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

Author Topic: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"  (Read 40762 times)

0 Members and 531 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline IndultCat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Reputation: +194/-110
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2025, 12:47:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm sick and tired of Bp. Sanborn and his dogmatic "non una cuм" nonsense too. I also never thought he would stoop so low as to run a "super chat" internet show. 

    Isn't Catholic wisdom given by the clergy supposed to be free of charge? Say what you will about Fr. Jenkins (and the absurd SSPV position on the Thuc bishops) but at least on his "What Catholics Believe" internet show, he provides free answers to questions asked of him.

     Freely-given donations to helpful Catholic clergy are one thing but Catholic clergy doing "super chats" is something completely different. It seems a very "worldly" thing to do for a Catholic priest who is supposed to "be in the world but not of the world."  

    Also, does anyone know when Bp. Sanborn's "The Thesis Show" will be returning online? I'm still waiting for episode two.:popcorn:

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14874
    • Reputation: +6163/-916
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #16 on: September 30, 2025, 05:48:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    You know that the election of the pope is an act of the Church's Administration. You know that it is not an act of the Church's infallibility. As such, the one who is elected according to the law and who accepts his election is the pope. Period.

    You know that the Church tells us that to omit the name of the pope in the canon of the Mass is an act of schism, you know this. You know that the Church tells us that the First See is judged by no one. You know this. Every trad knows this. You know that no one will be saved who is not a subject of the pope. You know this with dogmatic certainty because the pope infallibly declared it in the Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam.

    This means that the Church removed whatever obligation we may have thought we had of deciding his status. We should all rejoice and be thankful that it has never been nor is it now on our list of things we must do to get to heaven. The Church does not permit us to decide his status. Simple.

    You know that  sedeism is nothing more than a private  judgement, morphed into a dogmatic fact which decides against the pope - which is against Canon Law. IOW, we are not permitted to do what sedes do because  the Church says we are not allowed to do it.  The Church forbids us from doing it. On that account alone we are not permitted to decide his status - because that's what the Church told us in no uncertain terms. It's just that simple.

    Not even the altar boys during the Mass know for sure if the priest mentions the pope's name or not, but the Church says that the priest has no choice, that he must  say it and She does so with no disclaimers, and no ambiguity, and under penalty of schism if he omits it. No matter what he thinks about the pope, no matter how he feels about the pope, the Church explicitly forbids the priest from omitting the name of the pope in the Canon. 

    I will continue to repeat the same facts because it's what the Church teaches. If that is insanely dogmatic R&R to you, then you will need to post quotes of the Church contradicting herself.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 816
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #17 on: September 30, 2025, 06:41:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    I am not aware of Fr. Chazal expressing his position with precision.  If you know a source, please direct us.

    Offline IndultCat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +194/-110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #18 on: September 30, 2025, 07:12:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not aware of Fr. Chazal expressing his position with precision.  If you know a source, please direct us.
    You can look to Ft. Chazal's ground-breaking best-selling book "Contra Cekadam" wherein he expresses his position in great detail. 

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 816
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #19 on: September 30, 2025, 07:54:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can look to Ft. Chazal's ground-breaking best-selling book "Contra Cekadam" wherein he expresses his position in great detail.

    I have that book.  He does not "express his position in great detail".  The focus of that book was on attacking the dogmatic Sedevacantism of Fr. Anthony Cekada.  Furthermore, I don't believe that Fr. Chazal rejected Jorge Bergoglio as pope at the time of publication.


    Offline IndultCat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +194/-110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #20 on: September 30, 2025, 08:41:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have that book.  He does not "express his position in great detail".  The focus of that book was on attacking the dogmatic Sedevacantism of Fr. Anthony Cekada.  Furthermore, I don't believe that Fr. Chazal rejected Jorge Bergoglio as pope at the time of publication.
    I didn't know Fr. Chazal considered Bergoglio a false pope now. Well, I wasn't always a Sede so I understand how people change their views after careful study.

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 816
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #21 on: September 30, 2025, 10:45:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I didn't know Fr. Chazal considered Bergoglio a false pope now. Well, I wasn't always a Sede so I understand how people change their views after careful study.

    See here.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12664
    • Reputation: +8050/-2495
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #22 on: September 30, 2025, 11:50:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Yes, it's pathetically immature. 


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12664
    • Reputation: +8050/-2495
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #23 on: September 30, 2025, 11:55:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Furthermore, I don't believe that Fr. Chazal rejected Jorge Bergoglio as pope at the time of publication.
    :facepalm:  Because Fr Chazal makes a distinction between the spiritual papal authority (it's suspended due to heresy) and the material office (it's legit).  Fr Chazal says he's not a pope in the spiritual sense, but he IS a pope in the material/govt sense.

    You have this binary, black-or-white, all-or-nothing, view.

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 816
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #24 on: September 30, 2025, 12:07:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :facepalm:  Because Fr Chazal makes a distinction between the spiritual papal authority (it's suspended due to heresy) and the material office (it's legit).  Fr Chazal says he's not a pope in the spiritual sense, but he IS a pope in the material/govt sense.

    You have this binary, black-or-white, all-or-nothing, view.

    Fr. Chazal says the Jorge Bergoglio was not ontologically pope.  Do you know what that means?  Let me explain it to you.  It means that the quality of the papacy was not bestowed upon him by Jesus Christ.  That is black and white.  What is looney tunes is you and the Sedeprivationists splitting the papacy into two logical parts and acting like those two logical parts exist separately in reality.  It is like acting that rational and animal exist separately in reality.  No!  One is either pope or he is not.  Period.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12664
    • Reputation: +8050/-2495
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #25 on: September 30, 2025, 12:48:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Chazal says the Jorge Bergoglio was not ontologically pope.  Do you know what that means?  Let me explain it to you.  It means that the quality of the papacy was not bestowed upon him by Jesus Christ.  That is black and white.  What is looney tunes is you and the Sedeprivationists splitting the papacy into two logical parts and acting like those two logical parts exist separately in reality.  It is like acting that rational and animal exist separately in reality.  No!  One is either pope or he is not.  Period.
    Oh, you mean like when a sacrament can be
    a.  valid but illicit (i.e. mortal sin).  or..
    b.  invalid but licit (i.e. mortal sin).  or..
    c.  valid and licit but sacrilegeous (i.e. mortal sin).
    d.  invalid, illicit, and sacrilegious.
    e.  A few other combinations.

    Yeah, it's wrong to split things up like this;  theologians are dumb.  :facepalm:


    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 816
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #26 on: September 30, 2025, 01:03:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, you mean like when a sacrament can be
    a.  valid but illicit (i.e. mortal sin).  or..
    b.  invalid but licit (i.e. mortal sin).  or..
    c.  valid and licit but sacrilegeous (i.e. mortal sin).
    d.  invalid, illicit, and sacrilegious.
    e.  A few other combinations.

    Yeah, it's wrong to split things up like this;  theologians are dumb.  :facepalm:

    Sin doesn't belong to the sacrament.  It belongs to the person.  When invalid, the sacrament doesn't exist at all.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47141
    • Reputation: +27941/-5208
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #27 on: September 30, 2025, 03:32:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Chazal says the Jorge Bergoglio was not ontologically pope.  Do you know what that means?  Let me explain it to you.  It means that the quality of the papacy was not bestowed upon him by Jesus Christ.  That is black and white.  What is looney tunes is you and the Sedeprivationists splitting the papacy into two logical parts and acting like those two logical parts exist separately in reality.  It is like acting that rational and animal exist separately in reality.  No!  One is either pope or he is not.  Period.

    What on earth are you babbling about?  Father Chazal held that Bergs retained the office of the papacy while being in a state of suspension in terms of being able to exercise the authority of the office.  He makes precisely the same distinctions as the Sedeprivationists.  You're claiming now that Fr. Chazal was sedevacantist during the reign of Jorge?  That's ridiculous.  He kept putting Jorge in the "una cuм" section and considered him to be the rightful holder of the papal office.

    It's YOU who make up moronic "looney tunes" garbage such as that Jorge was a non-pope due to the fact that he MEANT his rejection of the Council of Florence but Ratz was a pope because when he rejected the exact same dogma he didn't REALLY mean it, like Jorge did.


    :jester: :laugh2: :jester: :laugh2:

    Offline IndultCat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +194/-110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #28 on: September 30, 2025, 06:29:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What on earth are you babbling about? 
    Maybe it would be a better forum environment if we didn't speak so disrespectfully to one another. There is such a thing as "fraternal correction" and hopefully it will be used more often from now on in order to provide a comfortable and friendly forum environment. 
    Less harsh verbiage and more respectful dialogue, okay partners? :cowboy:

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4147
    • Reputation: +2435/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
    « Reply #29 on: September 30, 2025, 08:13:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What on earth are you babbling about?  
    .

    Ummm....


    Quote
    Father Chazal held that Bergs retained the office of the papacy while being in a state of suspension in terms of being able to exercise the authority of the office.

    This is pure babble.

    Let's see what Pope Pius XII said about this:

    Quote
    To wish to create an opposition between Christ as Head of the Church and his Vicar, to wish to see in the affirmation of the one the negation of the other, this is tantamount to corrupting the clearest and most luminous pages of the Gospel