Did Canon Lawyer Dr Edward Peters write: "In the View of Modern Canonists from Wernz to Wrenn... a Pope actually falling into Heresy... would result in the Loss of Papal Office"?

Dr. Edward Peters J.C.D., in A Canon Lawyer’s Blog[22] attests to the fact that the opinion that a heretic pope would remain in office until even a merely declaratory sentence would result in his loss of office has been entirely abandoned where he says:

I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [of Wernz and Vidal]. (See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn[23] (2001) above.) As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as rare can be and yet still be. In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office. [https://akacatholic.com/heresy-of-conciliarlism-kramer/]