As of 1 Feb 2016 there remain only five living bishops who were consecrated during the reign of Pope Pius XII (who died on 9 Oct 1958)

P.S. Isn't it strange that 3 of the 5 oldest bishops are from South America? And NONE are from the United States or Europe?  For some reason, you just don't live as long in those countries. Interesting...

These 5 men have been BISHOPS for anywhere from 57 to 61 years. Incredible!

So they were consecrated when Bishop Williamson (the oldest of the +Lefebvre line bishops) was 14 to 18 years old.

The youngest of the +Lefebvre bishops, Bishop Fellay, was born 12 Apr 1958. So +Fellay was only 15 days old when the youngest of these 5 bishops was consecrated. The other 4 have been BISHOP longer than +Fellay has been alive!

And remember that +Fellay was consecrated at age 30.

.


Tradhican is asking you to please post this list showing bishops consecrated up to 1968:

To my understanding, it is only a tiny minority within the sedevacantes that believe that it was only the Pius XII consecrated Bishops that are valid bishops.

What sedevacantes and non-sedevacantes believe, is that the bishops consecrated in the new rite, post 1970, are not valid bishops, and therefore, neither are the priests they ordain priests. There still are a few pre-new rite bishops around today.

I for one take no chances, I only go with priests ordained by the SSPX bishops.


Can you post that list till like 1968?


.

I don't actually have that list. Someone e-mailed it to me.

Perhaps it's available online? I haven't even tried to Google search for it.

I do know that I've seen it before, and that last time there were significantly more bishops on the list. I don't remember what month/year it was. CathInfo has so many posts that it's pretty well buried.

UPDATE: Here is where it was taken from:

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html

Of course, this only applies to those who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope. Sedevacantists disagree as to which pope was the last valid one.

But for those who subscribe to certain extreme forms of sedevacantism/ecclesiavacantism -- basically home aloners who believe we can't get into any "lifeboats" or consecrate bishops without papal authority -- the clock is ticking.

Matthew, God bless you and yours.

You describe an extreme form of sede vacante, home aloners; Some that reject the SSPX and CMRI bishops?  These could be compared to an extreme form of novus ordo, modernists, who dismiss the SSPX and CMRI bishops.

If so, there might then be a middle ground, a lesser extreme form of sede vacante that recognize the SSPX and CMRI bishops.  In the same manner (from my perspective), one might imagine a less extreme form of novus ordo with (pre-vatican2 rite) bishops, say for example the SSPX.

So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation.  The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.

So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation.  The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.

That really is the only possible basis for claiming that the Catholic Church still exists.  Of the five remaining bishops consecrated during the time of Pope Pius XII, none of them have asserted or claimed to be real (traditional) Catholic bishops.  We really need to take a good honest hard look at the traditional bishops, such as we have them today.  Who else (with any possibility whatsoever of real apostolic authority) will give us the Faith of all the great saints?  That is the Faith I have come to the Church to receive and be nourished in and edified by, and to which I have a right as a baptized Catholic.

Perhaps people thought that things would turn around while some of these ancient old timers remain, but I have known for about 20 years that that will not happen.

Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.

Yes, and so-called sedeprivationism says that Francis is NOT a true pope.

Some sedevacantists believe that an antipope can validly appoint bishops under supplied jurisdiction for good of the Chuch - that is an attempt to reconcile sedevacantism with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

It was an interesting thought, suggested by none less than John Lane, but it doesn't hold up under some extremely important considerations.

However, there have been, at times, antipopes who have made episcopal appointments which were allowed to stand and be accepted as having been lawfully appointed.  Whenever this happened however, the antipope involved was nevertheless still a Catholic, someone who could be followed by Catholics without risk of their soul (in terms of his teachings and rulings and other official actions).  In fact, very few of the 41 big historic antipopes have ever been heretical or even erroneous:  Novatius is one (who went on to start the Novatians) and Vigilius is the other (who favored the erroneous "three chapters" and the three clerics who pushed them while Pope Silverius was still alive, but who turned against them when he became Pope), being the only two I know of.

But these were all antipopes who attempted a Papal reign while some other legitimate Pope also reigned.  Paul VI and those coming after him have sometimes been called "antipopes," but their papal delusions are rejected not owing to the presence of a real Pope (unverifiable Siri hypothesis notwithstanding), but owing to their flagrantly heretical contradiction of the infallible teachings of the Church as confirmed by 260+ real Popes of the Church; they are in fact more properly referred to as heresiarchs.

A true Catholic, mistaken for a Pope by himself and by some part of the Church, would do his best to choose truly qualified Catholic men to be bishops, if anything competing with their papal claimant rivals for sheer orthodoxy in their choices and actions.  A true Pope could therefore reasonably confirm and approve most or even all of the episcopal choices and appointments by such an antipope.

But a heresiarch appoints fellow heretics of like distorted mind and distorted theology, and as such none of his episcopal appointments should ever be permitted to be confirmed or approved.  What sheer insanity it would be to assign to a heresiarch the authority to decide who is to be "approved" as a Catholic bishop and who is not!  The John Lane suggestion, reasonable enough for most historical antipopes, can have no meaningful application to our present day situation wherein what we have is no mere antipope but heresiarch.