... Vatican II is not from the Holy Spirit..

It would've been better if the that Council had been guided by Mumbly and the Cartoons, or that the that Council had never been born.

Yet, again, this is based upon the fact that Cushing was already the valid Archbishop of Boston, allowing him to remain the "conduit" of supplied jurisdiction in that See, kind of like how Bishops and Cardinals can still be appointed during a sede vacante of the Papacy; whereas, JPII, for example, was never validly the Bishop of Rome given he was a heretic beforehand, and would not have any possession of universal jurisdiction regardless, preventing him from even serving as a "conduit" for the appointment of Bishops, Cardinals, and priests by this means.

And, furthermore, in Cushing's case, given what Canon 2340.2 states above, it's likely that those appointments were also null since he had no jurisdiction to do so. Obviously the ordinations would be valid, but not their appointments. Albeit, you could argue that they were ratified as legitimate through their acceptance by the Holy Office...

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm

Mystici Corporis
The Mystical Body of Christ, the Church
Pope Pius XII - 1943

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” ¹⁷ As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. ¹⁸ And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. ¹⁹ It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Dogmatic Theology: Volume II, Christ's Church, Van Noort

https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n131/mode/2up


Page 241:

b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates ) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy ”

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Marys Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or wilfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership.

Sacrae Theologiae Summa, On the Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, Joachim Salaverri

https://archive.org/details/salaverri-de-ecclesia/page/424/mode/2up

Page 424:

1) That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church can well be said to be the unanimous opinion among Catholics.

Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, I De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione

https://archive.org/details/BillotDeEcclesiaChristiI/page/n145/mode/2up


Page 294:

English Translation:

the unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever, it follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. For then there would be a division in the profession of faith, and division is contradictory to unity. But notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Therefore they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church, and even though they are signed with the baptismal character, they either have never been part of its visible body, or have ceased to be such from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism.

SSPX article: Eucharistic hospitality: an ecuмenical novelty

https://sspx.org/en/eucharistic-hospitality-ecuмenical-novelty

There are also souls who, though having been incorporated into the Church by baptism, break off from this Body and cease to be members of it. The bond of communion produced in them by baptism is broken by heresy, schism, or excommunication. Unlike the case of sinners who though dead remain attached to the Body, these souls cease completely from being members of the Church, and that is why they cannot licitly approach the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Martin Luther was not a Catholic, and neither are you.

Reply to Objection: When the Eastern "Orthodox" are baptized as infants, they are made members of the Catholic Church and receive the supernatural virtue of Faith through the sacrament of baptism. They are only excommunicated from the Church when they commit the sin of heresy or schism at a later age, at some point in time after they have obtained the use of reason. Therefore, they are former(!) Catholics, just the same as Martin Luther was.

"Excommunicated from the Church?" Where did you get this phrase? Makes it sound like they are banished or expelled from the Church.

Excommunication, depending on the censure, basically means one may not partake in the sacraments or activities (if a priest, he cannot celebrate Mass, preach or administer the sacraments etc., or laymen cannot be an usher, sing in the choir, etc.) because they have committed a mortal sin to which is attached the censure of excommunication.

Excommunication is a censure primarily intended to be medicinal, a stern warning prompting the sinner to repent. These sinners still have all the obligations of a Catholic but none of the privileges - until they repent. But it is a censure due to mortal sin, not a banishment of the sinner from the Church.

Martin Luther was not a Catholic, and neither are you.

Yeah, I've said this before and I say it again.  Stubborn's beliefs bear no resemblance to Roman Catholicism.  Again, to salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio, they're willing to butcher and effectively throw out all of Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

Just because his departure from the Church wasn't formalized until a year after he initially defected from the faith does not mean he was still a member of the Church (Siscoe & Salza are completely wrong).  St. Robert Bellarmine cites Pope Celestine, who wrote of Nestorius (who was only formally condemned about 3 years after his defection), that he ceased to have any authority from the moment that he began to "preach" heresy ... and that all his acts had been null and void.

The point is, the "formalizing" of his heresy serves a very necessary aspect to the process.

a.  Until Martin Luther was interrogated about his errors, canon law (and charity) assumes he is materially wrong and not pernicious.
b.  Example:  Under questioning, Luther actually relented on a number of his 100 points.  Which means, he was NOT pernicious on all 100 of them.
c.  If it is found that a person is not pernicious but only materially wrong, then the "loss of office" does not happen at all.
d.  Which means, that UNTIL a person is corrected/interrogated (i.e. a canon law process), then pernicious/obstinacy is unknown (in a temporal/govt sense).  Only God knows the heart of a person, and if they are suspected of heresy, then St Bellarmine is correct that we treat them as such (i.e. meaning, we avoid/ignore them as a scandal and danger to the faith).
e.  St Bellarmine does NOT mean that we can "treat them as heretic" by kicking them out of office without due process.  This contradicts every legal foundation ever created.
f.  In the case of Luther, he would've been suspended immediately for his 100 thesis and he would've lost any "spiritual" authority from that moment.  But...his office/temporal authority (and his membership in the church) did not cease until AFTER an investigation/correction.
g.  As St Paul teaches, those in error should be corrected twice, then afterwards, cast out.
h.  The problem with many sedes is they fail to distinguish between spiritual penalities for heresy (which many times only God knows) and the process for determining temporal penalties.  An investigation is necessary, by an authority, before any temporal penalties can exist.  Or it's just an opinion.  No layman can kick anyone out of office for any reason.

e.  St Bellarmine does NOT mean that we can "treat them as heretic" by kicking them out of office without due process.  This contradicts every legal foundation ever created.
f.  In the case of Luther, he would've been suspended immediately for his 100 thesis and he would've lost any "spiritual" authority from that moment.  But...his office/temporal authority (and his membership in the church) did not cease until AFTER an investigation/correction.
g.  As St Paul teaches, those in error should be corrected twice, then afterwards, cast out.
h.  The problem with many sedes is they fail to distinguish between spiritual penalities for heresy (which many times only God knows) and the process for determining temporal penalties.  An investigation is necessary, by an authority, before any temporal penalties can exist.  Or it's just an opinion.  No layman can kick anyone out of office for any reason.

This is why Pope St Piux X and XII changed the conclave laws.  They knew that canon law outlines multiple spiritual penalities for heresy, which kick in immediately.  They also knew that orthodox cardinals/bishops were far outnumbered and that Modernists held positions of power.  Which means that the legal structure necessary to investigate/"clean house"/change the Modernists with heresy was impotent.  Which means that these evil men would still retain temporal control of offices, per canon law, even if they were closeted (or even open) heretics.  Because the Church is a visible organization which functions like a govt for temporal matters.


So they, knowing the future was dire, made the decision to keep the VISIBLE/Temporal structure of the Church intact (i.e. allow material heretics to vote) even if this means that a) spiritually speaking, the Church would be papally sedevacant for a long time (until God intervened), and probably 95% cardinal/bishop sedevacant globally
b) temporally speaking, the Church would be "ruled" by modernist heretics.

Not only is this situation the practical reality, but it's also the only temporal solution to the problem.  Neither St Pius X nor XII could stop the infiltration; it had already happened (it's arguable that Pius XII was a cooperator, so he must be deemed an fellow infiltrator).  St Pius X couldn't convert these heretics.  And I don't think "cleaning house" is an effective solution either, because (in St Pius X's day) a) it had never been done, b) it would've caused total chaos, c) most modernists would've claimed to have been orthodox, so how do you prove heresy when the "deep church" (which was very active in the early 1900s) would effectively subvert your every move?  I don't think people realize how infiltrated the Church was, in St Pius X's time.  He often complained to his assistant of being "alone" (he meant, orthodox-wise).

So, the only solution is to prepare for the future situation that we are living in today.  Where 99% of the Church is either a material heretic or mostly pernicious infiltrators.  But how do you separate the two?  How do you determine a) the cowardly unorthodox from b) the pernicious evildoers?  Even if you knew, how do you replace them when the "deep church" is against you?

Similar to the Arian heresy, when 95% of the church hierarchy were heretics.  The church still functioned temporally.  But they all eventually re-converted and returned to orthodoxy.  There was no mass "kicking heretics from office" and replacing them with orthodox bishops/cardinals.  That didn't happen, nor is it a practical reality.  Did they abjure their heresy before the church returned to normal?  Absolutely.  Did these heretic clergymen suffer spiritual penalties and lose spiritual authority?  Sure, St Athanasius' life proves this.  But did they also STILL KEEP their offices during a chaotic, unprecedented crisis?  Yes.

The only solution is to "keep the Church going" from a temporal standpoint (i.e. keep the visible structure operating) even if spiritually speaking, it's been hallowed out by an enemy.  And wait for God to resurrect His Bride, as only He can do.