Once again, you get it wrong. Here you confuse the griping of a sedevacantist priest who was expelled from the Econe, with the "facts." These are not "facts", not by a long stretch.No! Once again YOU have it wrong! There were a number of seminarians at Econe, including Daniel Dolan, who then had sedevacantist orientations. Nonetheless, Lefebvre (who vacillated between a sort of "respect" for Rome and on other occasions of calling the Pope and the curia guilty of heriesies and of being antiChrist) nevertheless, ordained those seminarians who were "fiddling" with sedevacantist opinions. AFTER their postings to the USA and after a period of time (when Lefebvre felt like cuddling up to the one he described as "antichrist") THEN he expelled the 9 in the USA. Your "facts" are "fiction".
You say, "No! Once again YOU have it wrong! There were a number of seminarians at Econe, including Daniel Dolan, who then had sedevacantist orientations. Nonetheless, Lefebvre (who vacillated between a sort of 'respect' for Rome and on other occasions of calling the Pope and the curia guilty of heriesies and of being antiChrist) nevertheless, ordained those seminarians who were 'fiddling' with sedevacantist opinions. AFTER their postings to the USA and after a period of time (when Lefebvre felt like cuddling up to the one he described as 'antichrist') THEN he expelled the 9 in the USA. Your 'facts' are 'fiction'."
I say it is you who espouse the real fiction. Show where Archbishop Lefebvre had ever called the pope an antiChrist. You cannot do so! He spoke of ANTICHRISTS in the plural--obviously referring to those revolutionists in the Holy See who sought to dismantle Catholic tradition. Look up the quotation. When you do so, you will see that you have taken it out of context, that he used the conditional mode when he spoke of the Pope and insisted he was not yet ready to say the Pope was a heretic, though he was highly suspicious of a pope who prayed with witchdoctors and voodoo priests and placed the Church on a par with idolators, something no pope had ever done before in all of Church history. He angrily declared this suspicion--and why not? But the real FACT is that despite this he never did ascribe to sedevacantism and warned all seminarians against this temptation to ascribe to it, insisting that all members of the SSPX pray daily for the Pope and remain loyal, and even expelling those priests from his Society who avowed the chair of Peter was vacant.
What you call his "cuddling up" to the Pope, moreover, was simply his respect for the papacy itself. He never reversed his opinions, he merely worded them more softly at times in an effort to reach a rapprochement. He deeply revered the papal office, as any traditionalist Catholic would--and leaned over backwards to try to understand where the postconciliar popes were coming from--even when they put on shows like Assisi that came perilously close to heresy, and even when they instituted policies that had a clearly disastrous affect on hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world. It was why he signed the Protocol Agreement--trusting in the papacy, even when nothing the Pope actually did gave him any indication he should do so. It was only at the last minute that he realized it was impossible to trust Rome--and so he reneged. I give him a pass for this absolutely. Why? Because a pope has all the power of the Church at his disposal--even if he's wrong and even when his pontificate is a disaster. It is not easy to deal with popes, let alone one as stubborn and inflexible as JPII.