CathInfo.com

Bishop Sanborn:

It is impossible to assert that the Council is the mother of a false and parallel Church, but that it was promulgated to us by a true pope. To hold that such a deviation comes from the authority of Christ vested in the pope undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation, to use Archbishop Viganò’s own words.

Bingo.

Bishop Sanborn:



Bingo.

Right.  I've made this same point repeatedly.  One can quibble about the precise extent of infallibility, but this is a question of the Church's indefectibility.  To say that an Ecuмenical Council of the Church can lead to the creation of a parallel anti-Church is contrary to the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church as a whole.  To say that the Church can promulgate and use a Rite of Mass that displeases God (a Protestantized/paganized Mass as Vigano calls it) and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience is contrary to the Church's disciplinary infallibility.

R&R who keep pushing the narrow view of infallibility are missing the forest for the trees.  Sedevacantists often overreact to this error by promoting an extreme view of infallibility that goes too far, when the battle needs to be waged on the level of indefectibility.

I immediately noticed that the logical trajectory of +Vigano's June 9th letter is toward sedevacantism.  Thus far he has held back, instead using the same infallibility argument used by R&R.

Lets not argue about what Vigano SHOULD'VE said, let’s just stick to what he did say.  +Sanborn’s conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from Vigano’s interview.  That’s the point.  I’m not being anti-Sanborn, nor anti-sede, just anti-editorial commenting.

That's because I think Bishop Sanborn is responding to the original letter of June 9, not this latest interview.  He may not even know about these comments.