Successor to Bp. Donald Sanborn
A New Sedevacantist Bishop:
Fr. Joseph Selway to be consecrated Bishop in Spring 2018
The November 2017 newsletter of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, contains an announcement for an episcopal consecration. The Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn will consecrate Fr. Joseph Selway a bishop in the spring of next year. The precise date is still to be determined.
The following is the announcement published by Bp. Sanborn:
Father Selway will be consecrated a bishop in the spring. Obviously sooner or later I had to choose someone to succeed me in what I do and say. I will be sixty-eight in February. I have been mulling over doing this consecration for quite a while, and now God’s providence, I believe, has indicated the right time.
Fr. Selway is the obvious candidate to be a bishop. He has been under my tutelage continually since he was six years old. He is thoroughly familiar with all of our principles and ways of acting. He already has the respect of all the priests who are associated with us in the Roman Catholic Institute. He is of sterling reputation. I know of no one who would raise the slightest objection to this choice. Many priests already look to him for leadership.
Ordained in 2001, he will celebrate his 16th anniversary on December 8th of this year. He will turn forty in January. He therefore has both the age and experience to be a bishop.
He is a man of firm faith and strong piety, and is capable of tremendous workloads. He will be a great asset to the traditional movement.
I have not yet set a date for the consecration, since to be a bishop requires a great deal of preparation from the point of view of robes and other paraphernalia. He also must learn the various rites of sacraments which only bishops can perform.
Please pray for Fr. Selway. Being a bishop in these times is not easy. There is a heavy demand upon you.
Fr. Selway’s consecration will not mean that I am retiring from my duties. Before Vatican II, priests and bishops never really retired; they just slowed down.
I have no intention of slowing down, but having another bishop available to go to the many places which require my services will make my burden lighter.
(Source: Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter, November 2017)
Fr. Selway was ordained a priest by Bp. Robert McKenna, O.P., and currently serves as vice-rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary (source).
Bp. Sanborn was consecrated a bishop in 2002 by Bp. McKenna, who in turn had been consecrated in 1986 by Bp. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. As a priest, Guerard des Lauriers was theological advisor to Pope Pius XII, taught at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and co-authored the 1969 Ottaviani Intervention. He was made a bishop in 1981 by the Vietnamese Bp. Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc, who had been appointed by Pope Pius XI in 1938.
A question: How many Sedevacantist Bishops do we have at this moment?
At least three….Bishop Daniel Dolan, Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Pivarunas…
Wonderful news.
According to what I read purported to be feedback from current and former parishioners at the Brooksville seminary church, the Selways are extremely wealthy and as a family exerted outsize influence because of the wealth in all areas of Brooksville seminary parish life.
This appointment was considered predictable, I don’t know how old Fr. Deposito is, but younger than Fr. Selway, though not by that much I think. Fr. Desposito is humbly serving and gave of his time even to me when for a time I felt the need to correspond. Therefore he has my undying respect and honor.
Are you trying to insinuate something? Please speak frankly.
Are you saying that Fr Selway is a bad priest? That’s a big claim to make without offering any evidence.
The visible, unadulterated Bride continues. “…upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” !!!
Novus Ordo ‘bishop’ should be in quotes. Novus Ordo rites are not Catholic or valid.
Who ever suggested that sedevacantism had an ‘existential’ aspect? A Catholic is a Catholic. The title of the post simply tells us that another Catholic Bishop will be validly ordained, a Bishop who doesn’t adulterate with falsehoods. The fact that the Chair is Empty is the reasonable Catholic conclusion given that a new religion and its heresiarchs are not, nor ever will be, popes. Because of this absence would you have the Church give up and disappear?
I’m glad to hear this news even though I’ve neither met nor corresponded with Bishop Sanborn or Father Selway. May God bless them both and all our clergy and religious.
It will be good to have a young and energetic bishop. He will be able to accomplish much good with God’s grace.
This is good news, it is from humble beginnings like this that the Church will be brought out of the catacombs. For many who have been waiting since the 1960’s for the Holy Spirit to remove what I believe is a chastisement and restore the Papacy, stories like this give hope.
The requirement for a papal mandate is a church law, which ceases automatically when its fulfillment becomes impossible, harmful, or otherwise contrary to the purpose for which it was made.
No, the requirement is not merely disciplinary, but divine: “And how shall they preach unless they be sent…” (Romans x.15). Moreover, appeals to epikeia are in vain since that principle, the habitual use of which is an abuse, only dispenses from an obligation; it does not grant a permission never received (see Miaskiewicz’ dissertation “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209”). Of course, there is no obligation to ordain or consecrate.
Liceity is important, to be sure; but then so is validity. And there exist serious doubts about the validity of orders derived from Lefebvre and Thuc. The latter is well documented by other “traditionalists” but the former is often unrecognized or perhaps ignored. To be brief, Achille Lienart, who performed both the alleged ordination and consecration of Lefebvre, by his own admission (as well as Lefebvre’s), was a 30th degree Freemason at the time he (Lienart, that is) was “consecrated”. But this is an absurdity since by virtue of his membership in that satanic counterchurch resulted in his automatic excommunication. So, Lienart could not possibly be a bishop; therefore, he did not have the power to ordain Lefebvre.
I think you’re confusing the papal mandate for a consecration with the canonical appointment to an office.
Although I am often confused, the language of Canon 953 is sufficiently clear even for me: “The consecration of a Bishop is reserved to the Roman Pontiff so that it is not permitted to any Bishop to consecrate another as Bishop without first having gotten a pontifical mandate.”
Our Lady told us that one day we would have only the rosary. That day is now. Pray, my friends, pray all fifteen mysteries everyday. Keep the Catholic faith whole and entire; do not sacrifice it for the cold comfort of doubtful sacraments.
Sedevacantism is not an opinion. You couldn’t refuse submission to Jorge Bergoglio on the grounds of an opinion.
As for the noun “sedevacantist” and “being” one, I know some people get all bent out of shape over this but I think that is an entirely needless concern. You cannot simply say “Catholic” because the term is, alas, too vague: All sides in the post-Pius XII mess claim the title “Catholic”. Anyone from Richard Rohr to James Martin to Scott Hahn to Michael Voris to Bp. Fellay to John Vennari to us sedevacantists.
Clear communication is important. I really don’t know what the problem is with saying “I am a sedevacantist.”
The problem, in part, is that the distinction “sedevacantist” legitimizes the non-sedevacantist position. You correctly point out that sedevacantism is not an opinion. In other words, those who culpably reject the sedevacantist position in turn reject Catholic doctrine, and in turn are no longer Catholic. The term “sedevacantist Catholic” then is redundant, at best.
I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that if we say “sedevacantist Catholic”, we are implying that there can also be “non-sedevacantist Catholics.” This impression is indeed easily given, but then I don’t typically say “sedevacantist Catholic”. I just say “sedevacantist”.
In all the confusion today, it is important we speak clearly and use descriptive labels in order to help people who are not yet aware of all these things and are struggling to understand.
The “solution” as you put it, is in God’s hands. We know that a Modernist cannot possess the Authority of the Keys- which comes directly from His Majesty Our Lord. This is what Holy Mother Church teaches about Herself. His Excellency Bp. Sanborn, here & elsewhere, makes his poignant “stable in the storm” statement, found in the very last moments of this audio. You might also enjoy listening to the audio in its entirety & I hope you do. The program (title notwithstanding,) is actually a call-in where many issues are addressed in an over 2 hour generous offering by the host & clergy. Peace be to you.
https://www.truerestoration.org/season-2-flagship-show-episode-17-the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi/
Well, bvm, I assume most here are, as I am, catholic. I agree with much of what has been posted, even to some degree what you have offered. I don’t know most of the priests mentioned in these posts, but I would rather err on the side of charity and accept the good things said about them than otherwise. I think I met Fr. Selway when I was with Fr. Sanborn in Redmond, Michigan but I do not remember him. I was taught to assume good will/behavior unless a wildcat emerges from their character. Bp. Sanborn I know; I was actually under his tutelage to some degree while a seminarian in Ridgefield, Ct. for two years, where the then Fr. Sanborn was rector. I believe I got to know him very well, having studied under him in the early 1980’s. I met him a year or so before that. I don’t say you meant any ill by using the term “wildcat”….I think I understand….but Bp. Sanborn is no wildcat; worse for the world, he is a lion. I think that many of the “sedevacantist” (sic) Bishops and the priests they have created do much good work. Not many are Lions, however, with the capital “L”. From what I’ve read, and watched in conferences the past decade or so, Bishop Sanborn is one of, well, there aren’t many, some who have really stuck their necks out, and publicly challenged the status quo…..these days that is dangerous.
As for the rest? I say the problem is basically one of Authority. That is most fundamental. We can talk about causes and reasons all day long, but the buck stops at that. “Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.” [Luke 9:1] And in many other places you can see the same idea.
I assume most here are, as I am, catholic. I don’t know most of the priests mentioned in these posts, but I would rather err on the side of charity and accept the good things said about them than otherwise. I think I met Fr. Selway when I was with Fr. Sanborn in Redmond, Michigan but I do not remember him. Bishop Sanborn I know. I was actually under his tutelage while a seminarian in Ridgefield, Ct. for two years, where the then Fr. Sanborn was rector. I believe I got to know him very well, having studied under him in the early 1980’s. I met him a year or so before that. I think that many of the “sedevacantist” (sic) Bishops and the priests they have created do much good work. Not many are Lions, however, with the capital “L”. From what I’ve read, and watched in conferences the past decade or so, Bishop Sanborn is one of, well, there aren’t many, but at least some who have really stuck their necks out, and publicly challenged the status quo…..these days that is dangerous.
As for the rest? I say the problem is basically one of Authority. That is most fundamental. We can talk about causes and reasons all day long, but the buck stops at that. “Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.” [Luke 9:1] And in many other places you can see the same idea.
Your memory must be failing. It was Redford, MI, not Redmond.
Yes, under normal times and in normal circumstances, there is authority to rule over a diocese, and that authority is delegated to a priest to rule over a parish. Without that jurisdiction, there would be chaos. Ordinary bishops and parish priests had real ruling power over their subjects in the parish and diocese. That jurisdiction had defined geographical limits. It was necessary for valid marriages and valid confessions.
But in these dark times, when the hierarchy, including the papacy, has been taken over by the enemies of the church, the preservation of the episcopacy and priesthood is of utmost importance for the life of the church. There are no more ordinaries (bishops of dioceses) for three main reasons: 1 they are heretics, 2 their consecration is invalid, 3 there is no pope to give them their authority or jurisdiction. There are no clergymen who can trace their jurisdiction to Pius XII. They are all gone.
Therefore, since we are destitute, these priests and bishops are like an oasis in the desert. To hold Catholics hostage to laws which were made under normal circumstances and for normal circumstances is unreasonable. The life of the church demands otherwise.
Once order has been restored, and the offices of the Church are no longer occupied by her enemies, these priests and bishops will gladly submit to proper authority, and no longer carry on an apostolate which has no boundaries. None of them have ecclesiastical jurisdiction or a canonical mission from a Pope, because we have had no pope since October of 1958.
The situation we are in is unprecedented. By the letter of the law all traditional episcopal consecrations done without a papal mandate are illicit, all traditional ordinations are illicit. None of us can go to confession, because the confessions are invalid. Marriages not done in the Novus Ordo with their “clerics” presiding and witnessing are invalid. etc. In other words, we are just supposed to say our rosary at home, and wait to die. It is game, set, match, and the enemies have won. Let the episcopacy be wiped out, let the priesthood disappear. That’s crazy.
I don’t subscribe to such a position. I don’t think Our Lord wants us to hold to the letter of the law at the peril of the spirit of the law.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that all these men who were held in high regard prior to the death of Pius XII, (whether they fully grasped the situation or not, and whether they were consistent in their battle against the Novus Ordo or not) thought it appropriate to act without a papal mandate: Lefebvre, Castro-Meyer, Thuc, Gerard De Lauriers. Maybe I have forgotten some, I do not know.
If these men did not act, there would be no sacraments anywhere. There would be no resistance. There would be nothing to counter the Modernists.
how do you want to enforce a law that is impossible to enforce ?
it’s really stupid to think God’s require to make impossible thing.
Where is the solution, then? Is it with any of the invalid and heretical priests and bishops of the Novus Ordo, whose doctrines, laws, disciplines, canonizations (e.g. Roncalli, Wojtyla, Mother Theresa), and worship are evil, and antithetical to Catholicism? Is it with Jorge?
The Novus Ordo sect is a false religion, the heretical antipopes of which lead countless souls to eternal damnation. Traditionalism, however, is a false opposite in this diabolical deceit. The answer is to keep the Catholic faith whole and entire, to pray the fifteen mysteries each day, and to live a life of penance and sacrifice. Part of this penance, I believe, must be our joyful resignation to Our Lord’s perfect justice, in particular, to our current state of deprivation of the ordinary means of salvation.
Do you believe that the Church has defected?
Do you belong to ourladyresistence? They said that neither Benedict XV and the following were not popes, now they are saying that they were not either Leo XIII or Saint Pius X.
In times past, a schismatic (Orthodox) priest could give absolution to a Catholic in danger of death, because the salvation of souls is the highest law, and the Church SUPPLIED the jurisdiction. But today, according to your letter of the law position, a Catholic priest or bishop cannot hear confessions or otherwise minister to the few scattered faithful, during this great apostasy, because the salvation of souls is not the highest law, but rather the rigor of the letter of the law for normal times is the highest law in these abnormal and unprecedented times? That is disproportionate.
Why fifteen mysteries of the rosary? Why not just 5? Why not 3 entire rosaries a day (45 mysteries)? Where in canon law does it say you are doing what needs to be done? Why not add to that a command to read the lives of the Saints for 15 minutes a day? Why not add to that a command to memorize the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or to recite the Athanasian creed daily?
Don’t get me wrong, you are doing a good thing in reciting the rosary. But we still have valid priests and bishops, who can say Mass, hear confessions and carry on the mind and will of any true pope.
I do not think St. Pius X is looking down with a scowl from heaven because these clerics do not have ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction according to the letter of the law. Rather, I can see him smiling at the faithful clergy who are doing all they can to preserve the continuation of the episcopacy and priesthood, and the continuation of the Blessed Sacrament here on earth among men. “Behold I am with you, even to the consummation of the world.”
I agree with you we are living in a time of deprivation. There is no pope, and there are no priests or bishops who were given a mission by Pope Pius XII. And that is precisely the ONLY reason why these priests and bishops can do what they are doing. It is a matter of life or death for the church. And the Church requires primarily bishops and secondarily priests to live until the end of the world.
What does not make sense, is for priests and bishops to continually say Jorge is the pope, but at the same time, they disobey nearly everything he commands, and when they do not disobey him, they ignore him. That is what does not make sense.
You should read Miaskiewicz’ dissertation on supplied jurisdiction; it should clear up your misunderstandings. It is freely available online.
I’m happy to see that you ostensibly recognize the lawlessness of the $$PX and its R&R offshoots. But, take note, the abuse of epikeia is unjustifiable, even by pious sentiments such as “the salvation of souls is the highest law.” This website often and correctly admonishes recognize-and-resisters for refusing submission to the men they call pope. To be consistent, however, we must submit to the teachings and laws of popes past.
As for the rosary, you can pray it as much or as little as you wish. My advice to pray all fifteen mysteries daily, if possible, is just that: advice. I have no authority over anyone. I also don’t play dress up with mitre and crozier.
Of course the right belongs to the Holy See. The question at issue, though, is what happens when the Holy See is *unable* to select bishops for decades. The case Pope Pius VI was speaking about in his 1791 encyclical “Charitas” had nothing to do with the Holy See being impeded or vacant and thus unable to appoint or ordain bishops. Pius VI was condemning the usurpation of offices by clergy who had compromised the Faith at the behest of the French government and were becoming a schismatic-heretical sect.
This is false. The penalty for consecrating a bishop without papal mandate is suspension. Excommunication is incurred for consecrating a bishop without canonical provision, per a decree of Apr. 9, 1951.
Folks, we’re not going to resolve the issue of episcopal consecrations during prolonged sede vacante in this combox. The combox is not meant to be a discussion forum. Those interested in debating this issue at length are certainly welcome to, but please do it at an external forum site, not here. Two such forums are the following:
http://tradcath.proboards.com
http://thetradforum.com
The issue of whether or how to function during an extended interregnum is an important and difficult one, one about which sedevacantists are divided. I will say this: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please always keep this in mind.
I will close this combox thread now. Those interested in continuing the discussion, please do so at an appropriate forum. God bless all.