Novus Ordo Watch has reported that Bishop Sanborn has suffered a severe heart attack. Let us pray for him.I will pray for his conversion.
They have since tweeted that this was incorrect. Bishop Sanborn did not have a heart attack..
They have since tweeted that this was incorrect. Bishop Sanborn did not have a heart attack.Thanks for this very welcome update 2V. God bless!.
.No, I just went to their website and looked around for info.
You get tweets from Novus Ordo Watch?
I will pray for his conversion.
https://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/927000592777662465/photo/1
From what?Don't you realize that according to DZ and his ilk, they believe if we are not united to Most Holy Family Monastery we are not in God's favor? Unless I am not understanding DZ, perhaps he will set us straight. :incense:
It would be interesting to find out how they got the bad information. Did he suffer some other health episode that may have been confused with a heart attack? Bad indigestion from some spicy Mexican food? How does stuff like this happen?This sort of thing happens in India. Bad indigestion mistaken for a heart attack. But the good bishop wasn't here. If he were I'd have rushed to go and meet him!
From what?...from sentimentalism........... :farmer:
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism
Can you name any cleric or bishop whom you believe isn't "another Apostle of salvation by ignorance?"Father James Francis Wathen RIP
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.
Invincible ignorance never saved anyone ...
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.
Bishop Sanborn, himself, says that he did not have a heart attack though his health issues have been as serious as if he had had a heart attack. He explains his health issues, what has been done medically to correct those issues, and discusses the future of his organization in his latest newsletter:
November Newsletter (http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Nov_2017_Newsletter.pdf)
I think it more than the virtigo that bothers the dear Bishop.
Bp. Sanborn will consecrate Fr. Selway a bishop in spring of 2018. Why the sudden rush to consecrate if Bp. Sanborn is already associated with Bp. Dolan and the CMRI?
I think it more than the virtigo that bothers the dear Bishop.
Bp. Sanborn will consecrate Fr. Selway a bishop in spring of 2018. Why the sudden rush to consecrate if Bp. Sanborn is already associated with Bp. Dolan and the CMRI?
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Nov_2017_Newsletter.pdf
Out of curiosity, is Fr. Joseph Selway related to Fr. Benjamin Selway (CSPV)?I think they're cousins.
Says they found 98% blockage in a main artery coming from the heart, so IMO it's likely that he did have a couple of minor heart attacks ... despite the fact that subsequent EKGs showed normal.Yes, weird. I wonder how common it is for someone to repeatedly have normal EKG's and be so not normal.
I will pray for his conversion.That's an ill mannered comment.
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?Good for b. Sanborn!
Yes, weird. I wonder how common it is for someone to repeatedly have normal EKG's and be so not normal.VERY common.
VERY common.If they are so worthless/unreliable, then why are they used at all?
EKGs are worthless unless you are in the throws of a heart attack at the very moment and not one second later.
God bless b. Sanborn
If they are so worthless/unreliable, then why are they used at all?Money, money, money...
Money, money, money...How are you so knowledgeable about the unreliability of EKG's? Are you a doctor?
I was taught that not believing even the tiniest bit of Catholicism makes a person not a practicing catholic.
Money, money, money...
PS -- Father Feeney was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome and not because of his position.Suprema Haec Sacra never specified exactly what Fr Feeney was being excommunicated for but it did make note of his disobedience both of the Holy Office and his superiors as well as the archbishop. But it certainly did not accuse Fr Feeney or anyone else of heresy. So at least we know that much. Fr Feeney was most certainly not a heretic. I’m not sure if excommunication is a just penalty for disobedience especially in the case where it was not habitual but in any case even sede vacantists should agree that his reconciliation with the Church was legitimate since it was accomplished by Cardinal Wright who was one of those directly responsible for imposing the penalty and that would qualify for supplied jurisdiction (common error). So there really can be no doubt about him dying as a member of the Church regardless of whether you agree with his position or not.
Yeah, there are a lot of practices in modern medicine that are done just because they don't know what else to do and/or because they generate revenue. If you suspect a heart problem, the knee-jerk initial test is the EKG. Now, the EKG could detect something other than heart attack ... such as irregular heartbeats, etc. ... and they are used to determine whether a heart attack is still in progress (when someone comes in with chest pains).If your EKG shows an irregular heartbeat, you had better be on your way to the operating room. Most irregular heartbeats are found when someone wears a heart monitor, not in an EKG.
Well, I'm afraid that you were taught wrong. In order to be excluded from membership in the Church, you have to pertinaciously hold heresy. Beneath heresy there are lower degrees of error which do not exclude from the Church, and there are also even disputed and hotly-debated questions.I am not a canon lawyer.
PS -- Father Feeney was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome and not because of his position.
Seems like I just read something in the past couple of weeks saying stents are now taking some criticism, and shouldn't be done.. I'll try to find the article.There have been some commercials on television from a lawyer who says that a certain brand of stints that have now been discontinued have been failing and causing more damage and even death. They are telling people who had surgery during a specific period of time to call them to see if they have a case against the stint manufacturer. I've not seen any suggestion that stints in general are bad since they clearly have kept people alive who would otherwise have died earlier.
Thanks for clarification on the lawyer deal.I strongly doubt that this is what he said given all of the Bishop Sanborn sermons and conferences I have listened to over the last few years. I suspect the Fastiggi debate is very long. Therefore, I think you should be the one to dig up the the actual quote and context since you are the one asserting what appears to be a false claim.
I guess calling oneself "traditional" is supposed to let the world know they disagree with the Vatican II? I get the moniker, but don't subscribe to it. We are either Catholic or we aren't.
Unfortunately for the majority this "line in the sand" relates to the mass and not the faith. It doesn't matter if one goes to a Latin mass and avoids the Novus Ordo if they support and proclaim the same doctrine of the Novus Ordo. 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. See the Dr. Fastiggi debate for proof.
Do you see the problem here? It is not about the faith once held. It is about the mass once held while excepting the new religion. Quite the deception.
I will do my best to find it, my intention is not to assert a false claim. I do agree he does have great sermons, but that does not discount the fact that he proclaims the new religion, i.e. salvation outside of the Catholic Church, invincible ignorance, implicit faith. It would be one thing if he spoke about conversion outside of the Catholic Church, but that is not the case here. The debate proves this 100%. In addition, I have spoke on many occasions with him.I am not interested in taking part in the BOD debate. I stopped taking part in those years ago.
Think about the Arian crisis, do you think there were Clergy then that had great sermons? How about looking the part? Were they ascetic and live in monasteries? Burn incense? But God for some reason blinded these men that claimed to be Catholic.
Everything is irrelevant if the faith that has been handed down is not being preached.
Lol, what is he doing in Brooksville then?Huh?
I agree BoD (modern teaching) is a redundant topic now, in so far as there are those who support it and those who don't. There doesn't appear to be any changing of the mind in either camp.
Being a traditional catholic means you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. You can't pick and choose this and that from before and after VAT II and make up your own religion.
Unfortunately for the majority this "line in the sand" relates to the mass and not the faith. It doesn't matter if one goes to a Latin mass and avoids the Novus Ordo if they support and proclaim the same doctrine of the Novus Ordo. 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. See the Dr. Fastiggi debate for proof.That is exactly where the line should be drawn. A new pseudo-sacramental system was put into place and that is what defines the Conciliar sect. Were pre-V2 Catholics actually not Catholic? How would you define the Church without running afoul of defined dogmas yourself. The Church is visible. Those individuals who are baptized and are not manifest heretics and/or excommunicated are members of the Church. Post-V2 Catholics can’t be held to a higher standard than pre-V2 Catholics. So the line in the sand actually is the sacraments. If there were any traditional Catholic clergy that claimed jurisdiction then the situation would be dramatically different and there would be the possibility of disciplinary action against doctrinal errors.
Do you see the problem here? It is not about the faith once held. It is about the mass once held while excepting the new religion. Quite the deception.
Sorry, should of added: Starting his own church?Still not sure why you are even asking these questions. I thought you knew based on your posts here.
Why does he as other independent clergy reject the Novus Ordo?
But it really bothers me when those who take an implicit faith view represent it as "Church teaching." It's clearly not when the majority of Catholic theologians teach, and the "common opinion" is, that supernatural faith requires belief in the Trinity and Incarnation.
If those who support implicit faith want to hold to a minority opinion that hasn't been condemned, that's their business. But I wish the crowd that does would stop saying their view is "Church teaching," which is a lie. And that's not opinion, but a indisputable inference from the "common opinion" pre-V2.
So if Bishop Sanborn does hold an implicit faith view, he should stop saying that view is "Church teaching."
Hear it for yourself...It looks like he said "doctrinal". Doctrinal GJC. Now tell me how is that the same as saying that his only issue was "the mass and a few disciplinary laws"? You left out doctrinal and that my friend is a HUGE oversight.
1:43:00 -1:44:02 "If I were convinced that there were continuity: doctrinal, disciplinary, liturgical ( the mass); continuity between pre- Vatican and Vatican II ... " Now 2Vermont, what did he just say?
https://youtu.be/NigK6MhXs6Q?t=1h43m
1:43:00 -1:44:02 "If I were convinced that there were continuity: doctrinal, disciplinary, liturgical ( the mass); continuity between pre- Vatican and Vatican II ... " Now 2Vermont, what did he just say?
As I just posted, the doctrinal continuity is DEFINITELY there ... given +Sanbornian ecclesiology. Now the liturgical and disciplinary are another matter altogether.That's your opinion, not Bishop Sanborn's. The point is that GJC insisted that Bishop Sanborn would go Novus Ordo if they would only fix the mass and a few disciplinary laws. That is patently false and he should retract it.
That's your opinion, not Bishop Sanborn's.
:facepalm:, he agree's exactly with the VII.Ah, so I see you refuse to admit that Bishop Sanborn did NOT say what you said he said.
Not retracting anything... He just said it in PUBLIC...in 2004 and still holds it today.You know darn well what you said he said is NOT what he said. You are of bad will.
The sad part of all of this is the fact that you probably believe that +Sanborn won this debate. In reality Dr. Fastiggi made him look foolish...(if you have even watched the whole debate).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.
The sad part of all of this is the fact that you probably believe that +Sanborn won this debate. In reality Dr. Fastiggi made him look foolish...(if you have even watched the whole debate).Nevertheless you were wrong. Bishop Sanborn never said what you claimed he said. And that’s why you can’t understand why he separated himself from the Conciliar sect.
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.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.
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 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!You could apologize for having misquoted Bishop Sanborn without compromising your position.
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.
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.
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.
I apologize for not knowing what was misquoted?In reply #61 GJC said:
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.