Fr. Chazal doesn't actually call himself anything but a Traditional Catholic. You are the one who has to attach a sedevacantist descriptor onto anyone whom you believe has any view that's similar to a sedevacantist view.

I have his book. He doesn't call himself anything relating to sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism) at all.

We all probably need to start moving away from using these labels, as it leads to the impression that we are all just clusters of schismatic sects compared to the Novus Ordo

I can use the label of sedevacantist, or sedeplenist, or sedeprivationist to explain my position on the Pope. But that's already under the umbrella of "traditional Catholic". I am NOT a "sedevacantist" or a "Dimondite" etc. just a traditional Catholic who holds to one of these positions.

Thanks Ladislaus for posting the links to those videos of Fr. Chazal explaining his position. Fr. Chazal's position is starting to become more plausible to me, because we need the visible hierarchy, but we also need to preserve the dogma that the Church cannot promulgate heresies or evil liturgies/disciplines, and not just in the extraordinary magisterium, but also in the ordinary and universal magisterium. Correct me if im wrong, but theologians before vatican 2 have written that encyclicals may have accidental errors or that they may be imprudent, but they can never teach susbtantial errors. The visibility of the Church with its hierarchy and the Church not being able to promulgate and impose heresies on the universal Church, are the two aspects of indefectibility. I believe Fr. Chazal's position preserves these two aspects of indefectibility.

Yes, Father Chazal's position is very solid.  If you want to see what theologians taught about Encyclicals, etc., here's a great overview:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

And we have a lot more here than an error or two in a Papal Encyclical.  We have an entire Ecuмenical Council and 60+ years of Encyclicals teaching error, an entirely new Modernistic theological system, a Rite of Mass that harms souls and displeases God, and a large pile of bogus canonizations.  Together, all this is tantamount to a New Religion that lacks the Marks of the Church and would cearly constitute a defection of the Church and the Church's Magisterium if one were to attribute all this to legitimate papal authority freely exercised.

God, when allowing this crisis, forced them to be flushed out into the open and show themselves, so that even the simple faithful (without theological degrees, etc.) can easily identifiy the Conciliar Church as something alient to Catholicism.

God, when allowing this crisis, forced them to be flushed out into the open and show themselves, so that even the simple faithful (without theological degrees, etc.) can easily identify the Conciliar Church as something alien to Catholicism.

I'd give this a thumbs-up but for some reason it's not letting me do that.  Anyone know how I can or why it won't let me?  Thanks

I'd give this a thumbs-up but for some reason it's not letting me do that.  Anyone know how I can or why it won't let me?  Thanks

I believe that you have to have 100 posts before you can start using the thumb system.

I believe that you have to have 100 posts before you can start using the thumb system.

Good to know.  Thanks.

Yes, Father Chazal's position is very solid.  If you want to see what theologians taught about Encyclicals, etc., here's a great overview:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

But you believe that any traditional Catholic who believes that Francis is the pope, but doesn't follow and obey everything he says is a heretic and schismatic, right? You called me a heretic and schismatic a few months ago, because I believe that Francis is the Pope, but I tend to ignore him. Fr. Chazal's position is not yours. He doesn't condemn anyone like you do. 

You are, in reality, a dogmatic sedevacantist, who masquerades as a sort-of sedeprivationist.

But you believe that any traditional Catholic who believes that Francis is the pope, but doesn't follow and obey everything he says is a heretic and schismatic, right? You called me a heretic and schismatic a few months ago, because I believe that Francis is the Pope, but I tend to ignore him. Fr. Chazal's position is not yours. He doesn't condemn anyone like you do.

You are, in reality, a dogmatic sedevacantist, who masquerades as a sort-of sedeprivationist.

No.  I believe that a Traditional Catholic who believes that a legitimate pope who is in possession of his authority and execising it freely can corrupt the Church's Magisterium, the Public Worship of the Church, and the cult of the saints to the degree that we see at Vatican II, that is in fact heresy and guts the very foundations of Catholicism.  It's more akin to Old Catholicism than to Catholicism.

It's not my problem that you don't understand basic distinctions.  I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist.  My personal opinion is that the See was not in fact vacant from 1958-1989, but was occupied by Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII ... and I'm not sure after that.  It's possible that Ratzinger was legitimately elected, but couldn't fully realize the protection of the Holy Spirit because he wasn't a bishop (due to invalid episcopal consecration), and therefore had no teaching authority.  Bergoglio labors under the same problem, but there's also a chance that his election was rendered null and void by the conspiracy to get him elected.  If you want to say that Paul VI was blackmailed but a legitimate pope, go for it, or even that he was locked away in a dungeon while his imposter double did all the damage, more power to you.

Father Chazal does not "identify as" a sedevacantist (and he's not), and I consider his opinion to be very solid (and not even remotely heretical).

But I urge you to abandon the heresy of attributing the destruction of the Church to legitimate papal authority that has been freely exercised (vs. under duress, such as blackmail).  Vatican I clearly condemned that supposition as heretical, that remaining faithful to the True Faith might justify and even require separation from communion with and submission to the Papal Magisterium.  Please wake up to how pernicious and heretical that supposition is.  This is an act of charity on my part to try snapping people out of these heretical notions lest they lose their faith entirely.

Father Ronald Ringrose, one of the founding/charter members of The Resistance has woken up to this truth ... and posted that same video from Archbishop Lefebvre that I posted above.  Father Chazal has articulated a theology regarding the Papacy that is perfectly Catholic.  I urge you to prayerfully consider accepting his position and abandoning this pernicious and heretical understanding of the Church that would render its Magisterium and Public Worship to be polluted with and corrupted by error that endangers souls.