Yes, if sede-ism was actually true, they would have correctly elected a Pope decades ago, and he would have received universal acceptance. The Pope receiving universal acceptance in the Church is the work of the Holy Ghost. When God does not approve of an election, He will not give UA.

Here's why the situation doesn't resolve for the sedes: Only the Roman Clergy strictly have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. But only the Roman Pontiff can appoint or incardinate Roman Clergy, among whom the Cardinals are the chief. Thus, the sedes are looking for Roman Clergy incardinated into the Roman Church to whom they can say "you are the electors of the Pope". But all those electors recognize the Pope. +ABL said, "The subsequent unanimous acceptance of the Cardinals and the Roman Clergy suffices to validate it (the Papal election). That is the teaching of theologians". So, sede-ism will go nowhere until they have Roman Clergy, which they don't.

The very fact that all the Roman Clergy recognize the recent Popes should be, as +ABL said, a sufficient proof that they are the Popes.

Next, some sedes will claim, if the Roman Clergy don't elect, then - supposedly - any group of Bishops, even vagrant Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction - again supposedly - can get together and elect. This too leads to stalemate, because no one knows who these Bishops are, how many there should be, what agreement is sufficient etc. And all that besides the fact that the SSPV, CMRI etc don't work together and SSPV believes CMRI and Thuc line orders to be invalid. If Christianity depended on sede-ism, Christianity would end.

All this because of simple unwillingness to accept the Dogma of Perpetual Papal Successors and acknowledge the plain fact that the Popes have truly been Popes.

All Catholics are “conclavists” during a sede vacante.  There is no other way to obtain a pope.  Unbelievable that you would mock sedes for not electing a pope and then minutes later accuse them of schism for discussing an election.  

Yes.  But of course the first thing they all would have to agree on is that the Chair is in fact Empty (aka sedevacantism).  

Claudel-

I expect a long, loquacious diatribe about Clemens' profanity.

Oh yes, I definitely mock the schismatics.

You should definitely, to be consistent, elect a fake pope.

It only highlights your disguised schismatic mentality, which sometimes needs to be provoked out of you (as in this instance).

You know Sean, I think you should forget about this forum and just obey the advice of your “pope”, on religious matters of course, kinda like this guy:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/italys-national-soccer-team-manager-pope-francis-told-me-not-to-make-sign-of-the-cross-on-the-field-video/


I believe schism consists in the refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal to be united to other Catholics in union with him. I refuse to recognize a non Catholic heretic as a pope, thus I’m not subject to him. But to you, he IS the pope, and you refuse to be subject to him! Sad case indeed!

Ahh, the sede-mantra:

“If he is pope, you must obey!”

No, the defection problem is clearly in favor of the sedevacantists.  Church continues during the vacancy of the Holy See; true defection happens when the Church fails in her mission.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Who cares if the hierarchy continues on materially if this hierarchy can lead the entire Church into error?  We'd be better off without such a hierarchy.

No, ecclesiavacantism is not merely the disappearance of a pope, but of any and every clerical authority in the Church...thereby making restoration impossible, and therefore the failure of the Church.