The only "religion" applicable should be simply Catholicism. The tricky part is that events of the past 50+ years have blurred and confused just what exactly that is. When I was born (1958, while Pope Pius XII was still alive), everyone positively knew what a Catholic was, regardless of whether they agreed with Catholicism or not. If a person merely claimed to be a Catholic that claim could pretty much be taken at face value. God, I miss those days!
But I do note that there has always been room for discussion and disagreement on specific topics upon which the Church has not pronounced, even where the answer to a question might be objectively contained in Divine Revelation. Every facet of the Novus Ordo religion which in any way sets it apart from traditional Catholicism has already been condemned (admittedly in varying degrees) by the various Popes of the Church, and classically a Catholic was defined by a number of specifically visible characteristics, worship at the Catholic Mass, no meat on Fridays, prayers to saints, and so forth. By that standard Novus Ordo followers are not visibly Catholics, which is not to say that there wouldn't be at least some among them who are "Catholic-at-heart," justified before God but handicapped by invincible ignorance, in the same category as some sincere Protestants.
But traditional Catholics must all be regarded as Catholics, for they show themselves visibly to be so, regardless of their opinions on things the Church has not ruled on. Van Noort, in his Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 127-128 writes "For as long as there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church about some point or other, even though it may perchance be contained objectively in the sources of revelation, it can be freely discussed without any detriment to the unity of the faith, provided that all the disputants are ready to bow to a decision of the Church's teaching office, should one be forthcoming. Obviously the unity of faith does not extend beyond the limits of the rule of faith."
Though it is trivially demonstrable that, given the known history of our ecclesial circumstances during and since Vatican II, the Sede Vacante finding is "contained objectively in the sources of revelation," the fact remains that "there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church" confirming this finding. I flatly disagree with the thought that "Francis I" can be considered to be a real Roman Catholic Pope, a Successor of Peter, the rule and guide of our Faith, in any sense whatsoever, whether legal, visible, ceremonial, figurehead, material, or even by "common error, and I am quite prepared to prove that such a view absolutely has to be the Church's ruling, once one is to be made." But I gladly receive as my full brother (or sister) in Christ any traditional Catholic, whatever the stripe, as he practices the Faith of his (or her) baptism visibly and fully as a Catholic, in the sense that everyone could visibly recognize a Catholic on the day of my birth.