Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn unaware of many philosophical errors in Vatican Council
Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn is unaware of the many philosophical errors in Vatican Council II since he and Fr. Anthony Cekada make the same errors
They refuse to answer two questions.They also refer to answer if Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) can be interpreted as being invisible or invisible.
These questions could be answered even by a school boy .
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with hypothetical cases being visible or invisible.The Council Fathers in principle assumed invisible cases were visible since the error was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
Bishop Sanborn accepts the Letter and condemns Fr.Leonard Feeney.Fr.Anthony Cekada does the same. It is there on their website.So for them Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston were correct in 1949. Since for Bishop Sanborn the baptism of desire refers to a known case and so it is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So since the baptism of desire refers to an explicit case, personally known for the sedevacantist bishop, Lumen Gentium 14 is a rupture with Tradition, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.So he and the others have gone into sedevacantism.
For me Lumen Gentium 14( the case of the unknown catechumen) refers to an invisible case.So it is not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition for me.
It has been a long time that I have been pointing this out to the sedevacantists prominent on the Internet but they will not correct me or admit that they have been wrong all these years.
There is a philosophical error, an irrational reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.
The fault is not there with the Council which can still be interpreted as with the hermeneutic of continiuity with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Bishop Sanborn has posted an article on the Internet, The Anti-Feeneyite Catechism. This article still does not respond to the what I have writtedn in my blog posts, the points raised there.He should know by now that I am not using the apologetics of the St. Benedict Centers. I speak for myself.
Nor is there any comment to this blog post sent to him.
Bishop Sanborn uses situation ethics, subjectivism and known exceptions to EENS, as a reasoning, to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.The liberals do the same
Even on Twitter the priests of his seminary would not respond.
Fundamentally what I am saying is that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and so it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiiam nulla salus(EENS). So I can accept the baptism of desire (hypothetical/theoretical and physically invisible) without rejecting the strict interpretation of EENS.-Lionel Andrades
Bishop Robert Sanborn and Dr.Robert Fastiggi are unaware of Cushing theology and irrational reasoning : at the centre of their debate is really extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Both of them would at times refer to an EENS or a Vatican Council II which is Cushingite or Feeneyite, I could just watch the mix up,sadly.I could see through the mistake they are both making innocently