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/