A “Sacraments only bishop" is a novelty without historical precedent or doctrinal support. Who birthed the term?

"Sacraments only 'bishops' don’t believe that this power to rule and to teach applies to them. They openly proclaim that they do not posses it. Therefore it stands to reason, that when they confer or receive episcopal consecration, that they do not intend to bestow or receive these two powers. This calls into question the sufficiency of their intention. The mind of the Church is to bestow the three powers of sanctifying, teaching and ruling, as the Sacrament of Consecration clearly shows. The mind of our Sacraments only "bishops" is simply to bestow the power of sanctifying while omitting the other two powers of teaching and ruling. In so doing, they clearly intend something different than what the Rite itself intends."

The Anonymous Forum is being abused.  If this subject is a matter requiring anonymity, then there is a real problem.

Anonymous gutless cowards trying to stir $#!+ from every angle.  We've likely been infiltrated by a bunch of kikes and masons.  I have thought that for a long time now.