Here is the latest Salza/Siscoe fraud: in their post on the trueorfalsepope website, "FR. KRAMER'S ERROR CONCERNING "THE UNFAILING FAITH OF PETER", Salza and Siscoe pontificate:

<The Church has never taught that Christ’s promise to St. Peter that his "faith will fail not," means a successor of St. Peter is unable to fall into personal heresy and lose the faith.  On the contrary, theologians have always distinguished between two distinct privileges that St. Peter receive – one that prevented him from falling into personal heresy, and another that prevented him from erring when he taught ex cathedra – and they have consistently taught that the second privilege is what was passed on to Peter’s successors. For example, in De Romano Pontifice (bk 4, ch. 2), Bellarmine wrote:

Bellarmine: “… the promise of the Lord in Luke XXII, as we find it in the Greek: ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you like wheat, yet I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail…’ (...)  the true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil (…) The second privilege is that he, ‘as Pope’ [i.e., teaching ex cathedra], could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith.  From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.”>

By leaving out one word, fortasse, (Eng. possibly) in their translation, Salza & Siscoe have totally falsified Bellarmine's meaning:

Let's compare the quote provided by PaxChristi2 (Siscoe) with the same quote provided by Don Paolo (without any the ellipses):

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 13, 2019, 02:48:58 PM

Here's two.  I posted the first one previously.  It is from the former rector of the Gregorian, who not only taught canon law for most of his adult life, but is one of the relatively few that has studied the past 1000 years of canonical tradition on the subject.

 

Quote

Father Ghirlanda, S.J., (2013):  “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation.  In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation." (…) There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a ‘private doctor,’ that does not demand the assent of the faithful (…) However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome.” ("La Civiltà Cattolica" March, 2,  2013)

 

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 13, 2019, 02:48:58 PM

The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant.

 versus

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 19, 2019, 07:42:22 AM

It is being claimed by some that the Canon Law professor and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Fr. Giancarlo Ghirlanda SJ, says that a notorious heretic pope would not cease to be pope until he is declared a heretic by the cardinals. That is not his position. His position on the question is identical to my own:
 
 Cessation from the office of the Roman Pontiff
 
 Excerpt from Quaderno n. 3905 del 2 marzo 2013 de "La Civiltà Cattolica", pp. 445-462.
 
 Then, if the Roman Pontiff did not express what is already contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and therefore with the other Bishops, successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican I (3), cannot be proven by the consent of the Church and the Bishops, as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (c. 331; "Nota Explicativa Praevia" 4). The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. There where this no longer existed on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would fall from his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor", who does not commit the assent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical statements wanting to commit his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would fall ipso jure from his office. However in such cases, since "the first seat is not judged by anyone" (c. 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there would only be a declaration of the fact, which should be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable by intervention of the Divine Providence in favor of the Church (4).
 FOOTNOTES 3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074. 4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicuм”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.

 Don Paolo even gives us a link to the entire text: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html
 
 That's some crafty editing by PaxChristi2 (Siscoe).  I wonder how he sleeps at night? 

Bouix taught that a Pope who fell into heresy would remain Pope and could not be removed.  

Dr. Mirus mentions three other theologians who held the same position. Raphael de Pornaxio, in Tractatus M.R. De Potestate, Chapter XIX.  Cardinal Casanova, in Quod Concilium Generale non habet iudicare Papam, f. 179, and Pasquali, in De Potestate, Book III, Art. X.  Bishop Athanasius Schneider apparently holds the same position.

No, it's the Third Opinion listed by Bellarmine.

“The Third opinion is to the extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy (quia de haeresi fuerat convictus), the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd." (Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, bk, 2, ch. 30).

Thus, the true text of Bellarmine reads: "From these privileges, we see that the first possibly did not extend to his successors, but the second without a doubt did."