Nothing but ad hominems and puerile taunts and attempting to change the subject by Johnson.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be beyond doubt, i.e. a dogmatic fact, so if Johnson wants to argue about Universal Acceptance, he should have taken it to +Lefebvre.  I'm not going to argue about UA.  I'm simply making the point that +Lefebvre did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact.

I asked Xavier this same question, BTW, since he was promoting the same notion, and Xavier responded that Archbishop Lefebvre suffered from an ignorance of fact that absolved him from heresy (or something like that ... so Xavier please correct me if I got your argument wrong).

More nonsense:
Here is Lefebvre agreeing with Billot:
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
[…]
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope...”

St. Alphonsus:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.

 Part 3, Ch.8, §9, emphasis added.

I know it's a theory (opinion), but you don't know what you're talking about because Lad says right here "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic".

Hey, that was very efficient of Lad:  

Not only does he find another way to call Lefebvre a schismatic, but he contradicts Vatican I all in the same sentence!

Lad says right here "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic".

Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.

He considers those who understand that the pope is the pope to be in schism - yes, he is confused.

That's an over-simplification.  

That's an over-simplification.  

It's either deliberate oversimplification or else he can't think straight.  Actually, I think it's a blend of the two.  Due to confirmation bias, he filters out distinctions that don't fit in with his preconceived conclusions.

Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.

Yes, that's pretty close.  Xavier actually takes it a step further.  Not only does he assert that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, but he also does not believe that the New Mass is substantially harmful (just less perfect) nor that there is any substantial error in Vatican II.  HOW on earth does that justify being in anything other than full submission to what he believes to be the Catholic hierarchy?

When I first questioned him about that, his response was two-fold ...

1) look at the fruits of the SSPX

AND

2) some devil/demon said "Econe was on the right path" during an Exorcism in the 1970s.

Yes, that's pretty close.  Xavier actually takes it a step further.

Yes, I think Xavier just argues for attention.  We could have a 100+ page thread dissecting the errors of his mindset, of which many people are similar.  It all boils down to relativism, subjectivism and the rejection of objective truth.

Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.

That's an over-simplification.  

1) You are projecting.  I have no doubts regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar popes;
2) Hyperbole: Lefebvre explained that when he called conciliar Rome schismatic, he didn’t mean it in a strictly theological/canonical way, but only insofar as their teachings often represent a break from the past.  He specifically-in the same article- requested people like you stop twisting his thoughts;
3) Nonsense: The essence of Lefebvre’s R&R (quoted by Stubborn, which traps Loudestmouth into silence to this very moment), is that we respect their authority, but reject their harmful teachings.  Loudestmouth says that’s heretical...until he is shown Lefebvre saying it.
PS: Your gratuitous conclusion about all trads being sede doubters was refuted at #1