My bad.  Ipso facto deposition without prior declaration is what I meant. I should have been clearer.

That has been this board's understanding of Bellarmine's position/opinion (except perhaps Chips and Salsa/the banned? "RomanTheo")

For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see someone that is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/answering-fr-kramers-objection-to-true.html

Objection 10: “Ballerini, who famously followed Bellarmine’s “Fifth Opinion”…

Answer: Since Fr. Kramer admits that Ballerini held the 5th opinion, let’s read Ballerini's teaching on the loss of office for a heretical Pope, in context, including the part that Fr. Kramer conveniently omitted, to see when he believed a heretical Pope would be deprived of his jurisdiction.

In the follow quotation, Ballerini explaining how he believes the Church can remedy the case of a heretical Pope, without having to wait for a general council to be convened.

“In the case of the Pope’s falling into heresy, the remedy is more promptly and easily supplied.  Now, when we speak of heresy with reference to the Supreme Pontiffs, we do not mean the kind of heresy by which any of them, defining ex officio a dogma of faith, would define an error; for this cannot happen, as we have established in the book on their infallibility in defining controverted matters of faith.  Nor do we speak of a case in which the popes err in a matter of faith by their opinion on a subject that has not yet been defined [i.e., a new heresy]; for opinions that, before the Church has defined anything, men are free to embrace, cannot be stigmatized as heresy.  The present question, then, pertains only to the case in which the Pope, deceived in his private judgment, believes and pertinaciously asserts something contrary to an evident or defined article of faith, for this is what constitutes heresy. …

"But why, we ask, in such a case, where the faith is imperiled by the most imminent and the gravest of all dangers … should we await a remedy from a general council, which is not at all easy to convene?  When the faith is so endangered, cannot inferiors of whatever rank admonish their superior with a fraternal correction, resist him to the face, confront him, and, if it is necessary, rebuke him and impel him to come to his senses?  The cardinals could do this, for they are the counselors of the Pope; so could the Roman clergy; or, if it is judged expedient, a Roman synod could be convened for that purpose.  For the words of Paul to Titus: ‘Avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverse and sins, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 13:10), are addressed to any man whatsoever, even a private individual.  For he who, after a first and second correction, does not return to his senses, but persists in an opinion  contrary to a manifest or defined dogma, cannot, by the very fact of this public pertinacity, be excused by any pretext from heresy in the strict sense, which requires pertinacity, but rather declares himself plainly to be a heretic; in other words, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic faith and from the Church of his own accord, in such wise that no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church.  St. Jerome’s perspicacious commentary on the above-quoted words of St. Paul affords us insight into the matter: “It is for this reason that [the heretic] is said to be self-condemned: whereas the fornicator, the adulterer, the murderer, and those guilty of other sins are cast out of the Church by her ministers [sacerdotes], heretics, for their part, pronounce sentence against themselves, leaving the Church of their own accord; and their departure is considered as a condemnation issued by their own conscience.” Therefore, the Pope who, after a solemn and public warning given by the cardinals, the Roman clergy, or even a synod, would harden himself in his heresy, and thus would have departed plainly from the Church, would, according to the precept of St. Paul, have to be avoided; and, lest he bring destruction upon others, his heresy and contumacy would have to be brought forth into the public, so that all might similarly beware of him; and in this way the sentence that he passed against himself, being proposed to the whole Church, would declare that he has departed of his own accord, and has been cut off from the Body of the Church, and has in  certain manner abdicated the Papacy, which no one possesses, nor can possess, who is not in the Church.”

Comment: The reason he said “no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church,” is because cutting someone off from the Church requires the use of coercive power, which the Church cannot exercise against a Pope.  Therefore, he says the Pope cuts himself off from the Church, by remaining hardened in heresy in the face of public and solemn warnings.  Pay close attention to what he says next:

“You see, then, that in the case of a heresy to which the Pope adheres in his personal judgment, there is a prompt and efficacious remedy apart from the convocation of a general council; and in this hypothetical case whatever would be done against him to bring him to his senses before the declaration of his heresy and contumacy would be the exercise of charity, not of jurisdiction; but afterwards, when his departure from the Church has been made manifest, whatever sentence would be passed against him by a council would be passed against one who is no longer Pope, nor superior to a council.”

Nobody could be this dumb:

Ballerini holds with Bellarmine that It’s Christ, not a council, that does the deposing.  The council merely supplies the requisite declaration of fact.

Thus has been explained at least 5x in the last couple pages.