As I have stated elsewhere, I am certain that Bergoglio is an Antipope for two reasons: 1) he was not canonically-elected and 2) he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. My first position is that he was never Pope. He did not lose an office that he never had. However, some people cannot understand the canonical argument, so the fall-back is that he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. In either case, he is an Antipope. And he is the only papal claimant who is currently alive. He is the only one that really matters from the perspective of me being obedient to legitimate Catholic authority.

Moving now to papal history, which "sedevacantists" are obsessed with. I believe (because I have not seen convincing evidence to the contrary) that John XXIII through Benedict XVI were all canonically-elected. I am open to further evidence that those elections did not follow the law in place at the time. But I have not seen convincing evidence yet. And I haven't seen convincing evidence that any of those Popes automatically lost their office because of manifest, obstinate heresy. I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer on this.

At the very least, counterfeit doctrines and counterfeit sacraments have been promoted by the infiltrators in the Vatican since VII. I just don't take a position that the Pope was the cause of this. I think it is more likely that the Popes were either unwilling or unable to rein in the ecclesiastical Freemasons who were actually in control of the Vatican. I do not want to rashly judge men when I don't know the full story. Therefore, I accept those men as valid Popes until proven otherwise. To me it is a historical question with a lot of unknowns.

However, even if those men were authoritative Popes, I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we believe any new false teachings. I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we use the new counterfeit sacraments. And if they had authoritatively commanded that I would disobey because I believe that I would be sinning to believe or do hold false beliefs and receive false sacraments.

Many of the Catholics who have accepted those new counterfeit beliefs and new counterfeit sacraments did not have a gun to their head. They voluntarily chose to take that counterfeit path. They chose this out of human respect in some cases. Out of spiritual sloth in some cases. Out of a desire to sin in some cases. And therein lies their culpability. God allowed this whole "Crisis in the Church" precisely to allow a self-separation of the Wheat from the Chaff.

Yes, you are correct. BXVI was Pope until his natural death. Why? Because Universi Dominici Gregis does not allow a new papal election to begin until AFTER the death of the Pope:

CHAPTER III
THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION

49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa.19 This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.

You will note that there is no mention of a "resignation." The Pope who promulgated UDG could have inserted the words "or resignation" to make the phrase say something like

"on the appointed day -- and thus on the fifteenth day after the death or resignation of the Pope..."

But "resignation" is not mentioned at all in the section 49, which appoints EXACTLY when the DAY of the election must take place. Why would they leave that out do you think? The reason is because the election cannot take place until AFTER the Pope is dead.

Therefore, BXVI was an inactive Pope after February 2013. But he was still the Pope until his death. BXVI acted as the "katechon," the "restrainer" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, until his death.

Much was said in the media about what BXVI said after the "resignation." I look at what the law requires. The Pope can change the law, but he cannot ignore a law that is still in force.
...

CIC 1983

331
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docuмents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html#SECTION_I.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
NORMAS NONNULLAS
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
ON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORMS
GOVERNING THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

No. 37. "I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, fifteen full days must elapse before the Conclave begins, in order to await those who are absent; nonetheless, the College of Cardinals is granted the faculty to move forward the start of the Conclave if it is clear that all the Cardinal electors are present; they can also defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election."

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 22 February in the year 2013, the eighth of my Pontificate.

(11 days after announcing his forthcoming resignation)

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas.html

You referenced up Section 37, which is under Chapter I, entitled "The Electors of the Roman Pontiff." So that section is not primarily concerned with the details of the timing of the election but, rather, with those Cardinals who will take an active role in the event. Specifically, it allows a time delay of five days if some Cardinals cannot make it to Rome within 15 days after See is lawfully vacant, which is a reference to the provision of Pastor Bonus, Article 6, which states that the Apostolic See is not lawfully vacant until "the death of the Pope":

Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.

Which is referenced in UDG 14:

14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office. An exception is made for the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church and the Major Penitentiary, who continue to exercise their ordinary functions, submitting to the College of Cardinals matters that would have had to be referred to the Supreme Pontiff.


In my previous post, I referenced UDG Section 49, which is in Chapter III, entitled "The Beginning of the Election." That section appoints the exact time that the election must begin. The exact time specified is, you guessed it, "after the death of the Pope" and after "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated." No optional "resignation" is mentioned at all.

Why would you suggest those scenarios that you posit in your last paragraph? As I have shown, a conclave/election cannot take place until AFTER the death of the Pope, according to the law. There is no other option in Universi Dominici Gregis.

Angelus, if you want to address Antichrist Jorge, there are a half dozen better ways to question his election, whether due to collusion from the St. Gallen mafia (which according to the Wojtyla / Ratzinger docs would invalidate the election) or +Vigano's assertions, or even the (weak) argument that Ratzinger didn't properly resign.

You are wrong that the argument that Joseph Ratzinger did not validly resign is a weak argument.  That argument, from a purely canonical perspective, is the strongest argument that Jorge Berogoglio was invalidly elected.