Did John XXII teach error in the 14th century or not?

As a private teacher.  Not the same thing.  Next...

This is a very long winded way to concede an argument, as you have just made MY point:

An uncontested papal election (ie., one with unanimous consent from the cardinals) is, per JST, Billot, et al, a dogmatic fact, which must be believed to remain Catholic.

But Francis’s election received unanimous consent.

Therefore, Francis’s papacy is a dogmatic fact which must be believed to remain Catholic.

Unanimous consent is irrelevant if we can OBJECTIVELY see that the election was held contrary to the law. Unanimous consent would only come into play when there IS NOT clear, objective evidence of illegitimacy.

Why are you so desperate to support Bergoglio? Simply read the law. Compare the law to the facts of the election. Follow the truth. Bergoglio is the enemy, not "Benevacantists" or "Sedevacantists" or whatever name someone wants to make up.

St. Alphonsus says exactly the opposite (ie., UA renders illegitimacy moot):

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”

You need to understand St. Alphonsus's context. He is arguing against those people who dream up imaginative reasons (negative doubts) to deny that Pope so-and-so was a Pope in the earlier period of the Church. St. Alphonsus is saying there is no need to worry about those "negative doubts." The Church has already accepted the line of Popes up to his day as the legitimate ones. Who are the real Popes vs. Antipopes matter because those Popes (and the Ecuмenical Councils they convened) declared dogmas.

His statement does not mean that the laws of papal elections can be broken in a recent papal election. Think about it. If that were the case, what would be the purpose of having such laws that state as the penalty for non-compliance the nullity of the election? Just use common sense. You are overthinking things.

John XXII taught error with all the same outlets as Pope Francis:  letters, speeches etc.  The sedevacantists call these outlets "private person" when you bring up John XXII, and call them "magisterium" when you bring up Pope Francis.  The two popes used the same means, but only one pope was acting as a private person?

Talk about misinformation, but in the true sense of the term.  Go study what actually happened with John 22 and get back to me.  It isn't even a case of apples and oranges; it is more like apples and alligators. 

John XXII taught error with all the same outlets as Pope Francis:  letters, speeches etc.  The sedevacantists call these outlets "private person" when you bring up John XXII, and call them "magisterium" when you bring up Pope Francis.  The two popes used the same means, but only one pope was acting as a private person?

John 22 was not a heretic....

John 22 was not a heretic....

No one said 'heretic'.  He taught error.  The fact that now it is heresy means that it always was error.

The point is, John XXII and Pope Francis taught wrong things in speeches and letters.  For John, they say, "No problem, he was teaching as a private person," and for Francis, "It's impossible a true pope could do this".

This phenomenon is named 'double standard'.

There is a massive difference between the V2 'Popes' and John XXII. John's error was recanted and it was not a dogma until 2 years after his death. The V2 claimants do more than just teach error. They have said stuff that is contradictory to the faith numerous times and have made no effort to fix them. Plus they have also partaken in false religious worship....

John actually condemned heretics which is why this issue on his error was used against him by those with political motivation.

There is a difference between teaching simple error and teaching heresy.  That is a separate question from the double standard of the sedevacantists.  Whether the pope teaches error or heresy, either way it is a corruption of the truth in his ordinary teaching power.  They find it impossible for one individual, and possible for another.

I'm no history major, but I have never heard of a time in history when the Church was concretely infiltrated by communists and Freemasons who ascending into the highest ranks of the hierarchy, implementing a new man centered religion, with the help of protestants, and the pope(s) as the ring leader.  Not only have the popes since Vatican ll imposed a man centered religion with a new mass, sacraments, saints and miracles, they have persecuted the true, faithful Catholics.  How can these popes be the representative of Christ at the same time as representing anti-christ? Praying to devils (all their gods are devils).  I don't think any saint, doctor or father of the Church envisioned this scenario.

The Church Fathers certainly did envision the scenario you describe. Please read the interpretation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares by various Church Fathers:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~CaMatt.C13.L4

This is just one interpretation from St. Augustine in that Section of the Catena Aurea:


Aug., Cont. Ep. Parm., iii. 2 For when any one of the number of Christians included in the Church is found in such sin as to incur an anathema, this is done, where danger of schism is not apprehended, with tenderness, not for his rooting out, but for his correction. But if he be not conscious of his sin, nor correct it by penitence, he will of his own choice go forth of the Church and be separated from her communion; whence when the Lord commanded, “Suffer both to grow together till the harvest,” He added the reason, saying, “Lest when ye would gather out the tares ye root up the wheat also.” This sufficiently shows, that when that fear has ceased, and when the safety of the crop is certain, that is, when the crime is known to all, and is acknowledged as so execrable as to have no defenders, or not such as might cause any fear of a schism, then severity of discipline does not sleep, and its correction of error is so much the more efficacious as the observance of love had been more careful. But when the same infection has spread to a large number at once, nothing remains but sorrow and groans. Therefore let a man gently reprove whatever is in his power; what is not in let him bear with patience, and mourn over with affection, until He from above shall correct and heal, and let him defer till harvest-time to root out the tares and winnow the chaff. But the multitude of the unrighteous is to be struck at with a general reproof, whenever there is opportunity of saying aught among the people; and above all when any scourge of the Lord from above gives opportunity, when they feel that they are scourged for their deserts; for then the calamity of the hearers opens their ears submissively to the words of their reprover, seeing the heart in affliction is ever more prone to the groans of confession than to the murmurs of resistance. And even when no tribulation lays upon them, should occasion serve, a word of reproof is usefully spent upon the multitude; for when separated it is wont to be fierce, when in a body it is wont to mourn.