[Ladislaus]

I don't...  I've read quite a few different points of view, and I happen to agree with Pope Pius XI when he said this about Saint Robert
Bellarmine...

He says the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed HIS writings - Saint Robert Bellarmine's writings...  Not Cajetan's, not the writings of John of Saint Thomas...
Like I told you before, Pax...If Bellarmine was good enough for the Fathers of Vatican I, he's good enough for me.  

Even if you take the Bellarmine position, at what point does the heresy get sufficiently known to the Church?  We have one Joe Sixpack in the pew who declares heresy.  We have a handful of SV bishops / priests.  I've known clowns who were dead certain of heresy when it turns out THEY were mistaken.  Who discerns the existence of said heresy, especially when the pope disputes it?  Bergoglio might be different, but his predecessors all claimed that their teaching was consistent with Tradition.  So you can argue all you want about the mechanism for deposition, but the problem is understanding when it's sufficiently known that this has taken place.  Bellarmine never addresses that.

[Ladislaus]

Touche...well done, sir.  I forgot about the fact that a layman could be elected to the papacy, as well as a priest.  

Still, what about the "material succession" theory?  A "pope" appointing bishops who are not validly consecrated...or priests who are not validly ordained?  

If designation is purely an aspect of the material office, then it can happen.  I suspect that sedeprivationists would disagree among themselves about that though.

[Ladislaus]

Touche...well done, sir.  I forgot about the fact that a layman could be elected to the papacy, as well as a priest.  

Still, what about the "material succession" theory?  A "pope" appointing bishops who are not validly consecrated...or priests who are not validly ordained?  

In fact, one might argue that the heretic pope is in the same kind of suspended state as the elected priest ... in a type of limbo.  Let's say this priest were to get elected and he accepted.  He would at that point be in possession of the office.  No one could at that point take it away from him.  Now, let's say this priest refused to get consecrated a bishop ... let's say for reasons of humility.  He would possess the office, but yet would be impeded from formally exercising it since he was not a bishop.

[Pax Vobis]

So you are saying that you are correct and that the Church is incorrect in saying that heretics are not Catholic? Are you saying that a non-Catholic can be the Pope? Are you saying that someone without the Catholic faith can possess authority over the Church? Are you saying that Catholics should be subject to heretics?

All I'm saying is that theologians disagree on what happens if a pope becomes a heretic.  The Church has never told us what happens.  Therefore, it's unclear.  You act as if this situation is as clear as the existence of heaven.  It's just not that simple.

[2Vermont]

Apostolicity of Mission is only half of it. Apostolicity of Doctrine is the other half. This is from the paragraph before the one you quoted.
If the Doctrine is not the same as had been transmitted from the Apostles, there is no Apostolicity or Apostolic Succession. Both are necessary. The "Orthodox" do not have Succession because they do not hand down the Deposit of Faith and teach contrary to it. The same goes for those in the Novus Ordo who still have valid orders but teach contrary to the Deposit of Faith.

Cantarella and AES:  
It is my understanding that the Cassiciacuм Thesis asserts that the Orthodox bishops have material succession....but can not have full apostolic succession until they abjure their heresies/schismatic beliefs.
And, why can't I quote more than just one quote?  I wanted to quote Cantarella's quote as well.  Is this a forum set-up or is there a setting I can change?  

[Meg]

All I'm saying is that theologians disagree on what happens if a pope becomes a heretic.  The Church has never told us what happens.  Therefore, it's unclear.  You act as if this situation is as clear as the existence of heaven.  It's just not that simple.

It is indeed unclear, since the Church hasn't told us what happens. And yet the sedes believe that they have the authority to decide what happens. They seem to think that they are "The Church." It seems crystal clear to those who believe that they are infallible in deciding what happens when a pope is in heresy. 

[2Vermont]

Yes, this is true but you are missing the points that:
1) the CHURCH has never spoken this clearly on the issue.  Therefore it's not settled.
2) the CHURCH has never said that St Robert Bellarmine is the "final" authority on the matter.  Therefore it's not settled.
3) Bellarmine continued to write, debate and discuss the issue...obviously, other theologians disagreed and brought up counter-points.

You are basically a catholic who follows only 1 theologian.  That's not how the Church operates.

Is St Robert Bellarmine the final authority?  No.  But, as far as I know, he is the only theologian on the matter that was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church.  He also taught that ALL OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS agreed with his opinion on heretic popes.
Why do people keep telling me that I HAVE to give the other theologians' opinions the same weight as Bellarmine's when all of these theologians disagree with ALL OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS?
I asked this of Lad up-thread and not got response.
I also asked Hermengild what his position was on the Crisis and I got no response.

[2Vermont]

What about the argument against the validity of orders in the NO?  I don't want to derail the thread, but one who believes in the sedeprivationism position would have to argue that the NO orders are valid, no?  

No, they would just have to be consecrated in the Old Rite first.

[2Vermont]

I don't...  I've read quite a few different points of view, and I happen to agree with Pope Pius XI when he said this about Saint Robert
Bellarmine...

He says the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed HIS writings - Saint Robert Bellarmine's writings...  Not Cajetan's, not the writings of John of Saint Thomas...
Like I told you before, Pax...If Bellarmine was good enough for the Fathers of Vatican I, he's good enough for me.  

Thanks for sharing this quote.  I did not know this.

[2Vermont]

Thanks for sharing this quote.  I did not know this.

Apparently the quote didn't stay, so here it is again:
Pope Pius XI

"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 recognised 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 Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent." 

[reconquest]

In fact, one might argue that the heretic pope is in the same kind of suspended state as the elected priest ... in a type of limbo.  Let's say this priest were to get elected and he accepted.  He would at that point be in possession of the office.  No one could at that point take it away from him.  Now, let's say this priest refused to get consecrated a bishop ... let's say for reasons of humility.  He would possess the office, but yet would be impeded from formally exercising it since he was not a bishop.

Wrongo McDongo. Pius XII specifies that a layman or simple priest who is elected pope assumes full possession of the office as soon as he accepts the election. If he obstinately refused to be consecrated a bishop, he would be deprived of his office by divine right on account of schism, since he would be separating himself from the Church by refusing to act in virtue of the unchangeable principle that the bishop of Rome must be... a bishop. The Cardinals would then be allowed to elect a new pope, but if a considerable period of time elapsed between the public awareness of this schismatic act and a sentence on the part of the Cardinals he would retain his jurisdiction, albeit in a precarious state.

[Pax Vobis]

He also taught that ALL OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS agreed with his opinion on heretic popes.

Has this been verified?  It would seem stupid of multiple theolgians to argue against the Church Fathers - doesn't make sense.  The only logical answer is that +Bellarmine's view agrees with the Church Fathers "from a certain perspective".  There are MULTIPLE perspectives and angles to this topic.  He obviously didn't convince everyone on every perspective, nor did the Church Fathers speak on every perspective, therefore theolgians continued to debate.

Finally, just because +Bellarmine is a Doctor, doesn't give a 'rubber stamp' to all his writings.  As we know, St Thomas was partially incorrect on the Immaculate Conception.

[Meg]

Apparently the quote didn't stay, so here it is again:
Pope Pius XI

"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 recognised 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 Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent."

So where did the Council use St. Robert's achievements to say exactly what happens to a pope who is in heresy? 

[2Vermont]

Has this been verified?  It would seem stupid of multiple theolgians to argue against the Church Fathers - doesn't make sense.  The only logical answer is that +Bellarmine's view agrees with the Church Fathers "from a certain perspective".  There are MULTIPLE perspectives and angles to this topic. He obviously didn't convince everyone on every perspective, nor did the Church Fathers speak on every perspective, therefore theolgians continued to debate.

Finally, just because +Bellarmine is a Doctor, doesn't give a 'rubber stamp' to all his writings.  As we know, St Thomas was partially incorrect on the Immaculate Conception.

Well, Pax Vobis, perhaps those other theologians thought like you did.  Those ancient fathers were *just* expressing *their* opinion, right?  So these other theologians thought they would provide another way to look at things.  
Meanwhile the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed BELLARMINE's opinions on the papacy.

[Stubborn]

You don't own any of your rhetoric, man...  Just tossin' stuff out there, hoping for it to stick.  

Carry on...  

Yes, I do understand that is how the dogmatic sedes view it, you've all made that much crystal clear.