There was no "violation of his vow of obedience", there was no "massive sin of scandal", there was no "grand theft ecclesiastical", and your saying so doesn't make it so. No pope may command what would inflict great harm to souls. The Pontiff's command, intended to destroy the ancient Mass and to deal a final blow to Catholic Tradition itself, was illegitimate and was consequently owed no obedience. Thus there could have been no sin of scandal on the part of the Archbishop. The scandal was on the part of this Pope who persecuted traditional Catholics even while he elevated perverts and public heretics. Nor was there any grand theft--the Archbishop had every canonical right under emergency circumstances to consecrate, and did so for the sole purpose of assuring the survival of the true Catholic faith. The fault, therefore, was the Pope's for for maligning the innocent. After twenty-five years of this pontificate, moreover, how can you argue it has been successful? The fruits have been rotten. It is JPII, not Marcel Lefebvre, who has proven to have been the false prophet.
Another repeat of all your usual and ineffectual rationalizations in favor of the dead archschismatic and his work.