No there is not.
He is advocating that people remove their allegiance from the Pope and consider the Pope's authority null and void.
Any cafeteria Catholic of any other stripe can do the same thing.
He may pretend that the Holy See is vacant and that he will completely obey any new Pope who is elected to Mario Derksen's personal standards and who teaches in the way that Mario Derksen prefers, but in essence he claims that he is able to decide when and under what circumstances he will obey the Pope.
One cannot believe simultaneously in authority of the Papacy and one's own personal authority in acknowledging it.
Either the Pope can command obedience or he can't.
Additionally, his logic is thoroughly flawed in its basic assumption: Church discipline is not infallible but prudential.
Not from "the pope" per se, but from Karol Wojtyla whom he considers to be invalid. If someone considered Clinton a traitor to his country, that wouldn't mean that they wanted US citizens to withdraw their allegiance to the presidency, just that the current incumbent was an illegitimate office holder.
He may pretend that the Holy See is vacant and that he will completely obey any new Pope who is elected to Mario Derksen's personal standards and who teaches in the way that Mario Derksen prefers, but in essence he claims that he is able to decide when and under what circumstances he will obey the Pope.
This is a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue with his position, at least represent it fairly.
Either the Pope can command obedience or he can't.
A general can command the obedience of his soldiers, but Benedict Arnold was a traitor.
Additionally, his logic is thoroughly flawed in its basic assumption: Church discipline is not infallible but prudential.
He's not talking about Church discipline but about basic Catholic theology.