Is Sedevacantism Theologically Impossible? (Revised and Verified)

A Response to the Claim That the Church Must Always Possess Ordinary Jurisdiction in Act

Editor’s Note (May 2025): This is a fully revised and expanded version of my original article, now incorporating only verified, word-for-word quotations from pre-Vatican II theologians and manuals. I have corrected previous paraphrases and refined the argument to more clearly demonstrate that the sedevacantist thesis does not contradict the Church’s indefectibility or apostolicity. Readers who viewed earlier versions are strongly encouraged to reread the piece from start to finish, as nearly every section has been substantively updated.

I am not a sedevacantist. I do not claim to know with certainty that the Apostolic See is vacant, nor do I consider every argument put forth by sedevacantists to be conclusive. However, I object to arguments attempting to prove that sedevacantism is not merely mistaken, but theologically impossible.

Some critics argue that the Catholic Church must always possess at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in act, or else she loses the mark of apostolicity and ceases to be the true Church. This claim is advanced in several articles from websites such as the Apostolate of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Liguori Militant. These authors insist that jurisdiction cannot merely exist in root or be supplied; it must always be publicly exercised, uninterrupted, through bishops canonically missioned by a pope.

But that conclusion does not follow from Catholic theology, canon law, or ecclesiastical history. The Church’s indefectibility and apostolicity do not require the uninterrupted exercise of jurisdiction in act, but the retention of the power to recover it. That power can exist in root, even when its formal expression is suspended.

This article will explain why.

I. Divine Law vs. Ecclesiastical Transmission

Yes, apostolicity is of divine law. The Church must always remain apostolic in her faith, sacraments, and structure. But how apostolic succession is normally expressed, through canonical mission, juridical faculties, and papal appointments, is governed by ecclesiastical law. And ecclesiastical laws, as the Church herself teaches, cease to bind when they frustrate their own purpose (cessat lex ubi cessat ratio legis).

If the visible hierarchy defects, or refuses to transmit jurisdiction in accordance with the Faith, then Christ does not abandon the Church to legal paralysis. The Church, as a perfect society, supplies what is needed for Her continuity and the salvation of souls.

A separate objection, often raised by John Salza and others, claims that clergy who lack canonical mission also lack jurisdiction and therefore cannot lawfully administer the sacraments. That question deserves its own careful treatment, especially in light of the Church’s doctrine on supplied jurisdiction, which I will address in a forthcoming article.

What follows here is a defense of the broader claim: that the Church can preserve her apostolicity and indefectibility even in a prolonged vacancy, because these marks do not require jurisdiction to be always exercised in act.

II. Apostolicity Preserved in Root

Catholic theologians and canonists have long recognized that apostolic succession has both sacramental and juridical components:

• Valid episcopal ordination

• Canonical mission or jurisdiction

Under normal circumstances, both are necessary for a bishop to exercise full authority in the Church. But in extraordinary times, the juridical element may be suspended in act, while the sacramental and ecclesial elements remain.

This does not mean the Church has defected. It means her hierarchical life is in eclipse. The Church retains jurisdiction in root and retains the capacity to restore it when the obstacles are removed.

Cardinal Charles Journet articulates a key principle: the Church retains her divine right to canonical governance even when unable to exercise it, and she alone judges the conditions necessary for its functioning:

The Church, then, cannot renounce her right to independence, though she can go on living, as history has shown, even when it is under attack. It remains that she still has a right, by the divine will, to the normal and con­natural exercise of the apostolic or canonical power. It is for her therefore to judge of the temporal conditions which may be indispensable to its functioning in any given epoch.
(The Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 448)

Journet’s point is decisive: the Church’s visibility and indefectibility do not require the uninterrupted exercise of jurisdictional authority. What matters is that she retains the divine right to governance and the capacity to judge when it can be exercised. Even when juridical power lies dormant—due to persecution, usurpation, or crisis—apostolic succession endures in root, and the Church remains visible through her faith, sacraments, and hierarchical constitution, even if not in full function. This framework allows for a prolonged suspension of ecclesiastical governance without implying defectibility.

John of St. Thomas reinforces this idea by linking the Church’s identity not to active jurisdiction, but to the unbroken possession of sacraments, faith, and orders:

“Si non essent [eadem sacramenta, eadem fides, idem sacerdotium], ergo non esset modo unum ovile nec una Ecclesia... et sic diviso sacerdotio, divisa esset lex et Ecclesia.”

“If there were not the same sacraments, the same faith, the same priesthood, then there would not now be one fold nor one Church... and thus, if the priesthood were divided, the law and the Church would also be divided.”

https://tinyurl.com/3vsckhdz (PDF p. 177)

This underscores the thesis that unity in essence, not constant governance, is what preserves the Church’s indefectibility.

Cardinal Billot goes further, providing the conceptual key to answer critics who demand that power must always be possessed and exercised in act:

“Potestas dupliciter exsistit, vel ut instituta, vel ut habita, et ita quidem ut prius intelligatur instituta quam habita… non tamen ut instituta, quia ut talis non est nisi in ordinatione rationis quam superior edixit.”

“Power exists in two ways: either as instituted, or as possessed—and it must be understood as instituted before it is possessed. Moreover, although as possessed it necessarily requires a determinate subject… not so as instituted, because as such it exists only in the rational order established by a superior.”

https://tinyurl.com/ypd42rne (PDF p.511)

Billot's distinction makes it clear: jurisdiction exists formally in the Church even when no one currently exercises it, as long as the Church retains the means and form by which it could be restored. This directly rebuts the idea that apostolicity requires an unbroken chain of bishops actively governing in real time.

Cardinal Franzelin makes the same point using different language. He grounds indefectibility in divine assistance, not institutional continuity:

“Ad indefectibilitatem enim huius consensus horumque iudiciorum fidei omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi promissa est assistentia eius cui data est omnis potestas in coelo et in terra, ac Spiritus veritatis tam incommutabiliter, quam incommutabiliter promissa est indefectibilitas Ecclesiae.”

“To the indefectibility of this consensus and of these judgments of faith for all days until the end of the world, is promised the assistance of Him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, and of the Spirit of truth—just as indefectibility is immutably promised to the Church.”
https://tinyurl.com/43f9s38u (PDF p. 164)

This shows that the Church’s continued being depends on Christ’s promise and assistance, not on visible governance operating without interruption.

Finally, Franzelin explains that apostolic succession is not reducible to canonical mission in act. It is primarily a continuation of the apostolic legation itself:

“Successores serie perpetua immediate nectuntur cum ipsis Apostolis… tum per novas et perpetuas series rerum et factorum sese exhibet velut continuationem legationis Christi et Apostolorum.”

“The successors are immediately connected in a perpetual series with the Apostles… and through new and continuous sequences of events, the Church presents herself as the continuation of the legation of Christ and the Apostles.”
https://tinyurl.com/43f9s38u (PDF p. 364-365)

Thus, even if the juridical acts are suspended, the Church remains what she is so long as this form and foundation, the capacity for apostolic mission, remains in root.

III. Juridical Maximalism Refuted

Some critics claim that at least one bishop must always be exercising ordinary jurisdiction in act; or else the Church loses her apostolicity and defects. But this is not a defined doctrine. It is a theological opinion, and one that does not hold up under scrutiny.

No magisterial text declares this as de fide. Even rigorous ecclesiological manuals treat constant visible jurisdiction as normative, not absolutely necessary. Catholic theology recognizes that divine providence can permit long vacancies or extraordinary suspensions of authority, without compromising the Church’s indefectibility.

If we accept the critics’ logic, it leads to contradictions. What if every bishop with jurisdiction apostasized tomorrow? What if they were martyred during an interregnum? Would the Church cease to exist?

Critics say this is “impossible.” But that's just assuming what they are supposed to prove. The real issue is not what God will allow, but what His promises entail. And His promises guarantee indefectibility, not unbroken governance.

This is why Cajetan explicitly allows for such scenarios. In a discussion of extraordinary ecclesiastical breakdowns, he writes:

“Et licet casus humani variabiles sint infinitis modis: puta, si contingeret mori omnes electores Papae, si contingeret tale quid quod electores non possent eligere sine convocatione Concilii ad reprimendum, discernendum vel pacificandum etc. omissis his et similibus, duos tantum certos casus, et qui fuerunt quandoque et possunt esse, assero, in quibus Concilium tale congregandum est.”

“Even if all the electors of the pope were to die, or if something were to occur such that the electors could not elect without the convocation of a council... I affirm only two certain cases (which have occurred and can occur) in which such a council must be convened.”
https://tinyurl.com/mr3b9fh8 (PDF, p. 103-104)

Far from treating such a possibility as fatal, Cajetan sees it as a historical reality; the Church can lose juridical structures without losing her essence. He even uses the analogy of an amputated body: not destroyed, but diminished.

Similarly, Franzelin teaches that apostolic succession is not defined by ongoing visible exercise, but by a divinely-instituted connection to Christ’s mission:

“Successores serie perpetua immediate nectuntur cum ipsis Apostolis… tum per novas et perpetuas series rerum et factorum sese exhibet velut continuationem legationis Christi et Apostolorum.”

“The successors are immediately connected in a perpetual series with the Apostles… and through new and continuous sequences of events, the Church presents herself as the continuation of the legation of Christ and the Apostles.”
https://tinyurl.com/43f9s38u (PDF p. 364-365)

Thus, the idea that the Church must always have an actively governing bishop is refuted by her own theologians; because what is essential is that she retain the power and form, not the uninterrupted act.

IV. The Church’s Mission Continues in Practice

Critics argue that if no bishop is exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then the Church cannot fulfill her divine mission to teach, govern, and sanctify. But this claim confuses the formal possession of jurisdiction with its actual exercise, and it overlooks how the Church historically and canonically accounts for such interruptions.

Even in times of extreme persecution, exile, or schism, the Church has continued to function because her mission does not depend on juridical continuity in act, but on the divine assistance promised to her by Christ.

As Cardinal Franzelin teaches:

“Ad indefectibilitatem enim huius consensus horumque iudiciorum fidei omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi promissa est assistentia eius cui data est omnis potestas in coelo et in terra, ac Spiritus veritatis tam incommutabiliter, quam incommutabiliter promissa est indefectibilitas Ecclesiae.”

“To the indefectibility of this consensus and of these judgments of faith for all days until the end of the world, is promised the assistance of Him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, and of the Spirit of truth—just as indefectibility is immutably promised to the Church.”
https://tinyurl.com/43f9s38u (PDF p. 164)

This means that even when the Church's outward structure is wounded or its hierarchy scattered, her supernatural mission continues by divine promise.

The critics admit that the Church might survive temporarily without a pope, but they insist it must always have some bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. But the Church herself has never taught that. On the contrary, canon law provides for situations where jurisdiction is supplied, not possessed, to ensure that the mission continues despite legal or practical impediments.

Under Canon 209 and Canon 2261 §2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Church supplies jurisdiction to clergy in cases of common error or necessity. This doctrine, ecclesia supplet, is not a loophole; it is a manifestation of the Church’s indefectibility.

This is not a theological stretch. The Church formally recognizes that governance can be supplied by the Church herself when the usual channels are blocked. Billot’s distinction between power “instituted” and power “possessed” explains the underlying principle:

“Potestas dupliciter exsistit, vel ut instituta, vel ut habita, et ita quidem ut prius intelligatur instituta quam habita… non tamen ut instituta, quia ut talis non est nisi in ordinatione rationis quam superior edixit.”

“Power exists in two ways: either as instituted, or as possessed—and it must be understood as instituted before it is possessed. Moreover, although as possessed it necessarily requires a determinate subject… not so as instituted, because as such it exists only in the rational order established by a superior.”

https://tinyurl.com/ypd42rne (PDF p.511)

In other words, the Church retains her jurisdictional framework in principle, even if no bishop is presently exercising it in act. That is why she can continue to sanctify souls through valid sacraments, and govern them through supplied jurisdiction, even in extraordinary times.

To deny this is to deny the Church’s own law, her lived history under persecution, and her theological understanding of divine assistance.

Thus, the mission continues.

• She sanctifies through valid sacraments.

• She teaches through apostolic doctrine preserved without corruption.

• She governs through supplied jurisdiction when ordinary jurisdiction is unavailable.

The sedevacantist thesis does not require one to deny the visible Church or her mission. It only requires one to recognize that the exercise of ordinary jurisdiction is not always necessary for that mission to be active. Divine assistance guarantees that the Church cannot fail; not that all canonical mechanisms will remain perpetually intact.

V. What About the Church as a “Legally Perfect Society”?

Some critics argue that if the Church were ever to lack bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, she would no longer be a societas perfecta: a legally perfect society. This objection, advanced by outlets like Liguori Militant, misinterprets both the term itself and the theology behind it.

Yes, Pope Leo XIII taught in Immortale Dei that the Church is a perfect society, possessing within herself all the means necessary to achieve her end: the salvation of souls. But critics mistake this for a claim that those means must always be in act, visibly exercised at every moment.

This is not what Leo XIII taught nor what Catholic theologians have ever required.

As Cardinal Billot explains, juridical power can exist as instituted, even when no one is presently exercising it:

“Potestas dupliciter exsistit, vel ut instituta, vel ut habita, et ita quidem ut prius intelligatur instituta quam habita… non tamen ut instituta, quia ut talis non est nisi in ordinatione rationis quam superior edixit.”

“Power exists in two ways: either as instituted, or as possessed—and it must be understood as instituted before it is possessed. Moreover, although as possessed it necessarily requires a determinate subject… not so as instituted, because as such it exists only in the rational order established by a superior.”

https://tinyurl.com/ypd42rne (PDF p.511)

That distinction is decisive. The Church remains a societas perfecta because she retains within herself the form, order, and power to govern, even if that power is not currently possessed by anyone. A suspension of external activity does not mean a loss of internal constitution.

Cajetan supports this with surgical clarity. In De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, he explicitly states that during a papal vacancy, the Church is acephalous: a body without a head:

“Respondetur quod non invenitur universalis Ecclesia nisi imperfecta, ita quod imperfectio ista est conditio diminuens ly universalis Ecclesia, sicut corpus truncum diminuit a corpore integro… Unde tunc Ecclesia est acephala, et est absque eius suprema parte et potestate.”

“It is answered that the universal Church is not found except in an imperfect state; such that this imperfection is a condition that diminishes what is meant by ‘universal Church,’ just as a truncated body is diminished compared to a whole body... Therefore, at such a time, the Church is acephalous—headless—and is without its supreme part and power.”
https://tinyurl.com/mr3b9fh8 (PDF p. 45)

And yet he does not conclude that the Church ceases to be the Church. It is imperfect; not defunct. Even without legislative authority, the Church endures:

“Ecclesiae, cui summus cura non est relicta a Iesu Christo, sed commissa Papae, non potest leges auctoritative facere.”

“The Church, to which the highest care has not been left by Jesus Christ but entrusted to the pope, cannot authoritatively make laws [on its own].”
https://tinyurl.com/mr3b9fh8 (PDF p. 93)

In other words, the Church loses the exercise of legislative power during a papal vacancy, but not the potency to resume it once a pope is elected. Juridical power remains instituted, though inoperative. She does not cease to be a perfect society because her ability to legislate or govern is suspended. That would be like saying a man in a coma ceases to be human.

Thus, the objection collapses. The Church remains a perfect society because she retains the essence of her structure and mission. Her perfection is not disproved by juridical inactivity, just as her visibility is not destroyed by the loss of public hierarchy.

The Church is not a machine that must remain in constant motion. She is a divine organism; capable of suffering, silence, and even eclipse without losing Her essence or mission.

VI. The Magisterium Has Rejected the Critics’ Premise

The core objection posed by critics of sedevacantism is this: if no bishop is exercising ordinary jurisdiction in act, then the Church ceases to be apostolic and defects. But this assertion is not Catholic doctrine. It is a speculative theological opinion; unsupported by the Magisterium and contradicted by multiple authoritative theologians.

There is no papal definition, dogmatic constitution, or conciliar decree that states the Church must always have at least one bishop visibly exercising ordinary jurisdiction. The Church teaches that she is indefectible. She does not teach that her jurisdictional structure must remain continuously operative.

This is why theologians like Suárez were able to describe long-term vacancies without suggesting defection. Suarez, in his analysis of the Great Western Schism, notes that none of the papal claimants could be treated as pope because none was accepted by the whole Church:

“Et si tota Ecclesia multis annis sine capite permaneret, ut aliquando contigit in schismate, non propterea amitteret ius eligendi Pontificem: quia potestas illa radicitus inest Ecclesiae tanquam in capace subiecto, licet exsecutione accidenter impediatur.”

“To the principal objection, then, we reply that at the time of the Council of Constance there were three pretender Pontiffs in the Church, named Gregory XIII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII. But since it is certain, and was proved above, that there cannot be several true Pontiffs in the Church, the consequence is that they were not all Pontiffs. Hence also it could be that none of them was certain Pontiff, and to that extent not Pontiff, because none of them was yet received by the common consent of the Church nor was believed to be legitimately elected.”
https://tinyurl.com/4wxthkbc (PDF 397).

This is devastating to the claim that apostolicity requires jurisdiction in act. During the schism, the entire Church had no morally certain pontiff; yet she did not defect. Suárez's reasoning shows that even universal uncertainty about authority does not nullify the Church’s essence or visibility.

Likewise, Cajetan, while affirming that the Church is imperfect during a sede vacante, defends her continuity even when juridical structures break down:

“Respondetur quod non invenitur universalis Ecclesia nisi imperfecta, ita quod imperfectio ista est conditio diminuens ly universalis Ecclesia, sicut corpus truncum diminuit a corpore integro… Unde tunc Ecclesia est acephala, et est absque eius suprema parte et potestate.”

“It is answered that the universal Church is not found except in an imperfect state; such that this imperfection is a condition that diminishes what is meant by ‘universal Church,’ just as a truncated body is diminished compared to a whole body... Therefore, at such a time, the Church is acephalous—headless—and is without its supreme part and power.”
https://tinyurl.com/mr3b9fh8 (PDF p. 45)

Even more significantly, he directly addresses the possibility of total procedural breakdown in papal elections:

“Et licet casus humani variabiles sint infinitis modis: puta, si contingeret mori omnes electores Papae, si contingeret tale quid quod electores non possent eligere sine convocatione Concilii ad reprimendum, discernendum vel pacificandum etc. omissis his et similibus, duos tantum certos casus, et qui fuerunt quandoque et possunt esse, assero, in quibus Concilium tale congregandum est.”

“And although human circumstances may vary in infinite ways—for example, if all the electors of the pope were to die, or if something were to occur such that the electors could not elect without the convocation of a council for the purpose of restraint, discernment, or pacification—setting aside these and similar cases, I affirm only two certain cases (which have occurred and can occur) in which such a council must be convened.”
https://tinyurl.com/mr3b9fh8 (PDF p. 103-104)

Cajetan not only grants the possibility that all cardinals could perish, he insists this has precedent in Church history. He treats it not as a defection, but a condition in which the Church remains juridically imperfect yet ontologically intact.

This distinction is reinforced by the Church’s own Magisterium. In Auctorem Fidei (1794), Pope Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia for suggesting that the Church’s structure collapses when her hierarchy is impeded. While the precise wording differs, the error is fundamentally the same as that of today's critics: denying the Church’s continuity when visible authority is interrupted.

In short: the Church retains her juridical constitution even when it is not in use.

Therefore, it is not heretical, nor even theologically impermissible, to hold that all bishops with ordinary jurisdiction could die, apostatize, or be prevented from exercising authority, while the Church remains indefectible and apostolic in root. This position is not only permitted, it is more faithful to the Church’s historical self-understanding than the absolutist claims of the critics.

Conclusion

The claim that the Church must always have a bishop visibly exercising ordinary jurisdiction in act, or else She ceases to be apostolic, is not Catholic doctrine. It is a modern theological construct with no foundation in the Magisterium and no support among the classical theologians of the Church.

On the contrary, the tradition, from Suárez to Cajetan to Billot to Franzelin, affirmed that the Church can remain indefectible and apostolic even when ordinary jurisdiction is suspended. Juridical power can exist in root, even if no one currently possesses or exercises it in act. That is what Billot meant when he distinguished between power ut instituta and ut habita: between power as instituted and power as held.

Suárez confirmed that the Church could be without a pope for many years, as during the Western Schism, and still retain the radical power to elect one. He even allowed that none of the claimants during the Schism may have been a true pope, because none had been received by the Church as such. These admissions do not destroy visibility or apostolicity; they preserve it. Because they rest not on juridical maximalism, but on divine promises and theological realism.

Cajetan made the same case. He acknowledged that the Church could become acephalous, truncated, imperfect in her visible governance. Yet he never suggested she ceased to be the Church. In fact, he explicitly allowed for the death of all electors and the breakdown of election procedures. He treated this not as impossible, but as something the Church had already endured.

Franzelin emphasized that the Church’s indefectibility lies in the divine assistance promised to Her, not in the uninterrupted functioning of her institutions. She remains the continuation of the apostolic mission even when governance is paralyzed, because She retains the form, the power, and the divine will to restore it.

These teachings are not sedevacantist in origin. They are not fringe theories. They are the sober conclusions of the Church’s most respected theologians. They refute the notion that jurisdiction in act is an essential note of apostolicity. They uphold the Church’s visibility, continuity, and holiness without resorting to legal positivism.

Therefore, it is not heretical, nor theologically impermissible, to hold that the Church could suffer a prolonged vacancy of the Apostolic See, and even the absence of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, while remaining truly apostolic and indefectible. She would be wounded, not dead; eclipsed, not erased; diminished, not destroyed.

The sedevacantist position may or may not be factually correct in its application to our time. But it is not theologically impossible. The Church has endured interregna, schisms, antipopes, and long silences before. And the gates of Hell have not prevailed.

They still haven’t.

The gates of Hell do not prevail because canon law remains intact, but because the Bride still breathes beneath the shroud.

Postscript: Fr. Gabriel Lavery, CMRI, Commentary on Jurisdiction, Mission, and Apostolicity

After the publication of this article, Fr. Gabriel Lavery offered a detailed 17-part response on X (Twitter), affirming the article’s central argument and adding further theological support drawn from his research and lectures. His points underscore and enrich the thesis that apostolicity does not require the perpetual exercise of jurisdiction in act by at least one bishop, so long as the Church retains the means to fulfill her mission.

Here are the key takeaways from his commentary:

1. The “One Ordinary Bishop” Argument Leads to Absurdity

Fr. Lavery highlights the theological absurdity of claiming that a single bishop with jurisdiction is more essential to apostolicity than the pope himself. Apostolicity is not preserved by mere bureaucratic continuity, but by the Church’s capacity to sanctify, teach, and govern according to Christ’s mission.

2. Laínez: Divine Law Requires Bishops in General, Not in Every Place or Time

Fr. Lavery cites the Jesuit theologian Laínez, a major voice at the Council of Trent, who affirms that while bishops with jurisdiction are of divine law, it is not of divine law that they must exist in every place and time; so long as the needs of souls are met “in some way.” This destroys the claim that the Church defects if it ever lacks jurisdictional bishops in act.

(Translation credit to Mr. James Larrabee.)

3. Supplied Jurisdiction Is Delegated Jurisdiction

According to Laínez (and echoed by Fr. Lavery), the Church fulfills its juridical structure in times of crisis through delegated jurisdiction; such as that supplied by canon law. This means that traditional clergy operating under ecclesia supplet are not usurping a mission but carrying it out through the very legal mechanisms the Church provides.

4. The Tacit Will of the Pope

Fr. Lavery explains that the will of past true popes to provide for the salvation of souls never ceases. Even without a currently reigning pope, that habitual will persists, and the Church supplies jurisdiction when needed. This aligns with the principle that the Church retains the power in root to restore full jurisdictional order.

5. Delegation Can Happen Without a Living Pope Present

He cites Laínez again to show that bishops can be validly consecrated in remote lands even when papal contact is impossible. In such cases, the tacit will of the pope suffices. This provides historical precedent for episcopal consecrations today during a prolonged vacancy.

6. The Requirement That the Faithful Have Pastors

Fr. Lavery demolishes the “one-bishop-in-the-woods” solution proposed by some critics. Theologians do not teach that one bishop somewhere is enough. What is required is that the faithful have pastors; not just in theory, but in reality. Supplied jurisdiction and sacramental ministry by traditional clergy accomplish this.

7. The Real Danger of Defection

He concludes that the true threat of ecclesial defection lies not with traditional clergy, but with those who claim that the only ones sent by the Church today are the modernist bishops occupying diocesan sees and preaching heresy. If those are the only ones with mission, then the Church has defected in its teaching office; an impossibility.

Final Reflection

Fr. Lavery’s insights confirm the heart of this article: that apostolicity is preserved not by rigid legal formalism, but by the Church’s enduring mission to save souls, carried out through valid orders, doctrinal fidelity, and supplied jurisdiction. His careful theological distinctions and historical sources offer further assurance that the Church remains visible, indefectible, and apostolic; even under extraordinary conditions.