Again, you keep giving the impression that you're speaking for the Resistance. From what is publicly known, Father Chazal holds the view that everything from Bergoglio is invalid (or, rather, he would say illicit ... though I don't quite buy that distinction outside the Sacraments), whereas classic R&R tended to hold that the teaching and commands of the Conciliar popes were legitimate UNLESS they contradicted Tradition. Other than Father Chazal, I've not see anything from the others weighing in on this issue. Also, as I've pointed out, both +Williamson and Avrille have stated that sedevacantism is understandable, and Bishop Williamson that it's possible Jorge isn't the pope ... so your assertion that the Resistance view sedevacantism as a "danger to souls" doesn't appear to hold any water.
As I said, I have no problem whatsoever, and no problem is posed for the indefectibility of the Church, from the sedeimpoundist position. Nor is there any problem for the indefectibility of the Church in how Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his position. What I have a problem with is some Modern R&R that have no issues with imputing corruption to the Magisterium and to the Universal Discipline of the Church and sliding into an Old Catholic mentality of sifting (what they hold to be) Magisterium against Tradition, which is precisely the role of said living Magisterium to determine compatibility (or lack thereof) of current ideas with Tradition and prior Magisterium.
Lad, the bolded section above is the key point that I was making in another thread. Look at 1917 Canon 2266:
Canon 2266
§1. Anyone excommunicated:
1. Is prohibited from the right of electing, presenting, or appointing;
2. Cannot obtain dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or other duties in the Church;
3. Cannot be promoted to orders.
§ 2. An act posited contrary to the prescription of § 1, nn. 1 and 2, however, is not null, unless it was posited by a banned excommunicate or by another excommunicate after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence; but if this sentence has been given, the one excommunicated cannot validly pursue any pontifical favor, unless in the pontifical rescript mention is made of the excommunication
The Canon is making the distinction between "acts" of an excommunicate. For a merely
ipso facto excommunicate, his acts are illicit/illegitimate, as discussed in Canon 2264 here:
Canon 2264
One excommunicated is removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts within his limits and in the places defined by law; nor can he act in ecclesiastical cases, except according to the norm of Canon 1654; he is prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices or responsibilities, and from enjoying earlier concessions and privileges from the Church.
But a "banned excommunicate" as mentioned in Canon 2266.2 is different. His are "null," meaning invalid. This is because an excommunicate who has refused to repent after two warnings cannot revive to the previous office that he held. But an
ipso facto excommunicate can revive to being a legitimate office holder if he repents. If he does repent, then his illegitimate acts made during the period of suspension, would at that point become valid.
So I believe that Fr. Chazal's sede-impoundist position precisely reflects what is required in those Canons.
Topic: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans (Read 3624 times)