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?

Only that they agree that the Church must be involved in the process of declaring the fact of papal heresy.  Where they differ, is what happens next (Bellarmine says at that point, deposition is ipso facto; Cajetan/JST say a second Church action must declare God has deposed the pope).

Apparently, grasping that distinction surpasses Lad’s intellectual capabilities.

Have a great day!

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.

I thought so, Saint Robert completely rejects Cajetan’s opinion. 

Bellarmine says at that point, deposition is ipso facto; Cajetan/JST say a second Church action must declare God has deposed the pope).

No, Sean.  If you actually read Bellarmine, his entire reason for rejecting Cajetan is that the Church cannot render a judgment regarding a sitting Pope, so the deposition must happen a priori to any such judgment.  Every theologian who's ever read Bellarmine has read it that way, which is the obvious sense of his text.  S&S and you are playing games with the fact that Bellarmine says the Church has to judge heresy whereas Cajetan says the Church has to declare him deposed, but the core principle in the dispute is whether deposition occurs prior to or after the Church's judgment of deposition.  You're playing with nonsensical semantics.

Bellarmine is clearly right.  If the Pope remains the Pope until the judgment is rendered, you're violating the principle of suprema sedes a nemine judicatur.  In fact, the contrary was officially condemned later at Vatican I, which dogmatically backed the notion of Conciliarism on grounds that undermine Cajetan and SJT's position.  So the Cajetan/JST position is implicitly heretical after Vatican I.  Father Kramer does a good job of pointing this out.

Now, in St. Robert, and in the citation from Pope St. Celestine, the seeds of sedeprivationism and sedeimpoundism are there.  St. Robert cites Pope St. Celestine on the case of Nestorius, where there's a distinction made between his official removal from office (the material aspect) and his being impounded or deprived of authority.  So between the time that Nestorius began preaching heresy (became a manifest heretic) and the time he was officially removed from office, Nestorius was deprived of all authority.  In other words, he was formally deposed but not materially deposed yet.  Pope St. Celestine's teaching, followed by St. Robert Bellarmine, was basically sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism in a nutshell.  So it's the inability of S&S to understand this distinction that causes them to blunder.

Bellarmine:  Deposition occurs a priori to a declaration by the Church.
Cajetan/SJT:  Deposition doesn't occur until the judgment of the Church.

Cajetan/SJT position is implicitly heretical since Vatican I.

Yet Bellarmine distinguishes between the official removal and the loss of authority, which is sedeprivationism before the term was coined ... and also sedeimpoundism.

Nobody ever made the argument that Cajetan and JST were identical in all respects, but that they agree the Church must take two steps in papal deposition (ie., declaration of heresy; declaration God has deposed the pope) vs Bellarmine’s one step process (ie., the Church announces the fact of papal heresy, at which point Bellarmine says the pope is deposed ipso facto, making a second Church declaration unnecessary).

Ridiculous.  Try to actually read Bellarmine.  Bellarmine's rejection of Cajetan, JST, etc. applies whether or not you're going to play games about whether the Church could simply declare, "Innocent XV is guilty of heresy." or has to declare "Innocent XV has lost the papal office."  That's not what the dispute is about.  Dispute is about whether deposition occurs BEFORE any declaration or judgment of any kind vs. whether AFTER it.  Playing semantic games about what kid of declaration from the Church is required is to ignore the core principle of dispute.  Bellarmine clearly holds that deposition must occur a priori since the Holy See cannot be judged by the Church, and that principle now has the full backing of the Magisterium since Vatican I.  Effectively the Cajetan/JST position is now heretical.  For Bellarmine's principle, the exact nature of the verdict or judgment by the Church makes no difference, as in both cases you'd be judgment the Pope.

I believe it was Pope Innocent II or III who taught that a heretical pope "shows himself to have already been judged" prior to the judgment of the Church.  THAT is the core dispute.

But Bellarmine does hold that there's a distinction between the loss of authority and the loss of office, i.e. he was basically a sedeprivationist or sedeimpoundist before the terms were coined.

I thought that in the past you held that they were identical. Thanks for the clarification.

Anyway, a huge problem with Cajetan’s opinion is the fact that it’s a doctrine (I believe dogma) of the Church that a council cannot judge a pope. A putative “pope” must have fallen first in order for him to be judged by a Council, thus the fifth opinion of Bellarmine is the correct one.

I’m tuning out the windbag, but will respond to you:

Neither Cajetan nor JST judge the pope.  They first declare the fact of his heresy, and then in a second action, that GOD has deposed him.

Here's is Schneider's article on onepeterfive.  Not sure if it's the same as the Remnant.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Validity of Pope Francis - OnePeterFive


Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Validity of Pope Francis

There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.

Even in the case of a heretical pope he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy. Such actions would come close to a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. The heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism says basically that there is a body within the Church (Ecuмenical Council, Synod, College of Cardinals, College of Bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment over the Pope.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion, and even St. Robert Bellarmine noticed this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium itself. The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an opinion. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Magisterium of the Church eliminated from the new legislation the remark of the Decretum Gratiani in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated that a Pope, who deviates from right doctrine, can be deposed. Never in history did the Magisterium of the Church admit any canonical procedures of deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or judicially. The surer Catholic tradition says, that in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.

Therefore, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the mere opinion of theologians (even they be Saints like St. Robert Bellarmine), which says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed by the Church therefore.

The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra, this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can commit doctrinal ambiguities, errors and even heresies. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical Pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language), resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet, the members of a family cannot declare their evil father deposed from the fatherhood. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.

Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it, offer reparation for the errors of an erring Pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must implore with supernatural faith a Divine intervention, because that singular erring Pope is not eternal, but temporal, and the Church is not in our hands, but in the almighty hands of God.

We must have enough supernatural faith, trust, humility, and a spirit of the Cross in order to endure such an extraordinary trial. In such relatively short situations (in comparison to 2000 years) we must not yield to a too human reaction and to an easy solution (declaring the invalidity of his pontificate), but must keep sobriety (keep a cool head) and at the same time a true supernatural view and trust in Divine intervention and in the indestructibility of the Church.

+ Athanasius Schneider

and you don't even see what's actually being disputed here.  This makes it clear that you don't even understand the argument.  They declare that God HAS deposed him.  When did God depose him?  Before or immediately after ANY declaration, whether of heresy or of loss of office.  Both declarations would violate the condemnation of Vatican I, which Magisterially endorsed suprema sedes a nemine judicatur, unless the man had been deposed from the papacy BEFORE any such declaration, which is the point of St. Robert.

John of St. Thomas distinguished between the Pope being deposed and our KNOWING that he's been deposed, but then erroneously concluded that the Pope isn't actually deposed until we know he's been deposed.  It's like the old argument about whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound unless there's someone around to hear it.  He was arguing effectively that there's no sound made unless there's someone there to hear it.  But he misses the fact that something does in fact objectively happen even if no one happens to be there, namely the air is stirred with the waves, in such a way that if someone WERE there, he would hear it.  Strangely, it's really the same debate as we have over phenomenology.  Does something have objective reality before it's perceived?

Now, even with this debate about the thing itself and knowing about the thing, St. Robert Bellarmine holds that we can KNOW that a Pope has become a heretic without any declaration.  I mean, if Jorge were running around saying, "Nah, Jesus is only symbolically present in the Holy Eucharist." we don't need any kind of declaration to know that he's heretical, nor do we need a declaration to be able to know that Jorge is pertinacious about it.  Now, if the heresy is something less obvious, then that's where it becomes more tricky.  And I'll make another post on that.

Your blunder here is that you fail to distinguish between declaratory and juridical judgments (V1 is only concerned with the latter).

No, Sean.  If you actually read Bellarmine, his entire reason for rejecting Cajetan is that the Church cannot render a judgment regarding a sitting Pope, so the deposition must happen a priori to any such judgment.  Every theologian who's ever read Bellarmine has read it that way, which is the obvious sense of his text.  S&S and you are playing games with the fact that Bellarmine says the Church has to judge heresy whereas Cajetan says the Church has to declare him deposed, but the core principle in the dispute is whether deposition occurs prior to or after the Church's judgment of deposition.  You're playing with nonsensical semantics.

Bellarmine is clearly right.  If the Pope remains the Pope until the judgment is rendered, you're violating the principle of suprema sedes a nemine judicatur.  In fact, the contrary was officially condemned later at Vatican I, which dogmatically backed the notion of Conciliarism on grounds that undermine Cajetan and SJT's position.  So the Cajetan/JST position is implicitly heretical after Vatican I.  Father Kramer does a good job of pointing this out.

Fr. Paul Kramer's work is THE contemporary work on this subject.