So, when did Bp.Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and Fr. Nely become competent  enough theologians that they can go head to head with the Roman theologians?

Well, that's the kicker:

Fr. Pagliarani found the right three people he could trust NOT to go head-to-head with Rome (or, the right three people were dictated to him?).

These three clerics are more like diplomatic emissaries of Menzingen, tasked with finding the "right words" which will procure a deal which both sides can bring back to their own people, and present it as a no-compromise win.

But of course, it is foreordained that the language will be conciliar ambiguity, for which the SSPX will present one interpretation to its own people (i.e., no compromise), and quite another to Rome (compromise).

Menzingen is already quite good at this; some of its first attempts were the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, the Motu Proprio, and the "lifting" of the "excommunications" (and now the same three persons who resisted the Letter of the Three Bishops, and defended that Doctrinal Declaration, are the same three who will give it another whirl).

Obviously, Fr. Pagliarani did not present his desire to Rome for discussions (discussions for which he assured Rome they need not worry about any insistence from the SSPX that they convert), just so that this time they could fail again.

This time, the anesthetized clergy and faithful will not react (i.e., the purges have been completed), and everything will move ahead smoothly.

Perhaps another Rosary campaign to market heaven's approval?

Then the Pachamama Pope will finally tell Bishop Fellay he really, really is a Catholic (and it will be like sunshine of Bishop Fellay's breast for 1,000 years, for which he would happily concelebrate 500 Novus Ordos with the Great Idolater...privately, of course).

If indeed doctrinal discussions round #2 are going to be resumed soon, it is wonderful news. Matthew, where do you think all the new converts to Tradition are coming from? All those are the fruits of Rome's admission (1) that the True Mass was never banned and every Priest can freely offer it (2) that Vatican II is not infallible and anyone can question it. (3) that the new Mass itself is an option no one need make use of. Those three things are concrete fruits of the doctrinal discussions round #1.

On another note, it was just beautiful today at Mass. We had the Mass of Reparation today, a sermon on the importance and obligation of all Christians, i.e. of all the Catholic Faithful, not only Monks, Nuns and Priests, to sacrifice and make reparation by Fr. John, and then the Litany of the Saints at the end, just as Fr. Pagliarani directed. Prayer, worship and sacrifice; not a hint of alleged modernism nor laxity of any kind, but only fidelity to God, to the Church and to Tradition.

Everyone who assisted at a chapel where reparation was made today would have seen the same. Also the errors in Rome were condemned. I think the enemy will be much displeased that so many Masses of reparation were offered, so many litanies sung, so much fasting done and so many sacrifices made! Deo Gratias!

The resumption of doctrinal discussions is imo of great importance. I would like to see these 3 points above all being established, (1) that all nations are under strict obligation to profess Jesus Christ as King, and render public worship and service to Him (2) that explicit faith in Christ is a necessary means of salvation without which no adult is saved, and therefore all Jєωs, Muslims, pagans etc must be brought to the Catholic Faith, and to Baptism. (3) that the only true ecuмenism is the return of non-Catholic Christians to the Church. That imho would be great progress in undermining most of the errors coming from the Council. That is the work of the next decade.

If indeed doctrinal discussions round #2 are going to be resumed soon, it is wonderful news. Matthew, where do you think all the new converts to Tradition are coming from? All those are the fruits of Rome's admission (1) that the True Mass was never banned and every Priest can freely offer it (2) that Vatican II is not infallible and anyone can question it. (3) that the new Mass itself is an option no one need make use of. Those three things are concrete fruits of the doctrinal discussions round #1.

On another note, it was just beautiful today at Mass. We had the Mass of Reparation today, a sermon on the importance and obligation of all Christians, i.e. of all the Catholic Faithful, not only Monks, Nuns and Priests, to sacrifice and make reparation by Fr. John, and then the Litany of the Saints at the end, just as Fr. Pagliarani directed. Prayer, worship and sacrifice; not a hint of alleged modernism nor laxity of any kind, but only fidelity to God, to the Church and to Tradition.

Everyone who assisted at a chapel where reparation was made today would have seen the same. Also the errors in Rome were condemned. I think the enemy will be much displeased that so many Masses of reparation were offered, so many litanies sung, so much fasting done and so many sacrifices made! Deo Gratias!

The resumption of doctrinal discussions is imo of great importance. I would like to see these 3 points above all being established, (1) that all nations are under strict obligation to profess Jesus Christ as King, and render public worship and service to Him (2) that explicit faith in Christ is a necessary means of salvation without which no adult is saved, and therefore all Jєωs, Muslims, pagans etc must be brought to the Catholic Faith, and to Baptism. (3) that the only true ecuмenism is the return of non-Catholic Christians to the Church. That imho would be great progress in undermining most of the errors coming from the Council. That is the work of the next decade.

What about the hierarchy in the conciliar church converting to Tradition? Isn't that what Archbishop Lefebvre expected, before the possibility of reconciling with them? 

It's not the laity who controls the Church. As +ABL said, Rome is occupied by a Modernist sect. 

What about the hierarchy in the conciliar church converting to Tradition? Isn't that what Archbishop Lefebvre expected, before the possibility of reconciling with them?

It's not the laity who controls the Church. As +ABL said, Rome is occupied by a Modernist sect.

I agree with Meg.
XavierSem: all new converts to Tradition are the fruit of Rome getting worse and worse, and they cannot support that hierarchy any more.

It's something to work on. We had Bp. Salvador Lazo in the Philipiness converting to Tradition about 2 decades ago. https://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2000/March-April/Autobiography.htm

And now Bp Huonder's joint declaration with Rev. Fr. Davide Pagliarani to dedicate himself "to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/joint-communique-47934 is a good starting step.

If these things were so easy to do, why hasn't the Resistance done more than it already? Why hasn't the Resistance converted 100s of Conciliar Bishops to Tradition? Or at least 10? Even 1?

It's not easy, right? It takes years, and sometimes, decades of hard work, prayer and sacrifices on the part of a lot of Traditional Catholic Bishops, Priests, Religious and Faithful for one single Bishop to convert. The good work must go on, there will be future converts.

If we are holy, if we are united, if we do the work we need to do, then God will grant us converts as a grace of His.

You are the one who thinks that loads of people will be converted to Tradition as the SSPX slowly reconciles with Rome, and yet I see no sign that the SSPX wants to convert Modernist Rome.

The SSPX doesn't seem care if Rome is Modernist and stays Modernist -  just as long as they are thought of as normal Catholics, in communion with Rome, or close to communion, and as long as the Modernists think of the SSPX as being Catholic. That's what matters.

Bp. Huonder has said that he's there (with the SSPX) in order to work to integrate the SSPX into the Church (the conciliar church). He hasn't converted to Tradition. Not at all. The SSPX doesn't want to correct the grave heresy of Modernism, as +ABL did.

The Resistance, as +ABL did, strives keeps the sacraments going through traditional priesthood. That's what they do. They make sure that for the future, there will be a traditional priesthood that is true to Tradition. That would be jeopardized if they were to reconcile with unconverted Modernist Rome, who cannot be trusted to allow the traditional priesthood to continue. It isn't their goal to convert loads of Novus Ordo Catholics (although Fr. Chazal does convert the Novus Ordo Catholics). But that's not generally the goal of the Resistance, as far as I can tell. For the Resistance, Truth takes precedence over unity. For the SSPX, it's the opposite - unity takes precedence over truth, as Bp. Williamson has said in the OP.