To the Christianity StackExchange question "When did a “formal act of correction” of a pope's statement happen in the past?," see my answer regarding Pope John XXII's denial of the material dogma that his successor Benedict XII infallibly defined in Benedictus Deus.

I quote from St. Robert, where he shows that the vast majority of cardinals opposed John XXII's opinion. He also says:

Pope John severely commanded the Cardinals and others, all teachers, that they should sincerely give their opinion, that the truth could be discovered.

Bergoglio certainly urged all the Sin-od participants to freely speak their opinions, but there's no indication he did this so that "the truth could be discovered"—viz., there's no evidence Bergoglio is a lover of truth; quite the contrary, Bergoglio, faced with criticism, is "boiling with rage"!

Here's the full answer:

The Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) collected 40 cases—from Pope St. Peter to Pope Innocent VIII (reigned 1484-1492)—of where a pope or anti-pope was said to have erred in faith (i.e., proclaimed heresy) in the work

• De Controversiis Fidei Christianæ (Ingolstadt, 1588),

which has been recently translated as:

• Robert Bellarmine, Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Fatih, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press, 2015).

The 36^th case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) is probably the most famous recent one. Ockham (et al.) accused Pope John XXII of heresy for denying a dogma that had not yet been infallibly defined.

Basically, Ockham et al. taught that Pope John XXII publicly denied the then-material (i.e., not-yet-infallibly-defined) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death—a dogma which Pope John XXII's successor, Pope Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342), infallibly defined in Benedictus Deus (1336). (cf. this and the references therein)

St. Robert, although defending Pope John XXII as a valid pope, writes that even cardinals (the vast majority of them!) opposed the opinion of Pope John XXII:

Quote

The Third lie is that no Cardinal opposed the teaching of John. This is clearly false, because neither Gerson, nor any other says this, and because many thought the contrary, as was clear from the definition which was made by Pope Benedict XII after the death of John from the consensus of all Cardinals which is clear in the epistle of Benedict; nor was there a reason why these, who thought the contrary, should fear to oppose John while he was living. Benedict XII, in his Extravagantes, asserts that Pope John severely commanded the Cardinals and others, all teachers, that they should sincerely give their opinion, that the truth could be discovered. Next, John Villanus, who did live at that time, writes the greater part of the Cardinals opposed the opinion of Pope John while he lived. [Histoiria, lib. 10, cap. ult.]

From the Code of Canon Law;

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

Also, the related 1917 Canon 228 says:

Appeal from a sentence of the Roman Pontiff to an Ecuмenical Council is not given.

This appears to be against Conciliarism.

Regardless, Bergoglio is an heretical pope who must be deposed. On how an heretical pope is to be deposed, see ch. 11 (pp. 331ff.) of Salza & Siscoe's True or False Pope.

It appears that this aspect of the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code are the same.

Poche has a point here.  If Bergoglio is the pope, then all you people need to stop condemning his teachings and embrace them, no matter how un-Catholic they are and you need to start condemning Burke & Company.

On the other hand, if Bergoglio is not the pope, then poche's comments are irrelevant.

Quote from: TKGS

If Bergoglio is the pope, then all you people need to stop condemning his teachings and embrace them, no matter how un-Catholic they are and you need to start condemning Burke & Company.

Cdl. Burke et al. are not contradicting Amoris Lætitia; they are merely asking for clarification. I'm not sure why some are calling their "dubia" a "formal act of correction."

It seems the 4 cardinals are simply abiding by "Lex dubia non obligat" ("A doubtful law does not bind").

As in the Blessed Virgin when she asked the angel. "How will this come to be since I do not know man?" when the angel told her that she was to become the mother of Jesus.  

From the Code of Canon Law;

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

Tell that to popes Benedict XIV, Pius VII and Gregory XVI. some of them make it up as they go along.

But if the 4 Conciliar cardinals take it a step further and actually declare Francis to have lost his office, how will the R&R handle it?  How could the R&R justify such an act if they have spent the last 40 years developing arguments for how such a thing could never be done?

R&R doesn't argue that popes cannot become heretics (cf. ToFP ch. 8). R&R argues such an heretical pope would have to be deposed (cf. ToFP ch. 11).

are rights of appeal and there is the right to make one's wishes known but there is no "right of correction" of one's superiors.

Isn't correction of superiors what they would do?