Yes, precisely.  Universal Acceptance derives from the fact that the entire Church cannot ever accept a false rule of faith.  90% of Novus Ordo pew sitters don't even have enough faith to believe that either Pope or the Church as a whole is a rule of faith.  95% of Novus Ordo pew sitters are heretics one one point or another ... based on THEIR OWN POLLS.  So how does the Novus Ordo establishment represent the sensibilities of the Universal Church as to whether these men are rules of faith.  In fact, the entire Traditional movement rejects these men as rules of faith.

I believe the theologians quoted by Sean Johnson referred to a “universal acceptance” of the pope by the cardinal electors. 

Can you name a cardinal elector in any of the conclaves electing any of the V2 popes who rejected them as pope?

Again, we could start an entire thread disputing whether the V2 papal claimants had Universal Acceptance.  That is not my point at this time.

My point is that if there is Universal Acceptance and that the status of these men as legitimate is dogmatic fact, then +Lefebvre and +Williamson were heretics for openly doubting it and calling it into question.  +Lefebvre caused grave scandal by declaring that he won't say that one should not say they are not legitimate popes.

Those are your two choices, Johnson.  Either backtrack on whether their legitimacy is dogmatic fact, or else concede that +Lefebvre and +Williamson and +Tissier (he also questioned it) were/are heretics.

If you look it up, you will discover that "Universal acceptance" is the acceptance of the pope as pope by all the cardinals after his election, not acceptance by the whole world or all the members of the Church.

No one is a heretic for doubting the legitimacy of the conciliar popes - the popes themselves are responsible for whatever doubt people might have, including +ABL and +Williamson. If anyone is a heretic, it would be doubters who are dogmatic about their doubt, but I doubt even they are heretics.

If you look it up, you will discover that "Universal acceptance" is the acceptance of the pope as pope by all the cardinals after his election, not acceptance by the whole world or all the members of the Church.

No one is a heretic for doubting the legitimacy of the conciliar popes - the popes themselves are responsible for whatever doubt people might have, including +ABL and +Williamson. If anyone is a heretic, it would be doubters who are dogmatic about their doubt, but I doubt even they are heretics.

Wrong:  see previous quote

No Catholic is a heretic, even materially, for reflecting thoughtfully on certain questions, especially when the principles behind them are unclear, yet to be fully elucidated, or even disputed with contrasting opinions on either side. Further studies in the last 50 odd years have shown conclusively and beyond any doubt that dogmatic fact teaching is taught by all theologians. It was mentioned by Fr. Francis Connell as applied to Pope Paul VI in 1966. The only question before us, (we're not in the 80s or 90s today) is, In this Year of Our Lord 2019, is Pope Francis universally accepted by the Catholic Hierarchy? If yes, the OUM of the Church clearly testifies that he is the Pope.

Recall earlier in the thread Ladislaus says that to question a dogmatic fact is the same as to question the Immaculate Conception!

Wrong.
Here is Hunter:
if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1, ref2,

Concentrate on the bolded portion.  This is universal acceptance.

Sorry, but I’m not letting you walk away from the matter of peaceful universal acceptance making these papacies dogmatic facts.
By saying Lefebvre/Williamson question tge conciliar papacies, you are calling them heretics by making them to reject dogmatic facts.

This is unbelievable.  It is the exact opposite, and you are completely deranged, Johnson.  Seek mental help.

Wrong:  see previous quote

Who needs to look it up? Pope Pius X and XII said that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", I will take their word for it.

I never saw that quote before, but universal acceptance means that the only ones who must be unanimous in accepting the elected pope as pope, are all of the cardinals.

Whenever the Church refers to "Universal anything", it always includes the attribute of time - as in since the time of the Apostles, since the promulgation of the Gospel, as in always and everywhere, or always and by all the faithful. So whoever thinks it is an infallible sign of validity that the pope enjoys universal acceptance by the whole Church, they don't know what the H they're saying.     

Have a pleasant evening.