My impression based on older threads on this was that Fr Chazal was not pure sedeprivationist.  

In the video he made last year, Father Chazal unequivocally stated that Francis lacks all authority and that all his acts were "null and void" based on his obvious manifest heresy and that he was "in quarantine" pending a declaration of deposition by the Church.  But that he retained a certain legal status as the "visible" head of the Church due to his election.  Traditional R&R holds that Francis DOES have authority, but that specific individual acts may be rejected if they contradict Tradition.

Sedeprivationism ... whether he knew it or not.

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html

Here is my (Dr. Chojnowski) 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.

Father,

By sedeplenist 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?

Dr. Chojnowski: 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. Here is his 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 don't care if they call me a sedevacantist if I hold this principle.

 fc+

I have to say that I sympathize with Fr. Chazal’s position and think it very possible. It could be a logical conclusion of my own opinion.

However, I continue to believe that Fr. Chazal simply has a strange, if not incorrect, understanding of terms like sedeprivationist, sede plenist and others. If he still believes that sedeprivationists hold to the position that the pope is not the pope because of cuм Ex Apostolatus, he is very confused, as also is pointed out by Ladislaus is the case about sedeplenism. He also seems to define sedeplenism as a sort of variant of the Cassiacuм Thesis (sedeprivationism) and makes the claim that the Archbishop held to this position. It should be noted that + de Laurier was removed from his position as professor from Econe by the Archbishop for teaching just that.

Would anyone do Fr. Chazal the favor of explaining these terms so that he doesn’t appear as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Other than those things, I agree with him and tend to believe he is right on the main issues.

I mean, the Doctor gives a textbook definition of sedeprivationism and Fr. Chazal says yes. But they all call it sedeplenism. It’s kind of frustrating to see this. For crying out loud. Someone should tell him it is the Cassiacuм Thesis !!!!

UPDATE: Dr. C corrects his mistake:

Father,

By sedeplenist  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?

No, he doesn’t. What he describes is sedeprivationism and he incorrectly labels it sedeplenism. Not corrected. 

And perhaps he has already hinted at his response --
I respect that ... a LOT.

Let's try and take a look at this from the perspective of the historic Catholic religion and history.  What we would find might be described something like this:  A Jesuit by any other name is still a Jesuit.  In historic Catholic terms, the Neo-Trotskyist Pope Francis is not a Jesuit at all, but Fr. Chazal could qualify as one just fine.  The same diplomatic emphasis, with an opportunism that irritates many but that is nevertheless within the legitimate parameters of normal historic Catholicism.  Fr. Chazal is opportunistic and lacks the consistency proper to the more principled side of Catholicism (typified by the Benedictines and Franciscans, among many others).  But diplomacy is inherently like that and for Catholic clergy who adopt a diplomatic approach opportuneness that does not violate any Catholic principles is licit and allowed.
  
So let's not look to Fr. Chazal, or Bishop Williamson and his three episcopal confreres, for very much consistency in some of the details of their rhetoric.  They aim to be successful diplomats for Christ, and in their own terms they are doing quite well.  Fr. Chazal is very like a French Jesuit is ever there has been such a thing.

Allow this relatively more principled, and therefore much less diplomatic, Franciscan to agree with Ladislaus and also say about Fr. Chazal and his cleverly convoluted Jesuitical logic:

"I respect that ... a LOT."

It seems that a sede-privationism that calls itself sede-plenism is going to have quite a bright future going forward.  These are the small beginnings of a great avalanche already rumbling down straight towards Rome.