I have heard and read comments from people who are upset with Pope Leo for excommunicating the SSPX Bishops for their disobedience. Their complaint is that it is wrong to excommunicate Bishops who are trying to obey the Church (i.e. the SSPX) while ignoring vast numbers of clergy who abuse the liturgy (i.e. the Bishops and Priests who perform ridiculous and irreverent Masses that ignore the rules).
I sympathize with the comparison, but have to express that I disagree. They are comparing apples and oranges. This is not to say that I agree with liturgical abuse, nor that I think the excommunications were right or wrong; it is just to say that the two are in radically different categories. Let me explain a bit more.
Yes, I truly do detest any abuse of the liturgy (whether it is Novus Ordo, Traditional Latin Mass, Divine Worship, or an Eastern Rite). Yet, what is happening when a liturgical abuse occurs? It is a direct disobedience of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM for short). And, though, yes, the Pope approves the GIRM, it is not a direct command issued by him to a specific individual (to say "every priest should read the words in the Missal" is not the same as "that specific priest should or should not read these specific words").
A disobedience of the rule given in general to the majority of the Church (especially when can be interpreted in different, but legitimate, ways by different Bishops because it is so vague in many places), is of a lesser degree of priority than when the Pope speaks to you directly and says "do not do this". To add another layer, there are so many modernist and problematic interpretations of the GIRM that to define it clearly is very difficult (though it should not be so). Yet, in recent times, the Church has agreed that Bishops seek the Pope's permission before doing episcopal consecrations (yes, I know the history from long ago when that was not as common, but it is the way we do it now). And, in addition, this is not a normal consecration; it was announced beforehand and the Pope said, "No." You cannot treat that as ordinary in any way at all.
Furthermore, for the history of the Church it has always been the responsibility of the Bishop to oversee the application of the liturgy and to discipline priests who disobey. The Popes have rarely stepped in on liturgical matters; they leave that to the Bishops because there would be far too many local circumstances to deal with, especially when you realize that Bishops are given latitude in applying the GIRM to their diocese.
I agree that we should not have to debate what the GIRM means, nor how to celebrate the Mass in accord with the traditions of the 2000 years before Vatican II. Yet that is where we are, and we have to deal with it. Does that confusion and failure mean that the Pope's authority is gone in other matters? No, it does not. Should the Pope be stepping in and telling local Bishops to deal with the abuses? I believe he should, but I am not a Cardinal (and hopefully never will be!).
A failure in one area of one's vocation does not negate the other areas of one's vocation. Was the Pope right to excommunicate the SSPX Bishops? That is above my pay grade. I do pray, however, that he is right in what he does, and that he fixes this quickly. I want the SSPX in full and proper communion with the Church. I do not want them to end in a full schism. So then, which is worse: letting someone abuse the liturgy, or excommunicating a traditional Bishop? Once again, sorry: apples and oranges.