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 ... 6

Author Topic: Bishop Donald Sanborn  (Read 7590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AJNC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1002
  • Reputation: +567/-43
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2017, 08:40:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: GJC on November 06, 2017, 03:32:49 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #16 on: November 07, 2017, 09:12:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: GJC on November 06, 2017, 03:32:49 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #17 on: November 07, 2017, 10:00:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: GJC on November 06, 2017, 03:32:49 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #18 on: November 07, 2017, 10:03:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: GJC on November 07, 2017, 09:50:01 AM
    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 Jєω or Muslim can be saved (and is therefore by definition within the Church).
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #19 on: November 07, 2017, 10:06:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: GJC on November 07, 2017, 09:50:01 AM
    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?
    Logged

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #20 on: November 07, 2017, 10:08:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 10:00:17 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline reconquest

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 252
    • Reputation: +131/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #21 on: November 07, 2017, 01:46:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 09:12:30 AM
    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.
    Logged
    "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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #22 on: November 07, 2017, 02:27:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: JPaul on November 07, 2017, 10:08:26 AM
    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?"
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #23 on: November 07, 2017, 02:47:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Logged

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #24 on: November 07, 2017, 04:49:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on November 07, 2017, 02:27:26 PM
    Can you name any cleric or bishop whom you believe isn't "another Apostle of salvation by ignorance?"
    Father James Francis Wathen RIP
    Perhaps one other who is in Louisville KY.
    Very hard to find today.
    Logged

    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 313
    • Reputation: +155/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #25 on: November 07, 2017, 05:10:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Invincible ignorance never saved anyone, however one is not guilty of the sin of not joining the Church if that person was invisibly ignorant of Her existence. For how could one be guilty of a sin he didn’t realize he committed? That does not mean that the person is saved because he was invincibly ignorant of the Church.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #26 on: November 07, 2017, 07:01:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: GJC on November 07, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
    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.

    Yeah, I called him out for this the day after the video came out.  He says that there's no salvation outside the Church.  But then those outside the Church ("through no fault of their own") can be saved.  To say that those outside the Church can be saved, is nothing short of an objectively heretical denial of EENS.  Come on now, at least say that these people are inside the Church ... even if they don't know it ... like Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner does, or that they're formally within the Church even while materially separated from it.

    But if people outside the Church can be saved, due to the EENS formula, they must be considered inside the Church.  That's V2 subsistence ecclesiology in a nutshell ... a church that consists of both Catholics and non-Catholics.

    And Fastiggi destroyed him because of this ridiculous "distinction".
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #27 on: November 07, 2017, 07:07:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Recusant Sede on November 07, 2017, 05:10:25 PM
    Invincible ignorance never saved anyone ...

    Then why do you guys keep talking about it?

    No actual sin of infidelity is committed if one is invincibly ignorant -- as per St. Thomas and Pius IX (the latter being commonly distorted by BoDers as having taught Pelagianism) and basic common sense.  Nevertheless, there's the small matter of Original Sin.  So invincible ignorance is completely moot ... except in the following context.  St. Thomas teaches and so does Pius IX that if someone is invincibly ignorant and places no obstacles in the way of salvation, God will give him the grace to enter the Church.  But many BoDers claim that Pius IX taught that the person would be saved IN that state, outside the Church, before being enlightened with supernatural faith.  That's heretical and it's Pelagianism.  And Pius IX taught no such thing.
    Logged

    Offline reconquest

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 252
    • Reputation: +131/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #28 on: November 07, 2017, 08:19:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Indeed, the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique article on "salvation of infidels" completely demolishes the idea that Pius IX taught salvation by invincible ignorance.
    Logged
    "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 Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10304
    • Reputation: +6214/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #29 on: November 07, 2017, 10:20:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    St. Thomas teaches and so does Pius IX that if someone is invincibly ignorant and places no obstacles in the way of salvation, God will give him the grace to enter the Church.
    This is the key.  As the famous saying goes "Grace builds on nature".  If a man has good nature (i.e. keeps the natural law and 10 commandments) then God will give him the grace to see the whole Truth and enter the Church.  If a man does NOT keep the 10 commandments, he will be damned for this, and his invincible ignorance of the Church is irrelevant.

    The modernists want us to believe that there is a saintly pagan out there who keeps the 10 commandments yet God keeps him in ignorance of the Church and then he dies.  "Oh, what will happen to that poor, saintly pagan who loved God with all his heart but didn't know of the church?"  Stupid situation that God would never let happen.  It's also never been proven to have happened, so again, irrelevant.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
    « previous next »