The fourth mark by which the true Church of Christ can be identified is apostolic.
The Church that can trace it’s origin to the Apostles is the Apostolic Church.
The Roman Catechism declared, “The true Church is also to be recognized from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.
That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.”
The fourth or apostolic mark of the Catholic Church is a visible mark like the other three marks, viz. one, holy, and catholic. Each and every particular church and mission of the Catholic Church has all four marks. All four marks are interconnected to the doctrine and ministry of the Church. No other church has any of the four marks as the Catholic Church defines them. If you find the Church that’s one, then you’ve also found the Church that’s holy, catholic, and apostolic.
Apostolic succession is the unbroken succession of pastors in any particular office in the Church. We see it perfectly in the highest office of the Church, which is the Chair of Peter or papacy. Only those pastors who occupy an office can have full Apostolic succession. To obtain Apostolic succession, not all pastors must be ordained or consecrated to hold an office, but all ordained or consecrated pastors must hold an office.
When a pastoral office of a particular church or mission becomes vacant, the apostolic mark doesn’t disappear from that particular church or mission or else the particular church or mission would effectively disappear each time the office becomes vacant.
Every particular church and mission of the faithful united to the Chair of Peter has all four marks, because the marks are not dependent on the offices being filled, but only that they can be filled or the potential of being filled. For instance, the Church in Japan, which had no pastors for 300 years, existed with the four marks, because it was united to the Office of Peter and governed by that office, even when there was no pope.
The whole Church is governed by the Chair of Peter when the office is vacant. Proof: The Church must ALWAYS obey and follow the laws and teachings of the Church that stem from the Office of Peter just as we are governed by Christ through His Word and Instruction. The governing would be imperfect, since the Church is in an incomplete or imperfect form without a pope.
Just as the Church can be in an incomplete or imperfect form without a pope, the four marks can be incomplete or imperfect. For instance, during the Great Western Schism, when three men claimed the papacy, the mark of oneness was incomplete or imperfect. The oneness existed but it was difficult to see and understand. The apostolic mark exists in potentiality when it comes to the filling of offices for Apostolic succession, but exists fully in apostolicity in doctrine, which is guaranteed by apostolicity in mission. Since the mission remains with the potentiality of the filling of office, and the Church is one body morally in law and doctrine with the highest office, the mark is still visible and perhaps more visible than the mark of oneness during the time of the Great Western Schism.
The Bottom Line:
* No other church can have any of the four visible marks that identify the true Church.
* The apostolic mark does not require any office to be filled but only that they can be filled.
* Each and every particular church and mission united to the Chair of Peter has all four marks with or without pastors.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
“The apostolic mark does not require any office to be filled but only that they can be filled.”
It requires that at all times there is at least one or more apostolic offices that are actually filled, as taught by Vatican I:
“So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”
… shepherds and teachers until the end of time …
Only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are both shepherds and teachers (“Pastores et Doctores”) because they have been given the power both to govern and to teach. Those who only have the power to consecrate (such as Traditionalist bishops, or Eastern Schismatic bishops) are not true successors of the Apostles. They only possess material succession and not formal.
Therefore, it is of faith that there is always at least one or several bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the world, even if we don’t know where they are, just as the Japanese didn’t know, but they believed.
I disagree that only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are both shepherd and teachers. I hold that our bishops, such as Bishop Pivarunas, have the power to claim ordinary jurisdiction (claim an office) under the extraordinary circumstances we’re in. In fact, they are governing whether they recognize it or not and they most definitely are shepherds and teachers. It appears that Bp. Pivarunas already practices with ordinary jurisdiction by running CMRI even if he doesn’t claim to have it. Is it possible they don’t know their own power? Well, for years popes were unaware of their powers and didn’t know they couldn’t be deposed by secular authorities.
Vatican I was careful how they worded the statement. Notice that it said “shepherds and teachers” in the plural, which would mean that there must be more than just one bishop out there. The operative words were “sent” and “in like manner.” No bishop had the same jurisdiction as the Apostles, so there’s no reason to conclude that bishops must have ordinary jurisdiction. Bishops and priests can operate with supplied jurisdiction.
– Comment corrected –
Even if they had the power to do so (a case which must be proven and not assumed), almost none of them have claimed ordinary jurisdiction. AFAIK, only two bishops did claim it in the 80s, and in a schismatic way, by purporting to create two new dioceses covering the entire US and then trying to make Catholics submit to their fictional authority.
Traditionalist bishops have the appearance of governing, but if they do hold power, it is not authority in the Catholic Church but in one of the various human organizations they founded or joined. Bishop Pivarunas holds dominative power in his congregation (arising from the vow or promise of obedience), but he doesn’t have authority in the Church any more than you or I. It was not given to him by either a lawful authority or the clergy of a vacant see. What other option is there? He cannot give it to himself, and to hold that the laity can give it to him is heretical (condemned as such in Auctorem Fidei). If he were to claim an extraordinary mission from God (which thankfully he does not), then what the Doctors St Robert Bellarmine and St Francis de Sales wrote about protestants would apply to him: Where are the miracles from God confirming his extraordinary mission?
I was trying to be careful in saying one or more ordinaries, but it is probably more than one, as you correctly point out from the Council’s wording. It would also be consistent with the Church’s note of Catholicity, that she is present throughout the world, not limited to a particular area.
Only a successor of the Apostles holds the threefold power that Our Lord gave the Apostles – to teach, consecrate and rule. The difference is that the Apostles’ power was universal (just like the Roman Pontiff’s), while their successors receive it only for a particular territory (except for the Roman Pontiff). Only a successor of the Apostles can maintain the Apostolicity of the Church. Only a successor of the Apostles can hold the power (or office) of shepherd (“Feed my sheep”) and teacher (“Going therefore, teach ye all nations”) in the Church. No Catholic theologian ever said otherwise.
I made clear in the piece that apostolic succession is found in the unbroken succession of pastors in an office. So I think we agree on that point. I’m not exactly sure what to make of Bishop Giles’ claim of ordinary jurisdiction. I find it interesting, but I’ll let that one go for the time.
As for Bishop Pivarunas and priests, I wouldn’t say they don’t have any more authority in the Church than you and I. They have the power of the keys, which gives them more authority in the Church. Since they have that power, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, “in cases of necessity the ordination of the Church does not hinder him [priest without ordinary jurisdiction] from being able to absolve.” This necessarily means that in this particular case, a priest is a shepherd and teacher. Through the sacraments, they govern, although not in the same manner as one holding an office.
As for having a miracle to prove their mission, I would even say they have miracles. First, we have the miracle of the incorruptible body of Bishop Carmona with pictures. Our priest, Fr. Oswalt has had miracles surrounding his missions as well. I’ll try to get the details from him and post them. However, the point with Bellarmine and Francis de Sales is that it wouldn’t be consistent to have a heretical religion with miracles from God that proves their mission. Bp Pivarunas and priests are Catholics, not heretics.
As I show in my piece, a particular church doesn’t lose the mark of apostolicity because the office of that particular church becomes vacant. It, also, doesn’t keep the mark of apostolicity because another particular church (apart from Rome) has its office filled.
You state, “Only a successor of the Apostles can maintain the Apostolicity of the Church.” I agree but in a different sense. I believe the potential of having successors is all that’s necessary to maintain the Apostolicity of the Church. That’s why I give the examples of particular churches. I’ll be happy to retract if you can show a Church teaching that says differently. A popular theological opinion will not suffice.
I’ll repeat what I said in the article: “The apostolic mark exists in potentiality when it comes to the filling of offices for Apostolic succession, but exists fully in apostolicity in doctrine, which is guaranteed by apostolicity in mission. Since the mission remains with the potentiality of the filling of office, and the Church is one body morally in law and doctrine with the highest office, the mark is still visible.”
As to the St. Thomas quote and your conclusion, he is referring to supplied jurisdiction (although the term itself was created much later). No priest or bishop can possess ordinary jurisdiction without it first having been given to him by lawful authority or through a lawful election permitted by a previous law created by lawful authority (and priests are not relevant here because they aren’t successors of the Apostles and thus cannot preserve the Apostolicity of the Church). The Council of Trent says in Session 23, Canon VI.:
“If any one saith… that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.”
Incorruptible bodies may (or may not, if there are ways of this occurring naturally) attest to the personal sanctity of an individual, but they don’t attest that this individual had or did not have any power of government in the Mystical Body.
The miracles which would demonstrate a special mission are such as the Apostles or some later saints did in carrying out their mission, e.g. healing the sick, raising the dead etc.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that “the potential of having successors is all that’s necessary to maintain the Apostolicity of the Church”, and not on me to demonstrate that your theory is incorrect. This is a novelty not supported by any approved Catholic theologian. And it is more serious than it might appear at first glance. This theory would mean that at a particular point in time and for a duration, the Catholic Church would be completely bereft of any successor of the Apostles (once again, you would need to conclusively prove, or quote from authority, that Traditionalist bishops constitute this). As I wrote and quoted from Vatican I, I believe this goes against de fide doctrine.
I forgot to add, if the Catholic Church would at any moment in time be completely bereft of any successor of the Apostles she would for a time cease actually being Apostolic – she would lose the mark of Apostolicity by which the True Church can always be distinguished from false sects. And all your theory would accomplish is to say that the Apostolicity would be able to return one day – but that would not change the fact that for a time the Church was not Apostolic.
The whole point of my article is to demonstrate that that’s not a fact. By the way, I’ve already dealt with all your arguments in my own head before writing this. I’ve been working on it for a long time and talking it over with others that I respect in the apologetics world. We’ve gone over all these points you’re making a long time ago.
The point of bringing up priests was to show that they with the bishop have more authority than you and I. Supplied jurisdiction proves my point. You said they had no more authority, but they do because they have the power of the keys.
As for miracles, you’re applying what YOU think must prove a special mission. However, our priest Fr. Oswalt has healed the sick several times, even from the point of dying. The problem is that you’ll only accept what miracles you want to accept as miracles. I think the incorruptible body of Bishop Carmona proves both his sanctity and his mission
As for novelties, the doubtful pope theory was a novelty in its day and was not accepted by the majority of theologians. They didn’t have to prove it but demonstrate that it’s logical, which is what I’ve done. You don’t have to accept my position, but I don’t have to prove it for it to be true. It works! Remember this, the Great Western Schism required a novel explanation because it was a novel situation. I could give other novel explanations for novel situations that are now accepted by theologians, but not at first. We are in a completely novel situation and it requires a completely novel explanation. There’s nothing wrong with novel explanations providing they’re not heretical. I don’t think mine is. This idea that novel explanations are problematic automatically are automatically problematic since they exist all throughout Catholic history.
Btw, I accept the doubtful pope theory but you don’t have to accept it to be Catholic. What I’ve stated does not go against Vatican I as I’ve explained. We have pastors and teachers through the sacraments by way of supplied jurisdiction. Vatican I didn’t say they had to hold ordinary jurisdiction. That’s an interpretation. If it clearly said it, then of course, I would accept it. I’m not opposed to the fact that that is indeed the fact of the matter and there are pastors holding office somewhere. I’m making the argument that it’s also possible that it’s not a fact and they don’t exist.
Your reply amounts to a denial with no proof.
SPERAY REPLIES: There was no proof of the doubtful pope theory and it was not accepted by majority of theologians, but it can be accepted. I can’t prove lots of things. Can you prove there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction outside of your interpretation that there must be?
To wit:
1. Saying that you thought of or discussed something with others does not constitute an argument,
SPERAY REPLIES: The point was to tell you that you’re not saying anything new to me. We’ve discussed these things.
2. Supplied jurisdiction is not authority in the Church (you have not proven otherwise), or would you claim that an Eastern Schismatic absolving a Catholic in danger of death has authority in the Church? This would mean that public heretics can hold authority in the Church,
SPERAY REPLIES: It is authority in the Church if the bishop or priest is in the Church. The Eastern Schismatic is granted authority BY THE CHURCH, although they’re not IN THE CHURCH and it’s more authority than you and I have. So non-Catholics can have more authority than you and I under a certain circumstance, but not in the Church but BY THE CHURCH. I can’t forgive sins AND THEN GIVE A PENANCE TO DO, can you? Since our bishops and priests are in the Church and the Church grants them authority, then they most certainly have authority by the Church in the Church.
3. The power to absolve is sacramental, it does not give authority in the Church (otherwise, prove it),
SPERAY REPLIES: It does if the individual is in the Church. PROOF: Penance is given. Our bishop and priests also give sermons at mass. This is teaching authority in the Church, too. “He who hears you, hears me” is applied to the homily. Now, can you prove that there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction? Even if you could say this or that bishop has ordinary jurisdiction, it wouldn’t disprove what I’m saying about apostolicity.
4. I am not biased reg. miracles (you have no proof to accuse me of that), I neither accept nor deny the possible miracles of Traditionalist clergy. The criteria for what constitutes miracles which prove mission is not set by us, but by the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: You provided evidence of your bias by saying Bp Carmona’s doesn’t work. Where is that Church teaching that gives the criteria? And if it doesn’t exist, then I would say that it’s a pretty useless thing to say miracles are necessary but criteria for what constitutes miracles which prove the mission doesn’t exist. I’m listening.
Even if an incorruptible body were such a proof (which it is not, since it would mean even those women whose bodies are incorruptible had authority in the Church),
SPERAY REPLIES: Women do have authority in the Church. An abbess has jurisdiction and can have it OVER the priest assigned to the abbey. The fact that we have a miracle of incorruptibility concerning a bishop under the circumstances is strong, strong evidence for my position.
since the Traditionalist clergy does not claim any special mission, does not claim jurisdiction, how could such miracles be proof of this? It is merely wishful thinking on your part,
SPERAY REPLIES: They do claim to have a special mission, which is why they exist. They keep the Church alive with the sacraments and the potential of having offices filled. That’s the bottom line. They do claim supplied jurisdiction for their acts, too.
5. We are obliged to flee from novelties, especially in times such as these (remember the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins).
SPERAY REPLIES: What St. Vincent of Lerins is condemning is novel doctrine that’s contrary to the faith as it’s defined. He used the word novel in connection with misbelief in Christ’s divinity, human superstitions, impiety, rejecting the ancient faith, etc. He’s not condemning novel explanations for novel circumstances. I’ve already given you one example of the doubtful pope theory. It’s novel.
Your theory is not supported by approved theologians (the doctrine of the doubtful pope was brought forward by approved theologians – surely you don’t think you are equal to them), and it is contrary to infallible doctrine,
SPERAY REPLIES: My theory is supported by approved theologians implicitly and it’s not condemned by approved theologians (as for as I know.) I don’t think it’s contrary to infallible doctrine. Card. Manning states, “for a time it [Church] shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” See also the last couple of highlighted paragraphs here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/how-long-can-the-church-exist-without-a-pope/
Of course, it’s an interpretative opinion, but so is your argument.
6. “Pastors and teachers” cannot refer to those which merely use supplied jurisdiction, because, as I wrote, it would mean that Eastern Schismatic clergy, or excommunicated or even laicized Catholic clergy would hold authority to teach and rule in the Church (since all of them can use supplied jurisdiction). That would be an abomination.
SPERAY REPLIES: As I explained, it doesn’t mean that. It means that Eastern Schismatics can have authority TO THOSE in the Church BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH although they themselves are outside of the Church, which proves that our Catholic bishops and priest can have it IN THE CHURCH, since they are in the Church. It’s very simple. Our bishops and priests teach, sanctify, and govern IN THE CHURCH through the sacraments by supplied jurisdiction. Your argument doesn’t refute me.
7. It is not merely an interpretation that “pastors and teachers” means bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, it is the only possible meaning of the phrase (it’s a traditional phrase).
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it is merely an interpretation and it’s wrong, since a simple priest without ordinary jurisdiction can become a pastor and teacher of souls at the moment of death.
Otherwise, prove that someone other than bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can be both a successor of the Apostles (to preserve Apostolicity) and hold authority to rule and teach in the Catholic Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already explained this in the article and in the comments very clearly. I believe that you’re wrong and I demonstrated how and why.
Your theory is dangerous and contrary to infallible doctrines, i.e., heretical. For the sake of the good work that you do, I hope you will publicly abjure it and so avoid condemnation by the next Pope and by the Lord Our God.
SPERAY REPLIES: All teaching contrary to infallible doctrine is dangerous. However, it may be more dangerous to say that at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction exists in the world. How? The best you can do is say that a non-Catholic gave a bishop an office by supplied jurisdiction through common error. That argues on my behalf about authority. In the days of Japan without pastors at all, communication as we have today didn’t exist. Now with the internet, we should be able to point to this or that bishop that has ordinary jurisdiction. Who has it? In fact, who can possibly have it? How can it possibly be had outside of common error? I think your position is in a lot more trouble than mine at this point in time. You can say it’s a mystery, which is fine, but I have more than that. It’s a sound and logical explanation.
Also, the Catholic Church most certainly does not say specifically what you’re saying. You’re giving an opinion only.
Lastly, if we get another pope and he condemns what I’m saying, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that I’m condemned. Popes have been terribly wrong about things. For example, Pope St. Leo IX taught that Holy Orders by Simoniacs were invalid. The Second Lateran council condemned that proposition. We can be wrong and not condemned. I fully submit to the teaching of the Church and whatever the pope declares on an issue.
Thank you for the thought provoking comments and compliment. Instead of abjuring, I will double-down on my position. I think your comments and my replies reinforce the truth of my article.
With the home alone position, no more jurisditcion.
Good thought provoking conversation by both sides. It is a deep subject but does have a logical and acceptable explanation that takes some understanding of the issues at hand. I hope your overview of church purview on this matter can be understood more easily with this discussion.
Instead of acknowledging the truth, you are resorting to word play.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m making proper distinctions, which refutes your fallacious arguments.
You say the Eastern Schismatic is granted authority “not in the Church but by the Church”.
SPERAY REPLIES: That is correct. Eastern Schismatics are not in the Church and can’t be in the Church as schismatics and heretics.
If not “in”, then where?
SPERAY REPLIES: OUTSIDE the Church. Very simple.
Are you saying that the Catholic Church is granting him authority in his sect? Of course not. If authority is granted “by the Church”, then the person is granted authority in the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. The Church can grant authority outside the Church, such as in this instance. Canon law makes it clear that in danger of death, non-Catholic priests can hear Confessions for Catholics.
This means you can no longer claim to be a sedevacantist since you erroneously believe, contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, that public heretics can hold authority in the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ridiculous. If not a sedevacantist, then what? A sedeplenist who believes there’s no pope? That’s stupid. But now you’re playing word games and trying to infer the opposite of my clear words and meaning.
Also, you are rewriting theology as it suits you.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! You are. You’re denying the Catholic faith in your comments.
And I find the degree of it shocking. You haven’t produced a quote from authority or even a single approved theologian to prove any of the novelties you put forward, e.g. that the power to absolve gives authority in the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just said “power…in the Church” and then deny they have power. They have the power of the keys. What’s your problem? The Church grants priests power in cases of necessity, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE AUTHORITY. Every theologian says as much. I gave you St. Thomas Aquinas, which you admit was speaking about supplied jurisdiction, which is authority given to the priest by the Church.
Apparently, now just standing up and giving a sermon in a church gives one authority to teach in the Church. How convenient – and Protestant.
SPERAY REPLIES: You know very well that’s not what I said or meant. A valid Catholic priest who by the authority given him by the Catholic Church to say mass and give a homily, he has been given authority to teach and sanctify. BY DENYING THAT, YOU ARE DEPARTING FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
You have been warned by this lowly layman, the teaching of the Church has been made manifest to you, as well as your departure from this teaching. You can no longer claim any excuse.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have answered and refuted every single one of your objections and answered all your questions, but you have not dealt with any of my points nor answered my questions. Where are those bishops with ordinary jurisdiction? How?
You started with inventing your own novel and fantastic theology, unsupported by any Catholic theologian, then followed it with assuming bad intentions, and you have graduated to unsubstantiated accusations of heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT TRUE AS I’VE DEMONSTRATED. You still have not answered my questions.
I make this further addendum to refute your false imputation and errors.
I said “power to absolve”, which is a sacramental power proceeding from ordination. The Church did not grant that power to Eastern Schismatics priests, they stole it by being ordained validly but illicitly outside the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: The issue is about authority.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing between sacramental power and power of government, two separate and very different things.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have the problem making the proper distinctions. I laid them out very nicely.
The Church does not grant non-Catholics any authority at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: YES IT DOES. In cases of necessity, non-Catholic priests are granted authority by law to hear confession.
The only authority that the Church can give is authority in the Church and for the Church, that is the only authority it has. And no one outside can possess it. That is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, which no one is permitted to oppose.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re making up your own theology and your own history.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, c. 30:
“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. Saint Cyprian (lib. 2, epist.6) says: “we affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right” (…) Saint Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. Saint Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), Saint Augustine (in Enchir., cap. 65), Saint Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same (…).”
SPERAY REPLIES: Does not refute a single thing I’ve said. I agree. Ordinarily, heretics and schismatics have no authority. Under certain circumstances, the Church grants authority to them in danger of death for Catholics (for instance).
Supplied jurisdiction is supplied to acts (in actu), to make otherwise invalid acts valid in certain circumstances. It makes the act authorized, not the person performing it, who remains just as unauthorized after the act as before it.
SPERAY REPLIES: Now you’re playing word games. When the Church grants jurisdiction, it gives authority to the individual. Can 882: When there is danger of death, any priest, even though not otherwise approved for hearing confessions, may validly and licitly absolve any penitent from whatever sins and censures, including those which are reserved and
notorious, even though an approved priest may be present.
Traditionalist priests were not “given authority by the Catholic Church to say mass and give a homily”. They are emergency unauthorized priests.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re contradicting yourself.
The Church allows us to ask them for the sacraments, but we are not permitted to call them “lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments”, under pain of anathema by the Council of Trent (quoted above), precisely because they haven’t been sent by ecclesiastical authority.
SPERAY REPLIES: More word games. If they have authority, they are lawful. Our bishops and priests are lawfully giving us the sacraments because they have authority because of necessity. Necessity knows no law, so you can’t say they are unlawful ministers.
I beg you once more to stop adhering to heretical novelties and instead return to the authorized teaching of Catholic theologians and to the clear and infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Right back at you. AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.
Pastores does not understand the papacy or apostolic succession and it is quite obvious in his rebuttal. Like so many others he is shallow and only sees what he wants to see on the surface failing to know the significance of the title ‘Chair of Peter’ and how this is applied to the issue at hand.