One of the reasons why the corrupt bureaucracy drew their knives on him, is because Lefebvre refused to perform their precious NO-mass. Yes they actually tried to force him, against his will to conduct one. They had an agenda, and he wouldn't play ball.
There are certain elements in society and the church that are for various reasons are hell bent on ruining Catholic tradition. In response to these certain elements, there are certain people who simply aren't going to let that happen regardless of any worldly consequences inflicted by worldly men. Period.
Legalistic machinations aside, Society ordinations are valid and the priests celebrate mass as has pleased our Lord for centuries. Much to the woe of their detractors, they will continue to do so, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
If you think the reason for the existence of the Society is "all about the liturgy" you're extremely misinformed.
We are hardly all about liturgy. That's an over-simplification, though the liturgy is the point of contact with the faith for most Catholics. Any tampering with it, affects the whole of one's belief. It is not possible to attend the Novus Ordo, for instance, and not become ever more casual about the Holy Eucharist. Everything in the new Mass suggests a desacralized attitude. The entire focus of the Mass is away from the worship of God and towards a focus on the congregation, exactly as with Protestants. So the New Mass is the place where the stress-points regarding the faith are most felt by traditional Catholics.
The irony in all this, of course, is that the ones who are most deeply affected by this are those who take their faith most seriously. The average Catholic couldn't care less and seems hardly aware of the enormous theological issues at stake, especially when the Novus Ordo is said in Latin. But traditionalists do care--and this is why they are an important element in the Church, despite their relatively small numbers; they are the source of much energy and opposition--and even creativity. Mel Gibson's traditionalism would be emblematic of the movement. His perspective is intensely oppositional and deeply held. Rome understands this. It knows it cannot succeed in its revolution unless it manages somehow to eliminate the opposition of traditionalism. But it doesn't know how to capture the movement without compromising its own radical departures from Tradition.
The issue on Vatican II is indeed a theological dissent--but not of Lefebvre's theology vis a vis the Council's. It is the preconciliar Church itself which is opposed to liberalism and modernism. So it is altogether wrong to suggest Lefebvre simply "didn't like the theology or JPII". It was that the Council and JPII were and are in open contradiction to the preconciliar teachings of the Church.This is an enormous issue because it forces Catholics to choose between preconciliar warnings about Modernism as a heresy--and the modernists who now occupy the seats of power in the Vatican and who openly oppose perennial Church teachings.
Lefebvre predicted correctly, by the way, that both Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium Spes would ultimately be interpreted in ways that would contradict the teachings of the Church--and he was right. The "religious freedom" issue at first glance seems to most American Catholics innocuous enough. Why not be tolerant of all religions, we ask. But the decree goes beyond mere tolerance. It denies the right of Catholic countries to remain Catholic and to exist under Christ's Kingship exclusively--and the result has been just as he had predicted. While Islam has remained Muslim and Israel remains exclusively Jewish, no Catholic country has remained Catholic.
As for the purported comment of Lefebvre about the election of Wojtyla, I never heard of it. Are you sure this is true and not more gossip? There is a lot of stuff like this that is untrue that is bruited around the Catholic press. The slander machine works overtime in trying to discourage Catholics from following the SSPX. What is your source?