Fr. Marie Dominique Bouix held the Third Opinion.

.

I think Ladislaus meant "no theologian that anyone has actually heard of".

Fr. Marie Dominique Bouix held the Third Opinion.

OK.  I had never heard of this guy.  So I looked him up.  He actually holds the first opinion, that a Pope can't fall into heresy as a private person, and then among the three remaining others he considered (he had a list of 4), he did hold this was preferable.  He rejects John of St. Thomas' contention that having a General Council declare a Pope deposed would eliminate the chaos, saying that it would have the same effect.  Also, he rightly points out that if the Pope weren't deposed until a Church Council deposed him, the bishops would in fact be acting schismatically since the Pope would oppose and reject the Council ... if he didn't cease to be pope until the declaration.

But here's the problem, and the problem with all the opinions.  They all refer to a Pope as a private person, not as teaching error and heresy to the Church.

Here's a quote from Bouix --

To the faithful it would be said: Hold to the orthodox faith which the Pope teaches and defines ex officio as Pontiff: but reject the heresy to which he is said to adhere as a private person. Of this personal sin of the Pontiff it would be said, just as of his corrupted morals ...

He denies that a Pope could teach heresy to the Church, but clearly has in mind someone like Jorge going around spouting heresy in private, like he does on his private plane or in interviews with Scalfari.  He likens private heresy to corrupt morals, but does not imagine a scenario of a pope teaching his heresy to the Church.

Here's the link for those who want to read this opinion:
https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/bouix-on-the-pope-heretic/

So, I understand quite clearly why he opposes the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position that a Council cannot depose a pope.  He's saying that if he remains the pope until the Council's declaration, convening a Council against the will of the Pope would be schismatic and the declaration would in fact be judging a pope ... basically the same argument that most of the Bellarmine adherents make against the position.

But it took me a long time to understand what the heck he was talking about in rejecting the ipso facto position:

Therefore 2° if it be conceded that the Pope lapsed into heresy does not thus fall from the Papacy, but that he is still Pope and retains Papal jurisdiction, it is repugnant that he be subject to the general council, and that he be able to be judged and deposed by it. And 1° if it be said that the Pope is ipso facto deposed because of heresy, it is repugnant that the council be above the Pope, since one deposed from the Papacy is no longer Pope. Therefore in no case can it happen that the Pope be subject to the jurisdiction of the general council because of heresy.

He is assuming that a Council would judge him guilty of heresy.  So he's basically rejecting the S&S position for the same reasons a lot of us have rejected it.  If he's pope until he's judged guilty of heresy by a Council, you're judging a pope.

So it looks like he's putting the S&S spin onto the ipso facto position, and rejecting it on those grounds.

But he didn't address the actual Bellarmine position, which I believe is actually sedeprivationism before the term was coined.

Bellarmine cites the example of Pope St. Celestine's teaching regarding the case of Nestorius, where Nestorius had lost authority and was in a state of excommunicandus from the moment he began to "preach" heresy, before the Pope had officially removed him from office.

In fact, the whole point and argument made by those who hold the ipso facto position is precisely the same argument he's making that if the Pope is not deposed ipso facto, by God, BEFORE any judgment of a pope, this would be for a Council to exert authority over a Pope.  In this case, this would be a Council exercising authority over a non-pope.  So Bouix misrepresents the ipso facto position the same way S&S have done.

What's really bizarre is that he doesn't even mention Bellarmine as among those who hold this opinion:

THE SECOND OPINION which, supposing that the Pope can become a heretic, holds that he is deposed by heresy ipso facto. — Turrecremata, Augustinus de Ancona, Paludanus, Driedo, Castillio, Symmanchas, Jacobatius, and Salmeron have defended this opinion. Its chief arguments generally are these: 1° Faith is the necessary foundation of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever. Therefore the papal jurisdiction cannot stand simultaneous with heresy. Therefore the Pope, falling into heresy, by this very fact ceases to be Pope, that is, he is deposed. — 2° Many texts of the holy Fathers clearly indicate, that anyone who lacks faith is not able to have jurisdiction in the Church (see the citations in Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. vi, n. 2). — 3° A heretic is not a member of the Church; therefore neither can he be the head. — 4° A heretic ought to be avoided (II Titus 13:10); and he ought not to be greeted (II John 10-11). Therefore a fortiori obedience is not owed to him. But a Pope to whom obedience is not owed, is no longer Pope, but has been deprived of the Papacy. Therefore the Pope, by falling into heresy, ipso facto loses the papal power.

Of all the theologians whom he cites as holding this, Bellarmine doesn't appear in the list.  Is it because he considers Bellarmine to hold the "it's not possible for a pope to become a heretic even as a private person" theory?

Interesting.  The three people I mentioned in my post above have him holding the Third Opinion.

Yes, he holds what he numbers the First, but then later says "granting but not conceding" the possibility of a Pope becoming a heretic as a private person, which he refers to as a "hypothetical", he states that the Bellarmine 3rd opinion is most preferable and rejects the other two.

Bouix then goes on to give his second reason against ipso facto ... practical considerations:

2° It would be most pernicious for the Church, if the Pope were deposed ipso facto because of heresy. For this is understood either only of notorious and public heresy, or also of external occult heresy, or of internal heresy. Regarding public and notorious heresy, there would be doubt as to how great the notoriety or infamy ought to be, in order that the Pontiff be considered to have fallen from the Papacy. Then there would follow schisms, and all would be perplexed, especially if, notwithstanding the notoriety alleged, the Pope were to retain the see through force or through some other way, and were to exercise many of the acts of his office. With regard to external but occult heresy, even greater detriments would arise. For all of the deeds of the Pontiff who is thus an occult heretic, would be null and void, and this would be known to but a few. It would be still more inconvenient, if the Pope were deposed ipso facto by internal heresy, as is clear. Wherefore it cannot be supposed that Christ willed the Pontiff to be deprived of the papacy on account of heresy, unless perhaps after the Church should declare the Pope to be a heretic in fact.

This would be more "pernicious for the Church" that to have Jorge Bergoglio destroying millions of souls and causing scandal by teaching heresy?  Just because there would be some doubts about the degree of notoriety required to establish heresy and non-papacy?  He blends together the occult heretic position, which Bellarmine has as separate, and of course rejects.  Bellarmine rejects it not for practical reasons, but because membership in the Church is established in the external forum and is something visible.

So, as I said, for this reason he claims that due to confusion, the Church would need to declare him a heretic.  Nowhere does he address the quoad se and quoad nos problems, but is arguing here from purely practical considerations with very little theological content.

It amounts to saying "So what?" to the magisterium, as Lad does, or, saying "So what?" to the theologians as +Schneider does.

Lad does not think the idea of a heretical pope ever entered into the mind of the popes who made the law, therefore to him and other sedes, the law is meaningless, and in order to satisfy one's curiosity and calm their spirit, one must resort to some theological speculations from some of the Fathers which they can agree with so as to remain a trad.

+Schneider rightfully sticks to the law established by popes, disregards theological speculations as being inferior to the magisterium, and remains a conservative NOer.

What else is new?