.
This makes literally no sense at all.
.
cuм Ex is simply codifying into the Church's positive law what all the Fathers and Doctors taught: if you're a heretic, you can't hold office in the Church, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you're validly consecrated, it doesn't matter if your appointment is accepted, it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you are pope.  If you're a heretic you can't have an office, full stop.

As per always, you post from a place of ignorance and bad will.  You have never been interested in sincerely looking for the truth but are always grinding your childish little anti-sede ax.  Unfortunately for you, this ax has an incredibly dull blade.

You've never been one to understand the concept of a distinction.  You repeatedly fail to distinguish between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction.  Even if you could be certain that Thuc lost office due to heresy (and this is by no means certain ... I don't think he did), it is heresy condemned by the Church to say that they cannot VALIDLY consecrate bishops.  He retrains the power of orders.  Even IF he had been a heretic at the time, the consecrations would still have been valid.  If he did not have the proper authority to perform the consecrations, then they would be illicit.  In that sense, no Traditional Catholic bishop has ever had the "power to consecrate" (to use your crudely generalized expression).

Idiot, you need to actually understand things in a Catholic context.  Like a buffoon, you read words, look them up in Webster's English dictionary, and then pontificate about theological matters of which you know absolutely nothing.  It's heretical to state that a Bishop without jurisdiction cannot validly confer orders.  In fact, if that's the case, the SSPX bishops are also invalid.  At various times in Church history, the Church has received back into the fold schismatic/heretical bishops who had in turn been consecrated by the same ... without requiring even so much as a conditional ordination/consecration.

All you are actually doing but apparently don't even realize it, is admitting that cuм ex is no longer in force, and I agree.

No, what I'm saying is that cuм ex is not saying that heretic bishops lose the power to validly consecrate bishops or ordain priests.

Church law CANNOT strip Sacramental powers from those who hold them.  So, no Church law could mandate that a Mass offered by a laicized priest is not valid ... but only illicit and sinful.  If such a priest were to offer Mass even in the face of such "legislation" (which the Church has never attempted since she knows it has no force), it would still be valid given the essential requirements for validity.

Problem is that you don't understand cuм ex or Catholic theology in general.

cuм Ex is from the 1500s.  Modernism being an 1800s (til now) attack on the Church, it seems apparent that St Pius X and Pius XII's changes to the rules for papal elections were meant to avoid a situation where most of the clergy was affected with modernistic heresy, therefore the papacy would end,because no one would be eligible to be elected.  (The end of the papacy, of course, is one of freemasonic's goals, which St Pius X was WELL AWARE OF).  So Pius XII re-affirmed St Pius X's conclave election rules, which suspend excommunication (and all other) penalties, so that the papacy could continue, even if it was held by heretic.  This is clearly the intention of the Holy Fathers - to suspend cuм Ex for a very specific reason, after which election, the penalties return.