I'm not sure if I already posted number 2 yet so here is number 2 and number 3 just in case.

Regarding number 2 it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope, so any public heretic that was "elected" was never Pope to begin with which means they did not lose their office but never had it to begin with.  There is a much ignored theory that Paul 6 tacitly resigned when he officially became the head of New Church when he officially approved Lumen Gentium which contradicts the Catholic doctrine that states that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church is the same.  Paul 6 approved the docuмent that says the Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and therefore is not one and the same.  It is quite possible that John 23 and Paul 6 were material Popes until Paul 6 resigned from office in November of 1964 when he became the head of the broadened Church which is not the same as the Catholic Church.  A valid Pope cannot be the head of two religions or of a religion that is not strictly the Catholic Church.  


http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Concerning_A_SSPX_Dossier_on_Sedevacantism.pdf

2. Fr. Boulet proceeds to provide a brief “Exposition of the Sedevacantist thesis,” as follows:

“Let me first quote from a Sedevacantist author: ‘Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize John Paul II as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize John Paul II as a true Pope. The word Sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean the Chair is vacant.’ (Bishop Pivarunas). Sedevacantism appears then to be a theological position or a theory kept by some traditional Catholics who think that the most recent Popes, the Popes of the Vatican II council, lost their pontifical authority on account of the grave heresies they have been promoting, and the crisis that came along.” Fr. Boulet is imprecise. Bishop Pivarunas has in these words defined the sedevacantist thesis as the denial of the claim of John Paul II to the papacy. And that is all. It is a very narrow definition, in keeping with the spirit I have mentioned above that demands a humble minimalism. Fr. Boulet, for reasons not apparent, proceeds to interpret Bishop Pivarunas’ statement to mean that sedevacantists believe that “the Popes of the Vatican II council, lost their pontifical authority on account of the grave heresies they have been promoting,...” But that inference is unjustified. Indeed, there are many sedevacantists who are content to follow St. Robert Bellarmine and the more common opinion of theologians, which is that Popes cannot lose the Faith, so that if the Vatican II Popes were not true Popes, then they must never have been Popes. The notion that sedevacantists believe that the Conciliar Popes lost their authority by public heresy is entirely absent from Bishop Pivarunas’ words, as quoted by Fr. Boulet.

[Regarding #3 and "dogmatic " sedevacantists, since Divine Law is in fact doctrine the fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope or hold any ecclesiastical office is in fact a doctrine and there is nothing wrong with being a "dogmatic" sedevacantist in that sense.  What we cannot do is say the Church has declared Ratzinger to be a public heretic since he claimed office as we would need a Pope to do that.]

[This is different than saying anyone who believes that the heretic, apostate Ratzinger is Pope is not Catholic.  Legitimate Catholics of good will can in fact believe him to be Pope without somehow becoming unCatholic.  Legitimate Catholics of good will who insist he is Pope, in many instances, do this because they believe the must accept him as Pope or that we must have a Pope (even if the one accepted by many teaches error and enforces insentives of impiety on the Church, etc., etc., etc.) because, in many instances, they believe the Church would somehow be destroyed if there was no Pope for an extended period of time.  This is far different than purposely rejecting the teaching that a public heretic cannot be Pope merely because it would take you out of your comfort zone.]

3. Fr. Boulet then provides the heading, “Theological argument of sedevacantists,” under which title he presents one sentence of theological argument, viz. “It consists of saying that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John-Paul II is a heretic, therefore he cannot be a true Pope.”

The remainder of this brief section is devoted to highlighting the arrogance of the notorious dogmatic sedevacantist, Michael Dimond, the relevance of which escapes me. It would appear to be an attempt to smear all sedevacantists by employing guilt by association, but I am reluctant to accuse Fr. Boulet of something as crass as that. Perhaps he genuinely believes that Dimond is representative, in which case he is simply misinformed. Dimond is no more representative of sedevacantists than Fr. Matthew Fox is representative of sedeplenists. In any case, the “theological argumentof sedevacantists” are extensive and thoroughly docuмented, and Fr. Boulet has not only failed to address them, he has not even noticed that they exist!