The two cases are somewhat different. Archbishop Lefebvre acted to preserve the traditional Mass from destruction. He never recounced the Pope himself personally as did Archbishop Thuc. This said, perhaps the latter felt justified in conscience. We are living in terrible times. It is difficult to get at the real truth in these matters. Rome certainly is the last place to look if one wants to get the straight story about anything. It has its own very sharp axes to grind.
Your point about an informed conscience is true--but it is a leap to think that Archbishop Lefebvre, who had spent his lifetime as a missionary priest and bishop in Africa, whose entire lifetime was spent in strict obedience to the faith could not recognize the dangers posed to the Church by the postconciliar onslaught against Catholic Tradition. It is an absurd contention. Rather one has to wonder about postconciliar papal consciences--and how they may be reconciled to the disasters that have been so recklessly imposed on the Church.
Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X, and The Story of the Vanishing Schism:
The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara
by John Beaumont and John Walsh
"...During the last twenty years a not inconsiderable number of Catholics have followed the lead given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X founded by him, thinking that this was the way to defend what they believed to be the traditional Catholic faith in a time of crisis in the Church...
...The Consequences of These Errors
...How can the Society of St. Pius X still be in communion with the pope and the Church? Consider the following facts: The Society establishes seminaries, churches, chapels, and priories throughout the world without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts. This is contrary to the Code of Canon Law (Canons 234, 237, 1215, 1223-1228).
It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by Canon Law (Canons 1015, 1018-1023).
It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction (Canons 966-976, 1108-1123).
It gives Holy Communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists (Canon 844). This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such movements as having a "schismatic spirit" (Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986), p. 155). It refused Pope Paul VI's command to close the seminary at Econe and wind up the Society (see the letter of the Commission of Cardinals to Archbishop Lefebvre and that of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop, dated 6th May, 1975 and 29th June, 1975 respectively. both of which are reprinted, together with the Society's responses, in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp. 57- 59; 112- 119).
It carries out confirmations in other bishops' dioceses. This is contrary to the Council of Trent which decrees that:
"No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . ." (Sess. VII, cp. 5, emphasis supplied).
It purports to accept John Paul II as pope and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator (see, e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed. Fr. François Laisney (1988), pp. 176-178). Finally, in 1988 the Society consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the express will of the pope, and then in 1991 proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the Society itself recognizes, there is already a valid bishop. This is contrary to Canon 1013. Furthermore, the Society of St. Pius X cites not a single declaration of a pope or a council (to say nothing of theologians and Church fathers) stating that there may be a legitimate episcopal consecration against the will of the pope. But according to Pope Pius XII, who was so revered by Archbishop Lefebvre. an episcopal consecration done against the will of the pope is an offense against divine law. "No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop's] possession. Through this criminal act there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty of excommunication . . ." (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).
To sum up, then, here is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of the supreme pontiff in matters of great importance for use visible unity of the Church. Put all of these things together and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite eglise, an independent Church. If this does not constitute schism, what does?...
*Of course, such facts wil be overlooked or ignored or rejected due to whatever....The more I read the posts of some on here the more it appears that some are incapable of seeing the simple truth before their eyes
'Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?'
The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular - without reading them first in Latin.)
"It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
"The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of
what the Archbishop liked, and what one did in France.
"These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...
"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...
"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..."
The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
*What you claim for the excommunicated schismatic you follow is quite different from the facts.
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was founded in 1970 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre under the jurisdiction of Msgr. Charriere in the Diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland.(on a 6 year expiremental basis )
Its first seminary was established in Econe, Switzerland.In 1975, after an investigation by Rome, Lefebvre was forbidden to ordain any additional priests and was told to close the seminary and disband the Society. The Archbishop refused, claiming that he had been made victim of an irregular canonical procedure. After illicitly ordaining some priests in June of 1976, he was suspended a divinis (from all priestly functions) by Pope Paul VI. From this point on he and his priests acted without faculties (contrary to what the Lefebvrites say).
*Again, the facts about Lefevbre are quite different that what his followers claim they are. He obeyed when he wanted to and he disobeyed when he wanted to - just like his followers. He - and his followers - are the ultimate authorities. They judge for themselves what they will obey and when they will obey. In that, they are no different than protestants.
If you look at the life stories of some of the more extreme traditionalists and sedevacantists in the church, such as Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher for example, one is faced with a conundrum. Reading his web site and those of others, one's first reaction is to laugh. However, behind the apparent farce of what is happening is a genuine human and spiritual tragedy.
When I read the story of his early life it appears, if I take it at face value, that he is a man with a genuine vocation and a man who had a genuine concern for the savation of souls. Moreover, he appears to have suffered badly at the hands of the modernists and liberals and to have undergone genuine hardship for the good of the faith. I think one can see certain parallels here with Archbishop Lefebvre, who can also be said to have experienced similar situations.
However, at some point-I'm still not sure what, when or how-something goes wrong. Badly. One thing leads to another and now Fr. Pulvermacher is up in the mountains of Idaho or Montana or somewhere claiming to be Pope Pius XIII. Tragic.
Similarly with Lefebvre. I have no reason to doubt the service which he gave to the Church during his time in Africa, nor that he had a genuine desire for the salvation of souls, nor that he suffered at the hands of modernists. However, at some point, something went wrong and the next thing he's consecrating bishops.
Salvation history is littered with the stories of people who lived dissolute lives only to find grace and forgiveness at the 11th hour. Sadly, it also seems to contain stories of people who labored in the vineyard for years but then went and threw it all in the dumpster.