The Great Western Schism & the Present Crisis - Interview with Most Rev. Donald

[awkward customer]

There's no analogy.



Just in case this hasn't already been posted.

[Bonaventure]

There's no analogy.



Just in case this hasn't already been posted.

I like him and have met him in person, and have spent time discussing this and other issues with him.

However, this is merely his opinion, and he has had many other opinions that are rather odd or surprising:

1. All Novus Ordo Baptisms conducted after 01/01/1990 are to be considered dubious and repeated unless there exist positive evidence that they were validly conducted.

2. Advising the then-Fr. Dolan to cease acting as a priest and to be conditionally ordained (see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/246398985/1990-Letter-to-Dolan-on-One-Handed-Ordination)
3. Attendance at una cum Masses is mortal sin. His seminary prefect (Fr. Nicolás Despósito) has publicly written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Just saying..." (Source: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito/status/434837570053087232) The seminary rector, as far as I know, has never corrected, rebuked, or clarified what his prefect said here.

No analogy is perfect.

I conducted the bulk of my university coursework under what many consider the premier lineage of medievalists in the United States. This included my thesis, concerning the Great Western Schism and particularly, Antipope Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna).

As he says at beginning at 10:35, the situation was certainly not clear as to who and where the true pope was, until Martin V and the Council of Constance (the actual pope, Gregory XII, actually abdicated to help aid in healing the Great Western Schism. I personally doubt that the most autocephalus bishops, including Sanborn, would revert to operating as simple priests if a true pope were to somehow emerge and order them to do so!).

St. Vincent Ferrer would also completely disagree with Sanborn's point that this was merely a "matter of election" and that any of the three "would've made a great pope."

St. Vincent denounced and rejected Benedict XIII for his obstinacy and refusal to resign. I would have to go to inter-library loan and find the 200-300 year old French and Spanish works for the exact words of the Saint. Benedict XIII was not, as Sanborn said, a "perfect candidate for the papacy." Even after Constance and the election of an undoubtedly true pope (Martin V), Benedict XIII continued his reign and likely had full culpability for his objective schism (even after a Saint begged him to resign along with Benedict XII and pay obeisance to the new pope).

Sanborn's position is that a good Catholic "has to" be a sedevacantist if one resists the Novus Ordo at all, or does not go to one's local parish. If he thought that, he ought not to have gone to Écône to obtain Holy Orders, nor have worked directly under a sedeplenist superior (Archbishop Lefebvre) for several years.

Furthermore, neither the Council of Constance, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, etc. did not say that those who did not unify themselves with who they saw as the true pope were committing "mortal sins," were "schismatic," nor did Catholics traveling from kingdom to kingdom refuse to attend the Masses of priests who did not align with their papal sympathies.

If there were "no analogy at all," Sanborn and the rest of his American sedevacantist confreres would have never joined the Society of Saint Pius X, which was never sedevacantist. Indeed, Sanborn (who claims that he never said Mass as a sedeplenist) would never have consented to being interviewed by Vatican officials when the Écône seminary was under apostolic visitation ("wildcat seminary")

My professor and advisor earned his MA and PhD at Princeton under William Chester Jordan (a Catholic). Jordan was a student of Joseph Strayer, who studied under Charles Homer Haskins.

All of this is merely the opinion of a man who is not part of the Ecclesia Docens, who possesses neither canonical mission nor office, who was not formally approved or trained, never awarded an ecclesiastical degree (Licentiate, Doctorate, or even M.Div), and who dare only receive sacred orders under the principal of Epikeia for the salvation of souls, and ministering to the faithful. That's it. He can wear a miter, wield a crosier, and sport a pectoral cross, but he possesses none of the authority of what these represent. Indeed, a tonsured acolyte or subdeacon in 1957 would be due more homage than almost any of the trad clergy, if one is a committed sedevacantist.

If one is a convinced sedevacantist, this is the only reality one can accept regarding 99.9% of the traditional clergy.

I frankly consider these type of hot takes as part of Sanborn's strategy to be the only game in town.

[Bonaventure]

Also, here is are some of the Catholics he and his subordinates have decided that he can refuse the sacraments to:

2. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent the Novus Ordo Mass, unless they first manifest an intention of repudiating Vatican II and its reforms.
3. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who are invalidly married, or who are living as husband and wife after having received marriage annulments from the Novus Ordo, the Society of Saint Pius X, or any other person or entity.
4. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent a Mass, even traditional, which is offered under the auspices of or with the approval of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, nor to those who frequent the traditional Mass in which members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are mentioned in the Te igitur prayers of the Canon of the Mass, nor to those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church.
5. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who obstinately hold that the position of recognizing the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church has theological probability, and may be legitimately held.

Source: https://romancatholicinstitute.org/pastoral-directory-of-the-roman-catholic-institute/

This seems to be schismatic to me.

[awkward customer]

Also, here is are some of the Catholics he and his subordinates have decided that he can refuse the sacraments to:

2. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent the Novus Ordo Mass, unless they first manifest an intention of repudiating Vatican II and its reforms.
3. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who are invalidly married, or who are living as husband and wife after having received marriage annulments from the Novus Ordo, the Society of Saint Pius X, or any other person or entity.
4. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent a Mass, even traditional, which is offered under the auspices of or with the approval of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, nor to those who frequent the traditional Mass in which members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are mentioned in the Te igitur prayers of the Canon of the Mass, nor to those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church.
5. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who obstinately hold that the position of recognizing the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church has theological probability, and may be legitimately held.

Source: https://romancatholicinstitute.org/pastoral-directory-of-the-roman-catholic-institute/

This seems to be schismatic to me.

The SSPX refused me a Conditional Confirmation because I don't exclusively attend SSPX Chapels.

But if you want to keep trashing Bishop Sanborn and Fr Cekada, then carry on without me.

You've obviously decided that in order to keep SD friendly to R&Rers, you must treat Sedes like some mad relative in the attic who has to be kept away from polite company.  Then there's yours and KK's unbelievable rudeness.

Goodbye.  The last straw has broken the camel's back.

You've said yourself that there are only 10 validly ordained Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction left in the world.  But hey, don't make a fuss about this entirely unprecedented and catastrophic situation, in case it upsets the R&Rers.

[Bonaventure]

You've said yourself that there are only 10 validly ordained Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction left in the world.  But hey, don't make a fuss about this entirely unprecedented and catastrophic situation, in case it upsets the R&Rers.

I never said that. I said, that is what many would say.

It is also not about "upsetting" anyone.

You posted this man's opinion, and I provided my thoughts not only on the GWS, but also wanted to show he holds very problematic opinions on many other issues.

Do you ever see me posting anything about Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI? About Bishop Pierre Roy?

I wonder why that is.

The SSPX refused me a Conditional Confirmation because I don't exclusively attend SSPX Chapels.

Refusing someone conditional confirmation is different than refusing them all of the sacraments.

You've obviously decided that in order to keep SD friendly to R&Rers, you must treat Sedes like some mad relative in the attic who has to be kept away from polite company

That's why I only refer to Ratzinger as Ratzinger, Bergoglio as Bergoglio, JP2 as "Garrulous Carolus," just posted in response to another poster who compared Ratzinger to Celestine V that Celestine would have had Ratzinger burned at the stake, implemented and enforced a rule that bans any users from calling sedevacantism and sedevacantists not Catholic or schismatic, and maintain an entire sub forum dedicated to this topic, right?

Goodbye.  The last straw has broken the camel's back

I've heard that from you before. I find it strange that, because I criticize certain Sedevacantist clerics, that upsets you so much.

As I previously said, I think it is because you do not want there to be any blemish on their records, out of some fear that it weakens their other arguments that you like.

If I criticized Sanborn on una cum, post 1990 baptisms, or this issue, your only thought process is that it is to coddle "R&Rers," and not that these positions are very wrong and sometimes schismatic?

Notice I don't criticize, say, Abbot Leonard Giardina, or the CMRI. I wonder why...

Then there's yours and KK's unbelievable rudeness.

Like the unbelievable rudeness in this post?

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=31004.msg621203#msg621203

[AlNg]

The following is a quote from a Sedevacantist:
3. Attendance at una cum Masses is mortal sin. His seminary prefect (Fr. Nicolás Despósito) has publicly written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Just saying..." (Source: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito/status/434837570053087232) The seminary rector, as far as I know, has never corrected, rebuked, or clarified what his prefect said here.

This teaching and a few others show, I think, that Sedevacantists are seriously divided. The true Catholic Church is supposed to have the mark of unity. (one, holy, catholic and apostolic). I don't see that the Sedevacantists have the required mark of unity on many important issues. How can they represent the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church if they do not have the mark of unity?

[dueSicilie]

Thuc line bishops should throw no stones....

[Bonaventure]

The following is a quote from a Sedevacantist:
3. Attendance at una cum Masses is mortal sin. His seminary prefect (Fr. Nicolás Despósito) has publicly written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Just saying..." (Source: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito/status/434837570053087232) The seminary rector, as far as I know, has never corrected, rebuked, or clarified what his prefect said here.

This teaching and a few others show, I think, that Sedevacantists are seriously divided. The true Catholic Church is supposed to have the mark of unity. (one, holy, catholic and apostolic). I don't see that the Sedevacantists have the required mark of unity on many important issues. How can they represent the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church if they do not have the mark of unity?

Careful now, by criticizing one word this cleric says, you are treating Sedes like some mad relative in the attic who has to be kept away from polite company.

[AlNg]

The following is a quote from a Sedevacantist:
3. Attendance at una cum Masses is mortal sin. His seminary prefect (Fr. Nicolás Despósito) has publicly written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Just saying..." (Source: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito/status/434837570053087232) The seminary rector, as far as I know, has never corrected, rebuked, or clarified what his prefect said here.

This teaching and a few others show, I think, that Sedevacantists are seriously divided. The true Catholic Church is supposed to have the mark of unity. (one, holy, catholic and apostolic). I don't see that the Sedevacantists have the required mark of unity on many important issues. How can they represent the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church if they do not have the mark of unity?

Careful now, by criticizing one word this cleric says, you are treating Sedes like some mad relative in the attic who has to be kept away from polite company.

Yes, but there are so many other areas of division among the Sedevacantists.

[Bonaventure]

One can say the same regarding in full communion or SSPXers.

Look at the resistance.

My criticism was never of "disunity."

Bergoglio has cardinals opposing him and Bishop Strickland even said "he can fire me." Which indeed happened.

My criticism was of certain sede clergy who dogmatize their opinions.

Two posters who really performed forum seppuku (at least they claim, but one did so several months back and another still logs in and reads) have an issue with this.

Another example is those sedes who criticize the SSPX and Sedeplenist as "pope sifters" or "the pope speaks, you decide."

Yet, these same clergy have seen it fit to reject whatever liturgical reforms of Pius XII that they see fit. Not just Holy Week, but the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker.

They do accept, the feast of St. Pius X and the 3 hour Eucharistic fast though.

They criticize the SSPX as "Gallican" or "aligned with enemies of the Church," but...voila

[Miriam_M]

I thought that Sanborn (and Dolan, whom I've met) were part of the Society of St Pius V, and that the Roman Catholic Institute is a different (although SV) group.

I guess not?

[Bonaventure]

Sanborn and Dolan are ex SSPV.

RCI is Sanborn's new group. None of the other living 9 are members.

[Bonaventure]

I have also criticized Dolan/Cekada/Sanborn for many of their opinions since at least 2014:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=6042.msg124057#msg124057

I guess that was coddling R&Rers and throwing sedes in the attic.

[Miriam_M]

Sanborn and Dolan are ex SSPV.

RCI is Sanborn's new group. None of the other living 9 are members.

Re:  the bolded.  Being ex-SSPV and not RCI, have the remainder formed a different group with a name?

[Bonaventure]

A few stayed SSPV, most just went independent.