Even if a heretical cardinal were elected, that election would be null and void because they are heretics.

Then please provide a logical explanation of why Pope St Pius X and Pius XII would make such a change?  Were they stupid?  Did they get bored and just want to change conclave rules?  You're obviously implying the rule change had no purpose.  St Pius X has been repeatedly quoted as saying he was surrounded by "wolves" in new-rome.  He wrote many encyclicals on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and how they were the enemies of the Church.  Don't you think his rule change had something to do with the infiltration that had already started?  How do you explain it?

Then please provide a logical explanation of why Pope St Pius X and Pius XII would make such a change?  Were they stupid?  Did they get bored and just want to change conclave rules?  You're obviously implying the rule change had no purpose.  St Pius X has been repeatedly quoted as saying he was surrounded by "wolves" in new-rome.  He wrote many encyclicals on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and how they were the enemies of the Church.  Don't you think his rule change had something to do with the infiltration that had already started?  How do you explain it?

augustineeens provided the following refutation of your misunderstanding of the teaching, and it was dismissed and ridiculed because it comes from MHFM.

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/

Right, no pope can lift a divine law impediment to being elected pope; they are merely lifting ecclesiastical impediments.  So, for instance, a conclave could not elect Joel Osteen to the papacy, nor could they elect a woman.  No amount of papal legislation can lift divine law impediments.  Why can't Osteen be elected?  Because he's outside the Church on account of heresy.

All I ask before you stomp off, all I ask is for you to answer the question:
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics heretics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?

Yes. I stated that already. And I never denied it actually.

What heretical teaching to I hold? Post it or retract it.

That heretics can hold office in the Church and that they are inside the Church. I don't need to repost the papal teachings on this.
And you're a schismatic because you profess Francis as Pope but do not hold communion with him outside of lip-service and the Te Igitur.

Yes, that link starts out with the error that promotes sedeism, which is that heretics, without any distinction whatsoever, are not members of the Church. Have you ever seen this dogma, or are you just going to take the Dimond Fools' word for it.

That's right up there with heretical popes breaking Divine Law - - -but no one knows which Divine Law, do they now?

Council of Florence (1442: DS 1351): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire... unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation;"

^Literally what I've been saying


To quote again:

St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."

Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"

Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, #6:
6. In addition, if ever at any time it should appear that any Bishop (even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate), or any Cardinal of said Roman Church, even a Legate as previously stated, or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then
his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void;

^Literally what I've been saying

I know you keep saying the same thing and posting beautiful Catholic and dogmatic teachings over and over, why keep quoting the same thing that there is no argument over?

Certainly heretics who have never been Catholic are outside of the Church, and all who die heretics regardless of whether they were Catholic or not will go to hell forever - that is not in dispute, never has been, never will be - this is what Florence is teaching and is in harmony with all of your other excellent quotes (except the ones I noted that are misquoted by MHFM).

Look, you said that you agree that Catholics, most notably popes, who've fallen into the sin of heresy can be absolved through the sacrament of penance. If you actually believe this truth, then you understand that the Church only permits the use of this sacrament to those who are members of the Church. Hence, Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy must be members of the Church who've fallen into the sin of heresy. It's really not complicated.

Heresy is a mortal sin, Catholics who've fallen into this mortal sin have got to get to the sacrament of confession asap - but the nature of this particular sin makes that more unlikely than with other mortal sins. So it's not that the Church has kicked them out, She hasn't, it's that they want nothing to do with her anymore - THAT is the nature of the sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, this is what PPXII is teaching in MC.

The sede narrative hinges on the error that Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy are banished from the Church, insisting that these heretics are not members of the Church - I keep saying if they were Catholic, then yes, they are indeed members of the Church who have fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and that it is the Church herself who urges them to get to confession and repent - which she only does to members of the Church.

I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin is exactly that, a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin.

I hold as a teaching of the Church that heresy, schism and apostacy are mortal sins. You adulterate this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.

Right... so you hold that a Catholic who becomes a heretic, is still a Catholic. So then you would logically have to conclude that Martin Luther remained a Catholic when he became a heretic, he's just a "Catholic in mortal sin" according to you, right? Clearly, you reject the Unity of the Church. It's a dogma that the Church is one in Faith. You reject that. You are not a Catholic.

Abjuration


https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01044d.htm

A denial, disavowal, or renunciation under oath. In common ecclesiastical language this term is restricted to the renunciation of heresy made by the penitent heretic on the occasion of his reconciliation with the Church. The Church has always demanded such renunciation, accompanied by appropriate penance.

Abjuration  ►  Sacrament of penance