as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge...

Just little bit of reading comprehension goes a long way.  He is judged to HAVE been deprived of his rule.  They're judging something that had already taken place.

No, St. Robert Bellarmine did not hold Cajetan's opinion ... unless he was a total idiot and somehow didn't realize that Cajetan held the same opinion he did.

St. Robert cited the case of Pope Celestine's declaration regarding Nestorius, that Nestorius had lost his authority from the time he began preaching heresy, several years before he was officially / materially deposed.

Essentially, St. Robert was a sedeprivationist or sedeimpoundist before the terms existed, acknowledging two separate aspects of office, the formal which is stripped by God the moment one becomes a manfiest heretic, and the office itself which can be stripped later.  In fact, discussion of the material aspects of the office and the formal originate in the thinking of St. Robert.

Unfortunately, small minds that are incapable of grasping these distinctions somehow try to pretend, laughably, that Bellarmine held Cajetan's opinion.

I hope you can, in all humility, now appreciate from the theologians quoted above, and Archbishop Lefebvre speaking on Pope Honorius, that this is by no means the simple truth of the matter. We are not free to select the theological hypothesis that accords with our ideas and impose it upon the Church - unless of course we are the Pope adjudicating infallibly.

Well, PV, I’d say your hopes for his humility are in vain.

In his mind, he has 36k impeccable posts, which disagreeing with (much less refuting) results in anathemas.

If anyone would reflect on that a bit, they would realize that discussion is futile.

Now the fifth opinion, the true one, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.

Judgement by the Church (material disposession of the office) can only take place because he's ALREADY ceased to be Pope.  Thus he is judged by the Church (in the previous citation) to HAVE already fallen.  So, no, Bellarmine did not hold to your heresy.

Here's Pope Innocent III on the matter:

quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim.

"... because he can be judged by men, or rather SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN JUDGED, if that is he lapses into heresy."

Judgment of the Pope by the Church can only happen because he's already been judged beforehand by God.

So when there's talk of the Church judging and deposing him, it's only based on the presupposition that God has pre-judged him.

This is where, in my scenario, a heretical Pope could be officially deposed two years later, but the Church could declare that "two years ago Bergoglio ceased to be pope."

So what is that status of a Jorge in my scenario where he proclaims that Jesus is not God but then two years later a Council is finally able to convene to officially declare him deprived of office?  This is where he remains in possession of the office, the designation, the material aspect of the office ... or, as Father Chazal put it ... he remains impounded, where all his acts are null and void (same difference as having no capacity to formally exercise the office).

I agree with Bellarmine's ACTUAL opinion, however, that a true Pope can never fall from office.  Jorge was never Pope in the first place.  Take your pick as to why.  Whether it's due to illegitimate (rigged election), as the Bennyvacantists assert (St. Gallen mafia collusion, which JP2 and BXVI stipulated would render a papal election null), whether it's becuase Jorge isn't a validly ordained priest, much less a bishop, so he's incapable of functioning as the Bishop of Rome, or because the continuity has been severed since Pope Gregory XVII (Cardinal Siri) was illegitimately forced out of office.

What's lost in all this is that Bellarmine did not hold any of these opinions about the Pope.  He personally held that a legitimate Pope would never be allowed by God to fall from office.

What's lost in all this is that Bellarmine did not hold any of these opinions about the Pope.  He personally held that a legitimate Pope would never be allowed by God to fall from office.

Yes, he held this position of Pighius that the Pope could not fall into heresy because, as he said, it seemed to be in accordance with the sweet dispositions of Divine Providence (or very similar words that I can't put my hand on right now). But he acknowledged that this was not the common opinion, which is why he examined the subject further.

Bishop Vincent Gasser in his Official Relatio for the Deputatio de Fide at the First Vatican Council explained, quashing rumours, that the Council had no intention whatsoever of confirming this "extreme opinion", nor any other extreme opinion. It is worth reading.

Essentially, St. Robert was a sedeprivationist or sedeimpoundist before the terms existed, acknowledging two separate aspects of office, the formal which is stripped by God the moment one becomes a manfiest heretic, and the office itself which can be stripped later.  In fact, discussion of the material aspects of the office and the formal originate in the thinking of St. Robert.

I don't agree with you here.  The office is lost at the moment the office holder becomes a manifest heretic.  The Church only enforces the loss of office after the fact.