Editor’s Note: Stephen Kokx, former journalist at LifeSite News, and one of the leading members of the Neo-Sedevacantists, who preaches, “Recognize and withdraw”, interviewed Bishop Donald Sanborn, who identifies as a Sedevacanist (Thuc lineage), on whether Catholics can refuse obedience to man they recognize as a legitimately elected Roman Pontiff, and receives a devastating catechetical instruction in response. — As readers know, I have strongly criticized the neo-Sedevacantists and Kokx in particular, HERE.

Bravo to Bishop Sanborn!

During this interview, Kokx ignores what Bishop Sanborn says and keeps attempting to elicit from the Bishop the affirmation that Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV are valid popes. Bishop Sanborn, for his credit, is not fooled by Kokx’s dishonest yet very subtle tactic.

Stephen Kokx did his interview of Bishop Sanborn, last night, about two weeks after my video, “Traditionalism vs. Sedevacantism, which is the Catholic Response?“, which I believe irked Kokx enough as to induce him to undertaken this video.

As regards what Bishop Sanborn said, distinguishing between the personal sin of heresy and teaching heresy, for a Roman Pontiff, the distinction is badly made, because he says the pope could publish heresy in a book without imposing it — and that, theologians hold is theoretically possible — but that the Cardinals would have to address that, he says — though the Cardinals in Church law have no such duty.  Rather, as we see in the case of Pope John XXI in regard to his denial of the immediate beatification of the saints, after death, if a pope manifest any formal heresy, he must be publicly rebuked. And if he persists, which Pope John XXI did not, then at a Provincial Council here at Rome, he needs to be rebuked and if he persists be declared self deposed. I discuss this in the Council of Sutri initiative.

Again, at 38 minute mark, Bishop Sanborn says that Sedevacantism is what preserves (the claim of) the indefectibility of the Church. This is simply absurd. It is the canonical removal of a heretic or the refusal of an invalid election which preserves the Church, because the solution is not in what I opine, but in what the Church judges and rules regarding who is the Pope or not the Pope. — I think the Bishop means “preserve the sacramental continuity of the Church”, because simply stated it certainly does not preserve the juridical continuity of the Church.

Bishop Sanborn also says that Universal Pacific Acceptance (UPA) would sanitize a controversy against a valid election — which is the correct doctrine — but he does not directly refute the error of saying that UPA applies to elections which are objectively discrepant with the rule of law, as in the papal election of Benedict X in 1058, and of Pope Francis in 2013, and of Leo XIV in 2025.

At the 48 minute mark, Kokx makes a comparison to a dead body and separated soul, at which Bishop Sanborn bites his lip at the level of ignorance implied in such a question moved by Kokx. And in reply Sanborn does admit that the juridical character of the Church is part of the Church, but he classifies it as regarding the material aspect of the Church — incorrectly — rather than as a formal characteristic of the true Church. Indeed, the Church has always taught that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is indefectible, that is preserves juridical continuity from Christ down to the most recent validly elected Pope.

Most praiseworthy are the statements at the 56 minute mark, where Bishop Sanborn says that the best thing Leo XIV can do is resign. And at minute mark 1 hour 9 minutes, Sanborn endorses the Great Catholic Reset, an idea I launched in 2021, and which has also been endorsed by Archbishop Viganò.

For my critiques of Sedevacantism, see HERE.

At the 1 hour 14 minute mark, and thereafter, Bishop Sanborn says, that the worse thing for the Sedevacantist movement was Pope Benedict XVI, and the best was Pope Francis and will be Pope Leo.  I can scarcely imagine thinking such an outrageous statement than this. — At 1 hour and 20 minutes, Sanborn claims the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and UPA made it valid. I won’t comment on such a modernist view of juridical acts, but you can read the hundreds of pages of my investigation here. — At 1 hour and 22, Bishop Sanborn falsely claims that Pope Pius XI condemned the second redaction of the Message of La Salette, when in fact it was the Holy Office, not the Pope, which said that it was not worthy of credence, even though the Holy Office has no infallible charism to discern prophecy, as the Church teaches that that charism pertains to the local ordinary and to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, the Bishop of Lecce, Italy, where Melanie lived and died, approved the Second Version some 30 years before. — At 1 hour and 23 minutes, Sanborn erroneously says Pope Saint Gregory VII established the college of Cardinals and restricted the election of the Pope to them: this is false, and in saying this Bishop Sanborn appears, at the time of this interview, to have had no knowledge of In Nomine Domini, of Pope Nicholas II, published on April 13, of 1059 at the Roman Synod at the Lateran.

+ + +

The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present

This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!

+ + +