So he admits to being just an agent of a larger conspiracy.

I carried out the things that were asked then. I do not think there was anything original of mine. I set in motion what we all had requested.

I love how they call out Bergoglio for the Pachamama but then remain silent about "Saint" JP2 the "Great" doing much worse at Assisi, with Buddhas on the tabernacle and all the other abominations which took place there.

This passage confuses me:

If no declaration is necessary, then how does the rest of the Church know that the man acting like a pope is not really pope?

Another issue:

This passage could be read to oppose/reject the “universal public assent” argument of Billot, since if JPII’s legislation prevails, it would mean the entire episcopate could be deceived into endorsing/recognizing an apparent pope who’s election had been covertly invalidated by this provision: There would be UPA, but to no avail.

That UPA could be given unknowingly to a falsely elected pope, who nevertheless would still not be pope in light of this provision, is highly problematic to say the least!

Its the main reason I side with Cajetan/JST, et al in the greater sede debate. 

How would anyone ever know an election was invalid for running afoul of this provision, in the absence of a declaration to that effect??

Interesting passages, of uncertain applicability, from JP II ‘s 1996 Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis:


76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

CHAPTER VI
MATTERS TO BE OBSERVED OR AVOIDED IN THE ELECTION
OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.23

79. Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope's lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.

80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

83. With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html

Taken as a whole, this docuмent --- which I had not read before --- makes an incredibly strong case for Bergoglio's election having been invalid.

As for this quote:

When four cardinals formally asked for clarification on how this teaching was compatible with several fundamental revealed doctrines concerning the moral life, the life of grace, the sacraments of Marriage, Confession, and the Eucharist, as well as the teachings of Christ in the Gospel, they were met with utter silence from the Pope.

It's because he can't reconcile it with traditional teaching on the Eucharist.

Here is what they want to do, and I say "they" because it is Francis-Bergoglio and many, many others. 

They want to create a third category of sin, "grave but not mortal", not venial sin, but not mortal sin either.   They are saying "yes, it's grave matter, yes, the sinner knows it is grave matter, and no, the sinner is not impeded in will, and has the choice of whether to do it or not, but because it is something that is so needful --- such as exercising conjugality within an invalid marriage, using contraception, or even expressing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity physically --- they should not be regarded as having lost the state of grace and the Holy Spirit (they wouldn't say "Ghost"), and they may freely continue in their state, possibly repentant at some level but not repentant enough to give up the sin, and receive the sacraments in that state".  I've been able to see through this for over four decades now, and that's what is going on.

The irony here is that for sedes, for whom JP II’s provisions mean nothing, Billot could still be right (ie., his theory is not contradicted/overruled by this Constitution, because JPII is an imposter).

That's why I also cited Paul IV.

That's why I also cited Paul IV.

Right, but you seemed to acknowledge (?), CEA has been superceded several times (e.g., partially by the 1917 CIC, and fully by Pius XII), so citing him doesn't really tip the scales back in your favor.

There's also the issue of Billot writing well after Paul IV/CEA, but nobody challenging his UA theory as a violation of the former (at least, no Church authority doing so).

That's utterly irrelevant, as I have explained to you a half dozen times, but it doesn't seem to sink in.  In stating that even if the entire Church were to accept an illegitimate pope, he would still not be pope, that rejects (contradicts) the notion of Universal Acceptance IN PRINCIPLE.

So, because you provide no doctrine to back up your unsupported assertion, readers can either accept your opinion, or the opinion of the eminent Billot.

What do you think a reasonable person would do?