This priest loses all credibility when you read this in his bio:

In 2012 Rev. Iannuzzi successfully completed his doctorate in theology at the Gregorian Pontifical University of Rome on the writings of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta. He has translated into English all of Luisa’s writings that are cited in his doctoral dissertation, which is approved by the Pontifical University that is authorized by the Holy See.

The writings of the "seer" Luisa Piccarreta are a joke. It is only good for starting fires, kindling. What more can I say? If one insists in questioning my observations then just look up Kingdom of Divine Will.  

Author: Rev. Joseph Leo Iannuzzi .

http://www.markmallett.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Can-a-Pope-Be-a-Heretic2.pdf

I am not familiar with the writings of Luisa Piccarretta, so I am not at liberty to challenge the author of the above piece (which I read), as he has several graduate degrees, and I also have not read his exploration on those writings.  Therefore, I am in no position to question his scholarship about her, and then use that as a basis for questioning his scholarship about the modern popes in the piece that was posted here.

Nevertheless, given my own graduate training in pre-V2 theology and philosophy, I can state that the soundness of his arguments reside in the fact that the understanding of heresy in the contemporary trad world is not what the Church holds formal heresy to be.  I don't need to repeat or "improve upon" his own argumentation; he did a fine job of that, i.m.o.   I nevertheless understand how many Catholics are and would be alarmed about the statements of Francis in particular, which are at the least very dangerous, objectively, given that Francis never explains to the satisfaction of any traditionalist, including those in the clergy, how the heck his irresponsible and shocking statements correspond with the permanent, approved dogma on Our Lady, for example, among many other possible examples.  But being provocative, scandalizing, disheartening, injudicious, and an extremely poor leader -- all of which the laity are in a position to judge -- are not the same thing as being in the formal category, heretic.  

He is totally right on too many trads removing theological writings and teaching docuмents from their contexts, and not understanding to what those writings may be responding, yet presuming to create "arguments" from those which can't be challenged.  The study of Catholic theology is not a DIY enterprise.  The terminology, the contextualized definitions, and the settings are all critical to it; it is a complex and integrated enterprise when one starts to get into theological foundations for technical canonical matters.  And that's why I maintain, with the backing of the Church, that the Roman Catholic Church does not demand that I "take a stand" on the papacy, yes or no.

If I knew how to reach the author, I would like to question him more on The Council, JP2, BXVI, and Francis, because he spent less time on those (important) aspects, all of which germinated, magnified and extended the Crisis.  But I thank the poster who shared that link with us.

For me, I think what is essential for the laity's faith in their Catholic clergy in general is for that clergy to recognize that there is indeed a Crisis, and of what that crisis consists.  I don't think the author sees that from a lay (not a cleric's) perspective, there is indeed a Crisis.  Even many N.O. lay people see it.  So, what I'm saying is that even though on the academic level he may be correct, the practiced and professed faith on the ground is different from scholarship.  And that crisis will continue to be problematic, increasingly so, until addressed not by laity but by clergy and hierarchy.