It was at that point the thread focus abandoned the challenge nearly completely, and moved on to Benevacantism.

4) Finally Ladislaus...poor man...he still gives no indication a day later of having read Siscoe/Salza's article; certainly he makes no attempt to refute Pax Vobis' summation of Bellarmine's true position (because he can't).

... ah, so the baboon returns to playfully throw fecal matter around at people.

I have read it, but care nothing about it, since I have said several times now that I do not hold the straight Bellarminist position on this matter.

Pax, for his part, has shown himself to be a complete idiot who, like you, simply makes things up to suit his agenda ... like your earlier false allegation about Archbishop Lefebvre that was refuted with one post ... after which you completely turned tail and ran away from that thread.

...and the knockout punch!

Far, far from a refutation.

I will throw you a bone:

Acceptinng your total annihilation in this thread, could you please reproduce the "false allegation I made about Archbishop Lefebvre" (seeing as you have nothing to say on the current subject)?

So now you're going to make me say it again, right?  I've never attempted a refutation because I don't care about it.  I don't follow the Bellarmine position on this.  You base your "refutation" of sedevacantism on the assumption that it's all based on Bellarmine ... or (an alleged) misreading thereof.  Cantarella et al. have refuted it quite nicely however.

All I care about is your heresy that the Church's Universal Magisterium and Discipline can become corrupt ... to the point of endangering souls.

So now you're going to make me say it again, right?  I've never attempted a refutation because I don't care about it.  I don't follow the Bellarmine position on this.  You base your "refutation" of sedevacantism on the assumption that it's all based on Bellarmine ... or (an alleged) misreading thereof.  Cantarella et al. have refuted it quite nicely however.

All I care about is your heresy that the Church's Universal Magisterium and Discipline can become corrupt ... to the point of endangering souls.

No, the sedes base their position on an erroneous reading of Bellarmine, hence the thread.

My refutation of sedevacantism is based on the impossibility of the whole Church adhering to a false Pope...a position you think does no harm to indefectability, visibility, unity of faith, or the Petrine Primacy.

Smelling salts?

Cantarella,
The entire point of this thread is to point out that one must read + Bellarmine's opinion IN PARALLEL with Cajetan's position, who is he arguing with.  If you strictly read +Bellarmine and ignore the context of Cajetan's argument, you are reading +Bellarmine out of context as well.

What make you think that I have not?

I have read both Bellarmine and Cajetan outside the traditionalist websites; and I am certain that this article has an erroneous order of events.

In Bellarmine's opinion, the Pope is deposed by the very fact of his heresy and loses pontificate before God first. The ecclesiastical judgement comes later on.

In Cajetan's position, the ecclesiastical intervention comes BEFORE the deposition of the Pope.

Bellarmine:

“The fifth opinion is thus the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact to be pope and head, even as he ceases by this reason to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church; and this is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the position of all the ancient fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction”

True enough is that Bellarmine references St. Paul’s letter to Titus: "Avoid the heretic after the first and second admonition". He does not reject an intervention on the part of the Church; but such process of ecclesiastical admonition proving the pertinacity of the heretic and further legal pronouncement, comes AFTER, not before.

This is John of Saint-Thomas understanding of Bellarmine's opinion:

This why Bellarmine and Suarez consider that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and is declared to be incorrigible [by the Church], is immediately deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by means of some authority in the Church.

I don't think any serious sedevacantist would deny the need of an intervention of the Church at some point; but if the heretic is deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ on account of his heresy...well then only God knows it first, before any ecclesiastical declaration. He needs to cease to be Pope first, before any legal deposition.

This also makes sense, because no Catholic can deny the dogmatic principle that the POPE can be judged by no one on earth. Even Cajetan was very careful at this point. The power of the imperfect Council in his view, is not superior to that of the Pope, but it is superior to the union of the Pontificate with a heretical individual.

With this power which we recognize in him, it is clear that the Church has absolutely no power over the Pope, and even in the situation where he is a heretic, it does not, properly speaking, have power over the Pope, but on the conjunction of the Papacy with Peter which it dissolves. And thus it clearly appears that the power of the Church is on the conjunction of the papacy and Peter, both in his becoming such and in the destruction of such, the subject being disposed to the accession as such by means of the faith and the will, and the destruction of such by heresy or the will; and as this power is inferior to that of the papacy, it cannot in any way limit the power of the papacy. And so one sees that the Pope has no power above him, even in the case where he is a heretic/