The Ryan Grant translation:


https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/




Roberti Bellarmini,

Opera Omnia

Tomus Primus


Controversiarum De Summo Pontifice, Liber Secundus

(Liber II)

Caput XXX

Solvitur argumentum ultimum, et tractatur quaestio : An Papa haereticus deponi possit.



From pages 608 to 611


https://archive.org/details/operaomnia01bell_0/page/608/mode/2up






However, I'm not about to type out the latin manually from the book above, I'll instead be using the following link, and placing Bellarmine's reponse to the fourth opinion through ChatGPT and also Google Translate:



http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/De%20Romano%20Pontifice%20XXX.html

Argumentum decimum. Pontifex in casu haeresis potest ab Ecclesia judicari et deponi, ut patet dist. 40, can. Si papa igitur subjectus est pontifex humano judicio, saltem in aliquo casu.


Respondeo:


sunt de hac re quinque opiniones. Prima est Alberti Pighii lib. 4 cap. 9 hierarch. Eccles. Ubi contendit, papam non posse esse haereticuм; proinde nec deponi in ullo casu, quae sententia probabilis est, et defendi potest facile, ut postea sue loco ostendemus. Quia tamen non est certa, et communis opinio est in contrarium, operae pretium erit videre, quid sit respondendum, si papa haereticus esse possit.


Est ergo secunda opinio, papam eo ipso quo in haeresim incidit, etiam interiorem tantum, esse extra Ecclesiam et depositum a Deo, quocirca ab Ecclesia posse judicari, id est, declarari depositum jure divino, et deponi de facto, si adhuc recuset cedere. Haec est Joan. De Turrecremata lib. 4. par. 2. cap. 20. sed mihi non probatur. Nam jurisdictio datur quidem pontifici a Deo, sed hominum opera concurrente, ut patet, qua ab hominibus habet iste homo qui antea non era papa, ut incipiat esse papa; igitur non aufertur a Deo nisi per hominem: at haereticus occultus non potest ab homine judicari; nec ipse sponte eam potestatem vult relinquere. Adde, quod fundamentum hujus opinionis est, quod haeretici occulti sint extra Ecclesiam, quod esse falsum nos prolixe ostendimus in lib. 1. de Eccl.


Terta opinio est in altero extremo, nimirum, papam neque per haeresim occultam, neque per manifestam, esse depositum aut deponi posse. Hanc refert et refellit Turrecremata loc. not. Et sane est opinio valde improbabilis. Primo, quoniam haereticuм papam posse judicari, expresse hebetur can. Si papa dist. 40. et apud Innocentium serm. 2. de consecr. Pontif. Et quod majus est in VIII. Synodo act. 8. recitantur acta concilii Romani sub Hadriano, et in iis continebatur. Honorium papam jure videri anathematizatum, quia de haeresi fuerat convictus, ob quam solam caussam licet minoribus judicare majores. Ubi notandum est, quod etsi probabile sit, Honorium non fuisse haereticuм, et Hadrianum II. Papam deceptum ex corruptis exemplaribus VI. Synodi, falso putasse Honorium fuisse haereticuм: tamen non possumus negare, quia Hadrianus cuм Romano concilio, immo et tota synodus VIII. Generalis senserit, in caussa haeresis posse Romanum pontificem judicari. Adde, quod esset miserrima conditio Ecclesiae, si lupum manifeste grassantem, pro pastore agnoscere cogeretur.


Quarta opinio est Cajetani in tract. De auctor papae et conc. cap. 20. et 21. ubi docet, papam haereticuм manifestum non esse ipso facto depositum sed posse, ac debere deponi ab Ecclesia: quae sententia meo judicio defendi non potest. Nam inprimis, quod haereticus manifestus ipso facto sit depositus, probatur auctoritate et ratione. Auctoritas est b. Pauli, qui in epist. ad Titum 3. jubet, postquam manifeste apparet pertinax, vitari, et intelligit ante omnem excommunicationem, et sententiam judicis: ut ibidem scribit Hieronymus, ubi dicit, alios peccatores per sententiam excommunicationis excludi ab Ecclesia; haereticos autem per se discedere et praecidi a corpore Christi: at non potest vitari papa manens papa; quomodo enim vitabimus capus nostrum? Quomodo recedemus a membro nobis conjuncto?


Ratio vero et quidem certissima haec est. Non Christianus non potest ullo modo esse papa, et Cajetanus fatetur in eod. lib. cap. 26. et ratio est, quia non potest esse caput id quod non est membrum; et non est membrum Ecclesiae is qui non est Christianus: at haereticus manifestus non est Christianus, ut aperte docet Cyprianus lib. 4. epist. 2 Athanasius ser. 2. cont. Arian. Augustinus lib. De grat. Christ. cap. 20. Hieronymus cont. Lucifer. et alii; haereticus igitur manifestus papa esse non potest.
Respondet Cajetanus in Apol. pro tract. Praedicto cap. 25. et in ipso tract. cap. 22. haereticuм non esse Christianum simpliciter, sed esse secundum quid: nam cuм duo faciant Christianum, fides et character, haereticus amissa fide, adhuc adhaeret aliquo modo Ecclesiae, et capax est jurisdictionis; proinde adhuc est papa, sed deponendus; quia per haeresim est dispositus, dispositione ultima, ad non esse papam: qualis est homo, non quidem mortuus, sed in extremis constitutus.


At contra. Nam inprimis si ratione characteris haereticus maneret actu conjunctus cuм Ecclesia, nunquam posset praecidi et separari actu ab ea, quia character est indelebilis: at omnes fatentur, quosdam posse praecidi de facto ab Ecclesia; igitur character non facit hominem haereticuм, esse actu in Ecclesia, sed solum esse signum quod fuerit in Ecclesia, et quod debeat esse in Ecclesia. Quomodo character ovi impressus, quando illa errat in montibus, non facit eam esse in ovili, sed indicat ex quo ovili fugerit, et quo iterum compelli possit. Et confirmatur ex b. Thoma, qui 3. par. q. 9. artic. 3. dicit, eos qui fide carent non esse unitos Christo actu, sed in potentia tantum: ubi loquitur de unione interna, non externa, quae sit per confessionem fidei, et visibilia sacramenta. cuм ergo character ad interna pertineat non ad externa secundum b. Thomam, solus character non unit actu hominem cuм Christo.


Deinde. Vel fides est dispositio necessaria simpliciter ad hoc ut aliquis sit papa, vel tantum ad bene esse. Si primum; ergo ista dispositione sublata per contrariam quae est haeresis, mox papa desinit esse: neque enim potest forma conservari sine necessariis dispositionibus. Si secuм; ergo non potest deponi papa propter haeresim: nam alioquin deberet deponi etiam propter ignorantiam et improbitatem et similia, quae tollunt scientiam et probitatem, et alias dispositiones necessarias ad bene esse papae. Et praeterea fatetur Cajet. In tract. Praed. cap. 26. ex defectu dispositionum non necessarium simpliciter, sed tantum ad bene esse papam non posse deponi.
Respondet Cajetanus, fidem esse dispositionem necessariam simpliciter, sed partialem, non totalem; et proinde fide remota, adhuc papam manere papam propter aliam partem dispositionis, quae dicitur character, et adhuc remanet.


At contra. Vel totalis dispositio, quae est character et fides, est necessaria simpliciter, vel non, sed sufficit partialis. Si primum: ergo remota fide, non amplius remanet dispositio necessaria simpliciter, quia totalis erat necessaria simpliciter, et jam non est amplius totalis. Si secundum; ergo fides no requiritur nisi ad bene esse, et proinde propter ejus defectum papa deponi non potest. Deinde quae habent ultimam dispositionem ad interitum, paulo post desinunt esse sine alia vi externa, ut patet; igitur et papa haereticus sine alia depositione per se desinit esse papa.


Denique sancti Patres concorditer docent, non solum haereticos esse extra Ecclesiam; se etiam ipso facto carere omni jurisdictione et dignitate ecclesiastica. Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 6. Dicimus, inquit, omnes omnino haereticos atque schismaticos nihil habere potestatis ac juris: et lib. 2. epist. 1. docet, haereticos ad Ecclesiam redeuntes suscipiendos ut laicos, etsi antea in Ecclesia presbyteri, vel episcopi fuerint. Optatus lib. 1. cont. Parmen. docet, haereticos et schismaticos claves regni coelorum habere non posse, nec solvere aut ligare. Ambrosius lib. 1. de poenit. cap. 2. et Augustinus in Enchir. cap. 65. Idem docet Hieronymus lib. Cont. Lucifer. Non quod Episcopi, inquit, esse possunt qui haeretici fuerant, sed quid constaret, eos, qui reciperentur, haereticos non fuisse.


Coelestinus papa 1. in epist. Ad Jo. Antioch. Quae habetur in concil. Ephes. Tom. 1. cap. 19. Si quis, inquit, ab episcopo Nestorio aut ab aliis qui eum sequuntur, ex quo talia praedicare coeperunt, vel excommunicatus vel exutus est, seu antistitis seu cleri dignitate, hunce in nostra communione et durasse et durare manifestum est, nec judicamus eum remotum; quia non poterat quemquam ejus removere sententia, qui se jam praebuerat ipse removendum. Et in epistol. Ad cler. Constantinopol. Sedis, inquit, nostrae sanxit auctoritas, nullum sive episcopum, sive clericuм seu professione aliqua Christianum, qui a Nestorio vel ejus similibus, ex quo talia praedicare coeperunt, vel loco suo, vel communione detecti sunt, vel dejectum, vel excommunicatum videri: quia neminem deiicere vel removere poterat, qui praedicans talia titubavit. Idem repetit et confirmat Nicolaus 1. in epist. Ad Michäel. denique etiam d. Thomas 2. 2. q. 39. art. 3. docet, schismaticus mox perdere omnem jurisdictionem, et irrita esse, si quae ex jurisdictione agere conentur.


Neque valet quod quidam respondent: istos Patres loqui secundum antiqua jura; nunc autem ex decreto concilii constantiensis non amittere jurisdictionem, nisi nominatim excommunicatos, et percussores clericorum. Hoc, inquam, nihil valet: nam Patres illi cuм dicunt haereticos amittere jurisdictionem, non allegant ulla jura humana, quae etiam forte tunc nulla exstabant de hac re: sed argumentantur ex natura haeresis. Concilium autem constantiense non loquitur nisi de excommunicatis, id est, de his qui per sententiam Ecclesiae amiserunt jurisdictionem: haeretici autem etiam ante excommunicationem sunt extra Ecclesiam, et privati omni jurisdictione, sunt enim proprio judicio condemnati, ut docet apostolus ad Titum 3. hoc est, praecisi a corpore Ecclesiae sine excommunicatione, ut Hieronymus exponit.


Deinde quod secundo Cajetanus dicit, posse papam haereticuм ab Ecclesia deponi vere et ex auctoritate, non minus videtur falsum, quam primum. Nam si Ecclesia invitum papam deponit; certe est supra papam, cujus oppositum in illo tractatu idem Cajetanus defendit. Sed respondet ipse: Ecclesiam ex eo quod papam deponit, non habere auctoritatem in papam, sed solum in illam conjunctionem personae cuм pontificatu: ut enim Ecclesia potest coniungere pontificatum cuм tali persona, et tamen non dicitur propterea esse supra pontificem: ita potest separare pontificatum a tali persona in casu haeresis, et tamen non dicetur esse supra pontificem.



At contra. Nam primo, ex eo quod papa deponit episcopus, deducunt, papam esse supra episcopos omnes, et tamen papa deponens episcopum non destruit episcopatum, sed solum separat ab allia persona. Secundo deponi invitum a pontificatu sine dubio est poena; igitur Ecclesia invitum papam deponens, sine dubio ipsum punit; at punire est superioris et judicis. Tertio, quia secundum Cajetanum et caeteros Thomistas, re idem sunt totum et partes simul sumptae; igitur qui habet auctoritatem in partes simul sumptas, it ut eas separare possit, habet etiam in ipsum totum, quod ex partibus illis consurgit.



Neque valet Cajetani exemplum de electoribus, qui habent potestatem applicandi pontificatum certae personae, et tamen non habent potestatem in papam. Nam dum res fit, actio exercetur circa materiam rei futurae, non circa compositum quod nondum est: at dum res destruitur, exercetur circa compositum, ut patet in rebus naturalibus. Itaque cardinales dum pontificem creant, exercent suam auctoritatem, non supra pontificem quia nondum est, sed circa materiam, id est, circa personam quam per electionem quodammodo disponunt, ut a Deo pontificatus formam recipiat; at si pontificem deponerent, necessario exercerent auctoritatem supra compositum, id est, supra personam pontificia dignitate praeditam, id est, supra pontificem.



Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticuм manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse Christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae: quare ab Ecclesia posse eum judicare et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem, et nominatum Cypriani lib. 4. epist. 2. ubi sic loquitur de Novatiano. Qui fuit papa in schismate cuм Cornelio: Episcopatum, inquit, tenere non posset, et si episcopus primus factus, a coepiscoporum suorum corpore et ab Ecclesiae unitate discederet. Ubi dicit Novationum, etsi verus act legitimus papa fuisset, tamen eo ipso casurum fuisse a pontificatu si se ab Ecclesia separaret.



Eadem est sententia doctissimorum recentiorum ut Jo. Driedonis, qui lib. 4. de Script. et dogmat. Eccles. cap. 2. par. 2. sent. 2. docet, eos tantum ab Ecclesia separari, qui vel ejiciuntur, ut excommunicati, vel per se discedunt et oppugnant Ecclesiam, ut haeretici et schismatici. Et sententia septima dicit, in iis, qui ab Ecclesia discesserunt, nullam prorsus remanere spiritualem potestatem super eos, qui sunt de Ecclesia. Idem Melchior Canus, qui lib. 4. de loc. cap. 2. docet, haereticos non esse partes Ecclesiae, nec membra, et cap. ult. ad argument. 12. dicit, non posse vel cogitatione informari, ut aliquis sit caput et papa, qui non est membrum neque pars. Et ibidem disertis verbis docet, haereticos occultos adhuc esse de Ecclesia, et partes, ac membra, atque adeo papam haereticuм occultum adhuc esse papam. Eadem est aliorum etiam, quos citavimus in lib. 1. de Eccles.



Fundamentum hujus sententiae est, quoniam haereticus manifestus nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, id est, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa. Nam catholici etiam mali sunt uniti et sunt membra, animo per fidem, corpore per confessionem fidei, et visibilium sacramentorum participationem: haeretici occulti, sunt uniti et sunt membra, solum externa unione, sicut e contrario, boni catechumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa: haeretici manifesti nullo modo, ut jam probatum est.

Here's ChatGPT translation of Bellarmine's reponse to the fourth opinion:

The fourth opinion is that of Cajetani, in his treatise On the Authority of the Pope and Council, chapters 20 and 21, where he teaches that a manifestly heretical pope is not automatically deposed but can and should be deposed by the Church. In my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. Firstly, the fact that a manifestly heretical person is automatically deposed is proven by authority and reason. The authority is that of St. Paul, who in his letter to Titus 3 commands that an obstinate person should be avoided once he is manifestly revealed, and understands that this should happen before any excommunication or sentence of a judge. As Jerome writes in the same passage, other sinners are excluded from the Church by the sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the body of Christ by themselves. But a pope cannot be avoided or separated from while still remaining pope; for how can we avoid our head? How can we separate from a member that is joined to us?

Here's Google's translation of Bellarmine's reponse to the fourth opinion:

The fourth opinion is Cajetani's tract. Of the author of the pope and the conc. chap. 20. and 21. where he teaches that a heretical pope is not automatically deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church: which opinion cannot be defended in my judgment. For first of all, that the manifest heretic was automatically deposed, is proved by authority and reason. Authority is b. Paul, who in Epist. to Titus 3. He commands, after he is manifestly obstinate, to be avoided, and understands before all excommunication and the sentence of the judges: as Jerome writes there, where he says, other sinners are excluded from the Church by the sentence of excommunication; but the heretics are by themselves to depart and be cut off from the body of Christ: but the pope cannot be avoided if he remains pope; for how shall we avoid our head? How shall we withdraw from the member joined to us?

Here's Ryan Grant's translation of Bellarmine's reponse to the fourth opinion:

The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined?

And again, quoting from my previous post, here is what Cornelius a Lapide says regarding what St. Paul commands Titus:



https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/francis-includes-schismatic-heretics-in-martyrology/msg883621/#msg883621

Loquitur enim Apostolus de hæretico non pertinaci et formato , sed eo , qui ex ignorantia aut mala instructione errat , et sectam errantium sequitur ; vel de quo dubium est , sitne pertinax , necne . Hic enim corripi et instrui debet , primo lenius , secundo durius et fortius ; quod si sic monitus contemnit , ostenditque se pertinacem , vitandus est , et non corripiendus : correptionis enim nullus erit fructus.

"the apostle speaks of a heretic, not of a stubborn and formed one, but of one who goes astray from ignorance or bad instruction, and follows the sect of the erring; or about which there is a doubt, whether he is persistent or not. For here he must be rebuked and instructed, first gently, secondly harder and stronger; that if he thus despises admonition, and shows himself obstinate, he is to be avoided, and not to be reproved: for there will be no fruit of reproof."

Louis Card. Billot

Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, I De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione


https://archive.org/details/BillotDeEcclesiaChristiI/page/n305/mode/2up



Pages 614 to 615

and a part of 617

Duobus itaque in tuto iam positis tanquam extra omnem dubitationem exsistentibus, tertia tandem restat celebris quae- stio de casu in quo Pontifex per apostasiam, schisma, vel haeresim deficeret ab Ecclesia. Per apostasiam quidem, ut si Papa fieret Turca. Per schisma, ut si cuм Ecclesia catholica communicare iam nollet. Per haeresim, ut si profiteretur se personaliter non credere aliquod dogma hactenus sufficienter propositum et ab omnibus fidelibus Christianis firma fide tenendum, puta divinitatem Christi, realem praesentiam eius in sacramento, immaculatam conceptionem Deiparae, aut si quid aliud huiusmodi. Verum ex tribus praedictis hypothesibus, duae priores adeo in vero simii es exsistunt, ut apud theologos vix ac ne vix quidem in considerationem veniant. Et ideo quaestio integra solet reduci ad casum papae qui fieret personali professione haereticus.

Hac igitur suppositione semel facta, concedunt omnes auferendum fore vinculum communionis et subiectionis, propter auctoritates divinas quae expresse iubent separationem ab haereticis, Tit. III-10, 2 loan. 10, etc. Sed aliqui cuм Caietano volunt ut papa factus haereticus subsit potestati ministeriali Ecclesiae in ordine ad depositionem, dicuntque hanc esse unicam exceptionem in generali doctrina paulo supra asserta et declarata. Alii vero statuunt quod talis ipso suo facto a pontificatu excideret, ita ut ex parte Ecclesiae non esset locus depositioni, sed solum sententiae declaratoriae de vacatione sedis.


[ . . . ]



Non enim occulte discredens, sed aperte profitens se discredere ea quae fidelibus christianis catholica fide tenenda proponuntur, vincu- lum abrumpit quo ad visibilem societatis ecclesiasticae com- paginem pertinebat, et ex consequenti amittit statim rationem membri cuм omnibus titulis qui hanc rationem essentialiter praesupponunt. Facta ergo hypothesi papae qui fieret notorie haereticus, incunctanter concedendum est quod ipso facto amitteret pontificalem potestatem, dum propria voluntate trans- ferretur extra corpus Ecclesiae, factus infidelis, sicut bene dicunt, auctores quos immerito, ut videtur, confutat Caietanus.

With the two now safely established as existing beyond all doubt, the third finally remains the famous question of the case in which the Pontiff should fail from the Church through apostasy, schism, or heresy. By apostasy indeed, as if the Pope had become a Turk. By schism, as if he no longer wanted to communicate with the Catholic Church. By heresy, as if he professed that he personally did not believe in any dogma sufficiently proposed up to now and to be held by firm faith by all faithful Christians, for example the divinity of Christ, his real presence in the sacrament, the immaculate conception of Deipara, or something else of the sort. It is true that of the three aforesaid hypotheses, the first two exist so much in reality that they hardly even come into consideration among theologians. And therefore the whole question is usually reduced to the case of a pope who would become a heretic by personal profession.

Therefore, once this supposition is made, all agree that the bond of communion and subjection must be taken away, because of the divine authorities which expressly command separation from heretics, Tit. III-10, 2 John. 10, etc. But some with Caietano want a pope who has become a heretic to be subject to the ministerial power of the Church in the order of deposition, and they say that this is the only exception in the general doctrine asserted and declared a little above. Others, on the other hand, decide that such a person would fall out of the pontificate by his own act, so that on the part of the Church there would be no room for deposition, but only for a declaratory decision about the vacancy of the seat.


[ . . . ]


For, not secretly disagreeing, but openly declaring that he disagrees with those things which are proposed to be held by the faithful Christians in the Catholic faith, he breaks the bond by which he belonged to the visible community of the ecclesiastical society, and as a consequence immediately loses the status of a member with all the titles which essentially presuppose this status. The hypothesis, then, of a pope who would become a notorious heretic, must be admitted without question, that he automatically lost the papal power, while he was transferred by his own will outside the body of the Church, becoming an infidel, as the authors rightly say, whom Caietanus contradicts.

Plenus Venter,

If we were to follow Ballerini, unless a solemn and public warning were given by the Church to Francis, manifest heresy could not be established, and thus prior to that happening we could not ascertain that Francis is a heretic, and thus how could we avoid him?

Consequently, what reason do we have to say that others ought to beware his teaching, prior to the Church making such a declaration?

How are you sure that you aren't the one who misunderstands him?

I think part of the problem is that the Bellarmine quotes are from two separate books, On Councils and On the Supreme Pontiff.  I would argue that the former book generally speaks to Protestants regarding Popes who are still popes.  The latter book is specifically about the Pope and goes into more detail on the topic.  It provides us with the full scope of what happens when/if and how a pope loses office.

The 2 books shouldn't contradict each other, but the context is different, so they may seem to contradict.

BELLARMINE'S POSITION?

I'm not certain that I understand Bellarmine perfectly, because I am not a theologian, and it's very likely that I am missing some of the nuances of the debate. Perhaps more than nuances...

Bellarmine's volume on the Roman Pontiff actually precedes his volume on Councils.

Here is why I believe that St Robert holds that the intervention of the Church is required in his 'ipso facto' papal deposition scenario, before you, as an individual, can hold the Pope to be Pope no longer and stop praying for him:


FIRST POINT: THE POPE DOES NOT HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN A BISHOP

"Now the fifth true opinion, 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. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction... The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is neither in spirit or body, or by internal union nor external..."

Explaining his rejection of the 'fourth opinion' of Cajetan:

"...that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason.
The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge...
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian... Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

Do you not agree, 2V, that this rationale applies equally to a bishop as to a pope? Does St Robert's reasoning for ipso facto deposition, from authority and reason, not apply just the same to a bishop? There is absolutely no difference in the rationale, yet this is what St Robert says on the deposition of bishops:

"...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff" - De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib I De Clericis, Cap 7 (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870, pp 428-429).

Doesn't that have some relevance? Wouldn't you say this demonstrates that St Robert's thinking is that some kind of Church process is required before the faithful can declare the heretic pastor no longer Pope and cease praying for him? A manifest heretic is not a Christian nor member of the Church no matter who he be, yet such a bishop is not deposed, but such a pope is deposed? 


SECOND POINT: THE POPE IS NOT REMOVED UNLESS THROUGH MEN

In refuting the 'second opinion' that even secret heretics are deposed by divine law, St Robert objects:

"Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men". But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men..."

St Robert evidently holds that there is a judgement (not of the Pope, but of the heresy, surely), a judgement of heresy by men. Does he mean any man? It is not any men, after all, through whose agreement he 'begins to be Pope'. 'Any man' just doesn't seem appropriate when it comes to deposing a Pope. It's not any man who judges and deposes a bishop, after all. Agree? 


THIRD POINT: ESTABLISHING MANIFEST HERESY

"...that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason.
The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious..."

The question is, who would give the admonitions to the Pope to demonstrate his pertinacity in heresy (or to give him the chance to recant so that his material heresy never becomes manifest formal heresy)? What is St Robert Bellarmine's opinion on this? Would it be just any Catholic who could fulfill this role in St. Robert's scenario for deposition? Don't you agree that something a little more formal and official would be required for such a momentous task?

"(He) has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men


FOURTH POINT: THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH/COUNCIL

St Robert's subsequent study on Councils gives the answer to our question as to who the 'men' are through whom the pope is deposed. St Robert says that the Pope remains Supreme Pontiff until he is convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council. Why would he say it if he did not mean it?:

"...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge...""

"It happens also that the Pope in a Council is not only the judge, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing: why would they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he were condemned?

"...they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic."

"d) The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. can. 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff - albeit not rashly..." (Ch IX On the Utility or even the Necessity of Celebrating Councils - ie not addressed to Protestants)



"...whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or a schismatic...
I respond that in no cause can a true and perfect Council... be convoked without the authority of the Pope, because he has the authority to define questions of faith. For the particular authority is in the head, in Peter; to whom it was commanded to confirm his brethren, and therefore for whom the Lord prayed lest his faith would fail (Luke 22). Still in... (this)... case an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head, although it cannot, without the head, make determinations on many things on which it can with the head, as Cajetan rightly teaches in his little work, de Potestate Papae c. 15 and 16, and much earlier on the priests of the Roman Church in their epistle to Cyprian, which is 7 in the second book of the works of Cyprian. Hence, the imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the Bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves." (Bk I, On Councils, Ch XIV, Certain Doubts are Answered - again, not addressed to Protestants)


FIFTH POINT: THE TESTIMONY OF CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGIANS

Suarez, Fellow Jesuit and Contemporary (1548-1614): 
"I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church (...) In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign this faculty to them, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, just as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that of itself it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law, there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus (q.35, 1584 ed, vol 13, p2)"

John of St Thomas, Contemporary (1589-1644):
"Bellarmine and Suárez therefore think that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and declared incorrigible, is immediately deposed by Christ the Lord and not by any authority of the Church." If you read Suarez above, for him the declaration comes from the 'legitimate jurisdiction of the Church'. Isn't it only normal? Would St Robert have required less?


CONCLUSION

I'm not claiming infallibility in my understanding of Bellarmine. However, wouldn't you agree that the texts I have cited at least provide enough doubt as to make it rash for an individual Catholic to hold up St Robert Bellarmine's teaching as a reason for him to definitively declare, on that basis, the vacancy of the Apostolic See? And even if it were certain that St Robert Bellarmine did teach that an individual could make such a judgement, do you not agree it would still be rash to do so given the many weighty theological opinions to the contrary, even if some imagine that a modern day 'theologian' such as Fr Kramer could definitively settle this long-standing debate?

I would say St Robert Bellarmine's advice regarding bishops preaching heresy is applicable

Can laymen recognize a person as a heretic prior to the judgement of the Church?

St. Paul commands that an obstinate person should be avoided once it is revealed that such a person is a manifest heretic.

Unless a pope is a manifest heretic he cannot be avoided, nor can we separate from him.

So how should we reconcile all those quotes, Trad boy? St Robert's teachings on heretical bishops, his teaching on Councils. His teachings on the Pope not being removed unless by men. His requirement for warnings to demonstrate pertinacity. It's not so clear is it? Don't we need the Church to adjudicate on this disputed matter? 

St Bellarmine clearly teaches against a declaration by men first (ie. the bishops/the Church) when he refutes the fourth opinion held by Cajetan and others:

Of course he does.  He clearly says right there in his statement of the 5th opinion, which he defends, that it is only because the Pope has already been deposed by God that the Church can judge him.

So if Jorge got up tomorrow morning and started spewing "I no longer believe that Jesus Christ is God.  He was just a man who was very close to God" and it was clearly no slip of the tongue, etc. ... then according to the absurd position spun by these R&R, well, we wouldn't "KNOW" he was a heretic until the Church got together and declared him to be such.

That is the height of insantiy.

But here's the thing that these R&R don't realize and where they shoot themselves in the face with the same argument.  If we can't know whether something is Catholic or heretical without the judgment of the Church, then how can they "know" that there are errors and heresies in Vatican II.  In fact, the Church has "judged" Vatican II to be perfectly Catholic.

So they reject the judgment of the Church where it comes to determining whether V2 is Catholic but then require the judgment of the Church before we can know that Jorge is a heretic.

This hypocrisy would be laughable if their opinion weren't so pernicious.

Also, if membeship in the Church is determined by the judgment of the Church, this makes Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι Catholics, while Traditional Catholics are not Catholic ... as Salza had to concede.  So Salza finally had to admit the logical conclusion of his bogus principles.  Unfortunately, Johnson is not as honest as Salza was.  Johnson wants to have his anti-sedevacantist cake and then eat his Resistance position as well.  But these same principles cut both ways.  Church has judged Johnson and company to be outside the Church, so that means they're outside the Church.  When the reality of membership in the Church can only be known by the formal judgment of the Church, Johnson is outside the Church.  But they hypocritically reject this consequence of the same principles.

We cannot know that a Jorge Bergoglio while repeatedly, consistently, and pretinaciously rejecting EENS dogma (including verbatim the Council of Florence by declaring these schismatic martyrs to be Catholic saints) is actually a heretic without the judgment of the Church, nor even if he came out tomorrow and explicitly denied the Divinity of Christ, but we CAN know that Vatican II is contrary to the faith DESPITE the fact that the Church has judged otherwise.  We can appeal to Tradition to override and trump the Church's judgment, but we cannot appeal to Tradition (not even to clearly defined dogma) to determine that Jorge is a heretic who rejects Tradition.

It's the biggest pile of "theological" horse manure I have ever seen hin my life and the absurdity is caused by their SVDS, their Sedevacantist Derangement Syndrome.

So they reject the judgment of the Church regarding the orthodoxy of Vatican II but then require the judgment of the Church to determine the orthodoxy of Jorge.