.

Well, in theory this might be arguable, but this guy Bugnolo is just a well-known crank, so I wouldn't entertain the idea of this being valid anyway. A claim like this would have to come from someone who could be considered at least a sane human being before this conversation even gets to first base, in my opinion.

Right ... that's all I'm saying is that, unlike me declaring my home the new Vatican because my family voted me in, "in theory this might be arguable".  That is not to say I believe it'll pan out, since there are just too many problems with it, and there may be more when the details come out.  Can there ever be Universal Acceptance?  MAYBE, but only if it's some extremely well-known figure, such as a +Vigano (which I highly doubt), or some other well-known Traditional bishop, or if the newly-"elected" worked miracles or performed some other signs that gave him at least some credibility ... but it would have to be combined with an apostasy from Prevost that's so egregious that even the R&R popesplainers could not longer avoid the conclusion that he's not hte Pope.  Overall, though, naturally speaking, entirely unlikely.  THEN ... who were the electors?  Yes, yes ... the clergy of Rome could elect a Pope given the near-total defection of Cardinals from the faith ... but who ACTUALLY voted and how do they qualify as Roman clergy.  Clergy who just happened to be IN Rome are not Roman clergy.  Who appointed them as Roman clergy ... especially for those who don't limit SV to Bergoglio and Prevost, who believe that the see has been Vacant since 1958/1962?  This just can't fly in practice, but at least it's based on SOME principles that are in and of themsleves not entirely un-credible.