Mr. McCheese makes arguments that I personally can not refute. Valid popes have the right to make the administrative changes to which he alludes. I think that the R&R position winds up losing in the end. I wish I could make their case, but am finding it increasingly difficult to do so.
This came up a little while ago, and Drew, who is R&R, made the argument that laws that are not conducive to the good of the Church do not bind or, rather, take force. It's incredibly weak, and I reject this out of hand. ANY relaxation of discipline can be argued not to be for the good. And Popes have historically made many relaxations in such discipline, removing fast days on some Vigils, for instance. So because Drew judges that it's not for the good, he can go around telling everyone that they are bound to keep the old disciplines under pain of sin? So Drew can now try to bind consciences by his private judgment? That's nonsense, and it highlights the reductio ad absurdum
to which some classic R&R propositions can be reduced. Now, I am not a straight sedevacantist, since I believe that many of the R&R arguments are valid, but I also believe that many of the SV (or, rather sedeprivationist) arguments are also valid. So I have a nuanced middle position. I think that we need to try to be intellectually honest in attempting to form our consciences. I do not dismiss any arguments made by either side out of hand, simply because I have aligned myself with any given camp. I evaluate them to the best of my ability and attempt to form my own conscience accordingly.
I would say, too, that even for sedevacantists who are not dogmatic, if there's any positive doubt whatsoever, then, since doubtful laws do not apply, there's no strict obligation to keep the old discipline. DOGMATIC sedevacantists are the only ones subjectively bound in conscience to keep the old disciplines.
Of course, SeanJohnson made a good argument that we SHOULD keep the old disciplines due to the erosion of faith that could gradually result from not keeping them. But SHOULD is far different from MUST UNDER PAIN OF SIN.
I find it very refreshing to see a number of R&R folks on this thread honestly admitting the true status of this issue.