No one is trying to revise history. There was a time in the history of the Church when it had married popes who fathered children and appointed them cardinals. The Church is not static; she continues to grow in wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit. Even the worst of the popes never once erred in matters of faith or morals.
The "conclusions" that the authors drew were, at least some of them, painful to read, as they superimposed the historical positions of the Church, and the foundational tenets of Christianity upon the modern culture war with breathtaking crudity.
That is why we have Councils. But the SSPX rejected VCII and some also went so far as to view the subsequent popes as false. The real question here is how deeply embeded is this teaching in their community? If the original ariticle was not that bad, then obviously they recognize their shameful comments. Their repentance, if it is sincere, should be commensurate with their actions over the past 40+ years. It should be in person, before Christ's earthly representative, who will expect them to embrace the documents from VCII, especially Nostra Aete.
We are not talking about private behavior of popes. Here's for example, is ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS LIVING IN THE SAME PLACE. Is it responding to a specific demographic crisis? Yes. But it cannot be dismissed alongside the Borgias' bastards. It is a part of our patrimony.
The real question here is how deeply embeded is this teaching in their community?
Lefevbre signed all Vatican II documents, including Notra Aetate. Obviously, SSPX is not sedevacantist. That some currently associated with SSPX will find the emerging reunion untolerable, there is no doubt.
The teaching on faith relations is a delicate one. Surely some limits on it exist: we can't have interfaith conselebrations, for example. It should be examined without bitterness or sloganeering, and not ahistorically.