Bergoglio was never a legitimate Pope to begin with because Benedict XVI was still alive at the time of the 2013 false conclave. His election was null and void.

I honestly can't believe you're still clinging to this crap.  So UDG does specify that the Conclave should begin after the death and funeral rites of the Pope, but I pointed out that this reference, using the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood in the Latin clearly refers to ... death and funeral of the Pope ... IF ANY, and the earlier parts of the docuмent speak about the resignation scenario, which would be nonsensical to discuss at all then, and Wojtyla would have specified "in case of resignation the see must remain vacant until the pope who resigned has died, and no new pope can be elected in the meantime."  So, hypothetically, had they elected a 29-year-old and he resigned at the sage of 30, if he died at the age of 100, there would be a forced 70-year vacancy of the Holy See ... by your reading.

I love it how on the EENS thread you derided us as nuts, when you're over hear pushing this stuff ... even after it's been soundly debunked by my citation of the Latin ... and just be, ahem, COMMON SENSE, and now you're talking about how Ratzinger never died, but was replaced by some lookalike?  And WE are crazies for disputing the existence of Baptism of Desire (which numerous Church Fathers rejected)?  When people run this terribly afoul of basic common sense, that's often a sign if insanity, a denial of and detachment from reality.  No Pope would ever declare that after a resignation, the vacancy of the See cannot be filled until the Pope who resigned had died and had his funeral rites conducted.

I love it how you claim that rejecting your interpretation of what Pius IX and Trent taught are to reject Pius IX and Trent.  We've demonstrated quite clearly why Pius IX didn't mean what you claim that he did, misreading it.

Let the reader here take note that this is the interpretation of a guy who believes that Bergoglio was an Anti-Pope because JP2's docuмent said a Pope had to be dead before a Conclave could begin (could not resign), and then believes Ratzinger was some great hero of the faith, who's not really dead ... but whose body was replaced by some look-alike for the burial, and that Ratzinger will return (will be 98 in two weeks I supposed) to restore the Church.

Of course, as per your typical lying ways, you truncate the sentence, right ... when I wrote, "Most are heretics ON THIS POINT." meaning that they hold a heretical position on this point, meaning EENS dogma.  This denotes an objectively heretical opinion regarding a specific concrete point rather than attributing pertinacity to any particular individual who adheres to this position.  In fact, I explicitly stated that I cannot judge their pertinacity ... but I am able to judge your pertinacity, because you refuse to apply any kind or reason, you ignore the clear refutations of your errors, and come up with one reason after another to deny the dogma EENS, rendering you clearly pertinacious, a manifest pertinacious heretic who's outside the Church. About these others, I can only say they are heretical ON THIS POINT, secundum quid and not heretics simpliciter.

But this has nothing to do with our dispute over the maning of Pope Pius IX's teaching.  You claim that you have correctly interpreted it.  We not only claim (gratuitously like you) that ours is the correct interpretation, but we actually demonstrate it by pointing out elements within the teaching that you simply ignore in order to twist it to your own meaning.

Nor is my interpretation of Pius IX my own.  I provided a link to Msgr. Fenton, a respected theologian, who also denounces your misreading of it as a misinterpretation and warping of the text.

So, either Msgr. Fenton and I and also Fr. Mueller, who was also quoted here by someone else are wrong, or else you are wrong, you and the Modernist heretics who also interpret Pius IX the way you do.

But, then if there's any doubt about our respective judgments, the reader can take note of the fact that you believe Ratzinger is a saintly holy orthodox man, a veritable St. Pius X, who merely faked his death, but will return to restore the Chruch, based on your warped interpretation of some dubious private revelation.  Readers can also note the fact that you "interpret" Wojtyla's Universi Domini Gregis docuмent to declare that a resignation would leave the See vacant until the Pope who resigned has died and has his funeral conducted, thereby rendering resignation moot, and potentially forcing a many-decade vacancy of the Holy See.

So ... yeah, let's accept YOUR interpretation of Pope Pius IX's meaning rather than mine, and that of Msgr. Fenton ... when you have shown such tremendous interpretation skills as to come up with the borderline-insane absurdities above.  You've really disqualified yourself from any rational debate on any subject.

That was Bergs, don't ya know?

Because Our Lord gave Satan 100 years do make his attempt to destroy the Church [Leo XIII]. The 100 years started in 1929 [Jesus to Sr. Lucia at Tuy].

Lateran Treaty...1929....fwiw.