But let’s not pretend the R&R position is irrational or untenable, when theologians as great as those mentioned above held the same position.

Let's not pretend it is merely a question of one man's heresy.  The Immaculate Spouse of Christ has been replaced by the Whore of Babylon, yet you want us to say they both occupy the same space and share the same visible head.

None of the theologians you mentioned was even beginning to theorize about a situation like the one we have faced these last several decades.

No.  It's you who doesn't "get it".  There's a difference between a "bad pope" and a "heretic pope". 

I'm pretty sure that this is an ongoing question or issue, and has been for quite some time. It's not new. Francis had heretical predecessors too.

Sedevacantists hardy ever bring up the actual heresy that the popes are guilty of - which is Modernism. I don't understand why they don't cite the actual cause of heresy, since the heresy has been around for over 100 years. Pope St. Pius X warned about it in his time, over a hundred years ago. 

John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, Suarez, Billot, Billuart, Torquemada, Vittoria, and many other fine theologians opined that a heretic remains pope until such time as the Church declares God has deposed him.

Against these, the sedevacantists hold to a contested interpretation of St. Bellarmine.

Fine and well.

But let’s not pretend the R&R position is irrational or untenable, when theologians as great as those mentioned above held the same position.

You are correct. But I would like to point out that the sede interpretation of Bellarmine is actually incorrect. Bellarmine argues R&R - He said a heretical pope should be "resisted" and "who will depose him since he is a sovereign?" and "an ecuмenical council cannot even do it". If you don't believe me, then go read the pertinent chapters of "On the Roman Pontiff"

Yet here we have laymen who will depose him, and uncharitably attack those who actually hold the position of the Saint they claim as their own. Others take it even further and make it a new dogma that you must hold and even change the canon of the Mass. How isn't that the slyest manifestation of Modernism in existence?

All this over what? As has already been pointed out ad nauseam - there isn't a practical difference between the R&R and sede approaches to the crisis. R&R already knows that Rome has lost the Faith. They already operate outside the Conciliar Church. Maybe the sedes should go bark at the local Novus Ordo church, or FSSP if they want to evangelize. But I have a feeling evangelization isn't what this is really about...

The latest from Antipope Frankie:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/02/02/pope-francis-audience-communion-saints-242321

Wow.  I don't know what this guy believes, but he clearly doesn't have the Catholic faith.

All this over what? As has already been pointed out ad nauseam - there isn't a practical difference between the R&R and sede approaches to the crisis. R&R already knows that Rome has lost the Faith. They already operate outside the Conciliar Church. Maybe the sedes should go bark at the local Novus Ordo church, or FSSP if they want to evangelize. But I have a feeling evangelization isn't what this is really about...

It's about intellectual pride; about being right more than anything. And this isn't just found on one side either, it's present on both. Which is why we can't agree to disagree until the restored Church settles the matter.

And I hold to a sede vacante position myself, mind you (more or less closer to Cassiciacuм or Fr. Chazal's position).

Francis fits the definition of an anti-pope.  He's technically still vying for the Seat, since Benedict claims to still hold partial office.

The precedence is Antacletus II, anti-pope of 1130.    So you can say he's the "Pope"... and pray for him.  Mother Mary described him as "worm ridden".

St. Francis of Assisi described him as a "non canonically elected destroyer". 

He will go down in history with the name of "Pope" and with the prefix, "anti" for eternity.

Agreed. The bolded part is the reason that Cardinal Bergoglio is not and has never been the authentic Pope.

1. Benedict's "resignation" was not valid according to Canon Law, so whether Benedict intended it or not, he is still the Pope in the eyes of God and by Church law.

2. A new Pope cannot be elected until the See is vacated. So the March 2013 Conclave, even if legitimate in every way, cannot produce a new sitting Pope until Benedict properly resigns.

3. So what we have is the equivalent of Sede Privationism, except that Benedict (not Bergoglio) is the actual Pope and has had his power removed by his enemies (Bergoglio and the C9, aka the 10 horns of the Beast). Benedict is a prisoner, while his putative replacement illegitimately claims the See. All legitimate acts of "the Pope" have ended unless and until Benedict resumes his Papacy or Benedict dies.

4. Everything Bergoglio does is canonically irrelevant, but those who believe the deception that he is the legitimate Pope will be scandalized and fall away from the Catholic faith. So what Bergoglio has done and is doing is practically relevant in the arena of trying to save souls of scandalized Catholics. 

5. If Benedict dies before Bergoglio (which is unlikely), then the questions surrounding illegal vote-trading in Bergoglio's election would come into play. Because of those shenanigans, Bergoglio would still be an illegitimate pope according to Canon Law.

6. The Antichrist will soon be revealed (in less than 3 years). He is either Bergoglio himself or someone close to him in the nascent Counterfeit Church. A new "religion of woke" with the God of the Abrahamic House (Father) and the Mother Pachamama (Mother) will give birth to Brotherhood of Man/Satan (Son). This new Unholy Trinity will be fully-formed Counterfeit Church, the Beast ridden by the Whore of Babylon.

Agreed. The bolded part is the reason that Cardinal Bergoglio is not and has never been the authentic Pope.

1. Benedict's "resignation" was not valid according to Canon Law, so whether Benedict intended it or not, he is still the Pope in the eyes of God and by Church law.

2. A new Pope cannot be elected until the See is vacated. So the March 2013 Conclave, even if legitimate in every way, cannot produce a new sitting Pope until Benedict properly resigns.

3. So what we have is the equivalent of Sede Privationism, except that Benedict (not Bergoglio) is the actual Pope and has had his power removed by his enemies (Bergoglio and the C9, aka the 10 horns of the Beast). Benedict is a prisoner, while his putative replacement illegitimately claims the See. All legitimate acts of "the Pope" have ended unless and until Benedict resumes his Papacy or Benedict dies.

4. Everything Bergoglio does is canonically irrelevant, but those who believe the deception that he is the legitimate Pope will be scandalized and fall away from the Catholic faith. So what Bergoglio has done and is doing is practically relevant in the arena of trying to save souls of scandalized Catholics.

5. If Benedict dies before Bergoglio (which is unlikely), then the questions surrounding illegal vote-trading in Bergoglio's election would come into play. Because of those shenanigans, Bergoglio would still be an illegitimate pope according to Canon Law.

6. The Antichrist will soon be revealed (in less than 3 years). He is either Bergoglio himself or someone close to him in the nascent Counterfeit Church. A new "religion of woke" with the God of the Abrahamic House (Father) and the Mother Pachamama (Mother) will give birth to Brotherhood of Man/Satan (Son). This new Unholy Trinity will be fully-formed Counterfeit Church, the Beast ridden by the Whore of Babylon.

The fact that Benedict is still alive is somewhat providential. He "resigned" (whether or not one believes it) in 2013 and is still alive and, last I checked, quite well. That's very strange given all that's been going on.

Whether or not he's the Pope is beyond me. I doubt it. But know that Bergoglio simply cannot be because A: he is a manifest heretic; and B: he is most likely not even a real priest since he was ordained in the new rite, Benedict is at least a legitimate priest yet (not that that helps the Pope question anyway)