I agreed with Peter Dimond on +Sanborn's group's positions more than I thought I would before watching the video, though I still think he is grossly misunderstanding what +Sanborn was saying about the possibility of a non-Catholic being saved (they completely ignore him saying if). With that said, I hope that the anecdote they shared from one of their friends is not true about +Sanborn, because if it is true then it's a bad look for His Excellency for saying that a rabbi has a better chance of going to Heaven than a Feeneyite. I believe Feeneyism to be an error (but I believe it to be an error in good faith born out of a knee-jerk reaction to the modernists attacking EENS), but to say that it is worse than the explicit rejection of Jesus Christ is patently absurd and uncharitable. It would be like saying that one "Una cuм" Mass is more offensive to God than all abortions ever committed...

Speaking of the "Una cuм" Mass issue, I still think it's hypocritical to hold that the "Una cuм" Mass is mortally sinful to assist at while at the same time adhering to the thesis that teaches that Bergoglio was validly elected as Pope (though he cannot exercise his authority). How could putting the name of a supposedly validly elected pope in the canon of the Mass ever be a mortal sin, especially if said pope has not been formally declared a heretic by the Church?

If Dimond were right, not only would Sanborn, Salza and their adherents be heretics, which he so freely labels them, but we would be faced with the ridiculous situation of just about every theologian after Pope Martin V, who continued to discuss the issue of how a heretic is deposed, being heretics also. Absolutely absurd!

He also labels as a heretic one of Sanborn's priests, Fr Desposito, for recommending as good pious practice praying for all those who have died in the last 10 hours, and for those in agony who will die in the next 10 hours. (23:20). This poor man wrests papal docuмents to his own destruction as do Protestants the Scriptures.

Only a good Pope can rectify this chaos!

... which he so freely labels them, but we would be faced with the ridiculous situation of just about every theologian after Pope Martin V, who continued to discuss the issue of how a heretic is deposed, being heretics also. Absolutely absurd!

Where Brother fails here is that he keeps falsely attributing to sedeprivationists the notion that public and manifest heretics remain (full) members of the Church.  In all but one clip, where Father Desposito slipped (and obviously English is not his first language) and said that they were not "manifest" until declared by the Church, something which sedeprivationists do not hold, in all the other clips, they refer to their LEGALLY remaining in possession of the office.

Unfortunately, Brother ends up attacking a strawman by equating sedeprivationism with the Salza & Siscoe opinion, which Fr. Desposito's slip-up, unfortunately, allowed them to do.

Recall St. Robert Bellarmine's enumeration regarding the requirements for full membeship in the Church :

1) Sacrament of Baptism and ongoing communion in the Sacraments
2) Profession of the True Faith
3) Subjection to and union with the Supreme Pontiff and the Catholic hierarchy

Manifest/Public heretics fail #2 and therefore are not full members of the Church.  It's possible, however, that they remain in Communion (#1) without having been excommunicated, and in union with the hierarchy (#3) not having yet been deposed.

So there's nothing wrong with saying that these men remain in LEGAL possession of their office, which is what Bishop Sanborn et al said, except for that one statement by Father Desposito.  He's most certainly wrong that a declaration is required to be a "manifest" heretic.  Pope Martin V most certainly put that to bed, and put a nail in Salza's coffin.  But that's not actually what most sedeprivationists hold.

Pope St. Celestine refered to the state of Nestorius after he became a manifest heretic (i.e. began preaching heresy) as being that of an "excommunicandus" (someone who should / needs to be excommunicated).  This implies an in-between state, where one is not fully excommunicated but SHOULD be excommunicated on account of manifest heresy.  In this state of "excommunicandus," Nestorius had no power to excommunicate others, depose them from office, or of course preach his heresy.

Pope Martin V also alluded to an in-between state where they were public/manifest heretics but yet not officially deposed or removed from office.

Take the concrete case of Cardinal Cushing of Boston.  Clearly a manifest heretic if ever there was one.  "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense." (one could go on for hours about Cushing's heresies).  In any case, let's accept that he was just for the sake of argument.  Even though Cushing was a public / manifest heretic, he was not deposed by Rome and considered by Rome to be in possession of the office, and in that role he continued to transmit jurisdiction (as a conduit from the Holy See) to the priests in his diocese, who had through him the faculties to hear confessions.  Cushing remained in legal possession of the office despite having been a manifest heretic.

Does the fact that he was not condemned make him not a manifest heretic?  No.  Pope Martin V put that (the Salza opinion) completely to rest.  But does that mean that his being Bishop of Boston meant absolutely nothing?  No, that's not true either.  He remained there by the designation of the Pope.

Sedeprivationism does not hold that these me are not manifest heretics.  Father Chazal in his sede-impoundist position (very similar) concedes that they are in fact manifest heretics.  Both both positions hold that they are in some in-between position, somehow suspended between the two, partly in and partly out, on the way out, impounded, and "excommunicandus".

It's unfortunate that Father Desposito slipped up and briefly articulated the Salza/Siscoe position.

No, Bishop Saborn, alas, does hold that non-Catholics can be saved.  That's no exaggeration.  Nevertheless, that wasn't really central to the point of this video.

The quote that Peter Dimond used, which seems to not contain the full context, doesn't convey that to me. The quote for reference:

And if someone is saved who is in those false religions, it has nothing to do with that false religion. It has to do with the grace of God and their ignorance.

My understanding of this quote (which I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong about; perhaps I should email His Excellency for clarification) is that +Sanborn is saying that if someone happened to be saved who died without visibly being a Catholic, it could only be due to God revealing to them the truth of the Catholic faith right before their death because they were otherwise ignorant of the true faith their entire life. It doesn't seem like an endorsement from him that it does happen, but rather entertaining the theoretical possibility of this specific situation.

If my interpretation is correct, then it wouldn't be accurate to lump it in with the Vatican II church's view of what is effectively universal salvation because the Novus Ordo hierarchy believes that religions like Protestantism and Judaism actually lead to salvation in themselves (e.g. Ratzinger saying that the Jews still follow a valid covenant with God; "+"Barron telling Ben Shapiro that Jesus Christ is just the "privileged way" to salvation, etc.).

He's said the same thing elsewhere, including in his public debate with Dr. Fastiggi some years ago.  SV priests/bishops in particular are horrible on the EENS issue and verbatim contradict defined Catholic dogma that clearly states that heretics, schismatics, and infidels cannot be saved.

How does Archbishop Lefebvre escape this condemnation? Not trying to debate BOD/BOB, but what distinction am I missing when comparing Sanborn et al with Lefebvre regarding EENS?

Yet this is a bit of a side issue with the Dimond video.  I think they're confusing full membership in the Church with "legally belonging to" the Church, which is what in almost very case Bishop Sanborn was saying in the video.  He did not say they were full members of the Church at any time.  Father Desposito did, and thereby sounded like he was holding the Salza opinion, but I think that was just a slip on his part resulting partly from his discomfort with English.

As I said, legal belonging to the Church is merely ONE aspect of membership.  If one does not profess the true faith (i.e. is a heretic), he loses membership in the Church, even if he's not fully severed from the Church legally.  Thus the state of "excommunicandus" mentioned by Pope St. Celestine.

What's meant by visibility is that the Church is a visible society, and also that were are both body and soul, so that the physical aspect of the Sacraments is also required for the sanctification of our souls.