Thanks for the reply, dear Nishant.

What will happen when the SSPX bishops die of age?

What ecclesiastical solution can we realistically expect as to not become schismatic?

Isn't it amazing that Nishant can find heresy in me but not in Jorge Bergoglio?

You know what, CM, I can indefinitely multiply sources explaining why Catholic doctrine precludes what you are claiming, but you'll just keep saying that an usurpation is a delegation, or something like that. Why don't I propose something simple, you respect Mr. John Lane, why don't you ask him whether your opinion on this particular point is an allowable Catholic opinion?

I happen to know John Lane has stated the opinion that you've defended here and a few others have defended before is worse than Anglicanism and reeks of Protestantism. Exact words. You surely can't accuse him of not being a sedevacantist or saying so just for that reason. To be a principled, doctrinaire traditionalist is to uphold doctrine first, figure out how it applies later. As Dom Adrien Grea, Prosper Gueranger and others explain, what you are suggesting overthrows the Church, it would have made Her governance impossible in any age, and the arguments with which She refuted the heterodox false, since She always stated what you are claiming was precluded absolutely.

John Daly will tell you the same, all Society priests and bishops will tell you the same, most sedevacantist priests will tell you the same. These are more proximate sources than a theology manual, can be cross-questioned, and will answer your question directly. That's why I suggest you ask them yourself, especially if you respect their judgment, and are only interested in the truth, whether the opinion you've defended here is in any way an acceptable and Catholic opinion.

I do respect John Lane's opinion.  I trust that he has diligently studied these theological issues surrounding the current crisis and I think his conclusions are well-grounded.  I will study his website to better understand the issues.  If I don't find anything that specifically addresses the issue of episcopal appointments, I will ask him directly about that.  But meanwhile here is something related to what we are talking about:

source: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1601

Topic: Claiming Jurisdiction

Hello all,

I understand that there are some who find Gerry's newest views plausible and you may wish to discuss them here.

I'm sorry, but life is too short.

This whole "jurisdiction" theme is a red herring. The traditional clergy - the respectable ones anyway - do not claim jurisdiction. They do not claim to have a mission from the Church, in the canonical sense that matters. They do not claim to have authority over us. They are quite clear that they act at our request, and that the only jurisdiction they can lay claim to is that which is supplied for each act, under condition of "danger of death." This is a world away from habitual jurisdiction.

In principle their acts are essentially on the same basis as Gerry's own preaching of the faith. He has no mission either, yet if he presents Christian doctrine publicly he does not breach the law. To all those who demand to know "Who sent the traditional clergy?" we respond, "Who sent YOU?"

If there is a fault in the general view of the traditional clergy, it is in not claiming habitual jurisdiction. That is, it would be immeasurably better if Bishop Rangel had declared the see of Campos vacant in 1991 and assumed the office himself, on the basis of the election of the remaining Catholic clergy of the diocese. This would have been a classical and perfectly defensible act, with precedent in the history of the Church and no great difficulty even with the text of canon law (and certainly none with the intention of the lawgiver). This would have been done with the explicit statement that the approval of the Roman Pontiff is presumed until he appears and gives his actual decision.

Likewise the clergy in other places could make the case against their local modernist prelate, ideally by issuing a canonical admonition first, then proceed to elect a bishop, and have the SSPX or other bishops consecrate him, and thus begin the restoration of the hierarchy.

Such clear, canonically regular, and eminently defensible procedures would force the Novus bishops to face the reality of the crisis and decide to which church they really wish to belong. It would be likely that some of them would convert under such pressure, and could be conditionally re-consecrated and take their places as undoubted Successors of the Apostles.

But none of this makes the traditional clergy today illegitimate. The absence of a canonical mission does not make them non-Catholics, and it does not make their ministrations unlawful. If a Jєω can lawfully baptise under canon law, as he can in danger of death, then a Catholic priest can offer the Holy Sacrifice without fearing that he acts illegitimately. If a half-instructed convert like Gerry can lawfully preach the faith, then so can a cradle-Catholic priest who has undergone six years of training in a professional institute of formation.

If you find Gerry's latest views plausible and you think that those who decline to debate him are hiding from the truth, then so be it.

If Gerry reads this, I have a message for him: Start again, Gerry, from scratch. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you bear a grave responsibility before God for whatever damage you do.