My guess is that we just have some newbie troll(catman) trying to sow seeds of distrust and doubt at a time when Fr. Ringrose is campaigning to raise funds for his school.  It is probably just an effort to deter that initiative.  

Is it wrong to be "new" here? Is it wrong to ask questions? Is this a closed group? Hmmm?

You will have to learn to ignore certain people, get a thick skin, and pray for the crazies.
I would ask your friend to ask fr. Ringrose specifically.
Is he associated with a convent?  Which one? 
Is there a decent traditional convent in this country which is not sede, not feenyite, not nutters?

It doesn't seem all that surprising though, aren't some priests known sedeprivationists??

Maybe Fr Ringrose is following the logic of Fr Chazal, who did an excellent talk on how 'dogmatic' sedevacantism is unsupportable from theologian's views, yet sedevacantism does make good points and that Pope Francis is definitely speaking heresy.  (I'm not here to start some debate over the issue, just pointing out that there's a lot of gray area in such matters.)

I don’t understand why so many Catholics and traditional Catholic groups still fight about this. To me the answer seems simple. Yes, there is positive doubt that the post-conciliar popes are not popes and no the problem has not been resolved until the Church speaks on this. Even many SSPX priests could agree with the above. 

I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do.  But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics.  Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable.  Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).  

If we can’t handle the minor trials now, while we have the sacraments/mass, how will we handle potential persecutions, or civil unrest or famines, when the Faith may be in hiding, and priests in short supply?  We need to prepare NOW.

13But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.  (Matt 24:13)

Good point.

I wonder....how many traditional Catholic bishops identify themselves as sedeprivationist?

SedeWhat?  I can tell you that none of the bishop consecrated by +Lefebvre are sedeprivationist.  And, none of the bishops consecrated by +Williamson are sedeprivationist.  They are all sedeplenist.

If you genuinely want to know.  Sedeprivationism is simply the good cop of conclavism, with sedevacantism playing the bad cop.  They both work together.  Conclavism is their inevitable end.  

And, Fr. chazal is no sedeprivationist.  Ladislaus is just sowing cockle.  

pffffft ... none of them are sedeplenists.  To be a sedeplenist you have to believe in the legitimacy of the pope with the certainty of faith.  +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier have all expressed doubts at one time another about their legitimacy.  No Catholic could do that of a true pope any more than he can question the truth of any defined dogma.

You put your ignorance on display yet again.  Sedeprivationism militates AGAINST conclavism.

Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term.  He is NOT R&R.  Standard run-of-the-mill R&R holds that some V2 papal teaching is legitimate and must be accepted ... if it's traditional and it's true.  +Chazal claims that all of it is null and void due to the heresy of the occupants of the office, i.e. that they are completely deprived of any formal authority.  Thus, sedeprivationist.

You are failing to distinguish between the belief that a pope can be judged a formal heretic and how it occurs, and doubt about the validity of a pope.  These so called doubts of +Williamson,+Lefebvre, and +Tissier are not at all a doubt about the validity of the conciliar popes.  If they had a doubt, they would be non una cuм like all the others who at the very least concluded such.  So, what it is is a doubt or question about whether a pope can become a formal heretic, and how that occurs.  I personally don't believe a pope can ever become a formal heretic.  And, neither do I believe that a perfect council can judge a pope a formal heretic.  But, they did not/have not come to that conclusion.  Hence, the discussion you are abusing.  But make no mistake, it is not a doubt about the validity of the popes.  And, fuss about legitimacy is child's talk.    

The catholic world is not the popes diocese.  Rome is the popes diocese.  The pope gives authority to bishops.  But, such bishop(s) does not then become only a mere messenger of the pope.  Bishops have true authority. There are checks and balances among bishops, pope included.  St. Peter keeps the bishops in check.  And, a bishop in the spirit of st paul keeps the church in check, pope included.  Just as the office of the papacy endures until the end of time.  The spirit of st paul endures among the bishops until the end.  The pope indeed does have supreme power.  But, he only has the keys.  St. paul has the sword.  Both are needed in the church.  So, legitimacy is child's talk.  The church can function one might even say normally with a heretical pope.  That is not to say there is a place for vatican 2 in the church.  There is not.  Thanks to +Lefebvre.  Thanks to +Williamson.  So on and so forth.  R&R is the true traditional position.  And, it is a sedeplenist position.  

So, enough of you promoting papal suzerainty and papal impeccability like all the dogmatic sedevacantists do.  They are in error.  You are in error.