Far too much ado is being made about the Kayfabe, with the Motarians and conservatives howling "schism" as they rend their garmeents, and grifters everywhere attempting to capitalize on the attention is getting, with many declaring SSPX guilty of schism, where, last time I checked, there was no Canonical Penalty for SAYING you're GOING TO consecreate with or without a papal mandate.  That was clearly just Fr. Pagliarani's attempt to get Rome's attention, and also to hurl it out there as a trial balloon, get feedback from priests in the field, and present that feedback to Prevost as they work out a deal in the smoke-filled back rooms.  There will be no consecration without Prevost being involved.  This is all Kayfabe.

What will eventually happen is that they'll work out a deal, but the approved consecrands will turn out in retrospect to have been infiltrators and/or the most liberal you can find among native SSPX, and Prevost isn't going to let SSPX just accidentallly consecrate someone that might be a problem for them, someone like a Bishop Williamson.  I'm sure it'll be someone like the Arch-Modernist Heretic Fr. Paul Robinson for the English speaking areas.

By playing this game, also, Pagliarani satisfies the more conservative elements of SSPX by signalling that he had been WILLING to go it alone, giving the appearances of Fr. Pagliarani being fiercely independent from the Conciliar Vatican, and not just cutting a deal, whereas this deal and this "show" has already been pre-scripted.

"Hey, how about if I announced that we'll do the consecrations with or without a papal mandate.  That will appease the more conservative types who might suspect that I'm a collaborator, but then we'll work out a 'deal' in the end to avoid alienating the more liberal types, and we'll make sure the chosen live up to Conciliar standards."

KAYFABE ... all of it, WWE style.

Does the current SSPX believe Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to declare "Rome is in Apostasy"?

Certainly they must as +Fellay said that Vatican II is 95% Catholic, so error about some 5% would hardly constitute an apostasy.

KAYFABE ... all of it, WWE style.

I'm sorry to go off topic but I've seen the term kayfabe used here several times and wasn't sure if there was a meaning to it outside of pro wrestling. I've been a fan of wrestling since I was a kid so I'm very familiar with the term "kayfabe" in wrestling which basically means the act of pretending that everything that goes on is real when of course its staged. I guess I can confirm you did mean it that way lol.  

It's just as Bishop Stobnicki stated at the outset:

The group holding power in the SSPX have decided to stage a drama, unfortunately not a good Shakespearean play, but a poor play by Fernandez. They will follow two narratives: one for liberals, the other for hardliners. Unfortunately, nothing has changed for many years – secret meetings with the Roman hierarchy and the search for a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement.

I couldn't agree more.  They've already pre-scripted how this will turn out.  Governments do this all the time, and the SSPX "leadership" have come more politicians than defenders of the faith.  It happened during the last Iran-Israel conflict.  At some point Israel needed out, since Iran were clobbering them, but Israel couldn't just back down and admit defeat and weakness, so they pre-arranged from Trump to come in and "twist" Netanyahu's arm into agreeing (reluctantly) to a truce ... when it Bibi was in fact begging for Trump to come in and save them in such a way as to not make Netanyahu and Bibi look weak.  Israel declared victory, lying about the extent of the damage, claiming that only a single Arab goat-herder got hit by Iranian missiles, and that the only reason Israel backed down was because Trump applied strong pressure, not that they were getting their butts kicked.

Rome will acknowledge that Fr. Pagliarani needs to give the impreession of being a "strong man" ... for the internal consumption of the public, since he needs to be in a position to lead the SSPX to where they both have agreed long ago that it should.  If you undermine Fr. Pagliarani's authority, or perception of authority, or credibility, then you're actually crippling his ability to get the job done of bringing SSPX back into the fold.

At a time they deem opportune, there will be a deal (in reality behind closed doors there's already a deal), where Rome will give permission for certain select individuals to be consecrated, all in the interests of "mercy" and to show how good and wonderful they are, but just as a concession to prevent "schism" (and the question will be begged that had SSPX gone forward it would have been schism).  In the meantime, Fr. Pagliarani gives the impression to the more conservative elements within SSPX of being a strong man and not having compromised, of having gotten Rome to give in, where he would have gone ahead without permission had it been necessary.  So they'll appease the growing liberal / Motarian wing of SSPX and at the same time throw a bone to the conservatives that this was no "compromise" but was actually Rome giving in to strongman Fr. Pagliarani.

It's becoming very widely applied outside of wrestling to indicate any kind of public spectacle involving a pretense of opposition between two groups.  Often it's used to describe how in public the Republicans and Democrats appear to be at war, but then they're really all on the same team, simply playing different public roles.

Very interesting. I didn't know this. Thanks.