MARCH 2015

Published by Most Holy Trinity Seminary, 1000 Spring Lake Highway, Brooksville, Florida 34602. This newsletter is sent free of charge to all Semi-nary 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

piuspapax@gmail.com. Visit our website at mostholytrinityseminary.org

My dear Catholic people,

On the weekend of February 22nd, I traveled again to England in an effort to establish the Mass center in London for those interested in attending a Mass not connected to the Modernist hierarchy. I am confident by the turnout for this second Mass in London that the Mass center will take root and grow. There will be Mass every month. London will be ser viced four t imes a year by c l e rgy f rom the Seminary, four times by Father Trauner, an Austrian priest who recently left the So-ciety of Saint Pius X, and four times a year by by Father Steen-bergen, a Dutch priest who is a mem-ber of the Institute of Our Mother of Good Counsel in Verrua, Italy. Father Steen-bergen is an assistant to Bishop Stuyver, of the same Institute, whose principal Mass center is in Dendermonde in Belgium. London and Brussels are connected very conveniently by the Eurostar train, which passes under the English Channel and arrives in central London.

Please pray that all go well for the London Mass center.

Novus Ordo conservatives. We of course fol-low the world of Novus Ordo conservatives quite closely. We do so because they still retain, I believe, the Catholic faith, that is, the virtue of faith, despite the fact that they adhere to many errors. They are like the survi-vors of a nuclear blast. They wander through the rubble of what was once the great Catholic city, and they

search desperately for Catholic morsels of food among the cremated re-mains. They still desire to be Catholic, and still want to adhere to all of Catholic doctrine, even though they labor under much igno-rance concer ning the truths of the Catholic Faith. I was once a Novus Ordo conservative, back in the 1960’s. Horrified by the changes of Vatican II, I knew implicitly that one could not assign to the Roman Pontiff the source of the corruption of Catho-lic doctrine, liturgy, and discipline. Hence I looked around for others to blame.

It fell upon “liberal bishops” who were “disobedient” to the “Holy Father.” Paul VI, in this system was “weak” and was surrounded by a “bad entourage.”

By the early 1970’s, as I read more about Paul VI, this system collapsed for me. Nonetheless, I understand the mentality of the Novus Ordo conservative, who constructs a system whereby the infallibility and inde-fectibility of the Church are preserved. For them, Vati-

1

Bishop Sanborn gives a sermon to the people in London on February 22nd of this year.

can II is totally orthodox, but badly interpreted by “lib-erals.” 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 intrud-ers 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 se-devacantism.

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 champi-oned the cause that Vatican II changed nothing except accidental things.

This priest told me that he “believes in the the her-meneutic 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 doc-trine.

His declaration of belief in the hermeneutic of conti-nuity was the response to a question I put to him. I as-sumed for a moment his position that Vatican II was a valid council and Paul VI a true pope, and I said:

That a few conservatives think up a “true in-terpretation” of Vatican II does nothing for the continuity of Catholic teaching. The true inter-pretation - what Paul VI meant when he prom-

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 interpreta-tion 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 infal-lible and indefectible?

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 pro-duced 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 bla-tantly contrary to Catholic Faith and discipline, of resis-tance 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 Bergo-glio. They are horrified by his stance on Holy Commun-ion for the divorced and remarried, on cohabitation, and on same-sex marriages. If Bergoglio’s attitudes be-come 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-

2

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.

ity for Vatican II. The very belief that this interpretation exists somewhere is sufficient to satisfy their con-sciences that there is indeed a continuity.

For the time being, however, they are having major problems explaining Bergoglio.

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 po-sition 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 de-sire to make a reconciliation with them. Bishop Wil-liamson 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 Arch-bishop 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 oppo-sition 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 conse-cration. Menzingen, the headquarters of the Society of Saint Pius X, issued a condemnation of Bishop William-son’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 anti-christ 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 sev-eral 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?

The only justification for an unapproved episcopal consecration would be that the faithful are being poi-soned 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 recogni-tion and approval.

In the next paragraph of the Menzingen commu-niqué, 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 recogni-tion 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 lip-service the recognition given to the “Roman authori-ties” 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 Ro-man Pontiff.

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 hier-archy 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 non-Catholic. 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 ex-SSPX 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 princi-ple. 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 se-devacantist, 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 docu-ments 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 pros-pect of making an agreement.” Notice that he does not exclude the possibility of making an agreement al-together, but says that it is merely the wrong time. And this he said even though a few moments before he de-clared: “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 con-secrations 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 reconcilia-tion 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 Catho-lic 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. (Fortu-nately the bishop can wear a miter, which permits him to compete in height with the six-foot-seven

seminarian).

4