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.
 

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.

 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.  

.
To be clear, this is because one who has incurred the "suspicion of heresy" is then warned by a superior, twice if necessary, and is then penalized by the superior.  That's what it means to be "suspect of heresy."  It isn't a theological notion used to describe someone who might be a heretic.  It is a canonical term, and a penal one at that.  Who would Ladislaus propose be the pope's judge in this case? :p
.

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 Jєωs 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?
 

Not dogmatic fact, but dogma.  Otherwise, I agree with you.  

It's the reason that R&R is not acceptable.  Now, various R&R nuances along the lines of "I don't know.  I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt until the Church declares him deposed." -- those are different.  That's more along the lines of a sedeprivationism which grants his material occupancy a certain kind of "status".

Nevertheless, there's a fault in this reasoning process:

If some teaching that cannot be harmful actually brings harm, then the pope cannot be the pope.  This is what I refer to modus tollentis sedevacantism, the other form where you start with the person of the pope modus ponentis sedevacantism.

.
Ladislaus, the point is that if the man is the pope then he is not rendered "suspect of heresy" because "suspect of heresy" is a canonical penalty.  The designation is meted from a superior to an inferior, and it includes and involves a procedure of warnings also imposed on an inferior by a superior.  Read Woywod or Augustine or Bouscaren or any of the canonists.   You're treating "suspect of heresy" like it's a theological term.  Read theologians who write about heresy and they don't talk about "suspicion of heresy."  It's a technical term.  And you're not only misusing it, you're misapplying it in the most grossly possible way by insisting that it could apply to the pope, who has no earthly judge.