Is there any historical precedence for a “dogmatic fact” being reversed?  If so, then the term is kinda meaningless and it subverts the unchanging nature of “dogma”, which can never change or be reversed.  
.
If there’s no historical precedent for any reversal, then we’d have to conclude that such an idea is potentially heretical to claim it’s possible.  And for one to suppose/question a “dogmatic fact” would be an extremely sinful act, without cause.  You can’t doubt a dogma, why can you doubt a dogmatic fact?
.
Thirdly, if +ABL was doubting this fact and if he did have a good reason to do so, then he’s calling into question the dogmatic fact itself, which is the essence of sedevacantism, in relation to the pope.

Is the whole Universal Peaceful Acceptance thing even doctrine? It seems just to be theological opinion, one which I see mentioned very little outside of Trad circles. A theological opinion that something is dogma is, well, not dogma.

I believe some of the Lefebvre quotes suggested that the Church might (future tense) declare that the See was vacant in the present tense, if that makes sense.  I agree that private individuals don't have a right to make that call, which is one of my big problems with Sedevacantism.  

But, what does it mean to “make that call?” 

According to the SSPX (in its book against sedevacantism), the following quote of Archbishop Lefebvre (from +Tissier's Biography) is the true position of Lefebvre on sedevacantism:

"Perhaps one day, in thirty or forty years, a meeting of cardinals gathered together by a future Pope will study and judge the reign of Paul VI; perhaps they will say that there were things that ought to be clearly obvious to people at the time, statements of the Pope that were totally against Tradition. At the moment, I prefer to consider the man on the chair of Peter as the Pope; and if one day we discover for certain that the Pope was not the Pope, at least I will have done my duty. When he is not using his charism of infallibity, the Pope can err. So why should we be scandalized and say, 'So there is no Pope,' like Arius, who was scandalized by Our Lord being humiliated and saying in this Passion, 'My God why have you abandoned me?"

The only quote Loudestmouth can produce definitely speaking in the present tense is the "I do not say..." quote.

But for the sake of argument, let's say he could find 3 more.

That quote(s) must be weighed against all the others in which His Excellency condemned and warned the faithful against sedevacantism, and is nothing more than an impassioned out of character quote of no account.

Witness:

I have 4,500 posts on Cathinfo.  About 500 of them will be against sedevacantism.  Suppose one day when I was particularly outraged by something Francis did, I said something like, "Maybe the faithful should be questioning the legitimacy of Francis after all?"

That quote remains on the internet forever, and 20 years after I am dead, someone with an agenda scours the internet for my writings, and thinks to find support for sededoubtism in my writings by citing this solitary quote (or say there were even 5-6 of them):

Could that single quote (or even a handful of them) be legitimately held out as evidence that Sean Johnson believed the matter of the identity of the Pope was capable of doubt, and that therefore he believed it was licit for the faithful to entertain doubts about the papacy of Francis, et al?

Would not the true explanation be that the preponderance of my writings condemn that schismatic opinion, and that in fact when I said those things on a handful of occasions, I was excessively indignant and overstated the case?  That 99.99% of my writings and actions condemned the very possibility?  That anyone who would hold out that single quote (or handful) would be falsely representing my true positions by making the rare and exceptional quote stand as the rule and true position?

So too with Archbishop Lefebvre.

“If one day we discover for certain that the pope is not the pope”

I don’t think anyone is saying that Lefebvre was sede. But this is acknowledging that the Church COULD eventually say the conciliar popes weren’t popes.  That’s all I ever said

Byz-

Apparently you missed the previous post, so here it is again:

According to the SSPX (in its book against sedevacantism), the following quote of Archbishop Lefebvre (from +Tissier's Biography) is the true position of Lefebvre on sedevacantism:

"Perhaps one day, in thirty or forty years, a meeting of cardinals gathered together by a future Pope will study and judge the reign of Paul VI; perhaps they will say that there were things that ought to be clearly obvious to people at the time, statements of the Pope that were totally against Tradition. At the moment, I prefer to consider the man on the chair of Peter as the Pope; and if one day we discover for certain that the Pope was not the Pope, at least I will have done my duty. When he is not using his charism of infallibity, the Pope can err. So why should we be scandalized and say, 'So there is no Pope,' like Arius, who was scandalized by Our Lord being humiliated and saying in this Passion, 'My God why have you abandoned me?"

The only quote Loudestmouth can produce definitely speaking in the present tense is the "I do not say..." quote.

But for the sake of argument, let's say he could find 3 more.

That quote(s) must be weighed against all the others in which His Excellency condemned and warned the faithful against sedevacantism, and is nothing more than an impassioned out of character quote of no account.

Witness:

I have 4,500 posts on Cathinfo.  About 500 of them will be against sedevacantism.  Suppose one day when I was particularly outraged by something Francis did, I said something like, "Maybe the faithful should be questioning the legitimacy of Francis after all?"

That quote remains on the internet forever, and 20 years after I am dead, someone with an agenda scours the internet for my writings, and thinks to find support for sededoubtism in my writings by citing this solitary quote (or say there were even 5-6 of them):

Could that single quote (or even a handful of them) be legitimately held out as evidence that Sean Johnson believed the matter of the identity of the Pope was capable of doubt, and that therefore he believed it was licit for the faithful to entertain doubts about the papacy of Francis, et al?

Would not the true explanation be that the preponderance of my writings condemn that schismatic opinion, and that in fact when I said those things on a handful of occasions, I was excessively indignant and overstated the case?  That 99.99% of my writings and actions condemned the very possibility?  That anyone who would hold out that single quote (or handful) would be falsely representing my true positions by making the rare and exceptional quote stand as the rule and true position?

So too with Archbishop Lefebvre.

PS: "If one day" refers to a future contingency.  And how would they one day "discover for certain?"  Answer: By the judgment of the Church!  Until then, the pope remains a dogmatic fact.  How could you interpret this quote as Lefebvre acknowledging that, here and now, it is permissible for Catholics to doubt the identity of the Pope??