CathInfo.com

Coming from the man who disagrees with Cantarella that everything from a council is infallible, it’s the height of contadiction for you to declare Drew is in the wrong, when you would be as well.

Cantarella never said that. What she said is what the Church teaches, that all matters of faith defined at Ecuмenical Councils are infallible. Disciplines are not, because disciplines are not matters of faith or religion. They are neither fallible or infallible. They're just rules of Church governance that may be changed, and therefore can neither be true or false. They are just either in effect or are not. And if they are in effect they must be obeyed until revised. 
But all teachings and doctrines of an Ecuмenical Council are infallible. 

Yep, I know, and Ladislaus disagrees with you, while still saying your arguments are good.  Nonsensical of him.

What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men. I have fully explained this point in Part III of my soon to be published book; which is that a secret heretic cannot simply fall from office in the manner of a manifest heretic who publlicly defects from the faith and ceases by himself to be pope. Only when the formal heresy becomes publicly manifest can an officeholder in the Church fall from office automatically (ipso facto); without any declaration (sine ulla declaratione), and without any judgment by authority, but by operation of the law itself (ipso jure); as is explicitly set forth in canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and is so explained in the 1952 Commentary the Pontifical Faculty of the University of Salamanca, (and remains the same in the 1983 Code, as Ecclesiastical Faculty Canon Law of the University of Navarre explain in their 2005 Commentary). Salza & Siscoe have exhumed a defunct opinion that was totally abandoned after Vatican I (Pastor Æternus) solemnly defined that the pope is the supreme judge in ALL CASES THAT REFER TO ECCLESIASTICAL EXAMINATION , and condemns the proposition that anyone can reject his judgment or judge against his judgment; or appeal to an ecuмenical council against his judgment:

Constitutio Dogmatica «Pastor Aeternus» Concilii Vaticani I: Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.

   The definition makes no allowance for any exception; and its wording positively excludes such an interpretation; ERGO: The Salza/Siscoe doctrine which professes against the above quoted dogmatic definition, to wit, that papal heresy is an exception to the doctrine of papal injudicability defined in the quoted text of that Dogmatic Constitution, is HERESY.