Thank you for YOUR stripped down definition of Sedevacantism.  

Also implicit in your word game is the suggestion that there is only one type of sedevacantist, whereas it is manifestly self-evident that there are several different strains (of which you represent the newest one).

I think that the classical definition poses the cause, that is, the conciliar popes' heresies.

Okay....how far back does this classical definition go, in your view? 

Also implicit in your word game is the suggestion that there is only one type of sedevacantist, whereas it is manifestly self-evident that there are several different strains (of which you represent the newest one).

Do you mean the newest strain that you and others like you have created to make people think that those who held Benedict XVI as pope also hold the same theological position as those classically known as Sedevacantists and thereby scaring them away from holding Benedict XVI as pope?

I gave my definition on a different thread.

I believe that defining it to mean that ALL popes after Pius XII were illegitimate is too narrow.

I believe that applying the term to people who simply acknowledge the fact of a normal interregnum is too broad.

Nor do I believe that any specific reason should be required, i.e. whether he's a heretic, illegitimately elected, impeded by Benny or Siri, etc.  Any reason other than that the Pope died and we're waiting for a new election should qualify.

So I propose something along the lines of ... a theological position holding that the man widely believed to be the legitimate Pope is not in fact the legitimate Pope, and that the See is empty.

We could drop the "and the See is empty" part, to include people like, say, those who believe there's an alternative candidate, such as Michael I (while he was alive) or Pius XIII.  I think those can be rightly called SVs in that they held their various conclaves / elections precisely due to the fact that they were SVs in the first place, believing that the See was empty.

So, this would in fact consider the Bennyvacatists to be sedevacantists, and they truly are, despite their emotional denials.  Bergoglio is widely considered to be the pope, but they reject his legitimacy and hold the See to be empty.

It would exclude the sedeprivationists, strictly speaking, or the sede-impoundists (Father Chazal).

Sedes have always debated with each other when the alleged interregnum began and/or why.

But it was not until the delusional (deceitful, actually) Bennyv’s emerged that any one faction denied itself or any other was sedevacantist.

Well, you do have the Siri theorists (of whom I am one), who believe that the See was not actually empty until Siri's death in 1989 but occupied by Gregory XVII.  Nevertheless, I would not have objected to being called an SV, since it would mean that I didn't believe that Montini, Wojtyla, et al. were popes.

And I'm actually more of a Sedeprivationist, not straight SV, believing that holding the office means something.

Father Chazal's sede-impoundism rejects the term SV, but that IMO is just a matter of "glass half full" vs. "glass half empty".

Both of us believe that its' half-half, with one emphasizing the formal vacancy, the other the material occupancy.

Well, you do have the Siri theorists (of whom I am one), who believe that the See was not actually empty until Siri's death in 1989 but occupied by Gregory XVII. 

Semantics.

Whether one believes the See has been vacant since 1102, 1958, 1965, 1968, 1989, or 2022, has no bearing on the fact that the world calls such people sedevacantists.

The raw etymology of the term states as much (i.e., the term defines itself).

If one believes that there is no pope, but denies he is a sedevacantist, then he is a solipcist who has gone completely insane (a state of mind they find easier to bear than face the reality of what they have become).

Bennyv's hold the most asinine position in Traddieland (three steps to the left of Palmar de Troya).

I've been saying from the outset that it's semantics, but you also didn't even read my post where I said that even though I'm a Siri-Theorist, I would not object to the term sedevacantist.

No the term doesn't define itself.

If Bergoglio died right now, would you call yourself a "sede-vacantist"?  I think that's too broad a use of the term and fails to take into account the "-ist" part.

Yes, the etymology of the term itself is defining.

Yes, if Francis dies right now, I would be a sedevacantist (along with the rest of the Church).

I guess that you're a sexist if you acknowledge the fact that there are sexes, a linguist if you acknowledge the existence of language or can speak a language, a florist if you acknowledge the existence of flowers or have a vase with flowers on your kitchen table, a terrorist if you believe in the existence of fear, etc. etc.

Define it however you please, but, no, you continue to neglect a key part of said "term", the "-ist" in sedevacantist and the "-ism" of sedevacantism.  Those are theological positions related to a vacant See.  They imply a habitual state, condition, or adherence to something .

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ism
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/ism

Correct: Sedes of all stripes declare an empty See (including Bennyv’s).