And perhaps he has already hinted at his response --
I respect that ... a LOT.
Let's try and take a look at this from the perspective of the historic Catholic religion and history. What we would find might be described something like this: A Jesuit by any other name is still a Jesuit
. In historic Catholic terms, the Neo-Trotskyist Pope Francis is not a Jesuit at all, but Fr. Chazal could qualify as one just fine. The same diplomatic emphasis, with an opportunism that irritates many but that is nevertheless within the legitimate parameters of normal historic Catholicism. Fr. Chazal is opportunistic and lacks the consistency proper to the more principled side of Catholicism (typified by the Benedictines and Franciscans, among many others). But diplomacy is inherently like that and for Catholic clergy who adopt a diplomatic approach opportuneness that does not violate any Catholic principles is licit and allowed.
So let's not look to Fr. Chazal, or Bishop Williamson and his three episcopal confreres, for very much consistency in some of the details of their rhetoric. They aim to be successful diplomats for Christ, and in their own terms they are doing quite well. Fr. Chazal is very like a French Jesuit is ever there has been such a thing.
Allow this relatively more principled, and therefore much less diplomatic, Franciscan to agree with Ladislaus and also say about Fr. Chazal and his cleverly convoluted Jesuitical logic:
"I respect that ... a LOT."
It seems that a sede-privationism that calls itself sede-plenism is going to have quite a bright future going forward. These are the small beginnings of a great avalanche already rumbling down straight towards Rome.