CathInfo.com

If it's not destroyed, then maybe it's a situation of the true Church being occupied, and as such, the conciliar church still retains some elements of Catholicism, though not many.

In Bp. Tissier's study, I recall that he said that the conciliar church is like a parasite that feeds off of the True Church, and that the conciliar church could not even exist, unless it's gets its lifeblood from the True Church. So there are elements that are retained, insomuch as a parasite will retain the life of the host that it feeds off of. An odd way to put the Crisis, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

Unlike some, +ABL never completely wrote off the conciliar church. He had hope that Rome would one day embrace Tradition be Catholic again.

Yes, the Church's enemies do occupy the Church as +Tissier said.  Fr. Wathen agrees, in his book he said: "...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic  Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column..."

Google definition of a Fifth Column: A fifth column is a group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine.

Well, not exactly. You think I am using Papal Infallibility to maintain the "mystery" of Church's Indefectibility. But for me that is not the case.

What I think is that sedes are judging the pope, something we are not permitted to do per canon law, cuм ex and every other Church teaching out there since the first Pentecost Sunday. 

Per cuм ex we *are* permitted to do what we are doing, i.e. "contradict" him by persevering in the true faith and condemning the NO. R&R do this without concern of the status of popes because the conciliar popes have met the criteria of cuм ex by deviating from the faith. Whether they were or never were popes is irrelevant, everyone on earth (except sedes) knows them all as popes, and as long as we persevere in the faith, his status does not matter. Our salvation depends on us keeping the faith no matter what scandals that "must needs be" cometh.

This is how I got to this point:

 1) If one is a public heretic = proof one is not a member of the Catholic Church

2) If he is not member of the Church = not the pope

3) If not the pope = false pope

You have to remember here that heresy is a sin, a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is a sinner, in the case of the pope (and to not lose sight of what heresy is), lets say the pope is a mortal sinner.  Should the heretic pope decide to repent, all he has to do is go to confession same as you and I and every other Catholic and his sin of heresy can be forgiven.

Now obviously you know that this sacrament is for Catholics only, for members of the Church only, and that one who is not a member of the Church cannot use it, but the pope can use it same as only Catholics can. And in danger of death, Trent says repentant heretics can also receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which is another sacrament only members of the Church can receive. Ergo, the pope is a member of the Church.

And before you go there, yes, I agree that he should first publicly abjure his heresies, but regardless, that's up to him, the remedy for forgiveness of his sin of heresy is the same for all members of the Church in the state of sin, the sacrament of Penance.

All of this is to say a heretic who was a Catholic is still a member of the Church in virtue of the sacrament of penance, which is to say that relying on the above formula as part of your reasoning, doesn't work.