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.