Matthew, Eastern Catholics, under ƈσmmυɳιsm, suffered death and torture rather than be separated from Rome. It was the easiest thing in the world for them to cut themselves off from Rome, remain almost the same, become Orthodox, and just carry on. But they refused to do it, because they know all Catholics, Latin or Eastern, should always strive to remain in communion with Rome. Its not at all worldly to want to be Roman and Catholic. Your understanding of the motivations of Indult Traditionalists is simply mistaken, I'm afraid. We care about communion with Rome.
As Spork said on another thread, many FSSP Priests are just as pious and fervent, if not more, than SSPX Priests. Many are opposed to having any television in the house at all. I have no tv in my house. Having regular relationship with the Roman Authorities is a completely different thing. And as a purely practical matter, the Resistance is not helping the cause of restoring +ABL's reputation by its attitude toward Rome.
Incred, I believe some studies have shown St. Thomas, near the end of his life, accepted the Immaculate Conception. I'll try to find them later on.
(1) The first quote is still from 1988. +ABL said he hopes for reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX to Cardinal Ratzinger.
(2) It is your opinion that my second quote is misconstrued. +ABL says, let Rome make an offer, and then we will see.
Well, guess what, under the same Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Rome did make such an offer, around 2012. So the SSPX has the right to take it. At the least, our interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre is just as plausible as yours. Please quote Fr. Celier if you think he said otherwise, I don't think he would have. As you noted, he was an accordist. And if we expand it to before 1988, it is completely unambiguous.
Regarding doctrine, I agree completely. I am for at least four doctrinal proposals. (1) Rome should bring back the Oath against Modernism, like +ABL said. (what a big Triumph for Tradition in Rome that would be!) (2) Rome should declare Christ's Kingship dogmatically, as +ABL insisted.
I would add two more. (3) Rome should declare there is no salvation without Christ, as Bishop Athanasius said, as posted on another thread; Bishop Fellay has also insisted on the same, as shown below. Bishop Fellay recently condemned a recent non-Magisterial theological document that promised salvation to Jews without Christ, with His Excellency insisting Our Lord Jesus is the Only Name that saves, as St. Peter taught: https://sspx.org/en/can-pastoral-council-be-debatable
(4) Ecumenism should focus on the return of non-Catholics to the Unity of the Church. This last, which was insisted on by Cardinal Burke as well, would put an end to false ecumenism also, the other major error coming from Vatican II
The step (3) would also put an end to false interfaith dialogue which has no interest in making conversions to salvation in Jesus Christ.
We can fight for all these things without cutting of communion and regular relationships with Rome. Tradition needs its representatives in Rome.
I can perfectly hold to all these and more as an Indult Traditionalist without in any breaking off communion with Rome or supporting doing that.
Why doesn't the Resistance suggest some concrete and doctrinal steps Rome can take toward Tradition? Go ahead, Sean, the ball's in your court.