As was briefly discussed
here, 61 year SVism leads to what could be called "ecclesia-vacantism", and EVism is heretical. Therefore, if not heretical itself, the thesis that the See of Peter has been vacant for 61 years, is at least proximate to heresy. Here's a recap of the syllogism.
Major: Only a Pope can appoint Bishops to sees/dioceses. Minor: SVism says there has been no Pope for 61 years. Conclusion: Therefore, no diocesan Bishop has been appointed for 61 years. A closer look at
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html reveals that the Corollary has to be changed to,
Corollary: There are no diocesan Bishops appointed by any Pope, per 61 year SVism.Why? Because that single Bishop, Archbishop Emeritus Bernardino, was only consecrated a Titular in 1958, but appointed only in 1960. Thus, he would have been appointed by, according to sedes, "the manifestly heretical antipope (MHA) John XXIII".From:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html Abp. Benardino only became an Ordinary in December 1960.
How will sede-vacantists evade the conclusion that straight sedevacantism, now in 2019, manifestly leads to EVism and is therefore heretical? A careful reflection shows plainly and without any doubt to any believing Catholic that it is not possible for there to be no Popes indefinitely - otherwise even a 100 or a 1000 year vacancy is possible, and the See could have been vacant since the 11th century or so, like Ibranyi believes. So what is the "term limit" on an interregnum? Plainly that all Bishops appointed to a diocese or an office by the last Pope could not have died off before the new Pope is elected. Also, according to theologians, these Ordinaries have to pass judgment, that the See is declared vacant, before it becomes binding on the Church, and before the process to elect a new Pope.
So how can this be done? Why didn't sedevacantists write to the earlier Ordinaries and ask them to convene in Council before this happened? You surely had decades to do so, so why didn't you all seize the opportunity before it became late?
A possible objection may be: well, even those appointed by a manifestly heretical antipope could receive ordinary jurisdiction.The problem is, the objection is contrary to one of the sede's own sources for sede-vacantism, namely
cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio.
"
each and all of their words, deeds, actions and
enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be
without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;" Note the words, "each and all of their ... enactments ... shall be without force and grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone". What follows? That all those appointed by the MHA neither any stable authority, nor any right to rule in any form.
Text taken from the Sede Site Daily Catholic:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htmTherefore, if the Church requires diocesan Bishops to have continued to be appointed, and She does, the last 6 Popes were really Popes.