CathInfo.com

Stubborn, you are making things up.  I knew +Sanborn very well, and I also knew Father Jenkins well.  +Sanborn told me that HE HIMSELF was not a sedevacantist at the time, and that only some of them were.  Their grievances were as listed in their letter ... mostly having to do with annulments, the new Rite of Ordination, the New Code of Canon Law, and the FORBIDDING of non-una-cuм Masses.  Some of them happened to be una-cuм, but they objected to forcing una-cuм on all the priests.

Absolutely false. I used to serve Mass for Fr. Sanborn, as a young priest, he was a very good family friend. I knew him when he was fresh from Econe - what a priest! Best sermons ever, then he started to knock the pope from the pulpit, before long he was knocking the pope with that same veracity, often yelling profusely from the pulpit with clinched fists that the pope was not the pope and could not be the pope and etc. Read my above post from +ABL - whether or not you believe me, believe him.

He most certainly was sede at he time - no ands, ifs or buts about it, I am an eye witness to that fact whether you choose to believe it or not, so are many SSPX priests who were around at the time who will testify that he was not only sede, as head of SSPX in the USA, he was the ringleader of the nine.

He split our little chapel up because at least half the families left due to his slandering of the pope from the pulpit. The way you slander people reminds me a lot of the way he slandered the pope from the pulpit, I wouldn't be surprised if you acquired that trait from him.  

It was because of him and his sedeism that my family and many others left the SSPX for a number of years and were left to "wandering in the desert". This was all well prior to the nine being expelled.

1) You are absolutely wrong. Here is the letter of the Nine to +ABL (and please remember that Father Collins WAS NOT a “sedevacantist” at the time):

Rev. Clarence Kelly
Superior, N.E. District
Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Rector, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary
Rev. Daniel L. Dolan
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Rev. William W. Jenkins
Rev. Eugene Berry
Rev. Martin P. Skierka
Rev. Joseph Collins
Rev. Thomas P. Zapp

Sedevacantists.

Most of those names I never heard of. They came to nothing. That's what happens when you cut a branch off the main tree! Two of those names (Dolan, Cekada) I only know because of the huge scandal that broke there in 2009, discussed heavily on CathInfo at the time. Based on testimony from those who had the misfortune of living in Cincinnati, I learned ENOUGH about Dolan and Cekada to conclude they're no saints, they're no martyrs. It sounds like they live QUITE the comfortable life now. Cui bono?

Good riddance to bad rubbish! The SSPX was better off without them. It hurt at the time, but so does having a boil lanced, or having your inflamed appendix -- or impacted bowel movement -- removed.

Having read that letter, it made me question my support of the Resistance. It almost made me want to go back to the SSPX and beg forgiveness.

Fortunately, a quick perusal of the CCCC thread reminded me that it's different this time. I know that's a cliche, but it really is different this time! The SSPX is not just maintaining a "recognize and resist" position -- no, they're morphing into the FSSP which most SSPX faithful, seminarians, and priests did NOT sign up for. But also, the Resistance is not  sedevacantist just like Abp. Lefebvre wasn't sedevacantist. Just like the original group (SSPX) was not sedevacantist. The Nine were sedevacantist. EVERY LAST ONE of their "complaints" flow from their belief that the post-V2 popes are not popes.

And these traitors proceeded to sue the SSPX and got many of its properties. I have no sympathy for them. They're not humble martyrs for the truth. They're opportunistic, treacherous snakes in the grass, Brutus stabbers-in-the-back. They weren't after the truth. They were after SSPX real estate, and couldn't subordinate their proud wills to the leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre. They wanted to follow their own will only.

I guess you had to be there. Trust me, or don't - I gave the condensed version of what happened. Either way, I posted the link to +ABL's conference showing that per +ABL, the nine's version is false. No surprise.

When I said, "Maybe his memory was faulty." I should have said, "Maybe +Sanborn's memory was faulty." Does that clarify?