Sede-this, sede-that?
I have only ever known sede to mean sedevecantism.  
All these sede-isms make my head spin...
Why can't we just be Catholic?

Because Catholics need distinctions to explain how heretics and infiltrators have managed to take over most of the Church and change it to a new religion, yet at the same time say the Catholic Church is Visible, Universal, Apostolic and Holy.

I reformatted things to make it more clear what is being said by whom.

Dr. Chojnowski:

Here is my email exchange with Fr. Francois Chazal about the position that he articulates in his new upcoming book about Francis, the Papacy, and Fr. Anthony Cekada.
[Note: Fr. Chazal's kind response. And by the way, unlike the arch laymen of Misters Salza and Siscoe, has been a perfect gentleman in this entire back and forth.]

Father,

 By sedeplenist [I meant to say sedeprivationist] I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?

Fr. Chazal's response:

Yes, in virtue of canon law. 2264.
 That s also the basis for us using supplied jurisdiction (canon 209).
 It has been our policy from day one, and the Archbishop was much criticised for it.
 It is obvious that the Church does not want Catholics to place themselves under heretics, because they will inevitably drag them towards heresy, or at least compromise. That s also the whole debate since 2012.
 i really dont care if they call me a sedevacantist if i hold this principle.
 fc+

My comment: I don't think Fr. Chazal is admitting to be a sedeprivationist nor a sedevacantist.  But his formulation does sound like the SP position.

What I am not understanding -- and please bear with me for repeating myself -- is how can the Church Christ founded be in such a state that no formal authority exists anymore. And if that is the case in what way can this formal authority return? It seems it cannot. How can this possibly be the true position that a Catholic must hold? It is far too abstract and yes I have read Fr. Sanborn's explanation of the thesis.

Ah, so yet another NEW position:  sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist

Let's call it sedeimpoundism for short (since Father coined the term) ... or sedequarantinism.  I'd leave out the reference to Canon 2264 (or any other Canon), since Popes are not subject to Canon Law.

Father Chazal now clarifies that they have no teaching authority, but still have valid but illicit jurisdiction.

I actually like this.  It's not too different than my own spin on sedeprivationism, as I called it, where I believe that jurisdiction can be passed on through material popes and formally exercised by anyone he designates to have it without an impediment to do so.

I may just have been converted to sede-impoundism.  [I have never been a PURE sedeprivationist but closer to this anyway.]

Did +ABL ever really state the above? I mean, did he say that Catholics are aware that JP2 (was) a heretic and yet still submit to his jurisdiction were state of illegality?

I know that the SSPX used to maintain that the Novus Ordo mass was valid but illicit, and that it was at least venially sinful to attend it. But I don't recall that +ABL or the SSPX said that the Pope himself is a heretic.

+ABL didn't focus so much on the Pope as he did the entire rotten modernist conciliar church. The modernist popes are just part of the problem.

Pretty sure he called him an anti-Christ and said most of the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid. 

+ABL said toward the end of his life that Rome is in apostasy. But he didn't single out the Pope. For +ABL, the problem with modernism was a systemic problem. Trads nowadays focus mainly on the Pope, as if the current modernist pope invented modernism. But no, modernism has been around for a long time now, and JP2 was every bit a modernist as Francis. 

I don't think the situation with Caiphas supports the R&R/Resistance position.  Our Lord was tried 4 times.  1. Annas 2. Caiphas 3. Pilate 4. Herod and finally back to Pilate.  He refused to speak anything to Annas and Herod.  Presumably this is because neither of them had any jurisdiction.  But He did answer Caiphas who was the legitimate High Priest at the time.  And He did answer Pilate who was the legitimate Roman governor of the territory.  So if the Conciliar popes have any jurisdiction whatsoever, then we as members of the Church are legally bound to respect and submit to their authority.  So that is a difference between the SP position and Fr. Chazal's position.  SP theory posits that the loss of the formal office causes the total loss of authority.

Recently I read an interview to Mons. Guerard Des Lauries made in May, 1988 and he makes a very good point here (Google Translation from French):

That there is in the earth a person who is the Vicar of Christ, to whom every faithful of Jesus Christ must submit, is a truth of Faith. Knowing who that person is immediately determines the exercise of the Faith, and consequently constitutes a question with respect to which every faithful is obliged to take a position. It is a divine law.

That there be in the bosom of the militant Church an ordinary universal Magisterium that is infallible, is a truth of Faith. Every faithful must profess it and must denounce the error of those who deny it. It is a divine law.

Basically, knowing WHO the Vicar of Christ is on earth comes with certain obligations to a Catholic. Personal submission to his authority is one of them. The action of knowing who is he, is important. There is a contradiction if as a Roman Catholic, you know who the Pope is, but still refuse personal submission to him, (which by the way is necessary for salvation).