I haven't seen a shred of evidence that a "majority" of bishops have criticized the Motu Proprio. A few have, and a few seem to be misinterpreting it, based on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's site, but I see no evidence that a majority are critical or are even opposed to its implementation. Boy, these people are whiners. Get a "stable group" together and petition a priest in full communion with the successor of Peter. Take advantage of the Motu Proprio rather than forever whining about the duly constituted authorities in the Church (the Pope has supreme governance of the Church under Vatican I, which these people apparently dissent from as much as Vatican II).
According to Fellay, the [Vatican II] document subjects the Church to the authority of the State.
It says no such thing. I would prefer an interpretation of the Vatican II documents according to an hermeneutic of continuity by the Pope and Magisterium rather than the tendentious and bad faith interpretation of these people. And Catholic teaching has always been that a council of bishops in communion with the successor of Peter and presided over or affirmed by him is part of the Magisterium of the Church. These people simply want to pick and choose. And while a Catholic confessional state might be the ideal, to raise this to an absolute requirement of the deposit of faith is to ignore that the Church has flourished and can flourish in many different socio-political systems, and that there is a strong prudential component to how society is to be structured, so long as the freedom of the Church is ensured and the common good is served.
I would agree that making a Catholic confessional state in 2007 would be a waste of pastoral activity. Yet, the philosophy and theology that would argue for that should not be neglected by our clergy.