CathInfo.com

Could you respond to MM's question? If both orders and jurisdiction is required for Apostolic Succession for sede bishops, doesn't it also apply to the SSPX bishops? Do your SSPX bishops have apostolic succession?  And if they do, why is that different than those sede bishops that trace their lineage from ABL and Thuc?

2Vermont and Misereremei, the argument hasn't been: "the sede bishops don't have Apostolic succession. the SSPX bishops do. Therefore, whatever ...". No.

Rather, it has been: "In a 62 year vacancy, the entire Church will lose Apostolic Succession. This will come about when all Bishops appointed to office by the last Pope die. Therefore, a 62 year vacancy is impossible."

So, yes, I agree Orders and Jurisdiction are necessary for Apostolic Succession for BOTH Sede and SSPX Bishops. But what cannot come to pass is that the ENTIRE CHURCH (i.e. all Bishops) loses the power of jurisdiction.

As Yeti has kindly docuмented for us, the last Pius XII-appointee has died. As for my proof that Ordinary Jurisdiction is required for Apostolic Succession, I've cited many in the past; I'll just cite Msgr. Van Noort now. 

"Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked." [Christ's Church, Monsignor G Van Noort]

So does that answer the question?

There is another issue unique to SVism - the Church Theologians say that, in the case of an alleged Pope-Heretic, the Ordinaries must be gathered in Council in order to make a declaration before a new Pope is elected. So if SVism is true, how can that now be done? Now, if SVism is not true, then this wouldn't need to be done. 

The SSPX Bishops certainly weren't already Successors in 1988. Bishop Fellay has argued the Three Bishops received Ordinary Jurisdiction after the Holy Year of Mercy, from Pope Francis: https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/ But whether they have or if someone believes they have not, that is tangential to the question of whether a 62 year Papal Vacancy is possible or not.

NO you are wrong there was no mandate something so sacred Thuc would have kept a copy. You assume I'm saying this because of the Bishop I have met. Again you are wrong I hold more of a valid theory toward ABL  If your theory is correct then every Bishop would have the power to make Bishops without the permission of the Holy Father. I have read the so called Thuc mandate and  it is FALSE NO HOLY FATHER WOULD GIVE THE RIGHTS  THAT ARE MENTIONED. It is a FACT THAT POPE PIUS XII DID NOT GIVE THE SAME MANDATE TO THUC. Thuc was not even the Papal representative in Viet Nam after the death of Pope Pius XI Further I think it odd that both Bishop Sanborn and Anthony Cicadda both did not accept the Thuc line as valid prior to Dolan and Sanborn being made Bishops.

Yes, there was a mandate.  There's a copy of it available to read.  He needn't have been some "papal representative" beforehand, as the entire point of the mandate is to keep things clandestine.  Not that it matters whether or not he had a mandate, but you're the one who brought it up.  Uhm, Pius XI gave the exact same mandate to d'Herbigny, so what the heck are you talking about that "no Holy Father would give the rights that are mentioned"?  It matters not whether Pius XII gave him the same mandate.  If it was not revoked, it was still in force. That's the standard Canon Law understanding of what happens in a papal transition.  Unless something that was in place before is revoked, it's considered to receive tacit approval by the following Pope.  So, for instance, Pius XII did not have to re-appoint every bishop who was in place during the time of Pius XI.  As for Sanborn and Cekada (you can't even spell his name, so informed are you), they were in doubt about the status of the +Thuc line at first because they knew little about it.  Once they conducted their investigation, they changed their minds.  You're clearly just trying to smear the +Thuc line in an attempt to exalt your mythical Pius XII bishop.

Yes, there was a mandate.  There's a copy of it available to read.  He needn't have been some "papal representative" beforehand, as the entire point of the mandate is to keep things clandestine.  Not that it matters whether or not he had a mandate, but you're the one who brought it up.  Uhm, Pius XI gave the exact same mandate to d'Herbigny, so what the heck are you talking about that "no Holy Father would give the rights that are mentioned"?  It matters not whether Pius XII gave him the same mandate.  If it was not revoked, it was still in force. That's the standard Canon Law understanding of what happens in a papal transition.  Unless something that was in place before is revoked, it's considered to receive tacit approval by the following Pope.  So, for instance, Pius XII did not have to re-appoint every bishop who was in place during the time of Pius XI.  As for Sanborn and Cekada (you can't even spell his name, so informed are you), they were in doubt about the status of the +Thuc line at first because they knew little about it.  Once they conducted their investigation, they changed their minds.  You're clearly just trying to smear the +Thuc line in an attempt to exalt your mythical Pius XII bishop

Again you are mistaken the one that gives all the powers to Thuc has never been shown. I have even checked in the archives of the Vatican and the Mandate is for Vietnam only. So tell me what years were you in the Seminary? I was in the seminary and that is not the understanding that I was taught regarding Papal Mandates. The mandates are null and void at the death of a Holy Father. Even if the mandate that you speak of did exist it became null and void when Thuc went along with the Novus Ordo as we know it today this became a new church under John XXIII. There you go again attacking someone who you don't even know nor have you ever seen his credentials. This is one one of the many reasons why people have walked away from the Church due to assumptions such as yours. You know what they say about assume it makes an ass out of you and me. By the way, "the mythical Bishop" is the only one that holds jurisdiction as a member of the ROMAN ROTA.