1. I am not denying that it is of divine law that a heretic will lose his office. However, the Church has implemented rules, out of caution, to determine with certainty that the person is truly a heretic before the final "deposition" from office occurs (level 3 excommunication). Before that final "deposition" occurs, a lawfully-elected Pope would be "removed," de jure, from his office. The office itself would become "vacant," de jure, and all of the powers that a Pope would normally have would be "suspended." That Pope would be "impounded." There would be a "privation" of his lawful exercise of his powers, from the moment of his apparent heresy.

2. So even the apparent heretic (ipso facto heretic) automatically loses (by suspension) all power of governance immediately, according to the Canons. From a practical standpoint, for the faithful Catholic, we must ignore him until he clarifies that he is not a heretic or he repents.

3. Legally, while a lawfully-elected Pope is suspended/impounded, the governance of the Church devolves to certain offices in the Apostolic See. Those officials in those offices govern the Church in a limited capacity ("they keep the lights on"), until the papal situation is resolved. It may not be "resolved" until the death of a lawfully-elected Pope simply because that lawfully-elected Pope may refuse to give up power, and he may have enough support in the Vatican to prevent any changes in his lifetime. But that does not give him any true legitimate authority. At that point he is an unlawful usurper.

4. If the apparent heretic (ipso facto heretic) was an honest person, he would want to clear his name. He would answer Dubia and fix any problems. Bergoglio is a communist infiltrator. He will never do that.

5. The above is what Canon Law requires if there is a lawfully-elected Pope. Bergoglio was not lawfully-elected, as I have demonstrated at www.antipope.com. So Bergoglio can simply be grabbed by the ears and thrown in jail. He has absolutely no right to hold the office of Pope. He is a law-breaker and excommunicated by agreeing to take over as Pope before the previous Pope had died.

Uhm, nobody says that Canon Law is contrary to Divine Law, but some aspects of Canon Law are not Divine Law but discipline that's been imposed by the Church.

Aspects of Canon Law that are not of Divine Law do not bind the Pope, nor can a Pope be deposed from office by operation of human law.

It's something "you are not understanding".

Thank you Ladislaus. That is Catholic common sense well expressed. And exactlly how Divine Law applies to a heretic Pope being convicted and losing jurisdiction and office is a contentious issue that the Church has never adjudicated on.

If the Church needs to determine with certainty that the person is truly a heretic, then we are dealing with one who is only suspect of heresy and not one who is manifestly heretical.  In the case of one who is manifestly heretical, he would lose his office completely and immediately upon his manifest heresy.  The Church would only then need to declare that he is a manifest heretic to enforce his already lost office.

…Fr. Chazal's "sede-impoundism" closely follows 1917 Canon Law. He believes that Bergoglio was lawfully elected…

Team Bergoglio's pre-conclave lobbying was disqualifying, so his "election" cannot be canonical.

Canon 7 (1983 CIC 361)
Under the name Apostolic See or Holy See in this Code come not just the Roman Pontiff, but
also, unless by the nature of the thing or from the context of the words something else appears,
the Congregations, Tribunals, and Offices through which the same Roman Pontiff is wont to
expedite the affairs of the universal Church.

Canon 221 (1983 CIC 332)
If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns, for the validity of this resignation, acceptance by a
Cardinal or another is not necessary.

One must ask oneself, CK, why Pope Urban VIII or some Pope after him did not excommunicate John of St Thomas for heresy, if this is de fide as Fr Kramer says. Obviously, Fr Kramer has an erroneous understanding of this issue. It sounds Catholic but it is not.

Once again, this matter has never been settled by the Church. It is a hotly contested topic among theologians. Let us not appoint ourselves Pope to settle the issue.

Here is John of St Thomas:

Response to the objections
It is easy to answer the objections of Bellarmine and Suárez against this view.
Objection 1. “A heretic is not a member, so cannot be head of the Church”

Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.
And here is his reasoning:

• A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
• One cannot object that a character remains in him , because if he remained Pope because of a character, since it is indelible, it could never be deposed.  This is why the Fathers commonly teach that a heretic, because of heresy and regardless of excommunication, is deprived of any jurisdiction and power, as say St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome.

Answer: 
I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment; indeed, a great confusion in the Church would follow , if it was allowed that the admonition is made by a private man, and that the manifestation of this heresy having been made without being declared by the Church and proclaimed to all, in order that they avoid the Pontiff, that all should be required to avoid; for a heresy of the Pope cannot be public for all the faithful on the report of a few, and this report, not being legal, does not require that all believe it and avoid the Pontiff; and therefore as the Church proclaims him legally elected by legally designating him for all, it is necessary that she deposes him by declaring and proclaiming him as a heretic to be avoided.
Therefore, we see that this has been practiced by the Church, when in the case of the deposition of the Pope, the cause itself was first addressed by the General Council before the Pope was declared “No Pope”, as we said above.  Therefore it is not because the Pope is a heretic, even publicly, that he will ipso facto cease to be Pope, before the declaration of the Church, and before she proclaims him as “to be avoided” by the faithful.
And when St. Jerome says that a heretic separates itself from the body of Christ, he does not exclude a judgment of the Church, especially in such a serious matter as the deposition of the Pope, but it indicates only the quality of the crime, which excludes per se from the Church, without any further sentence, at least from the moment he is declared [heretic] by the Church;  indeed, even if the crime of heresy separates itself (ex se) of the Church, however, in relation to us that separation is not understood as have been made (not intelligitur facto) without this statement.
It is the same thing from the reason added by Bellarmine.  A non-Christian who is such in itself AND in relation to us (quoad se et quoad nos) cannot be Pope;  however, if he is not in itself a Christian, because he has lost the faith, but if in relation to us he is not legally declared being infidel or heretic, as obvious as it may appear in a private judgment, he is still in relation to us (quoad nos) a member of the Church and therefore the head.  Accordingly, a judgment of the Church is required through which he is declared (proponatur) as being a non-Christian and to be avoided, and then he ceases in relation to us to be the Pope, consequently, previously he did not cease to be himself (etiam in se) [Pope], because all what he did was valid in itself.¹