CathInfo.com

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 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.

The EENS related discussion was dogmatic and doctrinal. Anyone who rejects what Pius IX taught about Invincible Ignorance or rejects what Trent taught about Baptism of Desire is proclaiming clearly heretical things.

The end times prophecies and private revelations are speculative in nature. We can agree to disagree. But I think it will be best if people actually check the sources I refer to and consider what I said with an open mind. These things are going to happen. Maybe not exactly as I understand it. But they are going to happen and soon.