Part of Fr. Paul Kramer's raesoning from Facebook:
Bergoglio has a long history of heresy that is well docuмented. He has for a long time denied the dogma of the cessation of the Mosaic Covenant and its supercession by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Unlike the heretical expressions of Montini, Wojtyla & Ratzinger, which are heretical but capable of a benign interpretation, or else ambiguous and convoluted, Bergoglio's denial of defined dogma in no. 247 of Evangelii Gaudium is explicit, direct and univocal so that his meaning can only be that which is expressed by the objective signification of the terms. It's like someone saying, "God the Son did not become incarnate", or, "There are not three persons in one God." Anyone who speaks like that is most certainly a manifest heretic. Bergoglio's proposition is as direct, explicit and univocal as that, so he is without a shadow of doubt a manifest heretic, whereas Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, & Ratzinger are not. Unlike Bergoglio, when conscious of the heterodoxy of their positions, Wojtyla & Ratzinger modified their formulations. The dogma of the cessation of the Jєωιѕн Covenant and its supercession by the New & Everlasting Covenant of Jesus Christ is the basis for the foundation of the Catholic Church, and therefore was one of the basic dogmas taught to all children in catechism and religion classes before Vatican II, so it is morally inconceivable that Bergoglio is unaware that it is a defined article of faith. Having seen the classroom manuals used in Jesuit faculties in the middle of the last century, it is manifestly evident to me that it is not possible that he be excused for ignorance. Not only did he receive the formal theological training for the priesthood, but Bergoglio was a professor of theology. It is also inconceivable that he would not have researched and systemstically examined the point of doctrine before expressing his position on that point in no. 247 of Evangelii Gaudium.

Pope Innocent III states (Sermo 4) that when a pope "withers away into heresy", "he can be judged by men, or rather can be shown to be already judged" -- thus it is a teaching of papal magisterium that a heretic pope is to be rejected by the faithful like "salt that has lost its savour". Similarly Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus teach that when a pope "falls into manifest heresy" he loses his office. St. Alphonsus teaches that as soon as the pope "falls into heresy, he immediately falls from the pontificate". Those who say only a future pope can make such a judgment teach perversely: since an infidel who has fallen from the supreme pontificate must not be professed by the faithful to be the successor of St. Peter, since that would be professing a lie. God cannot possibly will and command that the Catholic faithful submit to obedience to a false pastor who is outside the Church, because the infinitely good God cannot command us to do evil or profess a lie. Yet, those who teach that we must refrain from making such a judgment and continue to acknoelrdge the heretic as pope until a formal ruling is made by a future pope fall into this perverse error. It is also plainly evident from the text and context of the cited passages of Bellarmine, Innocent III and St. Alphonsus, that to "fall into manifest heresy" or "wither away into heresy" is entirely a unilateral process that does not depend on any judicial sentence -- especially since no tribunal on earth has jurisdiction over a pope. One has the moral duty in conscience to make this kind of judgment when the question of papal heresy arises, since all Catholics are bound by their baptismal vows to be in communion with the successor if St. Peter, and to submit to him in obedience as to the Vicar of Christ: hence, there is the strict moral obligation for Catholics to discern and judge in the matter of a heretic pope to the extent that it is morally possible.