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

Author Topic: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies  (Read 34454 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2021, 04:51:37 AM »
Yeah, it looks as if they could be interpreted a few different ways. But, I think Bp. Sanborn, per his testimony, is taking it as directed at the Thesis because of the other remarks Bp. Dolan made regarding Sanborn's priests capitulating out of necessity to state lockdown measures rather than taking a stand.

But, I honestly don't know. I only brought this forward so people are aware of yet another trad schism in the making :facepalm:
It certainly is disappointing from my perspective since I have high regard for both of these bishops.  With all that is going on in the world, I'm not sure why the bishops couldn't have hashed this misunderstanding out....privately.... especially given their long, cooperative history with one another. 

Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2021, 04:56:26 AM »
The one thing I will note is that it clearly establishes just where Bp. Sanborn stands on the matter of the Papacy. His sedeprivationism was, apparently, not clear to others in the sede community who dismiss the Thesis outright.
Actually every sede I know IRL or online who follow Bishop Sanborn is very aware of his position...as was Bishop Dolan and Fr Cekada for years.  I sense that there might be more to Bishop Dolan's change of heart.  Or perhaps he just feels very differently about any position that looks to the Novus Ordo sect as the means to the end of the Crisis.


Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2021, 07:21:06 AM »

I recall a few weeks ago people asking about whether there was some sort of feud between Bp. Dolan and Bp. Sanborn. Apparently, due to a recent statement in a sermon and his bulletin, Bp. Dolan has said some unsavory things about Bp. Sanborn and his seminary and priests. In particular attacking the sedeprivationist position (Cassiciacuм thesis) and how some priests shut down due to state lockdown orders.

Here is Bp. Sanborn's response and recount of the accusations.




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:

Quote
According to a third and common exposition, by this revolt or apostacy, others understand a great falling off of great numbers from the Catholic Church and faith, in those nations where it was professed before; not but that, as S. Aug. expressly takes notice, the Church will remain always visible, and Catholic in its belief, till the end of the world. This interpretation we find in S. Cyr.[5] of Jerusalem.  Catech. 15.  See also S. Anselm on this place, S. Thomas, Salmeron, Estius, &c.


. . . . . .

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.


Apoc. 18

Nothing that the Protestants bring, as I think, has even the face or appearance of an objection, unless it be when they tell us, that by Babylon in S. John's Revelation is meant Rome; therefore, say they, the Church of Rome must be Babylon, and the scarlet whore that sitteth there must be the pope with his cardinals, clothed in scarlet and purple.  I answer: All Catholics, and all men of sense, have reason to wonder and ask by what kind of logic they have hooked or drawn into the consequence the Church of Rome.  There is not, as the bishop of Meaux desires the Protestants to take notice, in all these visions and predictions the least hint or insinuation of a fallen corrupted church, but of a heathen city and pagan empire.


Haydock, George. Catholic Commentary on the New Testament . Veritatis Splendor Publications. Kindle Edition.


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

Quote
This apostasy or revolt, by the judgment in manner of all ancient writers, is the general forsaking and fall of the Roman empire. So Tertullian li. de resur. carnis.; St. Jerome q. 11 ad Algasiam; St. Chrysostom ho. 4; and St. Ambrose upon this place, St. Augustine De Civit. Dei li. 20 c. 19. All which fathers and the rest Calvin presumptuously condemneth of error and folly herein, for that their exposition agreeth not with his and his fellows blasphemous fiction that the Pope should be Antichrist. To establish which false impiety, they interpret this revolt or apostasy to be a general revolt of the visible Church from God, whose house or building (they say) was suddenly destroyed, and lay many years ruined, and ruled only by Satan and Antichrist. So saith the foresaid Arch-heretic here, though for the advantage of his defense and as the matter elsewhere requireth, he seemeth (as all their fashion is) to speak in other places quite contrary: but with such color and collusion of words, that neither other men nor himself can tell what he would have or say. And his fathers Wyclif and Luther, his fellows and followers Illyricus, Beza, and the rest are (for the time of the Church's falling from Christ) so vatious among themselves, and so contrary to him, that it is horrible to see their confusion, and a pitiful case that any reasonable man will follow such companions to evident perdition.


The Original and True Rheims New Testament, Prepared and Edited by Dr. William von Peters, Ph.D. (Page 446).


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

Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2021, 09:25:41 AM »
So really Bishop Sanborn is still part of the Novus Ordo sect. I am glad he finally admitted it. Even Archbishop Lefebvre and his real followers make the distinction between the true Church and the conciliar sect, but +Sanborn's ecclesiology is so flawed... no wonder he pushes the false notion of Salvation outside the Church so often. One is either pope or not; them holding pertinaciously to the sedeprivationist thesis makes how they treat those who participate in a "one with Francis" Mass even more laughable.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2021, 09:30:38 AM »
I don't have a dog in the fight, but personally I'm very much NOT A FAN of Bp. Dolan, of "Dolan/Cekada" fame. NOTHING I have ever heard about that group (and I've heard quite a bit!) has piqued my interest in a good way.

As a matter of fact, everything I've heard about the Dolan/Cekada milieu made me glad I live FAR, FAR away from Cincinnati, OH.

ESPECIALLY their schismatic "una cuм" novelty, which has no theological basis whatsoever. That scam is an obvious ploy to eliminate the competition.