Thank you for these posts.
Note also that the burden on proof is on the Curia and not on the SSPX in this, because it is the Curia that promulgated and now defends Vatican II. It is therefore incorrect to view the dispute as such where the SSPX must make some concessions and the Curia must make other concessions. The fact is that despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified. It was wonderful that this Pope made the steps toward reconciliation, but clearly another step or steps are needed.
Perhaps firing Levada for apparently not negotiating in good faith would be a good step to restart the reconciliation. I'd like to see the Holy Father engage in it without intermediaries; it is the central task of his pontificate.
Vatican II can be interpreted as consistent with Sacred Tradition (although, tragically, it can also be otherwise interpreted) - and it is this consistent interpretation that the Pope calls for as a "hermeneutic of continuity" and within which he defends the authority of Vatican II.
The fact is that despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified.
What you say here makes sense, and seems obvious to me, but that is really what confuses me about the whole thing. As an outsider (I have never seen a Mass in Latin as they were always banned by the bishop here) I just find it all very confusing. People say that the SSPX are innovative and holding to a different faith than the eternal Catholic one, and yet they are traditionalists. How can that be? If traditionalists don't hold to the "true faith" then it can only be that everybody else's definition of that has changed, and not the other way around. Or so it seems to me. And we see them being required to accept some particular interpretation of Vatican II before being allowed back into the Church, and yet at the same time Anglicans (who have made no bones about denying many councils throughout history) are being brought back in by the droves without ever being asked about particular interpretations of specific councils. Why is that? I was raised Anglican and I am fully aware of the many, many heresies and denials of the faith rampant in that church, and yet they are somehow accepted as being more catholic than the SSPX? How could that even be a little bit possible? Self professing lesbian Buddhists cannot be denied communion, but we can't allow the SSPX back in? Huh?!?
“Our last pope made some suggestions about an optional private prayer, i.e. the Rosary, and all the Catholics leapt on it as a direct revelation from heaven which forbade any use of a traditional Rosary throughout the world.”
Ummm...huh?