CathInfo.com

Bishop Donald Sanborn recently held a conference at Sacred Heart Church in Lawrence Massachusetts. During the conference, he spoke on the Una Cuм question for about 15-20 or so minutes. I do not hold the Non Una Cuм position but admittedly it sometimes puts me/my conscience at ill ease, especially since I struggle greatly with scrupulosity.

Here is the the entire "Una Cuм" section of the conference. Thoughts?

So, watching this video, Bishop Sanborn makes a slight concession to people who might err "in good faith", but still considers it objectively grave sin, so that, once informed, such as by him here, then the person commits grave sin by assisting at the Novus Ordo.  That's just like saying that a person who doesn't go to Mass on, say, Ascension Thursday, not knowing it's a Holy Day of Obligation, can be excused subjectively of grave sin, but objectively commits grave sin.

But he continues to make the absurd claims that ...

1) the Mass of St. Vincent Ferrer, wherein he put the name of an Anti-Pope into the Canon, were schismatic Masses (his term) that displeased God as much as when the Orthodox don't put the Pope's name into the Canon -- making no distinction whatsoever between the fact that St. Vincent made a material error only, but put the name in there mistakenly THINKING he was the Pope, i.e. that his formal intention was to put the name of the Pope in there, whereas the Orthodox have the formal intention to NOT put the name of the Pope in there, and the same would hold of the guy who was just mistaken about the name of the current pope

2) also then categorizes a sedeprivationist who puts him in there since the material occupation of the office might serve as a visible sign of material unity) ... into that same category

3) claims that putting the name in there is tantamount to declaring the Novus Ordo and Conciliar Church legitimate ... which is also utter hogwash.  Father Chazal, for instance, puts Leo's name into the Canon, and holds that Leo has no authority whatsoever, and that none of his teaching is legitimate, etc. ... but puts him in there because he's the material / visible symbol of Communion and of Unity, without thereby professing the legitimacy of the Conciliar Church

Nor does he make a distinction between the priest who puts the "una cuм Leone" into the Canon and the faithful who assist at his Masses, even if they would not put the name in there if they were priests and offering the Mass, but who nevertheless do NOT agree with Bishop Sanborn's position regarding the "una cuм" matter.

Here we get into the schism being a transmissible disease like cooties, where I'm a shismatic not only for doing something schismatic, but also if I think that the priest is NOT doing something schismatic.  So, for instance, one radical proponent of BoD called me a heretic not because I believe in BoD (since I do not) because because I do not believe that those who believe in BoD are "per se" heretics.

Finally, for all that Bishop Sanborn talks about "the Church", ahem, well, as the Dimond Brothers -- and you don't get any more diehard SV than they are -- as the Dimond Brothers researched, the Church's attitude toward similar cases was quite different than Bishop Sanborn's, where, in some specific cases, the faithful were NOT commanded to avoid assisting at the Masses schismatic compromisers, provided they had used the Catholic Rite.

https://tinyurl.com/5atr69xp

A long time ago +Sanborn's private judgement, almost overnight morphed into dogmatic fact. You should have no scruples about this issue as long as you remember that the una cuм issue (and pretty much everything that has to do with it) is nothing more than people's opinion, it's nothing more than private judgement, a theory, a conspiracy theory, that the conciliar popes are not popes.   

So, the mistake they make is this, and others like, say, Father Jenkins has pointed this out, at a higher level, but does not break it down into the form of a syllogism (which is how I tend to see the world) --

Bishop Sanborn rightly identifies a dogmatic PREMISE of the implied syllogism leading to the SV conclusion.  He therefore classifies all those who reject his conclusion as heretics, because, the only way to reject a conclusion is to reject, what? ... ALL the premises?  Bishop Sanborn ignores the MINOR premises, that even if they're certain, even morally certain ... they are NOT de fide, and therefore, according to the "weakest link" principle of logic, peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, the conclusions cannot be dogmatic either.  One could deny the conclusion by 1) denying a non-dogmatic premise (rejecting the syllogism materially), or 2) pointing out some issues with the formal logic (a missed distinction being most common), or a combination of both.  That's actually what +Lefebvre did, hold back on affirming the MINOR premise, while explicitly affirming the MAJOR that Bishop Sanborn (in his muddled binary thinking) insists must be denied in order to reject the SV conclusions.  That is false, and that thinking speaks to the same black-and-white binary thinking they apply to the "una cuм" issue, where a priest who puts the name of the Conciliar Pope in the Canon because he THINKS the man is the Pope (having made an error), or just that he MIGHT be, or even that he likely is NOT, but adheres to the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas opinion, or just isn't sure and wants to give "benefit of the doubt" ... is exactly the same as someone who deliberately excludes the Pope due to rejection of the papacy (Orthodox).  For them, there's no difference between a Father Chazal, who inserts the name because he's the "visible sign of unity" (little different from sedeprivationists in this regard), and a Greek Orthodox who rejects the papacy in principle, i.e. between a materially-erroneous motive for inserting the name and a formally-erroneous motive.

Now, if +Sanborn at el. wanted to explain how or why, for these purposes, that distinction is not relevant, I invite them to do so and I will listen with an open mind, but they continue to plod along on this "una cuм" issue, causing consternation among the faithful's consciences, while pretending that such distinctions don't exist, where, according to Father Deposito, a priest who THINKS Leo is or might be the Pope might as well be a Satanist offering the Mass "una cuм diabolo".  What utter hogwash  That reductio ad absurdum alone suffices to debunk their reasoning.

Now, in the next step, they could argue ... well, even if the priest is mistaken, you can't go there if you don't think Leo is the Pope.  That's also false, since I could go there simply for DISAGREEING with their position on "una cuм" and thinking it's not inherently sacrilegous, blasphemous, and resulting in a "schismatic Mass" to put the name in there due to material error only, i.e. if I felt that I could have in good conscience assisted at the Mass of St. Vincent Ferrer even if I thought the one of the other guys was the pope  Again, I invite arguments along those lines, but they never even attempt to address these objections, but simply ignore them, pretend they don't exist, and circle the wagons behind the comfort and convenience of their black-and-white binary thinking ... having no tolerance for gray areas.