Author Topic: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: (Read 6393 times)

Struthio · « **Reply #45 on:** May 27, 2020, 08:48:54 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on May 27, 2020, 08:30:27 PM

To answer the main question here, of how sedevacantists think the Church can get a pope again, sedevacantists generally agree that if Francis (Bergoglio) were to repent and publicly abjure his errors, he would become a valid pope. Different schools of thought explain this differently, but they pretty much all agree on the basic idea. The people who adhere to the Thesis of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers would simply say that he was already validly elected, and simply removed the obstacle that was preventing him from being pope, so he forthwith becomes pope. Sedevacantists who do not adhere to the Thesis of Bp. Guerard would probably say Francis became pope by being accepted by the whole Church as pope. This is called election by "acclamation", and I believe it has happened in the past. It has been discussed by St. Robert Bellarmine and numerous other theologians.
.
Alternatively, most sedevacantists would probably accept it if several Novus Ordo cardinals -- or possibly even bishops -- renounced their errors, denounced Bergoglio as a modernist heretic, declared the papacy vacant, and elected a pope after he refused to recant his errors. Sedevacantists would accept a pope resulting from this process for similar reasons to the prior scenario I mentioned.
.
This is off the top of my head so some sedes might want to chime in and tinker with some of the details of this, but substantially that's the answer to your question. Note that it doesn't place any time limit on the Church. And yes, there are objections that can be made to these ideas, but they are of trifling difficulty in comparison with the difficulty of saying that real popes have been behind the universal heresy and apostasy of the Vatican 2 religion.

Given what anonymous sedevacantists say here and there, yes, there are a few who say such things. But have you ever heard any named sedevacantist, whose name has been heard before here and there, utter such absurd ideas?

Repentant heretics who have actively been destroying the Church would want to spend the rest of their lifes in a dungeon and play no part in determining any successor. Who are such to ever open their mouth again?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #46 on:** May 28, 2020, 07:24:37 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on May 27, 2020, 07:30:58 PM

@DecemRationis

You complain about circular reasoning with respect to your own depiction of what happened in the 1960s in Rome.

How about the follow reasoning?

Once upon a time there were a bunch of men who appeared to be bishops of the Church. They went to Rome and solemnly published a bunch of heretical docuмents. The docuмents showed that the perceived bishops were in fact heretics from the beginning or else had embraced heresy on the occasion. (Later, a tiny number of them stepped forward to publicly express their disapproval of what had been approved.)

The Magisterium of the Church didn't fail at all, while the heretics (had) lost their offices before or on the occasion.

What do you say? Circular or straight?

Struthio,

Circular.

You say now these men “appeared to be bishops of the Church,” circling back from their subsequent heresy. The day before Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, he and all those bishops were universally recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which in fact they were.

You (well, most of us have and do) conveniently evade the problem of indefectibility by a post hoc declaration that these men were outside the Church, not the Magisterium, and therefore their heresies do not affect the traditional understanding of the Church’s indefectibility. This is circular.

The textbook definition of indefectibility is voided and stood on its head if the pope and the bishops in union with him can declare heresy to the universal church in an ecuмenical council. This is the elephant in the room that is avoided, or explained away as you do by circling back to say that the doctrine held to (indefectibility) remains intact and is not contradicted because the body protected by the doctrine wasn’t actually there at Vatican II but just “appeared” to be there.

Individual bishops, even individual popes, can become heretics. There are tares among the wheat. But when the entire Magisterium, the pope and the moral majority of the bishops in union with him, embrace heresy we have a problem that can’t be dismissed with a simple, “well, they only appeared to be a pope/bishop.”

You see, we’ve been through this before. Or rather, the situation we are dealing with was addressed by a pope who confronted a similar claim about an ecuмenical council, namely Vatican I. Pius IX told the old Catholics, who claimed an ecuмenical council of the Church adopted and proclaimed heresy, thus:

Quote

They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy . . .

Pius IX, Etsi Multa

One or the other must “go”: 1) Vatican II embraces heresy, or 2) the traditional understanding of “indefectibility” expressed by Pius IX in Etsi Multa. I say this problem is the elephant in the room.

You try to hold onto both, Struthio, and try to avoid the problem of the elephant in the room logically by saying John XXIII or Paul VI and all those bishops united with them in an ecuмenical council only “appeared” to be popes and bishops, as if that could make the elephant in the room disappear, but in the material world and not in the world of thought, the elephant is still there. The proof that it’s still there is that even you must concede that it still “appears” to be there, and your explanation doesn’t in fact make the elephant disappear.

So, my friend, in answer to your question, I think your argument is still more liable to roll down a hill than penetrate a door.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** May 28, 2020, 09:08:10 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 28, 2020, 07:24:37 AM

You say now these men “appeared to be bishops of the Church,” circling back from their subsequent heresy. The day before Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, he and all those bishops were universally recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which in fact they were.

Well, the Magisterium is only protected from error when the bishops are teaching in union with the Pope. Ephesus II taught Christological error and was later repudiated by Pope St. Leo the Great as a Latrocinium.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #48 on:** May 28, 2020, 09:46:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 28, 2020, 09:08:10 AM

Well, the Magisterium is only protected from error when the bishops are teaching in union with the Pope. Ephesus II taught Christological error and was later repudiated by Pope St. Leo the Great as a Latrocinium.

Lad,

I don't have time to research this right now, but a quick search on the internet shows this about the "Robber Council" of Ephesus II:

Quote

"Now, if both the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Ephesus are valid Councils, we’d have a serious problem: the Church would have just proclaimed heresy, contradicting both Herself and Scripture.

But that’s not the case: we know the Second Council of Ephesus is invalid, and have known it from the start. As the council was closing, the papal legate (the pope’s representative to the Council), Hilarius, expressed the judgment of Rome: “Contradicitur!” With a single word, he declared the Council invalid in the name of the pope. Leo himself confirmed this, and it’s from him that we have the name “Robber Council.”
http://shamelesspopery.com/how-the-robber-council-establishes-the-papacy/

If this is accurate, any determinations by the council at Ephesus II never had papal approval or ratification. V2 was confirmed by Paul VI.

So I'm not sure of the relevance of this to the discussion, as the bishops at V2 taught in union with the pope.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #49 on:** May 28, 2020, 10:51:24 AM »

All Trinitarian Dogmas remain the same. All Incarnational Dogmas remain the same. All Marian Dogmas remain the same. All Eucharistic Dogmas remain the same. Things like Ecuмenism are not Dogmas at all, but pastoral practices based on the possibility of good faith or invincible ignorance or material heresy among separated Christians. Once it is admitted separated Christians can be in good faith, and yet must still be reconciled to the Body of the Church, the supposed "heresy" in Vatican II disappears. There is no heresy in Vatican II. Nor can there be, for exactly the Reasons of Indefectibility mentioned by Pope Bl. Pius IX in Etsi Multa.

Quote from: MiserereMei

Papal appointment is not the same as Consecration so, even after the last Pius XII appointed bishop dies, the Apostolic Succesion will not be broken

Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.

The same conclusion follows another way: the First Vatican Council says there will be Shepherds and Teachers in the Church until the end of time, who were sent just as the Apostles were sent. That is clearly a reference to Bishops who have power of teaching and of ruling, the Magisterial power and that of jurisdiction. The reference to "sent as the Apostles were sent" is another reference to canonical mission. These things are explained by theologians.

Msgr. Van Noort is one example: "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]"

Quote

XavierSem, all these papally appointed bishops adhere to the heretical robber council. They lost their offices just like all the antipopes lost theirs

Struthio, if all these Bishops along with the Popes lost their offices and promulgated heresy, the Catholic Church then and there died and defected. It is impossible. The comparison with Ephesus II is not correct at all; that was a purely local Council, and from the first, as "Shameless Popery" quoted by Decem Rationis has docuмented, was rejected by the Popes. The claims of the sedevacantists here are like the claims of the Old Catholics vis-a-vis Vatican I. That was already answered by the Pope: to claim heresy in a Universal Council of Bishops like Vatican I - not a merely local Council only, like Ephesus II - denies indefectibility.

Jerm, agreed.

Yeti, as you can see, Struthio doesn't agree with your theory. Sedes will not be able to come to agreement about it. But if you go by what older Theologians wrote, Fr. Suarez says you need to gather the Ordinary Pastors of the Church in Council. These Theologians envisioned only one single Pope possibly (and then not in Council) falling into heresy (as a private person only), and then a Council being convened, within the lifetime of that Pope, of all Jurisdictional Bishops ("Ordinary Pastors") to determine his pertinacity or lack thereof, and declare him deposed if he continues obstinate. Most said this was only a hypothetical and would never happen. But if you wish to claim this happened to H.H. Pope John XXIII and all his Successors, you need to show "Ordinary Pastors" ready to declare it.

Yeti · « **Reply #50 on:** May 28, 2020, 11:32:55 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 28, 2020, 07:24:37 AM

The textbook definition of indefectibility is voided and stood on its head if the pope and the bishops in union with him can declare heresy to the universal church in an ecuмenical council. This is the elephant in the room that is avoided, or explained away as you do by circling back to say that the doctrine held to (indefectibility) remains intact and is not contradicted because the body protected by the doctrine wasn’t actually there at Vatican II but just “appeared” to be there.

.
Indeed. This is the great mystery of our time. I don't think anyone has a good answer to this question, on any side of this discussion. I'm curious if you have an answer yourself.
.
While not a complete answer, I think part of the solution lies in the fact that John 23 died partway through the Council. It is hard to argue that he was not a true pope, given that he was elected by valid cardinals and accepted by the whole Church (unless you want to get into the White Smoke Question, but that's another discussion). In any case, Vatican 2 didn't teach any explicit heresy during the time of John 23, nor were any of John 23's other changes really contrary to the Faith. So if we're going to look for exactly where the "break" occurred in the Church, one good place to start would be the election of Paul VI. That's when the wheels came off the wagon.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** May 28, 2020, 01:37:05 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on May 28, 2020, 11:32:55 AM

.unless you want to get into the White Smoke Question, but that's another discussion

I do believe that the "One Ring", the key, will one day be found in the entire Siri situation. Roncalli was in fact suspect of Modernism before the Council, fraternized with Communists and Masons, and was alleged to have been inducted into a Masonic lodge in Paris. His first Encyclical made cryptic reference to a "mysterious force" rising. "Mysterious Force" is in fact a name for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Masons hailed Roncalli's election. All the dots point to Roncalli having been an infiltrator planted on the See of Peter by the enemies of the Church. St. Francis made a prophecy of an "uncanonically elected" pope who would be a destroyer.

I do not believe in the thesis that universal acceptance can provide a sanatio in radice for a canonically-invalid election ... especially when the acceptance is made out of ignorance of fact. So, for instance, if you had a man buy the papacy in an act of simony that no one knew about (behind closed doors). What if some transgender (actually a female) had become elected to the papacy and no one knew she was a woman?

MiserereMei · « **Reply #52 on:** May 28, 2020, 02:07:29 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMei

Quote

Papal appointment is not the same as Consecration so, even after the last Pius XII appointed bishop dies, the Apostolic Succesion will not be broken

Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.

To XavierSem:
If this is true, then the apostolic succession between Mgr Lefevbre and the 4 bishops is broken (no appointment)?

jerm · « **Reply #53 on:** May 28, 2020, 02:14:43 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on May 28, 2020, 10:51:24 AM

All Trinitarian Dogmas remain the same. All Incarnational Dogmas remain the same. All Marian Dogmas remain the same. All Eucharistic Dogmas remain the same. Things like Ecuмenism are not Dogmas at all, but pastoral practices based on the possibility of good faith or invincible ignorance or material heresy among separated Christians. Once it is admitted separated Christians can be in good faith, and yet must still be reconciled to the Body of the Church, the supposed "heresy" in Vatican II disappears. There is no heresy in Vatican II. Nor can there be, for exactly the Reasons of Indefectibility mentioned by Pope Bl. Pius IX in Etsi Multa.
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.

The same conclusion follows another way: the First Vatican Council says there will be Shepherds and Teachers in the Church until the end of time, who were sent just as the Apostles were sent. That is clearly a reference to Bishops who have power of teaching and of ruling, the Magisterial power and that of jurisdiction. The reference to "sent as the Apostles were sent" is another reference to canonical mission. These things are explained by theologians.

Msgr. Van Noort is one example: "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]"
Struthio, if all these Bishops along with the Popes lost their offices and promulgated heresy, the Catholic Church then and there died and defected. It is impossible. The comparison with Ephesus II is not correct at all; that was a purely local Council, and from the first, as "Shameless Popery" quoted by Decem Rationis has docuмented, was rejected by the Popes. The claims of the sedevacantists here are like the claims of the Old Catholics vis-a-vis Vatican I. That was already answered by the Pope: to claim heresy in a Universal Council of Bishops like Vatican I - not a merely local Council only, like Ephesus II - denies indefectibility.

Jerm, agreed.

Yeti, as you can see, Struthio doesn't agree with your theory. Sedes will not be able to come to agreement about it. But if you go by what older Theologians wrote, Fr. Suarez says you need to gather the Ordinary Pastors of the Church in Council. These Theologians envisioned only one single Pope possibly (and then not in Council) falling into heresy (as a private person only), and then a Council being convened, within the lifetime of that Pope, of all Jurisdictional Bishops ("Ordinary Pastors") to determine his pertinacity or lack thereof, and declare him deposed if he continues obstinate. Most said this was only a hypothetical and would never happen. But if you wish to claim this happened to H.H. Pope John XXIII and all his Successors, you need to show "Ordinary Pastors" ready to declare it.

Yes, you're correct here, Xav. Pope Pius XII (along with many other Popes in the past) have explicitly affirmed, along with many theologians at the time, that if your pastors aren't from the apostolic see, then you cannot follow them. You can claim that the whole hierarchy has defected if you want to reject Etsi Multa and apostolic succession, or you can play with the ideas that somehow an antipope snuck in and got rid of Cardinal Siri's legitimate rule (which Siri himself never accepted as at all legitimate and which it should be deeply concerning that no traditionalist clergy has accepted this theory publicly in 62 years...), that, somehow, the Church does not defect given a line of material Popes (is a chair indestructible if the sawdust remaining after its destruction is still materially but not formally a chair?), that it's somehow okay to believe that the Church operates only under bishops and priests with no actual jurisdiction or orders from Popes, that somehow all of the explicitly separate traditionalist organizations have unity of faith, government, and communion, or that people who point out the ridiculousness of these theories are somehow people who just lack faith and hate God and the Church, and that they're "like the Jews who didn't believe in Christ" for believing in Christ's promises... but none of that is going to save schismatic traditionalists from pretending that their theories are perfect.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #54 on:** May 28, 2020, 03:48:24 PM »

Quote from: jerm on May 28, 2020, 02:14:43 PM

Yes, you're correct here, Xav. Pope Pius XII (along with many other Popes in the past) have explicitly affirmed, along with many theologians at the time, that if your pastors aren't from the apostolic see, then you cannot follow them. You can claim that the whole hierarchy has defected if you want to reject Etsi Multa and apostolic succession, or you can play with the ideas that somehow an antipope snuck in and got rid of Cardinal Siri's legitimate rule (which Siri himself never accepted as at all legitimate and which it should be deeply concerning that no traditionalist clergy has accepted this theory publicly in 62 years...), that, somehow, the Church does not defect given a line of material Popes (is a chair indestructible if the sawdust remaining after its destruction is still materially but not formally a chair?), that it's somehow okay to believe that the Church operates only under bishops and priests with no actual jurisdiction or orders from Popes, that somehow all of the explicitly separate traditionalist organizations have unity of faith, government, and communion, or that people who point out the ridiculousness of these theories are somehow people who just lack faith and hate God and the Church, and that they're "like the Jews who didn't believe in Christ" for believing in Christ's promises... but none of that is going to save schismatic traditionalists from pretending that their theories are perfect.

There is a saying, "truth trumps EVERYTHING."

Better to suffer a little roiling in the soul and confront the cognitive dissonance head on then hold to the comfort of an idea that makes a mockery of truth itself.

Here's the argument of John Daly claiming the teaching of heresy by an ecuмenical council in union with the pope, apparently an impossibility according to you. Maybe you're right; I'm all ears.

Here's the argument:

Quote

Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:

Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’

“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”

Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].

“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.

“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”

Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.

These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.

https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii

Have at it!

DR

Yeti · « **Reply #55 on:** May 28, 2020, 04:03:23 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 28, 2020, 03:48:24 PM

There is a saying, "truth trumps EVERYTHING."

Better to suffer a little roiling in the soul and confront the cognitive dissonance head on then hold to the comfort of an idea that makes a mockery of truth itself.

Here's the argument of John Daly claiming the teaching of heresy by an ecuмenical council in union with the pope, apparently an impossibility according to you. Maybe you're right; I'm all ears.

Here's the argument:

Have at it!

DR

.
Wow, thank you, Decem. Can we address this post to XavierSem too? I'm dying to hear what he will say about this.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #56 on:** May 28, 2020, 04:16:51 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on May 28, 2020, 04:03:23 PM

.
Wow, thank you, Decem. Can we address this post to XavierSem too? I'm dying to hear what he will say about this.

Of course, but I have a feeling Xavier will weigh in . :)

Struthio · « **Reply #57 on:** May 29, 2020, 02:34:40 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 28, 2020, 07:24:37 AM

The textbook definition of indefectibility is voided and stood on its head if the pope and the bishops in union with him can declare heresy to the universal church in an ecuмenical council.

I agree.

But I don't say that this happened.

You say that the Fathers of the robber council were universally recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, hence the living Magisterium (would have) set forth the (heretical) docuмents of that robber council.

I say:

a) The Fathers of the robber council were recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church by an overwhelming majority of Catholics, but that does not prove that there were no heretics among them.

b) The Fathers of the robber council were recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church by an overwhelming majority of Catholics, but whatever, all who approve heresy (already are or) in the process become heretics.

Excommunication for heresy or apostasy ipso facto or latae sententiae is a consequence of divine law, which exactly makes sure that no heretic ever is a member of the Church, much less has an office in the Church.

There is no circle in my reasoning. You confuse your ideas with mine. And you confuse "universal recognition as the living Magisterium" with actually holding the office.

2Vermont · « **Reply #58 on:** May 29, 2020, 02:43:35 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMei on May 28, 2020, 02:07:29 PM

Quote from: MiserereMei
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.

To XavierSem:
If this is true, then the apostolic succession between Mgr Lefevbre and the 4 bishops is broken (no appointment)?

I'm interested in hearing XavierSem's response to this question as well.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #59 on:** May 29, 2020, 04:24:15 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMei on May 28, 2020, 02:07:29 PM

Quote from: MiserereMei
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction.

This question has been discussed before for pages. During time of papal vacancy jurisdiction does not cease, as, according to theologians, Christ provides jurisdiction to the Church to continue her mission, in all areas that are not reserved to the Pope. According to the theologians cited by the sedevacantists, Christ would supply jurisdiction to the Church even through an anti-Pope through "color of title".

Author Topic: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: (Read 6393 times)

Struthio

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Ladislaus

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Nishant Xavier

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Yeti

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Ladislaus

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

MiserereMei

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

jerm

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Yeti

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Struthio

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

2Vermont

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Ladislaus

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: