I understand what you say. You say that my use of "manifest" (I assume you refer to "manifest heretic") contradicts St. Robert's definition.

.
As it is, you quote Bellarmine regarding Liberius as an example for how to treat a manifest heretic, yet NOWHERE does Bellarmine even use the word 'manifest' when describing Liberius.  When Bellarmine does explain manifest heresy, in a different chapter, he says the manifest heretic loses membership in the church and is automatically deposed from office.  None of these things happened to Liberius, so Liberius isn't an example of how to treat manifest heresy.  So, you're wrong.  Get it?

2Vermont:  Thank you for your posts.

Correct.  And that's precisely my point.  It's too early to write him off.  He's gone well beyond anything Burke or Schneider ever said.  Fr. Jenkins himself called his latest June 9th letter "earth-shattering."  As Father Jenkins said, Vigano has just admitted that Traditional Catholics have been right all along.  Never have the statements written by Archbishop Vigano have been heard from anyone inside the Conciliar Church.  He's clearly still early in this awakening process, and the attempts to torpedo him, criticize him, etc. are not helpful.  Welcoming him, praising/encouraging him, and charitably pointing out where his thinking might need additional adjustment are what is called for at this stage.

Unlike those who claim they don't "trust" him, based on what he wrote, I certainly trust him that he's open to the truth.  Is he perfect?  Of course not.  But then he's only been a Traditional Catholic for a few months, weeks, or perhaps even days.  How long does it take to purge all the bad thinking patterns from someone's mind after 50 years of it?  As Bishop Williamson points out, we're ALL still infected to some extent.  So the fact that he could so clearly and correctly lay out the case for Tradition after 50 years in the Conciliar Church is astonishing and is a miracle of God's grace.

Give him some time.  If he Burkes out on us, then we just ignore him like we ignore Burke.  Big deal.  No harm done beside some disappointment that he didn't follow through all the way with it.

I'm more with you than against you.  I am praying for him, and he may well be the beginning of the end of the Novus Ordo sect  "IF" he fully converts. In the mean time, let's stop defending/dismissing those things that appear to be evidence that he has not fully converted yet. That's my main issue with most of the Vigano supporters in this thread.

.
As it is, you quote Bellarmine regarding Liberius as an example for how to treat a manifest heretic, yet NOWHERE does Bellarmine even use the word 'manifest' when describing Liberius.  When Bellarmine does explain manifest heresy, in a different chapter, he says the manifest heretic loses membership in the church and is automatically deposed from office.  None of these things happened to Liberius, so Liberius isn't an example of how to treat manifest heresy.  So, you're wrong.  Get it?

Bellarmine does neither explain nor define (as you said multiple times in earlier posts) manifest heresy in his book De Romano Pontifice. He uses the term in paraphrases of what other theologians say. From what he says (including more than a hundred uses of the adjective manifest in all sorts of contexts), it is clear that a manifest heretic is a non-occult heretic, is a heretic who acts or shows himself as such.

It is true that Bellarmine does not use "manifest heretic" in the context of Liberius, nevertheless Liberius is like a textbook example. The Roman clerus learns that Liberius in exile is acting like a heretic, and says: then he's become a heretic and is no longer Pope. Why should Bellarmine say "manifest heretic" instead of simply "heretic", when he even more specifically says sed quem externis operibus haereticuм esse vident, simpliciter haereticuм judicant (seeing by his works that s.o.'s a heretic, they simply judge he's a heretic).

None of these things happened to Liberius

Liberius, who was in exile, was judged to be a heretic based on his works. Given the fact, that he was considered a heretic, the Roman clergy could say:  His pontifical dignity already is abrogated, so we can join Felix and accept him as Pope.

Jim Larrabee, the author of the translation on the website of John Lane, comments:

During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.

Apart from Larrabees mix-up, calling Antipope Felix "St. Felix", I have to agree. His translation though is not optimal:

tunc vero Romanus Clerus, abrogata Liberio Pontificia dignitate, ad Felicem se contulit

Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix

Larrabee makes it appear as if the clergy was stripping Liberius of the dignity. But the original Latin a) conveys the idea that the dignity had been stripped already b) does not answer the questions Who did it? or How come, that Liberius lost or was denied or was stripped of his the pontifical dignity.

And also the key factor of obstinacy in error, which is similar to the modern term 'formal heretic', which is why Bellarmine says an obstinate/manifest heretic is no longer a member of the church.
.
You, on the contrary, wrongly define a manifest heretic as still being a member of the church, since you wrongly say "they may or may not be a heretic" (i.e. it's not yet determined).  For Bellarmine, a manifest heretic is a DETERMINED state - they are obstinate and no longer a catholic.
.
How you don't see this difference is shocking.
.Absolutely, not.  Bellarmine said that Liberius was NOT A HERETIC (from the quote that YOU provided), though he was treated as such (because he did not fully condemn error).  If Liberius was a manifest heretic (according to Bellarmine) then he was obstinate in heresy, and was no longer a member of the church.  Yet, Liberus was NOT obstinate, as Bellarmine confirms.
."Acting like a heretic" is not 'manifest' (according to Bellarmine).  You are using the word 'manifest' according to the dictionary definition.  This is not how Bellarmine uses it.  For Bellarmine, someone is only manifest (i.e. plain to see) if they have been rebuked/corrected and thus...obstinacy in error is proven.

I recommend that you start to substantiate your claims with quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine, if you're interested in convincing any serious reader in his right mind. A quote for your last claim would be a good start! Given your own comments, I assume that you don't want to style yourself as someone, who "didn't do his research".

I recommend that you start to substantiate your claims with quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine, if you're interested in convincing any serious reader in his right mind.

Struthio, here's the quote from +Bellarmine and it's from his famous 4th opinion, (De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2).  Took me 5 minutes to find on google.
.
.
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. (14)
.
.
This shows that +Bellarmine uses the term "manifest heretic" only when obstinacy has been proven, only after 2 rebukes/warnings of error, because that is what St Paul ordered us to do in Scripture.  This is why +Bellarmine says that a manifest heretic loses office immediately and ceases to be a member of the Church...because their obstinate and pernicious holding to error is manifest, and nothing else can be done to convert the person back to Truth.
.
For you to apply the term 'manifest heretic' to anyone who has not been publically rebuked/warned is wrong and anti-Bellarmine.