Sedevacantist Watch…
BISHOP DONALD
SANBORN EXPELLED A SEMINARIAN FOR ADHERING TO THE TEACHING OF BILLOT!
So Much For The Sedevacantist's Love Affair With Billot
(Revised 2/25/16, with more info. from the seminarian)
 |
| Cardinal Billot |
To Derksen’s reply, we responded with a detailed, 25-page article called “A Point-by-Point Refutation of Mario Derksen on Nestorius.” In our refutation, we reveal that Derksen not only ignored the quotations that completely contradict his claim on when Nestorius lost his office (thus, admitting defeat), but that he also rejects the teaching of Cardinal Billot on universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope (a classic case of “cherry-picking”). Our refutation also exposed Derksen’s blatant errors on canon law
As anyone can see by reading our 25-page refutation of Derksen (and Cekada), we never claimed Billot was wrong when he said a bishop loses his jurisdiction when he “preaches heresy openly.” Rather, we explained how Billot’s quotation can be easily harmonized with the teaching of the Doctors, saints and other theologians of the Church (ignored by Cekada and Derksen), who all hold that whether a prelate is “preaching heresy openly,” must be established by the Church’s judgment (as it was in the case of Nestorius at a Roman council in 430 A.D.), and not private judgment. This is also why Constantinople IV excommunicated anyone who separated from their Patriarch (e.g., the Pope) before the Church renders the judgment. We also showed how waiting upon the Church’s judgment before formally separating from heretical clerics has always been the practice of the saints (e.g., Cyril of Alexandria vis-à-vis Nestorius; Bellarmine vis-à-vis Michel de Bay ) and Popes (e.g., Blessed Pius IX vis-à-vis Archbishop Darboy).
“…one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed
firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church
will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined
Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required
for legitimacy itself….[God] cannot however permit that the whole Church
accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
“Therefore, from the moment in which
the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it
is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a
possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.”[1]
We also showed that the rejection of a dogmatic fact (e.g., the
legitimacy of a Pope who has been accepted, as such, by the Church), is a
mortal sin against the Faith, which, like all other mortal sins, cannot be
forgiven unless it is repented of, renounced, and confessed.
Thus, by appealing to the isolated quote from Cardinal Billot on
“preaching heresy openly,” Derksen and Cekada have collectively “cut off their
nose to spite their face.” Based on the above citation, it is clear that Billot
would completely reject Sedevacantism. So much for Cekada and Derksen’s short
lived “love affair” with Billot. But it gets worse for them.
In the same theological treatise (on the next page), Cardinal Billot also teaches that the only way a Pope would lose his office is through “voluntary abdication” (Billot’s renowned “Thesis 29”). He bases this teaching on Bellarmine’s theory (which many Sedevacantists accept), which maintains that a true Pope could never fall into manifest heresy in the first place. Billot says:
In the same theological treatise (on the next page), Cardinal Billot also teaches that the only way a Pope would lose his office is through “voluntary abdication” (Billot’s renowned “Thesis 29”). He bases this teaching on Bellarmine’s theory (which many Sedevacantists accept), which maintains that a true Pope could never fall into manifest heresy in the first place. Billot says:
“…in a person
elected properly and once raised to the pontificate, the power can in fact
cease by voluntary abdication, but least of all by deposition, and assuredly
not in whatever way you please, if, in accordance with the very grounded
opinion of Bellarmine and other theologians, the case of a Pope who, through
notorious heresy, ceased from being of the Church should be supposed impossible.
However, whatever you may as yet think about the possibility of this
hypothesis, it must at least be necessarily admitted that the peaceful
adhesion of the universal Church always will be an infallible sign of the
legitimacy of the person of the Pope, and so also of the existence of all
conditions which are required for legitimacy itself.”[2]
Thus, according to the Sedevacantists’ new, favorite theologian, we have
infallible certitude that the conciliar Popes, who have all been universally
and peacefully accepted by the Church,[3]
are true Popes, and, according to Billot's position, they could lose their office by "voluntary abdication."
To be clear, what the Cardinal is arguing is that it is not possible for
a Pope to be a manifest heretic, according to the Church’s authoritative
judgment. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that a Pope could make a
heretical statement, but he would not truly become a manifest heretic, which
would occur if he remaining hardened in heresy, after being warned by the
Church.[4] And what is certain is that none of the
recent Popes – not even Francis, as bad as he is – have been manifest heretics according
to the Church’s judgment.
Sanborn Expels a Seminarian for Adhering to Cekada's Interpretation of Billot’s
Teaching
 |
| Bishop Sanborn |
Now, before we continue with the story, let’s say a word about Cardinal
Billot. In his screed against our feature on Nestorius, Fr. Cekada himself
conceded that Billot was one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth
century. Indeed, Billot was openly praised by high churchmen and theologians as
one of the greatest modern pioneers of the Scholastic restoration. Billot
helped draft Pope St. Pius X’s monumental encyclical Pascendi and served as a
consultant to the Holy Office. In fact, Pope Pius XII, in an address to the
students of the Gregorian, declared that Billot should be a model for all
teachers of sacred doctrine. Cardinal Billot was one of the Church’s most
renowned theologians of the last 100 years, because he explicated with great
brilliance and lucidity the teachings of the Catholic Church.
This is why Cardinal Billot’s theological manuals have always been an important part of traditional priestly formation. His works have a prominent place in the classrooms and libraries of all traditional Catholic seminaries, and his masterpiece Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (from which we get his teachings on voluntary abdication and universal acceptance of a Pope) has always been a Church-approved seminary textbook for traditional Catholic instruction. In fact, our seminarian learned, a few years after his expulsion, that Billot’s Tractatus was read aloud in the refectory at lunch time! Can there be a greater indictment of Bishop Sanborn and his disgusting hypocrisy? This is just one more example of Sedevacantist’s “cherry picking.” They praise the theologian and his teaching to the sky when they think it supports their position, and completely reject it when it does not. Let’s continue with the story.
Back in February 2003, a seminarian at Sanborn’s Most Holy Trinity
Seminary (who has requested anonymity), had a meeting with Sanborn’s seminary
assistant and protégé, Joe Selway, who was a newly-ordained priest, and
“coincidentally” the son of Sanborn’s principal benefactor.[5] During the meeting several things were
discussed. 1) The seminarian was told that he was not
permitted to hold that there are any bishops today with jurisdiction;
2) that Fr. Cekada’s interpretation of Canon 188.4 was heretical; and 3) that he was not permitted to accept Billot’s teaching regarding the peaceful
and universal acceptance of a Pope. In
fact, the young seminarian was told that if he did not renounce Billot’s
teaching he would be expelled, since Sanborn could not “in conscience” ordain
anyone who held to what Billot taught. You
read that correctly: if the young man continued to accept the teaching of
Cardinal Billot, Bishop Sanborn would not ordain him. And the dispute was not over an interpretation of Billot. Sanborn knew exactly what he taught, but simply rejected it. And it should be noted that the teaching is
not only that of Billot, but is the common teaching found in all of the
pre-Vatican II manuals. As we have
explained in other articles, if one denies this teaching (which falls into the
category of a dogmatic fact, and is
qualified as theologically certain), they are guilty of a mortal sin against
the Faith. Yet, in spite of this, Sanborn will not tolerate anyone to accept
this teaching. In other words, Sanborn forces his seminarians to persevere in
an objective mortal sin against the Faith, if they wish to remain at his
Seminary. This should tell you all you
need to know about Sanborn, the faculty at Most Holy Trinity Seminary, and the Sedevacantist priests who Sanborn has ordained.
Following the February meeting, Selway quickly reported the “problem” to
Sanborn. A few days later, Sanborn summoned the seminarian to his office and
informed him, in no uncertain terms, that he had until June of that year (2003)
to change his position. Then, following another conversation with Selway in
May, during which the seminarian showed no signs of rejecting the teaching of Billot,
Sanborn summoned him to his office a second time and informed him that he was
expelled (Sanborn wouldn’t even honor the June 2003 deadline that he himself
gave the seminarian).
[1] Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 3rd ed. (Prati: ex officina libraria
Giachetti, 1909), pp. 620-621.
[3] As we state in our book True or False Pope?, the conditions for
“universal and peaceful acceptance” may be lacking in the case of Pope Francis,
given the controversy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication and the
alleged conspiracy to get Bergoglio elected.
[4] The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Fr.
Pietro Ballerini, who subscribed to Bellarmine’s Fifth Opinion, discussed how
the Pope would become a manifest heretic according to the Church’s
judgment. He wrote:
“Is it
not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching
heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist
him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to
repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman
Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any
person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid
the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is
perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11).
For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but
continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma -
not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any
means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person
declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he
has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now
no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from
the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and
public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod,
would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the
Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So
that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy
and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on
guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against
himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own
will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and
that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…”(De Potestate
Ecclesiastica, (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters, 1847) ch. 6, sec. 2, pp. 124-
125 (emphasis added).
[5] This
story was reported by Pistrina Liturgica on February 6, 2011 in an article
called “An Inclination to Injustice.” See http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com
/2011/02/inclin ation-to-injustice.html.
