I'm not sure on what basis they've done a deal. Rome has not changed. Why now?
An excellent question, and this would be my own speculation based on what I have been able to piece together from all the various public reports, coupled with my own experience with large organizations launching significant change for their stakeholders. First, an illustration:
In 99.99% of legal actions, not counting those where the respondent/defendent simply ignores it, there is an exchange of pleadings and, ultimately, either a negotiated settlement or a trial with an outcome, one way or the other. In that remaining 0.01% of cases, however, we have a very interesting situation but rarely exercised response:
The statement of claim that initiates the lawsuit (or whatever it's called in your jurisdiction) is basically a written document in a set format from one party to another making a claim for money or other relief. This document allows the respondent/defendent to, if they wish, simply tick a box and say basically "Yep, looks right...I agree with everything here and will pay and do what is asked for." There is no defence filed. There are no pleadings exchanged. The lawsuit at that point simply stops as soon as the Claim is filed back with the court, signed by the Defendent, with accompanying payment or whatever. No more negotiations. No opportunity for the Plaintiff to change their minds. Nothing. The Defendent simply and unilaterally ends the action. (Details may vary by jurisdiction)
Now, as I said, even though this option is always there, it is virtually NEVER done because generally speaking you can always negotiate something even a little bit better that the original claim. So there is zero incentive to ever exercize this option.
I think what we just might possibly have here is a 0.01%er...the Holy Father has called the Society's bluff (if it was one), and simply said "Yep, I agree to all that" and he inked it. In other words he may simply have agreed to everything the Society asked, placing +Fellay in a position having absolutely no choice whatsoever. All that preamble stuff was a back and forth exercize to slarify a few things, and give the CDF something to do.
Remember, unless I misunderstand, the Society was not saying that Vatican 2 must be scrapped altogether, or that the NO had to go, only that certain freedoms had to be allowed the Society, the Society cannot be forced to accept certain aspects of V2, the NO Mass, etc. If they got all of that, then all of them, including all the SSPX Bishop's, would be really hard pressed to not sign on to the deal. Short of saying "Gee, actually I've really been SV all along, sorry about that...never thought you'd actually agree and force me to expose myself and my hidden, personal agenda like that!", they're in too. A pretty untenable position for anyone who doesn't want their personal credibility in tatters.
