This hypothesis (that Francis’ manifest heresy is the basis for asserting the

invalidity of his claim to be Pope) is cut off entirely by the text and manifest

intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in His Apostolic Constitution, Universi

Dominici Gregis.

Heresy is a symptom, but not a cause of the invalid papacy.  Noncompliance

with Universi Dominici Gregis is the sole reason and cause for the nullity of the

Bergoglian papacy.  See, for example, ¶76 & ¶81 of Universi Dominici Gregis, 

and the Promulgation Clause at the end of Universi Dominici Gregis.  In other

words, the idea of overthrowing a bad Pope is extremely problematic.  Who

says a Pope is a heretic?  Who has the authority to say so?  Canon 333–§3 states:

“No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

So, even if what Saint Robert Bellarmine says is true, how does that work out?

How could it be that the College of Bishops would even have a unanimous opinion

about this?  In contrast, valid Cardinals need only meet, and if they compose a

majority of those cardinals not appointed by putatively invalid Pope, simply

enforce Universi Dominici Gregis by declaring the nullity in the context of also

declaring the violations of Universi Dominici Gregis which caused the nullity,

and then declaring an ongoing Interregnum and the reassembly of the

Conclave suchwise that they can thus elect a valid Pope.