Lad,

Do you believe a Council can be convened to determine whether a Pope is actually the Pope?  Wouldn't this fall under the realm of judging the Vicar of Christ?

 

I believe that this would fall into the category of the Church deliberating about whether or not any given man has in fact fallen from the papacy and ceased to be pope.  It's not a judgment about the Pope, but a judgment, potentially, about a non-Pope.  But I believe that the role of such a Council would be nothing other than to have the Church "make up her mind" when the issue is disputed.  If after deliberations, the Council would vote 51% to 49% that he was the pope, and the 49% minority did not yield, then the matter would not be decided, as the sole purpose of this is to establish a universal consensus.  By itself the "judgment" of this Council is not and cannot be any kind of "sentence" issued against the Pope, but the statement issued would be merely declaratory for the benefit of the faithful:  "We are all agreed that this man is not the pope."

Let's recap.

 Siscoe and Salza based their entire argument on the entirely-gratuitous assertion that only apostasy falls within the first category.

S&S claim that Popes can be subjected to a discretionary judgment, and that this is an exception to the rule that the Pope can be judged by no one.  But, in point of fact, discretionary judgement has as its object not the Pope himself, but, as Torquemada explains, the truth of a proposition, in the case, the proposition that a given heretical Pope is in fact not a Catholic.

Pope Innocent III explains this type of judgment as, rather, meaning to "show that [the heretical pope] has ALREADY BEEN judged."  So it's SHOWING or AVERRING the a priori fact that the man has suffered loss of office.

We had one situation historically where there was a legitimate pope quoad se who was hauled off and jailed, and another elected and universally accepted, to the point that there was a different pope quoad nos.  This seems to blow away "convalidation" theory.

If there's an existing legitimately elected Pope, the subsequent universal acceptance of another cannot depose the man and override the fact that he is pope quoad se.  Cardinal Siri thesis anyone?

Cardinal Journet (1955): "[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)”
 
Cardinal Billot (1909): “the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself.
Ferraris: (1764) “Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election (…) since by this fact God has revealed that he is the legitimate Pope, he thereby implicitly revealed that all the necessary conditions for him to become Pope were met.” Ferraris, Louis, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Iuridica Moralis Theologica)
 
Antonio Arbiol O.F.M (1702): “after he was peacefully and universally accepted, as we saw above, not only is the election canonical and de fide; but also that he was baptized, as well as many other things that were not previously de fide; for since by Divine Providence will not permit the Church cannot err [by universally accepting a false pope], all these are implicitly revealed in the promise of Christ: ‘Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world. (…) Therefore, after the peaceful and universal acceptance, the proposition [that he is the true Pope] is not merely probable; it is de fide.  No Catholic authors relate differently. Indeed, all teach that by the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church all the related conditions also become de fide, which beforehand were not de fide.” (Selectae disputationes scholasticae, et dogmaticae).
 
Billot (1909): “"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”

Meg,

I think it's important to consider all points of view regarding the subject matter.  However, there is one point of view, or opinion, that seems to be held in higher regard than the others...

Interestingly enough, the possibility of a heretic Pope was discussed at Vatican I and it would seem that Saint Robert's opinion was given ample consideration...

 
Of course, Saint Robert Ballarmine is not infallible by any means.  However, since his writings on the Papacy were held in such high regard by the Fathers at Vatican I, I tend to follow their lead in this matter.  

But S&S do not appear to hold this, but, rather, follow John of St. Thomas that the discretionary judgment actually causes the severing of the bond between the matter and the form. 

Well, that's even worse, and this undermines your earlier distinction.  While a discretionary judgment is not coercive and punitive, a vitandus declaration MOST CERTAINLY fits in that category.  So you're saying that a man who is up until that moment the Pope is being punished with a vitandus declaration.  This is where you get in trouble by trying to blend Bellarmine and John of St. Thomas together as if they both support you.  You cite Bellarmine about discretionary judgment being OK in order to prove that a punitive vitandus declaration is OK?  That's a major fail.

No, I'm not making your point for you.  Was St. Vincent Ferrer guilty of private interpretation when he followed the Cardinals who falsely claimed that Clement VII was the true Catholic pope?  Was St. Catherine of Siena guilty of private interpretation when she followed the Cardinals who correctly claimed Urban VI was the true pope?  What was the difference between their two judgements aside from the fact that one was correct and the other was wrong?  Did St. Vincent Ferrer commit a sin?  What should he have done differently, in your opinion?

But in the case of Francis, there's the whole "Team Bergoglio" situation, where some people claim that the election of Bergoglio was orchestrated beforehand and that it therefore invalidated the election.  I don't buy the "convalidation" theory of elections.  We've had situations in the Church where an election occurred while the reigning Pope was still alive (and in jail), and which was universally accepted ... despite being clearly invalid.