Can a Catholic Believe in Any Kind of Sedevacantism?

Can a Catholic be a Young Earth Creationist, or Does this Reveal Sloppy Reception into the Church (or a False Claim of Reception)? · Can a Catholic Believe in Any Kind of Sedevacantism?

Papal Heresy and Loss of Office - SSPX Interview Series
SSPX News - English, 23 Febr 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04oN_23onHs

21:16 What about the succession into the episcopal order?
Like Mgr Williamson was never appointed residential bishop of anywhere, but he's still a bishop (though not an ordinary), since 1988, June 29th?

The problem does not follow the same way, if for instance Cardinal Siri ceased to be Pope at his death in 1989, and was succeeded in 1990 by the election of Pope Michael, who left office on Aug 2nd last year, also by dying, and both agreed that for jurisdictional purposes not involving heretical doctrine, the bishops appointed by heretical antipopes have a kind of jurisdiction.

I e, for a marriage, Pope Michael required two witnesses and sending the protocal to him (per fax, for instance), and allowed one of the witnesses to be a priest, preferrably among people who are in "full communion with" - de facto apostate - "Rome" ...

22:36 You are aware that the statement you are saying is leading to absurd consequences is one which Pope St. Celestine I actually supported as against Nestorius?

Clicking on your link, it seems you are not.

Here is the video by Dimond Brothers on the topic:
Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope
vaticancatholic.com, 8 Jan. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdJ0g5dnho

24:03 The wording to Pope St. Celestine actually applies to loss of office without necessarily implying the person who spoke is separated from the Church.

Nestorius:

• went to a monastery on being condemned in Ephesus
• on hearing about Chalcedon later, he said "this is what I meant" and he left the monastery, on his view the penance was no longer necessary.

Pope St. Celestine only spoke of loss of office, and only spoke of preaching heresy.

And in context:

• this means de facto heresy, not yet formally condemned as such
• identifiable immediately by being against the immemorial tradition in the time and place where he spoke, i e in Constantinople one had since time immemorial spoken of Theotokos.

So, neither subjective nor formal heresy, just objective material heresy, was enough for loss of office.

27:01 Canon 2264 (Pio-Benedictine) was also the argument by Rev Paul Natterer in the sermon series "Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen?" - the obvious weakness in applying this to heresy in persons or utterances which would otherwise be papal, is, the Pope has no superior.

As he has no superior, no one can canonically warn him, no one can pronounce a sentence over him (unless he himself names a commission with power to do so).

The canonic process cannot take place, hence it becomes a prudential (and individual) judgement on whether or not that person, known to many as Pope, was in fact a heretic or at least taught heresy.

St. Robert Bellarmine says, a man validly appointed to papacy could not fall into heresy, but if he did, he would automatically lose office.
St. Francis of Sales says, if he did he would automatically lose office.

In a situation, such as "Theotokists" in Constantinople faced against Nestorius, one would not need to know whether:

• he was invalidly elevated and a heretic already before
• he was validly elevated but lost office by public heresy
• or he might even still be a Catholic before God, but is not expressing it correctly before men.

The theology from which I conclude that 2264 was valid Church law is:

• it deals only with heresy below that of a Pope (or otherwise-Pope)
• and the heretical bishop insofar as heretical is not himself any longer the subject of authority, but the (orthodox) Pope is supplying it for all of his jurisdictional acts that do not favour the heresy and are therefore not overturned by the Pope
• dito in a curate when the bishop is judging him
• all of this is a valid dispensation from, but not annulling, the ultimate divine law, that a heretic, or even just apparent heretic, cannot hold office. Outside the foreseen situation, it reverts to this divine law.

31:03 Can one make the case that any Theistic Evolutionist has joined a non-Catholic sect?

I mean anyone holding the position that:
a) Adam and Eve were not literally two individual persons
or b) Adam was a literal person, but who was born from a couple of merely anatomical humans who were products of evolution.