+ABL was not dogmatically certain, and the sspx under his leadership reflected this stance, so that's not true.

You are correct that +ABL was not dogmatically certain.  He repeatedly and publicly speculated that the See might be vacant ... sometimes coming extremely close to coming out as sedevacantist.  He never did of course.  But, if you look at his speeches and writings, I would guess that he leaned 75% in the direction of vacancy ... but preferred to give the benefit of the doubt to that 25%.

Father Ringrose linked to a great audio from +Lefebvre.  He maintains that in principle the Church could not have done these things.  Then he speculates about whether Paul VI was drugged or blackmailed or replaced by a double.  What's the explanation, he asks?  He dismisses these theories and then goes on to explain how sedevacantism might be a possible explanation.  +Lefebvre was NOT a sedeplenist.  People who knew Bishop de Castro Mayer say that he privately considered it most likely that the See was vacant, just wouldn't come out publicly with it.  +Lefebvre, around the time of Assisi, said that he and +de Castro Mayer "preferred to wait" to come out with that opinion.

I guess that some people simply don't understand distinctions.  Is +Lefebvre "R&R"?  I have repeatedly stated that +Lefebvre's position is neither schismatic nor heretical.  And I have explained why.  It all just floats over your head or through your ears or something.

The only reason that you believe that +ABL wasn't a schismatic or heretic is because you believe that he was a sedewhatever, like yourself, and that he wasn't R&R. You have explained this before. I understand the distinction. I just don't agree with it. 

The 95% of trads who have no doubts probably spend less than 60 seconds a year pondering the question

This is probably closer to the truth.  Many just don't think about it.  But if you put the question to them, the answer will be that they're not certain.

In fact, Stubborn, I once asked you directly whether you were as certain that Francis is a legitimate pope as you are that there are Three Persons in God, and you answered no.

The only reason that you believe that +ABL wasn't a schismatic or heretic is because you believe that he was a sedewhatever, like yourself, and that he wasn't R&R.

 
I did not know that the term "R&R" was first coined by Fr. Cekada.

This position is now generally referred to as “R&R” or “Recognize and Resist” — a label, by the way, that I myself coined in a December 2005 article in The Remnant. Several years ago, I circulated a video which summed up the position as The Pope Speaks: You Decide: Traditionalists Who Destroy the Papacy.

How interesting.

I did not know that the term "R&R" was first coined by Fr. Cekada.

How interesting.

Yes, it's a term only.  You'll find a thousand variations on that "position".

Why do you want to know? You're the one who believes that its heretical to believe that Francis is the Pope, and yet not follow everything he says. American sedes believe that they can decide who is or isn't heretical or schismatic.

Fr. Cekada = American

Fr. Chazal = French

The main difference is that Fr. Cekada is American, and Fr. Chazal is French. Sedevacantism and sedewhateverism is an American phenomena.

Monsignor Guerard des Lauriers = French

Your argument is invalid.

Why do you want to know?

Why won't you answer the question?  Just takes a yes or a no.

Nonsense.  I guess that +Lefebvre was in that "5%" then.

Not nonsense. Out of all the trads I have ever conversed with in the last 20 years, the only ones who brought up the subject of  the pope's legitimacy at all, were either already sedes, those who post on forums, or those who've read about it online somewhere. Beyond that, I think the figure for doubters is closer to under 0.5%.  

And yes, I had my own doubts for a long time, up until I figured out the Church not only has never taught sedeism, She condemns it as schismatic, and that historical and present reality dictates that the man who sits in the chair is indeed the pope - until proven otherwise, which can only happen if a future pope decides it. And once I saw clear the perniciousness and blatant divisiveness of sedewhateverism, I came to understand that that's the reason why sedwhateverism exists at all.      

To go around claiming and talking as if the chair is vacant like the Fr Cekada's of the world do, is inherently iniquitous and all it's good for is to make one's own false conclusion de fide - if not infallible. No good whatsoever can possibly ever come from it.