Simple Refutations of "Benedict XVI is still the Pope"

[Stone]

The following posts found here show some very simple and straightforward explanations as to why Benedict cannot be considered the current reigning Pope.  The posts are in the form of rebuttals. 

Let us keep in mind that while the Conciliar popes have been seemingly never-ending sources of scandal, beginning with the 'hell on earth' unleashed by Pope Paul VI under whose pontificate nearly every Sacrament was changed, the Holy Mass was changed, etc., Archbishop Lefebvre, who arguably lived under the worst of these days, did not dare to assume the authority to declare Paul VI or JPII (with his profanations of Assisi I and II) not to be the popes. He humbly and wisely left that up to the Church to decide, which echoes what St. Francis de Sales said regarding a bad pope, "the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See..."

Please too, keep in mind these words of Archbishop Lefebvre as you read the posts linked above:

The Liberalism of Paul VI, recognized by his friend, Cardinal Daniélou, is thus sufficient to explain the disasters of his pontificate. Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.

Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has always condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.

Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.

The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.

Our Fraternity (the old SSPX) absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.

We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.

And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.