Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:

Thank you for these two pages.  I have the interviews, but not from the original Angelus hard media magazine. 

The Archbishop taught that whether a man is pope or not is based on the evidence.  He did not teach some universal principle that a putative pope must be accepted as pope until the Church declares otherwise.

Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:

For anyone who's honest, the object truth of the matter is that Archbishop Lefebvre, with the exception of a period in the early 1980s where he was seeking a practical arrangement with Rome to make the "experiment of Tradition", was always open to the possibility of sedevacantism.

He also stated clearly that the Holy Ghost's protection over the papacy (as taught also by Vatican I) would preclude this degree of destruction.  He hesitated to unequivocally affirm sedevacantism because he could not in his mind definitively (and with the certainty of faith) rule out some other possible explanation for how this happened.  But he upheld the principle that the R&R here are now denying while claiming to be the "faithful heirs" of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Plenus in particular here pretends to speak for the Archbishop, creating his own sock puppet version of the Archbishop that he pretends is regurgitating the same stuff that he is posting here.  But the real Archbishop was open to sedevacantism, did NOT consider it a "danger to souls" (except, as I said, in the early 1980s), and affirmed the principle that the Holy Spirit protects the papacy from this kind of destruction.

Plenus also pretends to speak for the Resistance ("the Resistance hold that sedevacantism is a danger to souls").  Well, Bishop Williamson has said that it's possible Jorge's not the pope and also has said that it's quite understandable why someone would hold that he isn't.  Avrille also said that it's understandable.  Father Chazal stated that +Vigano is a Resistance bishop (at least in spirit) ... after the latter declared it to be morally certain that Jorge is not the Pope.  I should think I'd listen to Bishop Williamson, Avrille, and Father Chazal regarding what "the Resistance" hold rather than to Plenus.

So Plenus is misappropriating Archbishop Lefebvre AND making claims about what the Resistance hold that don't stand up to reality ... based on his wishful thinking that they support his position.  They do not.

There was a lot of bad blood between Bishop Williamson and The Nine in the early 1980s.  Bishop Williamson was sent in by +Lefebvre to be the enforcer to deal with The Nine problem.  I think it was the entire episode with the Nine that turned a lot of SSPX and former SSPX into intransigent enemies of sedevacantism in principle, and it's been difficult for them to shake that.

What’s funny is that several years ago Bishop Williamson and Bishop Sanborn were together at someone’s house and had a fairly long discussion, I think.

Here is the whole article:

Thank you so much for your generosity!  God bless you!

Thank you, lurker librorum, and those references are definitely a part of the original code as published by the Holy See?
What do you make of that, if anything at all?

Codex iuris canonici Benedicti Papae XV, 1918

https://archive.org/details/codex_iuris_canonici_1918-benedicti_papae_xv/page/n7/mode/2up

Incidentally, on page 51 of his Contra Cekadam, Fr Chazal writes:

"Some sedevacantists argue that cuм ex is mentioned in a footnote of the Code, yet, so far, no edition of the Pio-Benedictine code having such a footnote has ever been shown to me."

I'm not sure if he's seen that edition of the Code, but there it is.

Good work, librorum, I've just sent Fr Chazal a link to this post.

Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:

To be honest, QVD, is it not you, rather, who needs to reconcile why the Archbishop so seriously considered the question of sedevacantism, yet never adopted that position and continued to advise against it? ABL even says here that he believes there is nothing worse that a Pope can do. Now that certainly demolishes the arguments of those who say "oh, but now things are so much worse, the Archbishop would certainly be a sede now"... just like Hank says above.