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.

27 Apr 1958	42.5	Ordained Bishop	Titular Bishop of Prusias ad Hypium
10 Dec 1960	45.2	Appointed	Bishop of Temuco, Chile

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.htm

Therefore, if the Church requires diocesan Bishops to have continued to be appointed, and She does, the last 6 Popes were really Popes.

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.

As you know, I hold that a material pope can appoint bishops, so this doesn't apply to my position.

But the issue here with this argument is that you would have to prove that Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are required to elect a Pope.  St. Robert Bellarmine held that an Imperfect Council could elect a Pope in an emergency, say if the entire Cardinalate were wiped out in a war ... since the Cardinalate is not of divine institution.  So the remaining bishops, whether ordinaries or not, could presumably gather in Council to elect a new Pope.  Said pope, by virtue of this designation, would be given authority by God, and then he in turn could appoint bishops to the various episcopal sees.

How will sede-vacantists evade the conclusion that straight sedevacantism, now in 2019, manifestly leads to EVism and is therefore heretical?

Whoa, slow down there, buddy. We need to look at the "is therefore heretical" part a little more. Can you please explain why the conclusion you describe would be heretical. Another syllogism would be great, too. I wish more people used syllogisms around here. It really helps clarify the argument, or at least that's what the medieval scholastics thought. :-\

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?

Excellent question. Actually, they did. I believe the late Fr. Noel Barbara, a French sedevacantist priest who was ordained before the Council, sent out a letter written in Latin to all the bishops listed in the Vatican directory explaining the heresies of Vatican 2 and the situation in the Church, and asking them to deal with the problems in the Church. I think this would have been in the 1970s or 1980s. He got no response.

Bp. Donald Sanborn tried the same thing in the 1990s. Again, no response.

Bp. Sanborn also had a wealthy layman in his parish who wrote a letter to several conservative cardinals asking them to address the problems of heresy in the Church. He traveled to Rome and spoke to several of them, including Cardinal Ody (spelling?) and another American cardinal. The American cardinal turned out to be just another modernist, while Cardinal Oddi agreed with everything he said about the problems with modernism, but declined to get involved in any way.
Those are the only examples I know of, and I wouldn't be surprised if other people didn't try to explain the problems with modernism and Vatican 2 to the bishops over the years.

Commentary of Leo XIII:

“Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succuмb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it”  (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum)

So how is the above true with this:


Pope Francis speaks during an audience.

And then we have no more valid Bishops after 61 years. Seems suspicious to say the least.

Suspicious in that the Papal infallibility leads one almost immediately to sede(whateverism) when a Pope speaks, writes, or legislates heresy. Does Papal infallibility lead the Church to continuous bouts of schism? Pope Francis V shows up in 2289 and spouts a heresy about the nature of Christ and bingo off we go into sedeism again. (It is all the faithfuls fault, they are not walking skeletons due to fasting to keep bad popes away)

And then we have no more valid Bishops after 61 years. Seems suspicious to say the least.

False.  This isn't about validity.

Unfortunately, XavierSem's syllogism is unclear.  Is this yet another attempt to make the ecclesiavacantist argument (no more bishops) or a spin on the same (no more bishops means no more popes)?  Not sure.  This isn't a very tight syllogism.  I think this is the third different variation on this same argument now.

Since it has not been proven with the certainty of faith that the Church defects if there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, the conclusion cannot be de fide or even proximate to faith.

I've asked Xavier to cite evidence that the Church must always have ordinary jurisdiction but I found his evidence to be very weak, and certainly nothing that would render the conclusion proximate to faith.

1.  Sedevacantism, as a legitimate theory, started with the heresies of the V2 popes in the 1960s.
2.  Such V2 heresies and popes still continue today.
3.  Ergo, sedevacantism, as a legitimate theory, still continues today...until V2 is properly anathematized.

Premise 1 is definitely debatable.  I’m not sure if it’s wrong though 

Bumped for Ladislaus.

Wrong again, Gallican.

Rev. Woywod: " 213. Every candidate to the episcopate, even those elected, presented or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff. (Canon 332.)”