I've already explained this. S&S hold that the Pope retains full papal authority, except for a very limited set of things, arbitrarily chosen, like whether he can dissolve a General Council or excommunicate his adversaries.
Father Chazal says that he is impounded completely and lacks the ability to exercise any authority whatsoever. Father Chazal's position makes 100x more sense. Father Chazal has asserted that these heretical V2 popes (and he states that they are obviously manifest heretics) are already vitandus.
All these things are there in his famous lengthy video exposition.
So Father Chazal concedes that these men are manifest heretics, states that they are already vitandi, and therefore that they lack authority altogether. That's completely different than what S&S claim.
Where does Fr. Chazal say that the Popes are manifest heretics, and that they lack authority altogether? He has said that Francis is a heretic, but we all agree with that.
I have a copy of Fr. Chazal's book, "Contra Cekadam," and I can't find where he says what you said he said. He doesn't even say it in his section on sedeprivationism, but he only writes about the problem of sedeprivationism and cuм Ex. Nothing about authority or jurisdiction that I can find.
What Fr. Chazal does do is to support Cajetan, which of course you may have no interest in reading about, but I'll provide it for those on the thread who might be interested in what Fr. Chazal has to say about Cajetan. We can see that he reiterates what John of St. Thomas has written concerning the views of Cajetan.
-------
Fr. Chazal writes, on page 12, in the Chapter called, "Part One, Doctors, Theologians":
"Therefore the famed Cardinal Cajetan, and great commentator of St. Thomas is set, and at great length, against sedevacantism, in his book, de Comparatione:
The Pope can be deposed legitimately, because, granted that power to depose a Pope resides in the council apart from the pope, it must be able to assemble its scattered members, in order to depose him; otherwise, while a Pope who must be deposed refused to summon a council, he could not be deposed. p. 66
"Three things have been established with certainty, namely 1) that the pope, because he has become a heretic, is not deposed ipso facto, by human or divine law; 2) that the pope has no superior on earth; and 3) that if he deviates from the Faith he must be deposed as in Canon Si Papa [D.40c.6]. Great uncertainty remains concerning how and by whom the Pope ought to be deposed will be judged to be deposed, for a judge, as such, is superior to one who is judged.
"In case of heresy, the connection between the Papacy and that particular person is subject to the decision of the Church and the universal council, so that the heretical pope can be deposed." p.94
It is hard to believe that Cajetan knew nothing of the injudicability or immunity of the pope (St. Augustine, Zozymus, St. Gelasius, St. Leo, Gratian, Innocent lll, Florence, V Lateran).
"...but the Pope is liable to the penalty of deposition on account of the crimes of heresy, as the doctors generally say, influenced by the Canon 'Si Papa' (dist.40, ch.6). p.102
"A heretic Pope should not be deposed before the admonition: for he is not excommunicated on account of heresy, but should be excommunicated by being deposed. Therefore the Apostles command concerning the double admonition, which need not be observed in the case of others, who are inferiors, on account of the addition of excommunication latae sententiae, which the Church imposes on heretics, should be observed to the letter with him"
Cajetan makes it abundantly clear that it is precisely because he is the pope, that he cannot lose office before the Church warns him, that the highest category of people who must be warned publicly by the Church for heresy, are popes. The expression, "should be excommunicated by being deposed" concurs with Bellarmine, and the fact of the injudicability or immunity of the Papal See."
------
Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 46958 times)