We are not discussing "may be vacant" vs "might be vacant."

We are discussing "might be vacant" vs "it is not impossible."

I am well aware of that.

Put still another way:

If I say "the Minnesota Twins may win the world series this year," I am cannoting, hope, optimism, and a belief in a fair possibility.

But if I say, "its not impossible that the Minnesota Twins win the world series this year," I am actually saying the exact opposite: Everything points against it as being highly improbable, but it can't be ruled out.

Same thing here.

I agree, "may win" expresses belief in a noteworthy probability.

But then, we were talking about "might be vacant", which does not express a noteworthy probability, but rather a less noteworthy probability, or just the assessment, that the case cannot be excluded.

Typo; Meant to say:

"Put still another way:

If I say "the Minnesota Twins might win the world series this year," I am cannoting, hope, optimism, and a belief in a fair possibility.

But if I say, "its not impossible that the Minnesota Twins win the world series this year," I am actually saying the exact opposite: Everything points against it as being highly improbable, but it can't be ruled out.

Same thing here."

A sportscaster saying "The Twins might win the world series this year" means he thinks they have a fighting chance and it is a real possibility.

The same sportscaster saying "Its not impossible that the Twins win the world series" is actually saying its highly unlikely, though technically it can't be ruled out.

Same thing here.

Dogmatic facts preclude the possibility that the opposite might be true.

So if Avrille, Bishop Williamson, and Archbishop Lefebvre stated that it is possible that the See is vacant, however improbable, then that means they clearly hold that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is not a dogmatic fact.  Otherwise there's no room for discussion.  That's like saying, "it's possible that there are only Two Persons in the Holy Trinity."  Either you don't believe it's dogma or else you're a heretic.

This is pretty straighforward despite the mental (and emotional) contortions of Sean Johnson.

I see.

So once again, these POPES aren’t dogmatic facts.

But these CANONIZATIONS ARE dogmatic facts.

In other words, the sede-sifters get you decide which have remained dogmatic facts, and which have not.  And this, based upon the authority of....what, exactly?

 You're hopeless.

I didn't say that a legitimate papacy isn't dogmatic fact, just that THESE papacies are not dogmatic fact.  +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and Avrille agree with that.

   You’re hopeless.

I didn’t say that normal canonizations weren’t dogmatic fact, just that THESE canonizations are not dogmatic fact.
Lefebvre, Williamson, and Avrille agree with that.

Ps: You’re actually wrong about them regarding dogmatic facts and the pope.  You are simply taking cherry-picked quotes and then extrapolating upon the logical consequences of it, when in fact, I have yet to read a positive denial from any of them.  

My guess is they never actually considered the issue from the perspective of dogmatic fact, and if you put it to them, they would likely be as perplexed about the matter as anyone else:

How can a pope enjoying UA not be a dogmatic fact (ie., such would imply the entire Church is deceived and following a false rule of faith)?

On the other hand, how can Lefebvre, Avrille, and Williamson acknowledge the theoretical possibility of sedevacantism, however improbable, if a pope enjoying UA is dogmatic fact?

Could the answer be that the theological note of dogmatic facts is one step beneath infallibility (“merely” theologically certain), and that under certain circuмstances could in fact allow for exceptions?

Or is it simply as stated earlier, that the aforementioned clerics simply never considered the matter from the vantage of dogmatic facts (the ammo for this possibility being simply that none of them appear ever to have written about it)?  And if they did consider the matter of sedevacantism vis-a-vis dogmatic facts and a pope enjoying UA, would they still maintain their former opinions (and if so, how)?