This "universal adherence" concept undermines the V2 papal legitimacy even more than mere "acceptance".

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception, such as condoms and birth control pills, is morally unacceptable.

This teaching is rejected even among Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly, who tend to hold views on other social issues that fall more in line with official teaching when compared to the wider Catholic population. About one in 10 (13 percent) in this group said contraception is morally wrong, with 87 percent saying it is either acceptable or not a moral issue.

Yes, that's to my point also.  Theologians describe the concept of Universal Acceptance as deriving from the fact that the Church recognizes the Pope as a rule of faith and cannot adhere to a false rule of faith.  As I mentioned, the number of Novus Ordites who actually accept the V2 hierarchy's Magisterium are next to zero.  So how can those of us who still, thank God, have the faith look to the Novus Ordo throngs to determine our own rule of faith?  It's nonsense.  That would be as if the Arians had managed to install one of their own onto the Holy See and claiming that, since 90% of the Church had gone Arian, this man was suddenly a legitimate pope.

BTW, I'm not 100% certain that Francis is Pope either.

I don’t think these concepts ever included the laity.  So it doesn’t matter if  a pope is accepted or rejected by whatever percentage of the laity.

You wouldn’t be accusing us of heresy, what we would be guilty of would be schism, if he were in fact a true pope.

However, these canonists say the following about a doubtful pope and schism:

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-)


Also, in the book “The Defense of the Catholic Church" by Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J..

On page 259 Fr. Doyle states the following:

"The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”

Then on page 260 of the same book, here is what he writes:

The Supreme Pontiff can lose the Primacy in these ways:

1. By voluntary resignation, as in the case of Celestine V.
2. By open heresy, by which he ceases to be a member of Christ's Church. This, however, while not contradictory to reason, is hardly conceivable.
3. By insanity.
4. By death.

And, you see, that is PRECISELY the problem.  Under a normal "Universal Peaceful Acceptance" scenario you could no more be less than 100% certain that the papal claimant is the Pope than you are 100% certain that God is Three Divine Persons.  It's a dogmatic fact, so if you don't believe it with the certainty of faith, that means you don't believe as it must be believed, and you are not a strict sedeplenist.  It does not suffice for a Catholic to say, "He's probably the pope." or even "It's extremely likely that he's the pope."  If it were merely "extremely likely" that Pius XII was a legitimate pope, then it's also just "extremely likely" that Our Lady was assumed into heaven.

Now, the mere fact that so many of us feel as you do, uncertain about whether he's the Pope, is prima facie evidence that there is in fact no Universal Peaceful Acceptance.  Otherwise, none of us would so much as entertain even a shadow of a doubt.  We would be in the same state as the Catholics of the early 1950s vis-a-vis Pius XII.