So you do believe that a man must be Catholic to be elected pope.

Is a heretic (not a material heretic) a Catholic?  

I believe the purpose that the cardinals were appointed in the first place and assemble during the period of sede vacante, is to elect a pope, not play cards or watch movies. I could be wrong I guess, but that's what I believe.

I believe once elected, he is instantly pope, as such, we are all his subjects till he dies or abdicates his office whether we like it or not. I believe this because 'thems the rules' which true popes have decreed.

Why do the sedevacantists, of all people, choose to ignore what true popes have decreed?
 
What do the sedevacantists believe the cardinals do in there?

I do believe the pope needs to be Catholic, but not a conciliar catholic and heretic like the conciliar popes have all been. I also believe the pope should never utter a word that isn't instantly, strictly and universally recognizably Catholic, that he should be the most saintly, Catholic, learned and virtuous human being on the planet and that he should never utter any word, or do or impose anything that might be misconstrued. I could go on and on, but the moral of the story is; thankfully, it does not matter to me or you or anyone what, in regards to the papal election or the pope's (in)validity, what I believe.

Deo Gratias that our salvation is not in any way dependent upon the pope's status, anymore than it is in any way dependent upon his degree of sanctity. Will you at least agree with me on this truth? 

As I said, you are twisting the saint's speculation into meaning something he does not say and into teaching something the Church does not teach. You can start with that fact.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?  You say that he spoke Church teaching and then you call it speculation! 

I cannot be both. Which is it?

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?  You say that he spoke Church teaching and then you call it speculation!  

I cannot be both. Which is it?

You never cease to amaze.

A destroyer pope could intend, more than anyone has ever intended in the history of the world, to completely humiliate and obliterate God's Church.  So long as his intention to do so and his methods do not sever him from the Church through heresy, schism, or apostasy, he's still pope.  And we know that whatever Bellarmine thinks makes a pope a "destroyer" does not include him being a manifest heretic.  
.
We don't care about formal heretics, we care about manifest (public) ones.  That's the distinction that matters for whether or not someone belongs to the Church, as manifest heretics-- whether formal or material-- do not belong to her.  There's a reason that Avinger hasn't replied to me, because he's not going to find any teachers who say that manifest heretics belong to the Church under any condition. 
.
I think that you are trying to answer the question of whether or not Francis has committed a sin.  That really doesn't matter, although it sure seems that he has no defense of ignorance since his training and exposure to the Catholic faith far surpasses anything that any of us have experienced.  Clerics don't get a pass for ignorance.  But it doesn't matter at the end of the day, because the distinction between whether he's a formal or a material heretic isn't a distinction that will tell us whether or not he is a Catholic, it's one that will tell us whether or not he's guilty before God, and that isn't really any of our concern.  Catholics are those who belong to the Catholic Church, incorporated at baptism and maintained by the profession of faith (and the absence of severance through heresy, apostasy, schism, or excommunication).  They can do a lot of really, really, really evil things and still be Catholic.  A pope can sacrifice infants to a goat's skull and participate in Satanic orgies in private and remain pope so long as he professes the faith outwardly.  He can be the most rotten person to ever have lived. We don't judge whether or not someone is a Catholic based on some gradation of good or evil committed.
.
You see, this is all true because of the nature of the Church.  She is a visible unity of faith.  That being the case, it is impossible for someone who publicly professes something alien to belong to her.  That is why the material/formal distinction is not used in this case.  The material/formal distinction tells us whether or not someone is guilty of some thing or another before God.  We don't care about that.  We want to know if they belong to the Church.

You make some good points and i agree with most of this, however, I think we've both spent too much time debating on what +Bellarmine meant.  What matters to me is that until the Church makes a determination on the pope's status, people must, by default, accept that he's the pope - at least temporally.  We can argue all day about if he is or isn't a heretic, but that's not our call. 
I think you see where I'm coming from.  Bosco and Bumphrey, however, do not.  They take a pretty hard-line stance on heresy and feel it's easy to determine (even if they have no authority to do so).  I've said all I can on the matter.  I've enjoyed the debate and appreciate your openness to having a civilized discussion from which we can both learn, instead of a 'match of wits' which serves no purpose but to waste time.  Good day and God bless.

You need to re-read what I wrote: "As I said, you are twisting the saint's speculation into meaning something he does not say and into teaching something the Church does not teach. You can start with that fact."

I will attempt to explain it.

The thing you quoted is the saint's speculation, it is exactly and only that - speculation. His speculation being only that = it is not a teaching at all, certainly not a Church teaching. As such, it is neither a teaching of the Church nor a teaching of the saint, it is only the saint's speculation. Since it is only speculation, it is not a teaching of the saint nor is it a teaching of the Church.

This is why I correctly pointed out to you that you are twisting the saint's speculation into teaching something the Church does not teach.

For future reference, whenever you read from saints who are talking about events having anything to do with popes losing their office, i.e. specifically, events which have never happened, that is going to be speculation for the simple reason that's all it can be because it has never happened.  

You said that I changed his meaning. You have not explained that. Tell us what he meant, and exactly what different meaning I put to his words. Particularly, "he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church". What does "out of the Church" mean to you?

Also, just because something has never happened does not logically imply the possibility is a speculation. For example, that you will live to be 100 years old is speculation, but the possibility is not.

If we "must" accept the V2 Popes as legitimate, then we MUST likewise accept that the Novus Ordo Mass at the very least cannot be harmful to souls.  Anything else entails a defection of the Church's Universal Discipline.

Ridiculous.  Even Traditional Canon Law has ACTIONS such as these render someone SUSPECT of heresy.  You once again demonstrate that you have no idea what the term "heresy" even means but just casually fling it around.  Heresy is an intellectual adherence to propositions that are contrary to the faith.  Actions, however scandalous or sinful, are NOT heresy.  These actions can be performed for any number of reasons ... the most common of which is human respect.  On another thread you were completely confounding heresy with lesser errors (having no concept of theological notes) and now you declare actions to be tantamount to heresy.

And this is coming from someone who considers Francis a material heretic at least.

Infallibility prevents not just heresy, but anything lesser that is harmful to faith or morals. Even ambiguous doctrine is harmful. This includes not just the magisterium, but the liturgy and law of the Church.

If Vatican II merely contained ambiguous doctrine, and a pope approved of it as a council, then the man we thought was pope was not really the pope at the time he approved. Had he been the true pope, God would have prevented him from approving of it. God prevents material error because it is dangerous to souls. So, a man once pope cannot be a manifest material heretic.

Once we know he is not a true pope, we know he doesn't have the virtue of Faith he was once Catholic. It may otherwise mean that he is an atheist imposter, or a woman, etc. It simply means he cannot be a true pope.