The Resistance does not have any jurisdiction, so why it bothering you now about sedevacantis not having jurisdiction? 

The Resistance make it public that they (Resistance clergy) refuse any jurisdiction coming from Rome until they (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops) convert.

I've been SSPX (20 years) and Resistance (2012) and I've read a lot about the errors of Vatican II and the last few popes.  In a nutshell, sedevacantism is looking more and more legitimate because it addresses the issue of Indefectibility.  But how does it work with jurisdiction?  I think this is the last piece of the puzzle that doesn't make any sense or maybe I haven't come across that yet.  Does it solve or how does it solve the problem of jurisdiction?  Or is there anything else I should look into as well?  Feels like a big leap so just trying to understand it right.

DR, I agree that for the Church to be indefectible it "requires a hierarchy with power of jurisdiction."

The question is what must this "hierarchy" and "jurisdiction" look like.

1. Is it necessary that it look like the institutional apparatus circa 1960 AD in the Roman Catholic Church?

2. Or is it sufficient that it look like the institutional apparatus circa 33 AD in the early Church?

If you say #1, then it would seem that you are saying that the Church in the days after Pentecost was not the Church. Do you see the problem there?

In my opinion, the true Church at the end of the age (just before the Second Coming) will be very much like the true Church was at its beginning.

At that time, there were 11 bishops/priests (before the election of Matthias). There was no Canon Law and a certain degree of confusion about many things that were only clarified much later in the Church's history.

As I said elsewhere, "the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc."

As I said elsewhere, "the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc."

Decem outlined clearly what is meant by a hierarchy with jurisdiction, and it is not fulfilled by the sede model whatsoever.  There is no power to make laws, enforce liturgical norms, etc.  The appeal to the end days is an admission that the sede theory is necessarily an end-times-cult theory, which should be a red flag to anyone who knows Church History and the injunctions of Christ concerning predicting the end.  One's ecclesiological model cannot depend upon the assumption that we are in the end times, for we do not know when these times will come.  Moreover, the Church is defined as indefectible not merely until the end times, but until the end itself.  It has now been 70 years of these supposed "end times" to  which the sedes appeal in order to justify a contradictory position.

Even if one were to allow the theory that the entire Church structure could revert back to as it was in the beginning, the date would have to be after the death of the last Apostle, not 33 AD.  This is because the revelation of the New Testament was not yet complete.  This is very important, because history shows clearly that there were bishops with sees (ordinary jurisdiction) at this time.  Vatican 1 also declares that the model of papal supremacy detailed in its docuмents (universal ordinary jurisdiction, infallibility, indefectibility of the Roman See, etc) was in place since the beginning. In short, you cannot claim the early Church lacked ordinary jurisdiction as the sedes do.

Also, the appeal to there being "a certain amount of confusion" in the early days does not justify outright contradictions and a defected Church. Furthermore, whatever "confusion" you refer to innthe early Church was capable of being settled by bishops and synods with authority.  This does not exist in the sede model, and can never exist again.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

...towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament. However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse.

First, show me where I said this current band of usurpers have true jurisdiction. Here, I’ll  save you some time: I never said they did.

It’s virtually impossible to engage with you. You do not respond to what is actually written. In this instance, you imagine I was defending the current den of thieves, and heard or rather read something in accord with one presenting such a defense, and spoke to that imaginary argument.

You’re a dummy sitting on the lap of an idiot, who speaks to a bugbear in his mind.

There should be in a padded cell “forum” here for you: we could call it the island, or forum, of abandoned thought.