[Mershon]

"That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary."

According to "ultima ratio's" illogical reasoning (how ironic!) or private opinion vs. that of the official arbiter of canon law--the Pope. Read Vatican I again. The Pope is bound by canon law, but HE is the ultimate interpreter. Therefore, his interpretation of canon law, unless proven otherwise by the Roman Rota (whom the Pope is over, by the way) is authoritative. Do you have an official document from Rome saying something different than Ecclesia Dei Adflicta? Or do you have a "canon lawyer" SSPX priest? That would be quite humorous since the SSPX does not even recognize the authority of the 1983 code, but always reverts to the 1917 code. So, according to your SSPX canon lawyer per the 1917 code, Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication was unjust or invalid, even though he ordained bishops against the will of the Holy Father? Is that what you are saying?

[ultima ratio]

Of course the Pope is the arbiter of canon law. When have I said otherwise? But he has not renounced a single one of its canons--which are based on the highest of all laws--the Divine Law itself. So what is your point? If what he says in a letter is denied by what he says in Canon Law--which has precedence as authoritative? Canon Law, of course.

But even here the final arbiter is neither the Pope himself nor canon law--but the conscience of Archbishop Lefebvre. If he disobeyed to preserve the faith--then he is not culpable. Not all the papal letters in the world can make him guilty if he was not guilty. It is not a matter of who has the higher rank. It is a matter of what is the objective truth, a matter of who is telling the truth about the Archbishop's own motives. But the former knew with certitude; the latter could only guess.