Agreed.  Nevertheless, I do believe Father Cekada did a grave disservice to Archbishop Lefebvre in mis-characterizing the latter's position as "Recognize & Resist", "R&R".

+Lefebvre and the early SSPX were more of the "Doubt & Resist" position.  Apart from a time in the early 1980s, before and after, there were simply degrees of certainty or uncertainty regarding the Conciliar papal claimants, and even Fr. Schmidberger characterized their attitude with the Latin expression "melior est conditio possidentis", which means that we give them the "benefit of the doubt".

+Lefebvre did not doubt, explicitly affirmed, that a legitimate Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from imposing these evils on the Church, which is the MAJOR premise of the SV position, but was in doubt about some of the MINOR premises that the SVs who push toward a false dichotomy never mention or hide or ignore.  You can doubt a conclusion by doubting ANY of its premises, without necessarily having to reject the MAJOR.  That's what +Lefebvre did.

Normally, most theologians hold that the legitimacy of a given Pope is dogmatic fact, but +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier have all expressed at certain times varying degrees of uncertainty that they are legitimate, vs. whether the See might be empty ... doubts which preclude dogmatic certainty, and leading to a "papa dubius" situation.

Then, amidst that uncertainty, who can be faulted for then adopting the attitude of "if they command something that's not contrary to the faith, we will obey, just in case we're wrong about their non-papacy ... since it would do no harm, right?"

That's really the position of +Lefebvre, again, except for during the early 1980s.

Unfortunately, the Archbishop didn't emphasize this enough, so that his legacy does include many modern true "R&R" who dogmatically affirm the legitimacy of the Conciliar papal claimants, and who therefore end up actually denying that MAJOR premise that the Holy Ghost protects the Church and the Papacy.