Let me start with a simple point exposing S&S's buffoonery.
If you notice, the above explanation of Bellarmine is very similar to what Suarez said above, namely, just as God does not make a man Pope without the judgment of men (who elect him), neither will Christ depose a Pope “unless it is through men” (who judge him), which is obviously referring to the proper authorities, just as Christ does not make a man Pope unless he is elected by the proper authorities.
S&S make this assumption, that this "judgment" from Bellarmine refers "obviously" (in their opinion, to suit their narrative) to a judgment by proper authorities.
But, sorry, S&S, there is NO PROPER AUTHORITY of an inferior over his superior. Period. So this is NOT "obviously" the case.
Then more bumbling and stumbling over this point:
And also notice that in such a case it is inferiors judging a superior, which shows that the Pope did not already lose his office (which is how the Sedes “interpret” Bellarmine's teaching).
bzzzt. In no way and at no point is an inferior capable of judging a superior in any juridical fashion. So, if anything it's the OTHER WAY AROUND, that the Church can judge him precisely because he is no longer their superior, i.e. has already been deposed.
In point of fact, Bellarmine is not even likely speaking of a juridical sentence or judgment, but simply a judgment in the sense of recognizing the truth of a proposition, e.g. "Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic." Bellarmine in fact speaks of this judgment as a distinct from the case where heresy in merely internal, whereas it is not capable of being "judged by men". In other words, men can not know of its existence if it's merely internal and cannot make a conclusion about something in the internal forum. So S&S's entire premise is based on the false supposition that this judgment "obviously refer(s) to proper authorities".