CathInfo.com

Not directly.  They force retired him in 1981, however, so this was before the consecrations.  Bishop de Castro Mayer relied upon the notion that V2 was a "pastoral" Council and held that in his diocese pastoral considerations weighed against it.

By the time of the 1988 consecrations, he had become a sedevacantist.

I do wonder why neither Montini nor Wojtyla moved to remove him.  I think that until Bergoglio started removing +Strickland, it was considered contrary to the principles of "collegiality".

Sure it is.  They got Bishop de Castro Mayer on a technicality when he he turned 75 in 1981, which Montini had set forth as a mandatory retirement age.  There was no notion of being deposed due to his being Traditional (although I'm quite certain they were happy to see him go).  Montini ordered mandatory retirement at the age of 75 in 1966, and that provision also became part of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  So they got Bishop de Castro Mayer on a legal technicality, but did not depose him for teaching "contrary to the faith", as they alleged of +Strickland.  And, the reasons Jorge gave for why +Strickland was teaching contrary to the faith was based on Bergoglio's "teaching" that the Deposit of Faith is not static but can change.  In other words, they deposed him for not being a Modernist.