There is NO WAY that sedevacantists and sedeprivationists will ever agree on what constitutes accepting..."a 100% orthodox pope." It's just not possible. Both groups have their hard-core adherents who condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their views. And if a possible 100% orthodox pope doesn't completely line up with their views in all respects, then he will no doubt be a heretic, according to them. There's no going back, once you've completely cut yourself off from the Pope. You'll not be able to think again like a Catholic, when it comes to the papacy. You're too far removed from it, and for too long.

And then there are those sedevacantists who have this idea that the Pope becomes a divine being when he is validly elected, or nearly so. He's no longer just a man, but rather he is infused with divine knowledge or enlightenment or something like that, so that he can't possibly ever err. Maybe it's just a few sedes and sedeprivationists who think this way, but they exist. It seems rather gnostic to me.

So, when I spoke just now of bad-willed blockheads, this is precisely what I was speaking of.  Every line of this entails some slanderous distortion of the sedevacantist position.  Will there be handful of the more radical dogmatic sedevacantists who will hold out?  Certainly.  But the vast majority would fall into line when the identity of a true pope becomes clear and universally accepted by the Church.  One could argue, on the other hand, from the false non-Catholic sensibilities created among some R&R that they will become the liberal Catholics of the future, those who see fit to judge and criticize every teaching short of infallibly defined that emanates from the Holy See?

Have SOME of the more radical sedevacantists exaggerated the scope of infallibility?  Yes.  Have SOME / MOST of R&R minimized infallibility and the requirement to submit and give internal assent to all the teachings of the Holy See directed to the Universal Church?  Absolutely.  One of the first things this new Pope would have to do would be to condemn the false principles held by both sedevacantists and R&R.

Maintaining charity, I agree, but not uniting the clans.  Sedes and R&R do not share the same doctrine.

Agreed.  There are serious theological differences in their core ecclesiology that will have to be resolved by the future Pope.  Proposing that they put aside such differences comes from the standpoint of an effeminate "false irenicism".

The full blown sedevacantist and the full blown R + R disagree on the doctrne of the papacy, almost always.  That's really the biggest difference, it seems to me.

But the problem is there are variations of each position.  For instance, the dogmatic R + R would say its objectively a grave matter to have anything less than absolute certainty of Francis' pontificate.  But someone could also be R and R and still think the Church *could* eventually determine that these men weren't real popes, or something like that.  Someone could take the position that we don't and can't know whether they're legitimate.  Etc.

Indeed, there's an entire range of opinions with many nuances.  One of the greatest disservices that has happened in the interests of truth is this establishment of TWO camps ... not unlike the two false political parties forced down everyone's throat in the United States.  There's an entire range of opinions between the two extremes, but this labeling of people as belonging to one of two positions has caused much harm.  It causes a radicalization of the two extremes and tends to push everything in between towards one of the two extreme poles.

What the future pope will need to do is to condemn all the erroneous propositions floating around out there to re-calibrate everyone's sensus Catholicus to where it should be.

I've always found this a beneficial exercise.  Pretend that I am a simple Catholic, intent on remaining faithful to the Church, and devoted to the Holy See, living during the reign of St. Pius X.  What is my attitude to the Holy See?  When the Pope issues an Encyclical letter to the entire Church, what is the attitude with which I receive it?  This idea that, "oh, no, here comes another Bergoglio recyclical" and "I'm not going to waste my time reading that crap" would be utterly abhorrent to a Catholic who had developed such sensibilities.  That is simply not a Catholic attitude.  So we have all had our sense of the faith damaged by this Vatican II horror.

Obviously that would be bad.  At the LEAST the normal posture would be assuming the best and attempting to assent, and if you can’t do so to a particular point, doing so humbly and respectfully.
But clearly SOMETHING unusual is afoot 

Too often people get caught up in arguments (especially on Cathinfo, Lad and Johnson I’m taking about you) about R&R vs sede. The reality is however, that we all have the same goal in mind, we all agree that the v2 claimants are heretics, we all agree that V2 and the new mass is abominable. And on top of that we all want the church to be restored and I feel that everyone on this forum (except some hardcore dimond fans) would accept a 100% orthodox pope. I think we should take it easy on the mudslinging because we agree on everything but 1 insignificant detail (the pope question). It is insignificant in hindsight because whether or not bergollio is a legit pope has no weight on our salvation, as we all agree he Will be condemned in the future. If tomorrow, a Pope st Pius X was to elected by the cardinals and immediately anathematized anyyhung after 1958, removed all the cardinals, removed all the liberal and homo clergy, welcomed the SSPX, cmri, sspv, resistance, I’m sure we all would be more than happy to call him pope. More importantly, how do you think a conservative novus ordo who’s considering coming to tradition feels when they see such fighting?  When they see the fighting, they read and accept idiots like Michael Matt who says to avoid the SSPX and similar groups. They become Taylor Marshall fssp and make no progress on their pathway to heaven.

Did you mean Michael Voris?  I’ve never heard Michael Matt say to avoid the sspx