Some interesting comments from Rorate:

P.K.T.P. said...

    Tradical:

    I have in my notes from 18 April, 2002, mention from a commentator in the know that a certain Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect for Doctrine, was considering a worldwide apostolic administration for the S.S.P.X in March of that year, and sent a letter to this effect. Fellay called this 'the Rolls Royce solution'. There were only very minor agreements to be made on the Mass and Vatican II: that the New Mass was valid and that V. II was a valid œcuмenical Mass. There was none of this talk about principles and criteria and what parts of Vatican II could be ignored.

    The Apostolic Administration is a particular church of junior rank; equivalent to a diocese or archdiocese. The one for the Society was to be international. This idea was being advanced by Cardinals Ratzinger and Castrillón Hoyos both in 2000 and in 2002. Campos got one in January of 2002 and Rome then suggested it a second time in 2002-3.

    So this personal prelature offer is a slap in the face. On the other side, the S.S.P.X got itself into this doctrinal mess. Benedict XVI, from the beginning, was willing to offer the structure first with the doc talk to follow.

    To close, before my opponents and the liberals can say it, yes, it must be admitted that none of these proposals were ever made official. They were 'suggestions' for discussion.

John McFarland said...

    My reaction to the idea of a no-strings regularization was: this is nuts. How can be Pope regularize those who consider the major acts of Vatican II as at best erroneous?

    But there seemed a great deal to gain and nothing to lose in hearing the Holy Father out, strange as the whole idea seemed.

    Well, it's back to reality: the Pope is not going to provide no-strings regularization.

    Perhaps, God willing, something can be worked out. But I doubt it. I think that we're still at the same impasse as at the end of the doctrinal discussions. The Society is prepared to keep on talking, but there's no optimism in the letter or tone of the SSPX communique.

    P.S. Please remember in your prayers my son and the other deacons who are being ordained in Winona later this morning.

Source

Caveat:
Reports from Andrea Tornielli/Vatican Insider should be taken with a grain of salt!


06/22/2012
Fellay’s long awaited decision


All are waiting for the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X to respond to the text received by the Pope.
The Vatican does not expect any new doctrinal discussions.

Andrea Tornielli
vatican city

The communiqué sent by the Vatican Press Office after the meeting on 13 June between Cardinal William Levada and the Lefebvrian Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, stated that the bishop had “represented the situation in the Society of St. Pius X.” Even in this case, Vatican sources urge us to think carefully about the meaning of these words. The core problem over the next few days which will be crucial for the future of the traditionalist group founded by Mgr. Lefebvre is not just to do with the content of the doctrinal declaration which the Pope has asked Fellay to sign. It is also to do with the complex situation within the Fraternity.
 
 Over the past few days, some of the priests who are closest to Bishops Tissier de Mallerays, de Gallareta and Williamson have been repeating that if the agreement is signed, very few of the Fraternity’s priests would follow Mgr. Fellay and enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. So that short phrase in the Vatican communiqué regarding the “situation” within the Lefebvrian group is especially significant. Up until now it was believed that the Society was divided approximately into the following categories: 25% in favour of the agreement, 50% undecided and 25% against (including the three bishops, as was clearly stated in the letter they sent to Fellay in recent months, expressing their intention to oppose any agreement with Rome).
   
 However, no one is in a position to confirm the current accuracy of these figures. It is clear from the statements made by some Lefebvrian representatives and the bishops who oppose an agreement, that part of the Fraternity is only willing to enter into communion with Rome again is the Pope decides to renounce the Second Vatican Council, attributing all blame for the crisis of faith during the past decades to the Council and to the post-conciliar liturgical reform. It should be noted that nostalgia for the suffering caused by the current separation has been primarily expressed by those who had met Lefebvre, who had experienced his struggles first hand and had lived in communion with the Pope before the split in 1988. This nostalgia does not appear as strong among the new generations of priests.
 
 The doctrinal declaration which Cardinal Levada handed to Fellay on 13 June leaves no room for manoeuvres. It is also hard to foresee a new round of talks after two years of discussions between the Fraternity and Holy See theologians regarding the authentic interpretation of the Council. Benedict XVI wanted to examine the final text carefully taking into account the thoughts of the cardinals and bishops who attended the Feria Quarta meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: during this meeting which took place on 15 May, cardinals raised doubts over several modifications which Fellay asked to be made to the doctrinal preamble and presented corrections to the interpretation of references (particularly to the Second Vatican Council) which they considers unacceptable.  
 
 The Pope welcomed and shared various concerns raised by his collaborators. Therefore, the text which Fellay is required to sign “within a reasonable timeframe” is the final deal. It is no longer possible for any substantial amendments to be made. However, the communiqué the Fraternity issued after the June 13 meeting did mention the possibility of a new round of talks. This indicates that the version of the doctrinal preamble which Fellay received from the Vatican leadership still contains some contentious elements. In an interview published in the Fraternity’s official bulletin lat 7 June, the Lefebvrian Superior stated: “Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution.”




 

Quote from: Guga

Quote from: Marie

From La Croix:

[In Bishop Fellay's text] there remained however formulations judged non-acceptable by Rome, notably the mention of the "errors of the council": to put it clearly, the Society may have reservation on this or that point of Vatican II (freedom of conscience, interreligious dialogue, ecuмenism), but they cannot speak of the "errors of the council".



http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Urbi-Orbi/Rome/Mgr-Fellay-a-recu-la-reponse-de-Benoit-XVI-pour-la-reintegration-de-la-Fraternite-Saint-Pie-X-_NG_-2012-06-13-818090

It can be a sign that the resistance is greater than +Fellay thought it would be. They are ruining too fast. Why Rome would make an agreement if + Fellay don't have the majority? If that is the case, Rome just sent +Flellay back to his work ( breaking the resistance) until the next evil manoeuvre.

Or +Fellay is sincerely looking for the best for the SSPX with regards to preaching against the Council and it's too much for the Vatican to accept.

If he were so high-minded, why did he give a worldly Zionist single signature authority of SSPX assets?

There are only two possibilities here: (1) Bp. Fellay didn't know Krah was a Zionist  or (2) Bp. Fellay knew Krah was a Zionist.

If Bp. Fellay didn't know Krah was a Zionist yet appointed Krah to such a dangerous position, Bp. Fellay is incompetent and should be sacked for that.

If Bp. Fellay knew Krah was a Zionist yet appointed Krah to such a dangerous position, Bp. Fellay is imprudent (or a sleeper agent) and should be sacked for that.

If Bp. Fellay knew Krah was a Zionist yet appointed Krah to such a dangerous position, Bp. Fellay is imprudent (or a sleeper agent) and should be sacked for that.

Never heard this before till last night when a relative said the same thing, that he's "a sleeper agent". Now I hear it again.