"There is a reason why they excommunicated Archbishop Vigano.
He called out the Great Reset, the Cabal, the vaccines, supported Trump, and exposed the Satanic Pope.
And now he just said after the French Olympic ceremony and I quote:
"Emmanuel Macron, who passes off a transvestite as his...."
(media.greatawakening.win)
GOD WINS
Is it? Here's an excerpt from https://onepeterfive.com/the-third-pornocracy-the-current-crisis-in-the-church/
"Otto the Emperor convened a Synod in St. Peter’s, in which the bishops and archbishops of his retinue, the clerics and Roman Curia, the leaders of the city and representatives of the people, all took part. John XII, however, had quit the Eternal City. When the Emperor asked the reasons for his absence, the Romans replied that they were to be found in the Pope’s immorality, which was described in a long list of crimes: simony, sacrilege, blasphemy, adultery, incest, abstention from the sacraments, use of weapons and trafficking with the devil.
All of them, clerics and laity alike, declared that ‘he had turned the Holy Palace into an actual bordello’ [brothel]; ‘he had blinded Benedict, his spiritual father, who died shortly afterwards; he had killed John, Cardinal Subdeacon, by cutting off his genitals; he had set fires; he girded himself with a sword and armed himself with helmet and shield: they testified to all of this. All of them, both clerics and laity, cried out that he would toast to the health of the devil; they said that in games of dice he would invoke the help of Jupiter and Venus and other demons; that he would not celebrate Matins and the Canonical Hours, and wouldn’t make the sign of the cross.’"
The article goes into much more detail on the whole topic. Seems like the same thing to me. Certainly nothing new. And as the article mentions, virtually none of his teachings survived, likely because they were all heretical nonsense. Doesn't mean he wasn't Pope. But the Church was not stained because a single man could never do such a thing, nor could an army of demons, nor could Satan himself.
So without first squaring the fact that there have been some pretty atrocious Popes, I don't see any way to further a discussion on a topic which is itself steeped in modernism and renaissance thinking; namely, the idea that random laity (or a priest who's ripe for excommunication) can decide for themselves whether or not the Pope is really the Supreme Pontiff. It flies in the face of authority, hierarchy, and tradition. It IS modernism.
I think Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice had looked at allegations of papal heresy and found none
John XXII has been discussed at length and was not found to be a heretic: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/brief-facts-on-pope-john22/
I would encourage you to pray and think on this topic further because it sounds like you basically agree Francis is a heretic / non-Catholic but you think he is still pope; which is an understandable confusing situation but I think this clearly resolves to the sedevacantist position
Vatican Council considered the possibility of a "heretical pope": https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council/
So again if Vatican 2 is heretical, Paul VI might have immediately lost his pontificate upon issuing heretical teachings, and the John Paul I could not have become pope.
Other arguments have been offered to establish John XXIII was probably a pre-election heretic incapable of becoming pope (admittedly I think these arguments require more attention, but John XXIII definitely indicated his anti-Catholic orientation with his actions)
The analogy to our possible shared politics is, just like the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the papal elections since 1958 have been stolen by non-Catholics. Just like the Birther argument that Obama may not have been born in the U.S. and hence could not have been a U.S. president, so the papal claimanta since 1958 haven't been Catholic and hence never became pope.
I appreciate your reminder that our side probably needs to more actively speak on what (in our view) are non-arguments like the case of John XXII (or Honorius, Liberius? There were some others). There are however other arguments I think need attention.
edit: your linked article rather mentions John XII rather than John XXII, who has also been discussed - https://novusordowatch.org/tag/pope-john-xii/