Even if this dogma was to be taken in the sense that R&R does, this is, the permanent physical occupancy of the See by a pope at all times, I do not see how this necessarily contradicts the sedeprivationist position, in which the permanency of the material hierarchy is fundamental (this is by the way, the main difference from strict sedevacantism). The Cassisiacuм Thesis believes that the merely material occupation of Sees, currently by Bergoglio, is effectively transmitted in the Church, as long as the external human acts of a juridical order which are required for this continuance are carried on.
In the words of Fr. Bernard Lucien:
What is understood by Mission is the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
What is understood by Session is the material occupation of the See of Peter.
The ordering of these two is precisely what is lacking today in the Church militant because the materialiter pope does not have the habitual intention of doing good to the Church. He loses therefore, Authority; but not power of designation. This permanence of the hierarchical structure is absolutely required for the Church to retain her Apostolic nature.
The theory of sedeprivationism postulates a substantial change in the papal office instituted by Jesus Christ. It is theoretically a heresy and a practically an impossibility. It cannot be done. The theory, like sedevacantism, is an attempt to become the Lord of the Harvest concerning the disposition of cockle. It begins with unnecessary presuppositions and ends with problems worse than those they are trying to avoid. It also, directly or indirectly, holds the pope as the Rule of Faith. Ladislaus claims he holds the magisterium as his rule of faith but the Magisterium of the Church is never exercised outside of the person of the pope occupying the papal office. In the practical order there is no divergence in act. Once there is postulated a substantial change in the papal office, there is no pope because there is no office, there is no magisterium because there is no pope
in potentia to the attribute of Infallibility, and there is no rule of faith for Ladislaus.
Ladislaus (and there are previous posts on this question) believes in “infallible security.” That is, he believes that the attribute of Indefectibility means that the pope has a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium. This is just a popular theological speculation that cannot stand up to serious criticism, but, notwithstanding its corruption of the moral order, provides fuel for the accusation that anyone who is not blindly obedient to a heretical pope becomes
ipso facto a Protestant. It leads to the blind obedience of the conservative Catholic, or leads to either driving a wedge between the pope and the office (sedevacantism) or wedge through the office itself (sedeprivationism).
Reread the quotation I provided from Fourth Council of Constantinople or better, go on-line and read the entire introduction to the Council affirming all previous Dogmatic Canons. This is the same Council that charged Pope Honorius along with others of heresy.
The Rule of Faith used to judge these persons as heretics was the DOGMATIC CANONS. This Council was affirmed by Pope Leo II. This directly affirms the council I previously quoted, confirmed by Pope Zosimus, that treats the terms Dogma and Rule of Faith as synonyms. The Magisterium, the “teaching authority,” is the means and dogma is the end of its proper function.
If you just stick to what is known with certainty, that is, Dogma, drawing only necessary and certain conclusion from revealed truth, leaving what is unknown to the providential care of God, you can stay on dry ground while others are washed away.
Drew