[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/nsRKKMVbN0M[/youtube]

Thanks holysoulsacademy for posting that video, I am watching it now.

Luke

Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:

He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.

And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.

Problem:

The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.

Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.

And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.

Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!

Recognize and resist is the only logical position.

PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.

I was also surprised that he was not wearing a cassock.  However, there are plenty of photos on the internet of clergyman in the 1920's and 30's also wearing such suites.  But I do think he is supposed to be on the side of Traditional customs of the Church.  Such suites are relatively new.  I just thought his cross was hung up under his jacket.

Sean, I like your short and to the point critique of this video.

Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:

He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.

And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.

Problem:

The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.

Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.

And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.

Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!

Recognize and resist is the only logical position.

PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.

There is nothing ambiguous about the sentence, "There is no Catholic God."  That sentence was uttered by Jorge Bergoglio.  It is fairly well certain that Jorge Bergoglio is not a bishop and it is likely that neither is he a priest.  So the R&R folks are in the position of recognizing as the pope a layman who doesn't believe in the existence of a Catholic God.  And that is logical?

There's been no legal declaration from the Church that he's not a Pope, but there's also been no legal declaration from the Church that the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, or NO "canonizations" are invalid, but that doesn't stop sedeplenists from calling them such.

In my mind it is unfortunate that sedevacantist bishops have not used more formality in declaring the existence of a sede vacante.  I think they should be studying the question of jurisdiction and the rules for lawfully electing a Catholic pope.  If they are not doing that they are failing in their duty to guide the flock.  It is ridiculous that most people seem to still be expecting some kind of formal solution to come from the Conciliar Sect.  The Conciliar Sect is not Catholic and has no authority in the Catholic Church whatsoever.  It should be Catholic bishops who are formally excommunicating the members of the Conciliar Sect.  And then they should proceed to lawfully elect a Catholic Pope.

Quote from: Charlemagne

There's been no legal declaration from the Church that he's not a Pope, but there's also been no legal declaration from the Church that the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, or NO "canonizations" are invalid, but that doesn't stop sedeplenists from calling them such.

In my mind it is unfortunate that sedevacantist bishops have not used more formality in declaring the existence of a sede vacante.  I think they should be studying the question of jurisdiction and the rules for lawfully electing a Catholic pope.  If they are not doing that they are failing in their duty to guide the flock.  It is ridiculous that most people seem to still be expecting some kind of formal solution to come from the Conciliar Sect.  The Conciliar Sect is not Catholic and has no authority in the Catholic Church whatsoever.  It should be Catholic bishops who are formally excommunicating the members of the Conciliar Sect.  And then they should proceed to lawfully elect a Catholic Pope.

The sedevacatist bishops and priests could be using their resources collectively to study this question and to work towards a resolution, i.e. A valid election by the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman clergy.

The fact is that this has never happened and I highly doubt, in the absence of a special grace, that they will ever organize to resolve the crisis.

The strange irony of this crisis is that it has always been a reachable goal for the SSPX with their vast resources.  When Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Mayer were alive, they as members of the hierarchy could have called for an election.  After their deaths, the SSPX still remains the only worldwide organization with the resources and personnel to approach the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy to educate them and urge them to take action by electing a Pope.

The sad reality is that the SSPX has been frozen in time, and has closed their minds on this issue.  They have been bent on the view that they must exist as group within the Conciliar Church and under the antipope.