There seems to be a jumbling of ideas here:

1) Last year, Fr. Pagliarani announced that because two years of doctrinal negotiations (not discussions!) had produced no results, everything urges the SSPX to seek to reopen negotiations!  And this time, Rome need not convert!

That’s not putting doctrine first, Your Excellency.

2) Then earlier this year, the SSPX announced their attempts to reopen negotiations had been rejected by Rome.

Once again, this is not Fr. Pagliarani holding firm on doctrine, but rather, Fr. Pagliarani being impeded from a deal by Rome!

3) Has Rome converted?  Then how is desiring to enter into doctrinal pluralism putting doctrine first?

4) Rome will starve the SSPX into submission for want of bishops, rather than cut a less favorable deal for themselves at the negotiating table.  This is why things are at a standstill, not because Fr. Pagliarani (who chose to surround himself with Schmidberger and Fellay to preserve continuity of regime) is Lefebvrist.

Let the Resistance summarize in two or three simple theological propositions the Truths they claim that Rome needs to accept that it does not accept. Can it do this? Everything the Resistance claims to believe, the Society also believes and defends. The Kingship of Christ, the immutability of dogma, that Holy Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice, or anything else that may be denied in the modern Church. But the difference is that the Society knows that there is no precedent in Tradition itself, nor even in Archbishop Lefebvre's thoughts and words over a long period of time, for completely cutting off all contact with the Roman Authorities. In the meanwhile, the SSPX continues its work. If the path for doctrinal discussions opens up again, the Society will take it. It's a good opportunity to influence mainstream Churchmen with the full Gospel of Christ and His Church.

"Here is why I have always thought that I had to go to Rome, that I had to write, that I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them. They cannot say that I have not done everything in my power to try to stay in contact with them. However, I think what counts much more are the facts, than the words or writings, even for Rome. What are the facts which count for us? The seminaries! To make priests! To make traditional priests, priests according to Tradition, to make good and holy priests in our seminaries. That is the work we must carry on with and the work which counts in Rome." https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm

"Let the Resistance summarize in two or three simple theological propositions the Truths they claim that Rome needs to accept that it does not accept." Can you do this?

Also, does this statement of +ABL describe the attitude of the Resistance or the Society: "I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them. They cannot say that I have not done everything in my power to try to stay in contact with them."