In a January 2016 conference, Bishop de Galarreta sets forth his current position on agreement with Rome:
We do not refuse, you see, in an absolute and theoretical way the possibility of an agreement with Rome. That is what distinguishes us from the ‘Resistance’. For them it is a principle. It is a doctrinal question: ‘You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’ Such is not our position.
And again, Galarreta claims to be following Archbishop Lefebvre:
It is important to repeat it: it was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. He signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome.
Bishop de Galarreta now holds the opposite of what he held four years ago. He distorts Archbishop Lefebvre’s teaching to match his own new liberalism. Worst of all, Galarreta rejects the truth, which Archbishop Lefebvre upheld and we must also uphold.
Bishop de Galarreta used to teach that we cannot join forces with Modernist Rome:
they are not ready to give up the Vatican II Council, nor the liberal doctrines of it, and their intention, their obvious desire, is to bring us back to it. ... it is illusory and unrealistic to believe that we could reach a pragmatic agreement, appropriate and warranted, and even just acceptable to both parties.
October 2011 conference in Albano.
Again, on April 7, 2012, Galarreta and the other two bishops wrote the following to Bishop Fellay:
How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
In other words, as Galarreta correctly declared less than four years ago, we must not agree with Rome, because Rome persists in conciliar errors. In 2016, Bishop de Galarreta teaches the opposite. The confusing double negative notwithstanding, Galarreta now ‘admit[s] the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’
As we already saw, Galarreta deceitfully pretends to agree with Archbishop Lefebvre: It is important to repeat it: it was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. He signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome.
It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol at 4:30pm on May 5, 1988. But he wrote a letter of retraction during the sleepless night that followed: Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.
See Bishop Tissier’s Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 555. Bishop de Galarreta wants us to determine Archbishop Lefebvre’s position based on a document that he unsigned just hours after signing it.
How quickly Galarreta forgets what Archbishop Lefebvre preached on the day of the consecrations!
Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world! ...
Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation Suicide”.
Bishop de Galarreta fails to distinguish between Eternal Rome and conciliar Rome. Therefore, he misunderstands why the Resistance disagrees with him. Look at his words again:
We do not refuse, you see, in an absolute and theoretical way the possibility of an agreement with Rome. That is what distinguishes us from the ‘Resistance’. For them it is a principle. It is a doctrinal question: ‘You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’ Such is not our position.
In other words, Galarreta maintains that the Resistance opposes agreement with Rome unqualifiedly, while he does not.
On the contrary, following Archbishop Lefebvre, we distinguish between the Catholic Rome, which we embrace, and the conciliar Rome, which we repudiate:
We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 November 1974.
In other words, we cannot agree with Pope Francis and his modernist hierarchy, until they come back to Tradition, as Archbishop Lefebvre taught:
It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.
Spiritual Journey, ch. 3.
These words apply equally well to priests and to laypeople. When may we start dialogging with Rome again? We must have the same clear answer as Archbishop Lefebvre had!
I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk!
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, pp. 223-224.