Please remember there is one pesky little word in that quote that changes the meaning from what you said to something different.

We also need to keep in mind that the Church teaches that the unanimous consent of theologians is de fide as we see mentioned in A Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine, 1918 ):


"What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."

Here's the problem, bosco.  You are trying to separate a promotion of sin as separate from heresy and this can't be done.  If the pope were declare that ANY sin is ok, then he is against the moral law and it would make him a heretic because he is denying the moral code of the 10 commandments.

Heresy is a pretty simple definition:
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

You can't say that +Bellarmine's 'destroyer pope' was ONLY referring to a sin-promoting pope because a sin-promoting pope is denying an article of Faith - that the 10 commandments are required for salvation.  Therefore, it's at least plausible that +Bellarmine was referring to a formal heretic.

There are many ways of sinning in this world without committing heresy at the same time. The quotes you previously posted refer to Popes sinning, and there is a whole other set of quotes from the Church on Popes teaching heresy (previously posted). Both sets of quotes say totally different things. They all need to be taken into account as a whole.

Or living?
.
Stubborn is just fishing for the newest silver bullet against sedevacantism.  He'd be more respectable if every time he posted about the issue with an absurd confidence he wasn't arguing something completely different from the last time he tried to talk about the issue.
.
People who have strong positions or arguments aren't constantly changing them.
.
The funny thing is that I guarantee you he had to go to a sedevacantist (Teresa Benns, in this instance-- a dogmatic home aloner, to boot!) in order to find an English translation.  She's the only one who's published an English version the last time I checked, which was three or four months ago).

This is not new, I posted this same argument against sedevacantism months and probably years ago and yes, I remember that I could only find two translations - not even sure whose they were now, but I do remember one had  added their own crazy commentaries in various places, which commentary usually clearly contradicted the clear papal teachings.  

"Being Pope" has less to do with election to office, but more completely is a fact of ontology. One is pope by a benign and Divine intersection of what really is. The only way that one can stop being a pope is by resignation or death, or a change in his very being. I think that is what St. Bellarmine  meant by "ipso facto". A hammer is not a screwdriver aside from certain accidental details or incorrect usage. 

There are many ways of sinning in this world without committing heresy at the same time. The quotes you previously posted refer to Popes sinning,

No, they refer to a pope who is trying to DESTROY the church, as they explicitly said.  They weren't referring to a pope who was immoral and who was promoting having children out of wedlock.  They are referring to a pope who tries to ACTIVELY destroy the church, which means that they are trying to destroy church TEACHINGS, Liturgy, dogma, etc.  Therefore, such actions, by their nature, deal with heresy.


There's no point in going on.  We disagree and +Bellarmine isn't here to clarify what he meant, so let's just drop it.

Pax, Bellarmine thinks a Destroyer pope is a pope, and that a manifest heretic "pope" is not.  So obviously his notion of a destroyer pope does not include a pope who is a heretic, unless we imagine Bellarmine as a doofus who didn't realize that he was directly contradicting himself in consequent chapters of his opus.

 
Exactly.
 

Pax, Bellarmine thinks a Destroyer pope is a pope, and that a manifest heretic "pope" is not.  So obviously his notion of a destroyer pope does not include a pope who is a heretic, unless we imagine Bellarmine as a doofus who didn't realize that he was directly contradicting himself in consequent chapters of his opus.

In my example, I didn't say the pope was a heretic, but his actions DEAL with heresy.  There's a difference.  I'm not talking about a manifest heretic, but a formal one.  Secondly, a destroyer pope, by definition, HAS INTENT TO DESTROY.  I think you're trying to minimize the intent here, by saying that it only means that the pope was telling kids it's ok to eat candy, even if their parents said no, or some other lesser offense.  Notice Bellarmine didn't say "destroy morals", which would deal with sin and not heresy.  He said 'destroy the church' which implies the pope is trying to destroy the liturgy, doctrine or other teachings.

I say we must interpret Bellarmine as the word 'destroy' is properly understood - 'to put an end to something by damaging or attacking it.  To ruin it.  To defeat it.'

Notice that the definition does not mean 'change' or 'alter'.  I interpret DESTROYER to mean a pope who is out to ATTACK church doctrine, or at least cause confusion.  

We know that freemasons have infiltrated the church and they started waaaay back in the mid 1800s.  We know that it is rumored that certain V2 popes were masons, but not all of them were.  We also know that satan and the masons know their limits and God will not allow them to destroy the church.  But, they can inflict damage.  So, can we not imagine the scenario where a pope tries to destroy the church by ambiguities, confusion, etc without changing doctrine, but simply by minimizing truth, promoting lukewarmness and APPEARING to promote evil, all the while, TECHNICALLY they didn't change church teaching?  The devil is a master of technicalities, of confusion and of 'toeing the line'.  My opinion is that this exactly describes the situation we are living in today.