Answer this question and please TRY be honest.  If a more conservative Cardinal had been elected and was restoring Tradition would a single traditionalist in the world question the validity of Ratzinger's resignation? Would they?

If a liberal made the same arguments that the new conservative Pope Pius XIII was not really Pope, would a single Traditionalist give it the time of day?

Of course people would still question a conservative's resignation, they might even have a [better] case depending on how you look at it. I mean at least then, the crooks would have a reason to nix a pope who was actually out to restore the faith.

BTW, welcome back!

What facts?

Please make sure they are facts so I don't waste time investigating speculations.

Just quickly list facts below and I will spend as long as necessary to investigate them fully.

But make certain they are facts.

fact
/fakt/
noun

• a thing that is known or proved to be true.
  "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
  

ggreg - Why should I waste MY time repeating what has already been posted (in the thread you seem to want to avoid, where it has been PROVEN that Benedict's resignation is invalid, including the objections you stated above)? I read that you said you aren't going to be on this forum for too long, since you will be busy with a project, so perhaps you really don't have the time to "investigate" the necessary arguments put forth. And I certainly am not interested in twisting anyone's arm (nor in need of "consolation"), especially when it appears the person already has their mind made up from the get-go.

However, for anyone who really IS interested in the truth, I highly recommend all posts in the "Juridical Validity" thread from the "From Rome" site (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/) and also the "Veri Catholici" Twitter acct. (https://twitter.com/vericatholici?lang=en). If you haven't yet been convinced of their arguments, then feel free to present your objections to them.  

I don't believe it is proven. 

You just want it to be. 

The obvious answer is yes, and according to prophecies, likely for two years or more while all hell is breaking loose with the 'renegade hierarchy' (the False Prophet and cohorts?) running the One World Religion a.k.a "false church of darkness" prophesied by Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Then we all wait for the arrival of the "Holy Pope" (whoever has survived the chastisements, anyway).

But I am curious why the sedes are so curious as to what we "Resignationists" will believe once Benedict dies (more like killed in exile, if anyone is interested in praying for him), because that question constantly gets asked, and so... what is the deal? It's like I almost get a sense you guys don't think we have a right to also claim a vacant Chair if it doesn't have the same meaning as the one the sedes have held to. Is this some exclusive club or something?  

I asked you that question because I wonder whether you would even consider the Chair vacant.  Or if you would then consider Bergoglio the true pope.  

And    at "killed in exile" and "some exclusive club".  

The obvious answer is yes, and according to prophecies, likely for two years or more while all hell is breaking loose with the 'renegade hierarchy' (the False Prophet and cohorts?) running the One World Religion a.k.a "false church of darkness" prophesied by Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Then we all wait for the arrival of the "Holy Pope" (whoever has survived the chastisements, anyway).

But I am curious why the sedes are so curious as to what we "Resignationists" will believe once Benedict dies (more like killed in exile, if anyone is interested in praying for him), because that question constantly gets asked, and so... what is the deal? It's like I almost get a sense you guys don't think we have a right to also claim a vacant Chair if it doesn't have the same meaning as the one the sedes have held to. Is this some exclusive club or something?  

The funny part about this is the fact that you think that “suit and tie” Ratzinger is some bastion of orthodoxy. 

^^ Downvotes didn't come from me. I've only used that feature twice (don't plan to again), and the first time I regretted it because it was impulsive of me.

2Vermont - Laugh all you want. You say "anything but sedevacantism"; I say anything but the uncomfortable, if not inconvenient, truth that Benedict XVI does indeed remain our one and only Sovereign Pontiff (and very likely the last one for this Age). It's no secret that virtually all R&Rs (certainly the sedes) want nothing to do with him. We know conversion is totally out of the realm for a Pope who has read the Third Secret, right?

In my Thesis I have tried to impress upon readers the direct connection between the message of Fatima, more specifically the Third Secret, and Benedict's renunciation. Because of the liberalism of his early years, unfortunately many, including ones who supported and applauded him for what he had done during the active part of his Pontificate, now not only preclude any connection but actually disparage and calumniate him; I have also run into those who border on hatred of him.

Also, waiting around for Benedict to die gives no one any excuse to be indifferent towards this. We will be judged for refusing to investigate (or outright dismissing) the objective facts presented on the invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation. And that these doubts were being raised immediately upon his announcement and continue to this day...

...doubts as to the validity of the act of resignation were raised immediately upon the news being made known. Flavien Blanchon, a French journalist working at Rome, writing only 2 days afterwards, cited an eminent Latin scholar who pointed out errors in the text of abdication, and who noted that the presence of any error, according to canonical tradition, was held to be a sign of lack of deliberation, rendering the act null and void. These errors in the Latin were also reported by Luciano Canfora, Corriere della Serra, Feb. 12, 2013, p. 17.

More importantly, the famous Italian Philosopher, Prof. Enrico Radaelli wrote a supplication to Pope Benedict XVI, on Feb. 18, begging him to withdraw the resignation, because, inasmuch as it was done in a secular fashion, it would result in the consequent election of an Anti-Pope. His article was entitled: Perché Papa Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI dovrebbe ritirare le sue dimissioni: non è ancora tempo per un nuovo papa, perché sarebbe quello di un Anti-Papa. (Link to text with commentary, here).