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 6 ... 46

Author Topic: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies  (Read 35980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2021, 09:57:18 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on November 16, 2021, 07:21:06 AM


I appreciate the accuracy of Bishop Sanborn's analogy of thugs taking over the organization, or the simpler one of a thief driving away with your car.

Problem he and the thesis have is how, in light of all the statements about the Church never losing her "governing body," about the faith of Peter never failing, etc., could the thugs have done this? Basically, it was taught that the thugs could never do this:

Haydock note on 2 Thessalonians 2, vv. 3-4 and Apoc. 18:


From the original annotations of the Rheims translation of 1582 on 2 Thessalonians 2:2 -


That (or if) the "thugs" have taken over is, more precisely, the problem.

Whatever he is, Bergoglio himself does not claim the same titles (such as Vicar of Christ, etc.) that other authentic Pope's have claimed. He is a hijacker, and "the whole world" thinks, incorrectly, that he's "the Pope." Now, with that little fact in mind. Go back and interpret those Bible passages and those commentaries. 

It surely is a "blasphemous fiction" that the ACTUAL Pope could be the antichrist. But it is a fact that an APPARENT Pope (apparent to the deceived) could be a false prophet or antichrist or whatever. The enemy is inside "the Church." Just as Judas was "one of the Twelve." 

God's Church is not a math problem for us to solve. It is described in a riddle, a parable so that "the clever (i.e., those who think they are) will not understand." See Matthew 13:13:

Quote
13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

We understand things when we are humble and we pray that we may be given the grace to understand. 
Logged

Offline Todd The Trad

Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2021, 12:05:42 PM »
Quote from: Bocca della Verit on November 16, 2021, 10:31:55 AM
We should not pass over the fact that Sanborn and his motley crew of ne'er-do-well sycophants are proponents of what Matthew rightly terms the "UNA cuм novelty." (As Sanborn's chief brown-noser once tweeted: One single 'una cuм Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. ) In fact, it would seem that Sanborn was the first online purveyor of the fiction, going back at least to his 2002 article "Una cuм Mass." If memory serves, the ever opportunistic Cekada, recognizing the competition-smothering and cash-cow advantages of such a theological bogeyman, then hopped aboard that wreck of a band wagon after Sanborn went public with the stillborn theory.

As for the reasons behind this contretemps, one may have to look back to personal animosities formed in their days a Écône and the early years together in the U.S. SSPX.  And Dolan has never really forgiven Sanborn for capturing a miter or for signing that 1990 letter calling into question his one-handed priestly orders.
My mother will possibly be Confirmed by Bp. Dolan in May. Should we be concerned about his validity as a Bishop? 
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2021, 12:54:17 PM »
Quote from: Angelus on November 16, 2021, 09:57:18 AM

Whatever he is, Bergoglio himself does not claim the same titles (such as Vicar of Christ, etc.) that other authentic Pope's have claimed. He is a hijacker, and "the whole world" thinks, incorrectly, that he's "the Pope." Now, with that little fact in mind. Go back and interpret those Bible passages and those commentaries.

It surely is a "blasphemous fiction" that the ACTUAL Pope could be the antichrist. But it is a fact that an APPARENT Pope (apparent to the deceived) could be a false prophet or antichrist or whatever. The enemy is inside "the Church." Just as Judas was "one of the Twelve."

God's Church is not a math problem for us to solve. It is described in a riddle, a parable so that "the clever (i.e., those who think they are) will not understand." See Matthew 13:13:

We understand things when we are humble and we pray that we may be given the grace to understand.

Yes, I know the explanation: he's an "apparent" pope, not the "real" pope. 

As I said elsewhere:


Quote
Oh, but they are not really popes, bishops . . . right. Our consciences and beliefs being assuaged by a simple negation - no matter the correspondence with what happened or exists out there in the real world - we go on.

Ok, the simple negation works for you. I get it. 

The problem is the expressed view (reflected in the Biblical annotations) is the "thug" - the "apparents" - could never do so to Christ's visible Church, and that visibility is tied to the pontiff, who is the head, the vicar of Christ.  Here's one of those quotes again:


Quote
The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circuмlatrantibus hæreticis.  Aug. de util. cred. c. xvii.

I don't think  you're credibly dealing with the problem with your simple negation - not pope.  The point of the protection is so that the thugs do not take over. Otherwise, let us simply say that there is no guarantee and protection, because the arrogation by the thugs shows there isn't.

The point of Peter's "never failing faith" and/or the Church's indefectibility is so that whomever is legitimately elected Peter will not guide the Church into error, is it not? Where's the protection if someone could be elected Peter, fail in his faith, and lead the Church into error? The protection would be: if the pope's faith isn't failing he's the pope and his faith won't fail but if his faith is failing he's not the pope and his faith isn't protected from failing. . . what kind of protection is that? 

We'll agree to disagree. To me simply resting with the simple negation isn't an adequate explanation. 

What the crisis has presented to us is the need for a radical rethinking and understanding as to what the Lord has made or shown to this generation. In the Book of Daniel, it is said in chapter 12 that the book is sealed and the words "shut up" until the time appointed.  

The previous understandings do not explain this crisis and fail in its face. 




Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2021, 01:01:18 PM »
Expressed differently, we have been told that the Church could never lose it's "governing body." Churches may be stolen by imposters; thugs may appear to arrogate to themselves buildings, etc.; the Antichrist may set up shop in St. Peters . . . but the true Church with its pope and genuine governing body would go into exile, reduced to a few and a minority, etc. The vision of Fatima, with the pope martyred, shows this. 

But we were never told that a pope, duly elected by the cardinals under the guidance of the Holy Ghost in lawful conclave, could be one of the thugs. 

That is inconsistent with the guarantee or promise, as relayed to us.  
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2021, 02:51:50 PM »

Quote
My mother will possibly be Confirmed by Bp. Dolan in May. Should we be concerned about his validity as a Bishop? 
No he's a valid and good Bishop.  I just wish he wasnt divisive and clan-ish  towards other Trads; that's wrong.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46
« previous next »