Author Topic: Bishop Donald Sanborn  (Read 3664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GJC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Reputation: +160/-64
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2017, 09:54:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven't watched the debate and I was VERY CLEAR why I posted to you. It wasn't about the debate per se...it was about what you said he said in the debate.
    What's sad is you're not willing to admit you were wrong when you falsely asserted +Sanborn only had issues with the mass and a few disciplinary laws.  
    This only leads to the modernist BoD topic, that neither of us want to discuss. He believes and promotes the same EXACT soteriology of Vatican II period!

    So he is in perfect doctrinal continuity...he believes the anonymous christian doctrine which is in reality support for religious freedom, that he claims he is against.

    That's it all I will comment on this.



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13548
    • Reputation: +6999/-1736
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #91 on: November 20, 2017, 10:03:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll email him. I'd love to hear from him on this. As I said, if we had a Catholic bishop, even a sedevacantist, come out in no uncertain terms for the majority opinion and asserting his view, stressing it is the majority and traditional view, of the necessity of belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation for salvation, that would be huge. And it's about time.

    Like I said, in light of that sermon on predestination and his apparent views on Thomism/Molinism, I haven't lost all hope in Bishop Sanborn on this.

    I think that if you could logically demonstrate how it's the minority opinion (the Jesuit invention of the early 1600s) that has led to V2 ecclesiology, that might wake him up ... because he has such a strong contempt for V2 ecclesiology.

    It's actually very simple from a logical standpoint.

    Major:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.
    Minor:  Infidels can be saved.
    Conclusion:  Infidels can be within the Church. [=V2 ecclesiology]

    One objection could be that these infidels are joined to the Church at death only, but that is ruled out by the one particular EENS definition which declares that these must enter the Church BEFORE their deaths.

    I honestly don't understand the Traditional Catholics who don't see that ALL the Vatican II errors derive ultimately from THIS ecclesiology ... the same one which they themselves (many of them at any rate) hold.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #92 on: November 20, 2017, 10:15:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that if you could logically demonstrate how it's the minority opinion (the Jesuit invention of the early 1600s) that has led to V2 ecclesiology, that might wake him up ... because he has such a strong contempt for V2 ecclesiology.

    It's actually very simple from a logical standpoint.

    Major:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.
    Minor:  Infidels can be saved.
    Conclusion:  Infidels can be within the Church. [=V2 ecclesiology]

    One objection could be that these infidels are joined to the Church at death only, but that is ruled out by the one particular EENS definition which declares that these must enter the Church BEFORE their deaths.

    I honestly don't understand the Traditional Catholics who don't see that ALL the Vatican II errors derive ultimately from THIS ecclesiology ... the same one which they themselves (many of them at any rate) hold.
    This^^^



    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +616/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #93 on: November 20, 2017, 10:16:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that if you could logically demonstrate how it's the minority opinion (the Jesuit invention of the early 1600s) that has led to V2 ecclesiology, that might wake him up ... because he has such a strong contempt for V2 ecclesiology.

    It's actually very simple from a logical standpoint.

    Major:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.
    Minor:  Infidels can be saved.
    Conclusion:  Infidels can be within the Church. [=V2 ecclesiology]

    One objection could be that these infidels are joined to the Church at death only, but that is ruled out by the one particular EENS definition which declares that these must enter the Church BEFORE their deaths.

    I honestly don't understand the Traditional Catholics who don't see that ALL the Vatican II errors derive ultimately from THIS ecclesiology ... the same one which they themselves (many of them at any rate) hold.
    These theological debates will only ever be resolved definitively by authority.  And no traditional Catholic clergy claim jurisdiction (authority) so the debate will continue.  But the new mass was declared by Cardinal Ottaviani to be a striking departure from Catholic theology so that debate is over at least for sedes.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +616/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #94 on: November 20, 2017, 10:18:43 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This only leads to the modernist BoD topic, that neither of us want to discuss. He believes and promotes the same EXACT soteriology of Vatican II period!

    So he is in perfect doctrinal continuity...he believes the anonymous christian doctrine which is in reality support for religious freedom, that he claims he is against.

    That's it all I will comment on this.
    You could apologize for having misquoted Bishop Sanborn without compromising your position.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13548
    • Reputation: +6999/-1736
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #95 on: November 20, 2017, 10:22:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • These theological debates will only ever be resolved definitively by authority.  And no traditional Catholic clergy claim jurisdiction (authority) so the debate will continue.  But the new mass was declared by Cardinal Ottaviani to be a striking departure from Catholic theology so that debate is over at least for sedes.

    Granted.  Problem is that we have to resolve this for our own consciences.  If I had the same ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics do (based on pre-V2 minority opinion on the requirements for supernatural faith), then I would have to renounce my rejection of Vatican II.  So it's imperative that WE come to terms with this.  I can't reject Vatican II if I don't reject this ecclesiology.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +616/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #96 on: November 20, 2017, 10:35:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think the debates are healthy for the most part.  It’s only when we start trying to declare various people to be formal heretics or schismatics that we get onto thin ice.  That’s why I say it is the new pseudo-sacramental system which visibly separates Catholics from non-Catholics.  I don’t say all the novus ordos are bad-willed but they are clearly not worshipping in the Catholic Church.  The only exception on that rule is J23.  But I think there is sufficient evidence of his apostasy to conclude that his election was not valid or at least to doubt the validity.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13548
    • Reputation: +6999/-1736
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #97 on: November 20, 2017, 11:06:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think the debates are healthy for the most part.  It’s only when we start trying to declare various people to be formal heretics or schismatics that we get onto thin ice.

    Agreed.  That's why I was being ripped to shreds by Freedom et al. on the BoD threads.  While I don't believe in BoD myself, I defended the position that BoD is not heretical and that it's basically schismatic to sever communion with other Catholics who believe in it.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #98 on: November 20, 2017, 11:43:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Granted.  Problem is that we have to resolve this for our own consciences.  If I had the same ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics do (based on pre-V2 minority opinion on the requirements for supernatural faith), then I would have to renounce my rejection of Vatican II.  So it's imperative that WE come to terms with this.  I can't reject Vatican II if I don't reject this ecclesiology.
    Exactly... and +Sanborn happens to be one of those MANY Traditionalists



    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #99 on: November 20, 2017, 11:44:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You could apologize for having misquoted Bishop Sanborn without compromising your position.
    I apologize for not knowing what was misquoted?



    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +616/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #100 on: November 20, 2017, 03:23:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I apologize for not knowing what was misquoted?
    In reply #61 GJC said:
    Quote
    This is the case with +Sanborn, and he admitted if it were not for the new mass and some disciplinary changes he would sign up at his local diocese.
    That is not true.  He did not admit what you claim he admitted.  And when you were called out on that with video evidence, you have refused to admit your mistake.  You are free to disagree with his position but you are not free to attribute to him statements which he did not make.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #101 on: November 20, 2017, 05:52:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In reply #61 GJC said:That is not true.  He did not admit what you claim he admitted.  And when you were called out on that with video evidence, you have refused to admit your mistake.  You are free to disagree with his position but you are not free to attribute to him statements which he did not make.
    Your right, and I am wrong. 
    Apologies to all for the misquote. 



    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
    « Reply #102 on: November 20, 2017, 05:59:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with 2 Vermont: the bishop clearly identified "doctrinal" issues separating him from the V2 regime. He didn't say what GJC said he said. Now if you want to say the bishop's views on ecclesiology are the same, that's something else.
    THIS is the exact point I was trying to make.

    What good does it do for +Sanborn to make a false claim, when in reality it is the mass and some disciplinary changes holding him back.

    Soteriology (doctrine of salvation, for those who don't know) is were they have total agreement.

    However, I did misquote him, while calling him out too. No apologies about that.



     

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