I might be wrong, but I believe Siscoe/Salza explained that JST/Cajetan did not teach that a council actually deposes the Pope, but rather, that the council would declare the fact of his deposition.

In other words, the first step is the cardinals announcing to the Church that the Pope has become a heretic.

But then here is the debate: Is a second step required?

Bellarmine says no.

JST/Cajetan say yes.

The second step is actually convening a council to declare the fact of the deposition.

If I have this right, they are saying that the pope has deposed himself by becoming a heretic, but retains jurisdiction until the Church announces the deposition to the world from a council.

Someone might want to double check that, but I think that is the argument.

Here is the article I was thinking of (from memory):

http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/siscoe/Deposing%20a%20Heretical%20Pope%20-%20Part%201%20-%20CFN.pdf

If you want to save time, it is a 12 page article, and the subject of papal deposition begins near the bottom of p. 5.

.
I have tried 3 different computers and they all display the same screen for that post, which I copy here, below.
Maybe you're using your smart phone to view posts or some other device that only shows a portion of the available message.
.
A - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 10:48:26 AM
.
B - Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 20, 2018, 09:52:23 AM
Quote
.

C - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 09:33:31 AM
Quote
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state"  which is also assumed.



B - Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.


.
A - That wasn't in your question:

(A) - "The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.."  [Fanny is quoting here from the OP on pg. 1]
.

.
(My reply) - Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
.
I removed the quote box formatting so you can see only the straight text - A, B and C are labeled as such so you can see who wrote it.
.
While it's true that I can only quote the most recent response by the "Quote" button, I took the liberty of ADDING two earlier posts to the body of that reply so that the context could be read without having to click on links. Most readers it seems don't bother to click on linked messages or posts, and I can't blame them. It's a pain in the neck to have to RESEARCH everything someone is saying. This new format/platform is highly deficient in this way IMHO.
.

.
Perhaps what I wrote above still isn't quite understandable. Here is a version that recounts the posts as they occurred:
.
You (SeanJohnson) said (in the OP):
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.."  -- and eventually wrote:
1) Form

2) Matter

3) Intention

4) Valid Minister
.
Then Fanny posted:
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state"  which is also assumed.
(Fanny was referring to the recipient of a sacrament being properly disposed to receive it validly.)
.
Then you responded to her post with the following:
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
To which Fanny rejoined as follows:
That wasn't in your question: [your question in the OP was as follows]

"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." [Fanny is correct here, that "confection" is not in the OP.]
.
After many hours of patient waiting for a reply from you (SeanJohnson) I wrote the post:

- Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
And then you replied to my "notice" by asking,
To whom are you talking? (Actually you had, "Who are you talking to??")
...
...
I'd like to clarify by saying that I found it interesting that Fanny's post that draws attention to the fact that the OP did not distinguish between the confection of a sacrament and its reception. Then you (SeanJohnson) later introduced this distinction as a matter that must have been presumed from the start in your OP, even if you did not take care to pronounce it at the time.
.
Ironically, while your whole "point" in this thread is to criticize the SSPX for failing to make the distinction between a valid minister's intention and the invalid intention of an invalid minister, you have neglected to make the distinction between confecting a sacrament and its reception from the start of this discussion.
.
Then it appeared that perhaps you have a problem viewing posts or that when you want to post a copy of a quote that occurs in the post you are quoting the system deletes the previous post. But if you really want to include it you should be able to by using copy and paste.
.
.

"It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.”


Note that ABL said "confirmed" (i.e. establish the truth of something previously believed), not declared.  

.

Quote from: 2Vermont on Today at 04:02:43 PM

Quote

"It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.”


Note that ABL said "confirmed" (i.e. establish the truth of something previously believed), not declared.  

.
Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Catholics should not base their actions upon a mere hypothesis that may or may not one day be confirmed by the Church.

It is also interesting that I could not trace that quote to it's original source. I would have liked to verify the author, the translation and the context.

.
Apology accepted! Now, go in peace, my son.................. (that was the punch line)
.
I don't suppose it's unreasonable to overlook a detail like that. After all, you were thinking about the validity of the priest's ordination and secondarily about the validity of the bishop's consecration. Of course you were. But you specifically were keeping those topics mute so as to make the "Catechism Class" lesson more exciting -- or, was it, more obfuscated? Well, whatever the case, the whole point was that the question was more challenging when these details were omitted, wasn't it?
.
I still find it glaringly ironic that when the SSPX commits the grave error of glossing over a detail (such as the presumed validity of priestly orders and/or episcopal consecrations) they get hammered with a CI thread that inadvertently commits a closely related error.
.
The principal difference on the surface is, when SeanJohnson is faced with the exposition of shall we say, hypocrisy, he saves himself by apologizing for the oversight (which he apparently made while trying to make a thread more interesting) but the SSPX doesn't seem to be capable of apologizing for anything. Do they?
.

Hi Neil-

In the past, you and I have had trouble communicating.

We are having that trouble again.

My previous response to you (i.e., my apology and mea culpa) was my attempt to be conciliatory and move on.

Truth is, I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about, and haven't for the last couple posts.

Pax tecuм.