Are by any chance some of these comments a reaction to the OPEN LETTER recently posted on SS P&P webpage?

http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/INDULTIST_Reply_11-21-25.htm

                     

                      Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission

P.O. Box 7352

York, PA 17404

(717) 792-2789

www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com

 

+Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

 
Enclosure: Email communication from Mr. X, an Indult Catholic from Lancaster, PA
 
Mr. X,
 
If you are "trapped," it is a trap of your own making. "If I were in (your) place" I would be rethinking what mistakes I made that got me there? In the end, I hope I would be doing what Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission has been doing for the last 25 years when we began with a monthly Mass in a basement chapel in Lancaster. It has been 24 years since the first OPEN LETTER was personally delivered to Bishop Dattilo by Msgr. Mercurio Fregapane requesting from him a formal judgment on the doctrinal, liturgical and moral arguments from the bishop. Fr. Fregapane was retired and no reply came from Bishop Dattilo. Since then there has been no reply from his successors.
 
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission was established firstly to defend the Catholic faith in the public forum. We know and understand that the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Church are not matter of mere discipline but are the very means by which the faith is expressed and communicated to others. It is because we profess and defend the Catholic faith that we offer the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass and not the Bugnini 1962 transitional indult missal. Our Mission was intended from the beginning to publically confront the local ordinary, and through him to confront Rome, with compelling doctrinal, liturgical, moral and canonical arguments regarding our inalienable rights as Catholic faithful which are directly derived from our duties imposed by God. For 25 years we have been trying to get the bishops of hαɾɾιsburg, or their designated representative, to enter into a public written exchange regarding the validity of our claims for the purpose of bringing those in error back to Catholic truth. In our letters to hαɾɾιsburg we have frequently reminded the bishops of Catholic saints who have spent their lives, often giving their lives, for the purpose of restoring heretics and schismatics to the Catholic Church. This has made no impression on them, and this should make every Catholic question why these slugs are so devoid of charity that they are indifferent in defending the truth or restoring heretical and schismatic Catholics to the Church. The purpose of a canonical contention is to determine who is contending for truth. Apparently, the Bishops of hαɾɾιsburg are not confident who in the end would be publically convicted of heresy and schism.
 
The Catholic bishops of the United States are the people who have stolen more than five billion dollars ($5,000,000,000.00) from Catholics to pay off the victims of their crimes of pederasty while studiously avoiding ever to identify that the problem is overwhelmingly caused by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clerics. We might think it charitable to attribute this to mindlessness but then we would justifiably be accused of being mindless as well. Any cleric that does not clearly recognize that the problem of sɛҳuąƖ corruption of the clergy is because of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is either a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ himself or a hireling thoroughly penetrated with the vice of sloth, the Novus Ordo's most evident moral failing. These clerics clearly do not have the Catholic faith. What Catholics saints such as St. Peter of Verona, St. Andrew Bobola, St. Josephat, St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, and the English martyrs under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I gave their lives to restore schismatics and heretics to the Catholic Church, the bishops of hαɾɾιsburg will not even attempt. As time goes by the fruit of Vatican II, a pastoral council that is an evident pastoral failure, becomes manifestly more fetid every year.
 
There is no reason that the Catholics in Lancaster cannot do what the Catholics in York have been doing, but you must know the Catholic faith. The remote rule of faith is found in Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith is DOGMA which is divine revelation infallibly defined and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The pope is the material and instrumental cause of dogma but it is God who is the formal and final cause. Dogma is, as St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven." Dogma is formulated for all the faithful. It is the end of theological speculation. The very definition of a heretic is a Catholic who rejects a dogma. The proximate rule of faith is not the pope or his local ordinary for they are as much subject to dogma as everyone of the faithful. We owe them obedience but an obedience that is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion which is the proximate subsidiary moral virtue to the virtue of Justice subject to the Faith. Any act of obedience to any properly constituted authority that violates the virtue of Religion is a sin and it matters not whether the person is your priest, your bishop or your pope. No Catholic cleric, no one whomsoever, has the authority to overturn the virtue of Religion regardless of his clerical rank or status. I repeat again, any act of obedience to a superior in violation of the virtue of Religion is a sin.
 
The virtue of Religion requires firstly to render to God the things that are God's. You are required by God as your first duty to profess the Catholic faith and offer fitting worship to God in the public forum. You therefore  possess as a right the necessary means to fulfill these obligations. It is the duty of the bishop to insure that the means to fulfill your obligations are available to you. When the bishop fails in his duty you are free to pursue the means without his help or even against it. That is Catholic moral teaching.
 
Recently we celebrated the feast of St. Charles Borromeo whose motto to his priests in Milan was "Stand up and be shot"! If that was declared to the clerics in the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg they would all wet their pants. When St. Charles was appointed the bishop of Milan he immediately left Rome for Milan, a city at the time of 800,000, the largest diocese in Italy, to take up his residence. He was the first bishop in 80 years to actually live in Milan. The state of affairs in the Church is far more degraded today where the last two popes have openly embraced sodomites who claim to be "married." Today we would count it a blessing if our local ordinary would pack his bags and go live somewhere else!
 
The bishops of hαɾɾιsburg have provided the 1962 Bugnini transitional Novus Ordo Missal as an Indult, then as a grant of legal privilege, and now again as an Indult and this grant has always been tied to unacceptable conditions that compromise the faith. You need to dump the Bugnini Missal and claim your rights as Catholics to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite that was dogmatized at the Council of Trent and inserted into the Tridentine Profession of Faith. If Bishop Senior will not do his duty, you are free to obtain another priest to help fulfill your obligations. The granting of supplied jurisdiction by the Church is for this very purpose. You as a Catholic have a right to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rites because you have a duty to worship God and profess the Catholic faith in the public forum especially when that faith and worship are being compromised by the Church hierarchy. Bishop Senior has the obligation to provide the means to fulfill these duties through his ordinary jurisdiction. When the ordinary jurisdiction fails, the Church provides supplied jurisdiction to any cleric willing to assume the responsibility that the local ordinary is refusing to do. Supplied jurisdiction is established by the needs of the faithful. Furthermore, you have a right to the integral Catholic truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You have a moral obligation to avoid any cleric preaching heresy or corrupting Catholic morality in the pulpit or the confessional.
 
You need to understand that the charge of schism by the bishops of hαɾɾιsburg repeated ad nauseam for the last 25 years is meaningless. The crime of schism is an act that requires a motive that denies the universal jurisdiction of the pope. This can only be determined by a canonical inquiry. In fact, there is one, and only one, manifest sin that always reveals the crime of schism and that is manifest heresy, for St. Thomas says, "All heretics are schismatics,"  and since Vatican I's dogmatic declarations on papal jurisdiction, all schismatics are heretics. Heresy is the denial of dogma, and that can be known not only by what is said, but by what is not said and should be. It can also be manifest by acts, or failures to act when necessary to defend the faith. The bishops do not want a canonical inquiry because they will never establish a schismatic motive for any of our actions at Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission while the evidence for clerical heresy is as easy to find as sand on a seashore. Any recent review of PEW polls demonstrate the abysmal failure of the Catholic bishops of the United States to teach or defend Catholic doctrine or uphold Catholic morals.
 
As to the other options you mentioned, Bishop Donald Sanborn is a sedevacantist. His misguided theology turned the Church into a papal cult by holding the pope as his proximate rule of faith. He then concludes that since the pope is a problem, he usurps the power to administratively remove him from office. In so doing he has become the leader of a cult that worships Sanborn instead of the pope. He is in a church of his own making that not only does not have a pope but is missing the material and instrumental means (causes) to ever get one. He is in a church that is permanently missing  a necessary attribute of the Catholic Church. He is the blind leader of the blind. In his new church, he refuses the sacraments to any Catholic that is not vetted as bending to his personal creed. It is so bizarre that he announces on his web page that he will refuse the sacraments to any Catholic who actually believes the dogmas that the sacraments are necessary for salvation! His theology corrupts the very nature of the Church and now he has become his own pope.
 
The Fraternity of St. Peter is a group of geldings. They have promised to keep their mouths shut in the face of manifest crimes against Catholic doctrine and morality for the "privilege" of eating table scraps. It is the faith itself that is in danger and they are dogs that won't bark.
 
The SSPX has already been regularized in their leadership to Rome and this occurred more than ten years ago. This fact has not been openly shared by the leadership with their members or with the faithful that attend their chapels. It is the intent of Rome to eventually herd all "traditional" Catholics under their authority. There is not a dime's worth of difference between the SSPX and the Fraternity of St. Peter. I have two OPEN LETTERS on our webpage, one explaining why the SSPX cannot defend the Catholic faith and another explaining why they cannot defend our immemorial liturgical traditions.   
 
If you want to defend the faith then you must do what we are doing in York. If you are content to live as you are then I recommend that you just inform Bishop Senior that you are considering that option of doing exactly what Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission is doing in York and see what happens. When Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission began there was no Latin Mass in the diocese excepting the one offered on the First Saturday of the month which in the beginning frequently suffered changes in both locations and times to discourage attendance. That is how it would be today without our Mission. When the diocese opened the Indult more than 50% of those who had attended our Masses left to become Indultists. The financial and material contributions to our Mission from these Indultists was next to nothing. We suffered nothing from their absence. I am perfectly satisfied with a our small group of thoroughly committed Catholics and I have no interest in packing our pews with compromisers. You should understand that the reason that the Latin Mass and the traditional sacraments are offered in hαɾɾιsburg in a beautiful setting, in a central location, at convenient times is because that is what Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission established in York. The more time passes we have proven to have been correct in everything we have argued whether on Catholic doctrine, liturgy, morality or law. We do not have to retract or qualify any of our OPEN LETTERS or our communications with the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg or the Vatican. If we were gone tomorrow, eventually so would be the Indult. That's how it works for the Novus Ordo clerics. Their aim is not to preach and defend Catholic doctrine, worship or morality but to destroy it.
 
Sincerely in Christ,
 
 
 
D. M. Drew
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
 
 
cc: Bishop Timothy Senior, Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg
 
 
 
Enclosure: Email communication to Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission from Indult Catholic, Lancaster, PA
 
 
 
Hello Dr. Drew:
 
I am with the Lancaster Latin Mass Community.  We spoke several years ago.  I recently had a conversation with Bishop Sanborn of the Roman Catholic Institute in Reading, PA. Their apostolate continues to grow while we remain trapped at a 1 p.m. TLM within a hostile parish in Lancaster. 
 
As Pope Leo continues to push heresy, we are examining all of our options.  It would be great to partner with you during this time of apostasy and emergency, but I don't know exactly how we would do it. Our TLM remains permitted under a dispensation that lapsed in July.  Bishop Senior requested a renewal in June, but no word back from DDW.  If we are closed or forced to a "Latin Novus Ordo", I need options. 
 
We spoke with Fr. Boyle at the SSPX Priory in Syracuse and I recall your opposition to the SSPX, but in any event, they don't have clergy to spare and even if they did, it would be something like a once-a-month Mass.  With their need for new bishops, a confrontation or accommodation with Rome seems inevitable. 
 
I would be interested in your thoughts on the RCI.  As I see it, we have a continuum ranging from indult diocesan Mass (our present Lancaster option), then the FSSP in hαɾɾιsburg who made their deal with Rome, the SSPX, then your independent chapel, then the sedevacantists (RCI). 
 
If you were in my place with 175 faithful on an average Sunday, what would you recommend we do to maintain a TLM in Lancaster?
 
Sincerely in Christ,
 
 
Mr. Name Withheld by request
 
 

This part, at least, is quite right. And it is shameful

Right ... but the part attacking sedevacantism is an absolute disaster, especially this hot mess here:

The remote rule of faith is found in Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith is DOGMA which is divine revelation infallibly defined and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The pope is the material and instrumental cause of dogma but it is God who is the formal and final cause. Dogma is, as St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven." Dogma is formulated for all the faithful. It is the end of theological speculation. The very definition of a heretic is a Catholic who rejects a dogma. The proximate rule of faith is not the pope or his local ordinary for they are as much subject to dogma as everyone of the faithful.

This part, at least, is quite right. And it is shameful

From a heretical Feeneyite perspective, agreeing with implicit faith and implicit denial of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus is shameful !!!

Which part therein?

Those are all some serious charges, which one(s) are true though?

All

1) Is a blind leader of the blind.

+Sanborn denies Church teaching on EENS, he holds the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved. He is blind and he teaches those who attend his sect this heresy, and they follow him

2) Has established a new church.

See above. What +Sanborn professes and teaches is not of the Church. His group is his own, with its own doctrine that must be held to be a "member"

3) Refuses sacraments to any Catholic that is not vetted as bending to his personal creed.

4) Is bizarre that he will refuse sacraments to any Catholic that actually believes the dogmas that...etc.

+Sanborn and his group refuse the sacraments to those who do not hold his opinions (some which are heretical). 

5) His theology corrupts the very nature of the Church.

That is what heresy does. When you deny a Dogma, which is to be believed as a "truth fallen from heaven", you relegate the Church and Her infallible teachings to a mere human institution that you can decide to accept or reject at will. When you deny a Dogma of the Faith, your motive of faith is your own private judgement..not because the Church, who is the guardian of the deposit of faith, teaches it as Divinely revealed

6) He has become his own Pope

+Sanborn teaches his opinions as infallible, and attempts to bind the consciences of others with them . I'll admit, "false pope" or "anti-pope" would be a bit more accurate here

There are plenty of replies to your comments on the thread below and on this same subject by Drew.
Maybe others will benefit from it.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/

Sorry, but your husband is wrong about the Pope not being the Proximate Rule of Faith. By replacing the "living Magisterium" (the role played by the Pope) with static Dogma, your husband falls into the error of the Old Catholics. 

On the Cathinfo page you linked to, your husband said the following:

"Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority."

On Magisterium.com (a mainstream Catholic AI good for Catholic 101 stuff like this) the question was asked,

"Is the Pope the proximate rule of faith?"

The concept of the "rule of faith" in Catholic theology refers to the authoritative standard by which the deposit of faith—divinely revealed truths contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition—is known, interpreted, and proposed to the faithful. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition themselves, while the proximate rule is the living Magisterium of the Church, which authentically interprets and guards these sources under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.¹ Within this framework, the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter and the visible head of the Church, holds a unique and supreme role as the proximate rule of faith, particularly in resolving doctrinal questions and defining truths for the universal Church. This authority is not absolute in a personal sense but derives from his office, exercised either extraordinarily (ex cathedra) or ordinarily, ensuring unity and fidelity to the apostolic faith.^2 3 4

The Pope's Primacy in Teaching Authority

The Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff possesses full, supreme, and universal power over the Church, jure divino (by divine right), as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of the entire flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17).^56 7 8 This includes the responsibility to "feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," making him the principal teacher of all Christians.⁵ As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, the Pope's authority extends to issuing authoritative judgments on matters of faith "sententialiter determinare" (decisively), so that they may be held by the whole Church with "unshaken faith."² This role ensures there is "but one faith of the whole Church" (1 Cor 1:10), preventing schisms by resolving disputes that arise.^2 4

St. Robert Bellarmine further clarifies that the Pope, as the Pastor and universal Teacher of the Church, can define matters of faith even without a council, for he "cannot err when he teaches ex cathedra; otherwise the whole Church would err."³This underscores the Pope's position as the proximate norm for the faith, where his definitive teachings bind the consciences of the faithful irrevocably, preserving the purity of the Gospel.^9 10

Distinctions in Magisterial Authority

Not every papal statement constitutes the proximate rule of faith; the Church distinguishes between levels of authority. Infallible teachings—whether through solemn definitions (extraordinary Magisterium) or the ordinary and universal Magisterium—form the primary and secondary objects of infallibility and demand the full assent of faith (fides divina or fides ecclesiastica).¹ The Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements, as defined by Vatican I, meet this criterion, protecting revealed truths from error.¹¹ Even non-infallible teachings in the ordinary Magisterium require religious submission of intellect and will, as they contribute to the Church's doctrinal development and safeguard against harm to faith and morals.^1 12 13

For instance, Pope Leo XIII affirms that "questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church," and his sentence "must consequently be accepted without wavering."⁴ This primacy is echoed in Vatican I's declaration that the Pope is the "supreme judge of the faithful" in ecclesiastical matters, with no higher authority, such as an ecuмenical council, to which one may appeal.¹⁴ Historical errors, like the Gallican articles suggesting papal judgments need the Church's consent to be unalterable, have been condemned as void.¹⁵

Implications for the Faithful

The Pope's role as proximate rule of faith means Catholics are bound to adhere to his authoritative teachings on doctrine, morals, and governance, fostering communion and obedience.⁶ This is not a diminishment of the bishops' role—who, with the Pope, form the college of authentic teachers—but a recognition of Petrine primacy, which "presides in love" over the universal Church.^11 8 As Pope Pius XII taught, this obedience extends to all pastors and faithful, ensuring "one flock under one supreme shepherd."⁶ In practice, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith assists the Pope in promoting and safeguarding this integrity, examining potential errors and providing rebuttals.^16 9 10

In summary, yes, the Pope is the proximate rule of faith in his magisterial office, serving as the divinely appointed guardian and interpreter of the depositum fidei for the entire Church. This ensures doctrinal unity amid contemporary challenges, always in service to the truth revealed by Christ.¹⁷ 

For deeper exploration, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 85-100) outlines the Magisterium's role comprehensively.

[1] D'Costa's Hermeneutics page3
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas and the Origins of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility page42
[3] Controversies of the Christian Faith (Disputationes de Controversiis) page453
[4] Sapientiae Christianae 23
[5] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059
[6] Ad Apostolorum principis 46
[7] Evangelii Nuntiandi 67
[8] Satis Cognitum 13
[9] Regulations for Doctrinal Examination - Ratio Agendi 1
[10] To promote and safeguard the faith 
[11] Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church: Christ – Our Pascha 291
[12] Falliable Teachings and the Assistance of the Holy Spirit Reflections on the Ordinary Magisterium in Connection with the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian page21
[13] CCC 2050
[14] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3063
[15] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 2284
[16] Praedicate Evangelium Art. 69
[17] 10 December 2000: Jubilee of Catechists - Homily 3


And then a follow up question was asked, 

Does the error of the Old Catholics attempt to replace the Pope as the proximate rule of faith with static dogma?

Yes, the error of the Old Catholics can be understood as an attempt to replace the Pope's role as the proximate rule of faith—embodied in his living magisterial authority to interpret and guard the deposit of faith—with a static conception of dogma limited to pre-Vatican I teachings, which they regard as the unalterable and exhaustive expression of the "ancient Catholic faith." This position undermines the dynamic, Spirit-guided development of doctrine under Petrine primacy, reducing the Church's teaching authority to a fixed historical corpus without the Pope's supreme interpretive function.^1 2

Historical Context of the Old Catholic Schism

The Old Catholics emerged in the late 19th century as a direct response to the First Vatican Council's definition of papal infallibility (1870), which they denounced as an "innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church."¹ Led by figures like Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger and Johann Friedrich von Schulte, they issued declarations rejecting the dogma and organized separate communities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and elsewhere, convening congresses (e.g., Munich, 1871) to affirm adherence to what they called the "ancient Catholic faith" while repudiating "new dogmas."^1 3They elected their own bishops, such as Joseph Hubert Reinkens in 1873, and sought state recognition in places like Prussia, Baden, and Hesse, framing themselves as the true preservers of Catholicism against "Ultramontanism"—a term they used pejoratively for the enhanced role of the Roman Pontiff.¹

In their synodal constitutions and resolutions, the Old Catholics emphasized a return to the "constitutions of the ancient Church," rejecting not only infallibility but also elements like mandatory confession, clerical celibacy, and the Roman liturgy in favor of local adaptations.^1 3 Pope Pius IX condemned this in Etsi Multa (1873), accusing them of "attack[ing] and pervert[ing] the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff" and asserting that the Pope and bishops had "fallen into heresy" by approving Vatican I.² They boldly claimed the Church's visible head and hierarchy had "erred," necessitating a "restoration" of a "legitimate episcopacy" outside Roman communion, which Pius IX described as entering "not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber."²

Replacement of Proximate Rule with Static Dogma

In Catholic theology, the proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium—the Church's authentic teaching office, headed by the Pope—which interprets Scripture and Tradition infallibly when exercising its full authority, ensuring doctrinal unity and development "in the same sense and the same meaning" (eodem sensu eademque sententia).^4 5 The Old Catholics' error inverts this by subordinating the Magisterium to a static set of dogmas they deem "harmonious with the actual consciousness of the Church," excluding any post-1870 developments as invalid innovations.¹ This effectively elevates a selective, historical corpus of teachings—such as those from the early councils—above the Pope's ongoing role as the "supreme judge" and "universal teacher," who resolves faith disputes with "unshaken faith" binding the whole Church.^6 7 8

By denying papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church in its hierarchical teaching, the Old Catholics imply that the deposit of faith is fully captured in "static" dogmas without need for the Pope's proximate guidance.² They reject the idea that the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, holds "full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," instead promoting a more democratic or synodal model where laity and local bishops hold interpretive primacy.^9 2 This mirrors condemned errors like Gallicanism, which limited papal authority to mere execution of conciliar decisions, but goes further by schismatically separating to enforce their vision.⁴ As a result, their communities devolved toward liberal reforms, ecuмenical alliances with Protestants and Jansenists, and eventual rationalism, losing any claim to Catholic orthodoxy.^1 3

Broader Theological Implications

This error not only fractures ecclesial unity but also contradicts the Church's teaching that dogmas are not isolated artifacts but living truths integrated within the "hierarchy of truths" and the Church's full life of worship and doctrine.⁵The Old Catholics' approach risks a "legal positivism" that freezes revelation, ignoring the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium for ongoing clarification amid new contexts.¹⁰ In contrast, Vatican I affirmed the Pope's primacy as essential for the Church's stability, ensuring that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against it.^8 2 Their persistent small numbers and doctrinal drifts today (e.g., ordination of women, same-sex blessings in some branches) illustrate the instability of bypassing Petrine authority.¹

In conclusion, the Old Catholics' rejection of papal infallibility indeed seeks to supplant the Pope's dynamic role as proximate rule of faith with a static, selective dogma, leading to schism and a diminished understanding of the Church's indefectible teaching mission. This remains a cautionary example of how denying Petrine primacy fragments the faith.²

[1] Catholic Encyclopedia Old Catholics
[2] Etsi Multa 
[3] Catholic Encyclopedia Schism
[4] Catholic Encyclopedia Dogma
[5] The Interpretation of Dogma B.III.3
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia Error
[7] Infideles et Philosophi: Re-Reading ST II-II, q. 2, a. 2, ad 3 page13
[8] The Bishop of Rome 3.134
[9] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059
[10] In the Name of Jesus Christ: A Few Historical Perspectives on the Functioning of Authority in Biblical Interpretation page25

All
+Sanborn denies Church teaching on EENS, he holds the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved. He is blind and he teaches those who attend his sect this heresy, and they follow him

See above. What +Sanborn professes and teaches is not of the Church. His group is his own, with its own doctrine that must be held to be a "member"

+Sanborn and his group refuse the sacraments to those who do not hold his opinions (some which are heretical).
That is what heresy does. When you deny a Dogma, which is to be believed as a "truth fallen from heaven", you relegate the Church and Her infallible teachings to a mere human institution that you can decide to accept or reject at will. When you deny a Dogma of the Faith, your motive of faith is your own private judgement..not because the Church, who is the guardian of the deposit of faith, teaches it as Divinely revealed


+Sanborn teaches his opinions as infallible, and attempts to bind the consciences of others with them . I'll admit, "false pope" or "anti-pope" would be a bit more accurate here

A lot of that all around wouldn't you say?

I mean, what SPECIFICALLY about RCI/+Sanborn do you find uniquely "heretical" and "sectarian"?

A lot of that all around wouldn't you say?

I mean, what SPECIFICALLY about RCI/+Sanborn do you find uniquely "heretical" and "sectarian"?

Specifically, uniquely? Not much. Their forbiddance of Una cuм masses is probably the only unique thing about them, but SGG might do that too. Not sure. I know the SSPV refuses the sacraments to those who do not hold their opinion on BOD, but "permits" Una cuм attendance. I respect the wishes of all of these groups, they would not hold me to be "in communion" with them anyways. Hopefully they come around to the Truth