Ridiculous.  Even Traditional Canon Law has ACTIONS such as these render someone SUSPECT of heresy.  You once again demonstrate that you have no idea what the term "heresy" even means but just casually fling it around.  Heresy is an intellectual adherence to propositions that are contrary to the faith.  Actions, however scandalous or sinful, are NOT heresy.  These actions can be performed for any number of reasons ... the most common of which is human respect.  On another thread you were completely confounding heresy with lesser errors (having no concept of theological notes) and now you declare actions to be tantamount to heresy.

And this is coming from someone who considers Francis a material heretic at least.

 
Folks, we have just entered the twilight zone. I've never seen anything like it.
 
"Heretic" is defined as a baptized person who "perniciously rejects or doubts any article of faith determined by the authority of the Catholic Church..." (A Catholic Dictionary)
 
Now a few quotes from the Church:
 

• "None must neither pray or sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or layman, let him be excommunicated" Council of Carthage
• "If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" III Council of Constantinople
• Canon 33: "No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics" Council of Laodicea

 
Now if I go pray in common with non-Catholics in ѕуηαgσgυєs or mosques, am I not denying the above teachings of the Church?
 

I do recall "saints" saying no, to worshiping idols, singing with them.  Saints defended their faith to death.  It's nice to read some "Catholic Sense", finally!
The Pope desecrates the Mass, that is enough right there to excommunicate himself.  Cardinal Manning wrote on this subject, "The Temporal Powers of the Vicar of Christ".  Cardinal Manning was so close with Pope Leo XIII who saw SAtan asking for time to destroy Christ Church.  Cardinal Manning, very wise, researched the possibility of Rome taken over and why shouldn't he?  It is prophesy.   Two Powers the enemy will destroy Papacy and Precious Blood.  BUT we know the Church will resurrect and the Precious Blood is Eternal, on this earth it is Continual.    Truth is Truth.  

Absolutely, I agree with you on this point.

Salvation rests in the hands of each individual, there's no debating this simple truth.  No matter what happens around us, each individual is responsible for the salvation of his/her soul.        

Very good, we agree on this fundamental truth of the Catholic faith!

I was going to take this in another direction, but seeing that you received not one, but two down votes for professing a fundamental Catholic principle, I want to point out to you that *that* is what and who I am arguing against.

I've said before that those people who reject this truth as you clearly stated it, and choose instead to dwell on the status of the pope, have got to reject not only this, but also other necessary Catholic truths and principles in order to cling to and embrace their sedevacantism. This, in a nutshell, is the main problem with sedevacantism, and those two down votes exemplify this fact.

Now if I go pray in common with non-Catholics in ѕуηαgσgυєs or mosques, am I not denying the above teachings of the Church?

Not necessarily.  Again, please read the code of Canon Law, would you?, instead of pontificating from your own ignorance.  Such activities render people SUSPECT of heresy.  Actions are not the same as propositions.  Someone might engage in such activities for any number of reasons that fall short of actually embracing heresy.  Indeed, such activities are, objectively speaking, mortal sins.  But many Catholics participate in such things due to motives of human respect ... not because they have embraced the propositions of whatever place they're participating in.  If a Catholic goes and prays at a ѕуηαgσgυє, it doesn't mean he's embraced Judaism.

This is talking about embracing certain condemned propositions, not about the mere act of participating in false worship.  Those are two different things.

Vatican II is ALL about realizing those theories. Where have you been?

Vatican II is ALL about realizing those theories. Where have you been?

That's a different argument.  Has nothing to do with what you've been blabbering on about.  Your brains are so confused and dull that it's painful to read your posts.  If you want to argue from the TEACHING of Vatican II, that's one thing. One can make a strong case.  But you've been trumpeting the significance of mere participation in false worship as convicting popes of heresy.  I've actually known many otherwise orthodox Catholics who have participated in such because their brains are muddled; they think they can do so without compromising their faith and most certainly do not embrace the propositions of the false believers with whom they pray.

Infallibility does not govern the personal actions of a pope.  You're basing your entire case for sedevacante in your last few posts on participation in false worship.  This has nothing to do with Magisterium, Universal Discipline, nor Universal Law.  You guys really our out of your league in attempting theology and every post of yours simply exposes the absurdity of untrained laymen such as yourselves going around declaring people guilty of heresy.

Yes, infallibility extends not only to Magisterium, but also to Universal Discipline (liturgy and law).  But you make no distinctions whatsoever.  Not every act of the Magisterium is infallible.  You guys keep talking as if they were.  Nay, more, you even claim that every book ever authorized by some local bishop with an imprimatur must be regarded as effectively infallible.

You make a mockery of Catholicism with your absurdities.  You take a rightful objection to the R&R position (which effectively holds that the Church's Universal Magisterium and Discipline can fail) and twist it by way of an extreme opposite overreaction into the absurd extreme that EVERYTHING in the Magisterium is basically infallible.

.
There are two distinct arguments for sedevacantism.  One looks at the claimants themselves and shows that they are not Catholic, and therefore cannot possibly be popes.  The other looks at their acts as putative pontiffs and at the organization they are head of, and shows that these acts (impious laws, doubtful liturgies, etc.) and this organization (which teaches false doctrines) is a non-Catholic religion, and they being the head of it, cannot also be the head of the Roman Church.  These arguments can very easily and naturally overlap but they are distinct, and when one argues that these men themselves (or, this man himself) are not Catholic, the evidence should be somewhat confined to evidence against them as individuals, to help keep things organized in discourse.
.
That being the case, Bumphrey's mistake is just a syllogistic one.  But you claimed that Francis is a material heretic, which according to all authors, means that he isn't a Catholic, since Catholics can't be material heretics.  And you have given no consideration to the doctrine of St. Thomas regarding intention which is included as a fundamental premise of virtually every branch of theology, (i.e., that external acts manifest internal beliefs and intentions).  You also attempted to point to the penal canons 2315-16 to protect the conciliar claimants against heresy, which supposes that they can be judged by a juridico-clerical superior! 
.
Point simply being that you are in a glass house right now, so consider toning back the accusations of theological frivolity and whatnot. 

Not necessarily.  Again, please read the code of Canon Law, would you?, instead of pontificating from your own ignorance.  Such activities render people SUSPECT of heresy.  Actions are not the same as propositions.  Someone might engage in such activities for any number of reasons that fall short of actually embracing heresy.  Indeed, such activities are, objectively speaking, mortal sins.  But many Catholics participate in such things due to motives of human respect ... not because they have embraced the propositions of whatever place they're participating in.  If a Catholic goes and prays at a ѕуηαgσgυє, it doesn't mean he's embraced Judaism.

 
First, numerous quotes have just been posted for you that actions do confirm belief, so that ends your argument right there. But, then you add the embarrassing argument that many Catholics participate in such things (i.e. praying and ѕуηαgσgυєs) due to motives of human respect. You might be able to present such an argument if Francis were otherwise perfectly orthodox. You act like you have never seen all of his other heresies posted on FrancisQuotes.com. Looking at those confirms his actions are no mistake.
 
If there were a contest on here on how many times someone is disproven, you would definitely take first prize. Pathetic really.