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 ... 16

Author Topic: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies  (Read 20235 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 979
  • Reputation: +410/-77
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2021, 09:57:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 594
    • Reputation: +192/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #16 on: November 16, 2021, 12:05:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us!

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #17 on: November 16, 2021, 12:54:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #18 on: November 16, 2021, 01:01:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10308
    • Reputation: +6219/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #19 on: November 16, 2021, 02:51:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • 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

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3849/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #20 on: November 16, 2021, 02:53:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 16, 2021, 02:51:50 PM
    No he's a valid and good Bishop.  I just wish he wasnt divisive and clan-ish  towards other Trads; that's wrong.
    I believe he's Thuc line. The line which his former colleagues in the SSPV question the validity of and say was at any rate bad and to be avoided. And what do you mean by "good" at the same time as insulting him as "divisive and clan-ish" and "wrong"? That's like saying "he's good but schismatic".
    Logged
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10308
    • Reputation: +6219/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #21 on: November 16, 2021, 02:59:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    I believe he's Thuc line. The line which his former colleagues in the SSPV question the validity of and say was at any rate bad and to be avoided.
    Based on everything i've read on this site, Thuc consecrated many, many bishops so you can't all lump them together.  Besides, many of the sede bishops have been re-consecrated.  There is 0% doubt in my mind that +Dolan is valid.



    Quote
    And what do you mean by "good" at the same time as insulting him as "divisive and clan-ish" and "wrong"? That's like saying "he's good but schismatic".
    He's a good, Trad Bishop - a good catholic, who is acting "wrongly" in this case.  Just like, I assume, you are a good Trad who does "wrong" things from time to time, which is why confession exists.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #22 on: November 16, 2021, 03:00:34 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on November 15, 2021, 07:27:02 PM
    Using his same logic, I would like to ask Bishop Sanborn why he would deny the sacraments to people, including people who hold the sedevacantist position, who go to an una cuм mass.
    I actually think his non-una cuм position is contradictory to his CT position.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3849/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #23 on: November 16, 2021, 03:02:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 16, 2021, 02:59:06 PM
    He's a good, Trad Bishop - a good catholic, who is acting "wrongly" in this case.  Just like, I assume, you are a good Trad who does "wrong" things from time to time, which is why confession exists.
    "Who is acting wrongly in this case"? "Which is why confession exists?" So do you mean Dolan needs to go to confession? Wouldn't then his refusal to do so and make amends mean he is a public sinner who should be refused the sacraments?

    I don't know why I am arguing this. It is not really important carry on.
    Logged
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #24 on: November 16, 2021, 03:06:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matto on November 16, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
    I believe he's Thuc line. The line which his former colleagues in the SSPV question the validity of and say was at any rate bad and to be avoided. And what do you mean by "good" at the same time as insulting him as "divisive and clan-ish" and "wrong"? That's like saying "he's good but schismatic".
    Catholics have argued over and were divisive about other issues not decided by the Church in the past. That didn't make them "schismatic". 
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4198
    • Reputation: +2439/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #25 on: November 16, 2021, 03:10:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on November 16, 2021, 03:00:34 PM
    I actually think his non-una cuм position is contradictory to his CT position.

    Exactly. 
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3849/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #26 on: November 16, 2021, 03:18:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on November 16, 2021, 03:06:15 PM
    Catholics have argued over and were divisive about other issues not decided by the Church in the past. That didn't make them "schismatic".
    By schism, I mean not in Communion with. I thought Dolan was hardline non-una cuм. Isn't he? Hard-line non-una cuм means schism from all una-cuм groups like the resistance or the SSPX, and also to a lesser degree all groups which are non-una cuм themselves but allow Communion with una-cuм groups, such as the CMRI which allows their faithful to go to SSPX Masses if no CMRI is available. So a hard-line non una-cuм would think allowing attendance at una-cuм Masses is tolerating mortal sin. So since I go to una-cuм Masses, Dolan and I are in schism from one another. And since I think he is wrong, I would say to me, he is a schismatic. I would not say the same of Pivarunas, because he keeps Communion with una-cuм traditionalists even though he disagrees with them strongly. It gets very difficult though because there are so many different opinions and groups, and especially it gets foggy when considering Francis and the Novus Ordo and the various groups among them.
    Logged
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8316
    • Reputation: +4706/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #27 on: November 16, 2021, 03:54:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on November 16, 2021, 03:00:34 PM
    I actually think his non-una cuм position is contradictory to his CT position.
    It is. Non-una cuм is also a baseless, divisive and diabolic theory that should have no support among Catholics.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #28 on: November 16, 2021, 04:18:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on November 16, 2021, 03:00:34 PM
    I actually think his non-una cuм position is contradictory to his CT position.

    Yes. What a mess!

    Are there any Sede groups or independent priests that offer Mass una cuм "pope" Francis? Just curious. That would also be a contradiction . . . don't tell me there are some. :facepalm:

    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #29 on: November 16, 2021, 04:20:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 16, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
    It is. Non-una cuм is also a baseless, divisive and diabolic theory that should have no support among Catholics.

    Not if one were a Sedevacantist. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
    « previous next »