MARCH 2015
Published by Most Holy Trinity Seminary, 1000 Spring Lake Highway, Brooksville, Florida 34602. This newsletter is sent free of charge to all Seminary benefactors who contribute $75.00 or more annually. If you would like to be on our mailing list, please contact us by mail, or at
[email protected]. Visit our website at mostholytrinityseminary.org
My dear Catholic people,
Novus Ordo conservatives. We of course follow the world of Novus Ordo conservatives quite
On the weekend of February 22nd, I traveled again
closely. We do so because they still retain, I believe, the
to England in an effort to establish the Mass center in
Catholic faith, that is, the virtue of faith, despite the fact
London for those interested in attending a Mass not
that they adhere to many errors. They are like the surviconnected to the Modernist hierarchy. I am confident
vors of a nuclear blast. They wander through the rubble
by the turnout for this second Mass in London that the
of what was once the great Catholic city, and they
Mass center will take
search desperately for
root and grow. There
Catholic morsels of food
will be Mass every
among the cremated remonth. London will
mains. They still desire to
be ser viced four
be Catholic, and still want
times a year by
to adhere to all of Catholic
c l e r g y f ro m t h e
doctrine, even though they
Seminary, four times
labor under much ignoby Father Trauner, an
rance concer ning the
Austrian priest who
truths of the Catholic
recently left the SoFaith.
ciety of Saint Pius X,
I was once a Novus Ordo
and four times a year
conservative, back in the
by by Father Steen1960’s. Horrified by the
bergen, a Dutc h
changes of Vatican II, I
priest who is a memknew implicitly that one
ber of the Institute of
could not assign to the
Our Mother of Good
Roman Pontiff the source
Counsel in Verrua,
Bishop Sanborn gives a sermon to the people in London
of the corruption of Cathoon February 22nd of this year.
Italy. Father Steenlic doctrine, liturgy, and
bergen is an assistant
discipline. Hence I looked
to Bishop Stuyver, of
around for others to blame.
the same Institute, whose principal Mass center is in
It fell upon “liberal bishops” who were “disobedient” to
Dendermonde in Belgium. London and Brussels are
the “Holy Father.” Paul VI, in this system was “weak” and
connected very conveniently by the Eurostar train,
was surrounded by a “bad entourage.”
which passes under the English Channel and arrives in
By the early 1970’s, as I read more about Paul VI,
central London.
this system collapsed for me. Nonetheless, I understand
Please pray that all go well for the London Mass
the mentality of the Novus Ordo conservative, who
center.
constructs a system whereby the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church are preserved. For them, Vati1
ulgated the documents of Vatican II, and what
the authors of the subsequent post-Vatican II
magisterial acts meant - is not the domain of
private individuals, but of the hierarchy of the
Catholic Church.
In your system, this same hierarchy would
have to one day repudiate the false interpretation given to Vatican II by the hierarchy over
the past fifty years, and promulgate an entirely
new one. How could we ever, in such a case,
explain to a Protestant that the Church is infallible and indefectible?
can II is totally orthodox, but badly interpreted by “liberals.” Likewise for them, post-Vatican II “popes” are
100% orthodox in their teachings, although they have
been “negligent” in disciplining “radical theologians” and
“liturgical abuses.” This is the world of the Novus Ordo
conservative. I know, because I lived in it for a number
of years.
They are absolutely unwilling to go the route of
sedevacantism, that is, the position that disassociates the
defection of Vatican II from the Church by disassociating
from the Church the Modernist perpetrators of the
defection.
Consequently they agonize to find a system which
either denies that there is a defection, or asserts that
somehow the Catholic hierarchy is not responsible for
the defection. Neither of these possibilities conforms to
reality. For the reality is that in 1958 Modernist intruders took over the posts of authority in the Catholic
Church, and have promulgated ever since an entirely
new religion, supposedly in the name of and with the
authority of Christ. The reality is that there is defection
from the true Faith, and that the Modernist intruders
— the Novus Ordo hierarchy — are responsible for it.
Knowing down deep that their system of denial
does not work, Novus Ordo conservatives do not like
to have their boat rocked. They regard sedevacantism as
a most evil horror, and consequently will put up any
defense in order not to get sucked into the logic of sedevacantism.
Recently I had a correspondence with a Novus
Ordo priest, in which I pointed out an inconsistency in
an article he wrote. On the one hand, he said that as a
seminarian in the 1960’s, he was unconvinced by the
argument of those who said that the changes of Vatican
II were merely accidental. Yet the second part of the
article was a panegyric of Michael Davies, who championed the cause that Vatican II changed nothing except
accidental things.
This priest told me that he “believes in the the hermeneutic of continuity.” This was Ratzinger’s term to
mean an interpretation of Vatican II and its changes in
such a way that they do not contradict Catholic doctrine.
His declaration of belief in the hermeneutic of continuity was the response to a question I put to him. I assumed for a moment his position that Vatican II was a
valid council and Paul VI a true pope, and I said:
His response to me was thunder and lightning, and
declared that he wanted no longer to discuss these
things.
I believe that this sensitivity is owing to the fact that
the Novus Ordo conservative knows in his heart that his
theological position has no foundation. He believes in
an interpretation of Vatican II that has never been produced by anyone, has never been heard, has never been
seen, not for these fifty years since the close of Vatican
II. The hermeneutic of continuity is a mythological figure,
the unicorn in the forest.
An eroding myth? We are hearing more and
more, as Bergoglio says and does things which are blatantly contrary to Catholic Faith and discipline, of resistance to Bergoglio and even of coming schism. This talk is
not coming from sedevacantists, but from the Novus
Ordo conservatives themselves, even from bishops and
even from a cardinal.
Professor Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian,
has been on Rorate Cæli with a series of blogs describing
situations in the past in which popes have prescribed
things that are wrong. He cited Paschal II in the Middle
Ages, who permitted lay investiture of bishops. More
recently we heard of Leo XIII’s policy of ralliement, that
is, his instruction to Catholics in France to support the
Third Republic.1
The series of blogs seems to be intended to prepare
Novus Ordo conservatives for a big fight with Bergoglio. They are horrified by his stance on Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, on cohabitation,
and on same-sex marriages. If Bergoglio’s attitudes become law at the upcoming Synod in the autumn, it
seems that a significant number of these conservatives
will resist the law.
Unfortunately these conservatives are reacting
merely to Bergoglio. They are not reacting to Vatican II.
If Bergoglio disappeared tomorrow, and a Novus Ordo
conservative were elected in his place, they would all
continue to believe in the mythic hermeneutic of continu-
That a few conservatives think up a “true interpretation” of Vatican II does nothing for the
continuity of Catholic teaching. The true interpretation - what Paul VI meant when he prom-
1
Whatever anyone wants to think about the prudence or imprudence of these acts of Roman Pontiffs, there is absolutely no analogy between
these acts and the statements and actions of Jorge Bergoglio which are blatantly heretical.
2
ity for Vatican II. The very belief that this interpretation
exists somewhere is sufficient to satisfy their consciences that there is indeed a continuity.
For the time being, however, they are having major
problems explaining Bergoglio.
The only justification for an unapproved episcopal
consecration would be that the faithful are being poisoned to spiritual death by the new and false religion
which has been promulgated by the Vatican II “popes.”
Menzingen, however, cannot say this, since such
words would be offensive to the Modernist-occupied
Vatican, with which they are in negotiation for recognition and approval.
In the next paragraph of the Menzingen communiqué, the SSPX attacks Bishops Williamson and Faure
“for not recognizing the Roman authorities, except in a
purely verbal fashion.”
This criticism is, of course, true, and both Bishop
Williamson and Bishop Faure learned how to do this in
the Society of Saint Pius X.
For no one has perfected better than the Society of
Saint Pius X the hypocrisy and deceit of a merely verbal
recognition of the alleged Roman Pontiff. Every single
day they defy the “pope” by carrying on an apostolate
which he condemns. Every year on June 29th they defy
the “pope” and the “local bishop” by ordaining priests
without authorization. At the same time, they claim to
be “with the pope” because they pray for him in the
canon of the Mass. They also place a picture of him in
the front of the church. These little tokens of recognition are presented to the people as a submission to the
Roman Pontiff. The people eat it up.
It is absurd and the height of pharisaism that the
Society of Saint Pius X should condemn as mere lipservice the recognition given to the “Roman authorities” by Bishops Williamson and Faure, when it is the
Society of Saint Pius X — indeed Archbishop Lefebvre
himself — who invented this system of schismatic
mockery of the person whom they claim to be the Roman Pontiff.
Bishop Williamson consecrates a bishop.
Bishop Williamson turned 75 in March, and I suppose
that he thought it was the right time to consecrate
someone else in order to ensure continuity of their position and of Holy Orders. Bishop Faure is 73. Why
Bishop Williamson would consecrate such an old man, if
indeed continuity is the object, is mysterious to me.
Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society
of Saint Pius X in 2012, and ever since has headed, at
least informally, a separatist movement among former
members of the SSPX. They object to Bishop Fellay’s
overtures to the Modernists in the Vatican, and his desire to make a reconciliation with them. Bishop Williamson and his followers hold that such a move would
be contrary to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.
I have pointed out many times already that Archbishop Lefebvre gave both sides something to work
with, that is, statements or deeds by which to make a
case for reconciliation with the Modernists or for opposition to the Modernists. Each of the contenders in this
controversy can rightfully claim Archbishop Lefebvre at
his side.
The SSPX reaction to Bishop Faure’s consecration. Menzingen, the headquarters of the Society of
Saint Pius X, issued a condemnation of Bishop Williamson’s consecration of Bishop Faure. It is one of the most
absurd statements which they have ever made.
They devote a whole paragraph to the defense of
the 1988 consecrations, which were undertaken by
Archbishop Lefebvre in direct defiance of the person
whom they held to be the Vicar of Christ on earth,
namely John Paul II. He was characterized as an antichrist in the propaganda which was prepared in order to
justify the consecrations in 1988. According to the
Menzingen communiqué, Archbishop Lefebvre was
justified in performing these consecrations “in order to
permit the faithful to receive the sacraments by the
ministry of priests who would be ordained by these
bishops.” They further cite as a justifying cause for the
defiant act the fact that the 1988 consecrations were
done publicly, in front of thousands of people and several hundred journalists.
How is any bishop justified in committing what is
an objectively schismatic act — to consecrate bishops
without the pope’s approval — merely because he
wants the faithful to have access to priests ordained by
these bishops? Or because it was done in front of many
people and journalists? Is Menzingen crazy?
More of the same. In any case, the consecration
of a bishop for the St. Marcel Initiative (the ex-SSPX),
which is the movement which sees Bishop Williamson as
its leader, is really not very newsworthy. The reason is
that the ex-SSPX offers really nothing different from
the SSPX.
The principles of both groups are the same, namely
that Vatican II is a valid council which has been badly
interpreted by the Modernists, that the Vatican II hierarchy is the true Catholic hierarchy, but who should be
simply ignored and disobeyed in all things, as if they did
not exist. The acts of this hierarchy need to be sifted by
the faithful to see what is Catholic and what is nonCatholic. Almost nothing gets through the sifter, not
even the canonization of a saint, unless it is a “good
one.”
The only difference between the SSPX and the exSSPX is the question of the opportuneness of seeking a
reconciliation with the Modernists at this time. The
3
SSPX, citing many words and actions of Archbishop
Lefebvre, says it is opportune; the ex-SSPX, citing many
words and actions of the same archbishop, says that it is
not opportune.
But neither side objects to reconciliation in principle. Both sides are in communion with the Modernist
hierarchy. Because of this, both sides will eventually
reconcile with the Modernists, just like a satellite which
revolves around the earth will eventually come crashing
to its surface. The pull of the gravity of the authority of
the pope is something irresistible for Catholics.
In regard to the question of the authority of the
Modernist hierarchy, the sedevacantist position is in
clear opposition to the SSPX and the ex-SSPX. The sedevacantist, holding as he does the impossibility that the
Modernists be the true hierarchy, is utterly disinclined
to any reconciliation with them. The Modernists simply
need to vacate the Vatican. That’s all. Until the documents of Vatican II are burned, not only physically, but
also in the minds of the clergy, there is no possibility of
the rectification of the problem in the Church. In other
words, the Modernist needs to abandon his Vatican II
heresy and become Catholic.
Archbishop Lefebvre, however, even in his most
anti-Modernist and anti-reconciliation moment, that is,
in an interview in 1990, said this: “We will have to
wait some time before considering the prospect of making an agreement.” Notice that he does
not exclude the possibility of making an agreement altogether, but says that it is merely the wrong time. And
this he said even though a few moments before he declared: “That [an agreement with Rome] is absolutely
impossible, because the principles which now
guide the Conciliar church are more and more
openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.”
Archbishop Lefebvre always held out the possibility
of reconciliation with the Modernists. Even at the consecrations of 1988, during which he excoriated John
Paul II in his sermon, he said to the journalists after the
ceremony: “In five years everything will be resolved.” By
this he meant that he would enter anew into negotiation
with the antichrist, as he called John Paul II, and strike
an agreement with him.
The ex-SSPX, laboring under the same nonsensical
principles as the SSPX, will themselves squabble, as the
years pass, over whether there should be a reconciliation with the Modernists, or what should pass through
the sifter. They will divide into liberal and conservative
camps and before long there will be an ex-ex-SSPX. For
to the extent that they regard the Modernists as Catholic authority, there will always be a gravitational pull to
become subject to the Modernists, and to accept the
Modernist reform of the Catholic Faith.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Rector
__________________________________________________________________
CONFERRAL
OF
SUBDIACONATE
On March 21st, the subdiaconate was conferred
upon Rev. Mr. Philip Eldracher. He hails from
Yale, Michigan, and has been a parishioner at
Our Lady Queen of Martyrs Church in Fraser,
Michigan since he was a child. He had not even
seen the Novus Ordo Mass until a few years ago,
when he attended a funeral of a relative. Rev. Mr.
Eldracher will be ordained a deacon on June 29th
of this year, and will be ordained a priest on June
29th, 2016 in his home parish of Our Lady
Queen of Martyrs in Fraser, Michigan. (Fortunately the bishop can wear a miter, which permits
him to compete in height with the six-foot-seven
seminarian).
4