CathInfo.com

Well, many of the dogmatic sedevacantists think this way, but, generally speaking, the moderate ones do not.  Sedevacantism is driven not by the question of Jorge Berogliogo's personal orthodoxy.  Question is whether the Magisterium could teach this degree of error and whether the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls.  Whether that means full sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, or even Father Chazal's position that their heresy strips them of teaching authority, that's debatable.

I disagree that most SVs are ecclesiavacantists.  You can count the dogmatic ones (the anti-"una cuм" folks on a couple of hands).  By far the vast majority hold to something akin to sedeprivationism.

I think of it as a body eclipsing the true Church. As a counterfeit church could never actually be PART of the one, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Some can see the true Church in the corona surrounding this body, but many mistake it for the Church out of ignorance.

I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.