More perspectives on +Roy's call for discussion/meeting concerning the OP
starts @ 1:18:30
Completely disagree. Bishop Roy's thoughts are just a non-starter, dead in the water ... and it's precisely due to the same problem nearl all the Totalists have, an inexplicable inability to understand the distinction between those who are formally Catholic while possibly in material error, and there's where +Roy's false dichotomy regarding "well either that's the Church or this is" simply falls on its face. Even though Traditional Catholicism per se has the notes of the Church, it does not mean that there aren't very many (formal) Catholics who are simply in material error and who are therefore materially separated from Traditional Catholicism, and yet Catholic. He focused some on the Great Western Schism, but ... the True (Institutional) Church was with the actual legitimate pope, and yet all those in the other groups were still Catholic, even if materially separated from the True Institutional Church and the Pope.
And it's also the reason that Sedeprivationism simply "does not compute" for the Totalists.
That's strange since the material-formal distinction lies at the very heart of scholastic philosophy and then also theology.
And of course they engage in plausible deniability that "oh, well, Bishop Roy wasn't proposing that they get together and elect a pope." BS ... he most certainly was, or otherwise why even bring it up. He knew of course that it couldn't happen overnight, and so he realized that, practially speaking, it couldn't happen in the near future, but he definitely only raised the subject because he felt a desire or a need to push toward that as a goal. He even seemed to give some credence to the fake "Linus II" Assisi conclave ... which is scary that he appeared to be on the fence about whether to kiss the ring of Victor Von Pentz.