Question:
On another thread, I perceived a discrepancy in the interpretation of Bellarmine’s position between Dr. Lamont and Siscoe/Salza (with the former contending Bellarmine claimed no intervention of the Church was necessary, and the latter claiming Bellarmine said Church intervention in a deposition was necessary).
You seem to agree with the latter.
May I ask if you have read Bellarmine in the Latin (or, if not, where you have found a trustworthy translation)?
Yes, I've spent many months and hundreds of hours studying Bellarmine in both English and Latin. I've also studied the teaching of all the Church Fathers he references to defend his position on the ipso facto loss of office.
Bellarmine has a lot more to say about how heretical Pope (and heretical bishops) lose their office than most people realize. Most people have only read his commentary on the Five Opinion, or rather, his commentary on the 4th and 5th Opinions, since that's what the Sedevacantists translated and spread around the internet. If you only read his commentary on these two opinions, it is nearly impossible to understand what he means, and it is nearly impossible NOT to misunderstand him.
For example, have you ever noticed how Bellarmine appears to directly contradict himself by saying, in the 5th Opinion (and 2nd) that a Pope who falls into occult heresy remains Pope, while in his commentary on the 4th Opinion he seems to say that exact opposite - that a Pope who loses the virtue of faith (i.e., an occult heretic) ceases to be Pope, since "the virtue of faith is a necessary disposition to retain the form of the Pontificate"? Have you ever noticed that apparent contradiction? I always noticed it. I now know that he actually doesn't contradict himself, but you would never in a million years be able to figure out why, if all you had to go on is his commentary on those two opinions.
Something almost no one understands (except John of St. Thomas) is that, in his commentary on the 4th and 5th Opinions, Bellarmine is not arguing that a Pope does not have to be "judged" before being ipso facto deposed. What he is trying to prove is that a Pope does not have to be
authoritatively deposed, to lose his office (since a Pope
cannot be authoritatively deposed while he remains Pope). That's what he's objecting to about Cajetan's opinion, and the contrary is what he's trying to prove in his commentary on the 5th Opinion.
But again, if you only read the 4th and 5th Opinions, you will easily conclude that Bellarmine believes an antecedent judgment is
never required for a Pope to be ipso facto deposed, since he says (in the fifth opinion) that the
reason a Pope can be "judged and punished" is because he is no longer the Pope. But John of St. Thomas says the same and he defended Cajetan's opinion.
Nobody thinks the Pope can be "judged and punished" while he remains Pope, but they all say the Church can "judge" or "legitimately determine" to be a heretic
while he remains Pope - all, that is, except those who adhered to the 2nd Opinion, since they had a difference explanation for how a Pope lose his office.
So, I can certainly understand why Dr. Lamont drew the conclusion he did, but it's not what Bellarmine believed. In fact, it is directly contradicted by both quotations I provided earlier in this thread and by others that I have not yet quoted.