Theosist,
You and I agree in conclusion (i.e., we both think we're living in an interregnum). But you're arguing about it all the wrong way.
the Pope needs to have supernatural faith... Supernatural faith is not just “necessary for” but a necessary CONSEQUENCE of membership of the Church, which is to say, it’s the very essence thereof
.
Supernatural faith is a consequence of grace, not membership. The three conditions for membership are that one be baptized, confess the faith outwardly, and not be separated from the
external union by heresy, apostasy, schism, or excommunication. The consequence of
being a member is that one is properly entitled to the treasures of the Church; mainly, the sacraments.
.
Consequences and essences are entirely different things. You make a snide comment about Aristotelianism, but it would do you some good. Thomistic-Aristotelianism is the philosophy of the Church, and she abides by and operates with its distinctions and terminology in mind even in her most solemn teachings.
.
and supernatural faith will result in the external profession of AT LEAST faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and everything else implicitly, if not explicitly due to ignorance.
.
I would like to see a source that very clearly argues this. I tend toward agreeing with this, at least as a
general practical consequence, but at the same time the lack of a profession of faith is not an infallible proof of a lack of supernatural faith. But don't worry, because that's hardly a point against the sede theory
as long as we keep in mind that the theory has nothing to do with whether or not someone has supernatural faith.
.
Mere external profession of faith does not a member of the Church make, which is why even an occult heretic cannot be Pope, which is why the Pope NECSSARILY has the gift of unfailing (personal) faith.
As I have stated already (and is persistently ignored by “RomanTheo”, or he wouldn’t argue as he is arguing), Bellarmine’s argument is a reductio ad absurdum: YES, if a pope could become a heretic, then a LOGICAL DEDUCTION shows that he could NOT lose office merely for being an occult heretic; but this contradicts the fact that personal supernatural faith is essential to membership of the Church.
.
Mere external profession by someone who is baptized is
exactly what constitutes being a member of the Church, given its concurrence in someone who is also baptized and not excluded from the external union in some other way.
.
Bellarmine spends an entire chapter in the second tome of the
The Controversies arguing that secret heretics are united to the Church in external profession, which is to say that they are members, since membership concerns itself only with what is visible and social. Any conclusion of yours that Bellarmine thinks secret heretics are not members is simply not true.
.
I know there were still some theologians in the early twentieth century who argued that secret heretics were not members. But since Bellarmine it has been
at least the common opinion that they are, and ever since
Mystici Corporis Christi I don't see how it's possible to maintain that they aren't.
.
At any rate, be circuмspective of Bellarmine's general ecclesiology and his teachings on membership, which are really more or less the same as what the Church has taught at higher levels. When we speak of the Church as a corporate union we speak of what is in principle visible. The whole motivation behind Bellarmine's work was against the reformers, especially Calvin, who insisted exactly what you're insisting: that membership consisted in something principally
invisible, (they argued election, you're arguing supernatural faith). When Bellarmine called them out on that, they slightly adjusted it to argue that supernatural faith produces
good works, which was their way of keeping the Church "visible." I don't see how that argument is all that different from you saying that the external profession of faith's relevance is that it is a mere
consequence of supernatural faith. At day's end, you're reducing the condition of membership to something that is, in principle, unable to be seen. That's a problem.
.