I'm surprised you fell for that diversionary tactic.  The Sedeprivationists focus on the classical distinction between formal and material succession and quote theologians who discuss, it in order to give their absurd novelty the appearance of legitimacy.  What they never focus on is the novelty itself, which is the belief that the intention to change the faith prevents one who is legally appointed to office from receiving the authority of the office.  Since no one has ever taught such a thing, and since any sane Catholic who holds to Tradition will reject the absurd novelty, they focus instead on the distinction between formal and material succession and use traditional terminology in order to deceive the ignorant.      

Right, and where in Tradition is it supposed that the pope can be in schism with himself? 

That's what Sean and many other R&Rs have proposed with their insane idea that the hierarchy are actually members of two opposing churches simultaneously.

So...you remove all causes excusing from obedience to superiors (eg., necessity) in order to perpetuate the sede-schismatic lie that the always-infallible pope must always be obeyed...even as you hypocritically avail yourself of that same doctrine to perpetuate the pernicious sede existence.
Noted.

We’re not arguing that he is always infallible in every word he utters.

Our argument is that a Pope’s Magisterium is always INFALLIBLY SAFE to follow. 

We are required to give varying levels of assent to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Since God commands that we obey His Church, he must necessarily protect it from all pernicious error. 

The infallibility and indefectibility of the Church excludes the possibility of the Pope teaching pernicious error to the entire Church. 

And no, we’ve NEVER had a heretical Pope!

The idea that a heretical pope can have the matter but not the form of the office also goes back to St. Bellarmine, so I'm not sure how it's not traditional.

It was taught by Bellarmine or anyone else before Vatican II.  It is a complete novelty.  

That's nothing but a minority opinion that Cardinal Franelin came up with. It's not a teaching of the Church.

Can you provide citations to prove your assertion, please?

There's nothing novel about it.  There has long been discussion among theologians regarding material vs. formal succession (in the context of Apostolic succession) and also discussion regarding the power to appoint vs. the power to rule and teach.

But we'll just take your word for it against probably the greatest theologian of the 20th century (wrote Ottaviani Intervention, helped author Pius XII declaration regarding the Assumption, professor at the Pontifical Lateran University, and personal confessor to Pope Pius XII).

Pics and memes are the refuge of those who really have nothing to say.

Des Laurier's hallucination was unknown before he cooked it up.

Right, and where in Tradition is it supposed that the pope can be in schism with himself?

That's what Sean and many other R&Rs have proposed with their insane idea that the hierarchy are actually members of two opposing churches simultaneously.

I think there needs to be a certain intellectual horsepower requirement here, and you are obviously not qualified.

It’s impossible. Pope Jekyll and Hyde!

I sense yet another sede invention/inversion here!
Well done!

You're the guy who doesn't know the Church's distinction between medical circuмcision and religious circuмcision.
You're the guy that tried to sell us that the тαℓмυd is the equivalent of Scripture.
You're the guy who couldn't even post your own opinion correctly.
But you think you are some kind of savant on sedevacantism???

It doesn't require theology to reject sedevacantism.  Just a couple smelling salts and common sense (though the sedes specialize in trying to obscure the latter).