FSSPX.News: Why did you support the Correctio Filialis?
Bishop Fellay: This filial approach on the part of clerics and lay scholars, troubled by the heterodox propositions in Amoris Laetitia, is very important. Christ’s teaching on marriage can not be surreptitiously changed on the pretext that the times have changed and that pastoral care should adapt by offering ways to bypass doctrine.
I understand that the authors of the Correctio Filialis are overwhelmed by the division caused by Amoris Laetitia, by the pope’s explanations of this docuмent in recent declarations, and by his statements on Luther. In some countries, the bishops now allow communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, while in others they refuse it. Is Catholic morality variable? Can it be subject to contradictory interpretations?
Since September 2016, four cardinals have been respectfully asking the pope to “clarify” his Exhortation; this year they requested an audience. The only answer they received was silence, but silence is not an answer. On a question this serious and faced with the current divisions, the Holy Father must give a clear answer on the substance of the Exhortation.
In this sad situation of confusion, it is very important that the debate on these important questions grows, in order that the truth may be re-established and error condemned.
That is why I supported this approach, but it is not so much the names of those who signed the Correctio Filialis as the objective value of the arguments presented that must be taken into account.


http://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-why-i-signed-correctio-filialis-32240

And yet people will still say he is "selling out"...

What principle formerly maintained would he be betraying?

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.

Although I agree with Bishop Williamson a lot more often, I am somewhat glad Bishop Fellay had the courage to sign the "Filial Correction". I doubt he expects to be "reconciled" with Rome under Francis's papacy, but maybe he expects he will under the next papacy. As a side note, I do not believe "reconciliation" with Rome would be a good idea even if Cardinal Burke were to become pope.

Bishop Fellay, Archbishop Lefebvre, his Bishops, all of the neo-Traditional bishops and Catholic scholars could have and should have employed mechanisms such as this decades ago to legitimately combat the conciliar revolution, but they did not. That level of courage in defense of True Catholic orthodoxy was not in them.
The horse was allowed to leave the barn long ago, it will not be returning anytime soon.
The plague of conciliar clerics were given the time to grow and embed themselves within the wall of the Citidel, parasites on the souls of good men.

And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.

Incred

especially when 
   the Order was acting as the Church militant against the Vatican II schism.

I would perhaps disagree about this.

Did they ever condemn the Second Vatican council unequivocally ?

Did they condemn the Novus Ordo unequivocally?

No, I believe that all of their protestations have always been selective and conditional.

Did they try to collaborate with other Traditional Bishops to formulate some meaningful opposition to the above? For example such as this current dubia or the filial correction letter?

Not in any serious way that I am aware of.

No matter what the office of a cleric or a layman, there are certain moral and ethical principles which must be adhered to without exception to maintain the integrity of the Holy Christian Religion.  The daily reading of the Martyrology gives us a clear and undeniable picture and manual of the Church Militant. That is a standard of  unswerving principle in the face of the Devil and his agents, the conciliarists being one of the latest incarnations threof.

You can say they were militant in the fact that they just continued to do their own thing in defiance of the Novus Ordo authorities and Church Law, but from that one cannot conclude that they represented a stand against the Revolution that was truly Militant.  And by their continuing on and off  dalliances with the heretics, they gave them an undeserved credibility.  What the conciliar entity most needed to have for consolidating their evil designs was time, and most Traditionalists so called, gave them just that and a lot of it. From the Remnant/indult crowd to the Society and even the Sedevacantists bear some of the blame.

It has always been rock the boat, but not too much.

A passive militancy might best describe it or better yet a benign militancy which would never be a serious threat to the modernist establishment.  And so we have what we have today, or more aptly we have what we have left from what we have lost.

We have lost, but they have prospered along with the conciliar revolution. 


 

We should not spare expense, fatigue, nor even our life, when there is a question of accomplishing the holy will of God.          St. Vincent De Paul

I agree to your analysis.

The SSPX is Trad-lite.
They never maintained the intellectual firepower or had the will to coherently analyze and refute the Council docuмents.

But they protected a good semblance of priestly formation, and staunchly defended the Tridentine Mass.

For 40 years, this was an effective, public rebuff of Vatican II's demon-child, the Novus ordo missae.

Archbishop Lefebvre did sign all the docuмents.

Right, and never repudiated those signatures.  They were a success in their mission to help save and propagate the Catholic priesthood, but as far as opposing the Revolution, they were ineffective and in some cases harmed the cause.

Archbishop Lefebvre later stated that he regretted signing the docuмents. Back then, it was hard to believe that a true successor of Peter could err so gravely. Also, it seemed impossible that a council of the church could put out so many heresies and be so revolutionary. The Archbishop was probably still trying to get his bearings and figure out what was going on and what was the proper action to take. He knew that if he took a stand, he would be standing alone. He saw hundreds of other bishops going along with the changes. I'm sure he prayed fervently to Our Lord and Our Lady to make sure that his decision was good and not rooted in pride or any other disillusionment. To oppose the church's movement was no light matter. There is more than one piece of evidence that he was chosen (perhaps even prophesied) to do this essential work of preserving the priesthood by his "operation survival". One event is a letter which he wrote as a young boy to Pius X which was read and after which he was able to receive first communion at a young age.