An orthodox pope? Is it orthodox to pour libations to the Great Thumb, or to award the cardinalate to a bishop who has publicly doubted the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection, or to do away with standards for heroic sanctity in order to canonize more "saints" than all his predecessors put together? I don't think so. You have cited no unorthodox statement. I'm afraid I missed the encyclical (or was it an apostolic constitution) on the Great Thumb, whatever that is.
As for the mention of the "excommunication", this was a reference to the latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication publicly touted by JnPII in his Ecclesia Dei letter, but never acknowledged as valid by SSPX by reason of the Archbishop's inculpability. Here the good father is speaking in a very off-handed, unofficial way of the public event. It has no theological significance.
The Archbishop consecrated bishops in violation of an express command from the Pope. The Archbishop is culpable.
In my opinion this letter reflects the clear thinking and sobriety of the Society's present leadership. It will not be pressured into a premature agreement with a Rome that has no intention of following the path of Catholic orthodoxy and Tradition.
The Pope has been a consistent defender of orthodoxy and Sacred Tradition in the Church. He deserves our support in his battle against dissident heresy within, even if we don't always agree with his prudential judgments as to how to deal with that heresy.
1. Orthodoxy is not measured by statements alone. What a pope DOES is equally important. It is certainly unorthodox for a pope to elevate a bishop who openly doubts the Resurrection. Yet JPII made such a man a cardinal. Notice I do not claim the Pope is himself a heretic. If JPII were to actually promulgate a heresy in writing, then he would be heretical and SSPX would say so and join the sedevacantists who affirm this. But the Society does not believe this, though his actions are unorthodox and even at times dangerous to the faith.
2. It is wrong to assume that Archbishop Lefebvre's violation of the Pope's command made him culpable. Canon Law itself exempts from culpability anyone who disobeys a command out of a state of necessity. This was the canon (1321) evoked by the Archbishop who believed the destruction of the traditional Mass would be assured if he did not disobey. He argued the Pope did not correctly perceive that the Church was plunged in crisis. The facts show Lefebvre was right to believe this. But even if he were wrong, the canon precludes any penalty as long as he sincerely believed that this was the case.
3. The Pope is no friend of Catholic Tradition. He did nothing in twenty-five years to reform openly corrupt and heretical seminaries throughout the world. Yet he attacked the one seminary in Europe which affirmed Catholic Tradition. Everyone admits the Econe in Switzerland was theologically and morally above reproach. Yet it was targeted for destruction long before the Archbishop had refused his obedience--even while seminarians elsewhere were cruising gay bars and seminary instructors were systematically dismantling the traditional faith. Yet the Pope sided with those who wished to destroy the Econe--and did nothing to stem the corruption elsewhere.
The FSSP was likewise persecuted--though JPII himself had established the indult as a means of splitting the SSPX. When the Fraternity of Saint Peter had phenomenal success instead, attracting vocations and lay support, he moved to quickly punish its leadership on trumped-up charges, belying the claims of many like yourself who pretend the Pope is helpless to do anything to discipline clergy. He showed he can act forefully when he wants to. He simply doesn't want to for the most part--not even against corrupt and heretical priests and bishops.