Could you please kindly provide proof from this source article? I tried to find this article online but not able to do so. Taking the quote for what is, I do not come to same conclusion as you.

Isn’t it rather obvious that if he says, “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society)“ that the “some priests” are not in the Society?

More wishful thinking and twisting of reality.  There's no "sedevacantist" who doesn't think that the pope is important so long as they have the Sacraments.  That's a decidedly R&R perspective.  Archbishop Lefebvre was speaking at a time when there was still a plethora of Independent priests still out there (1986).  In 1986, the independent priests probably outnumbered SSPX priests.

We reject sedeprivationism, and the pseudo distinction upon which that invention rests.

Instead, we stick to what the theologians have taught regarding necessity as a cause dispensing from obedience to a superior’s unreasonable will:

Quite #1:

5th Principle: It is the character of the state of necessity to suspend the superior's power of binding, and if, nevertheless, he attempts to bind, what he commands is not binding

Further applying the example already given regarding natural law, this principle is illustrated by the case of a husband who not only placed his children in necessity or failed to provide for them, but, who, moreover, prevented his wife from providing for them as far as was in her power. It is obvious that in such a case the husband's power to bind would be suspended, and if he attempted to bind, his command would not be binding upon his wife.

The fact that in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre the superior is the pope does not nullify this principle. The Vicar of Christ first and foremost has the duty to provide for the needs of souls, and if he does not provide for them (or, worse, if he himself is the cause or part-cause of the grave and general state of spiritual necessity), that does not entitle him to prevent others from providing as far as they can for the needs of souls. This is especially applicable if the duty to supply is rooted in their own sacerdotal or, still more, episcopal state.

The authority of the pope is indeed unlimited, but from below, not from above. >From above, papal power is limited by divine law, natural and positive. The authority of the pope is "monarchical...and absolute within the limits, however, of divine law, natural and positive" and for that reason "the Roman Pontiff himself cannot act against divine law or disregard it."³ Now, in the state of necessity, divine natural and positive law imposes a duty of charity under pain of mortal sin upon whoever is able to provide help, and in the state of spiritual necessity it imposes this duty above all on bishops and upon priests {as well as on the pope). The pope, as like any other superior, does not have the power to oppose this duty {Suarez: " deest potestas in legislatore ad obligandum" De Legibus, L. VI, cap. VII, n.ll).

That is why it is said that "the state of necessity carries its own dispensation with it because necessity is not subject to law" {SI; I-II, Q.96, A.6). This is not to mean that in the state of necessity it is lawful to do whatever one wishes, but that "the action otherwise prohibited is rendered lawful and permitted by the state of necessity ."⁴This is in order to safeguard higher interests than obedience to the law or to the Superior. In such a case it is not within the power of any superior to demand the observance of the law in the usual way, because to no superior {and still less to the pope) is it granted to exercise authority harmful to anyone else, especially if that harm is spiritual and involves many souls and violates one's duty of state, especially that of a priest or bishop.

Not even God, the Supreme Legislator, is bound in the state of necessity ."That is why Christ Himself excuses David, who in grave danger ate the breads of proposition which the laity were forbidden to eat by Divine Law."⁵ According to this principle, not only do human laws cease to oblige in a state of necessity, but even divine-positive and affirmative divine-natural law cease (e.g., "Honor thy father and mother"; "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day"). The only law binding in the state of necessity is negative divine-natural law {e.g., "Thou shalt not kill," etc.) . This is because negative divine-natural law prohibits actions that are intrinsically evil and hence forbidden because they are evil, as opposed to actions which are evil only because they are forbidden, such as the consecration of bishops without pontifical mandate.”

One could argue that it's indirectly the cause of the silence.  When you hold that a man is the legitimate Vicar of Christ, the sensus Catholicus inexorably draws Catholics to attempt to be in submission to and in communion with the Vicar of Christ.

In other words, the refusal to at least QUESTION and DOUBT the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants led to the negotiations and attempts at reconciliation, which then in turn led to their not publicly criticizing them or making statements that might jeopardize the reunification movement.

If I were certain that Bergoglio is the pope, I would have been back in communion with him somehow ... yesterday, whether it's in the Eastern Rite or FSSP/Motu (and their "legitimacy" would also guarantee for me that their Holy Orders are not doubtful, for the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacramental Rites).

Conversely, given that their legitimacy is highly doubtful, and it's much more possible that these are non- and anti- Catholic Antipopes, I wouldn't feel the least bit inclined toward seeking any kind of reconciliation with them, but would view them as mortal enemies of the faith.

Regardless of your opinion on some of these issues, it can't be denied that the Catholic instinct (sensus) strongly draws Catholics toward submission to the Pope.  Those who have no concern whatsoever with being separated from the Vicar of Christ either 1) (at least secretly) harbor doubts about their legitimacy or 2) have had their Catholic sensibilities eroded so badly that they have completely extinguished this eminently-Catholic sensibility.  And that latter is precisely why I've been so vocal of this particular articulation of R&R that's been made here on CI.

Archbishop Lefebvre retained that sensibility:
And yet many modern R&R have in fact adopted this stance that the pope question is not particularly important.  Believing him to be the pope, the attitude of "Who cares what he teaches?" is completely alien and contrary to a core Catholic sensibility, the one sensibility in fact which distinguishes a Catholic from an Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox schismatic, or even Protestant.

Got it.  Lefebvre was just a poor speaker who didn’t realize he was owing redundant speaking firstly of “some priests,” then immediately thereafter about others within the Society.

No, but you are challenged where it comes to reading comprehension.  He says some priests (even some in the Society)