In the famous "Letter of the Three Bishops," we read this quote contained therein from Archbishop Lefebvre:

"And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”

(Incidentally, this is one of the several post-1988 quotes that make me wonder whether Archbishop Lefebvre had transformed what was once a merely prudential decision into a principle).

This, then, was the position of the Archbishop.

To this quote Bishop Fellay responded (in his "Letter to the Three Bishops"):

"So that as for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognized by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do."

In reality, the entire Letter of Bishop Fellay is an attempted refutation of the quote/mindset of Archbishop Lefebvre.

He explains how different things are in Rome, and how the Archbishop Would not have refused the deal on the table; he accuses the 3 bishops of lacking supernatural vision by ruling out the possibility of a miraculous intervention of Providence to protect the SSPX under such an agreement (see his comments "are there to be no more David; no more Gideons?"), yet the glaring opposite seems to be the truth:

It is Bishop Fellay who lacks supernatural faith in the remedy of the crisis, telling us it is not realistic and practical to expect a Roman conversion, and for this lack of faith, promotes the new precondition of a merely practical accord.

And of course, he was (at best) extremely naïve in his comments about the movement of Rome towards tradition (also in this Letter to the Three Bishops), which has subsequently -by his own admission!- been shown to be quite false:

His Letter #85 and the recent June 27 Declaration admit it.

Yet those who pointed this out to him were eliminated; a horrendous injustice which no appeal to an alleged disrespect for authority will whitewash:

Paul rebuked Peter publicly, "Because he was to be blamed," and Peter's humble response was not to tell Paul about his grace of state, or tell him only he had the authority, or expel Paul from the company of the Apostles!

And I might also observe in passing that, before the April 15 Doctrinal Declaration was revealed, we were all told how different things were in Rome, and how much better the offer on the table was than what was offered Archbishop Lefebvre.

But after the Declaration was leaked, and those paying attention profoundly scandalized, we have been told how it was practically the same agreement signed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Which is it?

One cannot avoid coming to the conclusion (or at least a suspicion) that a game is being played in Menzingen: First to get support for a deal; now to justify what was done; and with the June 27 Declaration, to wait out this papacy until a favorable moment in Rome for another merely practical accord arises again.

Then we are dead.

Thus, between the scandalous 2012 General Chapter Declaration (with the 6 ephemeral conditions, and a direct contradiction to the 2006 Declaration), and the June 27 Declaration, we have introduced into the SSPX a permanent cause of instability and mistrust:

The door is left open to contradict the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre and "put ourselves into the hands of those professing these errors."

.

It would be nice, Mr. Johnson, if you could post a link to "the famous
Letter of the Three Bishops," so that readers could have the option
of taking a quick look at it if they're not up to speed.  It was over a
year ago, correct?  Wasn't it April 14th, 2012?  Or, are you referring
to another "famous" letter?

Paul rebuked Peter publicly, "Because he was to be blamed," and Peter's humble response was not to tell Paul about his grace of state, or tell him only he had the authority, or expel Paul from the company of the Apostles!

When SAINT Paul rebuked SAINT Peter (protestants call them "Paul
and Peter" because they don't like to recognize the authority of the
Church to canonize saints) it was a true Apostle and a truly Catholic
Pope, two Catholic bishops who practiced what they preached, and
true followers of Our Lord, even unto martyrdom.

How different is HEBF*s behavior.  He responds with eager gushings
about his grace of state, and his most prominent virtue of
prudence -- oh, but he doesn't say "virtue."  That would make him
appear proud!  And appearances are everything, of course.  He does
venture to claim a monopoly on 'prudence' however, which he
presumes to be something like 99% of the virtues, leaving the rest
of them for the 1% remainder of the market share.

And 'authority'!!  Imagine how often St. Peter could have pulled the
'authority' card, but did not.  Can you find one example in all of
Scripture where the word 'authority' is used regarding St. Peter, or
his claim to have authority?   He tells his priests they have authority,
and he tells women their husbands have authority, but he does not
go around saying that HE has authority.

St. Peter did not send St. Paul to Argentina or lock him in the attic
in Wimbledon or demand that St. Paul stop writing his bothersome
Epistles to the Romans, or Corinthians or Thessalonians etc.!  He
didn't demand that St. Paul stop riding on sailboats and getting
lost at sea, sunk in the bottom of the ocean.  He could have, you
know!  But he did not.  Gee.  I wonder why?  

And it's actually funny you'd mention that St. Peter did not 'expel'
St. Paul for disagreeing with him.  Because it was only over one
issue that this rebuke was made.  HEBF, however, has been at odds
with +W for many years and had been making incessant and
unreasonable demands that he cease his exercise of his office as
a bishop of the Church, that is, an office HEBF shares but one which
he does not likewise practice as +W does by way of his ECs.  And
it was the ECs that HEBF was so perturbed about.  

But even after many offers and requests, where +W asked +F to
show him where +F had found +W to have written something -
ANYTHING - that was contrary to the Catholic Faith, +F could not
do so.  +W even made paper copies of all his ECs and delivered
them to +F asking for his criticism of anything specific, and he got
NO REPLY from HEBF, who is only 'eager' to make headway toward
patching a rift with modernist Rome, not to repair the rift with his
own brother bishop.

The contrast between the interaction of the two Saints Peter and
Paul, and that of these two modern bishops +F and +W is most
striking.

This one comparison ought to be sufficient to open the eyes of any
diehard Accordista.