He's not. Just like Blather you are completely misunderstanding his "licit to resist" quote in order to attempt to rationalize *your* novel response to the Crisis: to resist a true pope's liturgy, laws and teachings on faith and morals. St Bellarmine in no way teaches that we can do this because St Bellarmine would not teach that a true pope can give us evil liturgies, laws and doctrines which need to be resisted.
From the traditionalmass.org link above:
Traditionalists do indeed “resist”the false doctrines (e.g., on ecumenism) and evil laws (e.g. the New Mass) promulgated by the post-Conciliar popes.But in the famous quote Bellarmine addresses another case entirely: he has been asked about a pope who unjustly attacks someone, disturbs the public order, or “tries to kill souls by his bad example.” (animas malo suo exemplo nitatur occidere.) In his reply he says “it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders.” (…licet, inquam, ei resistere, non faciendo quod jubet.)This language describes a pope who gives bad example or evil commands, rather than — as would be the case with Paul VI or his successors — a pope who teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws. This is clear from chapter 27 of Cardinal Cajetan’s De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, which Bellarmine then immediately cites to support his position.
First, in his title for chapter 27 Cajetan says he is going to discuss a type of papal offense “other than heresy.” (ex alio crimine quam haeresis.) Heresy, he says, completely alters a pope’s status as a Christian (mutavit christianitatis statum). It is the “greater crime” (majus crimen). The others are “lesser crimes” (criminibus minoribus) that are “not equal to it” (cetera non sunt paria, [ed. Rome: Angelicum 1936] 409). Neither Bellarmine nor Cajetan, therefore, are referring to “resisting” a pope’s doctrinal errors while continuing still to consider him a true pope.
Second, throughout De Comparatione, Cajetan provides specific examples of the papal misdeeds that do justify this resistance on the part of subjects: “promoting the wicked, oppressing the good, behaving as a tyrant, encouraging vices, blasphemies, avarices, etc.” (356), “if he oppresses the Church, if he slays souls [by bad example]” (357), “dissipating [the Church’s] goods” (359), “if he manifestly acts against the common good of charity towards the Church Militant” (360), tyranny, oppression, unjust aggression (411), “publicly destroying the Church,” selling ecclesiastical benefices, and bartering offices (412).
All these involve evil commands (praecepta) — but evil commands are not the same as evil laws (leges). A command is particular and transitory; law is general and is stable. (For an explanation, see R. Naz, “Précepte,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique,[Paris: Letouzey 1935-65] 7:116–17.) Bellarmine and Cajetan’s argument justifies only resisting a pope’s evil commands (to sell the pastorate of a parish to the highest bidder, say). It does not support the notion that a pope, while still retaining authority from Jesus Christ, can (for example) impose a sacrilegious, Protestantized Mass on the whole Church, whose members can then “resist” him, while continuing to recognize him as a true pope.
Pray for us St Bellarmine, today on your feast day.
pius, you still seem to be laboring under the conception that we can decide if a Pope is heretical or not. Saint Bellermine by no means teaches that you can privately decide that the Pope is heretic---as I've said, we are given the right resist a Pope who is manifestly erring. We cannot deem him a heretic and invalidate his Papacy. I would suspect that Saint Bellermine probably drew this teaching from Galatians 2:11. As I believe Blather may have said already, resistance is the extent of our Scripturally-sanctioned response to a legitimately elected Pope we may privately regard as loathsome or even heretical, if he has not been formally defined as such by Mother Church. We have a Scriptural verse telling us explicitly that Saint Paul resisted Cephas himself. And despite SGNA's proposal of Galations 1:6-10 to fill the role, we still don't have an Scriptural verse supporting the invalidation of a Pontiff based on one's private Judgment---it is not for you or me to declare that the Pope isn't preaching the Gospel. That was part of the error that Luther inflicted upon Christendom.