CM, I think that ++Lefebvre would agree with you.

"Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the pope(Vatican II Pope) is a heretic. I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sede-vacantists, have been saying "there is no more pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the pope himself we begin to be very anxious. I am not inventing the situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods. What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith -- how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatize? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not the pope."


--Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), "The Archbishop Speaks: Talks given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on March 30 and April 18, 1986," The Angelus, July 1, 1986 (IX:7, pp. 3-4)

No sedes except for the dogmatic type try to "force" their opinion on everyone.  What the more moderate sedes object to are the rise of the dogmatic R&R who try to do exactly the same thing.  This quote from +Lefebvre simply demonstrates that he was not dogmatic R&R.  So it basically has the opposite implications of what you claim.

I’m not sure it admits he was not dogmatic R&R.

I do accept it evinces he was not dogmatic R&R on those few particular occasions.

But whether that doubt/possibility persisted in the mind of Lefebvre as his “real position,” I think is open to question from both sides:

R&R can say, “Yes, he said those things on a couple occasions, but look what he said/did against sedes in between and after those quotes.”

Sedevacantists can say, “No, the long time between pro-sede utterances evinces he held that position throughout the years, and his anti-sede actions were merely on the practical order for the sake of unity as infra.”

Undortunalely, Lefebvre is dead, and consequently, given the lack of resources of him discussing the issue, the matter is open to conjecture.

Its because of that leeway that I am less dogmatic in the last couple years regarding what Lefebvre’s true position was, than I am regarding sedevacantism generally (which is based mostly on other difficulties associated with that position generally, but that’s another can of worms).

Notice that Archbishop Lefebvre isn't making a statement of fact. He is asking questions, and he says that.... "I don't know. I wonder." He also says that we MAY be obliged to believe that this pope is not the pope.

Unlike the Sedes, who of course believe that they have all of the answers, and try to force them on everyone else.

It shows that he knew that he didn't have the answers. Unlike all of you sedes.

Now, what makes me non dogmatic with regard to my position is that I understand how others may be reluctant to embrace the position out of fear of becoming a schismatic. I believe that they are absolutely mistaken, but it’s understandable. Where it gets hairy, as time goes by and the Bergoglian heresies become more profound, the excuses have less merit.

You consider XS dogmatic R&R?