CathInfo.com

That does seem like formal heresy, honestly.  Do you have a source for this?

If I remember correctly, clerics do not receive the benefit of the doubt as to being ignorant in cases of heresy. They are presumed guilty because they are presumed to know what the Church teaches. I will try to find this reference later.

One might make the case he went to a Modernist seminary, so he really didn’t learn Catholicism. But he grew up in a Catholic family pre-Vatican II, and he is claiming to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, so I don’t think there is any wiggle room for people to claim he is ignorant.

Also, he is constantly bashing traditionalism and traditionalists, which shows he does know what the Church teaches, but denies it any way. The fact that he says “I might be saying something heretical, but” and continues any way shows this man is of incredibly bad will.

And the question of a heretical Pope deals with manifest vs. occult heresy.

I think making the argument as to Bergoglio’s illegitimacy from the doctrines of indefectibility and infallibility of the Church is much easier and straight forward, as Ladislaus has repeated. This is Bishop Sanborn’s approach as opposed to trying to prove the manifest heresy argument.

If the the post Vatican II establishment is the Catholic Church, then it has defected.

It's similar to how theologians describe normal sedevacantist periods.  They say that during that time Our Lord supplies jurisdiction to the Church directly, vs. through an actual living pope.  That is why priests continue to validly hear Confessions and Bishops continue to appoint pastors, etc. ... all legitimately during a sedevacantist period.  In fact, there's precedent for bishops being consecrated and installed during sedevacantist periods.

Christ does not supply jurisdiction directly to priest and bishops during a sedevacante period.  When the Pope dies the bishops retain their ordination jurisdiction, and therefore the priests under them retain their delegated jurisdiction.  That's why bishops can continue to appoint pastors and why the confessions of the priests subject to them remain valid.

The precedent for bishops being consecrated and installed during a sedevacante period is from the time when a papal mandate was not required for episcopal consecration.  It was legal then, it is not legal now. You can't appeal to an act that was legal at the time as a precedent to justify violating what the present law forbids.