Roger,  we are Catholics.  You and your family are Catholics.  

I see no difference between your first pdf docuмent

sedevacantism.pdf (mothermary.website)

and this revised docuмent in the OP.  

What are the "revisions"? Are they substantial or just grammar type revisions?

So you've arbitrarily chosen the by-far-the-least-commonly-held of the "5 Opinions":

And once a man is Pope - no one can depose him, consider him deposed or canonically judge him, for this is an authority that only belongs to a future Pope.

None of the 5 Opinions refer to only a "future Pope" having the authority.  You just made this up.

I posted this same post some time ago but made some modifications.

I want to share here a 1 page PDF(revised) on how me and my family understand the Sedevacantist position.

Please Click this Link: https://mothermary.website/sedevacantism2.pdf

Thanks and Kind Regards in +J M J,
Roger

"Again, no one can judge a Pope as a formal heretic – one who knows he is in heresy and guilty of not overcoming vincible ignorance – except a future Pope."

With the above statement, would the future pope be presuming the former putative pope innocent prior to the investigation?

The term "manifest" contains within it the note of "formal sin".

No, it precludes any judgment about the internal forum, and the term "formal" in terms of heresy has been one of the most widely abused terms in theology.

Manifest Heresy is all that you need.

Manifest means public.
Heresy (by most definitions) inherently requires pertinacity.

There's no mention of "formal" in any of the "5 Opinions".

If someone petinaciously adheres to a proposition that's contrary to Catholic dogma, he's a heretic.

We have many instances of such in the Conciliar Antipopes, e.g. where Bergoglio still holds the Old Covenant to be in force and where Bergoglio declared the non-Catholic "martyrs" (verbatim contradicting the Council of Florence EENS definition).  Bergoglio and all the V2 Antipopes deny the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and have done so consistently and pertinaciously for decades now.  They may all very sincerely believe that they are right and be in "good faith" (though I doubt it), but that's not ours to judge.  We only judge their pertinacious (repeated, consistent) denial of EENS and it's all we can judge.

Thanks for the paper Lad.  My only problem with the materialiter/formaliter argument is that, to remove the form, is to change the thing substantially.  Now when a man becomes pope - and I assume this occurs when the Cardinal deacon says "habemus Papam," at that instant the pope immediately receives substantialiter and formaliter the personhood of the pope; or perhaps it is just prior to the "habemus Papam" when the papal-would-be says "Accepto" that he becomes pope. This is to say that the cardinal (new pope) immediately receives the form, changing the substance of his person into "pope," due to the words spoken.  If this is not the case, then I misunderstand the conferral of the office.  The act of assuming the office must take place in time, and the action must be completed by force of words, and the office must be conferred via human agency from one man to another, even though the conferral of the office is not a sacramental action.  I guess in theory, the cardinals could elect a man and upon his election, he could stand up and say "Ego sum Papa," and he would immediately receive the form, changing the matter of his person.  The interesting thing is, once a man becomes pope, no set of "accidents" (in the philosophical sense) can remove the office from his person.  All the Catholics in the world cannot get together and remove him. And it is arguable, if the pope convenes a council, the council "anathematizes" him, but he refuses to give his consent to the anathematization, whether this constitutes a removal from office.  It would be interesting to see from a historical viewpoint.  

In theory a layman could be elected pope; but at the moment of his being elected, he would need to be ordained and consecrated.  This must mean that the only requisite for the conferral of the office is that he be a male, and a baptized Catholic.  Or to extend the scenario, an unbaptized male could be elected, but immediately he would need to be baptized and receive all the orders.  These are just a few of my thoughts on the matter, but it does not amount to a "hill of beans" to use the proverbial phrase.      

Now when a man becomes pope - and I assume this occurs when the Cardinal deacon says "habemus Papam," at that instant the pope immediately receives substantialiter and formaliter the personhood of the pope; or perhaps it is just prior to the "habemus Papam" when the papal-would-be says "Accepto" that he becomes pope.

Pope Pius XII taught that he becomes pope the moment he accepts, and that makes sense.

I like to take this example.  Let's say that (given this day and age), some transgender (born a female) somehow passes himself off as a man and gets elected pope.  She would have the election, but God will not infuse the papal authority on this individual.

So the formal/material distinction as applied to this case is the distinction between the election and the infusion/imposition of the papal authority on the elected.

Formal/material distinction is used in all kinds of context, from logic to moral theology, as well as philosophy (ontology), so some confusion could arise.

One example I give from formal/material in the real of moral theology.  I see a $100 bill laying on the table, and pocket it, thinking it's mine.  Turns out it actually belongs to someone else.  This is materially grave matter, an injustice, where I have $100 that belongs to someone else, but not formally (since there was no intention to commit the evil).  Conversely, I pocket $100 thinking it belongs to someone else, but it turns out to be mine.  Although there was no object or material evil, I formally committed a grave sin.  So that's where formal/material shows up in moral theology.