It doesn't surprise me that any Bennyvacantist would not want to debate people. They know they would get taken apart.

This is not praise of John Salza. He's completely wrong, but I can't deny his intelligence and sophistical ability. And Bennyvacantism is something that could be refuted by the average 10-year-old child.

Those would not be the terms of the debate, but it would be focused on the Bellarmine Opinion vs. Salza's distortions thereof.  Mazza probably just lacks confidence in general, and would not do well in a debate because of his personality.  Perhaps Salza could debate Father Kramer instead.

Salza changes position depending on the book he currently is hawking. I can’t believe anyone takes this guy seriously.

Right, and this distortion of Bellarmine to basically hold the same opinion as Cajetan is utterly absurd and completely self-serving.  I guess Bellarmine didn't know, in rejecting Cajetan's opinion, that he actually held the same opinion himself ... until Salza pointed it out.  Not to mention that every theologian out there has always read Bellarmine the same way, not the Salza way where he warps it into being identical with Cajetan's opinion.

Now, as Father Chazal point out, people are entitled to hold the Cajetan opinion, though Father Kramer disagrees and holds that it's no longer tenable after Vatican I (I haven't made up my mind on this yet), this does not entitle Salza to butcher Bellarmine to make his opinion identical to that of Cajetan.

Bellarmine's opinion is clear, and it's made even clearer based on the REASONS he gives for rejecting Cajetan, namely, that ipso facto deposition by God must occur a priori to any judgment by the Church.  At no point can the Church render a judgment against a sitting pope and convict him of heresy.  That's a clear violation of the principle papa a nemine judicandus, which Father Kramer aruges has effectively been elevated to dogma by Vatican I.

From these false conclusions, that many of us pointed out were false out of the gate, led ultimately to the next step Salza took, which was to claim that Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and Traditional Catholics are not Catholic, but that Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are.  That's an absurd legalistic view of the Church and a distortion of Church law contrary to all reason and common sense.  Yes, there's a schism between Bergoglio and Traditional Catholics, but it's obvious to any who have the faith that it's Bergoglio who has split off from the Catholic Church, and thus anyone who remains faithful to Catholic Tradition is in schism from Jorge.  Salza therefore defines adherence to Catholic Tradition as now schismatic because Bergoglio has separated himself from it.  It's so ludicrous that it needn't even be dignified with a response.  And yet Salza continued to have his supporters here (e.g. Sean Johnson), as they defend the very same principles as those by which Salza declares THEM to be outside the Church ... while Biden remains a faithful son of the Catholic Church.