Please. I remember when Archbishop Lefebre consecrated those bishops against the order of the Vicar of Christ.
I know I'm correct on all three items you mentioned.
1. Of course Lefebvre consecrated without a papal mandate. But the Pope refused to allow the consecrations of traditional bishops in order to starve the traditional Mass of traditional priests. No traditional priests could be ordained without a bishop--and no traditional bishops had ever been permitted during the pontificate of John Paul II. Perverts and apostates and fools were consecrated--but no traditionalists. So the Archbishop consecrated traditional bishops anyhow and thereby preserved the Traditional Mass in a time of great emergency.
If you believe this was a schismatic act, you are wrong. Schism implies a rejection of papal authority. That was not what happened here. The Pope was disobeyed because he threatened to harm the Church irreparably. The intent was to preserve Catholic Tradition, not to deny papal authority. Nor is disobedience itself evil if one is obeying instead God's will. Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine states: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, 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."
On the second point: A Church Council is infallible only if it defines a dogma that is binding on the universal Church. It is a negative protection--that is to say, an infallible declaration would be one that is divinely protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But Vatican II was a pastoral council only--and a minor one at that, though modernists sometimes seem to make it the greatest event in human history next to the Incarnation. In fact, nothing it declared was binding--and this was in accordance with Paul VI's own wishes. This being the case, there is much that may be disputed and will be argued-over for centuries. But nothing it stated was actually infallible.
On the third point--hardly anybody I know who is a traditionalist doubts the Novus Ordo is valid. That is not the complaint we have against it. Even valid Masses may be bad ones if they do not express a Catholic theological perspective and if they actually subvert Catholic dogmas--as is the case with the Novus Ordo which radically distorts Catholic beliefs. So it's a bad rap against traditionalists. Let's put it this way: both a brand new Mercedes and a Chevy clunker with a bad transmission are valid cars. But I wouldn't want to drive the Chevy cross-country. So with the Novus Ordo. It's a bad Mass--very dangerous to the faith.