Your canon lawyer evidently commented on "judging" the pope--- right? Judging? --- as in a canonical tribunal or appellate process? --- which is not an available remedy; vs. advising, admonishing, questioning and correcting, which has been done through the ages right to the present day, and is presented in Canon Law (Canon 212) as not only a right but, in some cases, a duty.
Why don't you send my comments to this Canon Lawyer source, and see what s/he says? I am sure she will add that there is an explicit canonical duty to take advice, admonition and criticism to one's sacred pastors, and all the way to the Pope when souls are at risk. Canon 212.
Plus, I am sure it will be recognized that popes can be, and have been, judged by successor popes. Ask this Canon Lawyer.
I am sure a supposed "pope" can be found to be an anti-pope if they were elected by an illicit or defective conclave. It has happened approx. 37 times that anti-popes were deposed.
Your problem is that the Canon Lawyer apparently answered a specific question about "judging" a pope --- i.e. canonical trial of a present, sitting, valid pope --- which is not possible, but did NOT answer a question about admonishing a pope, or deposing an illicit anti-pope who is not, and never was, a pope at all.
If you don't ask the relevant question, you don't get a relevant answer.
Patiently I must repeat: on all things Catholic, don't tell us. Ask us. Otherwise you are, sad to say, quite OOWBAR: out of whack beyond all recognition.
You sound like the ex-jock on sports talk radio who asserts a fan cannot be as knowledgeable about the game because the fan didn't play.
To that I say nonsense.
My observations on Roman Catholicism are pulled primarily from Roman Catholic sources. Roman Catholics don't like it when those sources are cited. To use the common term for it today....they becomed "triggered" when confronted with what their denomination espouses.....I've found a good number don't even know what their denomination espouses.
You can ask your leadership all you want....however, I see no obligation in Canon 212 for them to answer you.
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PU.HTM
But here is another opinion from a ROMAN CATHOLIC source...in other words, this is not my opinion....it's one of your fellow Roman Catholics who wrote this and from a source I see cited often on FR by RCs.
******************************************
The answer is that Church Militant has a zero-tolerance policy on papal criticism in the public sphere:
It is our judgment that most Catholics should neither read nor have easy access to articles and essays that could be judged critical of the Pope. Such writings should be published and reserved for those capable of engaging them without risk of damage to their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ. We make these recommendations for the same reasons that we discourage people from visiting sedevacantist and pornography web sites: they are potential occasions of sin, from which masters of the spiritual life are unanimous in their recommendation of “flight” rather than “fight.” They lead people to think or do things they would not otherwise have thought or done and, almost without exception, those things are harmful to one’s spiritual life. At least one priest has described web sites containing such articles and encouraging such themes as “ecclesiastical porn” …We call it “spiritual pornography.”
[H]ow is a Catholic better off believing bad things about the Church, whether those things be true or false, and how should a Catholic respond to those things? If someone believes that the Catholic Church has become a bad place to be, what is that person supposed to do? Join another Church? Break away from the visible, corrupt Catholic Church and form an alternative, allegedly more faithful version of the Catholic Church (see CMRI and SSPX)? Leave the Catholic Church and join a more faithful Evangelical Christian assembly? Give up on religion entirely and go the “I’m spiritual but not religious” crowd? Organize “Recognize and Resist” movements within the Catholic Church and relentlessly attack Her from the inside? Seek Church reform via some kind of coup d’etat and replace current leadership with … what?
None of these responses is authentically Catholic. Each is facilitated and encouraged by papal criticism almost indistinguishable from what is found in the writings of virulent antiCatholic apologists…
https://onepeterfive.com/can-a-catholic-criticize-the-pope/