Fr. Chazal accepts Jorge Bergoglio ontologically as pope whereas sedeprivationism does not.  Therefore, they are substantially different.  Your use of the term "version" makes it sound like the two are substantially the same.  Please explain.

The way the sede mind works continually amazes me.

If the pope cannot harm the Church, then there is no reason for sedeism - or tradition for that matter.

 If you think the pope was replaced by a phony, you only think that in order to maintain your sede belief, a belief which: "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835:

".. the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error."

“If the living magisterium could be in any way false — an evident contradiction would follow, for then God would be the author of error.”

Pope Leo XIII
Satis Cognitum

St Leo IX, Terra Pax

The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome?

The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." [Lk 22:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able?

Now it is plain on the surface, that those who limit the Church's infallibility to her definitions of faith, admit indeed her infallibility as " testis ;" and to some limited extent as "judex;" but that they deny infallibility to her altogether, in her capacity of "magistra." No such view, however, is so much as known to approved theologians. According to their unanimous teaching, the Church is infallible, not only in witnessing and in judging, but in practically guiding her children to salvation.

THE AUTHORITY of
DOCTRINAL DECISIONS
WHICH ARE NOT DEFINITIONS OF FAITH,
WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, D.Pr.
1866.

Has the Church in fact proved itself infallible?-It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church, from the twentieth century back to the first, has not once ceased to teach a doctrine on faith or morals previously held, and with the same interpreta-tion; the Church has proved itself infallible.

1. It is a historical fact that not one-Pope, whatever he was in his private life, has ever taught error.

"My Catholic Faith" (1954) by Bishop Louis LaRavoire Morrow

“No Pope has erred in matters of faith."

Source: "On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope" (1869) by Fr F. X. Weninger, SJ.

“All the strength of the Church is in the Pope; all the foundations of our Faith are based on the successor of Peter.”

- Pope Saint Pius X

"In his capacity as head, do not all his members owe him the solemn promise of canonical obedience, which alone can maintain unity in the Church and avoid schisms in this mystical body founded by Christ our Lord?"

Pope Pius VI
Quod Aliquantum

Hang it there, Stubborn, against the wise guys with their syllogisms and "knowledge falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20), blind to their contradictions. You're right, it's not that complicated.

Two downvotes for simply providing Magisterial teachings and exhorting a man to renounce his errors in light of the facts.

I log in for the first time in two and a half years and you’re still spewing the same junk. Have you ever even bothered to research the Church’s teaching concerning her immunity from error?

The pope is not the Church.

You have made *yourself* the final arbiter on what is and what isn’t Catholic teaching.

Contrast what you said to this:

Venerable Pius IX: “I am the Church, I am tradition”!

Of course you will just ignore this as you are your own pope.

The pope is not the Church.

The Catholic doctrine touching the Church as the rule of faith

The term Church, in this connection, can only denote the teaching Church, as is clear from the passages already quoted from the New Testament and the Fathers. But the teaching Church may be regarded either as the whole body of the episcopate, whether scattered throughout the world or collected in an ecuмenical council, or it may be synonymous with the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ. Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20); but only one of the bishops, viz., the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of St. Peter; he alone can be regarded as the living Apostle and Vicar of Christ, and it is only by union with him that the rest of the episcopate can be said to possess the Apostolic character (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Prooemium). Hence, unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ, it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith