Bishop Sanborn asked about The WM Review's position – our answer to his comments

Unfortunately, the question posed to Bishop Sanborn was phrased in a somewhat misleading way. Let's sort through what was said, noting points of agreement, disagreement and misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, the question posed to Bishop Sanborn was phrased in a somewhat misleading way. Let’s sort through what was said, noting points of agreement, disagreement and misrepresentation.

In the October 2025 Q&A (at around the 47 minute mark), Bishop Donald Sanborn was asked a question on a superchar which pertained to an article from The WM Review.

While his answer contained a number of points which were not pertinent to the question, we must note that the question itself was phrased (by the questioner, not by the interviewer Stephen Heiner) in a way which was somewhat misleading.

Here is the exchange, followed by some brief comments.

Stephen Heiner:
Augustus Calmé, 100 Swedish Krona.

What is His Excellency’s response to the article from The WM Review, which claims that apostolic succession can’t exist without residential bishops with authority?

The implication is that he thinks they exist. I think this is the “bishop in the woods” theory, Your Excellency.

“Apostolic succession” – I don’t think His Excellency has read this article, but if the premise is correct – “Apostolic succession cannot exist without residential bishops with authority.”

Bishop Sanborn:
No. You have apostolic succession when you have the Petrine lineage being continued by a legal process. They [the post-conciliar claimants] do legally succeed to St Peter by their appointment, but it’s just only a part of the… I say,
I shouldn’t… it’s… they are only potentially popes.

But the Church has always distinguished designation and jurisdiction. Pope Pius XII said, for example, that if a lay person were elected the pope, he would gain jurisdiction as a lay person only after he consented to be consecrated a bishop. So as a lay person, he would be ruling the Church, you see.

So there is a distinction between the jurisdiction which comes from Christ, and the designation which comes from the Church. It’s that designation, that comes from the Church, which is absolutely key in this situation.

In other words, that we keep that Petrine lineage, just like a child that is born of a king – you see, he is potentially the king, but he obviously can’t exercise his authority when he’s a baby if the king dies. That was true of Louis XV. He didn’t become king for many years because he was a five-year-old child. And so that’s the same thing. They succeed; they are designated. But they do not receive the authority until they are able to function as intelligent human beings.

So the same is true of the papacy. Those things are distinct – they are really distinct, they come from two different causes, and are separable.

Stephen Heiner:
So you don’t accept this statement, then, Your Excellency: “Apostolic succession cannot exist without residential bishops with authority.”

Bishop Sanborn:
No, that’s not true.

The article in question was probably our 2023 piece ‘The Apostolicity of the Church – Who are the Successors of the Apostles?’ This was the first part of an unfinished series on this difficult question, with two others having been published. While some have scolded us for not completing this series and leaving certain questions unanswered, we do not agree that all the relevant questions can be answered, and so do not accept the legitimacy of such scolding.

Before proceeding, let us first note that the analogy with kingship is a strange choice. At least in the English and French constitutions, the new King succeeds immediately upon the death of the previous. As such, all temporal authority is vested in the new King, even if he is a child, and delegates it to regents until he reaches a certain age.

Let us also note that this is the third instance in which Bishop Sanborn has answered a question relating to The WM Review, whilst also stating that he has not read the material in question. We also have no expectation that His Excellency read anything we publish, but we have already commented on the difficulty that necessarily arises from answering questions about things which one has not read.

Finally, we acknowledge that YouTube livestreams and superchat donations may serve as a useful means of fundraising, and that some viewers may even find such broadcasts entertaining. Yet, because this format depends on the Bishop’s spontaneous replies to paid questions, it inevitably sacrifices reflection and is thus hardly conducive to serious discourse.

That said, we do not consider Bishop Sanborn or Heiner to have directly misrepresented us (the latter also qualified his question with the words “if the premise is correct”). The confusion has arisen here from the phrasing of the question (and perhaps the livestream/superchat format).

With that established, let us briefly address what was imputed to The WM Review by the question, and consider Bishop Sanborn’s answer.

What we do and do not hold

As mentioned, His Excellency Bishop Sanborn’s response was to an unfortunately phrased question. Here are some points.

The papacy, sufficient for apostolic succession

1. When there is a reigning pope, apostolic succession is secure and evident, regardless of the existence of any residential bishops at all – even though the latter exist of divine right. As such, we agree with His Excellency’s rejection of the statement as phrased, namely that apostolicity depends on the existence of residential Bishops.

However, it is gratuitous to assume that the Pope being sufficient for the continuity of apostolic succession means that apostolic succession continues in the absence of the Pope, so long as there remains a material succession and a means of securing a new Pope.

This is so, not least because there always remains a means of electing a new Pope, whether or not the Cassiciacum thesis happens to be true.

---

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles—additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible to all.

If you want to ensure that our work continues, join WM+ today.

You can see our Testimonials page for what some of our readers are saying about the WM Review.

(We offer free membership on request for clergy and seminarians – please contact us for details.)