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)
"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, etc..."
But Ratzinger's own secretary, in the phony letter drawn up for Lefebvre to sign, repeated the word "suggestion"--which was the final straw for the Archbishop. Besides, how is Ratzinger's comment that the Pope "is disposed" to grant a bishop supposed to be reassuring? How is this any better than entertaining a suggestion? It is a slight movement in the right direction, but still not a promise. It is far less than a commitment. After all, they weren't talking about church architecture. The survival of the ancient Mass was at stake. Why couldn't the Pontiff have simply said yes? He said yes to all of Bernadin's boys. He said yes to Mahoney and worse. The guess was that the Pope was looking for a weak link to be consecrated, somebody easily manipulated. If he couldn't have such an individual, he would mandate no bishops at all. This was why he had already turned down so many names presented by the Archbishop--men of iron commitment to the ancient Mass.
You post so much absurdity it's hard to keep up. You say, "Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to submit several names from which the Pope would pick one, but he refused."
You make it sound rude and obdurate. But he had been playing Rome's game long enough. He had already sent countless dossiers of good honest orthodox priests--none were ever approved. So he understood at this point the fix was in. Yes, he lived four more years--but he was old and ailing. He couldn't have known this. He might have indeed been dead within days for all he knew. He also knew no name would please the Pontiff unless it were of someone easily manipulated--one of the moles who within days after the consecrations went over to the Pope's side and became the Priestly Fraternity.