Can no one answer thus question? 

It seems like a schizophrenic position to hold. Maybe this is due to Father Chazal's association with Father Kramer who's a Bennyvacantist, but now that B16 is dead, aren't all Bennyvacantists considered sedevacantists?

Perhaps, but I didn't think Fr Chazal was ever a Bennyvacantist. 

Are you stating that Fr. Paul Kramer's position is schizophrenic?  If so, why?

I believe he was referring to Father Chazal's statement to the effect that he recognizes Bergoglio as Pope even though he was not canonically elected.  So he's both pope and non-pope ... even prescinding from his sedeimpoundist position, as uncanonical election would render him a non-pope even materially-speaking.  His reference to Father Kramer suggested an influence on one side of the alleged schiziphrenia, i.e. vis-a-vis the un-canonical election of Bergoglio side.

The obvious course of action would be to request a clarification of Fr. Chazal.

His position is not necessarily schizophrenic, as he may be relying upon Billot (ie., He might believe the election of Francis was not canonical, but nevertheless, the universal public assent of the bishops “heals in the root all defects” in the election process), thereby rendering his pontificate legitimate, despite alleged uncanonical irregularities. 

That argument would be coherent and consistent.

The obvious course of action would be to request a clarification of Fr. Chazal.

His position is not necessarily schizophrenic, as he may be relying upon Billot (ie., He might believe the election of Francis was not canonical, but nevertheless, the universal public assent of the bishops “heals in the root all defects” in the election process), thereby rendering his pontificate legitimate, despite alleged uncanonical irregularities.

That argument would be coherent and consistent.

Please explain how cuм Ex Apostolatus didn't foresee and condemn all the various methods to conjure up a Pope from a heretic:

In addition,

[by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;[/list]

And we have a confirmation of point (i) in empirical fact since during the Great Western Schism 15 out of 15 cardinals followed an antipope.

Billot's position is destroyed by point (ii) and point (iii) excludes sedeprivationism.

A "canonical election" in March 2013 must have followed the law on papal elections found in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which states:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

There were a number of irregularities in and around the March 2013 conclave. But the most obvious "condition" that was "not observed" that is definitively "prescribed" by Universi Dominici Gregis was that the previous Pope must die, have a funeral mass celebrated and be buried BEFORE a new papal election can be held. The law and the facts in this situation are objectively verifiable. 

Therefore, Bergoglio is an antipope, meaning he is a papal claimant who was not elected according to Church law. In that case of an illegal election, the "universal and peaceful acceptance" theory does not apply, as John of St. Thomas makes clear.

Here is a website with a more detailed explanation of Universi Dominici Gregis applied to Bergoglio:

https://www.antipope.com

Please explain how cuм Ex Apostolatus didn't foresee and condemn all the various methods to conjure up a Pope from a heretic:
And we have a confirmation of point (i) in empirical fact since during the Great Western Schism 15 out of 15 cardinals followed an antipope.

Billot's position is destroyed by point (ii) and point (iii) excludes sedeprivationism.

This is incorrect as None of the Popes from GWS are anti-popes....