Fit of Mercy: Young Priest Excommunicated
Father Michael DeSaye abandoned Trenton Diocese, USA, for which he was ordained on June 2, 2018, and entered the sedevacantist Brooksville Seminary in Florida which is led by Bishop Donald Sanborn, 71. …More
Father Michael DeSaye abandoned Trenton Diocese, USA, for which he was ordained on June 2, 2018, and entered the sedevacantist Brooksville Seminary in Florida which is led by Bishop Donald Sanborn, 71.
In the early seventies, Sanborn, 71, was a seminarian for Rockville Center Diocese, but then joined the Society of PiusX where he was ordained in June 1975. He is the founder of the PiusX St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary which is now located in Dillwyn, Virginia. In 1983, Sanborn left PiusX and embraced sedevacantism which believes that Pius XII (+1958) was the last true pope, and that since all popes and most sacraments are invalid.
Father DeSaye came to the conclusion that the failed Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) teaches error against Catholic faith and morals, and is irreconcilable with the Church's magisterium. These contradictions led him to sedevacantism.
He asked Trenton Bishop David O’Connell to accept his resignation and to remove his priestly faculties. O’Connell went beyond that …More
In the early seventies, Sanborn, 71, was a seminarian for Rockville Center Diocese, but then joined the Society of PiusX where he was ordained in June 1975. He is the founder of the PiusX St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary which is now located in Dillwyn, Virginia. In 1983, Sanborn left PiusX and embraced sedevacantism which believes that Pius XII (+1958) was the last true pope, and that since all popes and most sacraments are invalid.
Father DeSaye came to the conclusion that the failed Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) teaches error against Catholic faith and morals, and is irreconcilable with the Church's magisterium. These contradictions led him to sedevacantism.
He asked Trenton Bishop David O’Connell to accept his resignation and to remove his priestly faculties. O’Connell went beyond that …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
atreverse pensar
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"and that since all popes and most sacraments are invalid."
They say that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, as is the sacrament of Holy Orders and Confirmation. So is confession, because there is no validly ordained priest. I don't think they say the same for extreme unction. Baptism and marriage are valid.
Their position on the validity of sacraments is deduced from the change in the rites established …More
"and that since all popes and most sacraments are invalid."
They say that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, as is the sacrament of Holy Orders and Confirmation. So is confession, because there is no validly ordained priest. I don't think they say the same for extreme unction. Baptism and marriage are valid.
Their position on the validity of sacraments is deduced from the change in the rites established by Paul VI, not because of the Council.
Instead, they say that popes after the Council are not popes, because a pope cannot officially promote an erroneous doctrine.
They say that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, as is the sacrament of Holy Orders and Confirmation. So is confession, because there is no validly ordained priest. I don't think they say the same for extreme unction. Baptism and marriage are valid.
Their position on the validity of sacraments is deduced from the change in the rites established by Paul VI, not because of the Council.
Instead, they say that popes after the Council are not popes, because a pope cannot officially promote an erroneous doctrine.
I think the idea that Papal Infallibility, a dogma declared at Vatican I, applies broadly to papal pronouncements. The dogma is, however, very narrow. Such infallible pronouncements have to be worded in a specific way. With the exception of JP II’s declaration on female clergy, no such pronouncements have been made since 1900.
On the other hand, the Church of Vatican II is in schism from the prior …More
I think the idea that Papal Infallibility, a dogma declared at Vatican I, applies broadly to papal pronouncements. The dogma is, however, very narrow. Such infallible pronouncements have to be worded in a specific way. With the exception of JP II’s declaration on female clergy, no such pronouncements have been made since 1900.
On the other hand, the Church of Vatican II is in schism from the prior 1900 years. The documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in an orthodox way but because they can also be interpreted in schismatic ways, those documents are not orthodox.
I need to learn more about the sedevacanists. They seem to rely on part on a schismatic Pope is an invalid Pope along with some questions about the conclave of John XXIII. By contrast, the SSPX simply doesn’t go there and relies on the requirement that the Pope faithfully protect the deposit of faith passed on. The theology codified dogmatically at the council of Trent and expressed in the Missal of 1962 reflect that deposit of faith. They show respect to the Pope but disregard any pronouncements which fails to protect the Deposit of Faith.
It is fascinating to me that Francis has not used the formulation for pronouncing infallible dogma in any of his pronouncements. Does he realize that the clear contradiction of fixed orthodoxy would bring about a crisis or is it some supernatural protection of the church?
On the other hand, the Church of Vatican II is in schism from the prior 1900 years. The documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in an orthodox way but because they can also be interpreted in schismatic ways, those documents are not orthodox.
I need to learn more about the sedevacanists. They seem to rely on part on a schismatic Pope is an invalid Pope along with some questions about the conclave of John XXIII. By contrast, the SSPX simply doesn’t go there and relies on the requirement that the Pope faithfully protect the deposit of faith passed on. The theology codified dogmatically at the council of Trent and expressed in the Missal of 1962 reflect that deposit of faith. They show respect to the Pope but disregard any pronouncements which fails to protect the Deposit of Faith.
It is fascinating to me that Francis has not used the formulation for pronouncing infallible dogma in any of his pronouncements. Does he realize that the clear contradiction of fixed orthodoxy would bring about a crisis or is it some supernatural protection of the church?
chris griffin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Very very wrong! Evangelium Vitae condemnation of abortion is infallible and in the same class as the founding of the Church by Christ and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
salliperson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@123jussi well said. Those who can see have received the grace to see accompanied by diligent prayer, penance and sacrifice.
Why cant people believe that it is possible to have a bad pope? Even Peter required correction! Recognizing a bad pope shows we have faith in God and not men! Without Him we can do nothing ,when we get the Shepard's we deserve we will blame everyone but ourselves!
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
...because they're ignorant of history. The Church has seen many, many bad popes and if, as I suspect, Cardinal Tagle is elected as the next one he's going to make Francis look like a staunch traditionalist. We, the Faithful, ain't seen nothin' yet, sorry to say.
Fry Lofton
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Sorry, but have you actually read any sedevacantist authors? They tend to be very well educated in Church history. The correct answer is that sedevacantists do believe bad popes are possible and that there have been many. Rather, what is not possible is a public heretic pope because (a) if a pope fell into public heresy after being elected, he lose office automatically and without declaratory …More
Sorry, but have you actually read any sedevacantist authors? They tend to be very well educated in Church history. The correct answer is that sedevacantists do believe bad popes are possible and that there have been many. Rather, what is not possible is a public heretic pope because (a) if a pope fell into public heresy after being elected, he lose office automatically and without declaratory judgment, and (b) a public heretic is ineligible for election as pope under canon law. In addition the sedevacantist position holds that the post-VII rite of episcopal consecration is invalid, so Bergoglio is not even a valid priest or bishop. Argue with sedevacantism, fine, but I'd recommend reviewing their positions first. I highly recommend Novus Ordo Watch for this.
No competent authority has ever declared to be true what you say.the musings of some theologians are just that. If there is no pope then is the church abandoned by God who said he would not leave us orphans? How is a new pope ever obtained? There is a big problem there!
Fry Lofton
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Responding on a dead thread, but anyways... In fact competent authorities have stated that public heretics are not eligible to be elected pope. Canon law is a competent authority, and commentators on canon law is an authority. Public heretics, by canon law, cannot be elected pope. If Bergoglio is not a public heretic, I'm not sure what is. The argument that our Church is abandoned by God if there …More
Responding on a dead thread, but anyways... In fact competent authorities have stated that public heretics are not eligible to be elected pope. Canon law is a competent authority, and commentators on canon law is an authority. Public heretics, by canon law, cannot be elected pope. If Bergoglio is not a public heretic, I'm not sure what is. The argument that our Church is abandoned by God if there is no pope is precisely the argument Protestants use against the Church. The Church is without a pope when any pope dies, prior to the election of a new pope. These periods have lasted years. As for a new pope, there are actually several ways it's possible, but too long to go into in a combox. I recommend Googling Sedeprivationism for a start.