Antipope Benedict XVI resigns after only a few years as Antipope.
No doubt he will still work evil, until his last days.
But who will replace him as the new Antipope?

Whoever it will be, he will not be a validly elected Pope. Because those men who will be in the conclave are not Catholics.
They are not Cardinals, either.
For those two reasons alone, the man that they elect will not be a valid Pope.

Other facts will also invalidate his election.

Either:
The “conclave” will elect a man who will pretend to be a traditionalist (as Ratzinger did) in order to seduce the SSPX back into Apostate Rome.

Or:

They will elect someone so amazingly heretical that many in the conciliar church will leave it and become traditional Catholics, or even go the whole way and become Sedes.

The first option, although looking the best, is in fact the one to be MORE afraid of.

No, I am stating the obvious fact that those non-Catholics villains have no ability to elect a Catholic Pope.
Also, they have no intention of doing so.

I do not know when we will be given a Catholic Pope.
But God will impose His Divine will on the Church, when He wills to do so.

I hope that one day we will all behold a good Catholic Pope in Rome.

May that joyous day dawn soon!

ALL OF US SHOULD PRAY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
Instead of praying that the non-Catholics in the new conclave will produce a holy man. That seems to be an impossible aspiration.

cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio instructs us thus:

If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power

That was also held by the manualists prior to AD. 1958.

Visit this website for more details:

http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm

I did not argue from the Archbishop's authority that his teaching must be accepted on that basis alone, SSS, but I merely related the argument he made and the reasons he offered.

Yes, Sede Catholic, that is true, and hardly denied, a heretic cannot be Pope. But a Pope who is unanimously accepted in such a way is by that very fact shown not to be a heretic even in the internal forum.

The eminent Cardinal Billot says,

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis (of a Pope heretic), at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself."

...The Council of Trent called the Holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of Churches. The First Vatican Council spoke of the "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church"....

No one is denying that, Nishant.
Nishant, you simply do not accept the facts. Nor do you understand the teachings of the Church.

...Many traditional Catholics may have no idea what this means...

 :rolleyes:  The irony.

...lay conclavism or any attempt at the same apart from Rome...

No one, apart from you, is mentioning lay conclavism. Only you, Nishant.

Then modernism isn't heresy, because modernist Cardinals accept a modernist Pope?

No, but it is only formal heresy that makes a man lose the interior virtue of supernatural faith, and it is only this loss that is incompatible with the possession of any office in the Church because it places a man outside her. Such unanimous acceptance shows the Pope is not a formal heretic.

While I'm indifferent to downthumbs, Cardinal Billot was one of the very greatest Roman theologians of his day and widely praised by all, so his teaching should not be so easily dismissed. Fr. Boulet's summary of the great man.

Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Vol. I, pp. 612-613.  Along with Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange o.p., Louis Card. Billot s.j. was one of the greatest and finest Roman theologians of the XX century. He was a close friend of Fr. Henri Le Floch C.S.Sp., superior of the French Seminary in Rome, where Archbishop Lefebvre studied. Fr. Berto, who also studied in the same seminary under Fr. Le Floch, and was the personal theologian of Archbishop Lefebvre during the Council Vatican II said: "The genius of Cardinal Billot was to have recovered, separated, expanded and renewed the doctrine of the Angel of the School (St. Thomas Aquinas); to have taught the pure doctrine of St. Thomas, which he mastered remarkably with his personal charism." Pour La Sainte Eglise Romaine, V.A. Berto, Cedre, 1976.

Such unanimous acceptance shows the Pope is not a formal heretic.

I believe you are confusing formal with manifest. Unanimous acceptance does not mean Benedict isn't a formal heretic -- that is, someone who knowingly denies Church Dogma. Especially when most (if not all) the Cardinals hold heretical beliefs themselves.

Thanks to all of you guys. I am starting to appreciate the sede position. It makes sense. Unfortunately, it's still painful for me to accept. The question I have is, am I in sin by this position? I feel I am going against the Creed? Isn't acceptance of the Pope part of the teachings and Dogma of the church? If it's not, how can I rationalize it? Thanks in advance for your help