The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals

This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?

Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.

Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.

Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.

So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.

Thoughts?

The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals

This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?

Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.

Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.

Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.

So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.

Thoughts?

I'm not a Sede but it is my understanding that the way bishops are appointed is a disciplinary matter, and can be overuled if the salvation of souls is at stake. Can anyone with more knowledge than me clarify this?

The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals

This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?

Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.

Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.

Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.

So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.

Thoughts?

This is a good point, and I hadn't thought of it. Even if you want to say that a retired Archbishop who supports Vatican II is the sole carrier of the original mechanism for apostolic succession left, none of the traditionalist groups have ever implied that this needs to be the case, and none have made any sort of definitive statements about the time limits of the resistance/interregnum. I'd agree that it's another problematic point for most of the non-FSSP or diocesan traditionalist positions.

Most sedevacantists don't see the Church being restored by some 100-year-old bishop appointed by Pius XII or John XXIII. You'll get various different explanations on this, but some believe that the Novus Ordo clergy of Rome could repent and profess the Faith, and they would have the right to elect a pope. Or a Novus Ordo cardinal could do the same thing, or several cardinals, and they would have the power to elect a pope. Or Jorge Bergoglio could repent (or some successor of his) and the whole church would accept him as pope, in which case he would be pope by acclamation, which is one of the ways a pope can be elected.
.
The idea you describe here, where there is some sort of deadline that is rapidly approaching, after which it will be impossible to elect a pope, is simply not part of sedevacantist theory, nor do sedes believe in anything like that.
.
Xav, you really should spend more time talking to sedevacantists and actually asking them what they believe. The Bellarmine Forums of John Lane aren't functioning anymore, but the old threads are all still there, and ideas like this get discussed there at great length. If you really want to learn what sedes actually believe, I'd look there: http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewforum.php?f=2

As happens with a lot of conversations on sedevacantism, there's an element of speaking past one another. Many sedevacantists think that their position is spotless, and when others object to it, they simply aren't engaging the position. Xav isn't doing that, however. He's saying that the sedevacantist position is inconsistent for not addressing this concern. Just because sedevacantists haven't addressed it, that does not mean that it's coherent for them not to. It's possible to hold to a position that is incoherent, but not to know that it's incoherent. When you say that most sedevacantists disagree with Xav's idea here, you would need to defend that as a possibility. Just stating the opinion doesn't make it viable.

The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals

This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?

Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.

Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.

Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.

So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.

Thoughts?

A bishop with traditional orders who gives allegiance to a possible anti-Pope like Paul VI is still a bishop. 1958 or 1960 makes no sense as a cut off. Constitutional clergy in France were afterwards accepted. Valid orders with no Papal allegiance. The Pauline Ordinal is surely the point of possible rupture.

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."

In many cases the saints and doctors of the Church show a parallel between Christ and His Bride, the Church.  I think the best theory I have ever heard of how the Restoration will happen is that it will happen through the Hand of God and not through normal means of mankind.  Most of mankind could not wrap their minds around the idea that Our Lord could die and still truly be God.  Hence He was abandoned by even most of those closest to Him.  If the apostles had known how Our Lord's Crucifixion would have been remedied by His Resurrection they would not have abandoned Him.  It was a matter of Faith and only Our Lady, Saint John and a few others remained faithful and trusting in Our Lord until the end.

In a similar way...  

The Church seems to have died.  Many say that therefore, Traditional Catholicism can never have been the True Faith.  I believe that it is a similar situation as with Our Lord's crucifixion.  God has concealed from us the means of how the Church will be ressurected.  It is not our job to try and find out what God has not revealed to us or argue about how or when the Church will be restored.  Our job is to keep the Faith and the traditions.  To watch and be faithful like Our Lady and Saint John until the day God rises the Church up again.

When Our Lord rose from the dead, people often did not recognize Him until the "breaking of the bread" which many understand to have been the Mass.  In a similar sense, it could be argued that when the Church is risen up again by God it will be by the True Form and Traditional Mass that It shall be recognized.

Come Holy Ghost and restore the Faith on earth!

Viva Cristo Rey!

The idea you describe here, where there is some sort of deadline that is rapidly approaching, after which it will be impossible to elect a pope, is simply not part of sedevacantist theory, nor do sedes believe in anything like that.

He likes to strawman sedevacantists.