From the Catechism of the Catholic Church on private revelations and apparitions:

 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations."

It is not my opinion.
The Church teaches that private revelations must have imprimatur for obvious reasons or the faithful would be mislead in innumerable visionaries not sanctioned by Her.  There is no caveat to that.  

Well it is an absurd opinion. You don't know about law and Epikeia. I have a Master in law... If what you are saying were true, it would not be possible for any member of the SSPX to publish any book pertaining to religion in some way, at least if you believe that Francis is our Pope or that there is no valid Pope anywhere.

There is no distinction between the publications related to dogmatic subjects and the publications related to private revelations: they both require an imprimatur. If you make such distinctions, then you have rationalist ideas. Since the Renaissance, mystical theology has declined more and more, especially demonology, and very few priests still have recourse to exorcism. We could almost say that for the past three hundred years, exorcisms have disappeared from the parishes. Traditionalists use to despise private revelations, because they are influenced by rationalism.

I know several persons who have heard God telling them that Paul VI was alive, even in their youth for some of them. But I know nobody to whom God would have say: "The Seat of Peter is vacant" or "the SSPX is right to disobey the Pope". The reason is God cannot tell us heresies!

The quotations of Cantarella are all right.

Bishop Guérard des Lauriers had a good teaching regarding private revelations. It may be surprising, since even his followers only know him for dogmatic theology, but it is a fact.

If you don't believe in the existence of a pope in exile, there is no Apostolic succession anymore and no Catholic hierarchy. As Cantarella has stated, some sedevacantist priests openly deny the persistence of the Church hierarchy, or even theorize that: in France we have Abbot Zins, for instance, who is a simpliciter sedevacantist.

There is no "false prophecy" in Garabandal: when the Blessed Virgin said that Joe Lamangino would have "new eyes" at the time of the Great Miracle, she did not refer to the eyes of the body, but to the beatific vision.

Sure.

I would like to ask you a question regarding jurisdiction.

If a faction of the Roman clergy proceeded to the uncanonical election of an antipope, before the true pope be elected: according to you, would this faction immediately lose its jurisdiction?