Just as the heretic puts himself outside the Church, the heretics deposes himself.
You confuse the deposition with the formal declaration.
The clear verbiage of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio
 
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any… Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
 
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

Hmmm....so Billot was a heretic for violating cuм Ex?  Funny the Church missed that one!

PS: After Billot, the 1917 CJC abrogated a good chunk of cuм Ex.

I'll leave you to ponder those two tidbits.

Yeah, but you have the authority and right to declare their Councils, Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, universal disciplinary laws, Canonizations and Encyclicals null and void. But when I question his legitimacy to the Chair of Peter BECAUSE of all the aforementioned, that’s too much. Got it.

Be sure not to hold your breath while waiting for the likes of Cupich, Dolan, Wilton, Wuerl and the gang to depose Chaos Frank. Hah!

And with all the time you’ll save ignoring and opposing the man you believe holds the place of God on Earth, the Roman Pontiff, that should give you plenty of spare time to think about the DOGMA that requires submission to the Roman Pontiff as an absolute necessity for salvation.

I think this is a bit of a strawman of a lot of "R and R".

You're making it out like R and R is saying their Councils, their Mass, their sacraments, their canon law ,their universal disciplinary laws, canonizations, and encyclicals are all certainly invalid, but the minute you even *question* if he's a Pope, that's too much.

Whereas I think a lot of "R and R" just think all of the above is some level of doubtful.

To a point it is just a theory.  So, for instance, Archbishop Lefebvre speculated too about other possible explanations.  Was Paul VI replaced by a double?  Was he insane?  He dismissed those.  I don't think he broached the subject of whether Paul VI was blackmailed on account of sodomy (a real possibility).  In that case, his acts weren't free.

That's why I don't really care how one lands on the Pope issue.  What I care about is this ...

Catholics cannot say that the Catholic Church has done all this evil.  That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.  Either these things that have been done were not evil (conservative Novus Ordites) or else it was not the Catholic Church doing them (sedevacantists) ... for whatever reason, or with whatever explanation, the explanation being theoretical, as you put it, and just an opinion.

Here's my take.  I do not recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church because it lacks all the marks of the Church:  it's got corrupt doctrine, corrupt Sacraments, a corrupt Mass, corrupt Canon Law, corrupt moral discipline, etc. etc.

This is where there IS in fact a role for private judgment, identifying the Church as the one founded by Our Lord.  Vatican I taught this in the lesser know teachings of the Council (overshadowed by papal infallibility), that the reason plays a role in assessing the "motives of credibility" that lead one to subjecting oneself to the authority of this Church.  I see these "motives of credibility" to be completely absent with the Conciliar Church, so I cannot recognize it as the Church.  As one of the sheep, I do not recognize its voice as being that of the Shepherd.

Beyond that, if someone wants to say papa haereticus ipso facto depositus or papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus (as Fr. Chazal does where he stipulates that they lack authority), I really don't care, as Catholics can licitly hold either opinion.  Heck, I'm OK if someone wants to say that Paul VI was replaced by a double, or was blackmailed for sodomy (not sure about the other V2 papal claimants).  The only thing I'm NOT OK with is to say that these evils were perpetrated on the faithful by the authority of the Catholic Church.  That is absolutely impossible.  And, to be honest, I'm actually fine, in principle, with the conservative Novus Ordite assertion that these things were NOT evils at all, but just need some interpretation with the hermeneutic.  Now, I don't buy it, but I can't say that it's an intrinisically un-Catholic position to take ... as many articulations of R&R are.  I'm MORE AGAINST THESE BAD ARTICULATIONS OF R&R than I am against those conservative NO Catholics who try applying the hermeneutic of continuity to V2, etc.

That's why I have said that I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist.  I am a dogmatic indefectibilist.

OK Now I'm really confused.  Your main issue with "R and R" seems to be that they say "The Church did this."  But then I see people like Pax saying, actually the Church didn't do this, the Pope just promulgated it in a non binding way.  And you're accusing him of heresy.  I'm unclear on why.

Related, what if my reaction is just something like "I can't quite figure this out, but I'm gonna go to the SSPX (or SSPX Resistance I guess, would it matter?) because I know the pre conciliar teaching is true and I'm gonna pray for the pope but besides that just not gonna worry about his status?  What heresy would that be?

I think the original point I was trying to make is that *all* trads come to the conclusion, to some degree or another, that the current leadership of the Church doesn't believe in/teach traditional Catholicism.  The main issue at hand seems to be deciphering *why* and to *what degree* that's the case.

I'll admit there's a certain R and R theory I don't like or think is orthodox, namely the ones that don't set *criteria* for when a teaching is or isn't binding, instead *just* saying its not binding because its false or whatnot.  A true pope couldn't follow all the rules for an ex cathedra ruling in error.

I don't know if any of that made sense or not, but I'll start there.

Did 1917 CJC also "abrogate" Vatican 1?
Learn some theology, Sean.
Submit to your "Pope."

As though Vatican I had anything to do with cuм Ex (and its subsequent abrogation in 1917)?

OK Now I'm really confused.  Your main issue with "R and R" seems to be that they say "The Church did this."  But then I see people like Pax saying, actually the Church didn't do this, the Pope just promulgated it in a non binding way.  And you're accusing him of heresy.  I'm unclear on why.

Related, what if my reaction is just something like "I can't quite figure this out, but I'm gonna go to the SSPX (or SSPX Resistance I guess, would it matter?) because I know the pre conciliar teaching is true and I'm gonna pray for the pope but besides that just not gonna worry about his status?  What heresy would that be?

Like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, Ladislaus would be quite happy with that position, because it had the "virtue" of toleration of the schismatic sedevacantist position.
Lisping: "Just towerate uth!"
But never lose track of this:
A popeless church for 62 years and counting (forevermore), and no way ever to re-establish an hierarchy.
That's the dope the sedes are smoking.
They are not merely pope killers: They are church killers.

Mental note: 6 of 11 posters currently logged in are sedes.

Yet, when asked about their affiliation/position in polls, their numbers are half that.

Could it be that the ytry to hide their predominance on Cathinfo (the de facto headquarters of sedevacantism), but when issues pop up impacting their schism, they simply cant resist?

Yes, that seems to be it.

Mental note: 6 of 11 posters currently logged in are sedes.

Yet, when asked about their affiliation/position in polls, their numbers are half that.

Could it be that the ytry to hide their predominance on Cathinfo (the de facto headquarters of sedevacantism), but when issues pop up impacting their schism, they simply cant resist?

Yes, that seems to be it.

It is now 7 of 12.

As though Vatican I had anything to do with cuм Ex (and its subsequent abrogation in 1917)?

Careless or deceptive?
Vatican 1 demands that you submit to your Pope.

Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.  

Pastor Aeternus Chap 3.

So, submit to your Pope, Sean.