Quote from: Nonno

Totally wrong Caminus. The Catholic books say that a layman can be elected a pope. Do I have to repeat that? A layman can be elected, and a layman has no jurisdiction. The books say as soon as he accepts the election, he automatically obtains UNIVERSAL and full jurisdiction of a pope. That principle is at the heart of my whole scenario. UNIVERSAL and full jurisdiction is the source of all jurisdiction given to other bishops. He only has to point and nod to another bishop to give him ordinary jurisdiction of another defined territory, such as Iceland, etc.

Not to go off-topic, but no one can't. You can't be elected Pope if you aren't even ordained a priest. If you think anyone can be elected Pope, it only shows you're an extremist (probably Father C, who is an extremist) and should be kicked off this site. The definition of an extremist is mis-used by modernists. If they think people who support the Traditional Latin Mass are extremists, they haven't seen anything until they see people like CM and "Pope" Augustine II. Unfortunetly, you seem to fit that category as well.

For clarifications sake, a Laymen can be elected Pope by the College of Cardinals he is then ordained a Bishop by the laying of hands then he becomes Pope.

This has happened at least once hundreds of years ago.

Here is an excerpt from the article PAPAL ELECTIONS in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V (1294)"

LordPhan injected something else into my scenario that I did not say, in order to try and make it look disordered. Look again LordPhan, my scenario deliberately contains a bishop in order to retain the fullness of apostolic power inherent in a person. On the other hand, ordinary jurisdiction is not attached to a person, but to an office. Here is from A Catholic Dictionary:

"JURISDICTION, ORDINARY. That which is attached by the law itself to an ecclesiastical office."
"JURISDICTION, DELEGATED. Jurisdiction which is committed to a person and not attached to an office."

"APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. i. The authoritative and unbroken transmission of the mission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ on St. Peter and the Apostles from them to the present pope and bishops. ii. The uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles by the valid consecration of bishops and transmission of holy orders...."

Apostolic succession is retained both by there existing the office of the Bishopric of Rome (where ordinary & universal jurisdiction is attached), and the bishop in my scenario is validly ordained and consecrated.

It is known that bishops had been consecrated behind the Iron Curtain and in Mexico in the early 20th century, without papal mandate, because of the extremity of their situations - primarily not having access to communication with Rome, and the clergy being exterminated in those places. Those bishops were not condemned; they remained Catholic.

I can understand a layman being elected in emergency cases, but Nonno appears to be saying that laypeople can be elected Pope no matter what. That I take issue. If that's what you are saying Nonno, then do you believe "Pope" Michael (the "Pope" elected by the conclavists) to be validly elected and therefore a valid Pope?

Nope. That is why I included in my OP that the area of Rome was inhabitable, and that the inhabitants & clergy of that region did the voting. That's an essential. No emergency is needed. If the voters simply desire it, they desire it.