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!
First, I said John XXII, not John XXIII. It is a well-known case of papal heresy. Second, Marcel Lefebvre simply did what the Pope should have done but would not--acted to protect Catholic Tradition. You don't believe this. Fine--continue to worship the false prophet whose fruits of failure are everywhere to see. I will follow the truth of Catholic Tradition.