Hello Antonius. I hope you are well.
I feel I must debunk your OP, because it contains a great many errors. I will not address all of them.
First, the received and current teaching of the Church is that a pope can commit formal heresy and thereby be deposed. Some quotes:
My view of things is pretty similar to Antonius. I wish I had been around for this thread when it originated.
As for your claim that the "current teaching of the Church is that a pope can commit formal heresy and thereby be deposed" - I am fairly certain that there is no magisterial document of the Catholic Church that teaches such a thing. Do you have any magisterial document where you see that being taught (either explicitly or implicitly)?
Pastor Aeternus states:
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
How can you read that passage from Vatican I and reach the conclusion that the teaching of the Church is that a pope can commit formal heresy?
Similarly Pastor Aeternus states:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Similarly: Can. 1404
The First See is judged by no one.
How can you read those passages and conclude that the pope can be deposed?
This is entirely mistaken. Bellarmine and Suarez both held that the Pope could fall into formal heresy. They merely differed on the nature of this. Suarez, following Cajetan, held that a heretical Pope could only be deposed after being judged by the Church. Bellarmine disagreed, and believed that the heretical Pope was
ipso facto deposed from his office, even without the judgment of the Church. (
Source 1;
Source 2)
I remember looking at this several years back. From what I recall, Bellarmine set forth 3 or 4 different theological views within the Church at that time, but then indicated that among the views, he personally held the "papal indefectability" view. I am pretty sure that Antonius is correct on that point, but I could be wrong. I will see if I can look up the source document on that, so that we can see exactly what Bellarmine wrote on that topic.
