CathInfo.com

No, definitely not calling you a liar, I'm just from the show me state.  Thanks for linking the article.

Well, it was just your tone.  You could have just asked me for a link.  Basically, though, while I've revealed my true identity here before, I prefer not to do it too often ... since I have little doubt that there will come a day when some of us will be rounded up for some of the content we've posted here.  Oh, well, it's in God's Hands.

I'm not particularly proud of that 1995 Angelus "article".  It was not especially well written.  Imagine writing out something very quickly ... a first rough draft (which is what it was), though I didn't have any intention of cleaning it up and improving it ... and having that published with your name on it.  Some of the criticisms from Father Cekada were that I was being pretentious by peppering the thing with Latin quotes, having footnotes with Latin in them, etc. ... which I only did because I didn't want to take the time to translate them, and then for a bad translation ... except that it wasn't my translation.  As I mentioned, they even spelled my name wrong, because I never put my name on this thing ... just printed it out (this was before e-mail was widespread) and handed it to the man who had asked me for my thoughts about SVism.  If I recall, I whipped the thing out in about 2 hours one Sunday afternoon, the bulk of which time was spent finding and reproducing some of the citations from the various theologians.  I still recall the last name of the gentleman who asked me for it, though I won't write it here.  While I was at St. Athanasius with Fr. Ringrose, I started and led a Gregorian schola, which was all men a capella, and we actually sounded pretty good, despite the fact that I had to teach a couple of these men how to read chant.  This gentleman was one of the schola members, and it was after a practice we had that he approached me and asked me for my thoughts.

I know private interpretations and private revelation don't count for anything outside of myself, but in my journey as a Catholic, when I converted I happened to live within walking distance of an SSPX chapel, and I never knew it was there until years after I had learned about Vatican 2, R/R, heretical "popes" and the SV positions.  To me that is God's providence keeping me away from the wrong path.

The SSPX does not claim jurisdiction.  They expressly deny it.   You can go to their masses and disagree with them on their conclusions about the crisis and they do not say they have any authority to bind you. 

As opposed to straight sedevacantism, what problem(s) does sedeprivationism actually solve or help explain? Serious question.

It doesn't. It attempts to solve the Crisis problem, but as with most man-made solutions regrading problems in the Church (e.g., Protestantism, and the long lines of heretics and heresies) which are not from God, it fails.

Colossians 2:8

"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ

It posits genuine hierarchs who it then divests of the power of true hierarchs. So it provides a variation of the R & R "cardboard" pope (thank you, Father Cekada). Its distinction from R & R is that it provides a "cardboard" pope with no authority whatsoever - except keeping the seat warm. So they can't be accused of their dreaded "sifting," which they accuse the R & R of doing: they reject everything the cardboard pope says and does, except his making of other "cardboards," e.g. bishops.