CathInfo.com

Unfortunately for you, the pope did not say "the man elected in instantly the true pope, but if you don't believe me, or if you need further verification, then you can confirm or reject my directive by using the idea of universal peaceful acceptance so as to give everyone the ability to decide for themself".

Fortunately for me, I accept the directive of the pope as written as being entirely sufficient to give certainty of who the pope is and have no need for other verification.

The man elected is instantly the true pope, yes, but just because the news tells you an election took place doesn't mean that election was actually valid. Anti-pope Clement VII was elected by real cardinals with much pomp and circuмstance, and half of Europe would've told you that he was the validly elected true pope. Was he? Clearly not. You need to determine if an election was actually valid, which is not something your quote will help you with because that's not what it's even about. You just throw that quote out in every single thread without a single clue as to what it's actually referring to, and then act as if "the pope is the pope" is actually a useful or meaningful statement at all.

The full quote, including the part that you ALWAYS cut out because it doesn't suit your agenda is:

After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world . Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto

Earlier in this thread you had the audacity to call me a liar because the quotes "doesn't mention coronation" at all, when it was you who cut that part out. The quote in full context is clearly addressing the issue of "when does the pope gain his jurisdiction - upon election or coronation?" and not "how do you know who the pope is?". 

First off, the presumption is the conclave voted according to the law. That is the presumption. If you wish to continue to accuse the conclave, then you need to produce proof the election is illegal and submit to the hierarchy. Whether or not it did any good does not matter because you did your part.

But you cannot do that, but that doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me. What you have to do is for the Church to determine if the conclave was invalid, until then, it was valid and Francis is the true pope. You do not like this, all I can say is too bad for you.

And who does this? Right, the pope. And Clement would've told you that Urban's election was invalid due to the Roman riots putting the cardinals under duress. Urban would likewise tell you that Clement's election was invalid because he himself had already been validly elected. How was a Catholic meant to know who was right based off that? They couldn't. Just telling people "whoever is elected pope is pope" doesn't tell you who the pope is, because it doesn't tell you if the election was actually valid in the first place.

It fits "my agenda" perfectly. I am not the one challenging the docuмents, you are.When it comes to this subject, you are crazy.

You were the one cutting off half the quote and then saying it had nothing to do with coronation, so yes clearly you are challenging the docuмents. As the part you cut off clearly shows, the quote is about when the pope obtains his jurisdiction, not how you determine who the pope is as you claimed.

The case of Pope Leo V:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09159b.htm

https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n269

It is supposed that Leo was universally and peacefully accepted, otherwise why would the Roman Pontifical list him as the 118th pope?  Is that a dogmatic fact?  But if it was a dogmatic fact, how did Christopher get possession of the Roman See after he put Leo in prison?  Prior to 1961 (John XXIII), Christopher was listed in the Roman Pontifical as a true pope.  So what does dogmatic fact mean?  If the history of the papacy doesn't support the definition of dogmatic fact as proposed by the R&R folks, how do the R&R folks handle that?  Do they just dismiss out of hand any contrary evidence?

And it gets worse, Sergius III was elected in opposition to Christopher (and presumably Leo too since he was still alive in prison) and according to some, Sergius put both Leo and Christopher to death.  The Roman Pontifical (prior to 1961) listed all three of them as true popes.  Leo -> Christopher -> Sergius.  I'm not sure how the dogmatic fact theory can fit with this evidence.  I guess you could deny that there was universal peaceful acceptance of Leo.  But I could deny that there is universal peaceful acceptance of Frank.  Not even the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy accepts him as a true pope.  Is your opinion that there is universal peaceful acceptance of Frank also a dogmatic fact?  Also, is it a dogmatic fact that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?  If it is, then Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism and "for many" are also universally peacefully accepted.  And if there isn't universal peaceful acceptance, Frank can remedy that by excommunicating those who don't peacefully accept him.  Problem solved?

Or how about this case?:

John XII -> Antipope Leo VIII (Leone) -> John XII (same J12) -> Benedict V -> (now true pope but same guy as antipope) Leo VIII

Figure that one out.

Or how about the case of Pope St. Eugene I?:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugene_I

https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n181

He was universally peacefully accepted by the entire hierarchy of the Church.  Except there was one problem.  His predecessor, Pope Martin I was still alive and in prison and had not abdicated!  The Roman Pontifical has Pope SAINT Eugene I ascending to the papacy a full year after he had been universally and peacefully accepted by the hierarchy.  Not until after Pope Martin I died in prison did he officially become the pope.  So when did it become a dogmatic fact that Pope Eugene was the true pope?

So you dogmatic facters have some explaining to do.  How can you in good conscience call traditionalists heretics for not believing that it is a dogmatic fact that Frank the Clown is the pope?  I'm a heretic for not believing that a manifest heretic is a pope?  That's rich!