Taken from http://sodalitium-pianum.com/making-sense-of-bishop-fellays-signature-to-the-filial-correction/V. Conclusion:
We have offered one possible explanation for Bishop Fellay’s signature to the Filial Correction
of Pope Francis. We do not declare our hypothesis a fact. We are simply unable to reconcile Bishop Fellay’s silence in the face of Roman errors, and the 20 year ralliement of the Society, with the face value of his signature ostensibly calling Francis a heretic.
Accepting his signature at face value, we would be forced to acknowledge Bishop Fellay has converted to Tradition, yet there is no other evidence to support such a conversion.
As Fr. Francois Pivert is reported to have observed here
“With his remonstrances to the Pope, has Mgr Fellay converted?
Every revolution requires its conservatives. After going away, you have to be reassured. This text does not call into question the modernist revolution, but only one of its most visible consequences. And then the signatories will continue to confess under the authority of this pope whom they accuse of favoring heresy, to marry under the authority of the bishops his accomplices. How can one honestly denounce the destruction of the family by the modernists and at the same time subject all the marriages of Tradition to the modernist authorities and, therefore, to the rules that are theirs? Bishop Fellay denounces the Bishops of Buenos Aires; has he given the order not to submit to them the marriages of Tradition?
And also, Bishop Fellay will continue to inscribe in Rome all the new priests (and possibly even all new deacons).
He would continue to condemn the “Resistance” who had dared to send him a fraternal correction, and to condemn the Abbe Pivert, who had dared to publish the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of relations with Rome.”
Meanwhile, Bishop Fellay has given his reasons for signing to FSSPX.News
While still absorbing the contents of His Excellency’s response, another on the French Resistance forum
offers this preliminary assessment:
“Bishop Fellay took a running train, that of the healthy reaction of some Conservatives internal to the Conciliar Church. At the same time, he does not want to lose what he has already acquired on the road to the prelature.
Hence: He participates in a reaction (which does not attack VII) to reassure his right wing and at the same time, he relativizes this participation to reassure the left wing … And the turn is played!”
Time will tell, but what remains clear is this:
That Francis would grant canonical approval to an uncompromised, virile and vigorous enemy (i.e., the SSPX of old) is manifestly irrational and illogical. Therefore, if the SSPX has gained privileges, concessions, and incremental regularization and partial jurisdiction, it is the clearest sign that the SSPX is not the same animal it once was.
Conversely, if Bishop Fellay has gone to such extreme measures as those mentioned above to ensure he (or his priests and bishops) do not offend modernist Rome, his explanation remains an enigma:
Why does Bishop Fellay perceive a duty to proclaim the truth in this matter of Amoris Laetitia
, yet say in the CNS interview that religious liberty was very limited (and therefore implicitly acceptable); that Vatican II belongs to the tradition of the Church; that 95% of Vatican II is acceptable; or shrink from condemning an offense against the First Commandment at Assisi?
We return to the tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question of Fr. Pivert: Has Bishop Fellay converted?
There is no corroborating evidence to suggest it, and much to oppose such a conclusion.