My point is that if one wants to make the argument, like Fr Cekada, that post V2 officials have lost their offices, then the proof must be VERY strong, with a consensus of theologians, and very, very little doubt etc. Because the charges are grave and the implications of the church being pope-less and bishop-less are huge.
Fr Cekada points to Cum Ex as a 'strong proof'. If Fr Chazal shows that Cum Ex's proof is not strong, or is debatable, then the default position is that V2 officials still hold their offices, because they do, in reality, still hold them. Sorta like "innocent until proven guilty". In the absense of an official Church process or procedure to remove someone from office, said person retains the office. This is practical logic. Fr Cekada is proposing a very unique, theoretical and extreme position. Unless proof is undeniable, then we cannot act or accept measures which are separate from ecclesiastical due process. The effects of such rash decisions lead to confusion, chaos and spiritual disarray.