[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/9JtmQb6vgQ4[/youtube]

He states around the 13 minute mark that Bellarmine wrote  that if the pope rejects or attacks hefaith we can disobey him..does anyone have an actual quote of this from Bellarmine?

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

thanks, definitely something to think about

is Bellarmine not contradicting this definition from Pope Pius IX?

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: “For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all.”

 after thinking about this quote further

"I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

It doesn't speak specifically to whether we should consider him  pope, basically Bellarmine is saying to disobey him, both sedevacantists and sspx disobey him...no?

Quote from: gooch

after thinking about this quote further

"I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

It doesn't speak specifically to whether we should consider him  pope, basically Bellarmine is saying to disobey him, both sedevacantists and sspx disobey him...no?

Resistance to evil is a duty, even if the pope is the one commanding it.  No one can be made to follow an evil law.  

But Bellarmine is taken out of context, or without regard for context.  In the very next chapter, he says that it is certain that a heretic cannot be pope.  Bellarmine is not talking about resisting a pope who is a heretic and who tries to pass heresy off as Church teaching; he denies that such a person is even pope to begin with.  

Whatever St Bellarmine might be talking about in the next chapter is one thing.

In the present quote, he is speaking about a pope who seeks to destroy the Church.

He says that in such a case, the pope need not be obeyed.

Sedes, on the other hand, say such a pope is no pope at all, thereby contradicting St Bellarmine (who clearly admitted the possibility of a pope who could attack the Church).

Or conversely, by explaining away this quote by citing the next chapter, make his writing on the present point frivolous.

Either way, sedes do an injustice to St Bellarmine by seeking to fasten their schism to his namesake (all the while picking and choosing which of his teachings they will adhere to).

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: gooch

after thinking about this quote further

"I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

It doesn't speak specifically to whether we should consider him  pope, basically Bellarmine is saying to disobey him, both sedevacantists and sspx disobey him...no?

Resistance to evil is a duty, even if the pope is the one commanding it.  No one can be made to follow an evil law.  

But Bellarmine is taken out of context, or without regard for context.  In the very next chapter, he says that it is certain that a heretic cannot be pope.  Bellarmine is not talking about resisting a pope who is a heretic and who tries to pass heresy off as Church teaching; he denies that such a person is even pope to begin with.  

Whatever St Bellarmine might be talking about in the next chapter is one thing.

In the present quote, he is speaking about a pope who seeks to destroy the Church.

He says that in such a case, the pope need not be obeyed.

Sedes, on the other hand, say such a pope is no pope at all, thereby contradicting St Bellarmine (who clearly admitted the possibility of a pope who could attack the Church).

Or conversely, by explaining away this quote by citing the next chapter, make his writing on the present point frivolous.

Either way, sedes do an injustice to St Bellarmine by seeking to fasten their schism to his namesake (all the while picking and choosing which of his teachings they will adhere to).

Is the Pope here mistaken?
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: “For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all.”

I presume you are asking tongue in cheek.

There is much in Quartus Supra which would apply to the schismatics in our day.