http://novusordowatch.org/2017/08/sedevacantism-cekada-answers-chazal/

“Strict Observance” faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X

...the pesky problems that arise from Sedevacantism.

..
Are these Cekada patent phrases?
..
Fr. Chazal never referred to himself or his associates as "Lefebvrist" nor "Strict Observance." Those are terms pandered by Traditio (sedevacantist website) and Fr. Cekada himself.
.
Pesky problems arise from sedevacantism:
..
Why doesn't he list the pesky problems?  By not identifying them he leaves them open for opponents to name them and so, they can call out whatever they want -- is that helpful for Cekada's agenda?
.

.
Traditio has locked in to describing Fr. Chazal and other break-away SSPX priests as having adopted the name "of the Strict Observance" but in fact, none of them have used this term. Never mind that, Traditio keeps using it anyway, as if by repetition it can create its own reality.
.
I asked, "Are these Cekada patent phrases?" referring to “Strict Observance” faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X. I've not heard or seen Fr. Chazal or any other priests of the Resistance referring to themselves as a "faction" or to the SSPX as "the Lefebvrist Society." It has the effect of hurling a criticism in their general direction. It is not a friendly or respectful attitude that sedevacantists project. And to that extent, it is not charitable. It only makes themselves look bad IMHO.
.
There was nothing in your opening post that mentioned your interest in discussion of Fr. C's numeric points. You only posted a link and you made no comment. We can't read your mind.
.

• 1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
• 2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
• 3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
• 4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
• 5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
• 6. Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
• 7. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
• 8. Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.