Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9

Author Topic: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"  (Read 240562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SimpleMan

Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2025, 01:09:48 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2025, 10:41:46 PM
So what if a couple hundred years ago some priest was putting "Pope Innocent's" name in the canon despite the fact that he had died and the current Pope was "Pope Clement"

This touches on the example I always use, of a priest waking up one morning, the Pope having died during the night, and not having yet had the news on, goes to the church and offers Mass una cuм [whatever the Pope's name is], and then learning the news after Mass is over.  He did err materially, but cannot be said to have had any willful intent.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2025, 09:40:16 PM »
Quote from: SimpleMan on September 29, 2025, 01:09:48 PM
This touches on the example I always use, of a priest waking up one morning, the Pope having died during the night, and not having yet had the news on, goes to the church and offers Mass una cuм [whatever the Pope's name is], and then learning the news after Mass is over.  He did err materially, but cannot be said to have had any willful intent.

Right, it's clear that this is MATERIAL error, ignorance of fact.  Same thing held with St. Vincent Ferrer, the worker of countless miracles ... and I doubt his Masses were "schismatic", sacrilegious, blasphemous etc. etc. etc. ... nor would God be offended by the faithful who assisted at his Masses.

Again, I'm open to some kind of rational argument explaining why it's still wrong, but pretending that there's NO DISTINCTION here, that "una cuм diabolo" (Fr. Desposito's example) is the same thing as "una cuм Leone" because, as per Father Chazal's reasoning, for instance, he's suspended but nevertheless in possession of the office and the material symbol of unity ... to equate the two as if they're exactly the same and there's no difference, that borders on insanity.  No Trad priest puts Leo's name in the Canon because they're professing allegiance to the Conciliar Revolution (otherwise they wouldn't be Trad priests), or because they reject the Catholic theology regarding the papacy and are expressing their secret Orthodox heretical beliefs.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2025, 09:43:47 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 29, 2025, 09:31:47 AM
To go back to +Sanborn, he believes in sedeprivationism, which means that the V2 popes are "partial popes" or "material popes".  That's NOT the same thing as a non-pope.  So even if des Lauriers was 100% correct on his assertion of "non popes", the debate that's been going on for 50 years is around this question:

Yeah, and that's one of the most surprising things about the sedeprivationists being the most dogmatic anti-una-cuм types, since you absolutely could make an easy case for putting the name in the canon by virtue of their material possession of office or at least their claim to office or right to the office.

I'd find it much easier to at least consider internally consistent for some Totalist types to make this claim, but they're by far the most virulently dogmatic anti-una-cuм types out there.  Meanwhile, Totalists like CMRI and SSPV are not dogmatic-una-cuм, nor are the dogmatically SV Dimond Brothers.

So, I am a bit cynical about Bishop Sanborn's "conversion" to sedeprivationism.  I personally believe that he was influenced to find a way to embrace the position because he wanted to be consecrated in the +des Lauriers line but Bishop McKenna insisted that he would only consecrate privationists.  But if you listen to Bishop Sanborn talk, he still really talks like a dogmatic SV, where the "pope-elect" status means almost nothing.  I think that he does sincerely adhere to his versoin of it, but the +Sanborn version and the Fr. Chazal version of what (to all intents and purposes) is the same thing ... you'd never know it, since they're still battling it out and not finding common ground, the same distinction with Bishop Sanborn emphasizing the glass-half-empty and Fr. Chazal emphasizing the glass-half-full, and believing that they two perspectives are radically opposed to one another.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2025, 09:56:34 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 29, 2025, 08:13:04 AM
So ultimately, they are NOT sedeprivationists, but dogmatic sedes.  I've been saying this for years.  While in THEORY, they pay lip service to privationism and distinctions, in PRACTICE, the 'una cuм' issue makes them dogmatic sedes. 

By the same token, Father Chazal does the same thing on the other side, where he's so hostile to sedevacantism that he adamantly refuses to accept the idea that his position is nearly identical to that of the sedeprivationists.

I find it rather strange, on both sides.

When Father Chazal had developed his position, which I found to be rather solid, convincing, and to which I had no objections ... I was hopeful that this would create a possible bridge between the sedevacantists and the R&R types, where that type of position, similar to privationism, could resolve many if not most of the objections that each side had toward the other, and that both could agree on some variation thereof, where those who wanted to insist upon considering the V2 papal claimants to be popes, could do so in a manner where they did not attribute the destruction of the Church to the exercise of legitimate papal authority.

BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED.  Father Chazal adamantly denies that his position is similar to that of the sedeprivationists, and the sedeprivationists don't give him the of day either ... and very few RR have actually gravitated toward Father Chazal's position, but continue to cling with white knuckles to this notion that the Holy Ghost does not protect the Church and the papacy so that they cannot destroy the Church this badly (despite the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed that position).

I honestly don't get it.  I'd constantly be looking for stuff we could agree on, but they seem hell-bent on continuing the dispute and ignoring all opportunities to agree on things.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2025, 10:04:40 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on September 29, 2025, 05:28:32 AM

This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed: "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!" - Archbishop Lefebvre

No, it does not say that anyone "embraces" their ideas, but you are professing to be in a unity of faith, so that's implicit.  You're saying that you basically share the same faith as ... Bergoglio and co-exist in ecclesiastical communion, which Traditional Catholics most certainly do NOT do.  You, and here +Lefebvre, are completely UNDER-stating the significance of the "una cuм".  As is often the case, the truth lies in the middle.

Stuborrn, you are and have long been as much a problem on the dogmatic R&R side as the dogmatic SVs are on their side, an obstacle to any rational consideration of the matter, and a polarizing force, leading to unnecessary division.  You're as insanely dogmatic an R&R as the SVs on the opposite extreme.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
« previous next »