CathInfo.com

Lad, you allowed yourself to slide into a state of perpetual and dogmatic doubt as regards the validity of popes. One of the results of this malady is that you see in +ABL that which was never there, then project this non-existent, even false image of him as a means to justify and promote your own "dogmatic doubtism" - as if that's the safest course, which in reality is a very dangerous course since as you must know, God hates "middle of the roaders" i.e dogmatic doubters.

The good +ABL dealt directly and personally, even face to face, off and on for many years with PVI and JP2 - if he had any doubt about the validity of the popes, you need to understand and accept that he would not have left anyone guessing his position in the matter. He would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

    

  

  

This^^^
The dogmatic doubtist 

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  It's right there in black and white where he says that it's quite possible that the V2 papal claimants have been illegitimate.  Obviously he doesn't use the term "sede-doubtism" ... which is something that I myself coined here a few years ago.  Nevertheless, he articulates his DOUBTS about their legitimacy, which is all sede-doubtism is about.  It's a rejection of BOTH dogmatic sedeplenism AND dogmatic sedevacantism, recognizing that this is all based on private judgment and that only the Church can resolve the matter with the necessary certainty of faith to render ANYTHING "dogmatic".  And that is exactly what +Lefebvre did, defer to the Church while personally entertaining it as a possibility.

You do not consider the times during those days of his very few quotes you want to use to support something +ABL never supported. The heretical things that we have all been conditioned to over the years were relatively new and always shocking  when he made those passing remarks.

In those days, while you were being raised in the anti-Church like nearly everyone else, nearly all trads questioned the pope's validity, heck, a lot, mabey even most trads - and even other people believed the pope was kidnapped and replaced with a communist double, some believed the pope was purposely somehow kept in the dark about all that was happening. There was so dam much confusion and chaos back then that for +ABL to remark that there is a possibility that the pope might be invalid was nothing more than a few passing thoughts in the sea of scandals, in which the good archbishop was immersed up to his neck fighting the good fight - fighting not only the corrupted church authorities, but also including his own priests from his own seminary.

You need to either be hot or cold, sede or not sede, you cannot go on with your dogmatic sede-doubtism, because that only leads to further confusion in this matter, and it spreads to other matters of the faith.