Oh, by the way, Banezian, since you mentioned that you're studying Classics.

I took 4 years of Latin and 3 of Greek in High School.

Then I got a full Classics scholarship to Loyola University of Chicago.  I graduated with double major in Greek and Latin, and one class short in "Classical Civilization" (because I left after 3 years to enter St. Thomas Aquinas seminary).  I also had minors in Philosophy, Theology, and Mathematics.

After I left the seminary, I got a full ride to The Catholic University of America (based on my GRE scores), and did all the coursework necessary for the Ph.D. in Greek and Latin.  I went there because of the emphasis on Patristics (at least through the M.A. level).  Unfortunately, the exam requirements were so onerous that I never finished the degree.  You basically had to test on a reading list that was twice as large as the typical ones because you had an entire Patristic list in addition to a Classical list that was just as big as at most other Classics programs.

That it COULD occur may be the case in an extreme situation ( where all the Cardinals die for example) but to assume that we are at that point now is ridiculous.

If sedes do assume we are at that point, then the logical step is for the sede bishops to go ahead and elect their own Pope. Why won’t they?  This reminds me of a conversation I had with Fr. Peek a few months ago. He rightly pointed out that Sedevacantism is a “dead-end” position. If it’s true, where does one go from there? Sedeprivationism can at least give a coherent answer and an idea for the future. 

Look into taking some logic courses at University.  Of course this applies.  You stated that if there were no Pope or Cardinals, the Church is finished and you'd go become Orthodox.  Bellarmine posits the situation where there's no Pope and all the Cardinals have "perished simultaneously."  Obviously this applies to your argument.

I was saying it doesn’t apply to the current situation. 

And if for 60 years we've had an unreliable Magisterium, thoroughly corrupted and contaminaed with error, and a Universal Discipline, Rite of Mass, that displeases God, then how is the Church not "dead"?

http://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. 
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.