Bugnolo who I don't completely trust has interesting take on: 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 (Thus 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.
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/22/bishop-sanborn-lectures-kokx-as-he-trembles-in-dismay/
Bishop Sanborn lectures Kokx, as he trembles in dismay
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 (Thus 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!
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. 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, 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 — though the Cardinals in Church law have no such duty. Rather, if a pope manifest any formal heresy, he must be publicly rebuked. And if he persists, 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.
Bishop Sanborn also says that Universal Pacific Acceptance 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.
At the 56 minute mark, Bishop Sanborn says that the best thing Leo XIV can do is resign. 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 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: that is is false, and shows that Sanborn, at the time of this interview had no knowledge of In Nomine Domini, of Pope Nicholas II, published on April 13, of 1059 at the Roman Synod at the Lateran.
Comments