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?

???  I've been talking about sede-privationism on this site for 3-4 years.  When Fr Chazal's book came out (I watched a speech he gave about it), I was one of the first people to say that Fr Chazal's view is similar to Fr Wathen's and also the (non-dogmatic) view of +Sanborn and others.

I've been very consistent about this.  You just get caught up in the "sede" label and reject it immediately.

It's clear that +Bellarmine and others "kicked the tires" on theoretical circuмstances like this; "sede-privationism" is not a new idea (i.e. the pope retains his temporal office, but his spiritual office is "impounded" due to heresy).

Dear Pax Vobis,
Has anyone researched who were the teachers of Bishop des Lauriers and Fr. Ratzinger? Their theses on the possibility of munus and officium being separated are eerily similar.

I reject sedism mainly for it's primary reason for existing, namely, disunity - as if trads need more of that. The whole idea has proven itself to be iniquitous.

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.

Oh great and powerful Lad, here you are mistaken! The sedes added to the disunity in such a way as to cause even more confusion and wrong thinking. In my mind, that's a definition of iniquitous.

Oh, so before the "sedes" cause disunity, now it's that they add to it even more.  That's a great theological reason to reject it, namely, because it adds to an already-existing disunity.  Yes, the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Papacy by the Holy Spirit, as affirmed by +Vigano, is "wrong thinking" ... according to an Old Catholic, such as you've become.  You've been repeatedly corrected over these grave errors, and, as +Vigano states, cannot be absolved of heresy and schism.

I reject sedism mainly for it's primary reason for existing, namely, disunity - as if trads need more of that. The whole idea has proven itself to be iniquitous.

Is this what you mean by SP?
From google: "Sedeprivationism is a doctrinal position within Traditionalist Catholicism which holds that the current occupant of the Holy See is a duly-elected pope, but lacks the authority and ability to teach or to govern unless he recants the changes brought by the Second Vatican Council."

If so, then you saying that:
"Fr Wathen repeatedly said that JP2 was a heretic and not a true pope. But Fr still recognized the office, in a temporal way."

And

"Fr was a sede-privationist, if a label must be applied." Are false statements and you should retract them.

Apparently you believe what you are saying justifies your SPism since you say that it is essentially the same as what Fr. Wathen believed - but this is false, he believed no such thing - as I have already demonstrated quoting him in my previous posts.

Clearly, Fr. Wathen taught the exact same thing all the pioneering trads maintained initially, and many still do today, namely,  that the conciliar popes are true popes. Period. Heretical and evil popes, but true popes none the less, and this regardless of all the arguments to the contrary put forth by sedes with all the confidence of eye witnesses - as he put it.

One way or the other, all these sedewhateverisms do, is they lead many to believe in a vacant chair and all the errors that go with it, hence why I suggest you avoid the subject for a while.

If Popes can be heretical then what assurance  do we have that the Catholic Church is the true church of Christ?  How do we know that the Popes didn't derail the church in 1000s or in the 1500s or in the 1800s.  Popes cannot teach false doctrine to the Church. Period.  End of story. Even before the first prayer meeting of Assisi we knew something was not right.  Being outside Rome, which is any Catholic group that does not have legal jurisdiction (sspx, cmri, sgg, rci, sspv, etc), there will be a lack of unity.  It is a Crisis. One we never experienced before.  Find the opinion you like best and then pray, do penance, and do your duty.  All this infighting is never going to amount to anything.  We need a Pope to unite us.  In the meantime practice charity.