On the other hand, the seeming "death of the Church" is the result of faithlessness, of apostacy, of bad will. And this cannot be compared to the death of Our Lord.

In my eyes, the destruction of the Church can more aptly compared to the destruction of the Temple A.D. 70. The "Apostate Church" has been trying to kill Our Lord (spiritually) again.

Technically...  The Crucifixion of Our Lord was the result of faithlessness, apostasy and bad will as well...  

The Jews the "people of God" at the time of Christ were to blame.  The Catholics "the people of the Church"  recently were to blame.

I disagree with XavierSem insofar as he's an apologist for the Neo-SSPX, and therefore focuses too much on the RECOGNIZE and not enough on the RESIST.

Nevertheless, "I approve of this thread" as they say, because I basically made the same argument years ago. He just got probably his only thumbs-up from me...hahaha

But unlike XavierSem, I know and admit the distinctions within the broad category "Sedevacantists" -- I know it's not ALL sedevacantists, but a certain faction of them who will have to "get lost" once this last bishop dies...

But when does the generation that began in 1965 end? 2035? or supposedly 2085? You said 70 years. But also possibly till 120 years.

I think that's mistaken. The Church of Christ cannot cease to be Apostolic nor lose Her Apostolic Authority. This is clearly taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia. She will always have the Apostolic Mission, Ordinary Jurisdiction, and She will never defect. If all offices in the Church have defected to usurpers, the Church also has defected. Since that is impossible, it could not have taken place, and that explanation is false: Here is the CE on Apostolicity.

"Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity ...

Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession", etc. In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth...

The history of the Catholic Church from St. Peter, the first Pontiff, to the present Head of the Church, is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of succession. Cardinal Newman (Diff. of Anglicans, 369) says: "Say there is no church at all if you will, and at least I shall understand you; but do not meddle with a fact attested by mankind." ...

Regarding the Greek Church, it is sufficient to note that it lost apostolic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome. The same is to be said of the Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, "Divine Plan of the Church", 213; and, Newman, "Diff. of Angl.", Lecture 12.) for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church. Anglican orders, however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission."

But things will be fulfilled in a way now know to God and who knows what prophets holed up in some hole somewhere, and some of us will here may live to see it some day and say, "aha, so that's it!"
 
What Jew prior to the incarnation and coming of the Christ, and the subsequent rising of the Catholic Church and priesthood, would have understood this as being true at the same time the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant was destroyed? -

Jeremiah 33:18
[18] Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face to offer h0Ɩ0cαųsts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually

Again, too much credit and authority is being given to non-infallible statements of theologians and even of the hierarchy (and even popes) in their fallible, ordinary capacity. 
I attach a screenshot from drbo.org with a fuller presentation (with Challoner's notes) of the Jeremiah 33 passage. 





 

Again, too much credit and authority is being given to non-infallible statements of theologians and even of the hierarchy (and even popes) in their fallible, ordinary capacity.

Since bishops can only receive jurisdiction from a Pope, if Pius XII was the last pope, there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.  If there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, there is no hierarchy, and there is Church with four marks.  

Since bishops can only receive jurisdiction from a Pope, if Pius XII was the last pope, there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.  If there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, there is no hierarchy, and there is Church with four marks.  

Circular.

You have to assume a certain definition of apostolic - e.g., continuing presence of an "ordinary" raised to the episcopacy by a pope.

But we have validly ordained men with the Catholic faith who were raised to the episcopacy by validly ordained men with the Catholic faith who then have consecrated bishops themselves: e.g., Bishop Williamson.

The apostolic faith is being passed down by successors to the apostles.

I wouldn't lay a wager against the Church understanding the above as the continuance of the apostolic succession - if Christ hasn't first closed out the age before then.

Yeah, that's my take.

If someone gave an orthodox Catholic in 1940 our history of the Catholic Church post Pius XII I wonder what that guy would think of our "take" of the soon to be state of affairs of the Catholic Church.

Today there is just one:

27 Apr 1958

62.07

Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo

Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena, Chile

This must mean that the end is nigh !

We've hashed through this argument of yours a half dozen times, XavierSem, and the sedevacantists backed up their refutation with citations.  And of course, if you're a sedeprivationist ... and I lean toward a variant of this myself ... then this is a non-issue and a non-argument.

Certainly the crux of the issue is that all TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC sides of the crisis have "defectibility" problems.

R&R:  can the Church's Magisterium defect?
SV:  can the Church hierarchy defect?

That's an oversimplification, of course, but the sedevacantists find it to be less of a problem vis-a-vis indefectibility that the Holy See should be vacant for this length of time than that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt with error over the same time period.  R&R hold the opposite view.

Of course, this is a debate among TRADITIONAL Catholics, i.e. those who actually think there are grave errors in Vatican II and that the New Mass is not Catholic.  XavierSem keeps interjecting from the perspective that there's no grave substantial error in the V2 Magisterium and that the New Mass is not inherently defective and displeasing to God.  That's why he's muddling up the question, because he's not a Traditional Catholic.  He actually agrees with the SV major that the Magisterium cannot become this corrupt, and then he agrees with the R&R major that the Holy See can't be vacant for this long.  So he's agreeing with the majors of BOTH positions, and he's stirring the pot because rejects the minors of both positions (i.e that the NO Magisterium and Mass are not Catholic).  He's basically a conservative Novus Ordite and not a Traditional Catholic.  So he continues to fan the flame of disagreement among Traditional Catholics, at one time appearing to agree with R&R, and at other times appearing to agree with SV.