Make a nice little booklet, wouldn't it?

Yes it would. Please add that to your upcoming book.

So the transformation of +Fellay can be pinpointed to right around the year 2000.  Does anyone know when Krah arrived on the scene?

Well, kind of:

Fr. Libietis is rendering a charitable historical interpretation in presuming there was in fact a real change in Bishop Fellay (ie., as opposed to another interpretation, which suggests the change was merely apparent, and that the real Bishop Fellay was always the Bishop Fellay of 2000 - present).

Who knows which of the two is correct?

There is evidence to support both interpretations.

But supposing Fr. Libietis’s interpretation were the correct one, we would still need to recognize that, if the changes in Bishop Fellay were publicly manifesting themselves from the time of the 2000 pilgrimage, he would have had to have changed sometime before that, or the pilgrimage could not have been scheduled.

Recall that in the CCCC thread, it was shown that the pilgrimage was the result of the GREC meetings, which began in 1997.

So the million dollar question (which would require more research) is this:

If Bishop Fellay really changed, was it as a consequence of his sponsorship in the 1997-2000 meetings, or, was Bishop Fellay open to SSPX participation in the GREC meetings in 1997 because he already held their views (regardless of whatever he may have said publicly which would seem to contradict such a reading).

Note: For those who will object that I have no right to suggest such a thing regarding Bishop Fellay (ie., it is rash in the theological sense), I would recall to your attention the countless instances (docuмented in the CCCC thread) in which Bishop Fellay was telling Rome one thing (for the sake of procuring an accord), and the faithful quite another (so as not to alienate the clergy and faithful, and keep up as best he could the illusion of fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre).

So the transformation of +Fellay can be pinpointed to right around the year 2000.  Does anyone know when Krah arrived on the scene?

Well, kind of:

Fr. Libietis is rendering a charitable historical interpretation in presuming there was in fact a real change in Bishop Fellay (ie., as opposed to another interpretation, which suggests the change was merely apparent, and that the real Bishop Fellay was always the Bishop Fellay of 2000 - present).

Who knows which of the two is correct?

There is evidence to support both interpretations.

But supposing Fr. Libietis’s interpretation were the correct one, we would still need to recognize that, if the changes in Bishop Fellay were publicly manifesting themselves from the time of the 2000 pilgrimage, he would have had to have changed sometime before that, or the pilgrimage could not have been scheduled.

Recall that in the CCCC thread, it was shown that the pilgrimage was the result of the GREC meetings, which began in 1997.

So the million dollar question (which would require more research) is this:

If Bishop Fellay really changed, was it as a consequence of his sponsorship in the 1997-2000 meetings, or, was Bishop Fellay open to SSPX participation in the GREC meetings in 1997 because he already held their views (regardless of whatever he may have said publicly which would seem to contradict such a reading).

Good points by X.  
It's been years since I read Fr. L's pamphlet, but if the question above was based on Fr. L showing that +F talked more & more of dealing with Rome as years went on/after 2000, I agree that another interpretation is that he wanted it all along, but he knew he had to go about it gradually.  If he came in 1994 talking all about making a deal with modernist Rome, he wouldn't have endeared himself to so many Trads such that they trust him so completely.  Also, he tried to transfer +W to exile the Philippines in 1999, so that could be indicative of his already planning to change things, without +W writing newsletters from Winona to influence people against the changes.  

I could help with the electronic version (which in turn could also be the print version, although for cost sakes, the electronic one could be made unto the fashion of an illuminated manuscript)
Just a thought.... 8)

That would be very helpful!

Even If Fr. Libietis' work is already out there in the open, he has not relinquished his rights over it. The proper thing to do would be to contact him and:

1-Ask if he has anything to add/change/update to his work.
2-Ask if he wants his work to be printed out and distributed.
3-Ask if he wants to be responsible for that and if he wants to take care of costs and revenues.(Resistance priests, as they are not supported by a Fraternity, should receive the revenues from their work).

These would be the steps that would make sure no sin of injustice would be committed.

Hello Stonewall-

At least as regards any print/hard copy booklet, I am in complete agreement with you.

I had already made an inquiry to Fr. Libietis seeking his permission (and pledging any revenues earned above production cost to him) before I announced my project, but in retrospect, I should have also announced that the booklet was contingent upon receiving that permission.

It may be some time before I receive a response, unless I was lucky in the timing of my inquiry.

As regards the issue of justice pertaining to an electronic booklet, it is less clear to me that the issue arises, because where a hard copy would be considered a commercial venture (and therefore someone could make money off someone else’s work without permission), an e-booklet would not raise any revenue.

Whether in 2019 Fr. Libietis still wants this flyer freely distributed (ie., he never copyrighted them as far as I know) is a legitimate question, which from a moral standpoint muddies the analysis:

Does one still retain a right in justice to determine where and how his work is disseminated if he never copyrighted it (a deliberation which implies the declension of any desire to retain said right)?

Not sure.  I can conceive arguments on both sides.

In any case, at least for my part, nothing will move forward without Fr. Libietis’s permission.