CathInfo.com

Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere.  I'm not sure I agree with that definition.  I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope.  But that's just semantics.

I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle.  I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.

If Prevost was to miraculously make a public conversion, repentance, anathematize V2, new mass, all the conciliar popes as anti-popes, etc. do you think sedevacantists would accept him as Pope? I tend towards sedeprivationalism, and I think I would accept him as Pope as unlikely as that all happening is. Aside from God Himself appointing the next true Pope, that seems like the most realistic option to me..but I'm not sure how theologically sound it is

If Prevost was to miraculously make a public conversion, repentance, anathematize V2, new mass, all the conciliar popes as anti-popes, etc. do you think sedevacantists would accept him as Pope? I tend towards sedeprivationalism, and I think I would accept him as Pope as unlikely as that all happening is. Aside from God Himself appointing the next true Pope, that seems like the most realistic option to me..but I'm not sure how theologically sound it is

Not that this would happen, but hypothetically I think the SVs would get on board ... since a lot of them promote the notion of "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".

So the WM Review had an article about the matter, where they said most groups of Traditional Catholics would be "satisfied" by such a scenario, and so I cautioned him against getting "satisfied" into accepting an AntiPope, and poked at him about about "Universal Peaceful Satisfaction".

I think there's much danger for the Traditional Catholics ... because very few of them really believe in EENS dogma, and the core / fundamental error, the root cause of all the V2 errors and heresies, has been a view of EENS dogma that logically leads directly to the V2 errors as logical conclusions.  So while they denounce the Vatican II's ecclesiology, they unfortunately believe the same ecclesiology themselves, and if you were to dress up the denial of EENS in Latin, traditional vestments, and smells & bells, they'd embrace it enthusiastically.

So for me it's based on the Siri Theory.  I agree in principle with the formal/material distinction (makes perfect sense) ... but just believe that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope, and that he was forced to step down under duress, which would make his resignation invalid, and thus legitimate election to the office (the material aspect) would have been impeded by Siri's rightful posession of it, until his death in 1989.  By that time, there were no legitimate electors left form the Pius XII era, or if there was 1 or 2 (I doubt it due to the age limit started I think by Montini ... perhaps for this reason?), who knows who they voted for.

Others believe that Bergoglio's election was (materially) invalid due to the collusion (St. Gallen mafia) or alternatively because of his non-resignation (munus vs. ministerium).

Interestingly, just the other day on Taylor Marshall's show / video, someone chatted in (the SuperChat where you pay to get your question answered) about whether any popes in recent memory had been elected but turned down the election.  Marshall casually mentioned that Siri turned it down in 1958.  Oh, really, Taylor?  So, how do you know this?  Siri never said one way or the other, since he said he was bound by the oath.  Consequently, that was clearly an attempt by Marshall to contradict (falsely, with no information) the Siri Theory.

Taylor Marshall is so very dangerous ( with a smile of course!)