It's quite clear that he's NOT talking about the sedevacantists ... since that accusation against them, that they hold the pope to be of no importance as long as they have the Mass and Sacraments, would be absurd.  It's precisely because they recognize the importance of the pope that they are sedevacantists in the first place.  This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time that Sean warps something to mean the opposite of what it actually says to make it conform to his narrative.

Prefer to wait, as in, until the Church declares that God has deposed the pope?

I am praying for you, Sean

Firstly, what “TLM churches within the Novus Ordo structure” could he be referring to in 1986 who could say “we have the true faith, the true sacraments, true doctrine???”

Since none of them could (or would, as diocesan priests) make such claims, he is obviously not speaking of them.

Nor is he speaking of any indult groups, since the quote predates all of them.

There’s only one other group left, guys.

And as regards the claim that the Lefebvre quote “only mentions sedevacantism once...and not in relation to that part of the quote,” you are clearly mistaken:

After describing and rejecting sedevacantism, the next paragraph continues the subject, with Lefebvre explaining that he and Castro de Mayer “have preferred to wait,” and shortly thereafter goes on to lament that “some priests” (sedes being the only ones left), and “even some in the Society” have taken this position.

He’s clearly speaking of two groups of priests (one outside the Society, and even a few within), but to suggest Lefebvre is talking here about conciliar priests is clearly false:

The quote, syntax, context, and common sense make it obvious he’s speaking of one group outside the Society (which is obviously not diocesan priests), at a time when there was only one other position he could be speaking of (the full quote making clear, along with the process of elimination, that it is the sedes).

The full quote makes that even more obvious.

Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an imposter or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true.

Not until Loudestmouth retracts and apologizes for his continual accusations of me being a liar.

One good turn deserves another, and from here on out, every time Loudestmouth gratuitously accuses me of sin, I’ll do the same for him.

I have no doubt that you are even more repulsed by Loudestmouth’s continual slanders, and that all the sedes here are praying for him even more then me, which shows your honesty

I demand a retraction of this slander.  Whenever you lose an argument, you melt down like this.

So, earlier you slandered me by claiming that i was accusing St. Pius X of simony because he used the term stipend for Mass intentions.  Did you ever retract that slander?

Now you're calling me a sodomite?  Because you're losing an argument?