Please just stop.  You can't even understand English words like "Revelation" ... and it goes downhill from there.  So you're going to lecture +Guerard des Laurier with his degrees and qualifications in philosophy and theology as if he were some idiotic kindergarden student who doesn't understand basic concepts like this.  Matter and Form are Philosophy 101 ... and +Guerard is supposed to have made such an egregious blunder?  There are no words for your hubris.  Even I can easily dispatch your ignorance.  I'll do so tomorrow when I have more time.

+Guerard des Laurier 1898-1988

Please keep in mind that in Sedeprivationism, the elections are considered valid. This must be so, to insure there is continuity (at least materially) of the Papal office. The thesis only concerns itself with the external manifestation of the habitual intention of doing harm to the Church; no the secret impediment, so whether the heresy is material or formal, it does not matter. As Pope Leo XIII taught in the encyclical Apostolicae Curae,"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it".

We know that it is impossible that the authentic Vicar of Christ on earth, when engaging either the Extraordinary Solemn Magisterium of the Church (ex-cathedra papal pronouncements), or the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (teaching in union with the Bishops of the world, either dispersed or gathered, which Vatican II Council falls into this second category at the very least) teaches something against the Faith, against an already revealed doctrine.

That is how we can tell.

You dodged the question, but the contradiction in your position remains.

If you believe #1 and #2 of your stated position..

1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.

.. then it logically follows that you believe there must have been a secret impediment which caused the election of the pope to be secretly invalid, i.e. at the time of his election. We're not talking about the manifestation of this impediment, we're only talking about "what is", and "why it is". If you are unable to name me one example of a secret impediment, in other words, if there is no such thing as a secret impediment which secretly invalidates a papal election, then at least one of your premises must be wrong, and possibly both. Which one(s)?

So, we're not even considering intention/guilt, or material/formal heresy. All we are talking about here is public vs secret heresy. Shifting towards sedeprivationism will make that problem only worse. You will simply have to deal with the contradiction and change some of your premises, sooner or later.

PS: Please, rethink your position sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the deeper you will dig in and the harder it will be to get back on track.

It is interesting (and quite telling) to see two down votes already.

If there is something wrong with my reasoning, then why not say so? If not, then I can only assume that those two down votes came from people who don't like the conclusion, i.e. based on "feelings" rather than on "thinking". It only confirms my opinion of the (lack of) integrity of the vast majority of sedes, and of the reason why so many people fall for sedevacantism. Even the staunch sedevacantist John Daly admitted that most sedevacantists hold that opinion not because they understand it, but because it "feels" better.

What the hell are you on about? Sedevacantists don't believe a valid Pope cannot become a heretic. Well maybe some do, but it's not an axiom for the position. What sedevacantists believe is that a heretic cannot be a elected Pope, and that a heretic cannot be Pope(so if the Pope becomes a heretic, he stops being Pope automatically). Both those axioms are Catholic doctrines.

Cantarella's positions have nothing to do with sedevacantism. In fact, she contradicts sedevacantism when she says "those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority".

Stop trying to conflate opposites. It doesn't do you any favours.

Cantarella's position is that "the pope is not the pope". If that is not sedevacantism, then tell me, what is?

What you are fussing about is not the conclusion, but the many false paths that lead to the same false conclusion: sedevacantism.

No, Cantarella believes they have to be deposed. She's a sedeprivationist. Sedevacantism means there is no Pope now. Her positions are entirely incompatible with that belief. 

Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.

True - I started  just calling it sedeism or sedewhateverism a few months ago for that reason.

Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.

Her position still contradicts the sedevacantist position and the flaws you found in her position do not apply to ours.

You're asking a group of individuals whose view on the current papal crisis was duct-taped together by 'piecemeal logic' to explain their view in a systematic and complete way.  Not going to happen.  

what crisis is there if the Popes are valid as you believe?

1. Yes. The association to the lodge must be public in order to incur automatic excommunication. I believe in the case of the impostor, he never held the Catholic Faith to begin with. But was a freemason from the beginning. If it is secret, well... nobody knows but God.

2. Yes, because occult heretics are still considered visible members of the Church. "Occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope", says Bellarmine.

3. This has been explained several times. The loss of Authority occurs because of the habitual intention of the false pope to do harm to the Church and the external manifestation of heresy. How do we know that there was an impostor?  The indication of the impostor usurping the Seat of Peter was the Magisterial contradiction happening in the setting of an Ecunemical Council on December 7, 1965 with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae. That was the sign of the false pope because a true successor of St. Peter could not teach contra verdades (against the Faith) or harmful doctrines in a General Council.  

Also, this is not my Thesis, but that of Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers, highly respected Dominican theologian; advisor and confessor of Pope Pius XII.  

4. The impostor would be removed from office following due canonical process when dealing with heretics as stipulated in Canon 2315. There would be a process trial therefore, and a way to retract if the heretic abjures his heresy. The Thesis considers that this could be a possible solution to the Holy See vacancy, as well.  

5. Yes

Now I am really confused!

1. You believe that the pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid pope.

2. You believe that a publicly heretical pope was never a valid pope to begin with.

3. You do not believe that a validly elected pope can lose the faith and become a heretic.

So, how did we get a Paul VI? What are the options?

A. He was orthodox when elected pope. But according to #3 he could not lose the faith then. But he did lose the faith. So, this is not it.

B. He was an occult heretic when elected pope and went public afterwards. But according to #2 if he became a public heretic that can only be because he was never a valid pope to begin with. But according to #1 an occult heretic can still be a valid pope. So, this is not it.

C. He was a public heretic when elected, and therefore his election was invalid. Yet, there was not a single Catholic in the world who upon the election of Paul VI noticed his supposedly public heresy. And you yourself admitted anyway that his heresy became public only in 1965. So, this is not it.

Is there any other option left? What did I miss? How did we get to Paul VI?