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.

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.

Wait why do you believe the material continuity was severed again?

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!)

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.

I don't know exactly what Marshall said, but based on your explanation, I don't think he was contradicting the Siri Theory in the way you think.  He was just catering (or he believes it himself) to the Indult/anti-conspiracy-theory crowd, the naive bunch of "conservative" catholics who can't grasp that there are actually evil people in the world.

These people will read about the vision of Pope Leo XIII and how God will let satan try to destroy the church.
These people will read the Fatima prophecies that the 'errors of russia' will lead to the good being martyred and millions of souls going to hell.
These people will read the stories of the infiltration of communists into the vatican starting in the 1930s or the stories of Pius IX being imprisoned in the Vatican.
And they'll think "it can't happen in my lifetime."  

I have so many family members who just won't/can't accept that evil people want to do really evil things.  There's a blindness there which I can't grasp.  So either Marshall has this personal blindness or he's furthering it by catering to those who do.  Either way, such a mindset isn't going away. 

The "conspiracy tin foil hat nutters" propaganda is the greatest lie in modern times, 2nd only to "the devil doesn't exist" lie.  It's an amazing piece psychological brainwashing.  Hats off to our enemies on this one.  You gotta give them credit.

I'm a bit curious about option #3. It says he is a false pope while someone else truly does hold the papal office.

Who would that other person be?

Seems hypothetical (to underscore a definition of an Antipope ... and no one has answered in that manner yet).

I can see a hypothesis about a "hidden pope", whether those alleged "secret Cardinals" some claim (with zero evidence) that Siri created ... or for some altogether different line.