Archbishop Lefebvre held that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church and is a new religion:  with its new doctrines, its new worship, its new Sacraments and, I would add, its new saints.  It is not the Catholic Church.

[quotes compiled here] http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf

Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church.

[T]his Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new church which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church". We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circuмstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council.

All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new "Conciliar Church", as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism.

We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive....

The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....

I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would have the right to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?" "With whom am I dealing?" If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?

How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church.  A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.

Exactly the same day nine years ago on the 21st of November, I drew up a manifesto which also brought down on me the persecution of Rome, in which I said I can't accept Modernist Rome. I accept the Rome of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following, but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion? I refuse it and I reject it. And that is the Rome which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of destroying the Church. I refuse that Church.

“Let there be no mistake, it is not a question of a dispute between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI representing the program of the Conciliar Church.”

Well! It is precisely the insistent demands of those sent from Rome that we change our rite which makes us reflect. And we are convinced that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This new Mass is a symbol, an expression, an image of a new faith, a Modernist faith…It is plain that this new rite is subtended, so to say, it supposes another conception of the Catholic faith, another religion… Slowly but surely the Protestant notion of the Mass is being introduced into Holy Church.

[T]he Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church. 

For the moment they [those in Rome] are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.
...
Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.

This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

For the Church to lose its marks would be for the Church to defect.

I have read the article: Is there a Conciliar church? on the Dominican of Arville's site many times. And I could never understand it. 

Here is a link: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/#:~:text=Gleize%2C%20maintains%20that%20there%20is,Rome%20is%20the%20Catholic%20Church.&text=The%20official%20church%20is%20the,is%20the%20Catholic%20Church%2C%20period.

It seemed to me that it was saying that the Catholic Church "subsistit in" the Conciliar church. Which is the same heretical claim of Vatican II that the Church of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church is also somehow in some ambiguous communion with the minimally baptized, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and atheists. 

If we were to accept the argument in the article Is there a Conciliar church? it would virtually be accepting the same premise of Vatican II and would be an admission that the Church has defected--which is impossible. 

I really need to pick-up a copy of Contracekadam. After reading many threads on Cathinfo I think I would say I fall into the same thinking on this crisis. "Sededoubtism" or "sedeimpoundism" or just remaining Catholic and trusting God to resolve this crisis. But standard "R&R" leads to the neoSSPX position and right back into the clutches of these modernist heretics. 

I really need to pick-up a copy of Contracekadam. After reading many threads on Cathinfo I think I would say I fall into the same thinking on this crisis. "Sededoubtism" or "sedeimpoundism" or just remaining Catholic and trusting God to resolve this crisis. But standard "R&R" leads to the neoSSPX position and right back into the clutches of these modernist heretics.

You are obviously very confused, since only a solipsist could mention Fr. Chazal's book condemning sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, and in the same breath, imply he is a sede-anything.

Some people want him to be a sede-anything so bad, they make up terms in a desperate attempt to squeeze Fr. Chazal into a/any category beginning with "sede."

They are delusional.

Not looking to get involved in the argument, but if Contra Cekadam is what you're looking for, I have (5) copies left I'm looking to sell at cost.

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam

Not looking to get involved in the argument, but if Contra Cekadam is what you're looking for, I have (5) copies left I'm looking to sell at cost.

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam

Matthew: 
I saw your earlier post. I just ordered a copy. Thank you 

It seemed to me that it was saying that the Catholic Church "subsistit in" the Conciliar church.

If one were to flip the description and say that the Conciliar Church "subsists in" the True Church, then I don't see a problem.  Our Lady at LaSalette said "the Church will be in eclipse" which is mysterious language for our mysterious times.  To think that we can completely figure all this out is a waste of time. 

Sean:
Hasn't Fr. Chazal used the term sedeimpound in virtue of canon 2264 to refer to his own position?
And if the members of the Conciliar sect remain as dead members (until formal judgement/expulsion by a future pope),but meanwhile lose jurisdiction while maintaining their visible office and ability to designate that office to a successor, isn't that basically what Father is referring to when he says "sedeimpound" and very similar to the sedeprivationist position?
I will need to read the book. I probably should not have brought up Father's position without doing so beforehand.

Mr. Collier-

Shortly after Fr. Chazal published his book, he was opposed by Peter Chojnowski (sede).

In responding to him, he describes his own position, which simply can’t be understood as anything other than the classical R&R position of the Resistance and Archbishop Lefebvre:

“You are asking me, and quite repetitively, to heed to authority if Francis is the Pope. No, i won t, because authority is not the truth, but only an instrument. The instrument can fail, truth can t. The authority instituted by Christ is only there to declare the truth already there, already revealed, if it goes off track it can safely be not followed.

Perhaps i have not sufficiently expanded that notion in my book. There should be a second revised edition.

It remains also that the instrument Christ instituted should not be discarded prematurely, nay, for the sake of the truth who will use this instrument again, we should leave it to God to fix it, if there are not enough prelates to bring a bad Pope to bay.

                              ***

And if we keep a bad Pope, (aside from the reight relation beteween truth and authority), it is also for the reason of keeping the Church from splintering in many pieces: this does not mean we confuse the conciliar church with the Catholic Church. I dealt with that point in the last part, and captain obvious is on my side. The two churches are very clearly distinguished by yours truly.

If i follow your advice, i would hold to conclavism, because i believe that Peter will have perpetual actual successors until the end of time. The Papacy is of Divine Right and part of the Divine Constitution of the Church, and is the basis for the note of Apostolicity. A big problem indeed. This is what held back the Archbishop, he stated it clearly.”

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/06/fr-chazal-responds-to-gallican.html?m=1