That's one response to his theological position in the practical order.  On the other hand, one might continue to keep his name in their by virtue of his having legal status as pope.  Of course, in the Canon, it does refer to the included pope as being among the "orthodoxi ... cultores catholicae fidei" (orthodox keepers of the catholic faith) ... which status one would rightly reject for Francis.

So, 2V, does this sound like Father Ringrose considers him a "real" pope?

I'm not sure. 
(a)  Is this report even true?  (because there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding what Fr Ringrose believes and doesn't believe)
(b)  If the report is true, then the fact that he leaves his name out of the canon may only mean that he believes that Francis is just not fully pope.  

Just as a heads up, I will only be posting today.

Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.
 
Caiaphas was a heretic.  He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics.  Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself.  It is a question of law.  It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.
 
No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.
 
The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience.  Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today.  It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy.  When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.
 
Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous?  Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.
 
Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith.  No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.

Drew

Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote: 

The third difference is that the case of a heretical pope is different from that of a heretical bishop. A pope is the living rule of faith for the entire Church, and is infallible in his magisterium (whether solemn or ordinary universal), and is infallible in promulgating universal laws, liturgy, and disciplines. None of these things is true of a bishop of a diocese. I remember as a child that people would often say, “You can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.” Very true. He is the living rule of faith, just as a yardstick is the rule of what is one yard. (source: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20February%202018.pdf)

Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM
Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority


But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.
Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.

Cantarella,

You should begin at the end which is obviously not Catholic. Sedevacantist are in a church that has no pope, has no intention of getting one, and has no mechanism to get one. Their church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it is absent a necessary attribute. If this fact is not enough to make any sedevacantist rethink the problem, then there is really nothing that can be done for them.

I was reading Rev. Joseph Pohle’s The Author of Nature and Supernature a few days ago and was actually surprised to see him directly and explicitly refer to dogma as the rule of faith before he begins his theological exposition on a different questions address in the book.  Maybe if you read it repeated several times by someone whose opinion you respect you would get this first and essential point correct. The book can be read on line.

If I ask you, "What is the Catholic faith regarding the necessity of Baptism?", are you going to send a letter to the “living magisterium” to get the answer?  You agree, I hope, that the remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition which is divine revelation.  Do you believe that Dogma is divine revelation? Should it surprise you to learn that the proximate rule of faith is also “divine revelation”?  

What you may not know is that the term “living magisterium” is a relative neologism. The earliest entry on the question is found in the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Tradition and the Living Magisterium” written by Rev. J. Bainvel. Also, what you may not know is that Rev. Bainvel is also the author of the book, “Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?” which teaches that there is a disjunction between the body and the soul of the Church and just about every non-Catholic is a member of the soul of the Church, and being a member of the soul of the Church is all that is necessary for salvation.  Therefore any Hindu as a Hindu, Jєω as a Jєω, Moslem as a Moslem, etc., etc., can obtain salvation by being secret members of the “soul of the Church”.  All this was made possible by first creating the “living magisterium” which permits the mutation of Catholic doctrine and, of course, setting aside dogma as the rule of faith.  

Drew

You should begin at the end which is obviously not Catholic. Sedevacantist are in a church that has no pope, has no intention of getting one, and has no mechanism to get one. Their church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it is absent a necessary attribute. If this fact is not enough to make any sedevacantist rethink the problem, then there is really nothing that can be done for them.

Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
Only a true conciliar apologist would make such a statement. Total newchurch speak. Let me quote Bishop Tissier from the 2012 Winona priestly ordinations when he said "this newchurch is no church but a poison poisoning the Church!".
Nice try to derail the thread and bury everything in ten tons of pages running circles around the EENS dogma and feenyism.

Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote:

That is correct.  Sedevacantists (with only one exception that I know of), like conservative Catholics, hold the pope as the rule of faith. The conservatives believe the pope is rule of faith so they do everything he does.  Sedevacantists hold the pope as the rule of faith and say he cannot be the pope.  I had a recent exchange with Emmett O'Regan a conservative author and publicist who believes that the pope is the rule of faith and possess a "never failing faith."  In the exchange, it is interesting to see that his arguments regarding the pope are the same arguments offered by sedevacantist. 

Drew

I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part.  And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith.  Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn.  And, the papacy is important.  It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith.  However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think?  Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith.  But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave.  Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church.  And, I contend that there still is.  It is just not the pope and the college of bishops.  It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name.   Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.

I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold. 

Yes but the Campos priests at that time operated under the principle that they must avoid the Conciliarists at all costs. They didn't question whether they had any authority. Can we somehow now claim that there is no longer any operating authority in the Church? I mean we are trying to keep principles here and avoidance seems imperative and Bishop Fellay and the like don't seem to understand that anymore. But it doesn't mean "R&R" is somehow illogical.

Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/p/docuмento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html