Other top theologians disagreed with St. Robert, and they were not condemned by the Church.  St. Robert, though a Doctor, is not Magisterium, and the Doctors are not infallible.  

True, but Pius XI, when declaring St. Robert Bellarmine a Doctor of the Church in Providentissimus Deus (1931), made a point of highlighting his teachings on the Roman Pontiff:

But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognized by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible Magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover, he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the [1870] Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent.

What does Bishop Strickland think of Fr Altman's position?  Has he said anything?

So, in this dispute ...

#1) Sean, CK didn't call it a "dogma" but a "doctrine".

#2) CK, Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy separates from the Church, but he didn't stipulate what kind of heresy, manifest, notorious, public, declared, etc.  He left the details of that controversy unsettled.

Nevertheless, +Schneider denies that ANY type of heresy:  apostasy, profession of a false religion, manifest, public, notorious, declared ... he denies that any of these would remove the man from the Church, and therefore from the papacy, so the criticism of +Schneider as denying this doctrine does stand, as +Schneider covers the entire gamut of every side of the controversy ... except for the "once Catholic, always Catholic by virtue of the Baptismal character", which does appear incompatible now with the teaching of Pius XII.

So, in this dispute ...

#1) Sean, CK didn't call it a "dogma" but a "doctrine".

#2) CK, Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy separates from the Church, but he didn't stipulate what kind of heresy, manifest, notorious, public, declared, etc.  He left the details of that controversy unsettled.

Nevertheless, +Schneider denies that ANY type of heresy:  apostasy, profession of a false religion, manifest, public, notorious, declared ... he denies that any of these would remove the man from the Church, and therefore from the papacy, so the criticism of +Schneider as denying this doctrine does stand, as +Schneider covers the entire gamut of every side of the controversy ... except for the "once Catholic, always Catholic by virtue of the Baptismal character", which does appear incompatible now with the teaching of Pius XII.

I object to your use of the term "declared" if you are using this term in a juridical sense.  "Suapte natura" (by its very nature) precludes the need for a declaration for the separation to take place.

So, in this dispute ...

#1) Sean, CK didn't call it a "dogma" but a "doctrine".

#2) CK, Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy separates from the Church, but he didn't stipulate what kind of heresy, manifest, notorious, public, declared, etc.  He left the details of that controversy unsettled.

Nevertheless, +Schneider denies that ANY type of heresy:  apostasy, profession of a false religion, manifest, public, notorious, declared ... he denies that any of these would remove the man from the Church, and therefore from the papacy, so the criticism of +Schneider as denying this doctrine does stand, as +Schneider covers the entire gamut of every side of the controversy ... except for the "once Catholic, always Catholic by virtue of the Baptismal character", which does appear incompatible now with the teaching of Pius XII.

CK said it was a de fide doctrine (ie., obligatory), so the consequence for denial would be the same: If CK is correct, Billuart died outside the Church for his opinion.  That’s an argument nobody has ever made, and  highlights the absurdity of CK’s position (particularly since Billuart states that his opinion is the more common one).

Sean seems to be back and forth on this.  On the one hand, he seems to back Salza and Siscoe's claim that Bellarmine's position was identical to that of Cajetan, but then he says Bellarmine's opinion is now the minority opinion.  How if he had the same opinion as Cajetan et al?  In any case, I've seen 20th century theologians who hold that St. Robert's position had become the common theological opinion.

Lad seems to be living in his own imagination again, as I clearly showed (just a couple posts above) S&S distinguishing between Bellarmine and Cajetan.

As regards the minority opinion thing, Billuart (who wrote after Bellarmine by a couple centuries) says his own opinion, that a manifest heretic retains office until a declaration is made, is the more common opinion.  Obviously, that means Bellarmine’s opinion is a minority opinion.

Lad seems to be living in his own imagination again, as I clearly showed (just a couple posts above) S&S distinguishing between Bellarmine and Cajetan.

Wait, I’m confused, didn’t you post many times in the past that Saint Robert’s opinion and Cajetan’s opinion were the same using S&S as a reference?

Wait, I’m confused, didn’t you post many times in the past that Saint Robert’s opinion and Cajetan’s opinion were the same?

He most certainly did, and that's the S&S fantasy also, that St. Robert holds that the Pope wouldn't be deposed until the Church judged him deposed, which is identical to Cajetan's opinion.  St. Robert rejects that because unless the fall from office occurred a priori to the judgment, the Church would be judging a Pope, which is not permissible.  I actually think you can find the seeds of SedePrivationism in St. Robert Bellarmine, but that's a different matter.