Sedevacantism's ecclesiology may be mysterious (and so it is), but its critiques of heretical papacy seem to ring true every time.
For those who do not know, the Sedevacantist thesis is, in a nutshell, that the Postwar Popes have all been heretics and that as such, they cannot actually be Popes at all. Thus is the Seat or "Sede" of Peter is said to be "vacant."
Most of the Orthodox here already know that the Patriarchate of Antioch is also a Petrine See, and obviously the older one of the two. So it makes some sense to us, from a "pastoral perspective," given this assertive fetishism in the western contingent, for the Antiochian See to be a propagator of the Western Rite...
(St. Cyprian said something about Petrine Succession and Papal Primacy in Rome once... Hmm. How did it go again... ?)
Whether or not Catholics will ackowledge the damage done by Vatican II, or the blatant heresy and real promotion heresy of JP II, it is clear that Western Rite Orthodoxy is a destination for many who are searching for a Latin Rite experience that feels right again, clean, holy.
It seems to me, that the only thing that would keep a Sedevacantist immersed in ecclesiological chaos against his will is his fetish for Papal Primacy.
So, if we set aside the historical question of Papal Primacy, do Western Rite jurisdictions just make more sense than, say, the CMRI?
And is not true that any bona fide Orthodox Bishop of any rank is the Successor of Peter (cf. St. Cyprian)?