CathInfo.com

If you ask me, turning the papacy into a cardboard cutout is precisely what R&R do.  You can see pictures of the V2 popes in SSPX chapels, but that's the extent of their submission.

SVs just say that these guys aren't the popes.  What are they, Father Chazal, if they're wakling around but don't have authority?  Zombie popes?

R&R:  cardboard
Fr. Chazal:  zombie
SV: dead

I can understand why you think that it's R&R who have turned the papacy into a cardboard cutout. 

Fr. Chazal's comment about sedevacantism having a cardboard cutout of the pope has to do (I think) with the idea that with sedevacanitsm, it's a dead end, because if there's no hierarchy to elect a pope, then there's no possibility of ever having even a good Pope elected. At least with R&R, there's the possibility of an election of a good future Pope. Though maybe a small possibility. In this, we maintain fidelity to Scripture, in that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

With sedevacantism, since there's no way to elect a future Pope by the usual means, there seems to be a reliance on private revelation and miracles in order to have the possibility of having a good and orthodox future pope. It may come down to exactly that, in reality. But prudence requires us to go with the standards that the Church uses for the election of the Pope. 

Non Nocere.

That's no more the case with Sedevprivationism than it is with Father Chazal's position.  Whether you're R&R or SV or anywhere in between, short of God's intervention, we're never going to get a Traditional pope.  Period.  These Modernist papal claimants have stacked the ranks of the hierarchy with a group of degenerates, only 6 of whom had the courage to raise a peep (and that's all it was, a peep) about Amoris Laetitia ... much less the other heretical initiatives of Jorge Bergoglio.  As of now, the Jєωs, Masons, Communists, and sodomites have total control over the hierarchy.  This idea that some day we'll accidentally get someone like a +Vigano elected pope is utterly absurd and will never happen, natrually speaking and without God's intervention.

I agree with the part about needing God's intervention. However, our views differ in how that intervention might come about. Also.....what about the idea that if only enough trads adopt the sede view, then Rome will be forced to become Traditional? A lot of sedes think this. R&R do not, of course. How does this idea factor in with the idea that there's no way to elect a good pope?

I understand why you believe that there's no way to elect a good Pope. But there's nothing in Scripture or tradition to suggest or back this up. Except for theological opinions, which were not unanimous among theologians. So, since there's no Church teaching (scripture or tradition), regarding what sedes believe, we take the more prudent view. A view that is in conformity with Scripture and tradition. For example - that a hierarchy of the Church must exists, and that there is a pope that must head the Church, and will always be the head of the Church. Scripture and tradition confirm this.

Now sedes will generally say that R&R do not follow Scripture and Tradition, because we do not in reality follow the Pope. But even though this has some truth in it, it still does not mean that Sedevacantism is the way to go. Sedevacantism throws the baby out with the bath water. It's far more serious to say that there is no Pope, and no visible Catholic hierarchy, and at the same time focus SO MUCH on that supposed non-Pope and non-Catholic hierarchy.

No worries.    R&R actually agree with these statements from Bergoglio:  heretics, apostates, it matters not, they're all within the communion of saints (aka the Church).

Of course, let me distinguish here, as R&R is not monolithic.  Here are some schools of R&R:

1) He's certainly a legitimate pope (it's dogmatic fact), and we obey him when we can and reject him only when we can't obey in good conscience.
2) He's probably the pope, and, just to play it safe, we should obey him when we can ... etc.
3) He's probably not the pope, but we don't have the authority to decide the matter (Archbishop Lefebvre's true position).
4) He's almost certainly not the pope, but we don't have the authority to decide the matter, but let's play it safe and obey him when we can.
5) He's a manifest heretic who lacks all authority and can and must be ignored entirely, but he remains visibly in possession of the office and only the Church can remove him from it (Fr. Chazal)

#5 of course is effectively privationism.

I myself am somewhere in betwen #4 and #5.

I guess I’ve always leaned more towards #2, tho I will admit Francis sorta strains credulity in that regard at this point.  If Francis is a pope than V1s interpretation needs a lot of clarification and if he’s not “universal acceptance” needs some clarification.

I don’t know what distinguishes point 3 from point 4, there also seems to be a missing view of “it’s uncertain whether he’s the pope or not (as opposed to probably or probably not) and to play it safe we should obey where we can etc