CathInfo.com

You accept they are legitimate cardinals as a dogmatic fact, I do not. I dispute what you accept as an indisputable fact, in this regard, as ardently as I would deny that water is wet.  Of course, the heretics themselves would insist that they are who they either;

But you have no right, responsibility, obligation, or authority to deny or decide their legitimacy. IOW, it's none of your business and what you think doesn't matter one iota no matter how certain you think you are. The Church made it that way for a very good reason....so that nitwits like us don't go around destroying what the Church has, or more appropriately for these times, has left.

A) honestly think they are, but in fact are not - because no pope ever made them cardinals.
or
B) Are who they pretend to be, but are actually crypto-Jєωs (cabbalists), who have made it their business to pretend to be Catholic and infiltrate the Church and spread their poisons from the beginning.

If A and B are the facts, there is no possible way, in this world at least, to know unless the crooks themselves were to make a public confession, beyond that, it's only opinion and theory which really does not in any way concern us peons and can only make matters worse.

You never answered.......
Why is determining the popes' status even remotely necessary?
If he is pope - he's a heretic and we must contradict him. 
If he is not the pope - he's a heretic and we must contradict him.

What is the point in deciding the status of the conciliar popes?

I have as much right to declare a fact as anyone. Not only do I have a right to proclaim the truth, but in certain cases, one has a duty to proclaim it, because the truth alone has rights - and this right/duty goes for everyone not just those who have office in the Church.

But it's your opinion, not a truth. It's your opinion that you've elevated to dogmatic certainty.
And agreed, you have as much right as anyone - and nobody has that right, ergo, you have no right.

I believe the evidence of these facts/opinions is pointing to a logical conclusion.

The problem is that you base your belief, which leads to your "logical conclusion," on false premises.

These men you think are Cardinals are public heretics = observable fact by their adherence to VII false church.
Heretics are not members of the Church = fact
No one can hold office in the Church if he is not a member (obviously, Van Noort) = theological opinion

None of these are facts, they're only opinions and are based on the false premise that Catholics guilty of the sin of heresy are not members of the Church - yet these heretics should they want to repent can receive/administer what nobody who is not a member of the Church can receive/administer, the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. You call this "a mystery" and carry on as if it doesn't matter, as if that's all there is to it.

You say the above are not facts because they will destroy the Church's hierarchy, that is simply not true.

I said in order to arrive at your conclusion you have to destroy the only thing the enemies left untouched, the only thing they left standing - i.e the Church's hierarchical structure. You must go out of your way and destroy it for the enemy, for no other reason than to ultimately conclude it's your right to determine that popes are not popes. 

On the other side - you for all practical purposes have to deny/twist aspects of papal infallibility to support the definition of indefectibility that suits your opinion. Indefectibility is less rigorously defined than papal infallibility.

I'm not the one denying/twisting papal infallibility or the Church's indefectibility, you are. Your version involves 1) a blatantly obvious conundrum, 2) the rejection of the dogmatic papal definition from V1, and 3) destroying the legal structure of the Church - all so that 4) you can justify in your own mind that deciding the status of popes to not be popes is your right, and that it's up to you.   

I did answer

But I will add one more clarification; to call him the Jorge the pope is a lie. A lie against the truths of papal infallibility and the necessity of having the faith to be a member of the Church. A lie that one must tell themselves - the worst kind of lie as far as individual consequences are concerned. Though, one may be non-culpable for the lie because they were led to believe it innocently and it is devoid of malice, the effects can still linger.

Can the Vicar of Christ be a "beast of the apocalypse", or the Antichrist himself?

A lie against the truths of papal infallibility? In order to say that, you do not know what papal infallibility even is. It shows you have a false idea of what it is.

In order to say that, it proves that your idea of what papal infallibility is, is identical to that of the conciliar popes themselves, and probably all NOers.

Why not simply do what Pope Paul IV told us to do - contradict him? Do this and you will avoid all the extra miles running in circles for no other reason than to avoid conundrums.

I don't know who Christ will permit to be the antichrist nor do I concern myself with it. Concern yourself with keeping the faith and keeping your own soul clean, and it shouldn't matter to you either.