Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.

(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 29)

This passage, we have repeatedly been told, supports the notion that the traditionalist movement can “resist” the false doctrines, evil laws and sacrilegious worship that Paul VI and his successors promulgated, but still continue to “recognize” them as true Vicars of Christ. (This strange idea is also attributed to other theologians such as Cajetan.)
The same passage in Bellarmine — we have also been told — shoots down the principle behind sedevacantism (that a heretical pope automatically loses his office) because sedevacantists “judge” and “depose” the pope.
These conclusions, it turns out, are simply another example of how low intellectual standards in traditionalist polemics give birth to myths that quickly take on the aura of near-revealed truths.
Anyone who actually consults the original sources and who understands a few fundamental distinctions in canon law comes up with a completely different set of conclusions about what the famous “resistance” passage really means, to wit:
(1) Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands — not one who, like the post-Vatican II popes, teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws.
(2) The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.
(3) Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.
(4) Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work (30) that a heretical pope automatically loses his authority.
In a word, the passage can neither be applied to the present crisis nor invoked against sedevacantism.

Since you seem to be rather intelligent and informed on Church matters,

please refute the esteemed Doctor

because I am not he

and am nothing.

From this thread:
https://twitter.com/ColleenEldrach1/status/1180162458599727104

What is manifest heresy?

So teaches Miser Peccator, but not the Church, nor is it the common opinion of theologians. St Robert Bellarmine himself holds to the first opinion you posted above, that the Pope could not be a heretic, but he admits it is not the common opinion ("still, because it is not certain and the common opinion is to the contrary"), which is why he goes on to discuss how the heretical pope would be deposed. So your idea of indefectibility is clearly not the same as that of St Robert or the other theologians.

"Still, because it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary..." (St Robert, above)

"If he would err, the whole Church would err":
We are now witness to this sad fact in the post-Vatican II era. Yet it is not the Church itself that has erred but the fallible human element.

Summary: A sede is claiming Bellarmine.

Yawn…

I’ll check back in 45 pages.

Thanks for all the “original” insights though.