[2Vermont]

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

Taken from Novus Ordo Watch, but you can find the quote in the independent source given.  Bellarmine is not named, but it is clear that the view at the Council agreed with Bellarmine's teaching:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago)

[Stubborn]

You say it's not Catholic to say the Pope is not the Pope. St. Vincent Ferrer said the Pope is not the Pope. Respond to this.

So what, I said the pope is not the pope in the past too - contrary to dogmatic sedeism however, I didn't make a supposedly empty chair the foundation of my religion and neither did St. Vincent. St. Vincent was and is a very great saint in the Catholic Church, not the sede church.

[Pax Vobis]

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.  

The debate about the 'ipso facto' deposition of the pope has been around for centuries.  You can argue all you want that Bellarmine is right, but the Church has not ruled, therefore She is allowing multiple opinions.

Meanwhile the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed BELLARMINE's opinions on the papacy.

This is a misleading statement.  VI employed SOME of Bellarmine's opinions on the papacy.  Did VI, therefore, answer the question we are debating now?  No.  So, who cares?

[reconquest]

Bellarmine would never have accepted the notion that the entirety of the Roman clergy could accept or at least tolerate as their bishop one who is incapable of validly occupying any office in the Church.

[Meg]

The subject of a pope who falls into heresy was discussed by the Fathers at Vatican I.  

When asked about it, one of the Fathers, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, said - "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."

This was (is) the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine...


Edit  2Vermont - you beat me to it.  Also, I've apparently used up my upvotes for you - the forum won't allow me to give you the ole' thumbs up at the moment.

So it was discussed by Fathers of the Council, so that makes it the same as the Council proclaiming it?

Wow....you have a lot of nerve to equate the two as being the same thing. The sede Church sure has some strange doctrines.

[Pax Vobis]

When asked about it, one of the Fathers, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, said - "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."

Is this answer the OFFICIAL teaching of VI?  No.  It's a theological opinion...and it doesn't even say whose opinion it was.  "It was answered..."  By whom?  If the Vatican I council fathers decided to teach authoritatively on the issue, they could have, but they didn't.  If you disagree, show me the text from the council.

[2Vermont]

The subject of a pope who falls into heresy was discussed by the Fathers at Vatican I.  

When asked about it, one of the Fathers, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, said - "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."

This was (is) the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine...


Edit  2Vermont - you beat me to it.  Also, I've apparently used up my upvotes for you - the forum won't allow me to give you the ole' thumbs up at the moment.

:P
What I find really interesting about this quote is that the Fathers of the Vatican Council said there has never been a pope that became a heretic.  So much for those who insist that there were heretic popes in the past. 

[Pax Vobis]

the Fathers of the Vatican Council said...

Which Fathers said this?  One, two, four, all of them?  It's not clear, nor are they listed.  This is not a verifiable quote.

[2Vermont]

Is this answer the OFFICIAL teaching of VI?  No.  It's a theological opinion...and it doesn't even say whose opinion it was.  "It was answered..."  By whom?  If the Vatican I council fathers decided to teach authoritatively on the issue, they could have, but they didn't.  If you disagree, show me the text from the council.

I'm not arguing whether it was "authoritative".  I'm showing that the "Council of Bishops" agreed with Bellarmine's opinion.  I am showing that the opinions of Cajetan etal weren't the prevailing opinion at the Council.  And since they were not, I'm still wondering why anyone here thinks I should have to give them equal weight.  It is clear to me that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion stands above the rest. 

[2Vermont]

Which Fathers said this?  One, two, four, all of them?  It's not clear, nor are they listed.  This is not a verifiable quote.

What does "Council of Bishops" mean to you?  Just a few bishops?

[Meg]

I'm not arguing whether it was "authoritative".  I'm showing that the "Council of Bishops" agreed with Bellarmine's opinion.  I am showing that the opinions of Cajetan etal weren't the prevailing opinion at the Council.  And since they were not, I'm still wondering why anyone here thinks I should have to give them equal weight.  It is clear to me that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion stands above the rest.

Please post a link to an official source for this "prevailing opinion" at the council. Not a sede source. A real source. 

[2Vermont]

So it was discussed by Fathers of the Council, so that makes it the same as the Council proclaiming it?

Wow....you have a lot of nerve to equate the two as being the same thing. The sede Church sure has some strange doctrines.

You really need to take off those rabid anti-sede blinders and actually read my posts.  I never said the Council proclaimed it.
But I suspect you know that because I'm fairly certain that you are of bad will.

[2Vermont]

Please post a link to an official source for this "prevailing opinion" at the council. Not a sede source. A real source.

I gave you the original source.  Look it up yourself.

[Stubborn]

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."

This deserves a great big, fat, hairy, face palm. Here we have, of all people, dogmatic sedes, using another Catholic saint and pope, a pope who praises the saint for being a DEFENDER OF THE POPE, in their felonious their attempts to vindicate sedeism.
 
BD spouts: "Like I told you before, Pax...If Bellarmine was good enough for the Fathers of Vatican I, he's good enough for me." 
Do you dogmatic sedes even read what you post? How can you POSSIBLY miss the reason WHY the Council employed St. Robert's writings?  Where on earth do you see that they employed his teachings because he taught heretic popes lose their office?

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."

To the Church, St. Robert was an AUTHORITATIVE DEFENDER OF POPES, yet to the dogmatic sedes, St. Robert vindicates dogmatic sedeism. Because such warped theology is typical among the dogmatic sedes, this is why I say the sedes must cease using Catholic saints and Church teachings. 

Thanks for the quote BD and 2V for re-quoting it as it exemplifies the different religion of dogmatic sedes.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the dogmatic sedes didn't start using this quote repeatedly and exclusively to vindicate their sedeism from now on.

[Pax Vobis]

I'm not arguing whether it was "authoritative".  I'm showing that the "Council of Bishops" agreed with Bellarmine's opinion. 

Your quote does not specify "who" answered the Cardinal's question.  It just says "it was answered".  So, for you to ASSUME that the ENTIRE body of council fathers agreed with the answer is untrue.

I am showing that the opinions of Cajetan etal weren't the prevailing opinion at the Council. 

For which topic?  For what question?

And since they were not, I'm still wondering why anyone here thinks I should have to give them equal weight.  It is clear to me that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion stands above the rest. 

I'm sure he does stand above the rest, FOR PARTICULAR TOPICS, but not all.  You're ASSUMING that V1 used his opinion, ONLY and EXPLICITLY.  You are also introducing irrelevant facts, because we are debating about a particular opinion of Bellarmine's (deposition of a pope), which you are are saying that V1 used, while at the same time, you are saying that V1 didn't teach on the matter.  Makes no sense.
So V1 used Bellarmine's opinion on the status of a heretical pope, but did not issue any schema which deals with the status of a heretical pope?  Sounds like they used his opinions ON OTHER PAPAL TOPICS, which would be IRRELEVANT to our discussion.
Will you admit this error?