CathInfo.com

But at what point / how many years will it take for this idea to fail? So far it's almost 68 years since Pope Pius XII died. Compare that to the previous longest papal interregnum in history that lasted for just under 3 years (1,006 days) from the death of pope Clement IV until the election of Pope Gregory X on September 1, 1271.

I mean, for example, Richard Ibranyi is a sede who insists that there have been No popes or cardinals since Innocent II in 1130, almost 900 years - so far. We can say the guy is ridiculous, but so far we're supposedly going on 3 generations without a pope? When compared to the previous longest interregnum, 68 years (and counting) seems pretty ridiculous too, it just does.

That’s a big straw man. Ibranyi is not accepted by any serious or reputable sedevacantist.

Fortunately, the poster “anonymouscatholicus” posted Father O’Reilly’s work which I will repost. This alone dismisses your argument:


Theologian O'Reilly,  (The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, 1882, pg 287):

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning."

It does not answer my question.

At what point / how many years will it take for this idea to fail? 100 years, 110 years? 5000? 1000? 2000? 

I mean, suppose you live long,  the year is like 2090, 135 years since the death of PPXII, the world has not ended, the Church has not been destroyed and the SSPX now has 40 bishops and 129 new chapels throughout the world, meanwhile 6 popes have been elected and they're all NO, is a 135 year interregnum still only an "extended interregnum?"

I mean, for all we know, this crisis could go on for another 4000 years just as easily as it could end next month - we simply do not know. One of the reasons we cannot say it's simply and extended interregnum is because, per V1, the divine law clearly states that a vacant chair cannot go on that long and still be said to have perpetual succession.

It DOES answer the question. Father O’Reilly preemptively addressed your question nearly 150 years ago, you just don’t like the answer. He wrote this AFTER the Vatican Council, obviously he didn’t believe what he wrote contradicted the Council. What’s worse is that you hold the grave error that Church Councils approved by the pope are not infallible.

 Here is Father O’Reilly again READ IT:

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning."

It DOES answer the question. Father O’Reilly preemptively addressed your question nearly 150 years ago, you just don’t like the answer. He wrote this AFTER the Vatican Council, obviously he didn’t believe what he wrote contradicted the Council. What’s worse is that you hold the grave error that Church Councils approved by the pope are not infallible.

It DOES NOT answer the question. I don't care either way, all I want is a clear answer to a clear question - it is you who does not like the question so you keep referring me to Fr. Oreilly's opinion. If you do not know the answer, simply say that.

I do not know what you think he is saying, but one thing he is not answering is my question, he does not answer how long of an interregnum before the perpetual succession is broken. Nor does he mention anything about how many false successors can be elected until we can presume to pronounce without anathema that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter.

I do not know what you think he says, but this is what he says.....

Here is Father O’Reilly again READ IT:

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.

He is saying ("suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here") is that the GWS, something nobody thought could happen, lasted between 30 and 40 years and was when pretty much nobody knew who the real pope was.

That's all he is saying.

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning."

Here he says it could happen again, and he concludes ("what I would infer")  that we should not presume "to pronounce on what God may permit", and that like during the GWS, God will supply all necessary graces to save our souls as He did during the GWS.

How does this answer the OP regarding the issue of the divine law of perpetual successors from V1?  - It doesn't.