Judas was also a "favourite" of Christ's: he was an Apostle. That did not prevent him from falling away: nor did a past illustrious life prevent Tertullian from becoming an heretic; nor Lefebvre & Co. from becoming schismatics.
Willful adherence to the schism of Lefebvre and his TWICE excommunicated bishops (the second one being incurred automatically for consecrating Bp. Rangel of Campos) also places the adherents in the same state of schism and excommunication - all bleatings from the SSPX and associated "independents", Thucites, etc. to the contrary notwithstanding.
That John Paul is a pope who is widely celebrated does not make him immune from sin or error. Your claim seems to be that because he is the pontiff and Lefebvre is not, he is right and the Archbishop necessarily wrong. But the Pope is as liable as you or I for injustice and abuse of power and errors in judgment--unless he is speaking ex cathedra--and the fact that he holds the highest office in the Church and can do or say whatever he wants, does not make him right. It only means he has the ultimate clout LEGALLY, nothing more--certainly not morally. And he should be resisted when he is wrong and leads the Church astray--as he has been doing throughout his pontificate.
I know it is hard for those like yourself who admire him greatly to do so, but try looking at the evidence dispassionately and then try to explain away the enormous damage inflicted by his appointments to high office of so many unworthy men, for instance, or by his reckless pan-religious ecumenism that gave such scandal, or by his refusal to reform what is systemically corrupt within his Church or even to protect the dogmas of faith currently collapsing everywhere in the western world. Any way you hack it, the evidence of widespread ruin to the Catholic faith under his aegis should prove to you how right the Archbishop had been all along, that there was no springtime resulting from Vatican II, that the Church was in the deep throes of crisis as he said, and that despite papal claims to the contrary, the course the Pontiff was following was harmful to the Church and had already led to the ruin of many souls.
Or as one great Doctor of the Church stated it, "Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, doctor of the Church; De Romano Pontifice, 2,29)