I don't care WHY Jorge is not the pope (or Ratzinger or Wojtyla).  I only know that (barring some unlikely scenario where he may be blackmailed, and therefore not acting freely), Jorge isn't and cannot be the Pope, due to the indefectibility of the Church and the Holy Spirit's protection over the Magisterium, the Mass, Canon Law, and canonizations.  I don't spin a lot of cycles on understanding the why or the how ... which will become clear some day, debating the "5 Opinions", Canon Law, cuм ex, etc.

These debates about the "5 Opinions" relate to PERSONAL heresy, the heresy of a papal claimant as a private person.  None of them admits the possibility that a legitimate Pope could teach heresy to the Universal Church, promulgate a Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls, produce myriad bogus canonizations, etc.

Angelus, this is just plain wrong.  What the docuмent (UDG) says is that the funeral rites of A deceased pope should be celebrated before the Conclave begins.  As I pointed out, you misread it due to the fact that Latin has no article.

This is absurd and effectively precludes vacancy by resignation unless the pope dies first anyway and is given a burial.  That's clearly not the intent of the docuмent, which explicitly states that the office could be vacated either by resignation or death.

Why don't you stick to arguments from, oh, the St. Gallen Mafia conspiracy, or the munus/ministerium-nonresignation argument, or vitium consensus, etc.?  There's no other Bennyvacantist out there promoting this fallacious line of argument.

No. 49. "When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the day appointed in accordance with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution for the opening of the Conclave, the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa. This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.

The sin of "communicatio in sacris" and the sin of heresy are completely different. The former is a sin against Charity. The latter is a sin against the Faith. One doesn't lose ecclesiastical office automatically for the sin of "communicatio in sacris." But one does lose ecclesiastical office automatically for the sin of heresy.

Please provide the dogma that was publicly denied. I am open to correction on this. But CiS doesn't do it.

UDG 49 (including the minor updates from Normas nonullas)

Do you think they just forgot to put in the option for "in case of a papal resignation" in that section authorizing "The Beginning of the Election?"

Here are some stats regarding the references to the "death," "funeral," and "burial" of the Pope in UDG.

Why would being blackmailed, for example, and therefore not acting freely not negatively compromise the indefectibility of the Church?

What in the world are you babbling about?  There was no mention of communication in sacris in my post, but the heretical denial of the dogma that the Old Covenant has been abrogated, which Father Kramer used as a charge of manifest heresy on the part of Bergolgio, but which both Ratzinger and Wojtyla also held.

Bergoglio's assertion is worse than the Wotyta/Ratzinger error: Bergoglio expressly stated that the Jєωιѕн covenant (i.e. the Sinai Covenant) was never revoked. That assertion is an unmistakable indicium of formal heresy. The statements on this point by Wotyta and Ratzinger are not properly assertions that explicitly, directly, and immediately deny or contradict the dogma of the revocation
of the Old Covenant.