily be made to forget about things they need to remember.

Unfortunately, this applies to a lot of trads when BS artists get in their face and start pretending that things are other than what they are.

A "bastard rite" doesn't become "legitimately promulgated" unless you're selling out.

That was the plan, but people who don't care about theology will pretend it doesn't matter.  Which makes one ask the question, what is there reason for being trad, if you don't care?

Obviously, the SSPX is trying to convince people that nothing has changed, and those who want a more liberal society will disparage those resisting the changes as "loons."

Just as what happened when the changes were resisted in the 60s and 70s.

Someone who thinks Constantine changed the religion can't really believe in the Social Reign of Christ.  If you believe Catholic states evolved because of a likely corruption of the Gospels, then really you are rejecting the Catholic state.

He's far closer to those who said that Vatican II ended "the Constantinian era of the Church" than to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Catholicism can only be preserved by people who actually are Catholics and who have the Catholic Faith.

All the SSPX really needs to worry about is staying Catholic.  Unfortunately, it's apparently not a big priority for their leadership or for a lot of people who attend their masses.