CathInfo.com

If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:

The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?

What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?

How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?

(and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)

This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...

Being a Divine Institution - what limits GOD in providing a solution?  I can think of several unpleasant scenarios in which this is accomplished.

At the time of Noah - GOD came up with a solution for Mass Infidelity.

In the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah , GOD came up with a solution for Mass Infidelity.

But before I seem bloodthirsty , GOD likewise had a solution for Nineveh , but the people heeded his warning and averted their own demise.

Today , when the President of the United States can publicly come right out and say he supports two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs marrying one another , are we to assume GOD is merely looking the other way and OK with it?

I have a very deep and sad feeling that the solution that none of us wants to talk about or think about is more than plausible.

We live in the age of Nuclear Proliferation.

We live in the age of Mass Hedonistic , Materialistic , and Atheistic glorification, and the sins and blasphemies inherent to these beliefs and yet , with hardly any large outcry by the Masses to defend the Morality of GOD and for the culprits to cease in their grave offenses.  For all intents and purposes , this amounts to consent on our part.

Reading the Prophesies for the 3 days of darkness etc , I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist , but I see plausibility for a mass chastisement being the prime mover behind a return to Traditional Catholicism - where GOD makes it abundantly  clear to those who survive what is and isn't acceptable and who his New Orthodox Vicar is.

And BTW , I do hope I am wrong about all of this.

Pax

I've read Fr.Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.

Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.

Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.

I've read Fr.Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.

Quote

Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.

Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.

I just wrote a lenghty response to you and deleted it by mistake  

I will just say, I like that you stay on the subject and respond logically.  It is very refreshing.  But I am rather frustrated at myself right now.  Perhaps I'll come back again and try it all over again some other time.