There isn't anything "unique" about Catholic Popes resigning.
"There can be no such thing as some cardinals have stated."
A cardinal's opinion is not irrefutable. Cardinal Marx has many opinions, surely you wouldn't agree with them simply because he's a cardinal, no? This is faulty reasoning, picking and choosing which "authorities" to acknowledge and only when they agree with you.
"You also ignore Pope Benedict’s failures to comply with canon law strictures with regard to resignation requirements."
We've discussed this previously and you're simply repeating your earlier claim absent any new supporting evidence. The last time you brought this up, you even embroidered canon law with claim that literally isn't present in the law you cited.
"In the light of a unique and unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church I can only and will only concentrate on the problems surrounding the contemporary papacy."
There is nothing "uniuque and unprecedented" about an (arguably) heretical apostate anti-pope. The only thing "unique and unprecedented" here is one (arguably) heretical apostate anti-pope resigned and another (arguably) heretical apostate anti-pope assumed office while his predecessor is still alive.
But that has nothing to do with either man or their own predecessors being supposedly heretical apostate anti-popes. You choose to argue the current pope is not valid because he's a heretic and an apostate and anti-pope.
Fine.
If you wish to apply those standards to Pope Francis, then you should apply those same standards universally to Benedict XVI (and his predecssors) as well. It's monstrously hypocritical to pretend that Benedict XVI is "the real Pope" when he's just as "guilty" of heresy and apostasy and being anti-pope.
"In addition I do not champion Pope Benedict who is the architect of this utterly confusing and damaging situation."
You just did. Again. Look at your title... he isn't "Pope Benedict". He's Pope Emeritus Benedict and that's by his own decision while he was in fact still Pope and head of the Church. Pope Benedict resigned. You keep insisting he's Pope because you find him more palatable than Francis.
Well, I agree with you! He is more palatable. But your "indictments" against Francis also apply to Benedict XVI.
If you truly believe that we should weigh every single thing Pope Francis says and does against the entirety of Canon Law and Church teachings, fine. Then you should do the same for Benedict and his predecessors.
If you truly believe that one divergence, one contradiction of Canon Law and Church teachings automatically excommunicates Francis, fine. Then you should do the same for Benedict and his predecessors.
...and you don't. There's the hypocrisy.
"The so called bad popes you mention never altered church doctrinal teaching."
Irrelevant to your original claim:
"I have never heard historically of a godless pope so refute your assertion in that regard."
The actions of the "bad popes" clearly show they had no regard for The Church or for God, which proves my original point. There have been numerous godless Popes before Francis. We just have the profound misfortune to be living during the reign of another one.
"And yet you insist that francis is a valid pope? That is simply not possible."
I've repeatedly posted the "laundry list" of websites detailing all the many things Benedict (and his predecessors) have done and said that contradicts Chruch teachings. Others have argued extensively how such claims indict those popes as formal heretics as well.
...which brings us, again, back to your selectively narrow focus.
"Whatever the argument about Benedict, a formal heretic like francis can not be an authentic Vicar of Christ."
No. "Whatever the argument about Benedict" as you dismissively call it, is that he is equally guilty of heresy and apostasy and being an anti-pope. If contradicting Church teachings invalidates Francis, then the same applies to Benedict XVI.
Francis might be a worse heretic, but that doesn't exonerate Benedict. A man who steals a billion dollars is a thief and he might well be the worst thief in history. The man who steals ten dollars is also a thief.
If being a thief disqualifies a man from office, then the standard applies to both men regardless of the amount they stole.
This is what you insist on not doing. A double-standard is the basis of all hypocrisy.
"My choice is to reject a false teacher like Bergoglio and look elsewhere."
..and by "elsewhere" you mean a man who is just as guilty of being a "false teacher". Perhaps not as flagrantly, but certainly and irrefutably false just the same.
"Benedict is very far from perfect but at least he still lives and is also a Roman Catholic."
According to your standards, because of his numerous and repeated contradictions of the Church's laws and teachings, he's exommunicated himself. So he isn't a Roman Catholic any more than Francis is. Or, they both are.
"Are you a Roman Catholic? If you are a sincere one then you can not follow Bergoglio as he is most definitely not a catholic."
I can ask the same of you and argue the same about Benedict XVI. Applying Church law selectively is hardly sincere, either.
Yes, I am a Catholic and a sincere one. My reasoning is as follows: Benedict was Pope. He resigned and now Francis is Pope. I derive this accordingly: All things happen because God either approves of the action or because God disapproves of the action and yet allows it as a consequence of giving humanity free will.
Scripture shows that God can, does, and will intervene when humanity misuses their free-will beyond the limits of God's patience. It can be as simple as God sending a storm to "redirect" Jonah's course of travel or as dramatic as flooding the plaent.
According to the various Marian apparitions, the next time humanity exceeds God's patience, "it will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead."
So obviously God has not taken an entirely laissez-faire policy towards His creations.
History shows that God has allowed on numerous occasions, absolutely horrible, worldly, entirely impious, men to reign as Pope. Men who were, by any standard, "godless". That is a basic fact. Thus we can conclude God allowed those men to be Pope, regardless of their beliefs or their actions.
God almost certainly did not approve of them, but He allowed them to be Pope and so is Francis now.
Claiming Francis is not Pope contradicts God's will because He allows this (admittedly awful) situation to continue. If God grows tired of Francis and his excesses, I can say with absolute certainty He'll make sure we know it.