In Issue 24, Fr. Chazal states the following:

"Yet again, allow me to repeat that the jurisdiction of a public heretic is illicit ipso facto....."

The jurisdiction of a public heretic is not only illicit ipso facto, but it is also invalid ipso facto.  A public heretic is not a member of the Church.  Heresy per se separates the public heretic from the Church.

And yet Fr. Chazal still refers to them as popes. Do you?

In Issue 24, Fr. Chazal states the following:

"Yet again, allow me to repeat that the jurisdiction of a public heretic is illicit ipso facto....."

The jurisdiction of a public heretic is not only illicit ipso facto, but it is also invalid ipso facto.  A public heretic is not a member of the Church.  Heresy per se separates the public heretic from the Church.

Actually, they're both wrong:

Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:

"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."

In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.

Actually, they're both wrong:

Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:

"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."

In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.

Sorry.  I did not distinguish between ordinary jurisdiction (habitual) and individual acts of jurisdiction.  If Fr. Chazal accepts Francis as pope, then I assume he includes his ordinary jurisdiction to be illicit but valid.

Canon 2264 speaks about "acts" (i.e. individual acts) of jurisdiction.  It cannot be speaking about ordinary jurisdiction because the canon deals with the excommunicated.

Actually, they're both wrong:

Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:

"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."

In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.

Apologies myself: I thought this comment was deleted, but it seems Matthew simply posted Fr. Chazal's comment in a different thread.

And yet Fr. Chazal still refers to them as popes. Do you?

That is why it is Fr. Chazal's theory of 'sedeimpoundism' is hardly any different from sedeprivationism. Perhaps from the practical aspects he still commemorates the conciliar popes in the liturgy, while the sedeprivationists do not.

Father also mentioned about some sparks in France. Is there some problem in France?

Heresy per se separates a public manifest formal heretic from the Church.  One separated from the Church has no ordinary jurisdiction.  I am assuming that Fr. Chazal holds that Francis has ordinary jurisdiction, but that his exercise of it is illicit.

What do you think "manifest" means?

Actually, they're both wrong:

Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.

...

In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.

DELETED -- ditto.