Circular argument.  You have to prove that he is the pope BEFORE you can claim his papacy is a dogmatic fact.  Why isn't the claim of Pope Michael of Kansas de fide?

As usual, the sede mind has it all backwards:
What the whole world holds to be true, the burden is on you to refute.

//Do Eastern Rites have priests who are married with children?
//

Often yes

Funny thing is...you already know that the sedevacantists have proven you false.  You simply reject Truth.

Wishful thinking:

Not one of you wanted to touch the JST quote (the legitimacy of the pope is de fide).

Nor did any of you attempt to refute the fact that Bellarmine was not among the authors writing major dissertations on heretical popes (but all 3 who did oppose him), but only commented upon what others had written.

Nor the Billuart quote, stating the more common opinion is that even a manifestly heretical pope maintains jurisdiction until his heresy is declared by the Church (with which Cajetan, Suarez, and JST -the only major authors to write dissertations on the subject- agree).

//Do Eastern Rites have priests who are married with children?
//

Often yes

Enough reason to avoid the Eastern Rite.

A priest is not a part-time job, or something you can do 8-hours a day and then punch out and return to your normal life.

It is your WHOLE life. To do it well, you need to be celibate (single), as the apostles were.

Refer to St. Paul's teachings on celibacy. He speaks of how divided married people are. And he's absolutely correct.

I think my opinion matters more than most, having been a tonsured cleric for a year, a seminarian for 3 1/3 years, and married for the past 16 years. But I also read many books on the priesthood, especially writings of the saints. So I got a real sense of the grave obligations and duties of the priest.

I'll give you just ONE hint: if even one lamb of your flock goes to hell, your own salvation is in jeopardy. How about signing up for THAT 40 hour a week job, layman? Along with keeping your wife happy, planning family vacations, guiding your teens through adolescence, being in charge of your whole household, including disciplining and educating your children, finances, maintenance, interfacing with the World/big-picture planning, etc.

And "pastor's son" or "pastor's daughter" is almost a meme in the Protestant world -- they always get in legal and/or moral trouble since the pressure is SO HIGH to be perfect. And probably because they are somewhat neglected by Mom and Dad trying to run a church.

Last but not least, I'm a dad of 9 children (so far). Each child needs a certain amount of one-on-one attention. I don't know who needs it more -- the sons or the daughters. If daughters don't get enough attention from Dad, they get Daddy Issues and end up pregnant out-of-wedlock at 15. And the sons need personal guidance from the father into manhood. See the life of St. John Bosco. It involves discipline, but also attention and love. Yes, I'm not mincing words here.

The priest, meanwhile, needs to be STUDYING, STUDYING the Faith constantly so he has stuff at the tip of his tongue (brain) during sermons, discussions with the Faithful, and Confessions. Otherwise his sermons will be little more than cheesy e-mail forwards. He needs to live and breathe the spiritual life, swimming in the supernatural as a fish swims in the ocean. So he needs to read Holy Scripture daily and read non-intellectual spiritual books as well: books on the Spiritual Life, lives of the saints, devotional books. He needs to make a daily meditation AT LEAST once a day, plus pray the Divine Office. And of course, daily Mass and Rosary, plus any other personal prayers. I just don't see how a busy father-of-a-family can reach this high bar.

They're two different, completely conflicting vocations.

Not one of you wanted to touch the JST quote (the legitimacy of the pope is de fide).

I was going to just respond with a laughing head, because it is so funny. But someone else pointed out how round this argument is. I am puzzled you make such a strange argument. You are a smart guy and have studied logic. Come on, Sean, think about this one a little harder, please.
.

Nor did any of you attempt to refute the fact that Bellarmine was not among the authors writing major dissertations on heretical popes (but all 3 who did oppose him), but only commented upon what others had written..

St. Robert Bellarmine was a Doctor of the Church and a saint. Neither of the three guys you are talking about are either of those things. And you really think St. Robert didn't write a dissertation on heretical popes? St. Robert wrote an entire book -- a rather long book -- called De Romano Pontifice. You've never heard of this?
.

Nor the Billuart quote, stating the more common opinion is that even a manifestly heretical pope maintains jurisdiction until his heresy is declared by the Church (with which Cajetan, Suarez, and JST -the only major authors to write dissertations on the subject- agree).

.
I guess if you define the people on your side to be the "only major authors" to write a dissertation on the question, you can win any argument, but it helps if you are not arguing against a Doctor of the Church.

Obviously, most priests are not doing it because many have used their time to rape and molest young seminarians, raped children or impregnate young women.....

“The priest, meanwhile, needs to be STUDYING, STUDYING the Faith constantly so he has stuff at the tip of his tongue (brain) during sermons, discussions with the Faithful, and Confessions. Otherwise his sermons will be little more than cheesy e-mail forwards. He needs to live and breathe the spiritual life, swimming in the supernatural as a fish swims in the ocean. So he needs to read Holy Scripture daily and read non-intellectual spiritual books as well: books on the Spiritual Life, lives of the saints, devotional books. He needs to make a daily meditation AT LEAST once a day, plus pray the Divine Office. And of course, daily Mass and Rosary, plus any other personal prayers. I just don't see how a busy father-of-a-family can reach this high bar.“”

And there are many who watch impure movies and read and look at gαy porn or worse. This is why the world is in chaos. 

Where are the shepherds to protect the flock from communism and the jab?  How many of them took the silver and even the jab?

Cursus Theologicus of John of St. Thomas

Tome 6.  Questions 1-7 on Faith.  Disputation 8.

~ Article 2 ~

When a pope has been legitimately elected, is it de fide, either per se primo or per se secundo, that this particular person—for instance, Innocent X—is the pope?

...

Efficient Cause

(Second Objection)

[Principal Argument/objection] We cannot know with the certainty of faith that these particular electors have a valid intention of electing, nor that they are true and legitimate cardinals, nor that they observed the form of ɛƖɛctıon required by law, such as the requirement that the pope be elected by a two-thirds majority of the cardinals, as well as the other conditions without which the ɛƖɛctıon is null.  The faith does not teach us whether these conditions were met; for, when the ɛƖɛctıon of the pope is first made public, there is no guarantee, no way by which the truths of the faith are made known to us, no revelation or tradition that could make the Church certain, when she accepts the man as pope, that all the conditions were met that are required for a valid ɛƖɛctıon; but she relies on the trustworthiness of the electors themselves who are promulgating the ɛƖɛctıon; therefore, the Church never attains to the certitude of faith regarding the man chosen, that he was legitimately elected.  (…)

This is because it is not necessary, whenever something of itself pertains to the faith, that all the propositions having a necessary connection with that truth of faith should also be de fide; on the contrary, this is precisely what a theological conclusion is; for theological conclusions are concerned with whatever things have a necessary connection, or logical implication, with de fide truths.  For example, from the truth of faith, “Christ is a man,” proceeds the theological conclusion, “Christ is capable of laughter,” because the capacity to laugh is necessarily connected to being a man.  

Likewise, because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand.  Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is pope.  The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the ɛƖɛctıon, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately. (…)

The Church accepts the ɛƖɛctıon and the elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends upon her union with him.

To the objection that there must be someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the ɛƖɛctıon and the one elected are proposed by the cardinals, not in their own person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who committed to them the power of electing the pope and of declaring him to have been elected. Wherefore they, in this respect and for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the cardinals, or whoever else are electors legitimately designated by the Church (that is, by the pope), represent the Church in all that concerns the ɛƖɛctıon of her head, the successor of Peter.  Just as the pope gathers the bishops together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of cardinals elects the pope, and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme pontiff.  Wherefore, if the cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their ɛƖɛctıon, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session.  Hence, the proposition is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the pope himself defines anything.  It is not any acceptance at all of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.

Reply to another objection.  It was argued above, that none of the conditions necessary for the ɛƖɛctıon are externally visible, but that everything takes place in the company of the electors, on whose testimony the Church accepts the pope.  To this I reply that it is not necessary that all those conditions, and the ɛƖɛctıon itself, and the intention of the electors be visible, but only that it be possible for a moral certainty to be had of their [the conditions] accomplishment.  This moral certainty comes of seeing the electors gathered together for the act of electing, and peacefully proposing the man who has been elected, and declaring him such.  As long as no reasonable doubt presents itself, this [i.e., the peaceful ɛƖɛctıon] already suffices for the Church universally to accept him, and, by this acceptance, to render the truth de fide.  

[Note: the “peaceful” aspect of the P&UA, refers to the ɛƖɛctıon; the “universal acceptance” refers to the Church’s acceptance of the man as Pope; the former can render the latter unnecessary for the proposition to be de fide; the latter can supply for a defect in the former].

For it is not necessary, in order for something to be de fide, that all the conditions prerequisite to it be visible.  It suffices initially to have a moral certitude of these conditions, which afterwards acquire the certitude of a theological conclusion. (…) prior to the ɛƖɛctıon, we can have only a moral certitude that all the conditions strictly necessary for a legitimate ɛƖɛctıon are being met.  Once the ɛƖɛctıon is accepted, however, it becomes a theological conclusion that all the conditionswere met, since they have a necessary connection with, and are of their very nature prerequisite to, this truth of faith. (…) Hence, it is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost. [This was echoed by what Cardinal Billot wrote[3]]

Even if the doctrine of John of St. Thomas is someday defined by the magisterium, (note: since it's a doctrine of a theologian and not the magisterium, faithful Catholics can yet disagree with it and remain Catholic (this does not convict Sedevacantists)). It pertains to the actual election being valid and not the resignation being valid. Had Pope Benedict's resignation been valid, Francis's election would have been valid, according to this docuмent. 
If John of St. Thomas is correct, was he not trumped by Pope Paul IV who was dealing with invalid elections of publicly manifest heretics and schismatics? Those who dismiss that as not the magisterium have a lot of explaining to do. Since the magisterium already deals with the question of some of those who cannot be validly elected, how can John of St. Thomas define something contrary? 
As far as intention, if it's not stated publicly ahead of time they did not intend to do what the Church does,  it's valid even if privately they did not intend it to be. Otherwise, no Eucharistic miracle could occur when a priest privately doubts the dogma of Transubstantiation.
 
Where John of St. Thomas has some merit, is, if no cardinals are pointing out the rules of the election have been discarded, but remain silent as someone is presented as newly elected, then you can have a valid pope with a privately invalid election process. 

A priest is not a part-time job, or something you can do 8-hours a day and then punch out and return to your normal life.

It is your WHOLE life. To do it well, you need to be celibate (single), as the apostles were.

Agree with the entire post.
As to those who claim that we have lots of part-time priests right now, there is a difference between having to spend time in transit and in many different parishes and having a divided heart.  A vocation, whether to a religious or a married state, is singularly vowed and total.  It's where your heart is.
And just because there are priests as and more sinful than many laymen in watching porn, etc., merely means they have failed miserably as individuals in living out their consecration.  There are also many negligent spouses and parents out there, including within Catholic unions; that does not somehow mean that the matrimonial state as a whole has been debased.  It means that individuals have debased it, and it will be one of the principal matters in their Particular Judgments.