I find it somewhat remarkable that you and other sedes believe the papacy can only be defended by removing the pope ...
Apart from the fact that no one's "removing" the "pope", but simply holding that the V2 papal claimants of the Conciliar era are usurpers (your diction reminds me of a 4th grader's), yes, absolutely. When you attribute grave error (that requires Catholics sever communion with the hierarchy) and the promulgation of a sacrilegious Mass to the papacy, to the papal office, then you're denigrating and wrecking the papacy.
Vatican I: "[T]his See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples". You openly and explicitly reject this teaching of Vatican I.
If the Conciliar "Popes" don't blemish the See of Peter with error, then there's no such thing. Papacy can never recover from this is these guys have been "popes". Going forward, any teaching of the chair will be treated as nothing more than this guy in the papal office opining about a certain matter of Catholic doctrine.