CathInfo.com

No they don't.  Accepting a pragmatic situation where SSPX are recognized even while varous groups of Modernists contiue to exist in the Church is not the same as DOCTRINAL pluralism.  There were Modernists and heretics in the Church well before Vatican II, Cardinal Cushing being one of the most notorious.  At the end of the day, one can argue that it's not my business who else is not kicked out of the Church.  So it would have been OK for, say, Cardinal Spellman to go into schism because the Vatican didn't expel the Modernist Heretic Cushing?

What do you mean "Rome must convert"?  If Rome must convert, then Rome is not Catholic, and is therefore not "Rome" at all.

This disptue between neo-SSPX and Resistance is just a matter of emphasis and nuance and practical implications.  What are the practical implications of a man who is the Catholic pope, the Vicar of Christ, who legitimately excercises the authority of Christ, and somehow basically has the Catholic faith, and yet also holds various errors or heresies?  Does one emphasize the Catholic part of him or the non-Catholic part of him?

There's no substantive theological dispute here whatsoever.

BTW, if you read carefully what I wrote, I did not say that there are no differences.  What I said is that there aren’t any “red light” differences or differences that run deep enough where one could not go there in good conscience.