.

The problem with your position is that you are claiming there is a contradiction between the teaching of Pius XII and the Council of Florence, and the teaching of the theologians who taught baptism of desire and of blood. There is no such contradiction. You are the one who is in error, since the Church does not contradict herself.

If baptism of desire and blood were heretical, as you claim, none of the Doctors of the Church who taught it (which is all of them) would ever have been made Doctors of the Church, since the Church does not proclaim heretics to be Doctors of the Church.

Act of Faith

...I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because you have revealed them who are eternal truth and wisdom,

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943.

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence

"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

... due to their rejection of Catholic teaching through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium on Baptism of Desire and of Blood.

Thats a nice selfie, Elwin. I wouldnt have wanted to dox you, but I see now youve done so yourself.

Lol. Will address the arguments subsequently.

Oh goodie.  Fresh anti-sede blood.

Yet another idiotic false dilemma / dichotomy fallacy.  There's Apostolicity of Orders (which not only the "sedes" but also the other Traditional Catholics but even the Eastern Orthodox possess), though it's doubtful whether the Novus Ordo have valid Orders, and there's Apostolicity of mission, the Apostolicity of Faith, and the Apostolicity of Mission.  We're obviously in a Great Apostasy now, but even during the Arian crisis anywhere from between 97-99% of "episcopal sees" were in the hands of Arians.  Meanwhile, "rogue" bishops like St. Athanasius and a few others went around consecrating Catholic bishops in Sees that had been usurped/occupied by the Arians.  Which bishop had the true Apostolicity, the ones with or the ones without the Catholic faith?  First and foremost requirement for Apostolicity is the Tradition of Faith, then of Orders, and only third that of of Mission (aka ordinary jurisdiction).  Why the Order?  Because you can't have Apostolic Mission without Apostolic Orders and Apostolic Faith.  Then, even if you have Apostolicity of Orders, you can't have true Apostolicity without Apostolicity of Faith.  Thus, the bishops consecrated by St. Athanasius had a greater claim to Apostolicity than the Arian usurpers, who acquired their Sees "legitimately" or by the ordinary process.

Faith: Traditional Catholics
Orders:  Traditional Catholics, Eastern Orthodox
Mission: [Novus Ordo]

NO is in brackets because they have a material continuity with the "Mission", and yet they cannot have true Mission because they don't have the True Faith, and only very doubtfully have valid Orders.

Nor does this have anything to do with the R&R vs. "sede" debate, as you're deliberately trying to create a division, since neither R&R nor "sedes" have the Apostolicity of Mission.

At some point, you'll need to decloak your true agenda, because it's becoming exposed bit by bit.  I doubt you're even a Traditional Catholic, but are here to cause division on points that all Traditional Catholics agree about.

In any case, all jurisdiction derives from the Pope, but even in ordinary sedevacante periods, with there being no pope in actuality (vs. in potency), the Church goes into a holding pattern where no new episcopal appointments are made (except in necessity during periods of long SV, and they need to be affirmed by the Pope that follows).  Nearly all theologians hold that jurisdiction derives from Christ to the Pope and then from the Pope to the bishops, though a minority hold that Christ supplies it directly to the bishops in some capacity.  But, in either case, whatever jurisdiction there is during regular periods of SV is supplied directly by Christ to the Church (lol) and is supplied to whatever extent is necessary to keep the Church functioning.  So, in other words, priests continue to have jurisdiction to hear Confessions, and bishops jurisdiction to perform whatever is necessary to keep their dioceses functioning.  Christ is actually the Head of the Church, and the Pope merely His vicar or stand-in, so in times of SV, Christ will supply the degree or level of jurisdiction / mission to Catholics who retain the true faith as is necessary for the salvation of souls until the Crisis is resolved.

So, we see the End Times are peculiar.

This illustrates you are ignorant of the subject, and hold to confused Gallican/Old Catholic ideas on it. Cardinal Franzelin says: "Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant."