Yes, Spiritus he did seem a bit biased, we read wiki with one eye brow raised.

Getting back to priest then Bishop, I believe  Bishop Francis Schuckardt was a priest for only moments before he was ordained Bishop.  Not sure but I remember hearing that about the consecration.  It all happened together somehow.  

I'm guessing he's a home-aloner. He talks down about the CMRI and SSPX, and being a sede I know he doesn't attend the FSSP. After reading some of his posts, it appears Hermenegild is a home-aloner.

How then do we explain Christ in his consecration of the Apostles without a formal elevation to the priesthood first?

If I remember correctly the Presbyterate as being completely distinct from the Episcopacy came somewhat later in the history of the Church.

The Apostles were ordained and consecrated to the fullest extent of the priesthood. There is no absolute necessity for the Church to make it two distinct ceremonies.

But I should have rather shut my mouth, since the matter whether the Episcopacy is a distinct Ordo is disputed.

One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an Order.
[...]
I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as
already stated (Q[37], AA[2],4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the Episcopate is not an Order.
In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. [...]
Reply to Objection 2: Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ Himself [*Cf. TP, Q[63], A[3]]. Hence although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament.

Ludwig Ott says that it is a theologically certain that the Episcopacy is a sacrament, especially after Pius XII.´ Sacramentum Ordinis. In the V2-Church, this was also made especially clear.

Quote from: Hermenegild

I believe that the Church is in a state of sede impedite. Meaning that the true and legitimate successors of the apostles are prevented from electing a successor to Saint Peter due to the fact that they are imprisoned, incognito or in exile. Perhaps an election has taken place but our Lord has dictated that most of the faithful are ‘in the dark’ about this. The Church is in ‘eclipse’. I believe this because the Church has infallibly taught that she will have pastors and teachers until the end of time.

I post this separated from the discussion about the licity of emergency consecrations, but the above is my position as well. The true body (Church) and her constitution have remained unharmed and intact, but it is merely obscured by an anti-body, impeding the true pastors from reigning in Rome. On the predestined moment, the true scepter of authority will rise from the catacombs.

it is certainly an intersting stance and one i will have to give some thought to.

let me write that again:

it is certainly an intersting stance, one to which i shall have to give some thought.

i think the second one is the gramtica,lly correct one.

When I prayed to God for 5 years to show me the Church, He showed me CMRI in 1982.

I accept the CMRI, but I want to present a thought on the part Myrna said, "He showed me". God certainly does give signs, but telling others this doesn't convince anyone. You see, you can find other people who say God showed them the Schismatic Greeks hold the true position, or the SSPX do. God works through "reason" which is our conscience, and we must be diligent to form our consciences well and act upon our state of conscience at any given time. There are atheists who had accepted Protestantism as the true way only later to go to the Novus Ordo, then later to tradition. Some, however, stop at the Novus Ordo because they keep relying on a "sign" they think they were given and reject all reasonable truths after that to truly bring them further to the full truth. Relying on signs is very dangerous when you find they trump truths you later hear and your whole thinking revolves around past signs.

I know of a person who was selling his house making a big step moving to the parish of another traditional position at odds with his former one. His house suddenly got an offer on St. Dominic's day, and he felt strongly that this was a sign he was doing the right thing. But, the devil can easily influence a buyer to make that offer knowing that this will lead the seller to the wrong position. Very dangerous. I know another person who sent out letters to various seminaries of different ecclesiastical positions. The "first" response he received he took as a "sign" that God wanted him to go there, and since then holds that position very much because of that "sign" despite what advances in knowledge are presented to him. However, God leads us by reason & facts, and we are supposed to follow where truth leads us.

Charitable in that they do not sound off why we should beware of this group or that group.  I have never heard them speak unkindly of SSPX et al.

You have it reversed, Myrna. It is actually charitable to warn others of dangerous doctrinal errors. Practical indifference is not being charitable. St. Pius X wrote:  "the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being"

...has received and abundance of blessings and growth.

Growth does not necessarily mean a blessing. It may or may not be. We must judge from reason and fact to ascertain the truth, not material blessings. The Arian heretics also had growth, as did the Protestants, and I am sure those heretics became satisfied with their growth as a sign they were doing and believing the rights things.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

it appears Hermenegild is a home-aloner.

It would be best to define what you mean by home-aloner. I was told once that Fr. Cekada came up with this term after a night at the flicks some years ago!  

The definition of a home-aloner is someone who refuses to attend a TLM unless it is celebrated by someone they support. I should point out that home-aloners are NOT allowed on CatholicInfo.

I have to agree w/ Myrna- Why not? If you can have a psudo-retard-pope-wanna-be (What was his name? I've already forgotten... Something "II") why would home-aloner's be banned? I'm not saying I agree with this, however the logic seems a little skewed if this is the actual case... thanks

That's not what I said, going to a TLM said by an Independant priest is fine. Matthew's rule is that those who stay home from the TLM if they have access to one are not welcome here.