[ultima ratio]

"Archbishop Lefebvre reneged on an agreement allowing him to ordain ONE bishop that would be approved by the Holy Father (AS ARE ALL BISHOPS), not simply one of Archbishop Lefebvre's choosing."

Not the whole story. The regularization of the SSPX also meant the setting-up of a secretariat to oversee relations between Rome and the SSPX which would exercise tremendous authority. The Archbishop worried about the constitution of this commission and whether it would be comprised of traditionalists. Rome obviously was not thinking in that direction. It was clear the end in view for Rome was the destruction of tradition.

So it's true the May 5th Protocol promised the Archbishop the bishop he had requested--actually names on a list, of men about whom he knew very little. But it resolved nothing regarding the proposed commission. And while the Archbishop at first signed the protocol--he properly reconsidered after he reflected on the dire consequences of his action.

[Mershon]

"The regularization of the SSPX also meant the setting-up of a secretariat to oversee relations between Rome and the SSPX which would exercise tremendous authority."

BCM: For which "authority" the Pope and the Curia exercise over all Catholics universally everywhere, correct? What is your point here? That the SSPX would have to submit to the Vicar of Christ and his duly appointed authorities? Funny, as Vatican I says, I thought that was part of being Catholic.

Hey, winning converts to the Faith and increasing the presence of Tradition and tradition in the Bible Belt. Great news, huh? Quite hopeful.

Funny, I never hear SSPX types talk about the absolute essential character of unity within the Church. Unity is one of the four marks. I also NEVER hear them talk about the theological virtue of hope. Faith a lot, but not hope, nor unity.