Fr. Chazal holds that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid pope with all the papal powers.  However, he cannot licitly exercise those papal powers.  Bishop Sanborn holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not a valid pope.

That's a gross oversimplification of both those positions.  This notion of valid but illicit is misapplied by Father Chazal in order to side-step the fact that his original articulation of his position was nearly identical to sedeprivationism.  When this was pointed out to him, he came up with this false valid but illicit distinction that is meaningless outside of the Sacraments.

That's a gross oversimplification of both those positions.  This notion of valid but illicit is misapplied by Father Chazal in order to side-step the fact that his original articulation of his position was nearly identical to sedeprivationism.  When this was pointed out to him, he came up with this false valid but illicit distinction that is meaningless outside of the Sacraments.

I agree with you that Fr. Chazal's position doesn't make sense.  The good thing, however, is that Fr. Chazal is willing to work with clerics, such as Archbishop Vigano, that hold the Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.  You will not find that willingness with some other factions of the so-called Resistance.

CatholicKnight misrepresents both Bishop Sanborn's and Father Chazal's positions, so I wouldn't rely on his distortion of those positions to make a judgment.  He's dead set on defending Ratzinger as a real pope, so he has an agenda.

There is nothing I wrote about either position that is wrong.

There is nothing I wrote about either position that is wrong.

It's oversimplified, especially where you attribute the valid/licit distinction to Bishop Sanborn, since that doesn't figure into the CT at all.  This distinction was invented by Father Chazal to side-step accusations that his position was identical to that of the sedeprivationists.

I did not intend to attribute the valid/licit distinction to Bishop Sanborn.  I only meant to state that Bishop Sanborn does not accept Jorge Bergoglio as a valid pope whereas Fr. Chazal does.

But Bishop Sanborn does accept Bergoglio as valid, in terms of having a valid election, as having a valid designation to office.  Valid vs. Invalid is not the right distinction.  Bergoglio is valid materially but not valid formally.  So you can't say that he'd hold Bergoglio to be categorically invalid.

Frankly, Father Chazal's distinction between valid and licit authority makes no sense, and is something he added as an after-thought to his original articulation of the sede-impoundist position once people started to point out the striking similarities with sedeprivationism.

You are correct.  Sorry.  Perhaps I should have stated "true" pope instead of "valid" pope.

No need to be sorry.  That's why we're discussing it, attempting to gain some clarity.  Yes, Bishop Sanborn has used the word "true", i.e. that Bergoglio is not a "true" pope, but "true" is also a nebulous term and not helpful.  There are too many words and distinctions here.

To me the key is that Father Chazal holds that Bergoglio is in some habitual state of lacking authority due to manifest heresy, whereas classic R&R hold that he has authority on a case by case basis.  How does someone who habitually lacks licit authority have valid authority?  That could only be a state of an authority that's somehow in pure potency ... but authority in pure potency is similar to the sedeprivationist thinking.  It almost seems like Father Chazal's valid/licit distinction is a potency/act distinction.

Whenever liceity is used in other contexts, it refers to specific acts.  So, for instance, Bergoglio has the authority to make some liturgical changes, but bad liturgical changes would be illicit (due to their being bad).  But that's not what Father Chazal holds.

Unless I missed it, I still don't see the clear difference between "Fr Chazal's" position and sedeprivationism...

Agreed.  In his book and videos, Fr. Chazal states that Francis is a heretic and that he has no authority but he is a valid pope. 

Bishop Sanborn agrees that Francis is a heretic and that he has no authority.  But because of the heresy he can not be pope based on Church teaching (but is still tied legally to the institution of the Church).

It seems Fr. Chazal's big distinction is quite miniscule to say the least.

The pope question, as it were, is but a distraction/red herring.

The real problem is that -- regardless of who is or is not the legitimate head of the society that purports to be the Catholic Church --  a society that is supposed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation is, and has been for several decades, naught but a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc.  Whether he is or is not legitimate, solving that issue doesn't alter the cold, hard, unspeakably-sad fact that what used to be Holy Mother Church has, to all appearances, become an absolutely shameless harlot leading millions to eternal misery.

Address that.

No one has done so.  Until someone does, I shall periodically quote...myself.  Godspeed.