Well, at least in the case of Roncalli, Montini, and even perhaps Wojtyla, these freemason Jєω homos were of the occult variety, and there's nothing confusing about that.

And I don't find the ability to designate or vote into office as requiring any more authority than having been delegated to do so.  In theory, a Pope could appoint all laymen to be Cardinal electors.

Even if the electors were laymen, that delegation would be pursuant to lawful authority. Their agency power resides in their authority.

From the 1958 conclave on, the election process is suspect. We all know that something fishy was going on behind the scenes. But this suspicion, even coupled with subsequent events, does not rise to the level of a presumption of defect of election. However, as time wears on, and the corruption, depravity, and apostasy of the entire VII hierarchy becomes increasingly more manifest, so does the reasonableness of considering the necessity of a presumption of defect in the election.

Thus it seems to me that the presupposition of validity of election, which is part of the thesis, cannot stand, at least it cannot stand the test of time. Perhaps in the 1958 through 1978 conclaves, a presumption of defect in the election might have been hasty. But since JPII corrupted the nature of the Curia by his malignant manipulations of the membership and voting rules - and it's only gotten worse over time as the rot has set into the bones - the presupposition of a valid election no longer makes sense.

Furthermore, according to the thesis, both the power of election and the power of acceptance constitute the material side of the composite. The thesis presupposes a valid election, yet a defect in acceptance. If both election and acceptance make up the material part of the composite, then you need both valid election and valid acceptance to dispose the matter. If one of these is lacking, then the matter is not disposed. And if the matter is not disposed, then even the notion of a material papacy fails.

There is a terrible reality that casts darkness upon the whole world. We do have monsters with crosiers wreaking havoc in the worldwide Church. But I don't see how that reality, which is being in act - which is some material principle actuated by some form - is no more or less than the proper matter of the papacy and the episcopate. For proper matter is properly disposed; and matter does not exist without form. Material principles don't just dangle in the wind waiting to be picked up by a form.

What exactly is in act, then? I don't see how a matter/form consideration of the papacy helps the mind to arrive at apprehension of the quid. In fact, the thesis seems to have as its fruit the very same irrelevancy as the other branches of trad thinking that focus on the papal claimants. Persons are not the quid.

This may seem like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual onanism, but to apprehend the nature of a thing is paramount in deciding what to do about it. Because Catholics have been getting the "quid" wrong for such a long time, the malignancy continues unchecked, indefinitely.

Consider the three ring fag circus concocted by Perp Francis, aka his Queeria. No one in their right mind conceives of these miscreants as Catholics, as Cardinals, or as authorized electors. They can boast no substance of authority, only the accidents of locality and vesture. Thus a defect in election.

Then you have the candidate. Absolute incapacity to receive the form due to non-membership in the Church. Thus a defect in acceptance.

Zero election plus zero acceptance equals zero material aspect of the papacy. 

Am I getting something wrong?

If the thesis presupposes a material papacy, then in order to be logically consistent, it has to presuppose both a valid election and a valid acceptance, because both of these components make up the material aspect of the papacy (per their definition). If either component is missing, then there is no properly disposed matter capable of receiving the form.

Yet the thesis explicitly does not presuppose a valid acceptance. And so I do not understand how they could posit a material-only papacy. Their argumentation seems to me to be logically inconsistent.

Gladius, I sense that you subscribe to the thesis. Can you answer these objections?

but these excommunications are self imposed at this time in history.

Yes, the spiritual penalties.  When St Bellarmine/canon law talks about "loss of office", there is the spiritual office and the temporal.  It is obvious that even heretics can hold their material/govt offices until kicked out by a human/govt action.

Eastern Orthodox Bishops who presently occupy an office that used to be part of Holy Church are in material possession of said office, despite the fact that they are not only heretics and schismatics, but also belong to a church that was legally severed as a whole over 1000 years ago.  If they convert, their merely-material possession of the office becomes formal.  The present relation is a purely material, legal one -- but that can change in a moment.

Exactly.  The material possession of office persists until the Church takes action.

The fact that both Pope St Pius X and Pius XII changed conclave election laws, to allow (spiritually) excommunicated individuals to vote/be elected, then the moment AFTER the election is over, that such spiritual penalties go back into force...this proves that there is a distinction between the material/human/govt office and the spiritual office.  Both popes forsaw the day when the Church would be so overrun with heretics that it would not police/govern itself, so drastic measures had to be taken to keep the (admittedly minimalistic) human/govt office of the bishops/pope intact, even if these offices were spiritually barren.