They apply to legitimate Popes, period.  You claim they're legitimate popes.  Ergo, their opinions would apply.

This entire time you attacked me from valuing my opinion too highly, where it's you who cling to your opinion over and against those of a vast body of theological opinion, and I am the one in conformity with the opinion of all these theologians.

Theologically, I am a sedeprivationist and have been so for nearly 20 years. ... I see that Bergoglio never obtained a valid election so sedeprivationist theory cannot be applied to him. When next person obtains a valid election, we shall have to see if he is a formal pope or only material.

According to the common opinion of the doctors, canonisation is an inffallible action of the Church's teaching authority. The opposite would be a moral disaster, namely, that the Church might oblige the veneration of a person who has not attained heaven and put forward someone lacking in virtue or, worse, empty of grace.

This is why the question of the Papal Occupancy / Vacancy is so crucial today! False canonisations -- as clearly some contemporary "canonisations" are -- cannot be the action of a valid pope.

For the umpteenth time, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church ...

Absolutely you have to question the papacies of the V2 papal claimants.  If you question the canonizations, you must question their papacy.  Otherwise, you're questioning THE PAPACY as an office, its protection by the Holy Ghost and the Church's protection by the Holy Ghost.  You throw the entire Papacy under the bus, and the Church under the bus, in order to preserve the individual papacies of Roncalli, Montini, et al.

You attitude toward the Church, that the Papacy can become corrupt and require the faithful to separate from it is different in no way from the claims made by the Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants.  Each of these heretical/schismatic groups claimed that the Papacy had veered off the path of True Christianity, for the Old Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, from the path of Tradition ... and you follow them into heresy and schism.

You either have to accept the Conciliar Church as essentially Catholic or you have to reject the claims to the papacy made by the V2 "popes".  There's no other alternative if you wish to keep the Catholic faith ... which you are in great danger of losing, if you haven't already lost it.  Barring allowances made for subjective confusion on your part due to the Crisis, you would have to be treated as a manifest heretic and excommunicated from membership in the Church.

I've pleaded with R&R to consider the position articulated by a Father Chazal (whom you still consider R&R), and yet you pertinaciously refuse to do so.  Or at least adopt the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, where he stated clearly that 1) this degree of destruction is incompatible with the promises of Christ for the papacy, the protection and guidance of the papacy by the Holy Ghost, 2) that it's possible that these men are not popes, 3) but I'm not 100% sure what's going on, so I defer to the Church's judgment.  But you reject principle #1 above, which puts you into a state of manifest heresy and schism.