CathInfo.com

Sounds a lot like what a bit later was codified as Can. 2264, eh (you know, like what I said way back on p. 1)?

This quote deals with the jurisdiction necessary for valid administration of the Sacraments, which the Church regularly grants to non-Catholics ... not with ordinary or habitual jurisdiction.  So, for instance, the Church grants Orthodox priests ad hoc (I forget the Canon Law term at the moment) jurisdiction to validly administer the Sacrament of Confession to a dying Catholic, and at one point St. Pius X permitted Catholics living in Orthodox territories to receive the Sacraments for the Orthodox, thus again providing the necessary ad hoc (vs. habitual jurisdiction), granted only for the specific purpose of validly absolving the penitent.  Similarly, Bergoglio (assuming he were capable of it) granted the SSPX jurisdiction to validly absolve penitents.

Thus, for instance, if Bergoglio were a valid priest, even if he's a manifest heretic, he would be able to validly absolve penitents.

Did you miss this part?  Or did you just ignore it because it undermines your argument?

[The Church] allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments

This passage clearly indicates that it's a case of the Church ALLOWING jurisdiction only for the purpose of valid administration of the Sacraments that require jurisdiction for the good of the faithful.

This quote deals with the jurisdiction necessary for valid administration of the Sacraments, which the Church regularly grants to non-Catholics ... not with ordinary or habitual jurisdiction.  So, for instance, the Church grants Orthodox priests ad hoc (I forget the Canon Law term at the moment) jurisdiction to validly administer the Sacrament of Confession to a dying Catholic, and at one point St. Pius X permitted Catholics living in Orthodox territories to receive the Sacraments for the Orthodox, thus again providing the necessary ad hoc (vs. habitual jurisdiction), granted only for the specific purpose of validly absolving the penitent.  Similarly, Bergoglio (assuming he were capable of it) granted the SSPX jurisdiction to validly absolve penitents.

Thus, for instance, if Bergoglio were a valid priest, even if he's a manifest heretic, he would be able to validly absolve penitents.

Did you miss this part?  Or did you just ignore it because it undermines your argument?
This passage clearly indicates that it's a case of the Church ALLOWING jurisdiction only for the purpose of valid administration of the Sacraments that require jurisdiction for the good of the faithful.

I prefer to believe the quote means exactly what it says it means (ie., exactly what LaRosa and other sedes deny):

That unless a declaratory or condemnatory declaration is made, the heretic retains his jurisdiction, and consequently the faithful may licitly and validly approach them.

This is precisely what Fr. Chazal denies, and what LaRosa/Kramer (now that they are sedes) oppose, each a bit differently:

Chazal: The pope retains jurisdiction, but because he is a heretic, it is not licit to use it (error).

LaRosa/Kramer: The pope has no jurisdiction at all, because his heresy has placed himself outside the Church (error).

Martin V/Billuart and most other classical theologians: Even an heretical pope retains his jurisdiction unless a declaratory….

Exactly.  A public manifest formal heretic does not have ordinary (habitual) jurisdiction.  I made that distinction (after not making it) to Mr. Johnson in a previous post.

False.

Billuart:

"Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."

If Christ is CONTINUING to give the jurisdiction He has already been giving (i.e., ordinary), then what is discussed is clearly ordinary jurisdiction.

It is only after the heretic is declared that his jurisdiction becomes illicit (though still valid via ecclesia supplet), which is the whole argument of the Billuart/Martin V quote.