Hunnius Redivivus on Apostolic Succession

The Lutheran pastor in this one is not named*, but as he cites Nicolas Hunnius with relish, one can call him Hunnius redivivus.

Apostolic Succession
Ask The Pastor | 7.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_oN1PMy34k

How do Lutherans know their ministry if valid if they're not attached to the Roman Church? Can pastors really trace their ordination all the way back to the Twelve Apostles? How do we respond to Rome's claims of Apostolic Succession? All this, plus a little more in this episode of Ask The Pastor.

I'll be using here a format which would usually place this post on ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
assortedretorts.blogspot.com/

But since there is no actual commenting under his video, these being disabled, I take it here, according to the subject of apologetics against Protestantism./HGL

2:36 "outside of that papal fellowship, outside of apostolic succhession."

This is already one blatant misunderstanding, since the "fellowship" (communion) is not the same thing as the succession (of ordinations).

The communion depends on communion with an usually already ordained and consecrated, but sometimes only elect bishop of Rome. Or an already dead one, if no successor is as yet chosen.

Apostolic succession means someone has ordination only (not being able to ordain) or also consecration as bishop (being able to ordain) by a chain from the apostles.

When a layman is raised to papacy (which has happened) or to any other episcopal see, licitly and in communion with Rome, he must be sooner or later ordained priest and then consecrated bishop. St Ambrose was actually elected before his baptism, so he was baptised, confirmed and made bishop on same day, upon the election (which back than was by popular outcry, a k a acclamation). BUT even before he is so, one needs to be in communion with him and obey him (in the things where it is not sinful to obey or sinful and canonically wrongful for him to ask obedience). So, the apostolic succession and the communion with Rome are two different things.

I consider Pope Michael is the true Pope, he was elected while a layman, and waited 21 years before being ordained and consecrated bishop. During those 21 years, obedience and papal fellowship was due to him, but he had no apostolic succession (as to ordination). Meanwhile, some bishops had apostolic succession, but did not accept him as Pope. So, they were schismatics, held illicit masses and sacraments, up to accepting the true Pope, which one Bob Biarnesen did. And this Bob Biarnesen had his apostolic succession from Duarte Costa, who had it by normal Catholic procedure but did not stay in communion with Pius XII. He did not lose apostolic succession when going into schism, though.

So, "ask the pastor" at Holy Cross Church (or Hunnius redivivus) is starting out his video by mixing two very different concepts : valid sacraments as depending on apostolic succession and licit sacraments as depending (within conditions for validity) on Communion with Rome. With the true Pope.

2:57 "Lutherans and Protestants don't buy into Apostolic Succession"

So much the worse for them, then ...

3:01 "number 1, it's not in Scripture"

Hello, mole ... as you have glasses, check the ophthalmologist, you might want to be able to catch things a bit further away than the tip of your fingers with eye-sight!

"nowhere in Scripture does Christ or his apostles tell us that ministers must receive ordination from their hands or from the hands of .... someone who was ordained by them"

No, but that is bc all Christ tells is not told us by Scripture. So, no, but we do see they ordain and confirm. Acts 6:6 we see that deacons are part of those who need to be ordained, at least the first seven were so:

These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.

Acts 8 we see one of them (Philip) can baptise, but not confirm:

12 But when they had believed Philip preaching of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Note, there were as yet no one except Philip around, there was no disciple from Jerusalem.

The apostles Peter and John on the other hand could confirm, and the reception of the Holy Spirit was back then manifested by charismatic miracles.

14 - 17 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

How can one analyse this? Like, Philip can baptise but he cannot lay hands on people so the Holy Ghost descends on them visibly (or for adult, fullgrown use of praising and declaring God). One Simon, already mentioned, comes to the same conclusion and wants to be able to confirm:

And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him: Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

In other words, St Peter doesn't invalidate Simon Magus' theoretical conclusion, but only his practical one.

Now, ff 5 chapter divisions to chapter 13.

2, 3 And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Note, Paul already had a calling from the Lord, but he did not do any outward ministry (especially of the sacramental type, but the two are often connected, only with Justin Martyr a century later or two do we find lay apologists attested) before receiving this laying on of hands.

Now, could just anyone or any congregation or any chief members of a congregation, first fasting and praying have thereupon laid hands on someone and made him a bishop?

If even for confirmation (Acts 8) the apostles were needed (and Philip was not sufficient despite having some ordination, that of deacon) how could unordained men suffice for this act of ordination?

We must assume, either that someone of the apostles was among the ones ordaining or consecrating Paul, or, noting that "Simon who was called Niger" is probably someone quite other than Simon Peter, that someone or all of them had received ordination from Apostles.

But perhaps this is overinterpretation, they were first example of non-ordained ordaining ... since ordaining by Apostles was kind of a solemn and pompous and charismatic exception, just for this first generation?

No, we do not just have at least three generations of Apostolic succession by this time, but at least five, as we'll see, but start with three so far:

1) Apostles, 2) un-named "they" at Antioch, 3) Paul and Barnabas.

I am presuming that Barnabas and Saul could already be considered "prophets and doctors", if not, the word order allows some confusion, or that the names enumerated are not those of the "prophets and doctors" but of people living or staying among them. In that case "prophets and doctors" would be the earliest term for a bishop who was not himself one apostle in Jerusalem.

But are there more? Yes, at least five.

Paul is as named a third generation bishop, then there are:

3) Paul, 4) Timothy and Titus, 5) men ordained and consecrated by Timothy and Titus.

But let's give this pastor the benefit of the doubt and imagine we bend our minds into pretzels to make believe while this apostolic strain existed, independent strains could arise at any time too, if people lacking ordained ministers prayed and fasted and laymen laid hands on some layman**. If so, the "they" at Antioch could have even been an independent strain.

To remove all doubt, let's see how St Paul speaks of the fact of ordaining and consecrating. II Timothy 1:1 how Timothy is a fourth generation bishop (if Paul is a third generation one):

For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

Let's recall that Timothy is the only one who can stir up this specific grace of God, since he is the one having received it from Paul, his mother and grandmother Lois and Eunice had great faith, like he, but were not ordained.

But let's also recall that Timothy got this ordination from the laying of hands of one specific person, namely the Paul of whom we know (Acts 13) that he had already himself received ordination. Not from the "call" of a congregation.

And, yes, the fifth generation is also mentioned by Paul in his letters to them:

I Timothy 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.

In other words, Timothy must consecrate, but must not do so lightly.

He gives similar instructions to Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

And again, Timothy, I Tim 3:1-10

A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

We have already seen, Simon Magus was rebuffed by the one who could actually ordain him and now Timothy is told whom not to rebuff and by implication whom to rebuff. Presumably, Timothy could not have exercised such discretion if just anyone could have ordained.

So, yes, if we look a bit further than our nosetip, yes, we do find Apostolic Succession as a very probable at least requirement in the New Testament, and we most definitely do find this confirmed by universal tradition. Roman Catholics say so, Greek Orthodox say so, Copts say so, Armenians say so, Assyrians say so.

3:23 "second of all, historically the idea, you can't verify apostolic succession"

Yes, we can, we simply do not find any indication this is a novum. Ever, at any time, unlike how its contestation by Luther and followers definitely is a novum 500 years ago.

"it's not possible"

If you mean conduct an independent inquiry about every bishop of one episcopal lineage, now, after so much material and circumstantial knowledge has been lost, either left undocumented in written form or written documentation has since been lost, no, we can't. But that is also not necessary to verify it. If someone traces his lineage to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba, as 95 % of Latin Rite Catholic bishops do, and we cannot get further, because we have lost the document on when Scipione Cardinal Rebiba was himself consecrated bishop, and therefore we can go no further behind him, this does not mean we can reasonably suspect that he never was consecrated bishop. If he hadn't been he would not have ordained and (more importantly to us now) consecrated.

But suppose he had not been consecrated bishop. It's impossible, since if so, he would not have consecrated bishops, but let's suppose the impossible. There is a canon saying that at episcopal consecrations, the bishop shall be assisted by at least one (if it is not two) other bishops. This means, whenever Scipione Cardinal Rebiba was principal consecrator of a bishop, there was also some other bishop, who would have conferred valid succession, had Scipione Cardinal Rebiba's consecration been invalid or had it been dubious back then.

This is also how we can see that it must have been going on since the apostles, and the same precautions are also made by Orthodox, by Copts, by Armenians and by Assyrians, which is why they also have valid succession, even if outside the papal communion.

Apostolic Succession & Episcopal Lineages in the Roman Catholic Church
http://apostolicsuccession-episcopallineages.blogspot.com/2014/08/apostolic-succession-episcopal-lineages.html

Here is how Charles Bransom reasons on this:

It is widely believed that Rebiba was ordained bishop by Gian Pietro Cardinal Carafa, who became Pope Paul IV. However, no documentary evidence has been found to verify this hypothesis.

The lack of documentation of the episcopal ordination for the last bishop in any episcopal lineage should not be considered as evidence that the lineage ends with that bishop or that the bishop in question never received episcopal ordination. It simply means that the details of that bishop's episcopal ordination have not yet been found and that the bishop in question is the last known bishop in that lineage.

3:35 "if you look at ancient lists of a papacy, you will see some blank spots"

The Lutheran pastor, or Hunnius redivivus, is, as was presumable, confusing succession of ordinations with succession in a given see, notably Rome.

ANY validly consecrated bishop all over the world can continue the line of ordinations anywhere, licitly in communion with the living Pope or with last Pope alive or illicitly even outside that communion. Lines of ordinations are deliberately crisscrossed over dioceses, so no diocese shall risk permanent failure of episcopacy, just in the very unlikely case it should have one bishop who was not validly consecrated. For instance, Benedict XIII was as bishop of Rome (succession of magisterial office, other thing, also needing ultimate apostolicity) succeeded by Benedict XIV. The defender of Jesuits by the remover of Jesuits.

But Benedict XIII is one man who is largely responsible for spreading the Scipione Cardinal Rebiba succession, since he consecrated 159 bishops, according to Charles Bransom. While in fact the future Benedict XIV was consecrated by him, perhaps not unsurprisingly due to the number of consecrations he made, this was not as future Pope, this was as titular Bishop of Theodosia.

On 12 June 1724, only two weeks after his election, Pope Benedict XIII appointed Lambertini titular bishop of Theodosia.[8] Lambertini was consecrated a bishop in Rome, in the Pauline Chapel of the Vatican Palace, on 16 July 1724, by Pope Benedict XIII. The co-consecrators were Giovanni Francesco Nicolai, titular Archbishop of Myra (Vicar of the Vatican Basilica), and Nicola Maria Lercari, titular Archbishop of Nazianzus (Papal Maestro di Camera).[9] In 1725, he served as the Canonist at the Roman Synod of Pope Benedict XIII.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XIV

So, Benedict XIV got apostolic succession from Benedict XIII, but so did over 150 other men, and he also got it from

• Giovanni Francesco Nicolai, titular Archbishop of Myra (Vicar of the Vatican Basilica),
• Nicola Maria Lercari, titular Archbishop of Nazianzus (Papal Maestro di Camera).

Now, if we go to the episcopal lineage of Benedict XIII, it does not include a previous Pope:

• Cardinale Scipione Rebiba (needs no introduction by now!)
• Cardinale Giulio Antonio Santori
• Cardinale Girolamo Bernerio, O.P.
• Arcivescovo Galeazzo Sanvitale
• Cardinale Ludovico Ludovisi
• Cardinale Luigi Caetani
• Cardinale Ulderico Carpegna
• Cardinale Paluzzo Paluzzi Altieri degli Albertoni
• Papa Benedetto XIII

By "his apostolic succesion" one means the men tracing apostolic succesion through him.

I'll not give the whole impressive list, but the fact remains that only one of them was a future Pope, namely Benedict XIV, and many were never Cardinals, only Bishops.

Obviously, with such crisscross between dioceses, further enriched by bishops who had no own diocese, even a Pope who was never validly consecrated bishop would be no major hurdle, his successor would still be validly consecrated by someone else, elsewhere.

3:40 "you'll see asterisks, because we don't know"

No, but we can be sure they knew back then. Oh, by the way, I am not sure your asterisks are not really a case of modern hyperscepticism in history.

3:42 "you'll also see as early as 200 AD, antipopes"

So? The Pope had Apostolic succession, licitly and formally, the Antipope also, illicitly and only materially.

3:52 "you have two guys in Rome claiming to be Pope"

Yes, sure ...

4:00 "so if someone was ordained" (=consecrated bishop) "under one of them, and then turns out they're not the real pope"

His episcopal consecration is still valid, but his nomination to such and such a see would need confirmation by the real pope. Usually that would concretely have been an implicit one as in not destituting those named by an antipope or presumed such (there was an exception with a very vicious antipope or even bad real Pope, Xth C.)

4:01 "then what does that do to the entire line?"

Nothing. Nothing at all. Lutherans and other Protestants are so used to thinking of ordination (to "priest" or to "bishop" while having neither) as a pretty ceremony, strictly dependent on validity of nomination to a post as parish priest or bishop of a see, they fail to see what we even mean by apostolic succession.

Think of consecrator and of new bishop as father and son, and compare with kohanim of Old Testament. So and so was a long time Kohen Gadol (High Priest) because his father had been so before him, if I get what was happening in the time of Eli, or because the sons of the one who was so before were lacking or inept, as with Eli's son. Even then, a new line of Kohen Gadol could begin from any Kohen family after the sons of Eli were eliminated, and the new Kohen Gadol was still in Aaronite succession, but the thing is, towards the end of the Second Temple, this was not so.

You had people being "High Priest that year" (and not for life) meaning that the Kohen Gadol pretty often got taken from another priestly Aaronic lineage than that of previous Kohen Gadol, and just same way also Popes are not one Episcopal lineage, they are a lineage of holders of a specific office which requires you to be bishop (when elected or to become so after election). Both Kaiaphas and Yohanan ben Hanan, and Joshua ben Gamla too, they were all Aaronite priests, they were also all Kohen Gadol, but Joshua Ben Gamla was not Aaronite priest because Kaiaphas had been so, but because Gamla or Gamaliel his father had been so. And same also with episcopal lineage in apostolic succession of orders being different from succession within a specific episcopal office, including Pope.

4:05 "there is no way of really getting that, you know, there were antipopes"



Fittingly, Hunnius Redivivus closes his eyes when saying this, in passion and excitement. There is no way of his getting that or anything else as long as he closes his eyes in passion.

4:08 "there were antipopes all through medieval papacy"

Yes, so? The episcopal lineage going back to apostles is still another series than the series pastorum.

An illicit bishop is still - usually - a valid bishop. Validly consecrated, that is.

4:16 Neither in Rome nor in Avignon the Popes had taken for themselves any monopoly on actually performing episcopal consecrations, nor made any rule that only a validly elected Pope of bishop could validly consecrate. At all.

4:35 I think all three rival Popes were validly consecrated bishops. They were not all validly elected to the see of Rome and of the Church universal, two of them had no real see, but they were all validly consecrated. Here we look at the diverse claimants:

Finally, a council was convened by Pisan antipope John XXIII in 1414 at Constance to resolve the issue. This was endorsed by Pope Gregory XII, thus ensuring the legitimacy of any election. The council, advised by the theologian Jean Gerson, secured the resignations of John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415, while excommunicating the second antipope, Benedict XIII, who refused to step down. The Council elected Pope Martin V in 1417, essentially ending the schism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism#Resolution

And now, on each, quoting either passage or facts' square:

Antipope John XXIII

He studied law at the University of Bologna and obtained doctorates in both civil and canon law.[2] Probably at the prompting of his family, in 1392 he entered the service of Pope Boniface IX, first working in Bologna and then in Rome. (The Western Schism had begun in 1378, and there were two competing popes at the time, one in Avignon supported by France and Spain, and one in Rome, supported by most of Italy, Germany and England.) In 1386 he is listed as canon of the cathedral of Bologna. In 1396, he became archdeacon in Bologna. He became Cardinal deacon of Saint Eustachius in 1402 and Papal legate in Romagna in 1403.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII

Which is probably when he was consecrated bishop, if at all, but it is possible he was so vicious that he omitted this.

Pope Gregory XII

Angelo Corraro was born in Venice of a noble family, about 1326 or 1327, and was appointed Bishop of Castello in 1380, succeeding Bishop Nicolò Morosini.

Probably when he was consecrated bishop. Ah, it says Consecration 1390 (probably a mixup between 1380 and 90 on one of the items, he was arguably not unconsecrated for 10 years)

Antipope Benedict XIII

He was actually not even priest at election, but became so:

Ordination 3 October 1394 by Jean de Neufchatel
Consecration 11 October 1394 by Jean de Neufchatel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Benedict_XIII

While his election was invalid, his orders weren't.

Pope Martin V

Ordination 13 November 1417
Consecration 14 November 1417
by Jean Franczon Allarmet de Brogny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Martin_V

4:56 "when you throw in historical things" ...

No, your problem is not looking at history, but misunderstanding what was happening, because you misunderstand the whole concept.

5:05 "it's historically unverifiable apostolic succession"

No, very verifiable, since the episcopal lineage of a Pope is sth other than the series pastorum in Rome and since the episcopal lineage of any other bishop elsewhere is also independent both of the series pastorum in his diocese and of the then Pope.

5:10 Two Books Against the Papacy, meaning Nicolaus Hunnius since 1629 or Balthasar Meisner since 1627 has been misleading Protestants on the understanding of what apostolic succession is.

Thank you, you are NOT the first protestant I heard this or read this ineptitude from. You have a LONG tradition, humanly speaking, longer than kilt and haggis and Robert Burns, of misunderstanding this subject ...

Two Books Against the Papacy Paperback – May 8, 2017
by Nicolaus Hunnius (Author), Balthasar Meisner (Author), Paul A. Rydecki (Translator)
https://www.amazon.com/Books-Against-Papacy-Nicolaus-Hunnius/dp/1891469746



5:48 Citing Hunnius "she is also demanding a condition which she herself does not meet since the Roman Turks cannot demonstrate a definite direct sucession for herself at any level of the teaching office"

I just showed how this is untrue, in fairly good detail, but one could answer rhetorically, also, when Luther demands a thing be proven from the Bible (directly in so many words, whenever that fits him, though at other times he is satisified with more general implications) he is demanding a condition which he himself does not meet, since the Saxon Hun cannot demonstrate a Biblical proof for any of his deviations from Rome.

6:03 "for from that it follows that at this time no ministers of the Church are found or appointed anywhere in the world."

Not so. Wait, he uses the word "appointment"

The requirement for definite succession is probably one of a series pastorum.

Let's go back to start of the quote:

"accordingly when the [...] Roman Church still requires in this matter that ministers of the church who appoint others to this office must come in the orderly line of succession from the apostles"

Actually, I think Hunnius was polemising about series pastorum ... well, the times when this was in fact broken at Rome, the Church survived at other places and it could be restored in Rome, exactly as it could be restored anywhere else if broken there while unbroken in Rome or elsewhere.

When Hunnius Redivivus resumes the original Hunnius (after direct quotes) as "historically unverifiable", he is not really getting the original Hunnius' case. Hunnius was claiming as verified historic fact that Rome had on every level broken succession. Obviously, most things he would back that up with have since then been soundly refuted.

6:18 "it comes from the call"

No.

Having a call even to priesthood does not confer sacerdotal ordination.

6:21 "whenever a group of Christians forms a congregation" [garbled subs] "a divine call to a man to serve as their minister ... then Christ calls men into the ministry through congregations"

Well, you can shoehorn that model even as a possibility into NT only by ignoring lots of contrary evidence, but one thing you most definitely cannot is prove that model from the New Testament - or from anything else.

Ordination is not a formalised proclamation that a call exists, call and ordination are separate issues, and calls are not always to ordinations (Jonah was called as prophet to Nineveh, not to ministerial priesthood, and the only call to ministerial priesthood anyone could have in OT was by being born into a family of kohens ... obviously eventually not everyone did serve as a kohen, even if so born).

But supposing the call is one to ministerial priesthood, the call and the priesthood or ordination are different things.

St Ignatius of Loyola had God's call to priesthood the day the third inquisitorial trial acquitted him on condition he try no pastoral up to studying theology and getting ordained.

The call was on his giving Spiritual Exercises without being a priest, in Alcalá de Henares, 1526 to 27, when the Inquisition gaoled him.

The ordination came after studies in Paris, in Venice, 24 June 1537. Ten years after the call.

There is even NT proof that "a congregation" is definitely not necessary for a priesthood. NT mentions house churches.

6:54 You neither see in NT nor in early Church history anyone whose ministry is valid simply because of election by a congregation. Sure, elections were often by popular vote and that was the case with episcopacy, including to very late the Roman one (first millennium).

But even when a source only mentions election, you cannot just presume that ordination is lacking or not traced (if not all the way back on last item, at least at each step) back to apostles, via Church claiming, credibly, to dispose of apostolic succession.

6:54 "and that makes him a valid minister and so his preaching is going to be the truth as long as it's in line with the Scriptures"

• 1) Unverifiable condition
• 2) Not guaranteed individually either by valid election (other perhaps than to papacy) or valid succession, only guaranteed to the Church as a whole.

7:04 "his sacraments are going to be valid as long as they are done according to the institution"

The institution conditions for most sacraments (baptism and marriage excepted) and especially for the Holy Eucharist precisely is among other things a minister with valid succession.

By flouting this condition, you are making your sacraments invalid (except your baptisms and your marriages).

8:08 [rightly considers Baptist pastors' Eucharists as invalid and motivates] "he's not doing it according to the institution"

Precisely - and neither do you with lines of ordinational succession truly broken off, not just in documentation long after facts, but in factual truth, by truly originating in "congregations" much later than the twelve apostles.

"first of all he's not using the elements in most cases, they're not using the elements that Christ instituted the sacrament with, i e wine, most of them use grape juice"

It's correct that someone trying that would definitely not celebrate a valid Eucharist, not even if he were validly ordained.

"grape juice is denatured wine"

Actually, grape juice is what wine had been before the fermentation making it wine. Commercial grape juice might also be denatured so it cannot ferment in some cases. Now, non-alcoholic wine is by contrast denatured wine.

If a priest ever come across a pastor's non-alcoholic wine, he can't use it for Eucharist. If he comes across his grape juice, if normal, not sure this is the case for all grape juice, he can open packages and start fermenting in a damejeanne. And when he gets wine from that, use it in the Eucharist.

9:19 Yes, it has to do with apostolic succession debate.

The by institution necessary elements for a sacrament are three:

• an apt minister with the intention of doing what the Church does
• right matter
• right form.

For baptism, you only need to be human to be "apt minister". Two Jews about to die soon could baptise each other (successively) after converting in a situation they have no physical access to the Church.

The first to be baptised would still be validly baptised even if baptised by an unbaptised.

For marriage, you need to be human, previously unmarried or since previous marriage widowed, and of opposite sex to the one you are conferring marriage on (the form is not given in the Bible, but it is the marital vows).

For the five sacraments between these, you need to be either bishop or at least priest to confer them validly. That means, you need apostolic succession.

Preaching is not a sacrament, reading the Gospel in Mass is a sacramental for which you need to be at least deacon, but preaching can be done by laymen, like St Francis of Assisi was a frequent preacher, but probably not ordained, or if at all only to deacon, but we have no documentation, I don't think even narrative, for that. However, he did need the blessing of someone in charge of preaching. Similar for catechising those who will be baptised or reconciled with the Church.

By contrast, St Justin Martyr was not preaching, nor catechising, he was defending the faith on items where it was attacked. Since attacks of infidels and heretics are not foreseeable, nor to whom they come, at least improvised apologetics is perfectly fine without a special ecclesiastic vocation to it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John of Matha
8.II.2019

* In autoreply from him, it seems the real name of Hunnius Redivivus is Pastor Sullivan.

** Note, this was not what happened when Pope Michael was elected by laymen, he remained layman, though Pope elect, nor what happened when he was ordained and consecrated more than two decades later in 2011, there were bishops with apostolic succession, the principal Bob Biarnesen with succession through Duarte Costa who did his ordination and consecration, therefore no lay apostolic succession there either.