There is a crisis for Bishop Donald Sanborn.He is no more a sedevacantist who thinks the popes are in heresy because of Vatican Council II. Yet he cannot give up the sedevacantist seminary mid stream.He cannot abruptly tell the seminarians and faculty that there is no more a reason for sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II. They were all wrong all along like the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).By changing a premise, we now know, the interpretation of Vatican Council II dramatically changes.So the popes from John XXIII to Paul VI cannot be blamed for a traditional Council.
So what does he do ? Does Bishop Sanborn in conscience ask the seminarians to leave or does he leave the seminary in Florida?
He knows Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) with Feeneyism(invisible cases are invisible) cannot any more be an exception to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries. This is something rational.
But for the students at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Florida, Lumen Gentium 16 ( Cushingite-invisible cases are visible) is a rupture with the dogma EENS and so Vatican Council II is heretical.The popes from John XXIII to Paul VI were heretical. So they chose to be sedevacantists. A heretical pope cannot be a pope says Fr.Anthony Cekada who also teaches at this seminary.
For Bishop Donald Sanborn Unitatis Redintigratio 3 is not a rupture with the dogma EENS . So with the old ecclesiology there is the old ecumenism. Vatican Council II is not a problem.
For the students and faculty UR 3 is an example of salvation outside the Church. So there has been created a new ecclesiology with a new ecumenism.This is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS ( Feeneyite).So Vatican Council II and the popes were heretics.They felt their sedevacantism was justified.The faculty teach that a heretical pope cannot be a pope.
So what does Bishop Donald Sanborn do now?
How can he contradict all his the religious formation he has given the seminarians all these years and which he received from Archbishop Lefebvre ?
Does he tell them all to change and that the seminary will not more be sedevacantist?
Or does he look for other reasons to be sedevacantist may be like the faith and moral teachings of Pope Francis?
Vatican Council II any way is no more an issue.
In the debate with Dr.Robert Fastiggi he was clear that it was the heresies of Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which was the reason for his sedevacantism. Since a heretical pope for him could not be a valid pope and the Council( Cushingite) was teaching heresy.
But now how does he clarify the issue of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).If he affirms it in public there will be a crisis for the seminary and their community.
He has refused to comment on these blog posts when I have contacted.He has no denial or contradiction. Otherwise he would have explained it for me.After all he can no more infer that invisible people are visible exceptions to Tradition. He now knows it is otherwise.
I am not holding the Feeneyite theology of the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have have not been presenting the pros and cons, reasons for and against, for the baptism of desire. I have been saying that there is no baptism of desire case in our reality. It is a non issue with reference to the dogma EENS. So the passages which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II( LG 14, AG 7 etc) are superfluous passages. They are references to hypothetical and theoretical cases which are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. So the magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and carried over that mistake into Vatican Council II.
It can be corrected once we are aware of the error and do not mistake hypothetical cases as being objective in the present time. This changes the conclusion of Vatican Council II. The Council then is traditional and supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.This is my interpretation of Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite and so for me the popes cannot be in heresy.The sedevacantists and the SSPX were confused with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which they should continue to reject, even if the magisterium does not do so.-Lionel Andrades