And so the poor man, so to speak, thinks he can do what Archbishop Lefebvre didn't "manage" to do (because it's impossible to do with an unconverted Newrome). Didn't one district superior like Fr Rostand say a while ago that Bp Fellay would have already achieved more than Archbishop Lefebvre?

Are you thinking of Fr. Simoulin?  He said this:

It is not an exaggeration to say that Bp. Fellay achieved more than what Abp. Lefebvre asked for, without having the latter's prestige or moral authority. Should we then be even more demanding than Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay?

http://www.fecit-forum.org/forum.php?id=16678
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rome-sspx-we-cannot-be-88ers.html

Rome-SSPX: "We cannot be 88ers"
From the May 2012 issue of Le Seignadou - a text written by Father Michel Simoulin, FSSPX, chaplain of the schools of the Traditional Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux (France) and former  (1988-1996) director of the International Seminary of St. Pius X in Écône, Switzerland:


Following our Jubilee [pilgrimage] in the year 2000, Rome took the initiative of establishing new relations. Today, the same Cardinal, having become Pope, has told us that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated (July 7, 2007: "It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated"); he rehabilitated our four Bishops (January 21, 2009); he accepted that we pursue doctrinal discussions for two years... all things that Abp.Lefebvre did not demand in 1988.  [this paragraph is filled with so many errors, but...]  It is not an exaggeration to say that Bp. Fellay achieved more than what Abp. Lefebvre asked for, without having the latter's prestige or moral authority. Should we then be even more demanding than Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay?


Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"! We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the Church, and it can only "respect its founder's heritage" by preserving his spirit, his love for the Church and his desire of serving her as a loving son, with faithfulness to her founding blessings.


...


Nobody still knows the conclusion that Benedict XVI will wish to give to these twelve years of slow work, of seeking a better understanding, of amassed prayers and rosaries. The time is come for prayer, as Bp. Fellay has called us to do, and for trust in the Church. The Immaculate Virgin, whom we will particularly honor in this month of May, will find out how to obtain for us all graces necessary, if we wish for nothing else than the victory of her Son and of the Church.


[Excerpts; tip and source: Fecit Forum]
Posted by New Catholic at 4/30/2012 01:45:00 PM

Quote from: Fr. Simoulin

Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"! We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church

Fr. Simoulin wants to head off appraisals that would conclude Rome is as bad as or worse than 1988 because such a conclusion would demonstrate a "lack of faith." Any "faith" that demand's its followers refrain from objective appraisal is a cult with something to hide and falls short of the Religion of Truth.

Fr. Simoulin admits that things were bad in 1975 under Paul VI and in 1976 under JP II. It is apparently not a "lack of faith" to say things were bad then, but it would be unfaithful to say things are bad now. Or at least it would be unfaithful to say things are as bad as they were, because Fr. Simoulin does admit that "our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc" but is unfaithful to dwell upon this because of a supposed requirement to believe things are now somehow better. One could dispute that supposition with a long list of particulars but, as Fr. Simoulin says, "we have said it enough." This principle of admitting past faults while condemning any such admission for the present is equivalent to "The Communist principle" as described by Soviet expatriot Ayn Rand in 1954:

To those who might wonder whether the conditions of ex­istence in Soviet Russia have changed in any essential re­spect since 1925, I will make a suggestion: take a look through the files of the newspapers. If you do, you will ob­serve the following pattern: first, you will read glowing re­ports about the happiness, the prosperity, the industrial development, the progress and the power of the Soviet Union, and that any statements to the contrary are the lies of prejudiced reactionaries; then, about five years later, you will read admissions that things were pretty miserable in the So­viet Union five years ago, just about as bad as the prejudiced reactionaries had claimed, but now the problems are solved and the Soviet Union is a land of happiness, prosperity, in­dustrial development, progress and power; about five years later, you will read that Trotsky (or Zinoviev or Kamenev or Litvinov or the "kulaks" or the foreign imperialists) had caused the miserable state of things five years ago, but now Stalin has purged them all and the Soviet Union has sur­passed the decadent West in happiness, prosperity, industrial development, etc.; five years later, you will read that Stalin was a monster who had crushed the progress of the Soviet Union, but now it is a land of happiness, prosperity, artistic freedom, educational perfection and scientific superiority over the whole world. How many of such five-year plans will you need before you begin to understand?

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/panca/rand_living_intro.htm

Fr. Simoulin, how many Modernist "reform or the reforms" will you need before you understand?

On the other hand, Fr. Simoulin is correct to say there has been change, although there has been no overall improvement and things have actually gotten worse. Things are not exactly as they were in 1975 or 1988. Such a Modernist process of change is described in Pascendi:

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. [...] Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed.

The reasons for the Modernist's previous absolute ban on the Latin Mass had ceased to exist, since the SSPX and others were able to flout that ban. The new adaptions were to first liberalize the ban and then to deny it ever existed in exchange for Modernist control that ensured the gradual wreck-o-vation of the Latin mass venues, as had previously occurred with all other Catholic institutions. The wreck-o-vation plan has succeeded with most of the smaller Latin mass societies and now Fr. Simoulin works to include the SSPX.