"Furthermore, Ratzinger agreed to suggest to the 'Holy Father' to name a bishop, to be chosen from among the Society’s members"
And how far do you suppose a suggestion goes? Is it a promise? The Archbishop knew all about Vatican doublespeak. A suggestion is not even a vague promise. A vague promise is not anywhere near a commitment. Rome could be exceedingly slippery--and the entire future of the Catholic Church hung in the balance since the Archbishop was the last holdout against Novus Ordo modernism. Too much to hang upon a mere "suggestion."
But at least you don't repeat the myth that the Pope promised Lefebvre a bishop of his own choosing. It never was true--but was a convenient lie to bolster the Pope's weak position vis a vis Tradition. Especially when he has never been averse to elevating the worst scoundrels, men of low character generally, many of them apostates.
Originally it was a suggestion, but that was because the Pope hadn't confirmed it. Cardinal Ratzinger later wrote (May 30, 1988):
Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop (in the sense of point II/5.2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15.
The fact is, Msgr. Lefebvre explains clearly in his letter (which he wrote on June 2) to JP II, that he had decided that although he was "assured" that he would have gotten a bishop on August 15, he wanted more and so was going to go ahead and consecrate several bishops on June 30. There was simply no justification for the "state of necessity"; one bishop could have ordained SSPX priests just as well as four could.
On a side note, did you ever get Bishop de Mallerais' biography of Msgr. Lefebvre? What does it say about the consecrations?
the entire future of the Catholic Church hung in the balance
Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't wait 45 days to see? He lived until 1991.
But at least you don't repeat the myth that the Pope promised Lefebvre a bishop of his own choosing.
Right. Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to submit several names from which the Pope would pick one, but he refused.
On the 20th of May, I wrote to the Holy Father, telling him that I had signed the protocol but that I was insistent upon having bishops, and bishops on the 30th of June.But in fact there was no way of coming to an agreement. While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican. Now, where was that going to lead us? (Fideliter, July-August 1989)
Is no one else annoyed by the presence of quotes around the words "Holy Father," as if John Paul II were not actually the Holy Father? Honestly, the level of infantile bad attitude implied by this is really quite remarkable. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason, I am not seeing, which would permit mature adults to behave so?