So far, the first 3 minutes.  That St. Peter Canisius quote can be taken as support for R&R, so I'm not sure why they cite it.

Yes, St. Robert Bellarmine held the position that a non-Catholic cannot be pope, but the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position is tenable by Catholics, as it's never been condemned.

Finally, the sedeprivationist position could also justify the expression "non-Catholic pope".  I'm actually partial to sedeprivationism myself.

One would have to ask +Vigano what he actually meant.  He qualified "non-Catholic pope" with "in the strict sense".  I'm not sure what he meant by the phrase.  I actually think it's a bit of a lapse in his English, and he intended that as putting air quotes around the term "pope".  That phrase thrown in at the end obviously points to some kind of distinction.

That's the problem I have with the Dimond brothers sometimes, there's a lack of nuanced thinking there sometimes.

Agreed 100%.

I would only add that they are also of an aggressively schismatic spirit.

That's more proof that the sedeprivationist position is against reason. It's just pun, play on words.

A material beer mug without the form of a beer mug, isn't a beer mug, at all.

Nope.  Bishop Guerard's arguments in favor of sedeprivationism are too strong to be dismissed by a wave of your hand.

This is the case of a beer mug ... without beer in it.  It's still a beer mug even when empty.

Nope.  Bishop Guerard's arguments in favor of sedeprivationism are too strong to be dismissed by a wave of your hand.

This is the case of a beer mug ... without beer in it.  It's still a beer mug even when empty.

Guerard himself gave it up.

Yes, the beer mug is a beer mug without beer in it. But it isn't without the form, e.g without the potential to contain a pint or so of beer.

Guerard himself gave it up.

I've seen that allegation, and the source is very dubious.  Even if he did, it doesn't mean you're competent to dismiss it with an arrogant wave of the hand.  Lots of priests still hold the position, priests who have had far more theological training than you have.  Disagree with it if you must, but to dismiss it as stupid requires a lot of hubris.

I think he's referring to an alleged scribbled note someone produced near the very end of his life.  It's unclear what the context is and what mistake he thought he was correcting.  It's weak at best.

Interesting. What is the source for the alleged note?

Interesting. What is the source for the alleged note?

I can't recall exactly and can't find it now.  There was a thread about it here once.

I ask you to prove your non ignorance by explaining your point in a few lines. If my analogy is as poor as you say, then you can explain here the why and how without referring to book-length articles.

I’ll defer to those who can articulate it appropriately.

---

Thesis

He who has been elected to the papacy by a conclave duly and legally convoked, but who has the intention of teaching error, or of promulgating harmful disciplines, is not able to receive papal authority until he should recant and reject the error or the harmful disciplines, or in other words, he is not the pope formally; he remains, however validly designated to receive the papal authority; in other words he is the pope materially, until a legal conclave or other competent authority should ascertain that the see is vacant.

Proof of the first part:

Major: Papal authority is not infused by God into a validly designated person who posits an impediment to receiving papal authority.

Minor: But he who intends to teach error or promulgate harmful disciplines, posits an impediment to receiving papal authority.

Conclusion: Therefore into a validly designated person who has the intention of teaching error or promulgating harmful disciplines, papal authority is not infused by God.

Proof of the major: From what has been said above. Authority, taken concretely, results from the conjunction of two parts of which the one is material and the other formal. This conjunction is not able to take place if there is an impediment, by analogy to natural things.

Proof of the minor: The condition of accepting authority sine qua non is that he who receives it have the intention of promoting the common good of the community of which he is the head. However, the common good of the Church is to teach men the truth, to rule them in the correct paths to heaven, and

Proof of the second part.

Major: The legal designation to the papacy is not able to be lost except in these three ways: through the death of the subject;
the voluntary refusal of the designation or renunciation of office by the subject;
the removal of the designation by competent authority.

Minor: But he who has been elected by a conclave duly and legally convoked, but who has the intention to teach error or to promulgate harmful disciplines (namely John Paul II), has neither died, nor has voluntarily refused or renounced the designation, nor has been removed by competent authority.
Conclusion: Therefore he who has been elected by a conclave duly and legally convoked, but who has the intention of teaching error or of promulgating harmful disciplines (namely John Paul II) has not lost his legal designation to the papacy.

Proof of the major: From Canon Law (Canon 183 para 1). Neither translation nor lapse of fixed time pertain to the papacy.

Proof of the minor: From the facts. John Paul II is living, has accepted the designation of the Conclave and has never given it up, and has not been removed by competent authority.