I thought this was an informative interview. I really don't see Bishop Fellay being altogether different than he's ever been. In the debate, we seem to fail to recognize that under him as superior general the Society has grown and prospered, even in spite of setbacks. It was under his influence that Summorum Pontificuм was issued, the excommunications were lifted, Rome opened itself to hear the Society's case, and the rosary crusades have been delivered to the Pope himself. Apparently also he has exerted so much influence that the Pope himself goes against most of the Curia, and most of the world for that matter, to offer a unique prelature to the SSPX. Somehow we are divorcing the good fruits from his influence, as though the SSPX faithful have all been acting in contradiction to this man since 1994, whereas the case truly is that it is under his leadership that these good fruits have developed. This doesn't discount everyone's contribution either. If people have been fine with him since 1994, and he hasn't sold any of us down the river yet, then why now is his judgement held suspect? This is what I don't understand. (And note that I don't attend an SSPX chapel, although I was confirmed by Bishop Tissier.) Also one needs to understand that diplomats are the ones who achieve solutions to problems. The extremists on either side never do. The strengths of some of the figures in the SSPX are not the same strengths as Bishop Fellay, and vice versa. There are many strong scholars, strong penitents, etc. Think of the qualities of a good pastor of souls. In my own church we have four priests, and the pastor does not have the strengths of the other three, but he is good with people, diplomatic, good at organization, and good at keeping the line (not every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets to mold the vision of the organization). This may rub people the wrong way at times, but the ship is steered in the right direction. Good fruits are produced. Tradition takes ground. And we are taking for granted that doctrine is correct, and tradition is maintained. And we can say that Bishop Fellay is not infallible. There needs to be a lot of discussion to make sure that he is not being deluded. So I am just raising the questions, because I don't understand the shift in some people's focus, unless they've never like Fellay, and enjoyed the benefits of the superior general in spite of him. It is obvious that he thinks this is God's will ("I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection."). It is obvious that he is being prudent. There is a disconnect in my mind, as an outsider looking in.