Author Topic: Bishop Donald Sanborn  (Read 3652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JPaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3557
  • Reputation: +3507/-219
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2017, 09:49:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From what?
    ...from sentimentalism........... :farmer:

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13460
    • Reputation: +6940/-1641
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #16 on: November 06, 2017, 02:43:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You have consistently called LoT a HERETIC!!! But Sanborn gets the pass? How and why? Where do you think the LoTs of this world come from? Do you remember the Dr. Fasstigi debate?

    Sanborn is probably the biggest hater of the so-called "fenneyite" out there.

    Yes, I've called LoT's position heretical.  Haven't studied +Sanborn enough on the matter to be able to say the same thing.  Believing in BoD does not necessarily involved Pelagianism ... though in most cases it does.  Of course, I remember the Fastiggi debate.  +Sanborn opened by calling out subsistence ecclesiology as Vatican II's chief heresy (first thing he mentioned) ... and then enunciated some principles that led to nothing other than ... subsistence ecclesiology.  Beyond that, I know very little about his thoughts on BoD.

    Nevertheless, I would not say that LoT needs to "convert" either ... merely that he needs to reject his heresy.  I'm in no position to determine who's a Catholic and who's not.  Both +Sanborn and LoT profess the Catholic faith.  See, it is merely my OPINION that the position of LoT is heretical, and a demand for conversion implies that my opinion has more authority than it actually does.  That's the biggest problem I have with the Dimond brothers.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #17 on: November 06, 2017, 03:32:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yes, I've called LoT's position heretical.  Haven't studied +Sanborn enough on the matter to be able to say the same thing.  Believing in BoD does not necessarily involved Pelagianism ... though in most cases it does.  Of course, I remember the Fastiggi debate.  +Sanborn opened by calling out subsistence ecclesiology as Vatican II's chief heresy (first thing he mentioned) ... and then enunciated some principles that led to nothing other than ... subsistence ecclesiology.  Beyond that, I know very little about his thoughts on BoD.

    Nevertheless, I would not say that LoT needs to "convert" either ... merely that he needs to reject his heresy.  I'm in no position to determine who's a Catholic and who's not.  Both +Sanborn and LoT profess the Catholic faith.  See, it is merely my OPINION that the position of LoT is heretical, and a demand for conversion implies that my opinion has more authority than it actually does.  That's the biggest problem I have with the Dimond brothers.
    I hear you. Point is, we don't have a LoT without first having the +Sanborns of the world. Their positions are identical. Out of one side of their mouth they denounce the Vatican II and the anti-popes, while out of the other side they promote/embrace the sotierolgy and ecclesiolgy of the sect they denounce. Modernism executed exactly as St. Pius X said it would.

    You are not familiar with +Sanborn's Anti-Feeneyite catechism? Or the fact that he denies sacraments to the so called "Feeneyite" (see his bulletin) and considers them heretics on the road to hell?



    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 954
    • Reputation: +531/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #18 on: November 07, 2017, 08:40:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I hear you. Point is, we don't have a LoT without first having the +Sanborns of the world. Their positions are identical. Out of one side of their mouth they denounce the Vatican II and the anti-popes, while out of the other side they promote/embrace the sotierolgy and ecclesiolgy of the sect they denounce. Modernism executed exactly as St. Pius X said it would.

    You are not familiar with +Sanborn's Anti-Feeneyite catechism? Or the fact that he denies sacraments to the so called "Feeneyite" (see his bulletin) and considers them heretics on the road to hell?
    Sad to read that Bp Sanborn does such things. Years ago the SSPX Asia boss told me that he had barred two " Feenyites" from his Singapore chapel. He was being pretty pompous, I thought. No wonder that the evangelicals are on a roll.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13460
    • Reputation: +6940/-1641
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #19 on: November 07, 2017, 09:12:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Out of one side of their mouth they denounce the Vatican II and the anti-popes, while out of the other side they promote/embrace the sotierolgy and ecclesiolgy of the sect they denounce.

    Yes, you are correct.  But this problem goes all the way back to +Lefebvre and the SSPX, even before +Sanborn.  Basically it comes from this warped notion that anything that happened prior to some magical day in 1962 was perfectly orthodox and Catholic.  +Lefebvre was taught his religious indifferentist ideas in seminary, but since that was pre-V2 seminary then it MUST have been orthodox.  Then when +Lefebvre said it, then how can anyone question anything said by +Lefebvre as modernist?

    It's basically how BoD picked up steam in the first place.  St. Augustine speculated about it.  St. Augustine had a lot of zealous followers during the scholastic era.  St. Thomas picked up on it ... from Augustine, and then it went "viral" as it were because of the authority of St. Thomas.  Of course, little did they know that St. Augustine had retracted the idea very forcefully.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #20 on: November 07, 2017, 09:50:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, you are correct.  But this problem goes all the way back to +Lefebvre and the SSPX, even before +Sanborn.  Basically it comes from this warped notion that anything that happened prior to some magical day in 1962 was perfectly orthodox and Catholic.  +Lefebvre was taught his religious indifferentist ideas in seminary, but since that was pre-V2 seminary then it MUST have been orthodox.  Then when +Lefebvre said it, then how can anyone question anything said by +Lefebvre as modernist?

    It's basically how BoD picked up steam in the first place.  St. Augustine speculated about it.  St. Augustine had a lot of zealous followers during the scholastic era.  St. Thomas picked up on it ... from Augustine, and then it went "viral" as it were because of the authority of St. Thomas.  Of course, little did they know that St. Augustine had retracted the idea very forcefully.
    So true. Arguably, it could be said it goes back to the 17th century with the worldly Jesuits that began chipping away at the EENS dogma. History explains their ambition to appeal to non Catholics in high places caused this.

    In regards to the denial of EENS, the real center point of BoD, a red herring IMO, also could be argued exists today because the Church did not take a side in the Thomist vs. Molinist issue.

    I firmly believe God allowed this for this reason. As you already know, if we take Thomism to far we end up with Calvinism. If we take Molinism to far we end up with Pelagianism. Now in order for the devil to deceive as we know will happen (he will be unchained into destruction) there must be a deception. Would people be deceived via Calvinism which claims God predestines to hell? Or that because of original sin man lost his free will? I think not. Can the devil deceive via Molinism? Absolutely. With mans propensity to sentimentalism, the crack in the door for the devil is through the Church allowing Molinism to be a position that could be held on the surface, but in reality isn't.  This IMO, is why the world is more Pelagian today then in the 4th century.




    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13460
    • Reputation: +6940/-1641
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #21 on: November 07, 2017, 10:00:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are not familiar with +Sanborn's Anti-Feeneyite catechism? Or the fact that he denies sacraments to the so called "Feeneyite" (see his bulletin) and considers them heretics on the road to hell?

    No, I haven't heard of his "catechism".  At the time I knew him he wasn't denying Sacraments to "Feeneyites" -- that was just Father Kelly and the SSPV back then.  So that's new to me.  Even then I wouldn't consider him in need of conversion on that account.  He just goes with St. Alphonsus' position that BoD is de fide and its denial is heresy.  I don't agree, and I consider it gravely sinful to withhold the Sacraments from people for "Feeneyism", but I don't consider that something that would require conversion per se.  Not sure if he promotes Pelagianism in his catechism or some of the other actual heresies.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13460
    • Reputation: +6940/-1641
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #22 on: November 07, 2017, 10:03:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So true. Arguably, it could be said it goes back to the 17th century with the worldly Jesuits that began chipping away at the EENS dogma. History explains their ambition to appeal to non Catholics in high places caused this.

    No doubt.  It was these Jesuits who first began floating "Rewarder God" theory.  That, much more than BoD, has wreaked the greatest havoc on EENS and on Catholic ecclesiology.  It's one thing to say that a catechumen who professes the Catholic faith and is somehow visibly united to the Church can be saved, quite another to say that any unconverted Jew or Muslim can be saved (and is therefore by definition within the Church).


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13460
    • Reputation: +6940/-1641
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #23 on: November 07, 2017, 10:06:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • With mans propensity to sentimentalism, the crack in the door for the devil is through the Church allowing Molinism to be a position that could be held on the surface, but in reality isn't.  This IMO, is why the world is more Pelagian today then in the 4th century.

    This is exactly my opinion also.  Great analysis about the roots of this problem.  Why can so few people see this?

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3557
    • Reputation: +3507/-219
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #24 on: November 07, 2017, 10:08:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I haven't heard of his "catechism".  At the time I knew him he wasn't denying Sacraments to "Feeneyites" -- that was just Father Kelly and the SSPV back then.  So that's new to me.  Even then I wouldn't consider him in need of conversion on that account.  He just goes with St. Alphonsus' position that BoD is de fide and its denial is heresy.  I don't agree, and I consider it gravely sinful to withhold the Sacraments from people for "Feeneyism", but I don't consider that something that would require conversion per se.  Not sure if he promotes Pelagianism in his catechism or some of the other actual heresies.
    He, of course is another Apostle of salvation by ignorance as well, as are most who hold his position.  All Lefebvrian clerics are of the same mind and training.

    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male




    Offline reconquest

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 243
    • Reputation: +125/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #26 on: November 07, 2017, 01:46:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, you are correct.  But this problem goes all the way back to +Lefebvre and the SSPX, even before +Sanborn.  Basically it comes from this warped notion that anything that happened prior to some magical day in 1962 was perfectly orthodox and Catholic.  +Lefebvre was taught his religious indifferentist ideas in seminary, but since that was pre-V2 seminary then it MUST have been orthodox.  Then when +Lefebvre said it, then how can anyone question anything said by +Lefebvre as modernist?

    While reading Cardinal Ratzinger's response to Archbishop Lefebvre's dubia it became very clear to me that the Archbishop's battle against the indifferentist errors emanating from Rome was significantly hampered by his mistaken belief that souls could be saved in any religion.
    "There's a mix of passion and shortsightedness in me, even when I'm positive that I'm doing my very best to see things for what they are, that warns me that I'll never know for sure. Undoubtedly I must follow the truth I can see, I have no choice and I must live on; but that is for me only, not to impose on others." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2190
    • Reputation: +975/-1372
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #27 on: November 07, 2017, 02:27:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He, of course is another Apostle of salvation by ignorance as well, as are most who hold his position.  All Lefebvrian clerics are of the same mind and training.

    Can you name any cleric or bishop whom you believe isn't "another Apostle of salvation by ignorance?"

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13460
    • Reputation: +6940/-1641
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #28 on: November 07, 2017, 02:47:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    Anti-Feeneyite Catechism

    :facepalm:


    "By this is meant not only that adults are not saved if they die without baptism, but that they are damned if they refuse to receive this sacrament when they know its necessity."

    Here's he's outlining the implications of 1) necessity of means and then 2) necessity of precept.

    #1 sounds great.  But then he contradicts it a paragraph later.

    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #29 on: November 07, 2017, 04:14:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • :facepalm:


    "By this is meant not only that adults are not saved if they die without baptism, but that they are damned if they refuse to receive this sacrament when they know its necessity."

    Here's he's outlining the implications of 1) necessity of means and then 2) necessity of precept.

    #1 sounds great.  But then he contradicts it a paragraph later.
    Also,



    If you pick it up at the 2:24 mark and listen through 3:40 or so, the modernism is quite evident as defined by St. Pius X.

    Basically, we have "no distinctions" to be made when describing the ecclesiology of the Church, and there is no salvation outside of Her and "as one pope said, you are like a withered branch with no possibility of salvation". Note Sanborn says NO POSSIBILITY, then turns right around and makes a distinction, that he just said doesn't need to be made. Then contradicts the pope who said "no possibly" and makes it possible, affirming Dr. Fastiggi's point.   :facepalm:



     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16