*Demonstrably a lie. Lefebvre signed the agreement he personally participated in the negotiation of. Later, of course, he broke his word. He always did that and then later generated "reasons" he refused to keeep his word. But, that was par for the course for Marcel.
The ad hominem beginning where you self-referentially quote your personal opinons as authoritative and sigh at my benighted ignorance is typical traddie twaddle.
He was warned consecrating bishops was schismatic. He did it anways. He was excomunicated
Facts a six y.o. understands. But for a schizzie...it makes them Dizzy Miss Lizzy
And Miss Lizzy knows their refusal to accept reality is determinative of nothing.
--Bishop Fellay: “We have answered that the same 1983 Code of Canon Law says that somebody may act lawfully out of a subjective necessity to consecrate bishops.”
*Of course he answers that way. And, of course, that answer indicates either ignorance or idiocy or expected idiocy in his audience - sspx supporters.
Answer: The Supreme Legislator had already spoken about the NECESSITY:
“However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf. CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.” Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
*Now, I know that no matter how many times this is posted, I KNOW the schismatics will continue to post the same propagandistic lies right in the face of the facts because the ideology of their "traditionalism" prevents any factual light penetrating their intellects.