CathInfo.com

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.

Hmmm. I must be the reverse side of the coin that Sem is the obverse of, since I reject or disagree with both majors.  

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 ...

Come Holy Ghost and restore the Faith on earth!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Agreed. We are to remain faithful to Our Lord and Our Lady until the end. No question about that. 

But the issue is whether sedevacantism can still claim to be a true theory, when all Papally appointed Bishops (if SVism is true) have died. In my view, that is an empirical falsification of sedevacantism's claims. If SV is not dogma, then it could be revised, right?

Put another way, if even a 60+ year interregnum is not doctrinally impossible, then what is? A 100 year one? At what point does "Perpetual Sucessors" dogma become a meaningless formula?

Matthew, home alone sedevacantism (HAS), as you say, is definitely extreme. Even among sedevacantists, I think it is the minority opinion. The HASers have been arguing to other sedevacantists like this: there is no Pope, therefore no means to obtain jurisdiction, nor mission, therefore, they claim, no licit apostolate whatsoever. It all begins imo from that erroneous first premise. Who told them there was no Pope? Which Church authority declared it? which defined dogma required it? If the HASers see that there being no Jurisdiction or Mission at all in the entire Church is a defection, then at least they, when that last Bishop dies, may re-think their opinion. Let's see. 

Decem Rationis, thanks for the scan. That passage, as the commentary says, is speaking about the continuation of the Priesthood in Christianity. There's another passage where God says He will take Priests and Levites from the Gentiles (Is 66:21).

But do you mean that the Apostolic Succession has, similarly, in a way been continued without the Pope? For that, you would need something like an underground Pope or something. Christ had invested His Apostles with the Priesthood, of the order of Melchizedech, and so the Christian Priesthood continued and succeeded the Aaronic Priesthood. I don't think the same applies here.

Ladislaus, still lying, I see. Notice how you keep switching from "the end will come before it happens", to "it's not a problem at all", to "it has to almost happen to fulfil prophecy". You can't even hold to a consistent narrative. Which is it? Also, it's only your opinion that this doesn't affect sedeprivationism. Even other sedeprivationists disagree. But more to the point, cuм Ex refutes the opinion that a so-called "material Pope" can invest others with authority. He cannot. cuм Ex says those appointed by him will have as much authority as he does, i.e. none. Either the last 62 years of Popes were truly Popes and therefore the Bishops appointed by them have their authority, or they were not Popes and the Bishops appointed by them have no authority. There is no third option. 

Your claims about me are false, as usual. But I'm not going to answer them again. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and the ICK, and all other groups who are working for Tradition in the Church. Those who recognize a 62 year SV is impossible will not be led astray by extreme and false opinions like yours.

Ladislaus, still lying, I see. Notice how you keep switching from "the end will come before it happens", to "it's not a problem at all", to "it has to almost happen to fulfil prophecy". You can't even hold to a consistent narrative. Which is it? Also, it's only your opinion that this doesn't affect sedeprivationism. Even other sedeprivationists disagree. But more to the point, cuм Ex refutes the opinion that a so-called "material Pope" can invest others with authority. He cannot. cuм Ex says those appointed by him will have as much authority as he does, i.e. none. Either the last 62 years of Popes were truly Popes and therefore the Bishops appointed by them have their authority, or they were not Popes and the Bishops appointed by them have no authority. There is no third option.

Not a single thing you wrote here is correct.  You don't even understand what I'm saying, so you set up your misinterpretation as a straw man.  To begin with, my "the end is night" comment was a joke.  I cited prophecy to the point that it would almost APPEAR as if the Petrine succession had ceased, and when we have flaming heretics like Bergoglio heading up the putative Church and a Conciliar establishment which would be unrecognizable as Catholic to a St. Pius X, St. Nicholas of Flue could have been speaking about no other period.  You, of course, missed the expression, that it would "appear" to have almost ceased.  As written, cuм ex also explicitly rejects the principle of universal acceptance.  We've had 50-page discussions about cuм ex, and yet you arrogantly claim that your interpretation is correct while being oblivious to the fact that your interpretation actually undermines your own position.

You are no Traditional Catholic, but a run-of-the-mill schismatic who has no theological justification for aligning with the SSPX instead of some group that's in actual full communion with Rome.