His election according the norms of the College is a matter of public record.
Since he has promulgated documents and committed acts contrary to Catholic teaching, the burden of proof is upon those who claim him to be the Pope.
(1) Committing acts contrary to Catholic teaching has literally nothing to do with a Pope's legitimacy. Alexander VI routinely broke his vows and flouted Catholic doctrine. No one claims he wasn't Pope.
(2) You say that he has "promulgated documents" contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics.
Unless one was there when he was elected and one is absolutely sure he has not lost the Faith, I don't think you can prove he is the Pope.
By these criteria, i.e. (1) personal presence at a Papal election and (2) some kind of absolute guarantee that the Pope is not an apostate in his heart of hearts, then we cannot be sure of the legitimacy of any Pope in history.
Do you suggest that the next Papal election be held in a room big enough so every Catholic can personally witness the election? Or do you want to break the norms of the election and make it a public ballot and put it on TV?
Likewise, do you have the power to look inside someone's heart and know if they really have the faith? How do I know that you have it and can accurately assess it? I have strong evidence that you don't have the faith, since you embrace the idea that the legitimacy of the office depends upon the personal worthiness of the officeholder, which is heresy.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss sedevacantism.
No, you wouldn't. You also apparently wouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Calvin's notion that the efficacy of an office depends on the worthiness of its holder.
One can bury their head in the sand an wish it ain't so, but that doesn't change the facts.
You have presented no "facts" - merely bare assertions and highly idiosyncratic personal interpretations.
Does that make it true?
You say that he has "promulgated documents" contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics.
Ballamand Agreement, Catholic Lutheran Accord and the Catechism (which had to be recalled shortly after publication).
You have presented no "facts" - merely bare assertions and highly idiosyncratic personal interpretations.
... you have presented no facts that demonstrate that he is Pope. I'm still waiting....
"You say that he has 'promulgated documents' contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics."
Be honest. You'd be the first to condemn any proofs by Catholics that the Pope is not orthodox. You ask for proofs, but when they are presented you invent defenses for the indefensible. You even say the burden of proof is not on the Holy Father nor on "loyal Catholics." In other words, proving this alone is enough to damn us as disloyal.
The reason for this is simple: you use the pope as the measure for what is actually Catholic, not the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church. If you would use Catholic Tradition itself, you would be as scandalized by some of these statements and actions of the Pontiff as the rest of us. But instead you make excuses and claim we are disloyal. Wake up, wideawake, and smell the coffee!