"There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was 'assured' he would have received this bishop."
Look, you're hopelessly obdurate and illogical. Why should it matter whether there was an objective state of necessity? What mattered was that the Archbishop believed there was a necessity. Nor should a temporary hopeful belief in a Vatican "assurance" obscure the fact that there was insufficient trust in Rome's sincerity in the long run. In fact the language of the Protocol Agreement itself only speaks of a "suggestion". We can play this game all night till the wee hours--it's futile. You are committed a priori to see only the Pope's point of view--which ignores Lefebvre's appropriate evocation of canon law. You try to ascribe culpable ignorance to the Archbishop--without any proof whatsoever. From my perspective you are part of the vicious smear that is ongoing, the lies that are continually spread against this fraternity of good priests.
Weren't the FSSP supposed to get a bishop as well? Like that has happened...