You can't even make the decision that "the Church" even does a particular thing!  What a mess.

I made the decision to remain faithful and abide by the laws of the Church. If with God's grace I can persevere unto the end, I shall be saved. Apparently for you, this is heretical because I made no mention of the conciliar non-popes. 

In order to suit your opinion, you would have to add:
"I made the decision that we have had no pope since the death of PPXII," and to remain faithful..."

I do not add it because it is unnecessary, useless, a waste of time, and we are not permitted to act on that opinion as if we are duty bound to make that decision under pain of mortal sin.

It sounds like a good pope, a bad pope, or an apostate 'pope' are all equally meaningless for you as you're not in a position to officially determine the difference.

What it actually is, is sedes feel that we are all obligated to determine the status of popes.   

It sounds like a good pope, a bad pope, or an apostate 'pope' are all equally meaningless for you as you're not in a position to officially determine the difference.

Did you even read the OP?

The status of the pope is important, but if he is no pope then you win the debate and I lose the debate. So what?

All that matters to me is that I keep the faith, avoid all sin and do God's Holy Will until I draw my last breath - "he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is what is matters to me, and this can be done without ever concerning myself with the status of popes. 

I am not trying to win a debate. I am trying to help you see that the position you take is heretical. 

You say all that matters to you is that you "keep the faith." Good. But you are not "keeping the faith" when you spread heretical concept, which you use to attack Sedes constantly.

By all means, give up your heretical idea that a man can be at true Pope and an heretic at the same time. Then you will be on the road to keeping the faith. But until you renounce that, you are in the same danger as the Old Catholics, who will tell you that they believe all or most of the same dogmas you believe in. And, like you, they think the true Pope is a heretic.

I am not trying to win a debate. I am trying to help you see that the position you take is heretical.

You say all that matters to you is that you "keep the faith." Good. But you are not "keeping the faith" when you spread heretical concept, which you use to attack Sedes constantly.

By all means, give up your heretical idea that a man can be at true Pope and an heretic at the same time. Then you will be on the road to keeping the faith. But until you renounce that, you are in the same danger as the Old Catholics, who will tell you that they believe all or most of the same dogmas you believe in. And, like you, they think the true Pope is a heretic.

Good heavens Angelus, you'd do better to go evict your local NO priest from his office, but even that is impossible. Do you concern yourself with those NO priests that regular people actually might deal with and listen to? No, you worry about a heretic pope that nobody on earth can do anything about while he lives.

You accuse me of doing the very thing you are guilty of doing. And Old Catholics denied the primacy of good and holy popes, are you saying the conciliar popes are good and holy? If not, then sthu with that bs remark, not because it offends me, it doesn't, but because it's ridiculous. I will strive to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.

If you did that, maybe you would not be so adamant about something you can do nothing about.

The Old Catholics rejected the dogma of papal infallibility defined at V1. I do not reject that dogma, I preach that dogma to those  sedes who insist it is actually the dogma of papal impeccability. So that remark about being an old catholic is truly stupid. It's as stupid as one who concerns himself with defending or protecting the Church's indefectibility and giving himself the title of being an "Indefectibilist." Ridiculous. Christ is the Church, Christ and the Church are one and the same. That's why the Church is indefectible and the gates of hell will never prevail against her.   

The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is His vicar, or representative on earth, the pope is God's problem, nobody else's - we know that ALL the conciliar popes have preached heresies, yet they ALL believe that all councils are infallible, V2 included. But unlike sedes, they really and truly do believe this. They believe that the Holy Ghost "moved through the council" and on that account believe all the V2 heresies are Catholic truths. This makes them material heretics, not manifest heretics. Until one of them says something like: "I don't care what the Church always taught, the Church was wrong, I say that henceforth..."  they are not manifest heretics. 

Nobody can depose even a manifest heretic pope because the Church is not a democratic Church, it's government is hierarchical, that's just they way it is. Only a future pope can depose a dead pope, that's just the way that is. While I am sure that all of this I've said seems heretical or perhaps blasphemous to you, we have zero need to concern ourselves with deciding the status of popes.  

The Old Catholics rejected the dogma of papal infallibility defined at V1. I do not reject that dogma, I preach that dogma to those  sedes who insist it is actually the dogma of papal impeccability. So that remark about being an old catholic is truly stupid. It's as stupid as one who concerns himself with defending or protecting the Church's indefectibility and giving himself the title of being an "Indefectibilist." Ridiculous. Christ is the Church, Christ and the Church are one and the same. That's why the Church is indefectible and the gates of hell will never prevail against her. 

The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is His vicar, or representative on earth, the pope is God's problem, nobody else's - we know that ALL the conciliar popes have preached heresies, yet they ALL believe that all councils are infallible, V2 included. But unlike sedes, they really and truly do believe this. They believe that the Holy Ghost "moved through the council" and on that account believe all the V2 heresies are Catholic truths. This makes them material heretics, not manifest heretics. Until one of them says something like: "I don't care what the Church always taught, the Church was wrong, I say that henceforth..."  they are not manifest heretics.

Nobody can depose even a manifest heretic pope because the Church is not a democratic Church, it's government is hierarchical, that's just they way it is. Only a future pope can depose a dead pope, that's just the way that is. While I am sure that all of this I've said seems heretical or perhaps blasphemous to you, we have zero need to concern ourselves with deciding the status of popes. 

Yes, the Old Catholics rejection of the dogma of PI was the flashpoint of their heresy. But the underlying theological reason they thought they could reject the dogma is their belief that Pius IX taught heresy and Pius IX was the true Pope, and they started their own Church.

You don't claim to have started your own Church (yet), but you take positions that would justify starting your own Church. You are a member of the Stubbornized Wathen/SSPX Church, which you call the Catholic Church. You pick and choose what you like and those things are dogmas, and people who don't agree are "heretics." You don't use the Church's criteria for what a heresy is. You have your own criteria. So you have practically started your own Church.

The Church through its theologians and Canon Law teach that any ecclesiastical officeholder who "defects from the faith" tacitly resigns from his office. The heretic is the one who removes himself. You are not removing or deposing anyone when you recognize that a heretic is not the Pope.

The loss of office (the tacit resignation) happened automatically according to Canon Law. It happens if any Catholic detects that the Pope truly manifests as a heretic. That Catholic who detects this (you in this case) are told to act as if the officeholder has lost is authority/jurisdiction immediately upon manifesting heresy.

So you say the Pope is a heretic. If you truly believe that, then Canon Law requires you to act as if there is a vacancy in that office. This is what the Sedes do. They do it because they understand the law and theology behind calling a putative Pope a heretic.

The Sedes don't play this insane contradictory game of having your Pope and your heretic too. If the man is a heretic (and Prevost is), then he is not a true Pope. He is a usurper.

Who teaches that a pope who commits acts of schism alone, without formal public heresy, ceases to be a valid pope?