If a heretical Pope (like Francis) would be deposed by a Council, I would indeed be able to see it with my own eyes.

Do you REALLY expect that this could happen (naturally speaking) ... given the current hierarchy?

If Francis looks like a heretic, talks like a heretic, and walks like a heretic, then he must be a heretical duck. Francis hides his papal cross when in the presence of Jews. He denies Christ and is ashamed of Him, our Lord and our God, so he is not only a heretic but an apostate. How worse can it get?

What did the Church do during the Arian heresy? Didn't the holy ones in the Church continue to consecrate bishops and ordain priests so the faith was preserved? Isn't that what we are doing today?

Isn't the heretic Francis far worse than the Arians? Arians declared that there was a time when Christ was not God. Francis has declared that Christ was never God. Actually, Francis' belief is more consistent with that of the perfidious Jews who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Has he gone that far? Does he worship with Satanists and celebrate Black Masses?

Pope St. Pius X did say that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Francis is the culmination of a long standing infiltration of Modernists into the Church, which began, really, with the French revolution. As +ABL said, Rome is occupied by a Modernist sect. The Modernists before Francis were bad, too. They just weren't always obvious about it.

God has not stopped the occupation of His Church by Modernists. We have to be prudent, and appeal to God to end the Crisis. In the meantime, it would be a really good thing if Francis could be deposed. 

What did the Church do during the Arian heresy? Didn't the holy ones in the Church continue to consecrate bishops and ordain priests so the faith was preserved? Isn't that what we are doing today?

Thankfully, during the Arian crisis, the Pope never went full-blown Arian.  Now, Honorius was at times condemned for being soft on it, but he was definitely not a full-blown pertinacious Arian.  But, see, what if he HAD been?  Since the vast majority of the hierarchy had gone Arian (by most estimates), what could have been done about him ... according to General Council theory?

You do realize that it heresy to say that a council is above a pope, do you not?

Yeah, I think that the distinction they try to make is "ministerial" deposition ... which I really don't like because I agree that it strongly savors of Conciliarism?  Another way to use the term "depose" would be to say that they legally/materially strip the office.

But I agree that to avoid confusion, we should not use the word DEPOSE, even if qualified with "ministerially" because that distinction would be lost on most people ... who would think you're endorsing Conciliarism.

Another issue that should be mentioned. Both patriarchs Dioscorus and Photius, originators of the Syrian and Greek Orthodox schisms respectively, both wrongly and falsely accused the Roman Pontiffs of heresy. In light of this, the eighth general Council decreed, "Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs. If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome ... Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм08.htm

Also, during the 4th century, when the Arian heresy was temporarily at its strongest, there were many Saintly Bishops, e.g. Saints Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Hillary, Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory nαzιanzus, among others I'm probably forgetting. It isn't the case that 95 or 99% as some say were formal, public heretics in the episcopacy. There were some who were heretics, and there were others who were confused. The way the Church resolved it later on was to require a formal adherence to defined dogma. Those who did it were Catholic, because they were ready to accept Church teaching. Those who refused to do so were anathema. It never happened that 99% of Bishops lost their offices. And that's a problem for those who insist Bishops can be deposed by presumed pertinacity. After Nicaea I in 325 A.D., and before Constantinople I in 381 A.D., both dogmatic Ecuмenical Councils, what happened was you had some non-infallible synods like those in Ariminum that tried to undermine Nicaea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ariminum But these were ultimately rejected in later Ecuмenical Councils.

The question of public pertinacity is of the utmost importance. The Councils determined pertinacity by the final refusal to profess the dogmatic decrees.

Even Salza and Siscoe admit that no admonition or warning is necessary when a pope definitively severs the external bonds of unity.  So the only disagreement now would be on what constitutes a tacit resignation.

True, if, hypothetically, the Pope says, "I'm going to leave the Church and become a Muslim", the Cardinals can very well say, "Well, good riddance. We're going to declare the fact, with the Bishops, and then we're going to elect a new Pope". That's clear. But it's a much different scenario if the Pope insists he's Catholic. According to Cardinal Billot, "Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public profession. You will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics", those who continue to profess to be Catholics in that way are not yet manifest heretics. So what happens if the Pope is corrected, and after many corrections, he finally retracts? Then, he was not pertinacious, despite his materially heretical opinions, and therefore would not have lost office. That would be like the case of Pope John XII, where Cardinal Fournier, who resisted, became the next Pope and defined the Truth as Dogma. That could happen today.

Or, public pertinacity of the Pope could be established by the Bishops in future. At that time, the Pope would cease to be Pope, and a new Pope would be elected. But, it can't be established by us, otherwise there is no one to stop anyone deposing any of the Popes of that past on that basis. What if someone tells you he thinks Pope Pius XII was a public heretic? This is not a matter for private judgment. St. Robert, in answering opinion #2, says God does not remove Popes except through men.

Francis was warned publicly by several cardinals

Right, Maria Regina. But the problem is, none of the Cardinals have explicitly accused him of heresy, much less did they accuse him of public pertinacity, and that is necessary for us laity to conclude that the Church has established him to be manifestly obstinate. Up until then, it remains only an opinion or a presumption that he is pertinacious. The Church doesn't depose the Pope, She can only declare him deposed by God, after sufficiently establishing his public pertinacity. We can have our opinions on whether the Pope is pertinacious in his heresy, but it is up to the Teaching Church i.e. Bishops to confirm them or to reject them. So far, they have not.

I, for one, can't take what you say seriously, Fr. Kramer. After all, you have maintained that the theologians were unanimous in saying that the Pope cannot be a heretic. Have you revised your views on that? I have to think that you already knew that the theologians were not unanimous, but you have maintained it anyway. 

Fr. Kramer,

What competent Church authority has judged any of the work of the respected Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, as being heretical?