This is a true rendering of the facts. I have always maintained the Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the docuмents and thus was as responsible as any other who did the same thing for the crisis.  He did do a lot to battle against certain docuмents implementation during the ensuing years but as pointed out here, there were others who took a truly took a stand opposing the council and the new mass. That they did not achieve his notoriety is not important. That they took the principled stand in favor of the Traditional faith is what counts.
We should give due where it is appropriate but always according to reality not mythologies. It is interesting, why did they lie about him signing all the docuмents? It was not a very Catholic thing to do for so many years.

Mmmm....

Yes, it is true that ABL signed all 16 docuмents, and then quickly repented of it, and repudiated them for the next 25+ years in a more public way (i.e., reaching more souls with his message of rejection) than anyone else on the planet.

The TIA response also contains significant inaccuracies of its own, for example in this statement:

"Although in broad lines Msgr. Lefebvre took a line of action that opposed the Council after that signature, today a growing number of his followers - including the Bishops he consecrated - act as if his opposition to the Council was quite nuanced. They imply he would have accepted Vatican II if it were interpreted in the light of Tradition. If this is true, we have Msgr. Lefebvre as a man who saw the Council not as a great catastrophe that should be completely wiped away from the Church, but as a man who wanted to save the Council."

While TIA is here describing the arguments of the "accordistas" without mentioning it, that is problematic, because TIA knows darn well that the accordistas have falsified Archbishop Lefebvre's true position in pursuit of a canonical recognition.

In that case, why present the argument, and then respond to it with, "If this is true, we have Msgr. Lefebvre as a man who saw the Council not as a great catastrophe that should be completely wiped away from the Church, but as a man who wanted to save the Council?"

They act as if Archbishop Lefebvre was not the same prelate who said, "Vatican II is the greatest catastrophe in the history of the Church."

And this is not the first time TIA has made irresponsible statements regarding Archbishop Lefebvre.

They published this notorious article by Fr. des Lauriers, in which the latter makes many unfounded and refuted accusations against the Archbishop (sour grapes?), which stood for many years:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm

Until someone known to me set the record straight by presenting TIA with this:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_Lauriers.html

At least they had the integrity to let the latter article stand.

Certainly Mr. Brian Mc Call wasn't very smart when commenting about an event that wasn't over yet, now he has to eat his own words. The Bishop is smarter than that, and I am glad to wait for a responsible comment, based on all the facts!

:applause:

Does anyone care what Brian McCall and the Remnant crowd think or say?