Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
He makes 2 statements in 25 years, never reaffirms them, expels active sedes, institutes oaths against them, but he was allegedly indifferent on the matter.
Notice how Lad equates this with “openly calling into question their legitimacy!”
In fact, he does just the opposite when he decides the Society will officially accept the popes and read their names in the Mass, while expelling those who “openly call into question their legitimacy.”

Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument:  "weak sede sauce with chips".

You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner.  You come out swinging with the ad hominems.

There are about a dozen statements above.  Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements?  Were those statements heretical?

Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.

1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")

But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.

dogmatic facts are not infallible

So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.

So your assertion is that dogmatic facts are not infallible.

That's absurd.  They are called dogmatic facts precisely because they are DOGMATIC, certain with the certainty of faith.  These are called "facts" to distinguish them from propositions that are of a theological nature, whereas dogmatic facts are of a historical nature.  So you wrote an entire article on dogmatic facts while having no earthly idea about what a dogmatic fact actually is.

I'll dig up the quotes for you from a Cardinal writing about dogmatic facts during the reign of Pope Pius XII who clearly states that if someone denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, he would be a heretic.

Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument:  "weak sede sauce with chips".

You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner.  You come out swinging with the ad hominems.

There are about a dozen statements above.  Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements?  Were those statements heretical?

Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.

1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")

But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.

I think you take viagra of the mouth, which never allows your mouth to close.  Your only purpose here seems to be to promote your own asinine homemade theories, and insist upon them with the double stamina only a sede Feeneyite can muster, while bombastically insulting and condemning all who call your bluffs.
When anyone besides Lefebvre assumes the R&R position, they are heretics.
Lad just doesn’t have the balls to come out and call Lefebvre one.
“What would Matthew think?”

So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.

So your assertion is that dogmatic facts are not infallible.

That's absurd.  They are called dogmatic facts precisely because they are DOGMATIC, certain with the certainty of faith.  These are called "facts" to distinguish them from propositions that are of a theological nature, whereas dogmatic facts are of a historical nature.  So you wrote an entire article on dogmatic facts while having no earthly idea about what a dogmatic fact actually is.

I'll dig up the quotes for you from a Cardinal writing about dogmatic facts during the reign of Pope Pius XII who clearly states that if someone denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, he would be a heretic.

Therefore, given the Lefebvre citations you have mustered which, according to you, “openly question” the legitimacy of popes, which your further sources say it is heretical to do, you must conclude either:
1) Lefebvre was a sede! (Get out their smelling salts!)
Or
2) Lefebvre is a heretic for questioning dogmatic facts!
Doesn’t the absurdity of these options imply to you that you are just a windbag who has no idea what he is talking about?

The "una cuм" debate is simply, uncharitable legalism, like the Pharisees of Christ's time would invent to divide the people and keep power over them.  In particular, Fr Cekada's article on the subject (God rest his soul) is historically, liturgically and logically wrong.  The whole idea is a Sede power play to keep the laity in the pews.  
.
The prayer itself mentions "and all orthodox believers".  So...if the pope/bishop you are praying for aren't orthodox, then even if you mention them, the prayer doesn't apply to them specifically, but only to their office.  It's so simple there doesn't even need to be a discussion.

I agree.  Even the Dimond Brothers are to the left of Fr. Cekada on this issue:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/una-cuм-mass/

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.

   

 

   

... 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" ...

[+Lefebvre] 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.

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.

Here are the foundations of sede-doubtism.

Theological Maxim assented to by many theologians:  papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope]

So since you dub yourself a sede-doubtist, and since the maxim is papa dubius nullus papa, you are a sedevacantist. Just come out and admit it already.