Again, Fr Cekada is begging the question, because he never defined what "notorious heresy" or "manifest heresy" is, according to Church Law. He simply uses such terms as if anyone can interpret them privately, which is not true. Notorious and manifest are canon law terms, and a pope is only guilty of such if found so by a Church declaration.
.
Before a church decision, according to law, a heretic pope is considered an occult heretic and still a member of the Church (externally only). An occult heretic would be spiritually dead and not a member. An occult heretic would have NO SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY. But would still hold material office.
.
The whole debate is between the difference of spiritual authority vs temporal office. Spiritual authority is easily lost, due to ANY type of heresy. Because all Catholics have the obligation to know their Faith and to fight those who are opposed to Truth. Thus, as +Bellarmine tells us, we are to resist a bad pope (i.e. an occult heretic who has yet-to-be-deposed). Because a bad pope has no spiritual authority, even if he still retains the (very minor, govt/political only) authority of his human/temporal office.
.
See the difference? The pope's authority is not "all or none". It's spiritual vs temporal. The spiritual being far, far more important and far, far easier to lose. The entire debate between +Bellarmine and Cajetan was over the govt/political/material office only. It was assumed that everyone knew that the spiritual authority was gone the instant a pope gives into any kind of heresy.