Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: AJNC on November 04, 2017, 10:10:34 PM

Title: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: AJNC on November 04, 2017, 10:10:34 PM
Novus Ordo Watch has reported that Bishop Sanborn has suffered a severe heart attack. Let us pray for him.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 04, 2017, 10:32:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 04, 2017, 10:34:32 PM
They have since tweeted that this was incorrect.  Bishop Sanborn did not have a heart attack.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 04, 2017, 10:45:50 PM
"Burrito Especial!"

Deo gratias, et Mariae
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 05, 2017, 12:00:58 AM
They have since tweeted that this was incorrect.  Bishop Sanborn did not have a heart attack.
.
You get tweets from Novus Ordo Watch? 
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: poche on November 05, 2017, 01:23:07 AM
 :pray: :pray: :pray:
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: AJNC on November 05, 2017, 01:47:53 AM
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!.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 05, 2017, 06:59:39 AM
.
You get tweets from Novus Ordo Watch?
No, I just went to their website and looked around for info.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 05, 2017, 07:14:38 AM
I will pray for his conversion.

From what?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 05, 2017, 07:16:29 AM
https://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/927000592777662465/photo/1
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 05, 2017, 07:17:47 AM
https://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/927000592777662465/photo/1

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?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: MyrnaM on November 05, 2017, 08:15:47 AM
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:   
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: AJNC on November 05, 2017, 08:18:16 AM
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!
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: JPaul on November 05, 2017, 09:49:15 AM
From what?
...from sentimentalism........... :farmer:
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 06, 2017, 02:43:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: AJNC on November 07, 2017, 08:40:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 09:12:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 10:00:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 10:03:55 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).
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 10:06:00 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?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: JPaul on November 07, 2017, 10:08:26 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: reconquest on November 07, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 02:27:26 PM
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?"
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 02:47:12 PM


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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: JPaul on November 07, 2017, 04:49:34 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 07, 2017, 05:10:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 07:01:14 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".
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 07, 2017, 07:07:08 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: reconquest on November 07, 2017, 08:19:40 PM
Indeed, the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique article on "salvation of infidels" completely demolishes the idea that Pius IX taught salvation by invincible ignorance.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 07, 2017, 10:20:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: monka966 on November 17, 2017, 10:34:57 AM
It appears that Bp. Sanborn indeed has had at least one heart attack recently?

Fr. Jenkins mentions it at the 5 min 15 sec mark in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=316&v=LA3a2lkeWbM

Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: TKGS on November 17, 2017, 10:45:16 AM
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)
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 17, 2017, 10:59:54 AM
Interesting.  Not sure when the show aired but it was just published to Youtube today.

So Father Jenkins says that Bishop Sanborn had a couple of heart attacks recently.  I'm guessing that his information is likely very good.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 17, 2017, 11:09:14 AM
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)

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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: monka966 on November 17, 2017, 11:15:26 AM
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
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: TKGS on November 17, 2017, 11:25:49 AM
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 agree that Bishop Sanborn is concerned and believes he is much near to death than he was.  But I don't believe he is making a "sudden rush" to consecrate a successor.  Fr. Selway has long been considered the obvious successor and has probably been preparing for this eventual action for some time.  Just because a bishop is associated with other bishops doesn't mean that he should not prepare for his succession.  Even in normal times, we wouldn't wonder why a particular diocesan bishop may have an auxiliary bishop since he's obviously associated with bishops of other dioceses.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: monka966 on November 17, 2017, 11:27:49 AM
Out of curiosity, is Fr. Joseph Selway related to Fr. Benjamin Selway (CSPV)?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: cath4ever on November 17, 2017, 11:48:34 AM
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


Bishop Dolan and Bishop Sanborn, while quite closely associated to the point that Bishop Dolan sends his seminarians to Bishop Sanborn’s seminary, are still not in the same organization, nor do they agree on the topic of Sedevacantism.

Bishop Dolan is an absolute Sedevacantist, believing that Jorge Bergoglio has no more claim to the papacy than anyone else.

Bishop Sanborn is a material/formal Sedevacantist, believing that Jorge Bergoglio, while not having Papal authority, is the lawfully designated claimant to it, and would receive Papal authority were he to abjure his errors and accept the Catholic Faith.

Naturally, Bishop Sanborn would want to have a Bishop who espouses his particular view on the subject. Further, being the rector of the Seminary, Bishop Sanborn might think it’s advantageous to have a Bishop at the Seminary as he is, whereas Bishop Dolan is more in a pastoral role at Saint Gertrude’s in Ohio. Not to mention, just this year Bishop Sanborn founded the Roman Catholic Institute, of which I assume he is the head, and so if he is having health problems he might want a Bishop rather than a simple Priest to succeed him in that too.
However, I imagine that Bishop Dolan would serve as a co-consecrator (though I’m not certain of this), along with possibly Bishop Robert Neville of Michigan or the Bishop of the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii in Europe.


As far as I know, Bishop Sanborn and his priests have zero contact with the CMRI. Bishop Dolan has limited contact with them.


Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: cath4ever on November 17, 2017, 11:49:01 AM
Out of curiosity, is Fr. Joseph Selway related to Fr. Benjamin Selway (CSPV)?
I think they're cousins.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 18, 2017, 01:06:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 18, 2017, 05:56:19 PM
I don’t know how common it is but I do know a woman who suffered a very similar situation.  Normal EKG, misdiagnosis and eventual emergency room visit followed by catheterization and stents.  The Pain could have been a mild heart attack or angina.  The EKG is not foolproof.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Prayerful on November 18, 2017, 06:50:09 PM
I will pray for his conversion.
That's an ill mannered comment.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: josefamenendez on November 18, 2017, 08:23:29 PM
If a person is middle age or past, collateral circulation can adequately support cardiac tissue circulation in place of a partial or total blockage. It is usually fatal when a young man  has a heart attack because he has not developed this collateral circulation. Usually young people who die of heart attacks are from clots or spasms, not progressive atherosclerosis. Interesting.
(I'm sure if i was 95% blocked in a major artery with symptoms, I would no doubt go for the stent)
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Fanny on November 19, 2017, 04:05:31 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?
Good for b. Sanborn!
I was taught that not believing even the tiniest bit of Catholicism makes a person not a practicing catholic.  
fr. Feeney was excommunicated prior to vat II.  Yes, the excommunication was lifted without him changing his tune, but only AFTER vat II.
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Fanny on November 19, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
Yes, weird.  I wonder how common it is for someone to repeatedly have normal EKG's and be so not normal.
VERY common.
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
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 19, 2017, 05:41:53 PM
VERY common.
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?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Fanny on November 19, 2017, 05:54:41 PM
If they are so worthless/unreliable, then why are they used at all?
Money, money, money...
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 19, 2017, 05:55:57 PM
Money, money, money...
How are you so knowledgeable about the unreliability of EKG's?  Are you a doctor?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 19, 2017, 05:57:47 PM
I was taught that not believing even the tiniest bit of Catholicism makes a person not a practicing catholic.

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.

PS -- Father Feeney was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome and not because of his position.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 19, 2017, 06:00:53 PM
Money, money, money...

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).
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 19, 2017, 07:59:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Fanny on November 19, 2017, 09:04:19 PM
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.
An EKG shows IF you have had a heart attack sometime in your life.  Can't tell you when, unless you are in the throws of a heart attack when the EKG is being done, and this seldom happens because by the time you get to the ER the heart attack is over.
Ekgs are almost totally worthless.  B. Sanborn should have had an angiogram, esp after the second time he went to the ER for the same complaint.   
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Fanny on November 19, 2017, 09:08:11 PM
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.

PS -- Father Feeney was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome and not because of his position.
I am not a canon lawyer.

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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Lighthouse on November 19, 2017, 11:43:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: TKGS on November 20, 2017, 05:44:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 06:10:17 AM
Thanks for clarification on the lawyer deal.

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 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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 07:23:30 AM
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.

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.
I am not interested in taking part in the BOD debate.  I stopped taking part in those years ago.
I am only taking issue with your assertion that Bishop Sanborn's only issues with the Novus Ordo is the mass and a few disciplinary laws.  And that if those things were fixed, he would join up at his nearest Novus Ordo parish.  That is not true.  Period.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 08:06:55 AM
Lol, what is he doing in Brooksville then?

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.
Huh?
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 08:07:34 AM
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.

So, where do you draw the line?  On a bright sunny afternoon in Rome on September 7th, 1963, at 2:53 PM?  Problem is that Vatican II didn't happen in a vacuum.  We didn't one day have a Traditional Catholic Church and magically wake up the next day with total apostasy.  For decades and even centuries before Vatican II, the theological groundwork was being prepared.  Why is it that the vast majority of the world's bishops had NO PROBLEM with the teachings of Vatican II?  It's because they believed (and taught) the stuff in Vatican II long before the Council actually happened.

But it's patently false what you wrote that not accepting the "tiniest bit of Catholicism" makes someone a non-Catholic.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 20, 2017, 08:38:36 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 08:44:41 AM
Sorry, should of added: Starting his own church?
Why does he as other independent clergy reject the Novus Ordo?
Still not sure why you are even asking these questions.  I thought you knew based on your posts here.

It seems to me that, despite your posts here about Bishop Sanborn, you really don't know his position regarding the Novus Ordo (i.e. why he rejects it, etc).  Maybe you should look into it and find out.

A good place to start would be to follow through on finding that quote where he supposedly states that the only issue he has with the Novus Ordo is the mass and a few disciplinary laws and that if those things changed he would become a member of his local NO parish.  In doing so, you'll probably learn a lot about what he truly believes.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 09:12:22 AM
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."

Great points.  In that Fastiggi debate, the VERY FIRST error of Vatican II mentioned by +Sanborn was the ecclesiology.  Yet, when you say that infidels can be saved, you're saying that infidels can be in the Church (since in order to be saved, someone must be in the Church).  So if you have a Church in which there are infidels (and Protestants and schismatics) ... in addition to Catholics, what IS that except ... Vatican II ecclesiology?

I'm guessing that +Sanborn takes the misinterpreted statements of Pius IX along with Suprema Haec as evidence that the minority opinion is Church teaching.  Pius IX did NOT discuss the subject of the necessary "light" required for salvation, and, according to Msgr. Fenton, SH doesn't necessarily imply the minority opinion.

You're absolutely right.  +Sanborn needs to explain why he rejects the majority theological opinion on this subject ... including that of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and EVERYONE before the year 1600 or so.  I think that people have been so poisoned with a knee-jerk contempt for Father Feeney that in their minds the majority opinion sounds like Feeneyism.  In fact, the BoDers here on CI would accuse a couple of posters who believed in Baptism of Desire of being "Feeneyite" for arguing in favor of the majority opinion.  At the SSPX seminary in Winona, there was a professor there who taught the majority opinion, and +Williamson cautioned him against getting too close to "Feeneyism".
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
Hear it for yourself...
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
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 09:13:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 09:20:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 09:22:27 AM
That's your opinion, not Bishop Sanborn's.

It's objectively there; only +Sanborn doesn't see it.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 09:23:35 AM
: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.  
I will not waste my time with you.  
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 09:26:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2017, 09:38:25 AM
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.
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.  
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 20, 2017, 09:44:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 10:03:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 20, 2017, 10:16:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 20, 2017, 10:18:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 10:22:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 20, 2017, 10:35:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Ladislaus on November 20, 2017, 11:06:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Bishop Donald Sanborn
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 20, 2017, 03:23:59 PM
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.