So we are now at page 33 in a thread in which, for some reason, nobody is willing (or able?) to provide the Latin and English text (and citations) of Bellarmine's actual words, demonstrating him to have taught that the Church must issue at least one declaration (i.e., that of the fact of the pope's heresy), before said pope would fall from the chair ipso facto, or not.

Would not a reasonable person become skeptical by now that such words really exist, when the mere copy/paste of them here would end the sedevacantist reliance of Bellarmine forever?

I begin to wonder.

The word Bellarmine usually uses is "convicted," or "legitimately judged."

This is what it boils down to: only a Pope can judge a Pope. St. Bellarmine was a peerless theologian, he really was, and it's understandable that out of the sheer paucity of material regarding a matter that has historically been only rarely considered, it's just not enough. A Pope, whether it be in an official declaration or in union with a council, can judge a previous Pope's pontificate. That does have some precedent, but as usual, nothing that exactly mirrors the current situation. Any council that convenes to correct the Pope (without his consent obviously) which also has the power to remove him unwillingly would fundamentally change how the Church operates. This wouldn't even be applicable to our current crisis, with only a few bishops even daring to kind-of sort-of criticize the Pope indirectly. It's not enough for priest or lay theologians to declare anything and to presume to declare those who don't agree are heretics.

It's an exercise in theory, but for something that ultimately has to go through the Pope anyway, we can't afford to start insisting that any one of these ideas are correct. You might argue how to interpret St. Bellarmine's meaning, but it's still insufficient in my view overall.   

THIS IS WHAT SALZA & SISCOE BLINDLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT

An act is a sin because it is a transgression against divine law. An act is a crime because it is listed as a penal offense in ecclesiastical law. A crime according to the nature of a crime does not separate the offender from the body of the Churh suapte natura, but by authority, i.e. by means of excommunication. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are the sole exceptions. Pius XII teaches that they sever one from membership in the body of the Church not "by authority", as in the manner of crimes; but "suapte natura": by the very nature of the sinful act:

«In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt.» and, «Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet. »

     Those who are members (In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt), are those who have been baptized and have professed the faith (qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur), and have not separated themselves from the unity of the body, or have been separated for grave offenses by legitimate authority. Accordingly not every offense, even a grave crime, would separate -- as do schism, heresy or apostasy -- a man from the body of the Church by its very nature. 
      There you have it: The perpetrators of crimes , "have been separated by legitimate authority" ; but "schism, heresy, and apostasy by their very nature separate a man from the body of the Church." 
    I have repeatedly explained this in my book, articles, e-mails and posts:

« Others are separated from the Church by excommunication – «by the legitimate authority of the Church» for having committed excommunicatable penal offenses, i.e. crimes; as opposed to those who «miserably separate themselves from union with the body» of the Church by heresy, schism, or apostasy, which separate them not for their being crimes punishable by the authority of the Church, but because they are of the nature of sins opposed to the unity of the Church; which therefore, according to their nature (suapte natura) separate the perpetrator from the body of the Church. In Canon Law, it pertains to the nature of a crime per se that it is a penal violation – a violation of a law or precept that is of ecclesiasticasl character; and, if the transgression is public, and if there is added to the law or precept the penal cenure of excommunication, it results in the separation of the offender from the Church by means of the penalty of excommunication, incurred or inflicted by the authority of the Church. Pius XII teaches, (in conformity with the constant teaching of the universal magisterium), that heresy, schism and apostasy, are the sole exceptions, because, although they in fact happen to be crimes; heretics, schismatics, or apostates are not separated from the body of the Church “by legitimate authority”, i.e. because they committed crimes; but because these sins by their very nature are directly and per se opposed to the unity of the Church; and accordingly, schismatics, heretics and apostates have «miserably separated themselves from the unity of the Body» of the Church (a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt). The reason why this is so (as is explained below) is because the specific nature of each of these sins, i.e. of heresy, schism, (and a fortiori apostasy), is such that they directly and per se separate one from the unity of the Church.  (IIª-IIae q. 39 a. 1 ad 3) On the other hand, criminal acts considered under their formal aspect as crimes, i.e., according to the nature of crimes, do not directly and per se separate one from the Church; but according to the nature of crimes as such, it is only by means of juridical authority that the separation would take place, being that they are crimes carrying the penalty of excommunication. »
Salza & Siscoe blindly and adamantly remain entrenched in their opposition to this article of divine and Catholic faith, clearly and definitively taught by the universal and ordininary magisterium of the Church.
     So, instead of assenting to this truth of faith, they publish a twisted interpretation of the doctrine according to their heretical understanding of it:

Salza & Siscoe reply in their Formal Reply Part II: «Dispositive vs. Formal Separation: This distinction explains different ways of understanding how heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church, without considering a separate unity with the Soul of the Church. According to this explanation, the sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally. The formal separation from the Body of the Church occurs when the juridical bond is severed by the public act (crime) of notorious heresy (notorious by fact), or when the crime has been judged and declared by the Church (notorious by law). »


     Salza & Siscoe then employ verbal sleight of hand by quoting Van Noort on internal heresy, who explains that internal heresy separates one potentially from the body of the Church: « “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.) » In this passage Van Noort speaks of the manner in which internal heresy separates one from the body of the Church dispositively, which is to say potentially without causing the separation in actu. This was also my meaning when I explained that internal heresy separates one spiritually from the soul of the Church. It is the act of visible manifest heresy which actually separates one from the body of the Church suapte natura.  It is this latter sense according to which public heresy actually causes the separation suapte natura  that is intended in the passage of Van Noort that I quoted: «Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. » Van Noort, whom I quoted above, rightly understood that Pius XII was referring specifically to the external sin of public heresy, when he commented: «The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin [admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.) » Now to say that public heretics are not members of the Church, because Pius XII teaches that not every sin however grave and enormous it be is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy, most patently does not refer to a merely dispositive act that only disposes one potentially to be separated, but does not actually separate one from membership in the Church; but Pius XII, in the quoted passage, manifestly refers to an external sin which actually separates one from the body of the Church. This is clearly the unequivocal meaning of Pope Pacelli’s teaching in that passage, because the context and verbal tense of those words refer specifically to those who have actually separated themselves from the Church, or have been separated from the Church by authority, in such a manner that they are no longer members: «In Ecclesiæ autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt. » And who, according to the text of the encyclical, are those who are no longer members of the Church? They are those who have miserably separated themselves (semet ipsos misere separarunt), and those who have been cut off for most grave sins by legitimate authority: (ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt). The use of the perfect tense logically and grammatically excludes the possibility that Pius XII was saying that those who have separated themselves in such a manner that they are no longer members of the Church, had only disposed themselves to be separated potentially, but were not yet actually separated – yet this is exactly how Salza & Siscoe fraudulently interpret the text, and claim that their fraudulent interpretation explains its authentic meaning! Now, who are those, who unlike all others who are cut off from the Church by legitimate authority (i.e. those who have been excommunicated by the Church), have separated themselves in such a manner that they are no longer members of the Church? They are the schismatics, heretics, and apostates, because, “not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man by its very nature from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” – «Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel hæresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiæ Corpore separet. »
     Furthermore, since Pius XII in the quoted passage distinguishes between the nature of schism, heresy, apostasy as opposed to all other sins, he is clearly referring to heresy formally according to its specific nature as a single species, and not to the nature of the material species of the external act which materially distinguishes the nature of the external act from that of the internal act; since it is not by the nature of the material species of the external act, (which is morally indistinguishable from all other acts of the genus of external acts), that heresy, schism and apostasy per se intend against the unity of the Church, but by the nature of what formally constitutes the species that they, suapte natura separate one from the body of the Church; as opposed to sins of all other species which do not accomplish that separation suapte natura. St. Thomas explains that there is nothing of morality in the material species of an act except that the the act is voluntary, and is therefore a human act. Hence, there is no moral content in the material species of an external act to distinguish it from the internal act of the same species, nor from the external acts of every other species in the genus of external acts to which all delicts pertain. It is therefore not according to the nature of the material species, but according to what is properly and formally the nature of the species that schism, heresy, and apostasy differ in their nature from the nature of sins of all other species. Hence, Pope Pius distinguishes formally the nature of these three species of infidelity from the nature of sins of all other species; and not according to the nature of the material species of the external act, since there is nothing of morality in the material species of the external act that would distinguish it in its nature from the internal act; and most importantly,there is nothing of morality in the material species of heresy, apostasy or schism that would distinguish them from any other sin in the genus of external acts. Thus, the plain sense of the quoted passage of Mystici Corporis is that unlike other sins, the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy, if public, separate one from the body of the Church suapte natura, because acts of these species are formally acts of separation according to their nature, and not because they, in their material species, are materially of the nature of external acts, since, in their material species they are morally indistinguishable from the external acts of any other species of any other sin or criminal act. Therefore, it is not that these external sins are crimes in their material species unlike any other crimes, that they separate one from the body of the Church suapte natura, since considered under the formal aspect of what constitutes them as crimes, they are indistinguishable from any other crimes; but it is because of what formally distinguishes their species, by that which is formally specific to the nature of the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy that they separate one from the body of the Church suapte natura. Thus, it is because of the physical difference between the material species of the internal and external acts of schism, heresy, and apostasy, that only the external acts of these species are crimes; but it is in virtue of the formal difference of nature of these species of acts from all other species, that they per se, by their intrinsic nature as acts of separation, and not because they are crimes, that they effect the separation of a man from the Church.

Clueless Croixalist says,

" This is what it boils down to: only a Pope can judge a Pope. "

     Since the 1180s the argument which forms the basis of what Bellarmine lists as the "fifth opinion" is not about the Church judging a pope, but as Gregory XVI expressed it, the judgment would not be made against the present pontiff, but "against him who before was adorned with papal dignity". The Church possesses the by divine right the power to judge whether a papal claimant is a true pope or a heretical impostor. If it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would become an "incapable subject" as the two greatest post-tridentine Doctors teach; and as such, Innocent III teaches that he can be "cast out" -- "deposed". On this foundation was based the ruling of Constance against Pedro de Luna, the teaching of Bellarmine, Ballerini, Gregory XVI, and (as Edward Peters JCD observes) the nearly unanimous majority of canonists/theologians since Wernz (ca. 1935). Croixalist has a vast array of eminent scholars opposed to him on this point.

2 questions Father:
1) Who or what *exactly* is this Church you call, "The Church" which by divine right can judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a legitimately elected "papal claimant"? And 2) by what infallible safeguard does this Church you speak of have, which guarantees that that this Church's judgement is infallibly right and true? - lest this Church judges a valid pope to be invalid. In other words, what prevents a valid pope from being judged as invalid?

《Who or what *exactly* is this Church you call, "The Church" which by divine right can judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a legitimately elected "papal claimant"?》

In the early pages of this thread, I quoted Pope Gregory XVI who explained the matter. That the Church possesses the power to make the judgment is set forth by Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) and confirmed by St. Pius V (Inter Multiplices). It is divine providence, as Ballerini explains, which prevents the Church from ruling against a valid pope.

This does not answer exactly, or even at all, who or what "The Church" is in your statement. Further, Ballerini's opinion that divine providence infallibly prevents a valid pope from being judged as invalid, is not only no guarantee at all, it is altogether ridiculous. By that measure, it is by divine providence that there is an illegitimate pope in the first place.

cuм ex says that anyone who has ever even been suspected of heresy is sufficient cause for invalidity - which effectively means absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Stubborn: 1) Any good theological dictionary will tell you what the Church is, to which I refer. 2) There never has been an illegitimate pope -- only illegitimate claimants. Paul IV declares in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:

“if ever at any time it shall appear that […]the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be […] Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”

"cuм Ex" is 400 years old.  The parts of this law which deal with the election of the pope, which is part of the human/govt part of the Church can be changed.  And both St Pius X and Pius XII (and even +JPII) changed the papal election laws to allow excommunicated persons to vote and be voted for.  In other words, the part of cuм Ex where it says that a heretic can't be elected pope, is abrogated.

"cuм Ex" is 400 years old.  The parts of this law which deal with the election of the pope, which is part of the human/govt part of the Church can be changed.  And both St Pius X and Pius XII (and even +JPII) changed the papal election laws to allow excommunicated persons to vote and be voted for.  In other words, the part of cuм Ex where it says that a heretic can't be elected pope, is abrogated.

But some law is merely a reflection of divine law.  By saying what he said, the Pope was making a commentary on divine law.  He cannot override divine law with his legislation.  So, for instance, he was making a commentary about Universal Acceptance.  If Universal Acceptance is a infallible sign of legitimate papacy, for instance, then no amount of legislation can change that.  So "cuм Ex" cannot be dismissed as merely legislation; it's also making a theological statement.