I think his point is that "totalism" leads to those 6 possibilities.  He has since modified his position somewhat and is now claiming that "totalism" leads inescapably to conclavism.  It is unclear whether or not he thinks it leads inescapably to any of the other possibilities (or maybe all of them?). 

Thanks for this summary of one of my previous posts. To clarify, I think that the object of non-apocalyptic Totalism is to eventually conduct a conclave to the end of electing a valid Pope. In so far as the object is untenable due to extraneous circuмstances, it leads to the other conclusions I mentioned.

I would argue that the lack of a pope formaliter, regardless of whether you hold the C thesis or you hold the totalist view, or even if you are R&R or Conciliar during an interregnum, leads to at least the desire of an election of a Catholic pope.  I don't think there is any more to it than that.  Think about how many totalists are out there now, and for how many years, and you can count the number of attempted elections on one hand.  For the vast majority of totalists, the desire for an election never goes beyond the expression of hope for a Catholic pope.  Not much different from the Guerardians.  I think you are groping for some distinction that isn't there.  You want everyone to be a Guerardian and you want to find some compelling reason to embrace the thesis.  But the reality is that whether one is a totalist or Guerardian, one tends to go to the nearest non-una-cuм chapel and let the part-time theologians argue about the details of how to explain the crisis.  It's an interesting debate but it is quite a reach to try to identify moral deficiencies of a position before explaining why it is contrary to Catholic doctrine.  And if you can't explain how a position is contrary to Catholic doctrine, then it is rash to claim it leads to moral and spiritual problems.

You said that you didn't think cuм Ex Apostolatus was divine law.  I think that means you don't think any part of it whatsoever was based on divine law.  You think it is entirely disciplinary.  And that much of it was later abrogated.  Yes, it's true, some parts of it were later abrogated by later popes.  But the theological basis for Pope Paul IV's bull was the Church's doctrine concerning ecclesiology which consists of divinely revealed truths along with logical conclusions derived from those divinely revealed truths.  It's an authoritative docuмent which ought not to be ignored.  And it is devastating to the C thesis.  Basically, it declares authoritatively that it is impossible for a manifest heretic to be legitimately elected to the papacy.  And it specifically rules out universal peaceful acceptance of such a man.  If it can be proved that a man was a heretic prior to election, even if it was not manifest at the time, that election is null and void.  There is not even a material designation.  Nothing.

Pragmatism is the most important factor in our daily spiritual lives; I don’t disagree with you on this point.

However, please allow me to address your other statements and concerns.

1. I don’t desire that all Roman Catholics believe in the Cassiciacuм Thesis. It is, however, objectively the best explanation we have available for the crisis and, by far, the most prudential approach to the question of a future Pope. It is not a novelty; it’s based off of solid doctrinal and theological foundations especially as later articulated by those who have developed Msgr. Des Lauriers’ initial works.

2. The distinction may not be readily apparent in groups such as the CMRI as opposed to the RCI or the other independent organizations which operate on the same principles in practice, but the differences between Totalism and the Thesis are nonetheless significant. Allow me to explain by way of a hypothetical scenario. If Francis were to convert to the Catholic Faith tomorrow, excommunicate all modernists and heretics, become conditionally reordained & consecrated, and apply Roman Catholicism properly, the Totalists, per their principles, would still not consider him a valid Pope. This is a major distinction from the Guerardians and a situation which may very well happen in the future; if not with Francis then with his successor.

3. Even if cuм Ex Apostolatus had a divine element in its decrees; it is not incompatible with the Thesis. Bishop Sanborn has repeatedly addressed this concern in the articles I posted in my first post on this thread. However, most Canonists, as well as theologians, have made distinctions which are more in line with the Thesis than Totalism in the application of this Bull in the context of Pius X and XII’s canonical reforms.

The most likely point of contention wouldn't be the means by which a man came to claim the Roman See but rather it would likely be a doctrinal issue.  There are numerous doctrinal controversies among traditionalists (e.g. BOD, EENS, NFP, etc).  What if Bergoglio rejected BOD and affirmed a strict EENS and fulfilled all your other requirements for possession of the Roman See formaliter; would you accept his claim?  There would definitely be many traditionalists who would not, especially among the Guerardians.  And I don't doubt that the SSPX might finally become sedevacantists if Bergoglio rejected BOD.

I wholeheartedly agree. I mentioned this issue in a previous comment to another post on this thread.

This is likely going to be the most problematic matter which needs to be addressed even after the initial crisis is resolved.

Here's another scenario: Bergoglio converts to traditional Catholicism and gets validly ordained/consecrated but rejects BOD and affirms strict EENS.  Meanwhile, Vigano converts to totalism, gets validly ordained/consecrated, affirms BOD and rejects strict EENS and then gets elected by Burke and a couple of other conservative Novus Ordo cardinals/bishops in a non-canonical election.  How likely do you think the USA Guerardians will stick to their guns and accept Bergoglio's claim over Vigano's?  My guess is that almost every traditionalist of whatever stripe will throw out their theses and go running into the arms of Pope Vigano.

This hypothetical scenario illustrates a fundamental problem which, I think, you touched upon earlier in your responses to Laszlo regarding the interpretation of St. Paul’s anathema to those who teach another gospel.

It’s an epistemological question which is often overlooked in these discussions. I’m glad you brought this up.

Are individuals capable of objectively obtaining certainty and apprehending facts on matters of religious questions without the need of authority as an intermediary?

If yes then the magisterium serves more of a function akin to defensive legislative and interpretive powers to protect what is already known by all who are competent, as Vatican I seems to suggest: “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

If no then we are in a precarious situation in which we’ve rejected the very authority that gives credence to the fundamental principles which underlie our Faith and subsequent beliefs.

The former still poses a major problem though. How is it that we can affirm for the individual the power to discern and conclude matters related to doctrine and authority because we believe in an objective truth yet be at odds with one another using the same principles and resources?

Stated another way, how can you and I look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions while simultaneously affirming an objective reality that transcends the individual’s perceptions? This is the case even when the two parties are roughly equally learned and intelligent.

EENS, NFP, Sedevacantism, R&R, etc. are all examples of this complex phenomenon.

You mentioned something very interesting as well regarding Sedeprivationism. Whereas the Totalist “deposes” the prelate, the Guerardian “de-formalizes” him by his own conclusions and conscience. The R&R simply “resists” the prelate when not in agreement with his own understanding of the belief in question. In turn, it returns to the individual even in cases where what’s being interpreted is settled magisterial content by prior legitimate authority.

Its a major philosophical conundrum that needs to be addressed before we delve into these issues.

Personally, I think if you fell into rank heresy, you are disqualified from ecclesiastical offices for life.  That's not something that's divinely revealed but it is practical.  How are you ever going to believe the sincerity of Bergoglio's conversion?  Just because he claims to be converted, doesn't mean he truly is converted.  How does he prove it?  It takes more than a few months or years to earn back the level of trust required in an ordinary.  Would his claim be truly accepted if everyone was harboring serious reservations about his true intentions?  On the other hand, if he rejected BOD and affirmed strict EENS, that would be something near to the level of miraculous.  So there's that too.  If his claim is confirmed by some sign from Heaven and there is absolutely no evidence of insincerity on his part, then how do you reject his claim?

Thankfully Catholic principles operate on the external forum in so far as this topic is concerned.

If there were a Holy Pope that was accepted by all as legitimate, and then he taught that BoD must be believed by Catholics, then I would believe in it.  Period.  We can't play this game of "if I disagree with something he teaches, then I simply declare him a heretic non-pope and cling to my belief anyways".  That kind of mentality is in fact an insight into the problem with Totalism.  There's nothing, no principle, to establish a priori the legitimacy of a pope.  Lots of Catholics before VI did not agree with papal infallibility (including some Irish catechisms that rejected the notion).  But when the Church defined it, they (the Catholics) changed their mind and accepted it with the certainty of faith ... wheres the Old Catholics left the Church for schism and heresy.

While R&R has the problem of Magisterium-Sifting that it permits in principle, Totalism labors under the problem of Pope-Sifting.

When the Holy Pope has been raised up by God, there will no longer be any doubt, as the entire world will recognize and accept him.  There won't be this Bergoglio vs. Vigano scenario or anything like it.  Bergolgio has only a few years left in him.  If Bergolgio were to convert, why would these other Cardinals elect Vigano?

It's just a scenario that I dreamed up.  They would elect Vigano against Bergoglio's claim precisely because Bergoglio is rejecting BOD.

I hope I haven't derailed this discussion.  What if there were a "Holy Pope" that was accepted by all as legitimate, and then he taught that Jєωs and Muslims can be saved without converting to the Catholic Faith?  Would you believe in it?  You know all too well that there are a lot of traditionalists who will look you in the face, tell you they believe in EENS, and then tell you that Jєωs and Muslims can be saved without first converting to the Catholic Faith.  So I guess it will all depend on what you mean by a "Holy Pope" and what you mean by "accepted by all as legitimate".

I think the bottom line is the Holy Pope God gives us will be obvious to all.  This comes first.  With God it will be clear.