After reading the below article, I had questions that I would like to see if anyone has an answer:

1. When a man is elected Pope, but is not priests or a bishop, would he still receive the full power of priests and bishop as a nature of being elected or would there be a rite of ordination and concertation given to him by one of the cardinals as part of the ceremony of election? ( I wan under the impression that being elected Poe makes you priests and bishop automatically with out any additional Rite).
2. Would the automatic Rite of ordination/ consecration be always assumed to be some specific Rite of the past or the current Rite at the time of election?

https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2020/01/19/the-illogic-of-accepting-a-doubtful-pope-as-true-pope/

The Illogic of Accepting a Doubtful Pope as True Pope

There are Catholics who claim that the Novus Ordo Rites of the sacraments are at least doubtfully¹ valid.  Whether due to the matter, form, minister, and/or intention, they advise us to stay away.  However, what these same Catholics don’t do is apply their reasoning to the man they accept as pope, Jorge Bergoglio.  In this, they are being illogical.  Let me explain.

In order for a man elected by the cardinals to be invested with the full powers given by Jesus Christ to the office of the papacy, he must be a valid bishop.  The pope, by definition, is the Bishop of Rome.  In the case of Jorge Bergoglio, he was consecrated a bishop in the Novus Ordo Rite.  Therefore, for those Catholics who claim that the Novus Ordo Rites are at least doubtfully valid, they must hold Jorge Bergoglio as a doubtful pope.  Here is the reasoning in syllogistic format:
Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.

 But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
 Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.  However, many implicitly reason like this:
Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.

 But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
 Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is certainly a true pope.

Do you see the logical error?  The conclusion can never be more certain than the least certain premise.  Nevertheless, this is how they reason!  No.  They cannot have their cake and eat it too.  They must properly reason and then be honest and admit, “Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful true pope.”² They cannot even claim that it is their opinion that Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope.

What must they do, then?  Well, if they sincerely believe that Jorge Bergoglio was validly elected, then they should demand that he be consecrated in the Traditional Rite.  Until then, they should withhold their submission to him.  Otherwise, they would not be certain that anything he does in the exercise of papal or episcopal power would be valid.  However, the thing they must absolutely not do is speak and act like they are certain that he has papal jurisdiction over them and all other Catholics.

Ratzinger was consecrated in the New Rite as well.

After reading the below article, I had questions that I would like to see if anyone has an answer:

1. When a man is elected Pope, but is not priests or a bishop, would he still receive the full power of priests and bishop as a nature of being elected or would there be a rite of ordination and concertation given to him by one of the cardinals as part of the ceremony of election? ( I wan under the impression that being elected Poe makes you priests and bishop automatically with out any additional Rite).

There is a distinction between the power of order and jurisdiction.  The power or order always requires ordination/consecration.  It is a sacramental act that imprints a character on the soul.  The power of jurisdiction is simply a moral power (authority) that a person receives to perform an act.  
So, to answer your question, I believe it is correct to say a layman elected Pope would receive the full power or jurisdiction the moment he accepts to office, but he would have to be ordained/consecrated before he could exercise all of the powers that his supreme jurisdiction has bestowed upon him.

Actually, the issue hasn't been understood correctly. Dogmatic fact not only establishes that the Roman Pontiff currently possesses supreme jurisdiction in act over the whole Church Universal, but moreover, when it is verified, it is an infallible sign that he is the currently reigning Bishop of Rome. This appear in the Theologians which Resistance Types and Sede-Vacantists have read, but not read carefully enough. E.g. "[Dogmatic  facts] include  things of this sort:  that  the  Sacred  Scrip- tures  we use are  genuine;  that  the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, etc.  were  legitimate;  that  Pius IX, Leo  XIII,  etc.  were  elected  legitimately  and  consequently were  legitimate successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome.  Just see what would result if you would let any of these things be called into doubt.  Defini- tions issued during Councils would not have certainty. There  would be no  sure  way  of  determining  the center  of Catholic  unity.  In  short, what would result is the uprooting of faith itself and the destruction of Rev- elation." http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sifting.htm#_ftn9 Yes, well said, Ladislaus. That was his article. The citation is from Fr. Hunter, in Compendium of Dogmatic Theology, a text we've independently seen on this forum before also. And there are other Theologians who state this as well, not only regarding Papal Jurisdiction, but their having known to have become Bishops as well. Now, here's how the Syllogism would go, once the 2005 election transpired and the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI became a dogmatic fact - by this fact itself, independent of all other considerations, it necessarily follows as a mutually interconnected dogmatic fact that Pope Benedict XVI was the validly reigning Bishop of Rome.

Major: Pope Benedict XVI's election became dogmatic fact in 2005 so that he was known to be reigning as Pope.
Minor: One currently known to be reigning as Pope must not only be in possession of jurisdiction but orders also.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI's election, post 2005, also proved infallibly that he was a valid Bishop.
Corollary: Therefore, after 2005, all doubts must cease or become heretical. The new rite is now infallibly valid.

This is why Rev. Fr. Pierre Marie's study, from the Dominicans of Avrille, was both Providential and timely. It was pubished in 2007 I believe.

In Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy, after more carefully examining the evidence from Eastern Tradition, the issue was settled even otherwise.

But this one consideration alone is sufficient. A man has been elected Bishop and received consecration. He has been accepted as Her Archbishop both by the Roman Church and as the Archbishop of the Roman Archdiocese or Roman Pontiff by the Universal Church. He certainly possesses the supreme jurisdiction in act, and is now infallibly known to possess valid orders as well - such that it would now, after the Teaching Church's judgment in accepting his election, be heretical to doubt that the new rite is valid.

Actually, the issue hasn't been understood correctly. Dogmatic fact not only establishes that the Roman Pontiff currently possesses supreme jurisdiction in act over the whole Church Universal, but moreover, when it is verified, it is an infallible sign that he is the currently reigning Bishop of Rome. This appear in the Theologians which Resistance Types and Sede-Vacantists have read, but not read carefully enough. E.g. "[Dogmatic  facts] include  things of this sort:  that  the  Sacred  Scrip- tures  we use are  genuine;  that  the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, etc.  were  legitimate;  that  Pius IX, Leo  XIII,  etc.  were  elected  legitimately  and  consequently were  legitimate successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome.  Just see what would result if you would let any of these things be called into doubt.  Defini- tions issued during Councils would not have certainty. There  would be no  sure  way  of  determining  the center  of Catholic  unity.  In  short, what would result is the uprooting of faith itself and the destruction of Rev- elation." http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sifting.htm#_ftn9 Yes, well said, Ladislaus. That was his article. The citation is from Fr. Hunter, in Compendium of Dogmatic Theology, a text we've independently seen on this forum before also. And there are other Theologians who state this as well, not only regarding Papal Jurisdiction, but their having known to have become Bishops as well. Now, here's how the Syllogism would go, once the 2005 election transpired and the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI became a dogmatic fact - by this fact itself, independent of all other considerations, it necessarily follows as a mutually interconnected dogmatic fact that Pope Benedict XVI was the validly reigning Bishop of Rome.

Major: Pope Benedict XVI's election became dogmatic fact in 2005 so that he was known to be reigning as Pope.
Minor: One currently known to be reigning as Pope must not only be in possession of jurisdiction but orders also.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI's election, post 2005, also proved infallibly that he was a valid Bishop.
Corollary: Therefore, after 2005, all doubts must cease or become heretical. The new rite is now infallibly valid.

This is why Rev. Fr. Pierre Marie's study, from the Dominicans of Avrille, was both Providential and timely. It was pubished in 2007 I believe.

In Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy, after more carefully examining the evidence from Eastern Tradition, the issue was settled even otherwise.

But this one consideration alone is sufficient. A man has been elected Bishop and received consecration. He has been accepted as Her Archbishop both by the Roman Church and as the Archbishop of the Roman Archdiocese or Roman Pontiff by the Universal Church. He certainly possesses the supreme jurisdiction in act, and is now infallibly known to possess valid orders as well - such that it would now, after the Teaching Church's judgment in accepting his election, be heretical to doubt that the new rite is valid.

If a cardinal priest was elected to the papacy he wouldn’t posses the full papacy until he was consecrated. Just because Benedict was elected doesn’t mean his consecration was valid. Thts such a weak argument to prove the validity of the new rite

I am convinced that the so-called orders of the New Order are changed and not good.  They only install, no ordination.  The so-called pope had no orders. Not valid before or after being said to be pope.

XavierSem keeps dodging the implication of his assertion that the legitimacy of the V2 putative Popes is dogmatic fact, namely, that it would make Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic.

Good point. 
And it would without a doubt place the excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre in hell.