CathInfo.com

Let’s put it this way:
There has been 100.0% acceptance of the popes since V2 by the bishops.
Every approved preconciliar writer on the subject assures us this ratification guarantees the legitimacy of the pope, and makes that recognition obligatory as dogmatic fact.
Where’s the wiggle room?

Then there's no other option for you to submit to Francis as your rule of Faith; I'm not a convinced sedevacantist either due to not being convinced of the arguments preserving the visibility of the Church or the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome, however your alternative of an allegedly divine institution that's actively leading souls to hell by promulgating false doctrine, evil sacraments, and fake saints isn't the greatest consolation prize. Do you instruct converts to avoid what you claim is the Catholic Church with dogmatic certainty for the sake of their salvation?

Because a pastoral, fallible, non-dogmatic council is not a dogmatic fact, while the identity of a universally accepted Pope is a dogmatic fact (about which there may be no disagreement):

The faith obliges you to be a dogmatic sedeplenist (i.e., Catholic), unless you would also like to express your doubts about any other dogmas and dogmatic facts of the faith).

But all the Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction also accept Vatican II and the New Mass.  And while some might say Vatican II is technically not infallible, they aren't going to say that Vatican II was destructive to the faith or anything like that.  Not one.

You once argued to me that even Athanasius Schneider (the very best bishop with jurisdiction at this point) isn't at all solid because the New Mass is displeasing to God.  Yet its universally accepted as *not* a sacrilege.

I've said before I don't know whether its dogmatically certain that Francis is Pope.  I'm questioning the logic on which that is based.  I do think we should presume that he's the Pope unless/until we are told otherwise by competent authority.  But is it absolutely certain?  I don't know.  

Can you think of s single cardinal or bishop who is disputing Francis’ papacy?
Me either.
Then how in the world could his papacy not be a dogmatic fact (Lad’s implicit position), when it is the ratification of cardinals and bishops that makes the papacy a dogmatic fact?
And if a dogmatic fact, where the room to question or reject it??

Lad regularly invents ideas that sounds legit. Currently he's on the "dogmatic fact" train, which in and of itself is nothing but a wholelotta bull. You have to remember that when it comes to this subject and Lad, Lad identifies and thinks strcitly as a "Dogmatic Doubtist". As such, there is no logic to much (not all) of what he says about this subject. Remember, poor lad said: "And if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic." So this makes it apparent that in his mind, he's dealing with a bunch of schismatics because we don't doubt the pope's legitimacy. You gotta try to put yourself in his shoes to see where he's coming from.

The truth of the matter is that the idea of "universal" and/or "peaceful" acceptance being an infallible sign, is nothing more than the opinion of some theologians of the last 150 years or so. The sedes like to twist this opinion into a de fide teaching in order to fit it into their narrative, they do this as if the idea carries the authority of a teaching of the Church, that's what it's really all about.

Meanwhile, by now they all know with certainty that the great saint pope Pius X's and Pope Pius XII's legislation both decree that whoever is elected is instantly the true pope, yet it is imperative that in order to fit their narrative, they wholly ignore this "dogmatic fact" and cling to the other "dogmatic fact" of universal acceptance.