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 (documented 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).