Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?  

Post 662 indicated you alluded to perhaps Ibranyi was representative of the sede position, perhaps I was wrong on my assumption.  
Remember the sedevacantist position is a term to distinguish Catholics who believe a head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be head of the Catholic Church.  Otherwise, we are just souls who want to live and die united to the Catholic Church. 
By Representative do you mean by definition as the Vicar of Christ is the representative of Jesus Christ?  Now let me ask you who today would that be?

^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.

By representative, Meg meant what she asked, if not Ibranyi, then who is representative of the sedevacantist position?


All sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person - it seems to be only the underlying principle which all sedevacantists agree on, that principle being, the ability/necessity for his subjects to decide whether or not the pope is the pope.

I can't imagine Meg ever getting an answer so for me, I'd guess that Ibranyi is representative of those who hold the most extreme sedevacantist position, +Sanborn is at the opposite end of the scale, and the others are somewhere in the middle.

Since sedevacantists are Catholics; their head is Christ in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches, His representative His Vicar.  The point being His Vicar is not Francis, we all agree on that point, which is the only point of the sedevacantist position worthy of discussion.  Any other point is opinion and a consequence of having no pope for unity with dogmatic issues such as i.e. BOD or groups like (Holy Family et al).  
Ibranyi is your hero, not ours, he is a Judas who wants his 30 pieces of silver in the form of a self-proclaimed prophet.  Your the one who makes over him and watches his every move uses him as the devil makes use of Francis.  
 
If there was a group with different ideas it is the conciliarist the only point they agree on is the sedevacantist are very small, not big enough for a threat but they certainly feel threatened and rightly so.   Since Traditional Catholic in the true sense of the word; those who want nothing to do with the Modernists.  
Just open a phone directory or check the Internet you will find a so-called "catholic" Conciliarist church for every type of Francis follower there is, from any type of gender confused catholic to divorced remarried, divorced again, and so, on.  Face the truth Stubborn your accusation against those who remain steadfast is a description of any Francis follower out there.  
You, on the other hand, want your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.  You have no absolutes, just as the conciliarists have no absolutes.    

So Meg, who is your representative?  I never got an answer from anyone and...  why?   Because you all are ashamed to say it is Francis, your pope.  

Since sedevacantists are Catholics; their head is Christ in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches, His representative His Vicar.  The point being His Vicar is not Francis, we all agree on that point, which is the only point of the sedevacantist position worthy of discussion.  Any other point is opinion and a consequence of having no pope for unity with dogmatic issues such as i.e. BOD or groups like (Holy Family et al).  
Ibranyi is your hero, not ours, he is a Judas who wants his 30 pieces of silver in the form of a self-proclaimed prophet.  Your the one who makes over him and watches his every move uses him as the devil makes use of Francis.  
 
If there was a group with different ideas it is the conciliarist the only point they agree on is the sedevacantist are very small, not big enough for a threat but they certainly feel threatened and rightly so.   Since Traditional Catholic in the true sense of the word; those who want nothing to do with the Modernists.  
Just open a phone directory or check the Internet you will find a so-called "catholic" Conciliarist church for every type of Francis follower there is, from any type of gender confused catholic to divorced remarried, divorced again, and so, on.  Face the truth Stubborn your accusation against those who remain steadfast is a description of any Francis follower out there.  
You, on the other hand, want your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.  You have no absolutes, just as the conciliarists have no absolutes.    

Amazing.

Bishop Fellay would say that's his representative too.  Point is that we're not talking about who a person looks to as a way of informing their own response to the crisis.  We're talking about in the course of intellectual debate, meeting opposing positions-- not meeting isolated caricatures of them.
.
Look, there are hosts of authors who've published material on how the sedevacantist thesis works.  John Lane, John Daly, Fr. Cekada et al., Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson, Fr. Saenz y Arriga, and more.  And even ceding variances in some formulations of the thesis between these authors, sedeplenist interlocutors would come across as far more credible by even elevating ONE of these authors and pretending that they univocally represent sedevacantism (and even that wouldn't be true, but it'd at least be far closer to the truth than what they're doing with Ibranyi or the Dimond boys).
.

Bishop Fellay would say that's his representative too.  Point is that we're not talking about who a person looks to as a way of informing their own response to the crisis.  We're talking about in the course of intellectual debate, meeting opposing positions-- not meeting isolated caricatures of them.
.
Look, there are hosts of authors who've published material on how the sedevacantist thesis works.  John Lane, John Daly, Fr. Cekada et al., Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson, Fr. Saenz y Arriga, and more.  And even ceding variances in some formulations of the thesis between these authors, sedeplenist interlocutors would come across as far more credible by even elevating ONE of these authors and pretending that they univocally represent sedevacantism (and even that wouldn't be true, but it'd at least be far closer to the truth than what they're doing with Ibranyi or the Dimond boys).
.

Well, yes, Bishop Fellay would likely say that Archbishop Lefebvre is his representative. There isn't anything I can do about that. I can't force others to see the situation my way. I can only try to state my case as clearly as possible.

You wrote previously that Ibranyi doesn't represent sedevacantism, yet it's obvious that no one particular person represents it for the sedevacantists here. 

Ibranyi or the Dimond Bros. may represent the fringes of sedevacantism, but surely there are moderates whom you would take to be your representative. But it seems not to be the case. Is there no one, Mithrandylan, who represents sedevacantism for you? Or is sedevacantism just a personal subjective belief system, based only on the view that there is currently no pope? This seems to be the only thing that sedevacantists can completely agree on. 

Well, yes, Bishop Fellay would likely say that Archbishop Lefebvre is his representative. There isn't anything I can do about that. I can't force others to see the situation my way. I can only try to state my case as clearly as possible.

You wrote previously that Ibranyi doesn't represent sedevacantism, yet it's obvious that no one particular person represents it for the sedevacantists here.

Ibranyi or the Dimond Bros. may represent the fringes of sedevacantism, but surely there are moderates whom you would take to be your representative. But it seems not to be the case. Is there no one, Mithrandylan, who represents sedevacantism for you? Or is sedevacantism just a personal subjective belief system, based only on the view that there is currently no pope? This seems to be the only thing that sedevacantists can completely agree on.

.
But Meg, you're talking about a completely different thing now.  I'm a Roman Catholic, so my rule of faith is the pope and my bishop.  If they're not around, then I do the best I can with approved teachers of the Catholic faith-- the popes, saints, doctors, and theologians who've gone before.  Scripture and Tradition.  No sedevacantist author falls into that category.  No sedeplenist author falls into that category either.  They're all without jurisdiction, so they have no teaching or ruling authority*.  No approval.  No mission.  Their utility and import is one of academic impact, as contributors to an ongoing discussion (what happened to the Church in the 1960s?). 
.
*That doesn't mean they can't be right about one thing or another, it just means that we cannot look at/to them the way that Catholics would ordinarily submit to their bishop or the pope.

Okay, I think I understand that the best you can do, as a sedevacantist, is to make do with approved teachers of the Catholic faith - popes, saints, doctors, scripture, tradtion, etc. But isn't this necessarily flawed, in that it then becomes subjective, in that you are forced to view the faith and crisis only of your own volition?

.
No, that is my duty as a Catholic.  It's all of ours-- to submit, in rule and teaching, to the proximate rule of faith-- the pope and the bishops, and in their absence, the remote rules of faith: scripture and Tradition.
.
I don't have any duties as a sedevacantist.  To say "I am a sedevacantist" is simply shorthand for saying "I don't think these men are popes."  There's no duty implied or contained in such a thought, except inasmuch as that which is morally certain privately binds the conscience to behave in some way or another in response.  But all that means in this instance is that I don't treat those men as popes, and I'm hardly unique there, am I?
.

Catholicism is naturally and necessarily hierarchical. It's how Our Lord set it up. That we are in a severe crisis doesn't change that. Those of us who still try to follow a hierarchy or semblance of one isn't a bad thing.  It is a Catholic thing to do. It is completely natural for a Catholic to look up to and follow superiors where they can find them.

.
Precisely.