There are only two of us posting on the thread who believe in +ABL's sound stance on the issue.
R&R is like 'conservative'; it means something different to everyone. +ABL's stance was very similar to Fr Chazal's - +ABL just didn't take the time to explain it, or use a fancy new term. +ABL was the one who, after repeated dealings with new-rome, said that they must not 'make a deal' with new-rome until they convert. He was already saying, indirectly, that the pope/new-rome was to be treated as if they are 'impounded'. He said that 'new-rome does not have the faith'. His actions, whereby he ordained new priests and bishops, further prove that he separated himself from rome's heresies, which is a main point of sedeprivationism.
The REAL problem has been +Fellay, who has corrupted +ABL's view and approach to new-rome and has continued to operate in the dangerous, gray area. He has continued his progressive approach towards heresy and has continued to redefine everything +ABL stood and worked for. +Fellay has given R&R a bad name and he has corrupted it's meaning, and therefore, it's only practical to discard this term and use a new one.
Fr Chazal is attempting to re-clarify, re-teach and return to ABL's original stance. Many of his points were implicit in +ABL's original stance, but now that he has spent the time he can expand on +ABL's 'summary' ideals and give more complete and historical reasons.