I think it's about more than that. The excommunications are what precipitated this and are the principal legal problem but the SSPX issue is now wide-ranging. The issue of which rite of Mass should be celebrated is just one of a whole range of issues which divide SSPX and Rome. Criticism has spread to include almost every area of the Pope's work and teaching and includes Vatican II, ecumenism, saints of the Church created during JPII's pontificate, the role of the Novus Ordo, the authority of the Pope etc. All of this would need to be addressed by any "deal".
To get back to your original post, this is precisely why there is no "communion" between Rome and SSPX. Division is wide-spread and general.
2. But the pope cannot make someone guilty who is, in fact, innocent. In other words, the pope can be wrong in his judgment--and in such a case the innocent party would rightfully consider any excommunication a nullity. The legal framework, however, would remain and need to be worked out. In other words, a "deal" would have to be arranged satsifactory to both the conscience of the innocent party and the Holy See.
Er....what innnocent party? The excommunications are a fact. Irrespective of how they are viewed by SSPX. Do I detect the time-honored liberal thinking "if I consider myself to be a victim, then I am a victim"?
3. This would be as if an innocent man were convicted by the Supreme Court for a crime from which there was no appeal outside the Court itself. The Court might be wrong to have convicted him, but the legal ramifications would remain regardless of his innocence. The moral ramifications, however, would favor the innocent party just the same. (cf. Dred Scott Decision.)
Again, you've presumed innocence. Or should I say declared innocence. That is your opinion.
4. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in particular, the Pope was wrong to ever accuse him of denying lawful papal authority by consecrating bishops without a mandate. The motive for the Archbishop's doing this was not the denial of authority, but the salvation of souls and the desire to protect the ancient Mass from destruction. It is as if a father who is drunk should ask his son for the car keys. The son's refusal would not be a denial of paternal authority, but a wish to avoid a catastrophe.
Firstly only God and the Archbishop know what his motives truly were. You and I and the Pope must take his word. Secondly, it becomes difficult to sustain the argument that he was trying to protect the Mass from destruction when 1) the Holy Father and the Prefect of the Congregation (Ratzinger) have assured him that destruction of the Tridentine Rite will not occur and have pleaded with him not to go forward with the consecration. 2)The Indult has been proposed to ensure that this does not occur.
Lefebvre's claim that he was acting to prevent destruction of the Mass and/or the Faith implies that he believes the Pope and Ratzinger to be deceiving him and that he does not accept their assurances nor the Indult. This is a most serious situation. I'm constantly hearing that Lefebvre acted in good faith, but for this to be so it means that JPII and Ratzinger must have been acting in bad faith. Therein lies my big problem with this.
5. In addition, it should be remembered the Archbishop properly evoked the Pope's own Canon Law--canons 1323-24--which allowed for apparent disobedience in a state of necessity. The Archbishop considered, in good conscience, that the Church was in the throes of crisis and that he was obliged to act to save it from those in the process of destroying it. Whether the Archbishop was correct or not was beside the point, moreover. Canon Law only asks that the subject be in good faith while acting--in which case no excommunication could be incurred.
Again, the key words "good faith".
As for the Canons I'm not even sure that they apply in this situation. A state of necessity is hard to invoke when an Indult has been proposed to ensure that the Mass be available. Most schismatics and heretics down through the centuries have claimed "good faith". Didn't Luther believe that he was putting the Church back on track?
6. Finally, it should likewise be remembered that while the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church, this means only that he may not be checked from below--by subordinates. But he is most definitely delimited from above--by Divine Law itself which commands that the innocent not be punished.
The Pope cannot allow unauthorized episcopal consecrations. Period. Even with the "good faith" argument. You can see where this could lead, right? Any bishop could claim this right. That's why it incurs an automatic penalty.
1. You mis-characterize the conflict with Rome. It is not about criticizing the Pope, it is about defending Tradition. The dispute is between modernists and tradition, between former popes and councils and their teachings, and the novelties imposed by this pontiff and his predecessor Paul VI following Vatican II.
2. The latae sententiae excommunications are not really facts, they are suppositions, predicated upon the MOTIVES of the individuals involved. Everything depends on the dispositions of the consciences of Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers. If the consecrations were intended to deny papal authority, then they were indeed schismatic. But if they were intended--as canon law itself provides--to save souls in a time of necessity, then no penalty was ever incurred. JPII could not have known that the consecrations were schismatic. He had no insight into the souls of the men involved. He was merely surmising excommunications took place for the reason he gave--and he made this public. But he was patently wrong--since the Archbishop and his followers had been claiming for years it feared the Church was in the throes of crisis and that there was a great danger its Tradition would be lost without such traditional consecrations. This fear was legitimate and should have been respected by the Pope. It was instead summarily and foolishly dismissed. Yet the preponderance of evidence is that the SSPX has been right all along and the Pope has been dead wrong.
Still, if the Pope had wanted to prove an excommunication had actually taken place, he had recourse to a public tribunal--the usual means by which high churchmen had been judged in the past. JPII didn't do this--and he didn't do it for a reason. Had he called a tribunal to pass judgment, the Archbishop would have had the right to defend himself publicly, something the Vatican couldn't risk. The last thing it wanted was for the truth to be confronted squarely. So the Pope went another route--a far less definite one. He simply asserted that the latae sententiae decree--which was automatic and which depended on the internal moral disposition of the individuals involved--was an actual fact. But he couldn't know it was a fact--since he had no access to the workings of Lefebvre's conscience--or the consciences of other traditionalists involved. He simply made the assumption, ignoring his own canons in the process, those which stated explicitly that guilt or innocence depended on the internal dispositions of the subjects.
3. There were no assurances given to the Archbishop concerning the survival of the Tridentine Mass as you state. There was simply a promise that the Pontiff would consider the matter of whether or not to allow the consecration of a traditional bishop. That was it--a vague promise to think about it. This was a pretty slender thread on which to hang the entire fate of the traditional faith. And, in fact, in all the preceding years of his pontificate--and even up until today--not a single traditionalist has ever been appointed bishop--with the bishop of Campos the single exception. Words are cheap. This Pope's actions speak much louder. He has appointed countless perverts and apostates, but not a single traditionalist in twenty-five years, except for the Campos bishop--which was the result of much negotiation and arm-twisting. This speaks volumes about this Pontiff's real intentions. There is very little reason to trust a pope who for two-and-a-half decades has been consciously pursuing policies designed to deconstruct the Traditional Catholic Church.