CathInfo.com

So, the chief problem that some of us have with R&R is that R&R undermines and guts the foundations of the Magisterium and the papacy, throwing the Church under the proverbial bus in order to save Bergoglio et al., to have the comfort of some clown prancing aroud in white vestments.

But Father Chazal has thrown you a lifeline.  By adopting his sede-impoundist views, you don't have to attribute this evil to legitimate Catholic authority and therefore bring ill repute on the Church.

So please explain why you refuse to get behind Father Chazal's position ... which is perfectly acceptable to most "sedevacantists" in that it avoids the chief problem with R&R that most SVs have.  It could also serve as a bridge behind the two camps.

So please explain why, given the Chazal option, you persist in smearing the Holy Catholic Church and the Catholic papacy as being responsible for the evils of the Conciliar erea.  What's wrong with it that you find it unacceptable?

If R&R would rally around Father Chazal, then there's no longer any serious divide among Traditional Catholics, and the major differences would reduce to an academic debate regarding the finer points of sede-impoundism vs sede-privationism.

I really don't have to define anything.  I'm speaking about those who claim that 1) Vatican II and the NOM are bad and harmful, 2) while holding that the V2 popes are legitimate, and 3) not embracing Father Chazal's position.  This is clear from the context.

Father Chazal is not R&R.  R&R hold that that the popes have legitimate authority that can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis.

This is a distraction.  I address the question to those who meet the above critiera.

So, get on with it, and answer the question.  If you accept Father Chazal's position, then the question is not for you.  If you a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the question is not for you.

This so laughable. When did Fr. Chazal say he is a sede-impoundist? And when did he ever say that anyone has to agree with his views anyway? There is no way that he would ever say that he is a sede-impoundist, and that everyone has to get behind him. How ridiculous.