If there has been no pope since John XXIII or Paul VI then there are no more bishops with jurisdiction which means no more apostolicity which is one of the four marks of the Church. This is heretical.

Let's avoid this for now and return to Father Chazal's position.  While I disagree, and believe that this objection (that of "ecclesiavacantism") has been adequately addressed by the SVs, I don't want to reopen this debate on this thread.

please provide a source for your contention that all the sees being vacant at the same time is equivalent to an end to the mark of apostolicity for the Church.

Thank you. I've been asking this same question for years and I still haven't gotten a reply. All you get is a statement that it is dogma that the Church will always have a hierarchy. I agree, and the Church has a hierarchy now as well. It has an authority structure and a government and a means of teaching infallibly. It is just that those functions are not operative in the Church right now (which is something we all agree on, anyway, since nobody here treats what they call the hierarchy now as if they were the hierarchy) because those offices are vacant.

But a specific doctrinal definition that there will always be someone, somewhere holding the office of ordinary in the Church -- that is the R&R's "missing link" argument. They're sure it's out there; it has to be! Because their system doesn't work if it isn't. And one of these days they're going to find it!

Oh, and as I implied above, any argument that someone would want to make about why there has to be someone out there with jurisdiction would also have to explain how they are able to disobey such a person that they claim has jurisdiction, since that truly is a dogma of the Church, that Catholics must obey the hierarchy both in discipline and doctrine.

But, this is not what he said.  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth not the King of England.  This is a significant distinction which changes your example to not exactly being Catholic at all.  St. Thomas More was, “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”  And we all know that he was a martyr because of this, for being subject to God in His Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope.

Yes, the pope is not the king of England, the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, not Christ Himself - Who *is* the head of the Church - which is why we owe our obedience to Him before anyone else. Very simple. 

It's the principle involved that is wholly Catholic and it's that principle as Catholics that applies to all aspects each and every day of our lives. I could give a million examples but prefer to hope you already understand it.

It's this simple: God always comes first because we will stand before God, not the pope. We will answer to God not the pope, hence the need to remain God's good subject before anyone else's. It is because God comes first that we do not follow anyone who will not leads us to Him no matter who it is, especially when we know they are leading everyone who chooses to follow them down the path to hell. And remember - those who follow choose to do so of their own free will, they are not forced into it. No matter how you look at it, their obedience to God is misplaced - whether knowingly or unknowingly we cannot say with certainty, but that it is misplaced we can say with certainty.

Because we are obedient to God first, and knowing they are leading the followers to hell, it makes no difference if he's not a pope, actually a pope, or an angel from heaven re: Gal 1:8. 

I'm not sure if there is a willing or unwilling blindness over the understanding of Fr. Chazel's position?
When did Catholics become the enemy and modernists friends to defend and respect?
If you don't know a fact wouldn't it be better to show good faith to Catholics?

Many times there has been periods with no pontiff, and sometimes for years. 

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. 

Meg, I presume good will on your part even if I have a different understanding of the enemy.  I hope you look on Catholics with sympathy and victims of a great crime still ongoing.

I hope you understand that I'm going to defend the Resistance, even though most of the active forum members here are sedevacantists. Quite often, those few of us here who support the Resistance are forced to defend our position, due to continual criticisms and attacks by sedevacantists.

I don't appreciate it when a thread like this started that misrepresents Fr. Chazal's position. Fr. Chazal is not a sede-impoundist, and he has never expected anyone to "get behind" his view of the Crisis and papacy.

I appreciate your honesty.  We are not enemies and I wish the best for you and your family. 
My Our Lord Jesus Christ keep us from error.  There but for the grace of God go I.

Thank you. We needn't be enemies, but for the sedevacantist attacks on anyone who won't agree with some form of sedevacantism. Thankfully, not all of the sedevacantists here engage in criticism of the Resistance view of the Crisis. But enough of them do, and it keeps us busy, and in defense mode. Time would be better spent, IMO, if we could find other things to discuss, rather than having to focus on the Pope question so much. But I'm pretty sure that the zealous streak that some sedevacantists have will not ever allow for a peaceful forum. 

I recall the old Angelqueen forum, in which sedevacantism was not allowed to be discussed. Though there were still disagreements on that forum, it was much more peaceful, with more humor and comradery. I still miss that forum. 

99.9% of my time and thoughts are not spent on the sinful.  I know that grace is the difference maker.

Are you saying that sedevacantists have more grace?