Dear aposiopetic,
Your translation seems roughly the same as what my own admittedly rudimentary efforts would bring about.
However, I wouldn't translate it as, "...to get the Roman authorities..." I'd still go with, "...to make the Roman authorities...," as that's actually the more straightforward translation. But there are nuances that I may well be missing. I haven't communicated regularly in French for over 20 years.
As to what Bernard Fellay is referring, I'd only be guessing.
However, I find this statement of his to be somewhat alarming:
"Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can only be one way of belong to the Catholic Church: it is that of having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is in the intention of the Fathers of the Council and according to the letter of the text. It is a perspective that frightens us greatly…"
To me, this suggests that even interpreted in the light of Tradition, the Council is generally to be rejected. Else, why would it frighten him? I sense a little more than a quibble with this or that specific problem with some of what came from the Council, and more of a rejection of the Council, per se.
That saddens me, in that I don't believe that the Catholic Church will reject an Ecumenical Council, and if that is a requirement for the return of the SSPX to the Catholic Church, then sadly, I believe that the schism will be permanent.
sitetest
Thank you all for your replies. To be honest, I remain puzzled by Fellay's concluding remark. Can any of you tell me what SSPX says is the raison d'etre of Tradition? Is this a matter about which they claim some sort of special knowledge which, on their view, Rome lacks?