Lad, when you say this is the problem most sedevacantist have....what do you mean?  Because sedevacantists agree with Fenton.

Okay, let’s take this one point at a time.   You initially made two assertions that I responded to by quoting Pope Innocent III.  Your first was this: “… the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic.” (Fr. Kramer)  Your second was this: “the papal magisterium has constantly taught that the pope can never be judged by anyone.” (Fr. Kramer)

I quoted Innocent who readily admitting the possibility that he could “wither away into heresy,” which contradicts your first entirely false statement that “the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition” presupposes the contrary.  The traditional teaching is that a Pope can fall into heresy, and the contrary opinion was not seriously defended until Alber Pighius did so in 16^th century (Hierarch. Eccles. lib. 4, cap.   So, your first statement was and is entirely false.

You second - that "the papal magististerium has contantly taught the the pope can never be judged by anyone" is also false, because you failed to make a necessary distinction.  Plenty of Pope have been legitimately judged by men.  Pope Leo IV asked for the Emperor and his legates to judge him, and the Pope agree to submit to their ruling and obey it.

What is forbidden is for a Pope be juridically judged with a coercive (coactive) judgment. The Pope is the supreme ruler on earth and no one can exercise jurisdiction or coercive force over him.  It is metaphysically impossible for a Pope to be legitimately judged by men with a coercive judgment. But Popes can and have been judged with a discretionary judgment, which is a legitimate judgment from an authority, who has the right to render the judgment, but who lacks any coercive force over the one judged. That’s how the Pope have been judged in the past, as Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus and countless other theologians teach.  For example, in response to the objection that “Leo IV asked for judges from Emperor Louis and promised to obey their decisions, as if contained in the canons Nos so incompetenter 2, q. 7,” Bellarmine said:  “Leo subjected himself to the discretionary judgment of the Emperor, not the coactive, as is easily deduced from the same chapter” (De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap xxix).   The same form of judgment was used again Sixtus III, (Mandasti’ 2, quaest. 5), Leo III (ch. ‘Auditum’), as well as other Pope.  
.  And the judgment was not being rendered against former Popes who had secretly been deposed by God, but against true "formal Popes" - jurisdiction and all -  whose legitimately was not in doubt.  So, your second statement is just as false as your first.

Now let’s consider the third statement you added in the latest reply. You claim that “shown to be already judged" means “proven to have already fallen from office.”  But that’s an argument that was used to defend the 2^nd Opinion – i.e., that an entirely occult heretic ceases to be Pope - which Bellarmine refutes, and which was entirely abandoned by theologians centuries ago.  I thought you and your fellow Sedevacantists agreed with Bellarmine?  Why are you now appealing to an argument that was used to defend the opinion he refuted?

Here’s how Cajetan describes the second opinion, and how he responded to the argument you just presented to defend it:

“[the Second Opinion maintains that] when the Pope becomes a heretic, he is deprived of the papacy ipso facto by divine law, which is based on the distinction between believer and unbeliever. When he is deposed by the Church on this account, it is not the pope who is either judged or deposed, but he who has already been judged, because he does not believe (in accordance with what the Lord says in John 3), and who has already been deposed; since, having become an unbeliever, and being removed by his own will from the body of the Church, he is formally declared judged and deposed.”

Does that sound familiar?  That’s the 2^nd Opinion that Bellarmine refutes, that every theologian abandoned centuries ago, and that you’re now attempting to resurrect by your interpretation of Innocent III.  Here’s what Cajetan says in response to your argument:

“first of all, the Lord’s authority is not to the point, because He is speaking of the judgment of eternal damnation, by which ‘he that doth not believe is already judged’ [John 3:18], and on God’s part, because, ‘The Lord knows who they are’ … and in regard to obvious condemnation without a trial at the last judgment, as Gregory explains.”  

What he means is the Pope is not deposed by the judgment of God without the judgement of men.  He goes on to answer another one of your argument by saying when "St. Thomas and others" speak of heretics lacking jurisdiction, they are to understood as referring to those who are heretics "in the Church's judgment."

Bellarmine refutes the 2^nd Opinion by stating that just as God does not make a man Pope without the cooperation of men (the Cardinal who elect him), neither does he remove a Pope without the cooperation of men (the bishops who judge and declare him deposed).  God does not secretly depose a Pope without the Church knowing about it or being involved in the process, any more than he secretly makes a man Pope without the Church knowing about it or being involved in the process.   The "judgment of men" that's required for God to depose a Pope is a discretionary judgment, and no coercive power is needed for the Church do so - just as no coercive power was necessary when you to judge the person you the person you mistakenly thought was the Pope (Benedict XVI) on April 30th, before posting your judgment on Facebook and "exhorting" everyone to presume that the See is now vacant.  

You've provided very good information, but most of the sedevacantists and at least one of the sedeprivationists aren't going to pay much attention to information from the other side, unless they can find a way to call it "heretical" (their favorite word in the English language). That's what they live for - to look for heresy in everything and everywhere and everyone. That's why I hardly debate with them anymore.