CathInfo.com

Having read it, you must intentionally be concealing the gravamen of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:.....

And you must intentionally be disobeying the directive given to us by pope Paul IV.

You do realize that the beginning of the first paragraph of cuм ex is all about heretic popes, don't you? He is saying that, because he cannot be judged by anyone in this world, there is nothing anyone can do about a heretic pope but we can contradict him, i.e. not do what he says.

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought
that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted...

You may choose to read it that way - I will not dispute it. I guess we will just have to wait a little bit longer to find out Paul IV's exact sense of that choice of wording. I could counter, to say one has deviated from their course does not imply shipwreck. But heresy is full-on shipwreck. The pope personally may deviate from the faith (occult). But if he were to steer the baroque into the shoals and crash it (public) - then you would have Christ leading us all to damnation.

I choose to read it in the same sense that he wrote it. He is quite explicit and clear throughout the entire docuмent, except for this paragraph? No. I quoted the pope describing R&R which is the directive he gave.

And no, the pope is not Christ, and the pope only leads those to damnation who want to follow him there. Nobody, but nobody (you  can reference yourself as an example), can be led to where they do not already want to go, plus it is so much easier to simply follow the wolves. The degree of culpability of the masses who follow may be less, but God does not permit us to be mindless in this world. If all the faithful would have followed the example of the pioneering trads in the 60s, the devil would have had to concoct some other means for this crisis.

But I would only add - at least for myself - that I have no power to judge anyone. I can only judge their actions/beliefs. In the case of the principle I am using, it is not me who has "dethroned" anyone, but rather God and I am merely witness to this fact which has been made known to me by their manifest and public heresy.

This is the common sede pillar, i.e. that he was dethroned by God, but the fact is that all the cardinals in the conclave(s) elected and accepts them as popes, and on that account we must also. God did not give us a choice in this matter, that's why there are cardinals. We witness his heresies and obey Pope Paul IV's instructions about what we are to do when the pope is a heretic and we can save our souls, because that is the direction a pope gave us to follow. That is the teaching of the Church telling us the only thing that we can do about heretic popes.

What do you think of Stickland's rebuke anyway and what is next for him?

Time will tell, but if the bishop is sincere he will absolutely be expelled from his office the same way as +Vigano and the multitude of priests and bishops before him. Until then, for me, he is not with us yet, still against us.

Could you explain a little more about how you view the situation in Strickland's context. I take it you think of him as a legitimate bishop. You mention him being expelled from his office but did that not already happen when he was replaced in Tyler TX.? Vigano was declared in schism and excommunicated but was already retired from any offices he held if I am remembering correctly. So, I think Laughton has it right that the next step for him would be "laicization", because they cannot actually hit him the same as Vigano (excommunication) who has denied both Vatican II as legitimate and Francis as being pope. Strickland has done neither. He seems to think the pope can be an apostate/heretic and many of the bishops can be heretics while still retaining their offices, which is the practical mindset of R&R.

From Strickland's Letter,

"I think that St. Jude had men such as many of you in mind when he described men who feast “together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars…” (Jude 1:12-13)."

From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 12-13. These are spots in their banquets; (see 2 Pet. ii. 13.) in which they commit unheard of abominations, twice dead, which signifies no more than quite dead, clouds without water, &c. All these metaphors are to represent the corrupt manners of these heretics. Wi.

Oddly, if he had read the commentary for the preceding verse he would have seen,

Ver. 11. They have imitated, or gone in the way of Cain, who murdered his brother; and they have a mortal hatred against the faithful. They have imitated Balaam[8] and his covetousness, (see 2 Peter ii. 15.) and Core, (Num. xvi.) who with others opposed Moses; and as these sinners perished, so will they. Wi. — Way, &c. Heretics follow the way of Cain, by murdering the souls of their brethren; the way of Balaam by putting a scandal before the people of God, for their own private ends; and the way of Core or Korah, by their opposition to the church governors of divine appointment. Ch.

Laicization would be a pretty drastic step to take in the case of a bishop, especially one who has not come right out and done something occasioning this (such as McCarrick's misdeeds).  And they didn't laicize Vigano.