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.
Luckily, Mario Derksen's personal considerations of validity and invalidity have no theological or moral weight.
This is a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue with his position, at least represent it fairly.
I have fairly represented it. Mario Derksen claims to be able to judge whether or not a given Pope is an apostate. Therefore, any legitimate Pope, in his eyes, would have to adhere to what Mario Derksen considers to be orthodoxy.
A general can command the obedience of his soldiers, but Benedict Arnold was a traitor.
An individual soldier in the ranks is not entitled to remove his obedience from his commander unless an authority legitimately constituted over that commander revokes the command.
Otherwise, it's pure insubordination.
He's not talking about Church discipline but about basic Catholic theology.
No, he's specifically adduces the 1983 CIC as his grounds for unilaterally deposing the Pope. Canon law, as I recall, is disciplinary.