Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.
I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.
A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.
Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.
The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.
But there was no point in the history when the Church did not have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction possesing Episcopal sees. You admitted that lack of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction means defection of the Church - thus, can you name me one bishop who, according to you, has ordinary jurisdiction? If you can't, it means you are unable to identify Church hierarchy which must exist for the continuity of the Apostolic Succession and you cannot defend sedevacantism against the charge of disappearence of the Church.
I maintain that the known Catholic Bishops have it based upon the tacit approval of the Holy See.
There is much disagreement about this. Many far more knowledgeable than me disagree. My response is can they
definitively disagree or is this only their opinion which, IMO is based solely upon ecclesiastical law not Divine Law.
Your saying "things appear to be this way to me
therefore SV cannot be true".
But how things appear to you is not necessarily true. In fact you have it backwards. Saying a dead man appears to be dead but their is no apparent cause of death does not change the fact.
The SV says a public heretic cannot be Pope and Francis is a public heretic. Even more that a valid pope cannot bind and maintain on the Church what the false Popes purport to bind and maintain on the Church. There is no way around this whether we want to have a Pope or not.
The result is confusion. All knowledgeable SVs know there must be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction for the Church not to have defected and they all insist on it.
Most claim they are with the NO or hidden. I claim, admitting I could be wrong, that they are with are traditional Catholic Bishops whether they make the claim for themselves or not.
We are in a terrible situation and we should have charity prevail on these things. The next valid pope will hopefully settle the issues that have come up since 1958.
All ask you. What Bishop do you submit to? Who is your hierarchy?
Topic: AGAIN Defending the False Assertion That SV Leads to the Disappearance of (Read 7883 times)