Well then, Fr. Kramer, it's only your opinion that John of St. Thomas' work in this instance is heretical, which I am of course free to dismiss, and I do.

Meg, while I agree the opinion of John of St. Thomas has a certain probability, the way it would be applied would make sure the Church only plays a ministerial role. The explanation below is from Cardinal Journet Please see: http://theologicalflint.com/journet-on-a-heretic-pope-and-his-deposition/

"Others, such as Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church, papa haereticus non est depositus, sed deponendus. Nevertheless, they added, the Church is not on that account above the Pope. And to make this clear they fall back on an explanation of the same nature as those we have used in Excursus IV. They remark on the one hand that in divine law the Church is to be united to the Pope as the body is to the head; and on the other that, by divine law, he who shows himself a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tit. iii. 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The Church’s action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, somewhat as a Pope would act who decided to attach indulgences to certain places of pilgrimage, but left it to a subordinate to designate which these places should be (II-II, q. I; disp. 2, a. 3, no. 29, vol. VII, p. 264). The explanation of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas — which, according to them, is also valid, properly applied, as an interpretation of the enactments of the Council of Constance — brings us back in its turn to the case of a subject who becomes in Divine law incapable at a given moment of retaining the papacy. It is also reducible to the loss of the pontificate by default of the subject. This then is the fundamental case and the others are merely variants. In a study in the Revue Thomiste (1900, p. 631, “Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d’un concile”), P. Hurtaud, O. P., has entered a powerful plea in the case — still open — of the Piagnoni. He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed ipso facto: the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. “The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices — well-known to all — which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety ” (Letter to the Emperor). [1019]

Regarding that last part, Savonarola seems pretty confident that Pope Alexander VI wasn't even a Christian, was obstinate, was an atheist etc, doesn't he? Unfortunately, Savonarola was certainly wrong, and this shows every one of us must be cautious in trying to put forward their own personal opinions as though it was incontrovertible fact and the Church's decision itself. It is not. As Cardinal Billot explained, the Church disregarded the opinion of Savonorala.

Cardinal Billot: "And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI on the ground that they were made by one who persisted in saying that the most certain evidence in the matter of the heretical state of Alexander VI had to be disclosed in a general Council. However, so as to forego at the present moment other arguments whereby this opinion of his could be easily refuted, this one [argument] alone is sufficient: It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ The determination must come from the Church, both of the heresy and of public pertinacity in it: private judgment of public pertinacity most certainly doesn't suffice here

"PaxChristi2" has quoted Innocent III entirely out of context in order to invert Pope Innocent's meaning. Innocent explicitly and categorically taught that for so long as a pope is reigning, no one on earth may judge him -- if the pope were to "wither away into heresy"; then he could be "shown to be already judged" , i.e., proven to have already fallen from office, following the doctrine of his mentor, Huguccio of Pisa. I have devoted an entire section of my book to the doctrine of Innocent III on this point. One cannot determine his meaning by quoting little snippets out of context as "PaxChristi2" has done.

What is forbidden is for a Pope be juridically judged with a coercive (coactive) judgment. The Pope is the supreme ruler on earth and no one can exercise jurisdiction or coercive force over him.  It is metaphysically impossible for a Pope to be legitimately judged by men with a coercive judgment. But Popes can and have been judged with a discretionary judgment, which is a legitimate judgment from an authority, who has the right to render the judgment, but who lacks any coercive force over the one judged. That’s how the Pope have been judged in the past, as Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus and countless other theologians teach.  For example, in response to the objection that “Leo IV asked for judges from Emperor Louis and promised to obey their decisions, as if contained in the canons Nos so incompetenter 2, q. 7,” Bellarmine said:  “Leo subjected himself to the discretionary judgment of the Emperor, not the coactive, as is easily deduced from the same chapter” (De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap xxix).   The same form of judgment was used again Sixtus III, (Mandasti’ 2, quaest. 5), Leo III (ch. ‘Auditum’), as well as other Pope.  
.  And the judgment was not being rendered against former Popes who had secretly been deposed by God, but against true "formal Popes" - jurisdiction and all -  whose legitimately was not in doubt.  So, your second statement is just as false as your first.

There are two ways in which a "Pope" can find himself outside the Church.

1) the Pope can recede from the Church.

2) the Church can recede from the Pope.

What you're saying, XaivierSem, is that the Church's recession from the Pope has a similar effect to someone going up to the Pope and killing him ... rendering the matter indisposed to sustain the form.

We have just one problem with that.  It is never permitted to recede from a Pope.  That is the definition of schism.  So the Church would then cease to be the Church, because it would be in schism.  Recession is only permitted if the man is already a non-Pope.

《The Church’s action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes.》

Apart from the pope, the Church lacks the jurisdiction to issue a declaration of heresy against the pope which binds the whole Church. A declaratory sentence requires jurisdiction. The pope is solemnly defined to be the supreme judge of all questions of faith or morals, and of all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination. His power of jurisdiction is full and absolute, and is universal, over every church, clergy and faithful. The pope, in virtue of his primacy possesses the full and absolute power over a council. No decree or declaration of a council has any validity without his consent. He possesses the full and absolute power of jurisdiction to freely dissolve any council at will. Unless he first fall from office by himself, it is absolutely impossible for "the Church" to judge and declare the pope a heretic. The act of deposition is threefold, (as Bordoni explains), 1) Judgment of heresy, 2) declaration of deposition, 3) penal sanction. Nos. 2 & 3 depend absolutely on no. 1; and no. 1 cannot be valid without jurisdiction over the pope; because judgment, according to its nature, is an act of jurisdiction by a superior over a subject (as Bordoni demonnstrates, citing the authorities).

Quo Vadis Domine,

Nobody believes a council is above a Pope.

You may think you don't believe it, but the way your draw our your thesis, that's effectively what you're doing ... subjecting the Pope to the Council.

Apart from the pope, the Church lacks the jurisdiction to issue a declaration of heresy against the pope which binds the whole Church. A declaratory sentence requires jurisdiction. The pope is solemnly defined to be the supreme judge of all questions of faith or morals, and of all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination. His power of jurisdiction is full and absolute, and is universal, over every church, clergy and faithful

Rev. Father, obviously agreed that the Pope's power of jurisdiction is universal, ordinary and immediate over all clergy and faithful.  Fr. Suarez said, all the Bishops of the Church together would be able to pronounce such a sentence, "In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2)." Presumably, the next Pope would confirm it.

It's of course a question where you have multiple opinions. The Bishops, as we know, have their ordinary particular jurisdiction for their own diocese. Only the Pope of course has ordinary universal jurisdiction for the whole Church. Would the sentence of all the Bishops be binding on the faithful? Imho, yes, it probably will be; at least, if they proceed to elect a new Pope, and then the new Pope confirms it, by his universal jurisdiction. Otherwise, what is the solution? If even all the Bishops together will not bring certitude, nothing will. My question to today's sedes: why is it not even 1% of the Church's Bishops today agree the Pope is a heretic? The Bishops are the only judges in the Church beside the Pope. If all of them consider the Pope is still the Pope, then he is still the Pope imo.

My opinion is that the Pope will lose his office before the Council is convened, but after warnings have been given. Sequence: (1) Warnings from Bishops and Cardinals about heresy (2) Pope demonstrates public pertinacity and therefore loses office. (3) Church assembles in general Council. (4) The Church declares the Pope deposed and proceeds to elect a new Pope.

Your thoughts, Father?

Again, someone from the Siscoe and Salza camp needs to answer this question:

IF THE HYPOTHETICAL HERETICAL POPE STILL RETAINS FULL AUTHORITY UNTIL DEPOSED BY A GENERAL COUNCIL --

Well, Ladislaus, you quoted me, so I'm answering, but I think my opinion differs slightly from Salza's and Siscoe's on this. At least, I'm not sure if they see it in the same way I see it. The way I perceive the sequence of events to unfold is as I gave above. So, in (2) itself, we have the Pope, after the fact of his pertinacity is now publicly manifest, losing the office. Only in (4), we have the Church declaring the Pope deposed, after which it becomes binding. And after it has become binding, the Church can act on the fact, for e.g. by electing a new Pope. That's my opinion. Your thoughts?

Anyway, I don't think a Pope can just like that declare Bishops deposed. Bishops can be deposed only if they commit some grave fault. I seem to recall Cardinal Journet also saying something about all this, I'll see if I can find that text later. God bless, all.