Petertherock - you are on the right track; what you doing is observing the absurdity of R&R.  :)

Privationists have to reject all the canonizations.  Privationists have to reject everything from a particular moment(decree) in papal history(I place it at 1950 experiment easter vigil).  

Vacantists have to accept(they glorify him to blind people from his errors) Pius XII because they know they cannot get away with condemning him while espousing vacantist principles.  They rely on not allowing a heretic to "ascend" to the papacy(they must condemn JXXII in advance of V2).  Vacantists are thought police(ing) his crime of premeditating the calling of a council.  The 1958 conclave is very dear to them.

In practice, my privation allows me to get along with just about anyone using the pre 1954 liturgy not associated with +Thuc(una cuм papa or not).  However the local novus ordo bishop should not be in the una cuм.  I personally would not put the pope in the una cuм for simplicity sake, but I don't object if someone(resistance priest) wants to.  

Petertherock - There is a lot of truth to the exorcism problem noticed by the NO, but exorcism also depends on the sanctity of the cleric performing the rite.  Saints who performed the rite(traditional one of course) often brought about the fruits much sooner than others(from what I have read).  

Does it answer the objections made against sedevacantism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

This theory is novel and is break from the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and other authorities.   Stay away!  

Cantarella - Privationism argues and practices that the pope is no longer divinely assisted.  R&R argues and practices the opposite.  That's a big difference!  In practice, a huge burden is lifted from the shoulder of traditionalists who cannot stomach the thought of a having garage pope.  Also, the devil loves chaos.  Look at the chaos the new saint factory has created.  This makes R&R stand out like a sore thumb.

s2srea - thanks for that little chart summary.  

It is false to pretend the SSPX argues the Pope is no longer divinely assisted.

Those who see sedeprivationism as very close to the classis SSPX position are correct.

Sedeprivationism is intellectually rigorous, and a worthy effort, but I don't think it answers the great difficulties that simple sedevacantism raises, and which it was devised to resolve.

Sedeprivationists would need to cite a traditional source justifying their division of authority or jurisdiction into a composite having matter and form, because typically authority is not divided in such a way. To possess an office is to possess the authority or jurisdiction attached to it, there is nothing else beside it to possess. He who does not possess authority over a particular flock, who does not stand in a habitual relationship over them, does not possess the office in any way, not even materially.

Jurisdiction is in its essence, as all canonists and theologians explain, a relationship between a superior who rules and a subject, or flock, who is ruled, the one standing in a real metaphysical relationship over the other within the Mystical Body. But if this is lacking, in what sense precisely is the material occupant still an occupant of the see?

It is said the Popes retain only the material element of the Papacy, which is the title and designation, but lack the formal component, which is the authority and jurisdiction, a distinction that was not traditionally made.

Granting this for now, for argument's sake. Then, it is claimed that these "material Popes" can designate others, such as electors and even bishop-designates.

So, the two questions of the greatest import are - can the "material Pope" really designate Cardinals, can he appoint Ordinaries to other sees of authority?

Fr. (later Bp.) Lauriers was the principal expositor of this thesis, but its leading exponent today is Bp. Sanborn - this is what he writes,

Quote from: Bp.Sanborn

"This right of designating, which is found in Paul VI or in John Paul II does not constitute them as popes, because they lack authority or the right of making law. Therefore they are not popes except materially. They can, nevertheless, designate electors and even bishops for the purpose of succeeding to sees of authority"

This thesis is very complicated and therefore its refutation will correspondingly be such as well - the brief answer is this - the traditional doctrine is this, when a Pope appoints a bishop, it is his Papal power, the universal jurisdiction that he possesses in act, that effects the transmission of particular jurisdiction onto the bishop. But if sedeprivationists deny the Pope his universal jurisdiction, then the bishops he appoints will not have particular jurisdiction, for the cause is lacking, the effect cannot be realized. The bishops he appoints, as some sedeprivationists concede, will also just be mere material occupants of their episcopal sees. But in this case formal Apostolic succession will cease, because formal Apostolic succession requires the transmission of the ordinary power of jurisdiction.

Will a Pope designate be able to designate Cardinals? It may be doubted. For Cardinals receive the right of election because, as their name suggests, they are incardinated into the Roman Church, enabling the Petrine succession to continue. Now, incardination is an act where one cleric is transferred from the jurisdiction of one bishop to that of another (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07704a.htm ), to henceforth stand in a habitual relationship to the bishop of the place where he is newly incardinated, in this case the diocese of Rome. But if this habitual jurisdiction and it precisely is lacking, how is the act of incardination to be effected? In this case, the Cardinal will not then receive the power of designation, because he will not be incardinated into the Roman Church, where the power prinicipally resides.

These, briefly, are some of the critiques non-sedeprivationists have made of the thesis. Undoubtedly it is a serious effort to make sense of a difficult situation, but ultimately an unsuccessful one.

Wrong: To possess the office is not necessarily to possess the jurisdiction.

Before V2, many priests were not authorized to hear confessions, despite possessing the office to do so.

The SSPX bishops do not possess jurisdiction.

COuntless other examples abound.

I don't place much weight to Fr. Sanborn's concept of the catholicity of current cardinal appointments(but I don't care to oppose it).  

In the history of the church, it was not always cardinals who elected popes(laymen have been elected and Roman laymen have taken part in elections).  If vacantists don't condemn the idea that they can hold a conclave, then they cannot condemn the fact that the Catholics of Rome(this falls into the mystical body category) can actually give weight to the current election results.

Here is some food for thought: concerning the validity of the new rite of consecration and ordination, traditionalists looked to see if the rite was found in tradition(despite sacramentum ordinis! - which defined the "essential form").  If you apply that approach to the elections problem, I don't think that it is unreasonable to believe that Francis could actually be in the chair(the Avignon popes were not called "anti-popes", but "popes in their obedience").

What really influences my decision to privation is, if it is impossible, then we truly have no right to use the pre-1954 liturgy.  And, the Eucharist is the sacrament from which all the sacraments flow.  Therefore, I will give priority to Quo Primum.  Privation allows me the pre-1951 liturgy, and I(little old me) do not have to concern myself with electing a pope, or the antics coming from Rome.

If Francis converts and amends the errors, he can be my Pope(with a capital P). Privation simplifies so much, and when looking at the big picture, it is the only solution that I find reasonable.

+Lefebvre called the new church a "schismatic church", but he was not a sedevacantist.  Is that not novelty?  I think that +Lefebvre had two sides: a privationist side, and a R&R side.  And, we can see what 40 years of R&R has given us.  

Like the preservation of a valid prisethood, episcopacy, and doctrine?

Glad you agree with what ABL did for us.

Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction.  That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction.  That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops.  Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue.  The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession.  It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction.  That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction.  That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops.  Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue.  The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession.  It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

You have to explain it to him because he is in over his head and does not have the humility to admit it.

Sedeprivationism is a novelty and is certainly a doctrinal error at a minimum.