Seems like the SSPX consider Lara an authority - why else would they cite him to defend Lefebvre?
They consider Pope John Paul II an authority also. What's you point?
It is always a good argument to use the opposition's own words to condemn his side. I used Lara's comment, because he acknowledges--however reluctantly--that disobedience itself is not schism. He covers for the Pope by then saying the schism ANTEDATED the consecrations. But he offered not a shred of evidence for this--nor could he. The Archbishop never denied the Pope, not ever, not even in his notorious Declaration which reads today as a harmless recitation of what is all-too-obvious. The opposite is true, in it he affirmed his loyalty to the pope. The only thing the record shows therefore is continuous and unrelenting Vatican duplicity and injustice.