No. The Pope did more than announce the latae sententiae. He not only ignored the exonerating evidence that precluded any penalty, but he interpreted the act as schismatic. That was a double falsehood, invented by him, having no basis in the evidence nor in the consecrations themselves. It was a gratuitous slam against the SSPX, designed to punish. But it was false. The bottom line is that excommunications and schisms only matter if they are real. If they are false, then the innocent party may ignore them--as the SSPX does. It KNOWS it is neither excommunicated nor in schism, no matter how much the Pope misinterpreted its motives.
You are illogical and all over the place. Stick to the issue. Here is what the encyclopedia says: "Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty." It goes on to say such an unjust decree may be ignored since it has no effect.
The Pope's motu proprio is just such an unjust declaration and may be ignored--and is. You don't like this attitude. But the truth is the truth. It is clear that the Archbishop saw Traditional Catholicism being wrecked by modernism. It is also clear the Pope did not seem to mind. It was the Archbishop who acted to protect Tradition and preserve the faith--something the Pope himself ought to have done, but didn't.