I don't get why these particular Sedes make such a big deal about these last 10 bishops...
We have plenty of valid bishops alive today. What's the problem? Do these particular Sedes have issues with consecrating without a papal mandate or something? A rather funny position for a sedevacantist to have...
Sounds like a "home aloner" group to me. This is how home-aloners justify that the Church hasn't failed. "It hasn't failed. These 10 bishops are still the hierarchy. I just can't get to any of their Masses, so I stay home."
Like I said -- I'm not wishing for evil or anything, but it will be helpful once these bishops have gone on to their reward. Then these home-aloners won't have any excuses to cling to. They will be forced to admit they were wrong, or that the Church has completely failed and the end of the world hasn't come.
THAT is what I look forward to.
This is interesting. May I inquire to what group of 'sedes' you are referring?
I might hazard a guess that a line is being drawn at the introduction of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, making then a distinction between Bishops consecrated before and after this event. These ten, then, that are here identified, being somehow distinct from Bishops, licit or illicit, consecrated in this same rite, either with or without papal mandate.
SO lets make some top-level grouping of the living Bishops:
1. The ten Bishops listed above.
2. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
2a. Bishops Fellay, Galarreta, Mallerais , and Williamson
2b. Bishop Rangel
3. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin
3a. Bishops Lauriers, Carmona-Rivera, Hernandez (all deceased)
3b. Bishops McKenna, Munari, Gutiérez, Hillebrand, Pivarunas
3c. Bishops Bedingfeld, Oravec, Slupski, Sanborn, Vezelis, Miguet, Main, Dolan, Gandara
Please add to the list where information is available.