Absolutely not.  Every man has to work out their salvation.

I said that there have always been successors. I didn't say anything about the periods between successors, which we know has occurred. But the periods between successors didn't occur because laymen took it upon themselves to proclaim that there was or is no pope. You are aware of that, I hope.

In both scearios, R&R or SV (or in between with sedeimpoundism and sedeprivationism), you have "laymen [taking] it upon themselves" to reject 60+ years of alleged Papal Magisterium, an Ecuмenical Council, the Church's Rite of Public Worship, and the canonizations of saints.  So you can't play the old "laymen [taking] it upon themselves" game.

So the only question here is between the explanations for this situation.  Unfortunately, the (classic) R&R position destroys the very foundations of Catholicism, that the Church, the Magisterium, the Mass, the Sacraments, and canonizations cannot go off the rails.

This dispute between R&R and SV is actually nicely summed up in the teaching of Vatican I regarding the papacy.  Vatican I was (as all Ecuмenical Councils) inspired by the Holy Spirit, and in this case timed precisely to prepare us theologicaly for what was to come in the Vatican II era.

R&R (as per usual) cite the "perpetual succession" teaching in Vatican I, but the completely ignore the following:

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.
...
And since before all others [the Holy See] has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.

It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See ...

So you selectively cite the one phrase about "perpetual successors" but have zero problem throwing all of the above into the trashbin.

Those of you who do this have become Old Catholics.  In fact, those who reject SVism, like the heretic John Pontrello, often end up in Orthodoxy, rejecting Vatican I explicitly.

So either the Magisterium, the Mass, the Canon Law, the cult of the saints, can all become so thoroughly corrupted that Catholics are justified, nay, rather, required in conscience, to sever communion with the Holy See ... or else the Holy See can remain vacant for longer than you claim.

We have the famous passage from the Jesuit theologian Father Edmund O'Reilly, who stated that it's not incompatible with the promises of Christ to have an extremely lengthy vacancy of the Holy See.  Meanwhile, claiming that the Magisterium, the Mass, etc. can go corrupt ... those are absolutely incompatible with the promises of Christ regarding the Papacy and the Magisterium and the Church.

Of course, if you accept a variation on either sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism, you can retain both the material continuity of the papacy AND the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I regarding the unfailing faith of the Holy See.

But you so pertinaciously adhere to your Old Catholicism, that you might as well just admit it and go find an Old Catholic chapel.  There's no difference between your brand of R&R and Old Catholicism.

Thus, please prayerfully consider the position articulated by Father Francois Chazal ... lest you scuttle your faith while petending to be defending it.

I said that there have always been successors. I didn't say anything about the periods between successors, which we know has occurred. But the periods between successors didn't occur because laymen took it upon themselves to proclaim that there was or is no pope. You are aware of that, I hope.

Sure I understand that.  That's the point I'm making.  The Church can operate fine w/out a pope and apostates/heretics can't be popes.  Because the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible it is impossible that the current men-in-white are pontiffs, or even Catholic.  

Other than Ladi's statement on what Fr. Chazal's position is, I've read no clarification from the other side.  How does Fr. Chazal's position really differ from the Thesis of des Lauriers?

I know you notice writing isn't my strong suit.  Sorry for text misunderstandings.

Sure I understand that.  That's the point I'm making.  The Church can operate fine w/out a pope and apostates/heretics can't be popes.  Because the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible it is impossible that the current men-in-white are pontiffs, or even Catholic. 

Other than Ladi's statement on what Fr. Chazal's position is, I've read no clarification from the other side.  How does Fr. Chazal's position really differ from the Thesis of des Lauriers?

What I'm trying focus on is the reason for an interregnum. You seem to believe that any ol' reason for an interregnum is just fine, and that laymen can make up their own reasons for it, irrespective of the hierarchy.

Fr. Chazal does not refer to himself as a sede-impoundist. And he certainly doesn't expect anyone to get behind his views. It's true that his views are unique, in that he believes that a heretic pope's jurisdiction is limited. But that doesn't put him on the same level as des Lauriers. Fr. Chazal doesn't make the pope question a central issue at all.

See, here's where the Resistance is so different from sedevacantism. The Resistance doesn't force its views on anyone. The Resistance is a loosely-based society of priests and bishops who try to keep +ABL's mission alive, in the face of the neo-SSPX leaving behind +ABL's mission. They have supplied jurisdiction, not ordinary jurisdiction. They are available for anyone who seeks the sacraments, and wants to keep to Tradition. Sedevacantists, however, (some of them) have a mission to force their views on any non-sede trad who disagrees with them. Do you see the difference?

What question are you answering here?  Since you aren't quoting anything, it's unclear.

I'm being gracious to a fellow Catholic.  Didn't use quote's because of operator error. Nothing else.
If you smell blood in the water, presume at your own discretion.

And that's entirely the wrong focus.  There could be multiple explanations for why we're in an interregnum (or not).  Until 1989, for instance, I hold that there wasn't an interregnum.  Or you could argue that Paul VI and his successors were being blackmailed and therefore not acting freely.  There are numerous possible theoretical explanations for what's going on.  So yours is precisely the wrong focus.

What's critical in order to retain the Catholic Faith and not slide into Old Catholicism is to acknowledge that, if you believe that Vatican II, the NOM, etc. are gravely defective, harmful, even evil, that they did NOT issue from legitimate papal authority freely exercised (regardless of what explanation you may wish to entertain).

That's precisel what Archbishop Lefebvre did.  He acknowledged that these evils are not possible given the Holy Spirit's protection of the Church and of the Papacy, but he simply prescinded from making a definitive conclusion regarding the "reason" for what's going on.  And that's fine too.  But he would completely reject (and did reject) the assertions of modern R&R that the Church and the Papacy can go corrupt like this.

You are just as dishonest about +ABL as you are about Fr. Chazal. And you always get away with it. 

Meg, you lie and slander me.  I have repeatedly cited Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Chazal.  You on the other hand just say this without any evidence whatseover because you don't like the thought that they might no support your Old Catholicism.

I have posted the audio of a speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre and transcribed it.  I have posted an hour-long explanation by Father Chazal about his position, and took quotations directly from it.  I have posted numerous quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre.  And they say exactly what I posted above.

You have never once refuted a single line of it, but you hurl your slanderous nonsense at me about dishonesty and getting away with it

Then, by all means, Meg, don't let me get away with it.  Refute all of the evidence I have cited to back up my statements.

And I am not going to let you get away with these garbage comments.

These discussions cut deep. Respect the process.