.
As Pope Innocent III said, heretic popes are already judged by God. 

The why not let God depose heretic popes?

Aside from that, Pope Innocent III and all the popes and cardinals since Pope Innocent II have all lost their offices due to heresy per Richard Ibranyi - who is himself a screaming example of the reason why the status of popes are not and must never be our concern in the slightest.

Implicit in cuм Ex is the assumption that a heretic has been declared as such by Church officials, or the heretic has been declared in schism or has admitted to some error.  NO ONE, ESPECIALLY THE POPE, CAN BE JUDGED A HERETIC (or guilty of error) EXCEPT BY THE CHURCH.  cuм Ex is saying that if someone has been deemed in error then they can’t be elected.  

But FIRST, the Church has to make a decision.  Step 1 can’t be skipped.  Sedes make themselves judge of orthodoxy which they have no authority to do, legally.  Any Catholic can judge actions as heretical and avoid the error; but only the Church can determine pernicity/obstinacy which happens through a process.  

you haven't proven  without a doubt this point
"Implicit in cuм Ex is the assumption that a heretic has been declared as such by Church officials,"

The  Election of Pope Gregory XVII in 1958 makes this discussion irrelevant.  Whatever the extent of their heresies, not one of the v2 anti-popes can claim the Chair of St Peter because they have Not been legally elected...

Yes, both St Pius X and Pius XII made exceptions for the ecclesiastical penalties (any and all penalties, including excommunication for heresy) whereby, the penalties are not in force ONLY for the conclave.  Once a pope is elected and the conclave is finished, all penalities go back in force.  Meaning, that a heretic could elect AND be elected as pope, but once the election is over, that pope is SPIRITUALLY impaired because of the SPIRITUAL penalities in force, even if they still hold the GOVT/material office.  This is what I believe we are living through.

Sounds like sedeprivationism.

Sounds like sedeprivationism.

Agree.

1.  +Francis doesn’t profess lots of the Faith.  I can’t say all.
2.  I can’t say he’s not Catholic because that is a judgment of his interior disposition.  I can say he does not act like a catholic many times.
3.  Probable that he’s obstinate (which would make him a heretic) but, agree, not for me to say because I don’t have the authority or tools to find out for sure.

1.If he rejects any part of the catholic faith he rejects all, isn't this the teaching of the church?
2. no it's judging his public disposition
3.since we don't have the authority, who does today in this present crisis? for example if Francis states publicly hail Satan , would you
keep to your same position?

The why not let God depose heretic popes?

Aside from that, Pope Innocent III and all the popes and cardinals since Pope Innocent II have all lost their offices due to heresy per Richard Ibranyi - who is himself a screaming example of the reason why the status of popes are not and must never be our concern in the slightest.

OK, I'm not a Sedevacantist (I'm also, to be clear, new to the faith, and not presuming to teach anyone, nor do I have a definitive position beyond "I definitely have concerns about Vatican II").  

But I don't see how R + R over Sedevacantism fixes the particular problem of guys like Richard Ibryani.  Couldn't an R + R theoretically go nuts in a similar way?  "Well, I think all these guys were Popes, I just think every council since Lateran I was a pastoral council on some ridiculous technicality, and I also think since the popes of the last thousand years were flirting with the edges of heresy, we're certainly obligated to ignore anything they say that isn't infallible, which is also everything 'cause Vatican I itself was only pastoral and full of errors" or something.  Admittedly, I have this same beef with Sedevacantists that accuse R + R types of "sifting the magisterium of the guys they consider to be the true popes and only accepting what they think is in conformity to Tradition."  I mean, the Sedes do that too, they sift their magisterium, decide they don't think it lines up, and thus they decide they don't think those guys are popes at all.  What's the difference?

Honestly, the more pertinent thing to me with guys like RI is, while its somewhere on the outer skirts of my plausibility structure that the Church might be left with no *Pope* for a really long time, I can't see any way how you can have no faithful bishops without the gates of Hell prevailing.  I mean at that point you're at Protestant level "well, there are some people, somewhere, keeping the true faith" level territory, at which point a visible ecclesiology becomes kinda meaningless.

I admit I’m kinda going off what I found convincing enough to get me to leave Protestantism in the first place, but one bishop and some laity I could definitely believe, especially for a short time (decades, not centuries)

If I believed the Catholic Church could get to the point that RI describes I’d just be a Protestant because I don’t really see much difference at that point