I'll be back later.
The Vatican itself has said that the SSPX has an "irregular" canonical status. The consecrations that were in 1988 were a schismatic act.
That SSPX adherents are excommunicated? (Ecclesia Dei)
What do you mean by "adherent?" The bishops are excommunicated. The priests of the SSPX truly receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but have suspended faculties.
That excommunicated schismatics are NOT "fellow Catholics"?
Agan, who do you mean by this? The clergy? The laity who attend their chapels?
That John Paul the Great never lifted the excommunications or declaration of before his death?
True.
That Benedict XVI has not lifted the excommunications or the declaration of schism during his papacy to date?
True.
That you are rising to the defense of SSPX?
Where have I done so? I asked you in #194, and you still haven't answered it.
That Catholics ought not defend John Paul the Great from the tons of vituperation heaped upon him by those whom he justly declared schismatic and excommunicated?
When these people spread calumnies, we should defend the reputation of the Pope. However, when the actions of Pope John Paul II are legitimately examined, for example, in an article that I posted months ago, there's a knee-jerk reaction in response.