“Only the College of Cardinals can elect a pope”

The College of Cardinals didn’t exist for the first 800 years of the Church’s existence and they were not the sole electors of the pope until the 12th century.  Clearly it is not by Divine law/institution that they are so now.  So it is by the Church’s disciplinary law that only the Cardinals can elect the pope.  But a disciplinary law has no force in cases where necessity dictates an act contrary to the law.  e.g. exceeding the speed limit to rush an injured person to the hospital.

On the other hand, that the hierarchy is solely responsible for the election of the pope is by Divine institution.  So that law can not be violated under any circuмstances.

As you mentioned, and no one would disagree, an imperfect General Council can elect a pope.  But you also say that only the jurisdictional hierarchy can convoke a General Council.  Can you provide a reference for that?  Not that I have never heard that before but I have never seen a pre-Vatican 2 reference for it.

It certainly isn’t required that the electors of the pope must have ordinary jurisdiction because otherwise how is it that the pope was elected in the past by the local clergy of Rome?

“as we know that it is impossible that the Church is left without possible electors of the [Pope].”

Yes because the Church is a perfect society.  And a perfect society contains within itself everything necessary to fulfill its mission.  But the Novus Ordo is not within the Church.  So the notion that the legitimate electors are non-Catholic members of the Vatican 2 sect would place the electors (necessary for the continuation of the Church) outside the Church.  The material designation wouldn’t put them inside the Church. Because a manifest heretic is outside the Church.

When I use the term Roman clergy I mean to include all the members (clerics) of the local diocese of Rome including the Cardinals, the auxiliary bishops, the priests, deacons, subdeacons, porters, etc as defined by the canon which you quoted.

You asked who can reverse disciplinary law?  In cases of necessity a disciplinary law does not bind and the authority to elect the pope devolves to the highest existing authority in the hierarchy of the Church.  These types of scenarios were contemplated by pre-Vatican 2 theologians and as far as I know I’m not proposing a novel point of view.  Maybe it’s not a popular view but I didn’t make anything up.  I’m basing my view on what pre-Vatican 2 theologians have written.

Finally, I disagree that there are no traditional Catholic clerics in Rome.  I’m sure Fr Abramovitz knows better than I. Msgr Fenton and Msgr Van Noort both speculated about the possibility that a nuclear war could wipe out whole dioceses and even possibly all of them except the Roman See.  It has been asserted by many theologians that the Roman See will always have at least some faithful living there or at least associated with the See even if they might be in exile.  Of course it is dogma that the Holy See will never fail but to what level it can be reduced is not clear.

Regarding Papal elections, the authority remains in the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X, in 1904.  See # 17. "the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". All others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have.

Even if you wanted to argue as Clemens Maria said, that this Decree belongs to the realm of Disciplinary Law and could potentially be reversible, who could reverse it? Only a legitimate Pope has the authority necessary to abrogate a disciplinary Constitution of a previous Pope. In this case, Pius X, an unquestionable legitimate successor of St. Peter.

I know this is not what you or I want to hear, but it is what it is. Even conclavists must admit it, and they can become rather pathetic really fast (think Pope Michael). Reality does not go away just because we wish to. We, Catholic laywomen, personally don't need to be "waiting" for anything. What we need to do is saving our souls on a daily basis.

So basically the Novus Ordo sect gets to hold the authority of the Catholic Church hostage until...... ? 

There are quite a lot of Cardinals. It's still a mass conversion.

The number of "Cardinals" compared to the rest of the "episcopacy" and clerics in the Novus Ordo is much less. You're using the term "mass" (as in large) loosely, when a true mass conversion would be the conversions of the far higher number of "bishops" and priests outside of the "cardinalate", which is exactly what you implied because you misread what was posted by Cantarella. Just own your mistake.

The power of DESIGNATION remains under their control.  What's the alternative?  Pope Michael, who was elected pope by his mother and ex girlfriend?

According to the principles of sedeprivationism, if Francis were to convert tomorrow, with a miraculous vision turning him into a new St. Pius X, the crisis is over.  What is sedevacantism's answer?  Thuc bishops gather and elect a new Pope?  In fact, why haven't they done it already?  Oh, wait, some have.  Good luck having the Universal Church accept that election.

Yes, it does seem unlikely at the moment but it’s the duty of the hierarchy to provide the Church with a pope so not holding an election is not an option.  The question isn’t whether it should be done or not but how it should be done such that there can be no reasonable objection by the existing clergy.
That the Novus Ordo sect possesses the power of designation does not in my opinion qualify as a reasonable objection.

That was probably long before the Ecuмenical Second Lateran Council in 1139 defined that the entire election of the Pope belonged exclusively to the Cardinals. Also, that the choice of Pope is left to the Cardinals, was re-affirmed in the Third Lateran Council (also Ecuмenical) in 1179, when it decreed "he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the Cardinals."

There was a controversy in the Middle Ages (I may have some of the details wrong but I think I have the gist of it here) where someone was accusing a pope of having gained the papacy by conspiring with a group of Cardinals to manipulate the election.  Which would have been a violation of the electoral law.  But theologians agreed that even if the law had been violated if the Cardinals and the bishops accepted the results, it was a legitimate election and the man elected was truly the pope.  If that election was valid, how much more valid would it have been if the violation of the law was necessary for the election to even take place?  So yes, the current law says that only the Cardinals can be electors but there are no members of the Church who are Cardinals so obviously the law cannot bind.  That’s a basic principle of law.  Look it up.

Do you really think Our Lord would allow the Lavender Mafia to designate the pope much less elect one?  They aren’t just a bunch of wayward men.  They are an organized religion consisting of an estimated 80% perverts who think child molestation is just boys being boys.  If they professed the Apostolic faith this crisis would be their fault.  But as it is they do not profess the Apostolic faith, they are not in communion with one another much less in communion with the saints. They have banal, unholy rites.  Their orders are not valid never mind holy.  They are not catholic because no saint from previous centuries would recognize their doctrine nor their liturgies.  You might as well assert that the devil himself has the power to designate.  I find that to be absurd.

XavierSem, hope you are practicing making acts of perfect contrition.  Your priests, if they aren’t already invalid will soon be.