People slowly seem to be getting on board with Fr. Chazal's semi-sede position, but what again is the difference between what Chazal promotes now and +des Lauriers promoted decades ago?  

Fr. Chazal says in his recent talk (posted on several threads recently) that he follows the view of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. I don't think he takes a semi-sede position, even though it may appear that he does.

Fr. Chazal holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not bestowed with the papal munus by Christ.

And yet Fr. Chazal still refers to Francis as "Pope Francis."

It's only a name to Fr. Chazal.  He uses it because that's what Jorge Bergoglio is generally known by.

How many sedevacantists do you know whom actually refer to Francis as "Pope Francis?" Do you refer to Francis as "Pope Francis?"

Read here:

https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Fr_Chazal_on_Whether_Jorge_Bergoglio_Is_Pope.pdf

Yes, Father Chazal is semi-sede (closest to sedeprivationism) despite Meg's gratuitous denials.  I have zero issues with his position, and embrace it.

Here's the bottom line in +Vigano's statement, affirming the MAJOR of SVism.  This is all I really care about.  One can quibble about the "5 Opinions" til the cows come home or debate Bellarmine this vs. Cajetan that.  We'll never solve the debate over those details.  But whatever "solution" we propose, we simply CANNOT throw the Catholic Church and the Magisterium under the bus as many/most modern R&R do.

This is THE KEY DEVELOPMENT in +Vigano's latest statement --

Is it possible then that the Church has begun to teach error? Can we believe that the one Ark of salvation is at the same time also an instrument of perdition for souls? That the Mystical Body separates itself from its Divine Head, Jesus Christ, making the Savior’s promise fail? This cannot, of course, be admissible, and those who support such an idea fall into heresy and schism. The Church cannot teach error, nor can her Head, the Roman Pontiff, be at the same time heretical and orthodox, Peter and Judas, in communion with all his predecessors and at the same time in schism with them. The only theologically possible answer is that the Conciliar Hierarchy, which proclaims itself Catholic but embraces a faith different from that constantly taught for two thousand years by the Catholic Church, belongs to another entity and therefore does not represent the true Church of Christ.

This is precisely what I've been arguing for years here on CathInfo now.  He's also hereby rejecting FrankenChurch theory.

The only theologically possible answer is that the Conciliar Hierarchy, which proclaims itself Catholic but embraces a faith different from that constantly taught for two thousand years by the Catholic Church, belongs to another entity and therefore does not represent the true Church of Christ.

Our Lady of LaSalette:  "The Church will be in eclipse."

Now, Our Lady described to us what is happening, but she did not explain it.  Ultimately, we can't fully understand what is going on.

Do you yourself believe that the law has not caught up with bergolio, as Fr. Chazal asserts?

Jorge Bergoglio is outside the Catholic Church.  Therefore, he does not hold ordinary jurisdiction for any office.

Jorge Bergoglio is outside the Catholic Church.  Therefore, he does not hold ordinary jurisdiction for any office.

How do you square the above with what Fr. Chazal said that in that email to Tony La Rosa? I would agree that, for Fr. Chazal, Francis does not hold ordinary jurisdiction. Instead, Fr. Chazal sees Francis as a sort of place holder for the seat of Peter. Would you agree with that?

Fr. Chazal wrote:

...."Sedes deny the juridical, public nature of the Catholic Church and the need to keep the apostolic succession promised, even via delinquents in the Faith. The Catholic Church has never said the pope is impeccable in the faith if he does not engage this impeccable power. If you deny this, you deny all treaties on papal infallibility. Infallibility has conditions."