When did me or DigitalLogos ever say Pope Pius XII was wrong or that he can't contradict cuм Ex? The point is, he didn't contradict it. He was not referring to heretics outside the Church. If you read the articles provided, you would get that.
Irrelevant! The principle still holds true today, and Pope Pius XII never contradicted it, since he was referring to ecclesiastical impediments, not to impediments of divine law!

“Impediments of divine law.”



Now you’re openly making stuff up.

I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.

From the Popes and Magisterium (which some here think we can deny):

Well, the problem is that I do believe that these scoundrels here would in fact submit to a genuine pope and would stand to be corrected by him.  That's typically the litmus test for pertinacity in heresy.  This crisis is confusing, and their brains are mangled into this twisted mess.  There's no doubt some significant bad will here, and they do blaspheme Holy Mother Church and promote a heretical ecclesiology, so that is not to completely let them off the hook.  But there's a monumental difference between that and pertinacious formal heresy.  They've constructed for themselves this completely imaginary theological system they believe properly characterizes this crisis.  They don't deny anything they know to be dogma, and likely wouldn't, but they're coming perilously close to not having anything that actually resembles the Catholic faith.

Well, the problem is that I do believe that these scoundrels here would in fact submit to a genuine pope and would stand to be corrected by him.  That's typically the litmus test for pertinacity in heresy.  This crisis is confusing, and their brains are mangled into this twisted mess.  There's no doubt some significant bad will here, and they do blaspheme Holy Mother Church and promote a heretical ecclesiology, so that is not to completely let them off the hook.  But there's a monumental difference between that and pertinacious formal heresy.  They've constructed for themselves this completely imaginary theological system they believe properly characterizes this crisis.  They don't deny anything they know to be dogma, and likely wouldn't, but they're coming perilously close to not having anything that actually resembles the Catholic faith.

I'll go one further and say that they don't have the Catholic faith. And I say this because their entire position revolves around maintaining the erroneous position of Lefebvre, who only held the position that he did because things weren't as clear then as they are now. They're Lefebvrists, not Catholics. Which is why they won't admit any of the clear proof you can throw at them about heresy and the loss of office, or the indefectibility of the Church, because they don't have the faith. They will do everything possible to wriggle out of admitting that the See is vacant, up to the point of calling the Spotless Bride of Christ a whore, just so they have a name to pop into the Te Igitur at their Sunday Mass.

They won't read the refutation because it comes from MHFM. That much has already been made clear earlier in the thread when I posted clear refutations of the heretical R&R position on Vatican II by MFHM and NOW, and they were dismissed because of the source, rather than the arguments.

I read it, the whole refutation is based off the very first item, which is itself error.... "As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church;"

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...

Catholics who are bad willed heretics are guilty of mortal sin because they deny a dogma or dogmas. To be forgiven of this sin of heresy, the penitent must go to confession and receive absolution from the priest for this  sin. Depending on the culpability and gravity of the sin, the nature of this sin makes this more unlikely to happen than with other mortal sins.

Do I need to quote the canonist Morato again? “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…”

Which Divine Law? Not one person has ever told us the Divine Law. Even Fr. Cekada could not tell us - can you?

I'll go one further and say that they don't have the Catholic faith. And I say this because their entire position revolves around maintaining the erroneous position of Lefebvre, who only held the position that he did because things weren't as clear then as they are now.

I disagree with your characterization of Archbishop Lefebvre's position.  This particular articulation of R&R is decidedly NOT what Archbishop Lefebvre held.  He disagrees with their major premise that the Catholic Church and the Papacy could become this corrupt.  I'll find the speech he gave on that matter (I transcribed it from audio at one point here).  +Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism and considered it a real possibility.  He merely held back from openly declaring the See vacant out of deference to the Church's authority.  That is in fact a legitimate criticism of SVism, that your average Aunt Helen Catholic is in no position to declare the See vacant, nor is a simple priest, and arguably even a single bishop.  Archbishop Lefebvre kept saying that SVism is possible and could very well one day by "confirmed by the Church."  So his reasoning was more along the lines of:  "This is merely my personal opinion but I don't really have the authority to settle the matter."  Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the Marks of the Holy Catholic Church, i.e. that it's a new religion, and that those marks were with the Traditional Catholics.  That too is a point that this cadre of R&R deny.

Unfortunately, the hesitation of Archbishop Lefebvre did ultimately morph into this modern notion of R&R that is not recognizable as Catholic, but it's not a position that he himself held, despite the claims of these R&Rers themselves, always claiming that they are the true followers of +Lefebvre.  They're not.