CathInfo.com

There's plenty of support for this.  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, arguably the top theologian in the Church leading up to Vatican II, personal confessors of Pope Pius XII for a time, who assisted in the text promulgating the Dogma of the Assumption and was the primary author of the Ottaviani intervention.

Principle is there in St. Robert Bellarmine and in the teaching of Pope St. Celestine I where he distinguishes between the office (material) and the authority of the office (formal), teaching that Nestorius had lost authority while retaining the office (being in a state of excommunicandus, similar to Fr. Chazal's "suspension").

It also follows from the general theological principles regarding papal elections, where the electors (designated by the Church, i.e. the previous pope) designate the man to receive office (material) but God supplies the authority directly (formal), since the Church cannot supply such authority.

It also follows from common sense and examples, such as the fact that a man can be elected but not have full authority, in some cases, such as when the man is not a bishop.  As such, he could exercise aspects of the office such as making appointments but cannot yet teach the Church (since only bishops are part of the Ecclesia Docens) ... until he receives episcopal consecration.

Jorge Bergoglio is invalid matter for the papacy because of his public manifest formal heresy (analogous to a woman).  Therefore, he cannot hold the papal office either materially or formally.