CathInfo.com

I just spent a little time to go through and read the threads on Vigano. Very interesting. I was hoping for something like this. His rejection of the papacy of Francis and his doubtful Wojtylan consecration while working with Bishop Williamson really give a great element to his consecration sub conditione. I see this as great news for Tradition. I can’t wait to see the news as it unfolds. He’s basically Sedevacantist declared openly. Where will this lead? To a new Sedevacantist seminary with a Williamson lineage?

Archbishop Vigano is not a Sedevacantist.  He admitted that himself.

Similarly, people still try to classify Father Chazal as R&R, but he's really not.  Classic R&R holds that (in this present case) Bergoglio does have papal authority and that we're required to obey him unless in a specific case obeying him violates our conscience.  Father Chazal does not hold this, but that Bergoglio categorically lacks all authority and is to be "ignored" and is impounded, where the only thing lacking is a formal removal from office by the rightful authorities.

My understanding of Fr. Chazal's position is that he accepts Jorge Bergoglio as a valid pope with all the papal powers.  However, the exercise of those powers is illicit.  His validity as pope will cease only once he is removed by the competent Church authorities. 

Just more word-slicing in an attempt to differentiate himself from the sedeprivationists, but the notion of an illicit jurisdiction which no one may make use of ... UNLESS they're unaware of his heresies ... is a rather strange bird that resulted from his game of Twister in an attempt to distinguish his position from sedeprivationism.  So the jurisdiction is licit quoad nos if we don't think he's a manfest heretic?  Since when has jurisdiction been a function of whether what we believe or think to be the case.

Father also ends up mis-applying the distinction between validity and liceity, as if we're speaking of the Sacraments here.  There's no such distinction where it comes to authority or jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the core of his thesis is that Bergoglio categorically has no authority due to his manifest heresy and is to be completely ignored.  As I said, this is different from classic R&R, which holds that he does have authority but we may disobey it when we believe that it contradicts our faith.  In summary, the difference is between a categorical loss of authority vs. a case-by-case disobedience to his authority.

This answer to Dr. Chojnowski looks like a very desperate attempt to distinguish himself from the "sede", and it results in some strange gymnastics.  He retorts again by playing a strawman about the "5 Opinions" where he falsely attributes a dogmatic adherence to the Bellarmine opinion to sedeprivationists.  Like Father Chazal himself, the sedeprivationists hold a position that's somewhat of a hybrid between the Bellarmine vs. the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas positions.  He does NOT hold the Cajetan position.  I personally hold that the principles of sedeprivationism are already quite clearly there in Bellarmine, but that's a separate issue.