Similarly, with the papacy, I hold that until (in this case the Church) removes the material aspect of office (i.e. the designation), the Pope can remain a conduit for the authority bestowed by God.  So he can appoint bishops, and appoint cardinals.  Those bishops, if they themselves are not impeded from formally exercising jurisdiction, would do so upon being appointed by a material pope.  

So you concede that the "material pope" can exercise valid acts of papal jurisdiction?  

Would you say their jurisdiction is habitual or, in a sense, supplied by God for certain acts only?

“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield.  This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me.”

The only difference between your position, and what is described above, is that you believe the heresy must be professed, whereas the 2^nd Opinion maintains that he will be deposed by God even if the heresy remains interior.   But the above opinion includes heresy that has been professed as well, since, if it had not been, there would be nothing for the Church to judge, and no cause for him to be "deposed de facto" for heresy.   Next you say:

No, no, no.  His entire refutation of this position involves an explanation for why INTERIOR heresy cannot depose.  This is not a refutation of my position at all.

Let me make sure I understand your position.  A pope who falls into heresy is ipso facto ‘deposed by God’ formally, while only remaining the office holder materially, and for this reason he ‘can be judged by the Church’.  All the Church does is recognize and declare the fact that he has been already been deposed by divine law, and then depose him de facto, thereby removing from office materially, he who had already been removed by God formally.  Did I get anything wrong?

The position you hold is the “2^nd Opinion” that Bellarmine rejects and refutes (with one difference).   Here is the 2^nd Opinion in Bellarmine’s own words.

“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield.  This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me.”

The only difference between your position, and what is described above, is that you believe the heresy must be professed, whereas the 2^nd Opinion maintains that he will be deposed by God even if the heresy remains interior.   But the above opinion includes heresy that has been professed as well, since, if it had not been, there would be nothing for the Church to judge, and no cause for him to be "deposed de facto" for heresy.   Next you say:


That’s not genius.  It’s a post-Vatican II novelty.  When a bishop legally holds office, he possesses the jurisdiction of the office.  You admit that other bishops retain both until they are legally removed, and the same is true for a pope.  The difference concerns how the removal takes place with a pope.

Let’s compare your opinion, as you described it above, to Bellarmine’s refutation of the 2^nd Opinion. You say the Cardinal designate the man by election and then God bestows the form of the papacy on him. Then, if the Pope falls into heresy, God first removes him, and then man removes the designation.  Compare that to Bellarmine’s refutation of the 2^nd Opinion:  
 
“For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will.”

Notice what he says: just as the man receives his jurisdiction by God with the agreement of men, so too he is not removed by God (jurisdiction is not taken away by God), unless it is through men.  He doesn’t say he is made pope by God with the agreement of men, then removed partially by God without men, and finally removed the rest of the way by men without God (which is your position).  Just as men and God work together in making him Pope (each doing their respective parts), so too men and God work together to remove him, with each doing their respective parts.  


Consider again Bellarmine’s explanation of the case of Liberius.   When he said the priests of Rome “stripped Liberius of the pontifical dignity,” he did not mean they authoritatively deposed him and deprived him of his jurisdiction.  What he meant is the priests of Rome determined that he was a heretic (to the best of their ability), and then abrogated – legally rendered null - the pontificate (as the Latin shows).  That was the part of men.  The part of God was to authoritatively deprive him of the pontificate formally – but it is clear that Bellarmine did not believe God had already done his part, before the priests of Rome did theirs.  This fits perfectly with his statement that a heretical Pope “is not removed by God unless it is through men.”

You can't keep citing a person you disagree with as proof. How can what you believe are false statements be proof? 

I suppose that a man could cause the separation of the authority from the man ... if he killed the Pope.  But that's the only scenario I see.

Bellarmine keeps talking about how the Pope can be "judged" by men in the case of heresy.  But he's using the term equivocally.  And he knows it.  That's why he struggles to distinguish between different types of "judgment" at one point, but then he keeps using the term equivocally.  [that's problem #2 to which I alluded].

So, for instance, he says, that secret heretics do not lose office because they cannot be "judged" by men.  But the only thing that follows is that secret heretics cannot be "recognized" by men as having become heretics.

Let's say that a pope has a stroke and becomes mentally incapacitated.  Most theologians consider this the equivalent of death.  Let's say it takes a couple months for the Church to come to the conclusion that he's lost his faculties and vacated the office.  So the Church "judges" (aka "recognizes the fact") that he's gone insane.  So, on June 1, the man has a stroke and becomes mentally incapacitated.  On June 30, Church officials release a statement that he's lost his mind and that the office is vacant.  Did the office become vacant on June 30 or on June 1.  [Let's put aside the possibility that there was any question that he was insane or that he might recover his faculties; assume that it's clear from the outset that he never would.]  Clearly it was the incapacity that CAUSED the (formal) loss of office on June 1 and not the Church's judgment on June 30.  And the Church could say, "the office has been vacant since June 1".

Now let's say that on June 27th, even as the Church is planning on making the announcement that the office is vacant, the Pope makes a miraculous recovery.  Then the Church withdraws the intention to make the June 30 declaration, and things continue as if it never happened.  So, until the Church REMOVED the designation (the material recognition), the Pope was in a position to resume his office ... without having to be re-designated (i.e. re-elected).

Now let's say that the Church declares the See vacant on June 30, and elects a new Pope on July 15.  Then on July 31st the prior Pope miraculously regains his faculties.  Is he now the Pope?  No, because the Church had already removed the material aspect of the papacy ... which became REMOVABLE once the formal aspect was gone.

Sedeprivationism treats heresy the same way.  It's the heresy itself that removes from office, just like it was the incapacity itself that removed from office.  When the Church makes a judgment, it's merely a "recognition of fact" and not some kind of juridical sentence.  Once the Church recognizes that the formal aspect of authority is gone, removed by God due to heresy, then the material aspect becomes REMOVABLE.  In the case of the V2 papal claimants, however, this material aspect has not actually been removed.  So, if Bergoglio were to convert, then he would resume the exercise of his formal authority.

It's very clean and very neat ... without any need for unexplained "exceptions" to make it work.

Now, the recognition of heresy is a process.

1) Pope says something heretical.

2) People admonish him.

3) He remains pertinacious.

4) Growing awareness that he's heretical.

5) Universal awareness that he's a heretic.

I hold that we're in stage #4 above.  This is the case where it's widely doubted that he's Catholic, the papa dubius scenario (which is why i call myself a "sededoubtist").  And I, along with some serious theologians, hold that a papa dubius cannot formally exercise authority in the Church.  #5) would have to happen before he would be materially stripped of office (i.e. loses recognition).

But, at the end of the day, the "judgment" of the Church is nothing more than an "awareness" ... which can take on formality in the form of a declaration, but I submit that it does not have to.  It could be just tacitly understood by everyone that he's no longer Pope ... as in the case of Bergogio saying "I've become a Buddhist."

How is the Church to depose a heretical Pope when said Pope(and his heretical predecessors) filled the College of Cardinals with other heretics? That's a Catch 22 situation. We need a orthodox(small o) Pope to depose the heretical Cardinals, but we need orthodox Cardinals to depose the heretical Pope and elect an orthodox one.

Even if he's deposed even materially ipso facto, who's going to elect a new Pope?  Same problem applies there, and in either case, God will provide the solution.  All we need to know to go about our lives as Catholics is that these men lack authority.

I, KW, hereby declare that there is no need for baptism.

Now, now, now we have to wait for a judicial ruling before I am not a Catholic. Until then I am a Catholic in good standing.

You can't keep citing a person you disagree with as proof. How can what you believe are false statements be proof?

Why do you keep saying I disagree with Bellarmine? I said one of the arguments he used against Cajetan was a bad argument, and it was, but that doesn't mean I disagree with him.  What I do disagree with is Cajetan's statement that the Church can authoritatively depose a pope.  Bellarmine was quite right to object to that statement.

The reason I've been quoting Bellarmine is 1) because most sedevacantist treat him as infallible, and 2) to show that they have entirely misunderstood his position (and fallen into serious error as a result).  

Take you, for example.  You thought the statement about faith being a necessary disposition for the papacy is what Bellarmine believed, when Bellarmine himself refuted that very position a few paragraphs earlier.  You took the statement entirely out of context, by failing to realize that he was attempting to use one of Cajetan's arguments against him.  But at least you didn't erect and entirely false system of errors based on that misinterpretation of Bellarmine, like Fr. Kramer did.