Johnson quoting stuff from the first half of the 1700s holding that something was "the more common opinion".  After Vatican I condemned this "more common opinion" as implicitly heretical, 20th century theologians hold that Bellarmine's was THE theological consensus on the matter.  But, as I pointed out, some theologians hold that God would grant jurisdiction to even an Antipope through color of title, so the meaning here is unclear.  I in fact rejected SVism as untenable (vs. SPism) due to the Ecclesiavacantist problem, until some SVs cited these passages about jurisidiction through color of title.  I still hold SPism to be more adequate, but no longer reject SVism as untenable.

Johnson resorts to all manner of deceptive tactics to justify his heresies.  I don't mince any words here, as Johnson's ecclesiology is overly heretical, indistinguishable really from Old Catholicism.

Just imagine this scenario.  We know that by some estimates upwards of 97% - 99% of episcopal sees had been usurped by Arians during that crisis.  Let's say that the Arians, who were the majority, had succeeded in putting their man on the See of Peter.  According to Salza and Sizcoe (and Johnson), the Arian Church would then have been the True Church of Christ and the Anti-Arian Fathers, such as St. Athanasius, would have been non-Catholics and outside the Church.  And since only the officially-appointed-with-jurisdiction bishops and Cardinals could "remove" a Pope by some declaration, that would have been the end of the Church, despite St. Athanasius' famous statement that if the Church were reduced to a handful, there would be the Church.  Also, S&S & Johnson condemn the activities of St. Athanasius and a few other Fathers who went around consecrating orthodox bishops in the areas whose sees had been usurped by Arians.  And of course S&S condemn Archbishop Lefebvre as non-Catholics (while Joe Biden remains a Catholic), as well as the Resistance and Sean Johnson.  Something like this is a simple enough argumentum ad absurdum to de-legitimize the S&S position, but Johnson remains oblivious to it, that he's condemning himself while promoting S&S.

I'm less concerned about theological consensus than I am with the clear teaching of Vatican I.  I'm sure there are holdouts who make arguments that the Cajetan/SJT position is still tenable since Vatican I, but I imagine they are few and far between.  I don't want to digress into that subject again, but the main point is that the citation from the early 1700s was before Vatican I and may have changed, and such a citation cannot be adduced as proof of anything.  Sean needs to explain why Vatican I doesn't implicitly condemn the Cajetan/SJT positions.

Yes, consensus is not the right word. Sean needs to show us at least one theologian, post-V1, that agrees with him, or believes that the Cajetan/SJT position survives V1.

We should all have some questions about the weight of "theological consensus", since nearly every bishop and theologian upheld Vatican II  and the NOM as Catholic (with the only exception among theologians I know being +Guerard des Lauriers).  With regard to bishops, we had +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer, but even +Lefebvre at one point signed the docuмents.  Only one I know who didn't was Bishop Arrigo Pintonello.  Did all these theologians suddenly become non-Catholics some time prior to Vatican II?  Or perhaps there's more weight being given the "theological consensus" than it deserves.  We had 97% - 99% of the episcopal Sees taken over by Arians during that crisis.  Did they then represent the Ecclesia Docens?

Acts 4:19

But Peter and John answering, said to them: If it be just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye.

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.

I disagree.  St. Robert cited Pope St. Celestine regarding Nestorius, and the quote makes the distinction, putting those who preach heresy in the state of excommunicandus, where he could not exercise authority, but the fact is he remained in office for a couple years after that condition before he was removed.

To be clear, Fr. Paul Kramer teaches that St. Robert Bellarmine actually held to Opinion No. 1:

That the pope simply cannot become a formal heretic, and therefore cannot be deposed for heresy.

Fr. Paul Kramer also hold to Opinion No. 1.