This infamous affair that has been developing for the past several years shows, at the very least, that Bishop Fellay is a brilliant administrator, since he has subjugated and ostracised those priests who are faithful to the Archbishop's cause by demoting them and framing the language he uses publicly and privately to get them to leave the Society on their own or else compromise themselves. Meanwhile, he has posted French priests docile to his programme all over, especially in the US, which, ironically, is of all places the land of rigorism (I use that word very lightly here, since I am perhaps am one of the most appropriate targets for that meaningless epithet). Otherwise, in France, for instance, there has been a generational drift towards liberalism that has been solidified by the belief that one must act in a way that is politically attractive or else become irrelevant.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay is entirely inept as a diplomat, bumblingly allowing himself to become utterly checkmated by Rome. Or is he ? Given what we know of his subtlety as an administrator, as well as his execrable public declarations ("antisemitism," "Jews our elder brothers," "extremist," etc.), it seems that we cannot suppose this to be the case. On the contrary, it seems far more likely, given who he associates with (the Zionist bourgeois-liberal calumniator Krah and the other calumniator, Fr Pfluger), that this deal or something like it is what he wants. I am reminded of what a friar told me about a letter from Pope St Leo the Great to one Priscillus, who wanted to Christianise astrology and spent his time, therefore, speaking to pagan astrologers in order to better understand their teachings. Pope Leo cut to the chase, he said (and I paraphrase), "You keep talking with these people; it must be because you believe as they do."