The chair must be occupied by a professing Catholic.
Ratzinger is an apostate priest and therefore cannot be elected as a successor of St Peter because he is not a Catholic.
BTW, Benedict is a valid priest but he is not a valid bishop, since he was consecrated using the 1968 invalid form.
Yes, there are three strikes against him. The SSPX position fails to see all of them.
Heck, I can put FIVE strikes against him! :dancing-banana:
1. Assuming the Siri thesis to be plausible, and nothing else true, he is at LEAST an anti-pope.
2. Assuming Griff Ruby's theory of legal separation of Vatican institution and RCC to be true, he doesn't even have the POWER of the Pope, by definition (Universal jurisdiction over all the visible members of the Church; but Ratzinger says heretics are visible members, but he has no jurisdiction over them! Therefore, not the Power of a Pope, but a Patriarch, by his own definition. Therefore NOT the Pope).
3. Assuming he taught heresy BEFORE his election in a public and manifest way, he cannot have been validly elected (His eucharistic heresies where he denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Eucharist).
4. Assuming he was consecrated "bishop" by a doubtful rite, the 1968 rite of EpOr, it is doubtful he is even a bishop, which means it is doubtful he was ever legitimately installed as "Pope."
5. Assuming he taught heresy in a public and manifest way for all to see (and he has, read "Jesus of Nazareth" and his comments on the Jews not needing Christ to be saved for starters and this past Assisi III debacle) AFTER his election, he has at LEAST since then Fallen under the condemnation of Pope Innocent III:
Si Papa , Pope Innocent III
— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
Now, consider the very REAL possibility that ALL of these points, if not only one, can very well be true, and what is the likelihood of him actually being Pope?