In the impossible situation where that which Griff Ruby says would be true, namely, that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, collectively speaking, would persist in a group of irregularly consecrated bishops, the conclusion that would follow from such an (I repeat, impossible) situation, would be that Victor von Pentz could be accepted as a true Pope, which is as absurd as the thesis which Mr. Ruby has already set forth.

The doctrine of the Church teaches us that, since the Church is a perfect society, she always possesses the right and the power in herself to designate to herself a visible head. Thus, the theologians have written that, in the hypothesis of a situation where there would be no more certain Cardinals (if that is possible; I personally do not believe that the ordinary ways of electing the Pope can be destroyed), natural law would demand that the right to elect the Pope would devolve upon the universal Church (which would necessarily have to include Roman clergy, of course, since the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Church can never fall into disheritance).

Now, this means that in Mr. Ruby's imagined situation, the possibility of which is in itself heretical to assert, the right to elect the Pope would, through natural law, devolve upon the irregular bishops whom he claims to be the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Since the people who 'elected' Victor von Pentz in Assisi, sent invitations throughout the whole world (even to the four men consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre), the ones who have answered to that invitation positively by coming to their 'public conclave', would have had the right to legitimately elect the Supreme Pontiff, and by consequence, Victor would have been the true Pope. Also, the ones who had refused to elect such a pope would have been guilty of schism.

This is what this heresy leads to folks; into the anti-papal embrace of 'Linus II'.

I should clarify that I do not ascribe any legitimacy to the conciliar maffia, but that most of us are barred from having access to the Pope and the persistent episcopal hierarchy due to the masonic perfidy which has driven the Church out of the public life of society.

We have a duty to pray for the liberation of Holy Mother Church.

I'm not so sure it's "impossible". Unlikely? Yes. Not optimal? No question.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the election of the Pope requires the participation of the diocese of Rome, so that there is no breach in the Petrine Succession. Thus, there must always be a persistent Roman clergy because the Church will always be able to elect a Pope.

Also, an episcopal see is considered to be fallen into disheritance when it no longer has a clergy, but the Roman Church, being the Church of St. Peter, can never fall into disheritance, since it is a dogma that he will have perpetual Successors. Thus, the Roman Church must still have a Roman clergy today.

Here are some issues to ponder...

I'm not saying it's all final - i.e, I'm not saying like Cardinal Leinart did on his deathbed that the Church is no more - but just like the Jєωs have had to survive for nearly 2,000 years without a temple, it's at least probably that the Catholic Church may have to carry on faithfully without a pope.  

That's hard to take, I know.  And I ain't saying I agree with what I just stated above but...  ...we've had six popes in a row spouting stuff that, at it's best, is off.  And we had a pope tell his administrator that if the local bishops were allowed to write their own response some might decide on something inappropriate like "My Lord and My God" (this was indulgenced by Pope St. Pius X and the pope I'm referring to calls it "inappropriate).

This jam is real and this jam is a jam.  Either Catholicism means whatever you want it to mean (which is a perfectly logical implication from reading the concilliar church) or something is broke - permanently!  

Ain't saying I agree with this.

But the Jєωs have had to survive two thousand years without the temple and the sacrifices so we may have to carry on faithfully without the papacy.

Pope Paul VI knew what he was doing when he changed the rites of ordination and consecration and the followers of Pope Paul VI knew what they were doing when they changed every single aspect of the Catholic Church.  Was any pre-conciliar practice left untouched?  

Hey, maybe we just need to chill out on all this "validity" stuff...

...but nobody is following the concilliarists and they can't even keep their own presiders from buggering the little boys so they can't be Vicars of Christ.

We're in a jam!

But maybe we're not.

Maybe those "vagrant clerics" who are actually validly consecrated Catholic Bishops are actually "The" Catholic Church?

Didn't St. Athanasius say that where there are even a few faithful Catholics, there is the Church?

I have no problem whatsoever with considering the SSPX the actual Catholic Church.  

How did the whole Arian heresy end?  

Maybe that's how the Concilliar heresy will end!  

At the end of this crisis, the world will see that the Church had all this time been protected by God, and that all the lies that have been spread about her were just that; lies. And all will marvel at this Kingdom of God on earth, because any merely human society would have perished under such persecution that the Church has suffered. And when the apostate nations will again sing the paschal hymn, they will cry out with united voices that "there is a God in Israel!" (1 Samuel 17; 46)

Accepting this is how people will find peace in these times.

Hasn't the Church already perished if our traditional Catholic Bishops are not the valid hierarchy but the hierarchy is completely hidden from the world and has been for quite some time?

I'm not sure where else to look of the traditional Catholic Bishops are not it.  They were consecrated by those who had the Apostolic Mandate.  History had proven that the mandate can be implicit.  Plus I believe Bishop Thuc had the permission to consecrate Bishops from Pius XII without the explicit mandate.  

The Church is underground and our traditional Bishops are doing what Catholic Bishops do.  Perpetuating Apostolic Succession through valid and licit consecration of Bishops.  The first law of Faith is salvation of souls.  If there is a secret hidden hierarchy somewhere they do not seem to concerned about the first law of Faith.

I'm not sure how anyone can insist on the contrary.  I can see how both sides can be debated but I'm not sure how either side can insist they are correct with any sort of authority.  Unless someone wants to deny that the mandate can be implicit and deny the historical facts with it.

Do you see the point I am trying to make?    

Stubborn,

Since cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio is a docuмent which involves Canon Law, I am obligated to say that I am not competent to participate in a discussion about this docuмent, focusing instead on the ecclesiological dimension of the present crisis, that is, on Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the Church so as not to be deceived by the lies of this age.

I think cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio is a bit difficult to understand - but far as I know, it is the main docuмent that SV's uses to justify their position so it seems like someone who is sede should be able answer.

I'm not sure that many of them realize that it effectively announces the end of at least the entire hierarchy - with no hope for a remedy.