I have asked a few times if we can elect a Pope or if we have to wait for a miracle.  Griff has clarifies some objections.

Not trying offend anyone or hurt anyone's feelings:

What’s kind of funny is how they say on the one hand (have any clergy reviewed this) and yet they mention that when some unknown persons thought from my part 16 video that the CMRI was organizing a conclave when in fact I only said that they (together with all other traditional clergy) ought and need to organize a conclave, they wasted no time in making that clear, and it was rapidly brought to my attention so in response I added a disclaimer to that segment to the effect that:

Note: Recently, the CMRI posted a disclaimer regarding any plans for a conclave. While I cannot be certain that this is the video that may have inspired such a reaction, in case anyone has mistakenly inferred from my comments here or in this series that I claim that the CMRI or any other clergy are presently organizing a conclave or prepared to do that in the immediately foreseeable future, that is not what I have said. Obviously such a dramatic and significant step would require many more years of study on the part of our clergy (both CMRI and all other traditional Catholic clergy, who would all have to work together on this), for the relevant authority to be determined and steps taken. What I AM saying here is that I already have the benefit of knowing exactly what findings any serious inquiry into what authority and duty our clergy have towards this end is bound to reveal, once God in His Providence moves them to study this matter.

And of course there is also the mandate that no one was to discuss the “una cuм” issue, which we have abided by.  That nothing else of mine has provoked any clerical opposition suggests to me that, at least deep down, they must sense that there could be something  to it, and for the time being at least, seem content to see how any such discussions play out.  I keep presenting docuмentation that has them scurrying to look it up for themselves to see if it is really there (and it always is, for unlike so many others in these sorts of conversations I actually take the time to look things up), and those who continue to oppose me continue to look more and more like unconvertible characters with some sort of axe to grind.
 
They must really have to be scrounging for excuses to disbelieve in the practical existence of the Church in Her conspicuously Catholic clerics.  Now they are trying to smear me with Church condemnations against John Hus which have no connection to my position at all, but arguably something  of a connection (of sorts) to those who deny the authority of Catholic clerics.  This attack is easy enough to refute, in case anyone not see it already:
 

During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.

First, we need to stop right there.  Clearly, the Church does function in an imperfect circuмstance when there is a papal vacancy, but one cannot infer from this that all authority vanishes during such periods.  Most obviously, one thing the Church must possess and necessarily always does possess in such a period of a papal vacancy is the requisite authority to elect a new pope.  Ergo, the Church possesses such authority today.  To contend the opposite is to de-legitimize every pope since Peter himself.  But those who quote these things as seen in the recent blogs are in fact implying that upon the death of a pope, bishops all lose jurisdiction over their dioceses, parish priests all lose faculties over their parishes, Abbots and Abbesses all lose their authority within their religious orders, and in effect all of Canon Law ceases to be of any practical merit until the next pope somehow comes along.  Continuing:
 

Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).

I never claimed that the authority of our traditional clerics matches the authority of clerics during normal times of a Catholic papacy (perhaps I had not made that clear), but that the authority of our traditional clerics matches the authority of clerics during any time of a papal vacancy, up to and including that authority to elect a pope.  And that authority most certainly is quite real, as bishops do retain their authority (and explicit historical precedents exist to establish that even the creation of a succession of bishops bears apostolic authority) over their flocks, priests and other religious persons of authority retain their authority to continue to run their order as always.  It is unfortunate that the quote uses the term “acephalous” to describe the Church during times of a papal vacancy, since in all other contexts, an acephalous cleric is one with no standing with the Church.  Yes, in this one particular narrow usage, one would have to say that all Catholic clerics are acephalous in that they one and all have no pope (no matter how much some pretend they do).  But this is identical with the acephalous state of all clerics (in this strict and narrow sense) as found at all times of papal vacancy.  The traditional clerics of the lawful successions most certainly not acephalous in any other more ordinary and common usage of the term, namely in that sense applying to those without standing in the Church, namely schismatic, heretical, illicitly ordained, irregular, or vagrant clerics, in the canonical sense.
 
The further quotes seen about John Hus conspicuously have no bearing on the Sede Vacante finding since the issue is not that of someone taken to be a pope being wicked, but of them being outright conspicuously heretical, but these have been quite successfully refuted by other writers and for anyone to bring them up at this point can only be described as disingenuous.  The Church has always been dismissed as some abomination of desolation by heretics throughout all ages.