Hey, baboon, you keep assuming that Paul VI was the pope to prove that he's the pope. "the pope is incapable of doing what the pope actually did". Again, this is the very argument of sedevacantism that he was NOT in fact the pope. You assume that he's the pope to prove that he's the pope. Yes, that's a circular argument where you assume the conclusion in your premise.
No, I do not have to prove the pope was the pope - it is you who have to prove he was not the pope - until then, the pope is the pope.
That's just the way that works in the Catholic Church.