In the case of a woman, she wouldn't even have the election. 

When this docuмent speaks of valid election, it's blending the two aspects of the office, the material and the formal, i.e. isn't applying the formal/material election.  What it's referring to in a "valid" election is the result of the election where the individual formally receives papal authority.

Is it far-fetched to believe that CGI, AI, and lying propaganda could lead to a non-existent man being elected Pope?

I've never heard this opinion before. Father Cekada cites a dozen or so canonists who all affirm that the election itself would be invalid, not any subsequent result.  The material/formal distinction introduced by Des Lauriers is a novelty in its application to the papacy, so of course these theologians dont address it. 

No, it's not a novelty.  Bellarmine actually speaks of the distinction between the designation to office as the material aspect and the conferral of authority as the formal aspect of an individual becoming the Pope.  For an individual to become Pope, he's elected and accepts (material) and then God bestows the papal authority on him (formal).  In nearly all cases, the two happen immediately, but if there's some impediment, God doesn't bestow the authority.  This is what is meant by "valid election" in these texts which aren't dealing with it from the perspective of the material/formal distinction, i.e. an election where the elected receive Papal Authority as a result.

WERNZ-VIDAL: “Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…” (Jus Canonicuм 1:415)

I've actually often wondered about the exact hypothetical you mentioned.  Imagine this woman was publicly known to be a woman (via media etc) yet had not been DECLARED such by the Church.  Would the Guerardians grant the election to this woman?  All the authorities who speak on this are unanimous in saying that a woman is not capable of valid election by Divine Law. 

.



No kidding. The Guerardians churn out page after page of quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo, but they never address simple, common-sense objections like this one.

No, it's not a novelty.  Bellarmine actually speaks of the distinction between the designation to office as the material aspect and the conferral of authority as the formal aspect of an individual becoming the Pope.  For an individual to become Pope, he's elected and accepts (material) and then God bestows the papal authority on him (formal).  In nearly all cases, the two happen immediately, but if there's some impediment, God doesn't bestow the authority.  This is what is meant by "valid election" in these texts which aren't dealing with it from the perspective of the material/formal distinction, i.e. an election where the elected receive Papal Authority as a result.

Can you please provide a quote of St Robert Bellarmine stating that the designation to office is the material element?  The only quote I've seen is referenced by Fr Desposito and in it St Bellarmine refers to the PERSON as the matter, which is in a certain. Way disposed by the election. To receive the form. This is not identical to the position of the Guerardians (or semivacantists as I call them.)  I

If you have any proof for the assertion that the dozen or so canonists cited, when referring to an "invalid election" are in fact referring to someone being validly elected but posing an obstacle to the reception of papal power I would love to see it.   

The Cassiciacuм theory as presented by MHT does not agree with your assessment of those texts, as I indicated.  They admit that all of these authors are stating that such people (women, insane men, heretics, unbaptised etc) are incapable of receiving the "material element" ie designation.  They hold that Bergoglio is not a heretic in the sense indicated by said authors, since he has not been declared as such.  They assert that Bergoglio is in possession of a valid designation by way of a valid election and that his "lack of objective intention to will the good of the Church" vitiates his acceptance of the office in such a way that he retains the designation and does not accept the office of pope.  This is yet another novelty, since one who is elected but does not accept cannot retain the designation indefinitely per canon law.
  Perhaps reread Fr Cekada's article "Bergoglio's got Nothing to Lose."  He demonstrates that such men receive no title or designation whatever precisely because the election itself is invalid.  

But there has to be some quality ("accidental" in the predicable sense) that Our Lord imparts on the pope that distinguishes him from an ordinary bishop.  Do you have an idea of what that quality is?

He receives authority, and is designated the Bishop of Rome.  But, as Elwin indicated, there's no ontological change in the man.

He receives authority, and is designated the Bishop of Rome.  But, as Elwin indicated, there's no ontological change in the man.

Can we not say that the "papal authority" he receives from Jesus Christ confers a quality ("accidental" in the predicable sense) to his soul that is then taken away at death (for example)? 

Not sure.  I would view it as something extrinsic to the person himself rather as some inherent quality.  All authority is ultimately God's authority, and the Pope exercises it to the extent designated by God.  God says, "Obey this man." and so we obey him.  There was nothing inherent in Eugenio Pacelli that gave him authority other than that God deigned that he should have it.

Thanks.  What about the charism of infallibility?