Fr. Francois Chazal is a priest who holds the recognize-and-resist position of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre: Recognize as valid the “Popes” since Vatican II while resisting anything they teach or legislate that appears to conflict with Church teaching or practice before Vatican II. At this point, Fr. Chazal is a part of the so-called “Marian Corps” or “Strict Observance” faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, which broke away from the “official” SSPX in response to Bp. Fellay’s conciliatory course with regard to the Vatican Modernists.
Unlike Sedevacantism, the recognize-and-resist position is extremely popular among traditionalists because it offers a best-of-both-worlds approach to the Vatican II Sect: You get to resist and refuse everything that is Modernist or otherwise objectionable, even to the point of having a de facto parallel church on the side; while at the same time you don’t have to deal with any of the pesky problems that arise from Sedevacantism. Plus, you get to retain anything from the Novus Ordo Church that you may need or desire in your personal life (validity of certain sacraments and annulments, certain canonized saints, permissibility to attend the “New Mass”, etc.).
The only problem with this rather convenient position is that it is not at all reconcilable with Catholic teaching on the Papacy, the Magisterium, and the Church, as we have demonstrated on this web sitetime and again, including in a direct response to Fr. Chazal a few years ago. This is ironic because it means that people like Fr. Chazal effectively believe that they can uphold and defend traditional Catholic teaching by denying the same — which makes about as much sense as trying to borrow one’s way out of debt.
Recently, Fr. Chazal came out with a lengthy monograph entitled Contra Cekadam, which is meant to rebut a number of arguments for Sedevacantism put forth by Fr. Anthony Cekada in his widely-circulated booklet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (2nd ed., 2006). The first part of Contra Cekadam has been published online in French here.
Responding to an inquiry by a third party, Fr. Cekada has provided a succinct rejoinder to Fr. Chazal, which we are happy to publish below. Readers interested in a more in-depth discussion of the topic are encouraged to check our topical page on Sedevacantism here.

by Fr. Anthony Cekada

5.    Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
6.   Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.

SOME canonists and theologians taught the points above. Certainly there are theologians who have taught the opposite. So in this sense, the two points above are not entirely truthful, because they leave out this important aspect. The Church does not have a definitive teaching on what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. We can try to go by what canonists and theologians have said, but they are not at all in agreement. 

While not a "fan", that is a distortion of a, somewhat tongue in cheek, reference to the statements of Abp. L that can be taken as being either Sedevacantist amenable or at least not dismissive of the position.

Hmmm, that's funny..
I thought Fr. Cekada claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist.

Not to be cheeky but, what's your point?

Maybe its a new video. I can't watch it. If Cekada is NOW  making such an unqualified claim that would be …"unusual" to say the least. The last time I checked, Cekada wasn't saying that save in the manner as I prev. stated to you. You should probably avoid his other more comical expressions like "cardboard pope" or "Frankenchurch" until you've made sure you aren't just being obtuse.

My point is that Cekada claimed Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, but now states that he was the one to adopt the "recognize-and-resist position". Therefore, Fr. Cekada is an obnoxious hypocrite.

It was posted more than a year ago.

Thanks. In that case, what's the point of polemic ping-pong? Take care.

Wessex,
I am not opposed to the Sede view; also not opposed to R&R.  You might call me a fence rider; I just say its not my job, nor do I have the authority, to solve the problems of V2.

However, if I was forced at gunpoint, I would choose R&R (but not the sspx version of R&R) simply because to do so is not disobedient, as you and many others repeatedly contend.  There is NOTHING - no error - which new Rome has commanded any trad to accept or commit, under pain of sin.  So, to disregard their novelties, to ignore their errors, to go right when they go left - this is not "disobedience"!  For they have issued no command for us to follow them!  This is called following Christ and avoiding the spirit of the world.  

Obviously, you disagree.  So here is my challenge- please tell me ONE error, or ONE heretical/sinful act that new Rome has commanded Catholics to accept/perform, under pain of sin.  

If you can, I'll leave R&R tomorrow.  If you cannot, then new Rome, and its popes, and V2, etc, etc can be logically recognized as occupiers of the govt seats of the church, while at the same time, recognized as heretics, for their personal loss of faith.  And until they COMMAND that we follow them into error, they can, and must be, ignored.  

Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for Rome to say, accept under PAIN OF SIN.  They do not believe in SIN.

The only sin they accept is sinning against your neighbor, PERIOD!  Which yes, that is a Truth, but they omit any wrong doing against God.  This is their idea of bringing peace to the world, "tolerance" except when it comes to Traditional Catholics.  

The cult of worship of man, is all they believe.  Speaking of Rome, not the R&R, although I do believe R&R are cowards, since they don't go all the way to defend the Papacy.  Pleasing man, friends, relatives over God.  

Entirely missing(?) the point anyway. "Fool me once..." though. False premise. Even when show, it would just be something else, as if you'd never answered at all. 

It is usually a case of "won't", not "can't". 

"Without the faith, it impossible to please God."

It's an excuse.