Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?
Perhaps it is because the Society does not think they need additional bishops at this time. I would fully expect that when all of the Society bishops are in their 70s or better or when a couple of them die, the remaining bishops will consecrate successor bishops just as Archbishop Lefebvre did.
That is, if they haven't signed an agreement and was regularized within the Conciliar church.
+F is obviously positioning himself to become the only original bishop remaining, using +W as an "example" for the other two. "It's my way or the highway."
Nonetheless, he's not about to do any unapproved consecration(s) because of the following:
Yeah, I don't get it. Why haven't there been additional consecrations?
My guess is that it would upset Fellay's plans to reintegrate with the Conciliar Church.
While he might like to have his cake and eat it too, he's much more practical than to expect that would be possible. We can see the direction he's going, because it has been consistent for all of his 19 years as S.G. Why would he change now? With the precision of a Swiss watch, he has methodically placed his yes-men into voting positions in the General Chapter as Capitulants who are willing to capitulate to his nefarious agenda -- whatever it is.
+F will not consecrate any new bishop(s). That would destroy 19 years of diligent infiltration of ABL's Society! It would set them back to 1988 all over again! Ironically, he was the odd man out who was given a chance by the Founder, who therefore made a mistake in his judgment of character, unfortunately. ABL made a LOT of wise decisions correctly, but apparently he made one serious mistake. Now we're living with it, and fortunately for him, he's not.
.