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.”

Still quoting this laymen who don't have a formal theological education.  Fr. Kramer demonstrates how they have made errors in even basic moral theology.  

Ballerini clearly says the opposite of what Salza and Siscoe claim.  Father Kramer is right.

Refuted by PV at the top of previous page.

"All commentators, whether theologians or canonists, distinguish between Opinion No. 4 and no. 5 on the basis that in Opinion No. 4, a judgment of the Church is necessary for a manifest heretic pope to fall from office, and in Opinion No. 5 the fall is automatic, without any judgment by the Church. This is the opinion of Cardinal Burke, whom I have quoted earlier saying the fall would be “automatic”. According to Salza & Siscoe, they are all wrong, and their interpretation of Opinion No. 5 is 'sedevacantist theology'— and they ignorantly insist that both Suárez and Bellarmine were of Opinion No. 5, which they interpret to mean that the heretic pope would fall from office after a judgment by the Church. Furthermore, according to the private pontifications of the Salza/Siscoe Vigilante Inquisition, no matter how explicitly, directly, immediately, and contradictorily the Argentinian claimant brazenly asserts his perverted propositions against Catholic dogma, no one may privately express the belief that that same one, Bergoglio, has fallen from office before the Church finishes the juridical process of declaring him a public heretic – and for that reason, by their non-existent authority, Salza & Siscoe solemnly declare a moral judgment, namely: that until the formal deposition process is completed, 'Francis still remains Pope, and no Catholic can claim otherwise without sinning against the Faith.'"

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

"'According to Bellarmine,' explains Don Curzio Nitoglia, '(De Romano Pontifice lib. II. Cap. 30, p. 420), since notorious and public manifest heretics lose jurisdiction ipso facto, granted but not conceded that the pope can fall into heresy, in the eventual case of manifest heresy, he would immediately lose the papal authority. This is the interpretation of the Bellarminian position given by the Jesuit Fathers Franz Xavier Wernz and Pedro Vidal. (Jus Canonicuм), Rome, Gregorian, 1943, vol. II, p. 517).' Then Don Curzio points out that the same interpretation is given by other eminent authorities as well: '(cfr. also L. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Prato, Giachetti, 1909, tomo II, p. 617; J. Salaverri, De Ecclesia Christi, Madrid, BAC, 1958, p. 879, n. 1047).'

"Against this unanimous interpretation of commentators on Bellarmine made by eminent theologians and canonists who have expounded on the Five Opinions in recent centuries, Salza and Siscoe most stupidly declare:

"'Bellarmine and Suarez (two Jesuits) disagree with the opinion of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas (the Dominicans). As we explain in great detail in our book, Bellarmine and Suarez teach that the Pope will lose his office, ipso facto, once he is judged by the Church to be a heretic, without the additional juridical act of vitandus declaration.'

"And then they explain what (according to them) is the 'erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine' which they characterize as the 'sedevacantist interpretation of Bellarmine', which, (they say), Fr. Kramer has swallowed 'hook, line and sinker':

"'Where the Sedevacantists have erred is by interpreting the ipso facto loss of office to be similar to an 'ipso facto' latae sententiæ excommunication, which occurs automatically (or ipso facto), when one commits an offense that carries the penalty, without requiring an antecedent judgment by the Church. But this is not at all what Bellarmine and Suarez meant by the ipso facto loss of office. What they meant is that the ipso facto loss of office occurs after the Church judges the Pope to be a heretic and before any additional juridical sentence or excommunication (which differs from Cajetan’s opinion). In other words, after the Church establishes 'the fact' that the Pope is a manifest heretic, he, according to this opinion, is deemed to lose his office ipso facto ('by the fact'). This is clear from the following quotation from Suarez who wrote:.....'"

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

St. Robert Bellarmine, whose feast day it is today, held that manifest heresy causes an immediate loss of office.  No judgment or declaration of the Church is needed for the loss of office to take place.  Why?  Because the Church teaches that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.  This is the crux of the issue.

"It is unanimously explained by expert canonists and theologians that according to Opinion No. 4, a judgment must be made by the Church for the heretic pope to fall from office; and according to Opinion No 5, the heretic pope falls automatically by himself from the pontificate by the very act itself of manifest formal heresy, without any judgment being pronounced by the Church. Both of these opinions were already expressed by canonists in the early 1180s, as Moynihan docuмents in his earlier cited work. That essential difference which distinguishes between the fourth and fifth opinions was clearly understood by theologians and canonists in Bellarmine’s day. It simply beggars belief that anyone would seriously claim that the eminent scholars who have written unanimously on this question are wrong – that they have misinterpreted Bellarmine, and they have not understood Opinion No. 5 correctly. This is exactly what Salza & Siscoe do when they say that Suárez and Bellarmine are both of Opinion No. 5, which according to them, requires the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place. It is quite simplyinconceivable that Bellarmine would have been ignorant of the long established opinion which held that the pope who falls into heresy falls automatically by himself from the pontificate by the very act itself of manifest formal heresy, without any judgment being pronounced by the Church; and that he would have not included it as one of the five opinions. Either Salza & Siscoe do not understand Opinion No. 5, or Bellarmine did not understand it correctly; and that would mean that all of the expert commentators on the Five Opinions have not correctly understood it either!"

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

THIS ^^^.  Until tax attorney Salza came onto the scene, the distinction between Opinions 4 and 5 were well understood by all.  In fact, according to Salza, even St. Robert didn't understand it.  Thankfully, the ex-Mason tax attorney was around to correct St. Robert and everyone else.

all of which are refuted by S/S

 

S/S also say that you're not a Catholic ... based on the same principles.

Looking at the JST quote in context:

Of the two intermediate opinions, the one holds that the pope does not recognize anyone as superior absolutely, but only in the case of heresy.  The other holds that there is no power on earth that is superior to the Pope, whether absolutely or in the case of heresy; but there is a ministerial power.....

....

Of these two [intermediate] explanations, Azorius (2, tom. 2, cap. 7) adopts the first, which holds that the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy; while Cajetan adopts the latter and treats of it at length.  Bellarmine, however, reports his opinion and attacks it in his work de Romano pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30, objecting especially to these two points: namely, that Cajetan says that the Pope who is a manifest heretic [according to the Church's human judgment] is not ipso facto deposed; and also that the Church deposes the Pope in a real and authoritative manner.  Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual. Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification.  Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.

Why didn't Salza and Siscoe bold JST's black bolded comments regarding Bellarmine as I did here? And why did they add the bracketed comment "[according to the Church's human judgment]"? They do not appear to be in JST's original comments.


John Of St. Thomas On The Pope Heretic Question : John of St. Thomas : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The JST quote I provided on p.2 shows quite a bit more context than the out of context context you provided here😉

You won’t be able to context your way out of it.

The JST quote I provided on p.2 shows quite a bit more context than the out of context context you provided here😉

You won’t be able to context your way out of it.

Why did Siscoe and Salza add "according to the Church's human judgment" to JST's quote?