Yes, it would be nice to see the full texts of the doctrinal discussions made public. What good has come from them so far? Well, that was mentioned in the OP link briefly, "presently the situation is so catastrophic that it is causing an extremely interesting reaction. On several levels. On the level of the dialogue, all the bishops sent by Rome with whom we have had doctrinal discussions for the past two years told us that the points under discussion—always the same ones—are “open questions”. They all said this, the cardinals included. “Open questions”, meaning that you can debate them. Therefore they are no longer obligatory. And these discussions are bearing fruit. We do not see them yet, because it is at the level of theological reflection. And that takes a lot of time, certainly. There is some stammering that goes in the direction that I have pointed out. Some passages written by Abp. Pozzo can be interpreted as though he wanted to use these discussions to try to correct the aim in the Church. But he does not dare to say it too loud". In other words, it becomes clearer that none of the pastoral "reflections" of the council fathers at Vatican II, being non-infallible and the lowest degree of magisterium, are binding or infallible. And even those outside the SSPX have noticed this, for e.g. from crisis magazine on NA, "Which raises an oft-asked question (though, apparently, not oft-asked in Orlando): was Nostra Aetate meant to be a teaching docuмent or a pastoral docuмent? Was it meant to deal with matters of faith and morals in a definitive way? Or was it mainly pastoral in intent? Were the Council fathers intending to teach Catholics about the nature of Islam? Or was Nostra Aetate primarily meant as a gesture of outreach to non-Christians? Several prominent bishops have suggested the latter. Vatican Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has stated that Nostra Aetate does “not have a binding doctrinal content.” And Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, told a German newspaper “Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic.” https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/islam-view-disney-country This false approach to Islamism and other false religions has been devastatingly bad for the Church. And only now, many Catholics, even mainstream Catholics, are coming to realize this novel pastoral approach toward other religions, not based on revelation, is not at all binding, not contained in the deposit of Faith, but a human policy, as the SSPX rightly argued.

So, the fruit is that there is more open criticism of the Council and more Catholics come to recognize that it is questionable, not binding.

I love Bp. Williamson, and I think H.E.'s exclusion from the Society was tragic; some may consider this naive, but I was hoping Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson would be reconciled at last year's General Chapter. Sadly, that was not to be. God willing, next time, hopefully.

I want to address point 3. of Mr. G. "Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops Notice carefully the phrase "deprived of any juridical effect" which means it does not exist anymore, and therefore there is no pretended sanction against any of the 6 good Bishops. Actually, the SSPX asked for even more, but this was the best that could be obtained under the given circuмstances. Also, can anyone deny it is largely thanks to the Society's efforts that we had Summorum Pontificuм in 2008 and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, that at least admitted (1) The TLM has never been and cannot be "forbidden" and (2) Any Bishop and Priest can offer the TLM; if only mainstream Bishops and Priests were bold, they could all begin again offering the TLM even tomorrow if they had the courage. Many Catholics have benefited from TLM's being more widely available, and it's largely thanks to the Society's apostolate and to their work in Rome that that was possible. Here, again the SSPX asked for more, but at least this much was positively obtained.

And Meg, by all means continue setting up your overly emotional (and quite laughable!) strawmen, but could you actually also answer my questions while doing so (1) Is a Good Holy Traditional Pope going to fall from heaven just for you? If not, won't he have to come from the Cardinals and Bishops? Nothing I said could be reasonably misconstrued to imply anyone wants to be "liked" by mainstream Bishops or Cardinals; rather, I said, we have to work with Cardinals and Bishops in the Church for Tradition to Triumph in the wider Church and in Rome. (2) And about the SSPX in France, the home of Archbishop Lefebvre, if you disagree with the District Superior Fr. Benoit, explain clearly, what is your way forward? I never see anything from the Resistance like a careful and detailed plan for Tradition - "this is where we intend to be in the next 10 to 15 or 20 years; and then this is the way we intend to get there". Good leadership always provides a clear plan and a feasible path. And what about the pastoral needs of some 50 million odd Catholics in France? we can leave them just like that and make no efforts to help them re-discover the Treasures of Tradition and the True Mass? Also, some of these are prudential decisions, which are not going to be made by laity or, by any of us, sorry, but the Bishops and Priests of the Society will get together, work out a decision, and then move forward.

Archbishop Lefebvre made many statements that show the Society's (admittedly prudential) approach is justified: "I THINK THAT, like all traditionalist Catholics, you would like now to hear how things stand; at what point relations are between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican in Rome. So I shall give you a rapid summary. Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church ... In any case, I thank all of you here for remaining faithful to us, and we will remain faithful to you. We will carry on with what you have always seen in the Society. I gave Confirmation today just as I have given it in Oyster Bay Cove, in Armada, and elsewhere, in all the centers. I have changed nothing. So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.

Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church."

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm

See how Archbishop Lefebvre warns us against divisions in Tradition weakening our movement toward restoration in Rome? And +ABL also often used to say, what will really matter and really make the difference is the schools we open and run successfully, the chapels where we offer Mass, the seminaries we operate, and the other works of the Society's apostolate; Rome observes these much more carefully than we think, the Archbishop said, and then they themselves come to the Society and the SSPX can negotiate as we want.

And earlier: "Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate Triumph." https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

And for those who think everything changed after 1988 (it did not; but if so one could argue things changed after 2008 again), there is this - The SSPX carefully reviews these and any and all other statements of ABL, prays together, trusts in God, then makes the decision,

Yes, it would be nice to see the full texts of the doctrinal discussions made public. What good has come from them so far? Well, that was mentioned in the OP link briefly, "presently the situation is so catastrophic that it is causing an extremely interesting reaction. On several levels. On the level of the dialogue, all the bishops sent by Rome with whom we have had doctrinal discussions for the past two years told us that the points under discussion—always the same ones—are “open questions”. They all said this, the cardinals included. “Open questions”, meaning that you can debate them. Therefore they are no longer obligatory. And these discussions are bearing fruit. We do not see them yet, because it is at the level of theological reflection. And that takes a lot of time, certainly. There is some stammering that goes in the direction that I have pointed out. Some passages written by Abp. Pozzo can be interpreted as though he wanted to use these discussions to try to correct the aim in the Church. But he does not dare to say it too loud". In other words, it becomes clearer that none of the pastoral "reflections" of the council fathers at Vatican II, being non-infallible and the lowest degree of magisterium, are binding or infallible. And even those outside the SSPX have noticed this, for e.g. from crisis magazine on NA, "Which raises an oft-asked question (though, apparently, not oft-asked in Orlando): was Nostra Aetate meant to be a teaching docuмent or a pastoral docuмent? Was it meant to deal with matters of faith and morals in a definitive way? Or was it mainly pastoral in intent? Were the Council fathers intending to teach Catholics about the nature of Islam? Or was Nostra Aetate primarily meant as a gesture of outreach to non-Christians? Several prominent bishops have suggested the latter. Vatican Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has stated that Nostra Aetate does “not have a binding doctrinal content.” And Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, told a German newspaper “Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic.” https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/islam-view-disney-country This false approach to Islamism and other false religions has been devastatingly bad for the Church. And only now, many Catholics, even mainstream Catholics, are coming to realize this novel pastoral approach toward other religions, not based on revelation, is not at all binding, not contained in the deposit of Faith, but a human policy, as the SSPX rightly argued.

So, the fruit is that there is more open criticism of the Council and more Catholics come to recognize that it is questionable, not binding.

I love Bp. Williamson, and I think H.E.'s exclusion from the Society was tragic; some may consider this naive, but I was hoping Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson would be reconciled at last year's General Chapter. Sadly, that was not to be. God willing, next time, hopefully.

I want to address point 3. of Mr. G. "Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops Notice carefully the phrase "deprived of any juridical effect" which means it does not exist anymore, and therefore there is no pretended sanction against any of the 6 good Bishops. Actually, the SSPX asked for even more, but this was the best that could be obtained under the given circuмstances. Also, can anyone deny it is largely thanks to the Society's efforts that we had Summorum Pontificuм in 2008 and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, that at least admitted (1) The TLM has never been and cannot be "forbidden" and (2) Any Bishop and Priest can offer the TLM; if only mainstream Bishops and Priests were bold, they could all begin again offering the TLM even tomorrow if they had the courage. Many Catholics have benefited from TLM's being more widely available, and it's largely thanks to the Society's apostolate and to their work in Rome that that was possible. Here, again the SSPX asked for more, but at least this much was positively obtained.

And Meg, by all means continue setting up your overly emotional (and quite laughable!) strawmen, but could you actually also answer my questions while doing so (1) Is a Good Holy Traditional Pope going to fall from heaven just for you? If not, won't he have to come from the Cardinals and Bishops? Nothing I said could be reasonably misconstrued to imply anyone wants to be "liked" by mainstream Bishops or Cardinals; rather, I said, we have to work with Cardinals and Bishops in the Church for Tradition to Triumph in the wider Church and in Rome. (2) And about the SSPX in France, the home of Archbishop Lefebvre, if you disagree with the District Superior Fr. Benoit, explain clearly, what is your way forward? I never see anything from the Resistance like a careful and detailed plan for Tradition - "this is where we intend to be in the next 10 to 15 or 20 years; and then this is the way we intend to get there". Good leadership always provides a clear plan and a feasible path. And what about the pastoral needs of some 50 million odd Catholics in France? we can leave them just like that and make no efforts to help them re-discover the Treasures of Tradition and the True Mass? Also, some of these are prudential decisions, which are not going to be made by laity or, by any of us, sorry, but the Bishops and Priests of the Society will get together, work out a decision, and then move forward.

Archbishop Lefebvre made many statements that show the Society's (admittedly prudential) approach is justified: "I THINK THAT, like all traditionalist Catholics, you would like now to hear how things stand; at what point relations are between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican in Rome. So I shall give you a rapid summary. Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church ... In any case, I thank all of you here for remaining faithful to us, and we will remain faithful to you. We will carry on with what you have always seen in the Society. I gave Confirmation today just as I have given it in Oyster Bay Cove, in Armada, and elsewhere, in all the centers. I have changed nothing. So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.

Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church."

https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm

See how Archbishop Lefebvre warns us against divisions in Tradition weakening our movement toward restoration in Rome? And +ABL also often used to say, what will really matter and really make the difference is the schools we open and run successfully, the chapels where we offer Mass, the seminaries we operate, and the other works of the Society's apostolate; Rome observes these much more carefully than we think, the Archbishop said, and then they themselves come to the Society and the SSPX can negotiate as we want.

And earlier: "Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate Triumph." https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

And for those who think everything changed after 1988 (it did not; but if so one could argue things changed after 2008 again), there is this - The SSPX carefully reviews these and any and all other statements of ABL, prays together, trusts in God, then makes the decision,

"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop." http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm

So, now the SSPX has been successful even there, because Rome has already recognized the SSPX Bishops and even given ordinary jurisdiction. So, where's the problem, precisely? Tradition will continue as-is in the Church. I agree, Klasg4e, about evolution. God bless.

Bishop de Galarreta (“Reflections on a Roman Proposal”):

“On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms. It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings.”