So I'm still not clear on what Fr Chazal's position is.  It seems that further clarifications don't actually clarify.  

PS.  Could we try not to use "SP" as an abbreviation in these discussions?  That could stand for sedeplenist or sedeprivationist and as a result only add to the confusion.

Hint - I am the tall dark handsome one. Remember me now?

What was your previous username? Were you banned?

Father Chazal does raise some interesting points with regard to jurisdiction.

Can a Pope who has lost teaching authority still excercize jurisdiction (albeit illicitly)?

Key to sedeprivationism is this notion that a material pope can in fact appoint Cardinals, who can in turn elect another Pope (who could be a full formal pope at that time ... if he doesn't have the impediment to be the Pope).  So at the very least the power of designation must remain.  And that is a key aspect of jurisdiction.

So, just as these Cardinals appointed by a material Pope can elect a Pope who's a full formal+material Pope, so I hold that a material pope can appoint bishops, who, if they do not have any impediments to the formal exercise of office, can formally exercise the prerogatives of their office.  With this the whole "ecclesiavacantist" problem of the straight sedevacantists evaporates.  Jurisdiction continues in the Church.  This is important, nay, crucial, as straight sedevacantism holds that (non-supplied) jurisdiction has ceased in the Church.

First of all, "straight sedevacantists" don't all agree on every point of the theology.  You have John Lane and many like-minded SVs who say that there must be at least one ordinary somewhere in the world.  Go ahead and try to prove him wrong on that one.  That pretty much makes the "ecclesiavacantist" problem evaporate, don't you think?  Of course there are SVs who do posit that all the sees are vacant.  Fr. Cekada famously made that claim on Ignis Ardens in 2012 in a discussion in which John Lane accused him of being a "doctrinal criminal" (essentially accusing him of being a heretic).  But I challenge you to find any pre-Vatican II theologian who makes a claim, express or implied, that it is not possible for all the sees to be vacant.  In fact you will find that Fr Fenton speculated about the possible destruction of all the sees except the Roman See which he held to be indefectible based on Church Fathers and eminent theologians.  Fr. Van Noort also speculated about the destruction of the whole world by a nuclear disaster but still held that the Roman See would have to be spared if not materially at least spiritually in the diaspora of the Bishop of Rome and his flock.  Cardinal Journet speculated about the complete destruction of the College of Cardinals.  Fr. E. Sylvester Berry speculated about apocalyptic scenarios as well.  And Novus Ordo Watch found a great quote from Fr. O'Reilly warning Catholics not to try to put unwarranted limits on God's plan for the Church. But now when we are living in the midst of these speculations come true, suddenly we are ecclesiavacantist heretics for agreeing with pre-Vatican II theologians.  I'm not buying it!
If we reduce the Church just to the Roman See, we see that it is possible for the Pope to be the lone ordinary in the world.  And we see that his death would not cause the Church to defect.  The Roman clergy would simply need to elect the next pope.  Obviously there would have to be at least one living bishop but he would not need to be an ordinary.  When the pope is elected, he receives universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church directly from Our Lord Jesus Christ.  No other ecclesiastical office has that attribute attached to it.  So the resolution of this crisis should be crystal clear.  The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church must elect a CATHOLIC pope.  How we get there is open to debate but let's not accuse each other of being heretics while we work out the details.  Charity covers a multitude of sins.

I am surprised at the amount of useless chatter and the nonsense you (and many others) keep coming up with.

The status of the Pope has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of our soul.

1. Bergoglio was elected as pope and was universally accepted by the Church as the pope. That makes him the pope as far as I am concerned.

2. He is obviously speaking and acting like a bad or even heretical pope, which tells me I must avoid him.

3. All else is for God to sort out. He does not expect the impossible from us, and so neither does He expect us to solve this crisis, only to survive it by keeping the Faith.

You do NOT please Him by putting labels on everyone around you. It only leads to more divisions and dissensions, and God hates "sowers of dissensions". (Galatians, chapter 5)

From the Imitation of Christ, by St. Thomas a Kempis:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

Save your breath, Samuel:  These people want to see what they want to see, and nothing else.

Elsewhere, I mentioned an email response I received from Fr. Chazal explicitly denying he was a sedeprivationist, mentioning that his forthcoming book explicitly refutes that position in Chapter 2, and which mentioned that those who were pretending he was a sedeprivationist were dreamers.

The response?

Well, somehow it did not settle the matter as it ought to have.

Let these tormented souls contemplate their navels for hundreds of thread pages, and spend your considerable talents where someone might profit by them (which is certainly not in any thread having anything to do with sedevacantism or flatheadism on CI).

I am surprised at the amount of useless chatter and the nonsense you (and many others) keep coming up with.

The status of the Pope has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of our soul.

1. Bergoglio was elected as pope and was universally accepted by the Church as the pope. That makes him the pope as far as I am concerned.

2. He is obviously speaking and acting like a bad or even heretical pope, which tells me I must avoid him.

3. All else is for God to sort out. He does not expect the impossible from us, and so neither does He expect us to solve this crisis, only to survive it by keeping the Faith.

You do NOT please Him by putting labels on everyone around you. It only leads to more divisions and dissensions, and God hates "sowers of dissensions". (Galatians, chapter 5)

From the Imitation of Christ, by St. Thomas a Kempis:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

Exactly. The problem is sedevacantists and sedeprivationists want to have a cookie-cutter answer to resolve the Crisis. The organizational structure of the Church is undermined and even among themselves there is countless arguing.