What am I saying... If people thought John-Paul II was Pope after saying the Old Covenant was still valid, this won't change anything. Plus, I must be consistent -- the reason to be sedevacantist is only tangentially related to the public sayings of these "Popes." Their being anti-Popes mostly has to do with their attempted corruption of the Magisterium itself. But these shocking statements of theirs sometimes do get people to investigate more deeply.
Let me guess what Caminus will say about Benedict's comment. He will say that he spoke carelessly and failed to distinguish between the Church itself and the members of it. Yet when I fail to make what he believes are important distinctions, I am called vile and all sorts of names. No quarter is given me despite that I am a new Catholic. While Ratzinger -- someone who has supposedly risen to the eminence of Pope and can reasonably be expected to know more about the faith than a neophyte -- is always defended, despite having far less ability to make distinctions than I do.
Why don't you call him vile, Caminus? Why is it that you are so viciously anti-sedevacantist when others in SSPX can admit that we might after all turn out to be right? I have now admitted I was wrong when I thought that implicit faith was a heresy; will you ever be able to admit you are wrong? Is that so hard to do? Benedict XVI is not Pope.