[Meg]

It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

Again, I disagree with trying to prove the truth of sedevacantism, based solely upon Bellarmine, for the reasons explained above.  

As St. Bellarmine has been taken by sedevacantists as the patron saint of sedevacantism, I think it's important to show where he ever said that the pope's faith cannot fail.

[Pax Vobis]

Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity,

You are again missing the point.  The CLERGY (i.e. the Church) ACTED and stripped Liberius of his pontificate.  Does it say that you, or Fr Cekada or Bishop Sanborn is allowed to decide for themselves if Liberius was a pope?  NO, NO, NO!  It says the CLERGY STRIPPED Liberius of his papacy.  So, your quote does not apply to our situation, except to prove that the CHURCH MUST ACT for one to be considered no longer pope.

[Pax Vobis]

The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum is based upon the Divine promise found in Luke 22, 32 that the Pope's Faith shall never fail. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his successors.

Then why do we pray for the pope?  Seems like a waste of time.  Does this mean that the pope loses his free will when he's elected?  Or, he can sin against the 10 commandments still, just the last 7 and not the first 3 (which are sins against God)? 
Or, you're saying he can still lose his soul, which means he can be in the state of mortal sin, right?  And if he's in the state of mortal sin, he can still be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to teach and protect the faith?  Where is that in the catechism? 
So, you're saying that the Holy Ghost choose Our Lady, who was free from all sin by a singular grace, to be his spouse, but he'll enlighten an pope who's in mortal sin (but no one else on earth)?  Makes no sense.

[Cantarella]

As St. Bellarmine has been taken by sedevacantists as the patron saint of sedevacantism, I think it's important to show where he ever said that the pope's faith cannot fail.

If you were actually reading my posts with a proper disposition, you would have realized that I said that Bellarmines' work although meritorious, is hardly the only answer to the current crisis, especially taking into consideration the historical context of the saint's life. He was dealing with the Reformation and the impossibility of a Protestant (the manifest heretic in the saint's mind) to claim the Papal throne.  

I think that sedevacantism could be better proved based upon dogmatic principles; instead of individual theologian works, so it is time for sedevacantists to look beyond Bellarmine. There is more out there. 

[Pax Vobis]

Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitively.

Popes cannot err when OFFICIALLY teaching faith and morals (this is protected by infallibility, and the strict parameters set down by V1).

The jurisdiction of the pope has nothing to do with faith and morals.  The pope can misplace a bishop to the wrong diocese, or issue a liturgical calendar this is too complex or get rid of feasts which have been there for centuries.  He can get rid of the ember days, adjust any church rule (he has the power to 'bind and loose') but this has nothing to do with DOGMA, Faith or Morals.  In these human judgements, which are human because Christ did not make these rules, the pope can err.

Outside of OFFICIAL teaching, his teaching is fallible because it comes from his own, personal understanding as a bishop.  This is not protected from error, unless he is quoting/agreeing with past defined doctrine.  Outside of this, he is fallible.

[Meg]

If you were actually reading my posts with a proper disposition, you would have realized that I said that Bellarmines' work although meritorious, is hardly the only answer to the current crisis, especially taking into consideration the historical context of the saint's life. He was dealing with the Reformation and the impossibility of a Protestant (the manifest heretic in the saint's mind) to claim the Papal throne.  

I think that sedevacantism could be better proved based upon dogmatic principles; instead of individual theologian works, so it is time for sedevacantists to look beyond Bellarmine. There is more out there.

Alright, so you evidently don't want St. Bellarmine as the patron saint of sedevacantism. Is there another candidate for this role, for sedevacantists?

I can see why St. Bellarmine would be a flawed candidate, since he did not assert that the popes faith cannot fail. 

[Cantarella]

Popes cannot err when OFFICIALLY teaching faith and morals (this is protected by infallibility, and the strict parameters set down by V1).

The jurisdiction of the pope has nothing to do with faith and morals.  The pope can misplace a bishop to the wrong diocese, or issue a liturgical calendar this is too complex or get rid of feasts which have been there for centuries.  He can get rid of the ember days, adjust any church rule (he has the power to 'bind and loose') but this has nothing to do with DOGMA, Faith or Morals.  In these human judgements, which are human because Christ did not make these rules, the pope can err.

Outside of OFFICIAL teaching, his teaching is fallible because it comes from his own, personal understanding as a bishop.  This is not protected from error, unless he is quoting/agreeing with past defined doctrine.  Outside of this, he is fallible.

Did you read the Rheims annotation? It is pretty explicit.

[Pax Vobis]

So FINALLY some sedes have seen the light and admit that Bellarmine does not explain every possible situation.  Thank God!  This will all be forgotten, of course, in the next thread, when the Bellarminists will again quote him as if he's an oracle.

[Pax Vobis]

Did you read the annotation?

Yes, from the Haydock bible.  It says the the faith of Peter will not fail.  Ok, that's great, but it contradicts V1's infallible statement on infallibility, which authoritatively teaches that outside of 4 parameters, the pope is fallible.  What are we to do, as catholics, when 1 source contradicts another source?  The source with the higher authority and more specifics (V1 doctrine) is the interpreter of a commentary of a bible, which verse is very general and not specific.  Ergo, we understand that when Christ told St Peter that his faith "will not fail", He was speaking of a "certain specific situation" and not generally, as you say.

[Meg]

Saint Robert's work on the papacy is impeccable, no other theologian even compares, otherwise the Fathers of the Vatican Council wouldn't have used his writings or considered him to be such an authority on the matter.  

That being said, I agree that there are more ways to prove that the sede vacante position is the correct position.  However, I will continue to defend Bellarmine's opinions when they are attacked.    

I also agree that a true pope cannot fall into heresy.  

If our Lord prays for the faith of Saint Peter and his successors to not fail, then it will not fail.  

I don't understand how you can use St. Robert Bellarmine at all to prove your thesis. After all, St. Bellarmine believed that it is possible for a Pope to fall into heresy, and you believe that it's not possible. 

[Pax Vobis]

Saint Robert's work on the papacy is impeccable, no other theologian even compares

You are free to have this opinion as long as you don't impose it upon others and call them 'heretics' for disagreeing with +Bellarmine.

[Cantarella]

Yes, from the Haydock bible.  It says the the faith of Peter will not fail.  Ok, that's great, but it contradicts V1's infallible statement on infallibility, which authoritatively teaches that outside of 4 parameters, the pope is fallible.  What are we to do, as catholics, when 1 source contradicts another source?  The source with the higher authority and more specifics (V1 doctrine) is the interpreter of a commentary of a bible, which verse is very general and not specific.  Ergo, we understand that when Christ told St Peter that his faith "will not fail", He was speaking of a "certain specific situation" and not generally, as you say.

I do not see any contradiction. The contradiction exists only in the minds of those with the mindset of "resisting" the Pope they recognize as such, where the notion of "fallible" almost necessarily means "erroneous". I do not see any other reason to make such an acute and persistent difference between infallibility vs. "fallibility" in Papal behavior. I know this because I had that mindset for a long time. It used to be that Catholics trusted the Pope, plain and simple. It was the quintessential mark of the Roman Catholic. The argument of "fallibility" is an argument of distrust.

[Pax Vobis]

I don't believe anyone has said that Bellarmine's opinions explain every possible situation...

Ha ha!  This thread is talking about the situations which Cajetan, Suarez, etc have brought up which +Bellarmine did not fully (or only partially addressed).  These matters are dealing with tiny, minute, theological DETAILS.  Tiny, legalistic (but important) DETAILS are what separates +Bellarmine from some of his fellow theologians.  If you don't have the patience to discuss the details, there's nothing wrong with that, but you can't brush them aside like they don't matter.  This is what theologians do - they argue over technicalities and legalistic wording - because the Truth must be exact as possible!

[Pax Vobis]

The argument of "fallibility" is an argument of distrust.

Emotional argument.  In ordinary and orthodox times, I agree, fallible would not be interpreted as wrong.  Because the pope would have the 'benefit of the doubt' and would also be checked by a catholic hieararchy.  But still, fallible means fallible.  Even the best-intentioned pope in the world could make a mistake.  We are not obligated (nor encouraged) to follow a fallible teaching in the same way as a doctrine.
In our days, when orthodoxy, tradition and doctrine is constantly questioned, trivialized, and twisted (this was happening all the way back in the mid 1800s) one must be distrustful in situations where the pope is fallible.  They do not have the "benefit of the doubt" in any way.  In fact, we must be VERY cautious.  Knowing what is and isn't infallible, as V1 told us, is a GREAT help in determining where and to what degree we must be cautious.

[Pax Vobis]

And this goes to show that +Bellarmine is wrong on this point, as his arguments are based on Luke 22 and a history of no heretical popes.  In his time, his arguments make sense.

Fast forward to today, and adding in V1 and V2, and his opinion is completely unfounded.
1.  Luke 22, which is a general statement, and unexplained by Christ, was explained by V1.
2.  V2 and the popes of this era have shown it possible that a pope is a heretic.