Bergolio has broken many church laws.   Can’t we get a canon lawyer and get rid of him and his evil minions.

Who listens to a fool like bergolio who worships Mother Earth like his fellow luucifeerians?  Begone satan!!

Fear?  How so?  

Do you realize that what you wrote is heretical? No person or council is above the pope, but fortunately Bergoglio is not the pope.

As someone who's R&R, I actually agree here, the church can theoretically come to a judgment that he isn't a real pope and therefore elect a new Pope, in which caseI would submit, but as long as Frances is in fact the pope in the eyes of God the church can do nothing to touch him. I probably have a lower, more minimalistic view of papal supremacy than some here but I think that's really clear and Vatican one

So that's the sedevacantist take on the problem. Sounds simple enough, but how can the layman be absolutely sure that the current pope is not in fact pope?

Some quick research showed that in theory, a heretical pope would remove himself from office per canon law, which states that anyone who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself.

But there's no canon law to deal with this emergency situation in the Church (a pope becoming heretical), so what we can deduce from this is that the pope, be it a valid one or not, does not have any authority (the position of +ABL) and we have to wait for a council of bishops and cardinals to take action or simply, a divine intervention. Taking the example of Honorius, who "only" was guilty of promoting heresy in a letter of his, was excommunicated posthumously by a subsequent council, the question whether or not he was a valid pope was not formally answered anyhow.

You don't need absolute certainty. You only need positive doubt concerning if someone still or ever did hold a position of authority. Fortunately, the dogmatic fact that the Magisterium cannot teach error must be held with absolute certainty, by all baptized Catholics. 

Here is another absolute certainty: baptized Catholics cannot be in communion with a manifest heretic, especially if it is formal heretic.

How often do we make decisions based on absolute certainty? Not often. Maybe the question should be, how can we discern positive doubt?

Wasn't Honorius cleared by a subsequent pope?

I don't think "fear" is the reason.  Bergoglio wants to get rid of Summorum Pontificuм because he's absolutely faithful to his religion and the true Catholic Mass is simply incompatible with his religion.

When the day comes that not one Tridentine Mass is celebrated, what will happen to the world 

The laity cannot depose a pope, a fake pope, or an antipope.  We all agree Francis is bad, no matter what we believe about his ecclesiastical status.  

Your comment makes no sense. In order for a depose to take place, 2 things must exist: 1. Someone lawfully holding office (meets all requirements) and 2. the act of depose has to be done by someone of authority. Does Jorge meet all the requirements and who is actually claiming to have authority over him? He has judged himself.

Bad what? A bad leader?  Bad as in weak?  Bad is very subjective. You really think Jorge is only a bad Catholic. Pope Alexander the IV was a bad Catholic but he never used the magisterium to teach heresy. No, Jorge is much worse because he is using this charade to destroy the Catholic Church. I don't know about you but I will take "bad" pope over heretical teaching pope any day.

Oh by the way, if you believe someone is fake or antipope, you have an obligation not to hold communion with such individual. That is exactly what half of Nestorius' congregation did at the moment he spoke of heresy. They walked out and refused to be in communion with him. All of this, way before Nestorius was officially condemned by the Church. Did they depose their bishop or was it him who severed the superior-to-inferior relationship at the moment of his manifest formal heresy?