The canonical effects of embracing schism: I am posting these distinctions because I think that if trads had some idea of the NUANCE that goes into determining the objective guilt of a schismatic or a heretic, it would help in their decision making process regarding Sedevacantism or R&R.

Rule number 1: The written law cannot enforce itself, but must be enforced by an external agency. If you don't get this right, you fail already.

All this is from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Catholic Encyclopedia and some older canonical books that clarify a few things, all of which you can find HERE:
1917 Code of Canon law

https://archive.org/details/newcanonlaw00woywuoft

Historical Development of Excommunication:

https://books.google.com/books?id=RXEiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=declaratory+latae+sententiae&source=bl&ots=E-W_Vad1D2&sig=iL-3hxtJZzE5IJRRxhEvW6aWi3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTyav_k_nOAhUB7CYKHWuwCNcQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=declaratory%20latae%20sententiae&f=false

Catholic Encyclopedia: Excommunication

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm


Distinctions-

 1: there are two types of excommunicate persons, not one. There are those who are Tolerati and those who are Vitandi. The Tolerati are those who are tolerated by the church and can exercise juridical authority and administer the sacraments under certain circuмstances. A Vitandus is one who is declared to be shunned by the church and can only give the sacraments to one in danger of death. He must be ousted from liturgical gatherings or the Liturgy must be stopped. No one is a Vitandus unless explicitly declared as such.

See link to 1917 Code of Canon Law- p. 171 Par. 1542 Can. 2258


2. There are also two ways of incurring excommunication: Latae Sententiae and Ferendae Sententiae. Latae Sententiae is to incur excommunication by the very commission of the act, ipso facto. Latae Sententiae means “Already Sentenced.” Ferendae Sententiae are those penalties which are to be applied in court after a judgment is made of a specific case/crime. The main difference is that the PENALTIES for Latae Sententiae are to be retroactively applied from the moment the sin/crime was committed. The Penalties for Ferendae Sententiae are to be applied from the moment the court decides to implement them, and not before.

See the link to a Historical Development of Excommunication- p. 50 onward.

https://books.google.com/books?id=RXEiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=declaratory+latae+sententiae&source=bl&ots=E-W_Vad1D2&sig=iL-3hxtJZzE5IJRRxhEvW6aWi3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTyav_k_nOAhUB7CYKHWuwCNcQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=declaratory%20latae%20sententiae&f=false

See link to 1917 Code of Canon Law- pp. 164-165 Par. 1501 s.2 Can 2217

BUT, it remains, that for a Latae Sententiae penalty to take PUBLIC effect, a Declaratory sentence MUST be issued. In fact, without a declaratory sentence, the one guilty of incurring a Latae Sententiae penalty CANNOT be made to undergo the penalty unless the offense is notorious. Note well the need to be publicly made to undergo the penalty :The LAW does not apply penalties, it only denotes them. COURTS apply penalties.

See link to 1917 Code of Canon Law- p. 167 Par. 1516 Can. 2232


3. Another important distinction is declaratory/condemnatory. A Declaratory sentence rendered by a court is one which DECLARES that a person has ipso facto and Latae Sententiae condemned themselves by virtue of the type of crime committed. So a person who is a schismatic has ipso facto incurred the penalty of excommunication Latae Sententiae. A Declaratory Sentence makes this clear for others. It is NOT a condemnatory sentence because the guilty party has condemned themselves, objectively. A Condemnatory sentence is for when a person is guilty of violating a canon whose penalties are to be applied by a court, Ferendae Sententia. THEN from the moment they are SENTENCED they are punished, and not before, when they had committed the deed.

See the link to a Historical Development of Excommunication- p. 50 onward.

https://books.google.com/books?id=RXEiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=declaratory+latae+sententiae&source=bl&ots=E-W_Vad1D2&sig=iL-3hxtJZzE5IJRRxhEvW6aWi3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTyav_k_nOAhUB7CYKHWuwCNcQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=declaratory%20latae%20sententiae&f=false



SO WHAT does all this mean? There's more too, but let's have at it:

I am a Pope. I have decided to fundamentally alter the Rites of the Sacraments. What happens?

1. What kind of act is it? The theologians tell us:

FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)
CALLED BY POPE PAUL V DOCTOR EXIMIUS ET PIUS (MOST EXALTED AND PIOUS)
CONSIDERED THE GREATEST THEOLOGIAN OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS

     "Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet
tenere cuм toto Ecclesiae corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet,
ut si tentat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellet omnes  
Ecclesiasticas caeremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere. (De
Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
       
["And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were  
unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church,
as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as
both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites
of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."]

And Torquemada says:

""He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal
Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or
if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world
by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See.  
Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for
example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal
customs and rites of the Church.  This same holds true for other aspects
of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one
unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated
places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross
as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way,
relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
        "By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope
could fall into schism.  The conclusion is sound and the premises are
not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been
established for the common order of the Church.  Thus it is that [Pope]
Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a
Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the
universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal
customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."  
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])"

Thus the theologians hold a Pope could become a schismatic by contemning the rites of the Church. In fact, The Council of Trent teaches this:

Session VII, On the Sacraments in General:

CANON XIII.-"If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor of the churches whomsoever [quecuмque], into other new ones; let him be anathema."

THUS a POPE could become a schismatic by his substantial alteration of the sacraments.

But what then?

If we follow canon law:

1. We see it is an offense which invokes the penalty of excommunication Latae Sententiae Ipso Facto:

"CHAPTER I. Penalties Incurred "Ipso Facto" ("Latae Sententiae").
   ...
II. Excommunications Reserved to the Holy See "Speciali
   Modo" Befall:
   1600. 1. all apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics (Canon 2314)."

So we see that the crime of Schism is punished by Excommunication Latae Sententiae, Ipso Facto.

Oh, but wait, it doesn't stop there.

2. In order for this penalty of excommunication to have any public effect, it must be APPLIED. Latae Sententiae does NOT mean the person pulls down the sentencing upon themselves, it means they are condemned, objectively, of themselves from the moment the act is committed. But this condemnation is useless without a declaratory sentence which is why the Canon Law ALSO says:

"1516. The penalty Latae Sententiae, whether corrective or punitive, ipso facto binds the offender who is conscious of his offence, both in the external and internal forum; before a declaratory sentence has been issued against the offender he is excused from the observance of the penalty whenever he cannot observe it without loss of good repute, and in the external forum observance of the penalty cannot be demanded of the offender by any one unless the offence is notorious. It is left to the good judgment of the superior to issue the declaration that an offender has incurred the penalty specified in law; if the public welfare demands the declaration, or the offender is accused by the party who suffered from the offence, the superior or judge are obliged to issue the declaration. By the declaratory sentence the penalty takes effect from the very moment in which the offence was committed. (Canon 2232.)

So the Declaratory sentence for Latae Sententiae Penalties like excommunication brings the penalty into effect RETROACTIVELY from the first moment of commission.

One problem arises: a. Who will render a declaratory sentence against a presumed Pope who is living? No one.

Also, let us examine the impact a Latae Sententiae Ipso Facto Excommunication that is NOT labeled " Vitandus" has upon Acts of Jurisdiction:

"1548. Acts of jurisdiction, both of the external and the internal forum, exercised by an excommunicated person are unlawful; if the excommunication has been pronounced by condemnatory or declaratory sentence these acts of jurisdiction are invalid, saving the exception of Canon 2261, 3, namely if asked to administer the Sacraments in danger of death; otherwise they are valid and even licit, namely when requested by the faithful in accordance with the regulations of Canon 2261, 2, (Canon 2264.)"

Look, I don't like him and neither do you: But what Council rendered a declaratory sentence against Pope Paul VI telling him his acts of schism had brought down upon himself Excommunication Latae Sententiae Ipso Facto and that he was now to be considered Vitandus?

None. Not one. THEREFORE all his acts of Jurisdiction remained valid and licit.

BUT you and I BOTH agree that he was OBJECTIVELY guilty of schism. So what I THINK will happen is that the Church will eventually analyze his deeds and declare them to have been schismatic and that therefore, ipso facto all his juridical acts from that time forward were unlawful. Same with JPII, Same with Francis.

Do you know that Francis does not believe his acts of canonization are infallible and he himself told this to a Cardinal? According to Bishop Fellay at least, who I don't think would lie about that point.

So if we take canonical nuance into consideration, it is quite interesting. Sedevacantism is not NEEDED to discount the acts of these popes, because their objective state of self-excommunication Latae Sententiae takes care of their illegitimate acts if we appeal to the future inevitable judgment of the finally restored Church (According to Our Lady of Good Success, Fatima, Marie Julie Jahenny, Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, etc.)

They are currently undoing all their acts of jurisdiction simply by the fact that they are performing them while having been repeatedly warned by others not to. Paul VI accosted Abp. Lefebvre, he knew what was at stake. JPII the same, and faced the resistance of the Traditionalists and undoubtedly heard their objections. Benedict did as well, which is WHY there was a Motu Proprio, as well as Francis who flat out criticizes traditionalists and slanders them while explicitly saying he ignores them and presses onward.

Although their acts stand as unjudged now, nevertheless, the canonical context for their actions (Acts of men excommunicated Latae Sententiae waiting for a formal declaration) destroys all their Juridical acts. When a holy Pope finally looks back on our epoch, their acts will be condemned as null from the moment they embraced heresy/schism.

Let us simply wait patiently and suffer as the saints did, with dignity. Kyrie eleison!