Didish, 7HolyCats, and all,
Well, I hope you have no problem with non-Catholics(Protestants and Orthodox) being able to licitly, under certain conditons, receive Holy Communion without converting to the Catholic faith. It is in the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is binding on all those who accept JPII and Benedict XVI. Remember what St Paul says about receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and being worthy(ie in the state of grace/within the Mystical Body of Christ). No wiggle room.
Also, the schismatic Assyrian Divine Liturgy that has no consecration but was approved of for Catholics to attend by JPII must be accepted by you all, even though it goes against what our Lord said in scripture.
You must also accept the idea of partial communion, which has never been part of the Catholic teaching.
If the great Western Schism had not occurred in the late 14th/early 15th century, most people would probably say that our Lord would not permit so many well intenitioned souls to be mislead for so long. But, it was so for 40 years. In 1882, Fr Edmund James O'Reilly, SJ in his book "The Relations of the Church to Society"-Theological Essays spoke of the western schism and also alluded the hypothetical scenario of the Church being w/o a Pope for 30 or 40 yeas NOT going against the teaching of the indefectibility of the Church. He wrote this a decade after Vatican I. He never had to take that back.
Vatican "Cardinal" Mario Francesco Pompedda, former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, stated in an interview found here http://www.zenit.org/article-12193?l=english
February 8, 2005 "It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy." Worth reading. I don't think it would exist if it could not theoretically be applied. And if these men were heretics before their election, then that just means that they have never held the office. "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio" says just that. If the idea of a man known as Pope could somehow through heresy not be pope is not Catholic teaching, the Paul IV taught an error in an official document. Why would he even broach it if it was beyond possibility?
I hope you all reflect on the and read up on it.
A man who has taught heresy-just the new Canon Law itself would suffice-cannot hold the office he purports. What good would he be to the faithful.