Pius XII:

"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor" (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 34).

No, Stubborn, this is not referring to "heretic cardinals", which don't exist. It is referring to Catholic cardinals who have incurred minor excommunication for some crime other than heresy, schism or apostasy. Individuals who have incurred minor excommunication are still members of the Church, unlike heretics. You believe a non-Catholic can be the head of the Church, meaning you don't believe the Church is one in Faith. Next time you sing "Unam, sanctam, catholicam" at a Sung Mass, think about what that really means. It does not mean the Church is some heretical sect made up of both Catholics and heretics. The Mystical Body of Christ professes One (unam) Faith.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Your fallacious objection was completely refuted long ago here: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/

Also: Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, Jan. 22, 1899: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” You reject this, for you believe Francis is the head of the Conciliar Church, i.e. "Where Peter is, there is not the Church".

This effectively refutes the contention by certain Traditionalists that the provisions contained in cuм ex are not mentioned in the Code, hence they are abrogated under Can. 6§5 and have lost all force of law. On the contrary; with the exception of Can. 1325, the entire basis for the Code's treatment of heresy, apostasy and schism is firmly grounded on cuм ex. In addition, the Bull of Pope Paul IV, as well as that of Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum, is further protected from any sort of abrogation by virtue of its makeup. according to Rev. Nicholas J. Neuberger, (Canon 6: The Relation of the Codex Juris Canonici to Preceding Legislation, Catholic University of America, 1927). Calling it an "oath," Rev. Neuberger comments on the phrase "hac immutabili et in perpetuum valitura constitutione" (roughly translated, "our constitution is to remain unchanged in perpetuity,") found in various papal docuмents. He states that while such a phrase does not curtail the power nor invalidate future acts of a (legitimate) successor of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless "the legislator attaches an especial juridical sanction to laws which have such a clause appended. Pihring advances the theory that the laws of general councils are not abolished unless a derogatory clause is annexed next to the posterior enactment…If a prior law is bound up with an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion are that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be invalid."

Source attached

If that's the case, then we are dealing with bad-willed heretics who receive not the love of the truth... they are no different to the liberals who will dismiss evidence against the vaccine because the source isn't from the mainstream media. In this case it's bad-willed false trads who only accept Eleison comments or the Angelus or Fr. Wathen's sermons as a valid source...

Already refuted.

See:
Furthermore, cuм Ex is still in force

Eh, you seem not to realize every docuмent you’re citing PRECEDES the abrogation of Pius XII.

Either you need to join Ibranyi, and move the dial back on the...ahem...”interregnum,” or you need to abandon this moronic argument.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15:
No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.

You didn't read the article that refutes your misuse of Vacantis, did you? Proving that you are as intellectually dishonest as I suspected you were.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not specifically express any intention to abrogate cuм ex. Suspension for an election does not mean abrogation. And even then, the principle remains that a heretic cannot hold any ecclesiastical office. So, the election of a heretic would still be invalid.

Since you want to skirt around cuм ex, here's another

And even then, the principle remains that a heretic cannot hold any ecclesiastical office. So, the election of a heretic would still be invalid.

In case you weren’t aware, Leo XIII was writing well before Pius XII.

I never said that, yet again you are reading into things! I said it is a matter of divine law, because the subject matter is just that. Heretics are not members of the Church by divine law, as the canonist Maroto states: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See…”

So no, cuм ex is not merely disciplinary (which is something like the law to abstain on fridays), because it is predicated on the divine law that a heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore could not possibly be it's head.