He also says that the situation is back to 70s.

It is problematic for Bishop Fellay to say that, “if conditions are the same, we will go to Rome; we will follow the same procedure as in 1988...”

Why?

Because the only reason +Lefebvre went to Rome was because prior to the unauthorized consecrations, he was still hopeful Rome would, as he put it, “show a little loyalty,” and give him a Bishop (ie., Rome’s giving him a Bishop would manifest a willingness to restore -or at least allow “the experiment of”- Tradition.

But by 1988, he realized Rome had no such intentions.

Fast-forward to 2021: Has Rome changed?

No.

If anything, it has vindicated, repeatedly, the perspicacity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s understanding of Modernist/Masonic Rome’s animus toward Tradition.

Consequently, it is only reasonable to expect one of two possible outcomes from Bishop Fellay’s proposed course of action:

1) Rome simply denies the request, perhaps telling Fr. Pagliarani to use Bishop Huonder if necessary, or, refusing even this, starves the SSPX out of existence (as it did to the TLM in Traditionis Custodes);

2) Rome asks Menzingen for dossiers on candidates, and refuses all those submitted until hitting upon a liberal with whom they can work (ie., one with whom they can continue the ralliement via the GREC plan).

In any case, supposing the Society would at some point in the future consecrate independent of Rome’s approval (unlikely, since it would certainly cost the SSPX its ordinary jurisdiction, permissions to ordain, and all other privileges and permissions gained over the course of 25 years of ralliement/negotiations, which they have shown a reluctance to jeopardize to this day), they would encounter two additional difficulties:

1) They condemned the “unauthorized” consecration of Bishop Faure (recall Fr. Laisney’s 2015 letter “Striking Contrasts”), sending a message to the faithful that such consecrations were wrong. 

2) All the potential candidates, by simple virtue of their continued membership in the SSPX, implicitly accept a ralliement with unconverted Rome (even though the Rome of 2021 is 100x more overtly hostile to Tradition than JPII), which begs a more fundamental question:

What, in 2021, is the purpose of the SSPX, if not to preserve Tradition (ie., The Society implicitly manifests a different purpose, if it is not opposed in principle to subordinating itself to authorities intent on destroying it and Tradition, or it is incredibly naive)?

These are some of the considerations which make Bishop Fellay’s proposed course of action difficult:

Permission gained from an enemy is only granted when it is advantageous to that enemy.  Of course, if former adversaries are no longer engaged in battle because one of them has laid down its arms, Rome might find honoring such a request for bishops very useful.

The SSPX is in a difficult position.

Not really.  They simply choose to make it difficult.  Simply ignore the Conciliar Modernists, and it's very simple (thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre).  Need a bishop?  Consecrate one.

I should have added, “...of their own making.”

They’d have to be willing to lose everything they’ve gained, and they won’t chance it.  Additionally, losing that would render the priestly attrition from 2012-2014 and 25 years of ralliement pointless.

...from their perspective.

Today the SSPX shows itself to be a mixed bag. One week you may have a priest that openly denounces Jєωs as the enemies of Christ and the next week you may have one that subtlety shows approval of the Catechism the Modernists use. There really is no uniformity with SSPX and independent chapels.

That's why it's hard to predict or say what they will or won't do when it comes down to it.

That is why the SSPX as an organization can't be trusted anymore. You can't condemn 100% of the priests, chapels, or parishioners -- of course. That goes without saying. But an increasing number of those things (chapels, priests, and faithful) will become problematic as time goes on. More and more, they are becoming friends of the World, liberal, and giving up the Fight the SSPX always fought.

The fact they are building monuments during a time of extreme crisis (catacombs, really) shows how "off" their common sense is. They are losing it. How many retreat centers, libraries, chapels, oratories, and other PRACTICAL buildings that could benefit souls, could they build across the nation with the money they're spending on the new St. Marys, KS basilica plus the Disneyland seminary in Virginia? It beggars the imagination. Some existing chapels REALLY NEED an upgrade to accommodate more parishioners -- St. Joseph's in San Antonio, as just one example.

Catholics are more isolated than ever, there is more error and confusion than ever. Is the SSPX prioritizing the reign of Christ the King and an increase in holiness in as many souls as possible? I can only say NO, THEY ARE NOT. They would recommend their Faithful to avoid Resistance chapels and priests, even if that resulted in objective damage to their spiritual lives. No, it's all about "How does it benefit the SSPX, the group". It's not about the good of souls or the good of Christ's cause -- it's about the SSPX, as an end in itself.

In this way, they are losing it, and to a large degree HAVE lost it (past tense).