Marcel's time has run out? Is that why the Pope is suing the SSPX for peace? He sues because he was wrong and he knows it. He sues because he knows a Church opposed to its own Tradition is a laughing stock. He sues because he can't make a lie the truth, nor an injustice anything other than what it is, an injustice.
It is not we who are full of ourselves. Read these posts. It is you who are arrogant and pompous and deluded. What you call "tastes" are reasoned arguments you can't find time to think about--because you assume the Pope is never wrong--which is a false assumption to begin with. It's not even Catholic. It's nonsense.
Where does it say the Holy Ghost will protect the Pope from doctrinal error? Divine Protection is guaranteed for any ex cathedra definition made binding on the universal Church--but there's no guarantee a pope may not otherwise posit a heretical action--when he organizes interfaith prayer meetings and practices indifferentism, for instance. Some popes, such as John XXII, are known to have fallen into heresy. That is a matter of fact. It's not disputable.
Your claim that the promise of Jesus Christ is involved in the current conflict is ridiculous. During the Arian crisis most bishops and the pope himself were weak in defense of Catholic Tradition. That did not mean Jesus was not keeping His promise. It meant that the few who remained faithful, despite bearing the brunt of persecution, nevertheless saved the Church. This is going on today. The few--led by the SSPX--is saving the Church in the name of Jesus Christ and his promise.
JPII is the Pope, I am not disputing this. This does not mean he's never wrong. Nor does it mean that those who point this out are aligned with Martin Luther or are bad Catholics. Nor do we do this in our own name, but in the name of Catholic Tradition. We follow authority--but it is that of preconciliar popes and councils--authorities which are above reproach. If there is a conflict, it means somebody's wrong and the issues should be investigated objectively. Your knee-jerk response in favor of John Paul II is not helpful. It muddies the water. Investigate the claims! Look at the facts! Let truth prevail.
You slander Archbishop Lefebvre. He died at peace with his decision because he knew it was in conformity with truth and justice--which is all God asks of any of us. The excommunication was latae sententiae and depended on the conscience of the individual and what that individual believed to be true, not on what the Pope believed to be true. The Pope only spoke from his flawed perspective. The Archbishop was true to the faith as he had always known it. It was the faith of his childhood--and he was certain it was a truer guide than the flawed thinking of a flawed pope.
If JP II is ever wrong as to a PRUDENTIAL judgment, it will not be accepted on the "authority" of his apostate enemies and self-annointed critics who continue Marcel's recent "tradition" of following him out of the Church. If JP II or any pope should ever lift the excommunications without full public repentance and penance and renunciation of the schismatic disobedience, then I would accept such a judgment because I have no business doing otherwise since the pope will have the keys. Unless and until such a thing should occur, I can certainly hope as I do that it will not occur.
John XXIII was a heretic????? So you say. I am no fan of John XXIII but he was no heretic and neither was Paul VI. Both made bad prudential judgments. Other than the Founder, no one is perfectly prudent. Your claim is further evidence of your sedevacantism.
Stop embarrassing SSPX with the comparisons with St. Athanasius. Don't hold your breath waiting for excommunicated Marcel to be restored and raised to the honors of the altar either.
Your last paragraph is a comedy riot and a tragedy at the same time.
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia!