CathInfo.com

Agreed the pope is not "impeccable". Do you imagine that I think the pope is literally Christ Incarnate in His divine & human natures? The pope is just a man and can suffer all the weaknesses of other men, only his "faith fails not".

Well if he is not impeccable, then how do you explain the solemn teaching that Christ and the pope are one head? Consider as I just said above, "The two make one head only when the pope speaks ex cathedra." This is the only time for certain the solemn teaching is referring to, i.e. that "his faith fail not" and "Christ and the pope constitute one head."

If it did - God would allow the heretic to manifest to you publicly that he who you thought was pope was no longer pope (or never was to begin with).
You keep stating that I am destroying something, the living college of cardinals was already destroyed back in the 1960s. The concept remains and no one can destroy that. God may choose to restore it - I don't have a read on His plans. What you are doing here is elevating an administrative process to the level of the Divine constitution of the Church, but Christ made no cardinals and for the first 1000 yrs neither did the Church. You must not conflate ecclesiastical laws with Divine laws some are some are not. The college of cardinals is not of Divine Law.

You have no other choice but to destroy the legal structure of the Church in order to claim papal elections are invalid. There is no other possible way to do it, regardless of how you do it, it must be done - even if that means it was done decades before you were born.

See, before anything else and out of necessity, your starting point is with an empty Chair. You must start with and maintain this starting point from start to finish in order to arrive back at your conclusion, which is your starting point.

After starting there, you must work it all backwards, misunderstanding the teachings/messages  - according to your starting point. When one idea doesn't work, you use the Church's laws and teachings against Herself...."The pope was never elected because the college of cardinals are heretics = not members / not cardinals = invalid election(s). This effectively destroys the college of cardinals, via nullification of all the cardinals, which, in your mind, validates your opinion and raises it to at least a level of certainty, if not doctrine. 

True popes never "lack authority" but rather have supreme authority over the whole Church - you are the one who is "ignoring" your "pope". It is truly unbelievable that you are audacious enough not to recognize your resistance to him! By you "ignoring" Francis and making the remote magisterium according to your own interpretation - your living rule of faith - instead obeying and following the man who you say is the pope your "Holy Father" (who you also believe is the "Vicar of Christ" while simultaneously being an antichrist)! Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Read my signature. It should clear up the false dilemma you've invented for me - again - in order for you to maintain your starting point.

What you are doing is replacing "True Obedience" with "Blind Obedience." My living rule of faith is dogma, not a heretic or any fallible person.

There already is a "new church", and you belong to it by associating yourself with Francis as the head of the church that you profess to belong to. He cannot both be the head of a new church and the Catholic Church.

If lay people and priests ever do as you suggest and elect their own pope, they will have created another new church. Again, there is no possible way around this. And yes, the pope can be and actually is head of two Churches.In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse explains this very simply. I will post it if I come across it if this thread is still active at that time.

As for the rest of your post, you have been very clearly explained, referencing Trent's catechism, what is meant by sins severing one from the body of the Church, you do not accept it - because you cannot. If you did, it would destroy your starting point.

You also cannot accept that those outside of the Church cannot make use of the Church's Sacraments, but penitent Catholics who are guilty of the sins of heresy, schism and apostacy can make use of the sacraments of penance and extreme unction. This is a big one tho, so it is understandable that there is no possible way you could ever accept this truth as it destroys your whole opinion, right down to your starting point.           

We see in this debate a false dilemma or false dichotomy.  Because (many) R&R cling to the position that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt ... with the exception only of those once-or-twice-per-century dogmatic definitions, the SVs have overreacted by exaggerating the limits and scope of infallibility to the (absurd) opposite extreme where a pope is infallible every time he passes wind, to extents that no theologian between Vatican I and Vatican II ever held.  As is nearly always true, the truth is in the middle.  I recommend Msgr. Fenton's essay on the infallibility of papal encyclicals for the Catholic balance.

Stay away from Fr. Fenton's essay, according to him we should all be following the conciliar popes because God gave popes "a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility" and that those who follow his directives "will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience." 
If what this priest teaches is true, then all trads everywhere are altogether wrong, if not in schism.

This debate is at the wrong level, at the level of infallibility, whereas the issue here is indefectibility.

The Church's indefectibiity is not at all the issue, if anything, it's the last thing we need to concern ourselves with. The Church will never defect, we know this because Christ and the Church are one. To worry about the Church defecting is to worry about Christ defecting - which is the absolute height of absurdity.

"At any rate" is an idiomatic expression that means "in any event" or "whatever the case may be
Therefore, nothing above merits any response you have conceded that you only hold an opinion, "whatever the case may be". I have already amply shown you that the office of Cardinal is NOT of the Divine Constitution of the Church as established by Christ but rather is a mechanism that was put into ecclesiastical law later (and you know this to be true anyway).

You're saying: Laws established and mandated by popes may be broken because they're not infallible. Although out of necessity to maintain your starting point you choose to ignore the law, we Catholics strive to be meticulous in favor of and toward the law, we cannot ignore the law or make it conform to our opinion, our opinion must conform with the law, that's why it's there.

I fixed it for you.....

Perfecto! Bravo! You see it - they were always popes to begin with:

Christ and pope are One Head = true, when the pope speaks ex cathedra.
Conclusion = Church is fine,  Christ is still at the helm.