Theoretically, for sedes the maximum vacancy time limit would be constrained by the death of the last bishop still with jurisdiction (since once he's gone, there's no way to restore apostolicity).

If I'm a sede, then that's the last bishop consecrated during the pontificate of Pius XII who still had ordinary jurisdiction, and who didn't allegedly later excommunicate himself for heresy (not who was merely still alive).

Anyone know who that was, and when he retired?

OK, so this is at leat a principle rather than a time limit.  You can't just throw an arbitrary time out there.  This is better.

When the Pope dies, nobody has ordinary jurisdiction in the normal manner, even if the See has been vacant for 3 hours.  During an interregnum, Christ directly supplies jurisdiction.  So the entire Church is in a state of supplied jurisdiction.

This assertion that there's something special about a bishop who had been appointed by the previous Pope has never been proven by R&R, and we've gone through this a dozen times.

Under the principles of sedeprivationism, the ability to make appointments remains even in a material pope, so if there's a bishop who's been appointed by a material pope, a bishop who has no impediment to the formal exercise of jurisdiction, he would in fact have jurisdiction.  So your criticism clearly does not apply to sedeprivationism.

But, then, even the sedevacantists have cited theologians who hold that jurisdiction can even pass through an Antipope due to "color of title".

So whether it's for 3 hours or for 65 years, the nature of interregnum jurisdiction is that of being supplied by Christ, and that would be no different whether a bishop had been appointed by the last pope to exercise formal authority vs. an Eastern Rite bishop appointed by a material pope vs. an Eastern Rite bishop who has jurisdiction through a "color of title" appointment.

As a sedeprivationist, I used to make this criticism of straight sedevacantism, but then sedevacantists cited texts regarding "color of title" appointments, so I had to withdraw my criticism.

This notion that the Church would defect with death of the last bishop appointed by the previous pope remains entirely unproven, and in fact, the evidence is in favor of the sedeprivationists / sedevacantists.

Since you have a problem with the 65 years, Sean, let us know what the time limit would be before the Church would defect.  In order to make that assertion, you have to know how long is "too long".

Yes, how long is too long?

Has the Church set a time limit?

Has our Lord?

How long did the Japanese Catholics go without a shepherd?

250 years?

Is that too long in God time?

Is that too long in Sean time?


We know the Antichrist would love to provide you with a solution to your problems.

And many false christs will arise...

I think about those Japanese Catholics and wonder how they kept the faith.  People told them that they should give it up.  No priest is coming to save you.  Many were martyrd.

Your God has abandoned you...


NO!

Do not give up your Catholic Faith in the One Holy Apostolic Church because you cannot see a solution in your inadequate human intellect!


And those French Catholics who refused to take part in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass when the Freemasons had taken over the Church in France!

Join your cause to theirs.

St John Vianney was but a boy, but his mother continued to go to the very reverent Latin Mass nearby.

A LATIN MASS

VERY REVERENT

What more could you want???

It was not far away.

It was convenient.

But a close relative told her she should stop!  That is the Mass of the Revolution!!!

Well, it was Latin.  It had the smells and the bells!  It was reverent!  It was una cuм the pope!

But no!

St John Vianney's Mother realized the ramifications and stopped attending at once.

She was not a great theologian.

She was just a peasant woman who had the Sensus Fidelium.

She knew that staying home was better than uniting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with infidels and heretics who were the usurpers of Holy Mother Church.

Usurpers!  She would not join una cuм with them!

For a while the Vianney family stopped attending Mass altogether.  That was better than assisting in the Revolution!

Eventually the Vianney family were able to find underground masses which were not in union with the Freemasonic Revolutionaries

in barns and elsewhere by travelling great distances.

This is what we must do!


It doesn't matter if the Mass is "reverent".

If it is in union with the Freemasonic revolutionaries then we cannot assist!

If it is in union with the NWO One World Religion then we must refuse!

We must tell our priests exactly WHY we refuse.

The priests who have the Sensus Fidelium will recognize the gravity of this situation and join the cause!

I always wonder why trads use Japan as if to show going centuries without a priest can in some way be a good thing instead of a curse.

Yes, they may have preserved some form of the faith, but did they preserve grace?

Theologically speaking, salvation without the sacraments would be considered morally impossible, and would suppose some kind of divine intervention.

I remember when Pfeiffer/Hewko used to use the example of the Japanese as reasons to "red light" all SSPX and non-Pfeiffer/Hewko Masses (which many of these poor dupes still do to this date, going years without sacraments, allegedly in order "not to compromise"). 

A fidelity which leads to hell is a strange fidelity!

What is your point? Look at the results of going so long without a shepherd, as a nation they worship Buddha - thanks to going so long without a priest.

I always wonder why trads use Japan as if to show going centuries without a priest can in some way be a good thing instead of a curse.

OK, but as pertains to the Papacy, your "Shepherd" has led the way into idolatry.  We had Wojtyla set up the Buddha on top of an erstwhile Catholic tabernacle at Assisi.

Really, the only way the Church doesn't go into an extraordinary supplied jurisdiction mode (with jurisdiction supplied by Christ) is if you hold the (minority) opinion that the Bishops receive jurisdiction directly from Our Lord vs. through the Pope.  But that opinion is mostly abandoned since the teaching of Vatican I.

I think you missed most of my post because you have some mental block, where you can't allow this strawman against sedevacantism to fall.  I just stated that per the principles of sedeprivationism and/or "color of title" (for the straight sedevacantists), bishops could still formally exercise ordinary jurisdiction if they themselves have no impediment to exercising it.  Surely there are some Eastern bishops who are not pertinacious heretics, perhaps a handful also in the Latin Chrch.  So why are you talking again about ecclesiavacantism?

Besides that, it's not evident that the Church would defect if for time no one held ordinary jurisdiction.  That's also an assumption of R&R.  If during the Arian crisis, where 97-99% (based on various estimates) of the episcopal sees were in the possession of the Arians, had the Arians gotten their "Pope" elected, and he finished it off by deposing the remaning 1%-3% of Catholic bishops, the Church would have continued on in the orthodox bishops who remained true to the faith, as St. Athanasius famously taugh.

Then, what was left of the Church (as per St. Robert Bellarmine) could somehow elect or select a Pope.  Once this Pope were elected, God would then confer the formal office on him, and then ordinary jurisdiction would resume.  So there would be the formal continuity despite a hiatus.

The notion that bishops all lose their jurisdiction when the pope dies is ridiculous.

It would mean apostolicity was lost every time a pope died.

Bishops are only impeded from performing certain actions which require specific papal approval (e.g., consecrating bishops).

A 65 year "interregnum" eliminates formal apostolicity, and is therefore a dogmatic impossibility.

Nonsense, Sean.  You falsely define "apostolicity" with the possession of ordinary jurisdiction, which is an assumption that the R&R constantly make but it has never been proven.  Who had greater "apostolicity", Archbishop Lefebvre or Cardinal Bernardin, the excommunicated St. Athanaius or Arius (in good standing)?  Bishop Williamson or Bishop Barron?  Those who don't teach the Apostolic faith are disqualified out of the gate.  There's no more "Apostolicity" in the Conciliar Church than there would be in the sedeprivationist or sedevacantist scenario.

That's not even central to the point, Sean, as you continue to make a false strawman argument that does not apply to sedeprivationists or also to sedevacantists who hold that jurisdiction can continue under an Antipope through color of title.

Congratulations on becomming a heretic:

There is material and formal apostolicity (the former is mere episcopal succession; the latter adds to episcopal succession jurisdiction):

"This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power...Regarding the Greek Church, it is sufficient to note that it lost apostolic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome. The same is to be said of the Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, "Divine Plan of the Church", 213; and, Newman, "Diff. of Angl.", Lecture 12.) for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church. Anglican orders, however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Like I said, there is no apostolicity if there is no jurisdiction.

I'll address your false allegation / accusation of heresy later, but you keep dodging the main issue at hand --

Your allegation has nothing to do with sedeprivationism, nor even sedevacantism, through the "color of title" principle, as not only a material pope but even an Antipope can be a conduit for the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction.

As usual, you have it bass ackwards:

It is your color of title escape clause which has nothing to do with apostolicity.