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.
I WISH ALL PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT SURE ABOUT SV WERE AS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST ABOUT THINGS AS YOU ARE NICHANT. IT IS QUITE REFRESHING TO DISCUSS THE INSANITY OF OUR TIMES WITH ONE WHO STICKS TO THE TOPIC AND GIVES A REASON FOR HIS ASSERTIONS.
I WILL WRITE IN CAPS TO DISTINGUIS YOU FROM ME.
Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now.
YOU COULDN’T ENTER WOULDN’T ENTER INTO IT WHEN YOU POSTED IT, BUT CAN YOU ENTER INTO IT NOW, OR SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE?
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.
THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET. (THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS ONLY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN?) BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS TO BE PROVEN, DOES THAT SOMEHOW MAKE THE CHURCH DISAPPEAR? THE VALID BISHIPS AND PRIESTS SEEM VISIBLE TO ME
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,
DO YOU CLAIM THE N.O. BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION? THIS WOULD MEAN THAT YOU BELIEVE THE NO CONSECRATIONS TO BE VALID OR THAT YOU HOLD TO THAT THERE MUST BE A 90+ YEAR-OLD VALIDLY CONSECRATED NONE-HERETIC BISHOP SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE DIFFICULT TO HANG YOUR HAT ONTO THAN A LONG-TERM VACANCY. AND EVEN THEN, SUPPOSE ONE WAS VALIDLY CONSECRATED IN 1968 AT THE AGE OF 40 WHICH PUT HIM AT 84. HOW MANY 84 PLUS YEAR-OLD BISHOPS ARE NOT HERETICS? WHAT VALID 84 YEAR-OLD PLUS BISHOP EXISTS THAT DOES NOT THINK RATZINGER IS ORTHODOX. IF ONE EXISTS WHO KNOWS THE NEW MASS IS INVALID WHY IS HE NOT MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN AND PROVIDING US WITH SACRAMENTS AND CONSECRATING BISHOPS FOR THE TRUE CHURCH? THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO MAKE HIM LESS VISIBLE THAN OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS. HOW MANY MORE YEARS DO WE HAVE TO INSIST THAT THERE IS A VALID BISHOP, WITH ORDINARY JURISDICTION, THAT NO ONE IS ABLE TO POINT OUT (DO RETIRED BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION?) IN EXISTENCE? DOES THIS NOT BECOME LESS AND LESS FEASIBLE THAN A LONG VACANCY AS THE YEARS PASS?
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.
CAN YOU BACK THESE ASSERTIONS WITH PROOF FROM AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES?
GOD ALSO MOST WISELY INSTITUTED A PAPACY WHOSE VALID CLAIMANTS WILL NOT ERR OR GIVE THE FAITHFUL STONES WHEN THEY ASK FOR BREAD. WHICH SEEMS MORE FEASIBLE, HERETICAL POPES THAT LEAD US TO HELL, OR A LONG VACANCY?
AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THE WEAKEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR ASSERTIONS, GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
BUT THE MORE CERTAIN TEACHING, WHICH NO ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY DENY, IS THAT A PUBLIC HERETIC CANNOT HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, BUT PUBLIC HERETICS HAVE CLAIMED TO HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. THEREFORE. . .
BUT EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT ABOVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS AS STRONG AS IS NEEDED, IS THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT GIVE US THE NEW MASS, FAULTY SACRAMENTS, A HERETICAL CODE OF CANON LAW, A HERETICAL COUNCIL, FALSE SAINTS AND A WEAKENED EXORCISM, A HERETICAL CATECHISM, AND ALL BE APPROVED BY MEN WHOSE LIFE IS AN ENDLESS LIST OF HERETICAL TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS. BUT THE PURPORTED POPES OF THE PAST 50 YEARS HAVE DONE ALL OF THE ABOVE. THEREFORE. . .
FURTHER, I ARGUE THAT NOWHERE HAS THE CHURCH TAUGHT THAT THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE LENGTH OF AN INTERREGNUM, AND ALL ADMIT THAT WE HAVE HAD WELL OVER 200 INTERREGNUMS. YOU WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE TEACHING [OF NO LONG INTERREGNUM] IS IMPLIED, BUT THE TEACHING THAT A HERETIC CANNOT BE POPE IS MORE THAN IMPLIED, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY TAUGHT AND SITS THERE AS DIVINE LAW WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED OR PROVEN FALSE. SO WHEN STUCK WITH A “CHOICE” BETWEEN ONE OR THE OTHER DO WE GO WITH THE IMPLIED TEACHING OR THE VERIFIABLE FACT?
GOD DEPRIVED THE JEWS ACCESS TO THEIR TEMPLE FOR 500 YEARS. HE HAS DEPRIVED MOST OF THE WORLD OF A TRUE MASS, SACRAMENTS FOR 50. WOULD YOU TRULY INSIST THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW AN INTERREGNUM OF THE SAME LENGTH OR LONGER? THE QUESTION SEEMS TO HAVE THE ANSWER, AS THERE BEING NO TRUE MASS OR SACRAMENTS FOR ALL THIS TIME COULD ONLY MEAN WE HAVE NOT HAD A TRUE POPE ALL THIS TIME. BUT THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL WHO ADMIT THE ABOVE FACTS REGARDING THE COUNCIL, SACRAMENTS, MASS, CANON LAW, CATECHISM, TEACHINGS AND HERETICAL ACTS OF THE CONCILIAR LEADERS.
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR CHRIST TO GO TO THE TROUBLE OF BUILDING HIS CHURCH ON THE PAPACY IF ALL THE ABOVE CAN HAPPEN AND BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF VALID POPE WHO WAS GARUNTEED TO BE INFALLIBLE AND WHOSE CHURCH IS INDEFECTABLE AND IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AND GUARD THE SACRAMENTS AND LITURGY FROM CORRUPTION. AGAINST ALL THIS EVIDENCE IT WOULD SEEM THE ARGUMENT THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW SUCH A LONG INTERREGNUM SEEMS WEAK AT BEST.
BUT AT LEAST YOU TRY TO BACK THE NO LONG INTERRUGNUM ASSERTION WITH THE REASON OF ORDINARY JURISDICTION SOMEHOW BEING NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH’S VISIBILITY.
PERHAPS WE SHOULD OPEN A THREAD ON WHETHER ORDINARY JURISDICTION IS IN FACT NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH TO ACTUALLY EXIST.
THIS WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT THE TRUE BISHOPS DO NOT HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION WHICH IS A THREAD IN ITSELF.
REGARDING SIRI: I KNOW A BIG PROMOTER OF THE THEORY HAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. I USED TO BELIEVE IT TO BE HIGHLY PROBABLE. AFTERALL, FROM SATAN’S AND THE FREE-MASONS POINT OF VIEW, BOTH OF WHOM KNOW THAT THE POPE TRULY IS INFALLIBLE WHEN CATHOLIC AND VALIDLY ELEICTED, IF THEY COULD GET AN INVALIDLY “ELECTED” GUY IN HE WOULDN’T BE INFALLIBLE AND COULD PROMOTE THE SATANIC/FREEMASONIC AGENDA OF NOT CONDEMNING COMMUNISM, SQASHING OUR LADY’S PLAN TO HELP US AVOID THE GREAT APOSTACY AND STOPPING THE ERRORS OF RUSSIA, ALL BUT ABOLISH THE ORDINARY MEANS OF SANCTIFYING GRACE OF ENTERING THE WORLD THROUGH VALID SACRAMENTS ADMINSTERED BY VALID BISHOPS AND PRIESTS AND ASSURE US THAT EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN AS THEY ARE LEADING US TO JOIN SATAN IN THE FREEMASONS IN HELL. IT WAS TRIED WITH THE ELECTION OF PIUS X. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY TRY IT AGAIN. I JUST MAINTAIN THAT THEIR SUCCESS IN DOING THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MIGHT READ. ADDITTIONALLY I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE FAULTY FOR ONE TO DEFEND THE SV REALITY ON SUCH AN UNPROVABLE THING, BUT SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A COMPLIMENTARY THEORY AT BEST. THE FACT OF OUR SITUATION NEEDS TO BE PROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THOSE OF GOOD WILL FIRST; SO ALL OF US OF GOOD WILL CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THAT SOMETHING, I BELIEVE WOULD BE TO ELECT A VALID POPE WITH THE VALID CLERGY PUTTING THE ELECTION TOGETHER. OF COURSE THIS WOULD MEAN THE VALID [SV] CLERGY ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE WORLD WOULD THINK OF THEM IF THEY DID THIS.
I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THAT VACANCY ACTUALLY MAY HAVE ENDED IN 1964 WHEN MONTINI APPROVED THE NEW TEACHING THAT THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST IS NOT ONE AND THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT THAT IT SUBSISTS IN (AND OUTSIDE OF) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THOUGH IMPERFECTLY OUTSIDE IT. THIS IS HERESY. “APPROVED” IN A “COUNCIL”. THE DOCUMENTS, APPROVED AFTER LUMEN GENTIUM ARE ALSO CLEARLY HERETICAL. I SAY THIS WHILE PERSONALLY FAVORING THE IDEA THAT JOHN 23 WAS NOT VALID BASED ON ALL THE CUMULITIVE THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT HIM AND HIS “PAPACY” NOW, SUCH AS HIS BEING SUSPECTED OF MODERNISM AND BEING A FREE-MASON AND BEING EXTOLLED BY THE FREE-MASONS. THE LITURGICAL CHANGES UNDER HIM WERE NOT IN HIS FAVOR, NOR WAS THE FACT THAT HE REFUSED TO REVEAL THE THIRD SECRET.
I HOPE THIS LONG LARGE-CAPPED RESPONSE DOES NOT APPEAR DISRESPECTFUL IN ANYWAY.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE MISREPRESENTED YOUR THOUGHTS IN ANY WAY AND CLARIFY. ALSO PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU AGREE WITH ANY OR ALL THAT I SAY ABOVE OR SHOW WHERE MY ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK OR INCORRECT. I WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT I KNOW NO IF I HAD NOT LISTENED TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IN THE PAST. I AM ALL EARS TO THE CHARITABLE WHO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION RESPECTFULLY. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK I AM ALL EARS TO THE UNCHARITABLE WHO STILL MAINTAIN LOGIC IN THEIR ARGUMENTATION AS WELL, BUT THIS IS MORE DIFFICULT. THIS IS WHY I AM PLEASED TO BE IN A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND,
AND MARY KEEP,