Lefebvre explains what he means when he refers to the Council (or conciliar church) as “schismatic:”

“I am not saying that in words one cannot use one phrase and then oppose it with another one, pull it out of context and, thus, make me say things that are not in my mind.

I have sometimes dared to use strong phrases, for example, that the Council was more or less schismatic. In a certain sense it is true because there is a certain break with Tradition. So in the sense that the Council is in breach with Tradition, it can be said, to some extent, that it is schismatic. But when I said that, it was not to say that the Council is really, profoundly schismatic, definitively. You have to understand everything I say. The Council is schismatic insofar as it breaks with the past, that is true. But that does not mean that it is schismatic in the precise, theological sense of the word.

So when you take terms like that, you can say, “You see ! If the Council is schismatic, the pope who signed the Council is schismatic, and all the bishops who signed the Council are schismatics, so that we no longer have the right to be with them.” This is false reasoning. It’s madness, it does not make sense!"

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-lefebvre-explains-himself/

So +ABL says the Conciliar Church is not a schismatic church, as he sums up in the part in red. And of course, if it's not the same as the Catholic Church and it's not schismatic, then it's not a church at all.

“In a sense;” “Insofar.”

Tissier is saying the same thing when he acknowledges they are not entirely distinct.

If they are not entirely distinct, they aren't distinct at all. The Church isn't a Frankenstein monster; it can't have heretical appendages hanging out of it. Either the Conciliar Church is a schismatic church entirely separate from the Catholic Church, or it is not a church at all but just a term describing group within the Church.

Mental note:
Forlorn knows more than Lefebvre, Tissier, and Avrille.

Mental note:
Forlorn knows more than Lefebvre, Tissier, and Avrille.

Except Lefebvre explicitly said it isn't schismatic in any theological sense of the word. 

Except Lefebvre explicitly said it isn't schismatic in any theological sense of the word.

The record is quite clear.  +Lefebvre resisted the sedevacantist conclusion only out of a sense of deferring to the Church as the final authority on the question ... and for reasons of prudence.

Fr. Ringrose posted an audio of a talk given by the Archbishop where he agreed with the sedevacantist Major that it is not possible for the Church to undergo such a degree of decay due to the protection of the Holy Spirit.  Then he speculated about how the Crisis could have happened.  He talked about the possibility that Paul VI had been replaced by a double and that he was medicated or controlled somehow, but dismissed those.  He did not raise the possibility that he was being blackmailed due to his sodomy, but that IMO doesn't seem entirely unlikely.  That would be a solution to the problem of how the Church could do this, since in that case his acts would not have been free and would have been null and void.  But in the end he concludes that sedevacantism is possible and even likely.  He simply did not pull the trigger, preferring to wait for the final judgment of the Church, out of humility and prudence.

He was by no means a rabid dogmatic R&R, like SeanJohnson and Meg here ... so their attempts to pretend that +Lefebvre is in their corner are shameless lies.

The record is quite clear.  +Lefebvre resisted the sedevacantist conclusion only out of a sense of deferring to the Church as the final authority on the question ... and for reasons of prudence.

Fr. Ringrose posted an audio of a talk given by the Archbishop where he agreed with the sedevacantist Major that it is not possible for the Church to undergo such a degree of decay due to the protection of the Holy Spirit.  Then he speculated about how the Crisis could have happened.  He talked about the possibility that Paul VI had been replaced by a double and that he was medicated or controlled somehow, but dismissed those.  He did not raise the possibility that he was being blackmailed due to his sodomy, but that IMO doesn't seem entirely unlikely.  That would be a solution to the problem of how the Church could do this, since in that case his acts would not have been free and would have been null and void.  But in the end he concludes that sedevacantism is possible and even likely.  He simply did not pull the trigger, preferring to wait for the final judgment of the Church, out of humility and prudence.

He was by no means a rabid dogmatic R&R, like SeanJohnson and Meg here ... so their attempts to pretend that +Lefebvre is in their corner are shameless lies.

You seem to believe that you have been given special insight into the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre. Do you believe that God gave you specific info? If not, then how do you know +ABL better than EVERYONE else?

This is basic ontology.  Even if you had a mad scientist somehow genetically blend a dog and a cat and make a dogcat, that dogcat is substantially a new entity.  It may have some accidents of cat and some accidents of dog, but it is essentially something new.

No, the only way to view two churches as one thing is to view the one thing from two different formal aspects, i.e. to make a formal-material type of distinction, where it remains materially the Catholic Church but formally NOT the Catholic Church.

So, as you point out, it's either 1) the Catholic Church or 2) the Conciliar Church or 3) a brand new Frankenchurch, as you put it ... just like the dogcat is not both a dog and a cat at the same time, but a new thing called dogcat ... which has some accidents of dog and some accidents of cat.  So too Frankenchurch would be a new thing altogether, neither the Catholic Church NOR the Conciliar Church, but something entirely new.

This ontology is deal with the first few weeks of any introduction to Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy.

Refuted by Tissier’s description of tge four marks of tge conciliar church in the article cited.

The record is quite clear.  +Lefebvre resisted the sedevacantist conclusion only out of a sense of deferring to the Church as the final authority on the question ... and for reasons of prudence.

Fr. Ringrose posted an audio of a talk given by the Archbishop where he agreed with the sedevacantist Major that it is not possible for the Church to undergo such a degree of decay due to the protection of the Holy Spirit.  Then he speculated about how the Crisis could have happened.  He talked about the possibility that Paul VI had been replaced by a double and that he was medicated or controlled somehow, but dismissed those.  He did not raise the possibility that he was being blackmailed due to his sodomy, but that IMO doesn't seem entirely unlikely.  That would be a solution to the problem of how the Church could do this, since in that case his acts would not have been free and would have been null and void.  But in the end he concludes that sedevacantism is possible and even likely.  He simply did not pull the trigger, preferring to wait for the final judgment of the Church, out of humility and prudence.

He was by no means a rabid dogmatic R&R, like SeanJohnson and Meg here ... so their attempts to pretend that +Lefebvre is in their corner are shameless lies.

Yes, yes, Lefebvre believed exactly what Ladislaus believed!
He was on the verge of being sedevacantist!