It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.
What "principles"? You cited none, but a statement that doctrinal discussions would be desireable if Rome were to renew dialogue. That is exactly what has happened.
The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.
I think you've added a condition that no one in the SSPX has ever stated.
And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.
This is to be expected, unless you're hoping for a miracle, which is not necessary nor prudent. As I said, it is unrealistic to demand that they all see our points and assent prior to juridical discussion.
How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?
This doesn't follow at all unless one concedes your fabricated, undefined condition.
No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.
Rome doesn't need to return to sound doctrine prior to a juridical agreement. I'm not sure where you've been hearing that in the first place.
The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.
The tune is different because you're playing your own melody.
It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.
It's not obvious at all.
And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.
This problem exists in your own mind. A juridical recognition will be a great boon for the rest of the dying Church. Such recognition will not change the mission or the teaching of the SSPX viz. the Council and modern errors. That is what separates them from the FSSP, an organization that remains silent regarding these matters and thus amount to half-priests.
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.
"We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better service to the Church, to the pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us to experiment with tradition." -- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.
This citation will refute your whole paragraph:
Interview in Fideliter Magazine (November - December, 1988):
Interviewer:
"What do you think about the possible re-opening of dialogue with Rome?"
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level...If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, then it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."
I don't see how it refutes my "whole paragraph" at all. This kind of attitude reminds me of certain neo-cons who think they detect inconsistency in the actions of ABL himself.
The fact is that for several years prior to 1988 he was open to a juridical solution and was even prepared to sign a protocol had they simply allowed him to appoint a single bishop to oversee his fraternity. Outside of that, there are no precise "principles" laid out by ABL.
I think the SSPX synthesized his spirit and mission in the following three pointed goal:
1. To "free" the old Mass.
2. To lift the "excommunications"
3. To engage in doctrinal discussion
There is nothing in ABL's writings that wouuld suggest that he demanded a complete "conversion" of all Roman authorities prior to accepting a juridical solution. Indeed, that would be a practically impossible condition to fulfill or even ascertain. The judgment of the SSPX is not dependent upon such subjective criteria. In light of his historical disposition, I see no reason to believe that he would not have accepted a simple juridical recognition with no strings attached. Indeed, I think that he would have been delighted.