Archive for the ‘Sedeprivationism’ Category

BELIEVE !

Believe! is now available in digital format direct from the E-store. The paper version remains available at Amazon.

This little book surprised me most of all, because with my completely inability to care about marketing myself or my books, it nevertheless found its own audience by word of mouth I guess and I have people emailing me that they bought several copies and they leave them in random churches with a note to take it.

It’s a pretty short book at only 98 pages and can be read in a couple of hours but has plenty of references and covers all the main perspectives of religious thought, or absence of it in turn.

At first individuals, then families would write me to let me know that they were becoming Sedevacantist Catholics, in some cases, nominally “Catholic” people thanked me for finally resolving for them why they had lapsed and felt the Catholic Church was not really any longer the real Church (The Novus Ordo Vatican II heretic mess is absolutely not only not Catholic, it is Satanic in nature and form). They returned to the real Church finding proper Priests and Bishops and getting baptised or becoming members of the scattered churches that are left and going to proper traditional Holy Mass.

The numbers of Sedevacantists, that is, Catholics that are realising what has really happened in 1958 continue to grow. Sedevacantist groups in England, Italy, France, the USA, Canada, Russia and even a budding little group in Finland, started by a young couple now expecting their first child, continue to grow.

You can’t stop the truth.

And although this little book was really mostly explaining my own perspective on things, it was written in the way I would have liked to find someone discussing these topics in my decades during which the closest I came to religion was a generally Zen-Agnostic somewhat existentialist or fatalist view that probably resembled Samurai-era Shintoism more than any kind of Christianity.

Apparently, my very direct take on things, including the nonsense that gets peddled as “Christianity” has resonated with more people than I ever expected. I hope you read it and enjoy it, and more importantly, it helps you in your passage through life.

    Sedeprivationism vs Sedevacantism

    There has been a long and quiet suffering by many Catholics (sedevacantists) that goes beyond the mere situation of the Church presently with regard to the non-Catholic, Freemasons, Satanists and impostors presently occupying the Vatican. After all, that situation is easily understood by anyone that cares to look into Vatican II and is in any case prophesied in the visions of many saints as well as in Revelation, so really, there isn’t much to worry about.

    The situation concerns the growing gulf between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists.

    If you are interested in the details, you can either read my Reclaiming the Catholic Church, available on Amazon in paper format, or for less in digital format, direct from my E-Store.

    Or you could read the argument as presented here, which is essentially absolutely correct.

    I was unaware of the “Totalist” position, when I wrote my book, but logic is logic, and I made it clear in that book, as well as the reasons why, the only nod to the word sedeprivationism that I acknowledge was that technically it was a better name because the chair of Peter is not actually empty, but filled by an impostor that needs to be thrown off it on his ear ASAP.

    But that is not what Sedeprivationists mean when they use the term, and they try to hold onto the completely outmoded and outdated theory of Cassiciacum of Father, and later Bishop, Guérard Des Lauriers. As I stated in RTCC, des Lauriers’ theory was a very charitable and possibly briefly “valid” idea to present to the world so as to give the more timid and cowardly clergy of the day (1965 to 1978 or so) a chance to speak up or at least take a position that did not promote the completely heretical Vatican II event and all those associated with it.

    The Code of Canon Law of 1917, and simple logic a child can arrive at, is clear that since Roncalli was invalidly elected on at least three separate counts:

    1. He was a Freemason, which means he was not, and could not be, a Catholic.
    2. He was “elected” only after Giuseppe Siri was actually elected twice, and blackmailed into not accepting in order to protect what otherwise he was told would be a massacre of Catholic Bishops in the Communist East. Blackmail and any event that forces a non-free vote automatically renters the election invalid.
    3. Even if you ignore those two points it cannot be contested at all that Roncalli approved and signed off on the first two documents of Vatican II, one of which contains direct heresy in a number of ways and the other though not containing direct heresy was a document that said the heresy of Vatican II should be spread throughout the world by every means possible, so it was heretical in intent if not actual words of the text itself. This even was and is absolutely enough to designate Roncalli an antipope and as such completely invalid.

    Montini came up after Roncally, and produced the remaining 14 documents of Vatican II every one of which is replete with heresy and inverts catholic dogma. He also changed the mass, which is absolutely not permitted so there is absolutely no doubt he too defected from the Catholic faith as per canon 188 part 4, and that if we are so generous as to assume he was a valid Catholic to begin with, which is questionable at best.

    Every claimant to the Petrine see after Montini continued to promote and promulgate Vatican II and its manifest heresies, meaning they too at best defected from the Faith, but in any case had already done so by not denouncing Vatican II. And the same goes for any supposed clergy that does not reject Vatican II and its fake “Popes”.

    This is not a matter of opinion, but one of Canon Law.

    The position of the supposed Sedeprivationists is essentially a modified form of “recognise and resist”. On top of which Bishop Des Lauriers’ thesis, which I have in the original French, and have read, is also really doing quite the disservice to Aristotle, using concepts of form and spirit or material and formal that clearly Aristotle never intended to be used that way and which really have no place in Catholic theology.

    Nevertheless, I can understand the wish to give some kind of a charitable “out” to people who might have been on the fence in the tumultuous times of the usurpation of the Church from 28th October 1958 to say the end of 1965, after Vatican II finished, but even if we generously allow for a period of say ten or twelve years after that, surely, by 1978 everyone that was going to call a heretic a heretic had ample time to do so, and those who did not and worse, continued to promote Vatican II, like the cowardly Vigano, who even has a doctorate in Canon Law, confirmed themselves as Heretics too, falling foul of the same Canon 188.4.

    This is really not hard.

    The Sedeprivationist clergy seems bent on “hoping” for a miraculous conversion of Bergoglio and the other pedophiles, Satanists, cocaine-driven homosexuals busy doing gay orgies in the Vatican and so on. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, the rule is that a reformed heretic should have authority over absolutely no one and should spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance, so even if the miracle of conscience, repentance and truth hit every one of those miserable scumbags in the head and they honestly converted right there, they would STILL not be allowed to act as clergy, perform sacraments or do anything else that clergy does, as Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio makes perfectly clear and which is still referenced by Canon 188.4 which in any case is moot since it was an ex cathedra pronouncement valid in perpetuity and was in any case the rule before it ever needed to be spelt out by Pope Paul IV in the 16th Century.

    So, by all possible perspectives, the Sedeprivationist view is in error. And while the clergy espousing it are absolutely valid priests and Bishops, no one is questioning that, they are in error. And as this error has now been perpetrated for a long time, with increasing grumblings from the lay people that is reading shores that go from America to Australia and even in Russia, where there are sedevacantist communities that all are starting to realise that you cannot square this particular circle, it becomes incumbent upon the laity to correct the clergy.

    We are in the current shameful state because the clergy of the Church in 1958 was weak and the laity initially deceived and when it became obvious that an usurpation had taken place, the clergy demonstrated themselves to be in the vast majority of cases, absolutely weak and cowardly where they were not actively Satanic Freemasons involved in the corruption of the Church for decades.

    And when that began t come to light, the laity had been slumbering in complacency and also in weakness and comfort and cowardice and did not call out the corrupt, fake, impostors nor the weak cowardly clergy.

    We cannot allow a similar situation to stand today, when the clear error of sedeprivationism continues to be perpetrated with inevitable consequences of further error and ultimately confusion, error, discord and possibly even defection from the faith, as any error or deviation from the truth ultimately results in.

    As I am used to being the lightning rod for such discussions and debates, which are not a schism, I want to make it clear, but simply a more perfect ordering and understanding of Catholic dogma, I am presenting the first instance of this discontent among the laity here on this blog.

    A more formal and combined public open letter will in due course be presented to those priests or Bishops, that are in error. And that error is the result of one of the following:

    1. In good faith but erroneous understanding, some have not studied the Catholic position in sufficient depth.
    2. Habitual obedience to Bishops even when they are in error and have no authority, since without a Pope there is no authority beyond that of performing sacraments and performing the usual duties clergy does when in an interregnum (between Popes).
    3. They are Bishops of Power instead of Piety and are overreaching their mandate from heaven, authority on Earth and over the laity in their misguided efforts to create a “bigger, stronger” renaissance of the true Catholic Church.

    I have extremely good reasons, and plenty of evidence, to suggest that almost all and possibly really all, of the laity falls under points number one and two, above. Possibly many clergy that subscribe to sedeprivationism fall under point two, as well, although it is also clear a few are simply not as educated about Catholicism as they should be and are in fact in error as per point number one; undoubtedly in good faith, but error nevertheless.

    More concerning is that Bishop who is acting as he is acting, in flagrant error of Canon Law and with imperious ego, because acting under the impetus of being a Bishop of Power, as defined by Rodney Stark in his History of the West How the West Won.

    In brief, a Bishop or priest of Power is one that pushes the advancement of the church for the satisfaction of his own ego or worldly machinations. Despite the natural inclination one may have to see these people as evil egomaniacs, a couple of points need to be kept in mind.

    Firstly, in some cases, while their ego is certainly ever-present, their intent may be to genuinely increase the spread, power and resilience of the Church. And in their minds whatever little “rules” or dogmas they may need to trample over are justified by the increased “glory” of the church. This in itself is an error of category, since it is the kind of error that laity, if anyone is supposed to be “okay” doing such things, should be taking on more than the clergy. it was crusaders that went off to war and Catholic knights that defended Malta, not priests and bishops taking up arms. So, whichever way you look at it, they are still in error, but their motives may not be as strictly selfish as one might at first imagine.

    Secondly, even if they do happen to be egomaniacal narcissists that want to live in luxury, have big homes with servants and gold goblets to drink from, or whatever, the reality is that as a collateral side-effect, in the history of the Church, such despicable creatures nevertheless enriched the Church which permitted its expansion, the creation of amazing cathedrals and an increase in the faithful. Yes it was kind of a collateral effect, but it is a real thing anyway. So, even if at a personal level such clergy would be vile, God, historically, has managed to make at least some good flow from them, because at a worldly level, the use of funds and commitment towards creating more seminaries, more cathedrals and so on, and increasing the number of faithful, obviously has a positive effect.

    As a result, I don’t necessarily object to some of the practices of priests or bishops of power, as long as:

    1. They do not break canon Law of Catholic Dogma.
    2. Their intent is not personal but for the benefit of the Church and this can be demonstrated by their personal living situation and so on.

    Many other laymen and women are not as “charitable” as I am in this respect, and the grumblings at grassroots are becoming a low-level murmur reminiscent of an impeding avalanche or earthquake.

    And such a thing we would all like to avoid. So, consider this simple, somewhat brutally direct, blog post to be an initial canary in the coal mine, in the hope that certain clergy takes note, some laity make them aware of it and they perhaps take note and begin to adjust accordingly, with all dignity and process due, and thus without any scandal or strife between the various faithful, be they clergy, or laity alike.

    In my opinion the hope this will work on the relevant clergy of Power is absolutely remote, but, as our Lord tells us, we should first try quietly, then kindly, before we definitely call people to account.

    This situation has been building for years, it’s not a flash in the pan, and it needs addressing.

    I pray to our Lord that it gets resolved quietly and expediently by those responsible. And if not… well… we, remnant laity of the Catholic Church take our lead not from the timid types our grandfathers generation but rather from that of the Normans and Franks of 1095, from which, incidentally, on a personal level, my family line originates and can trace itself back to.

    Glória Patri, et Fílío et Spirítui Sancto, sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculórum. Amen

      Sedeprivationism vs Sedevacantism an Explanation

      There seems to be either some confusion, or perhaps a new and fancier attack on the Church and it is the trying to drive a wedge between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists, as if there was any real theological difference today in 2024.

      So, let me nip this in the bud, as much as any layman who can read and think logically at an elementary level at least, can easily do. And which, in fact, cannot be disproved by anyone.

      Keep in mind that I have read the entire Cassiciciacum theory in the original French too, so am not exactly jumping in here like some ignorant moron that hasn’t reviewed the facts, relevant Canon Law and so on. The point is that while I could write another 530 page book explaining everything in minute and fully weaponised autistic detail, it really is not required, because the core concepts are really quite simple and easy enough to understand and Canon Law is, as usual with Roman Law, exceedingly clear, humane and just.

      As I say, all that is required is a normal level of ability to read and cogitate and a basic but correct grasp of logic and objective reality, which, given the state of Clown World today, is hard enough, but one hopes the average reader here, given the semi-constant insta-bans for not following the rules has purified the gene pool enough that he or she is easily capable of grasping the concepts I will present and further able to review them on their own for further clarity of verification if they have any doubts.

      Let us begin then by first of all pointing out a couple of aspects of Catholicism that is quite misunderstood by the average anglo type:

      • Catholic charity requires that if there is doubt, one should try to (when possible) be charitable and allow for some mercy given the fact that all human beings are flawed and miserable sinners. However…
      • When logic dictates that there either is no doubt, or the doubt is minimal, then prudence requires you treat the suspect thing as suspect. In fact, in proper Catholic behaviour, the charitable act of being merciful does not invalidated the just act of pointing out the sin/flaw/error or downright evil of whatever is in doubt.
      • To Anglos this appears to them as a somewhat schizophrenic way of dealing with life, because while on one hand in a proper Catholic world, say, a pedophile would be burnt at the stake, the act of doing so is in the first place one of charity (giving the peso the opportunity to truly repent while he contemplates the fire burning him) and in the second place one of charity towards the victim and the other members of the community, protecting them from further harm and also educating them on the consequences of certain unacceptable acts. But even more confusing for them might be that the very parents of the child raped might pray for the soul of the pedo burning to death. Which does not in any way mean that the father of the child would not be the one applying the torch himself, nor that his prayers are in any way insincere.

      This apparent “schizophrenia” is not due to any flaw of logic or reason in the Catholic, but rather, generally speaking, of a stunted and child-like grasp of human affairs, including justice and charity in the Protestant milieu in which Anglos tend to be raised.

      Furthermore is the fact that Roman Law works in a far more just and fundamentally correct way than Anglo Laws, which is that Roman Law is principle based in general terms but with each case being judged on its own merits regardless of precedents in the law. A murder under Roman Law is not always the same kind of murder, and while Anglo Law pretends to also have some exculpatory levels of crime (manslaughter instead of murder one, say) in general terms, previous law dictates current law, which is, fundamentally, unjust. Since the very concept of a legal system is mostly absorbed by the zeitgeist of the environment we live in, most people perception of actual Justice is also fundamentally corrupted to some extent by their assuming (unconsciously for the most part) that Common Law, or the British, or American legal system is in any way representative of actual Justice. It is very far from it and while even Roman Law can obviously be used improperly by a judge, it is, in general terms, a far closer representation of Divine Law than any other system of Law ever created on planet Earth to date.

      Right then, with that long introduction aside, let us begin.

      The Basic Premise of Sedeprivationism

      First presented by Father Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers the theory of Sedeprivationism was in essence an extremely charitable proposition designed to allow anyone of the clergy that was either confused, too timid as a result of al lifetime of obedience to their superiors, or otherwise unclear on what a Hellish turn the Vatican II documents had created and how Roncalli (who personally set up the wheels of Vatican II in motion and also approved the first two documents before dying) and Montini (who published the next 14 documents of Vatican II, every one of which is replete with absolute heresy) were obvious heretics, to be able to take a position that allowed them to continue being actual clergy, non-heretics and yet also give an opportunity to the arch-heretic Montini to possibly repent and return to Christianity (impossible to do in my view since I believe he was an infiltrator and non-Catholic from the very first).

      Vatican II was the equivalent of a poisonous neutron bomb, that left the buildings intact but reduced almost all the then supposedly Catholic clergy to a bunch of infected zombies spreading heresy and the few survivors dazed and confused.

      Sedeprivationism, in simple terms, basically stated that although Montini had clearly produced 14 documents replete with heresy and as such could not be a valid Pope (as per Canon 188.4), he might have been validly elected, as theoretically might have been Roncalli. In Roncalli’s case the very idea he was validly elected has since been absolutely demolished since he was a practicing Freemason and his election was forced by blackmailing Giuseppe Siri (who HAD been voted Pope, twice!) by telling him that is he became Pope a lot of Bishops behind the Iron curtain would be killed by the Communists. A convenient lie that was in fact pushed by Roncalli himself, an absolute Freemason and hence communist friendly plant whose entire intent was the destruction of Catholicism, as has always been the case by those who promote and even start various secret societies like the Illuminati, the Carbonari, the Freemasons and indeed Communism itself. If you are curious, you might want to figure out what ethnicity Karl Marx was and who pushed his agenda.

      In any case, back then, when it was not yet clear which of the Cardinals that voted in the various false Popes might have also been heretics or not, since their position was not public and clear, as was Montini’s (and posthumously also Roncalli’s) des Lauriers’ theory allowed that it was possible (slim though that chance was) that both Roncalli and Montini had been technically, that is, materially, validly elected as Popes, but that given their behaviour, they clearly were not spiritually valid Popes, at least not until and if they repented.

      This was, in the sensibilities of the time, a rather polite way of saying:

      These two guys are thugs and murderers of souls, and if a bunch of you morons elected them as valid Popes, you should see it by now, repent and make it clear you don’t see them as actually valid Popes, given their thuggery and murder of souls. As for the thuggish murderers themselves, whether you are Jewish/Protestant?Gnostic/Satanist or simply secular apostate and imbeciles, if we assume you were materially validly elected and you make a 180 degree swift turn and repent and correct all your public heresy, well, God is merciful and we can pretend you are now a redeemed actual Pope by the Grace of God that promoted your absolute, sincere and true change of heart.

      As I said, it was the most rose-tinted glasses, optimistic, and charitable view anyone could conceive of to allow a tiny margin of possibility of self-correction to the cowards, infiltrators, Satanists, Freemasons, Communists, pedophiles and homosexuals that had been injected into the clergy for decades (see Bella Dodd’s book to understand how this was done to the tune of thousands of fake clergy whose sole intent in joining the seminaries and the Church was total subversion), as also the list I reprinted in RTCC of Mino Pecorelli clearly evidenced beyond any doubt the massive number of official Freemasons (complete with codenames) that were already in high offices at the time of the third fake Pope in a row, Lucani.

      Such a slim possibility filled with charity was indeed a viable possibility certainly up to at least 1965 when the last Vatican II documents were finally presented to the world, and given the slow movements of the Church on grave matters, one could reasonably extend that charity even to the 1970s, even the late 1970s, but by 1983, when the Satanists decided to come out with a “new” code of Canon Law, in order to try and invalidate the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which to date remains the most vetted document on Earth, having compiled and reviewed and checked and double checked every dogmatic document and position of the Church from the time of Jesus to 1917. And then having remained unchanged for the next 65 years except for a tiny modification to Canon 1099 part 2 done by the last valid Pope, Pius the XII himself. And when I say unchanged I mean unchanged despite an invitation to all Catholic clergy around the world to present any objection, question or argument against any canon. Tens of thousands of documents had been reviewed and checked to produce the Code of 1917 and tens of thousands more after it to make sure they had got everything right. There literally is no other document like it on Earth. And the “code” of 1983 is not even logically consistent within itself, as I have made clear before on this blog. So at this point it was absolutely clear that the Satanists now in the Vatican only aimed to continue the destruction of the Church and there was no repentance or halting it. I described this situation briefly in RTCC but since it is a 530 page book that refutes every single argument against sedevacantism ever produced to date, and no one has been able to counter it validly in any way, not everyone has read it. Hence this blog article to make the topic more accessible to all.

      Given what we now know about Roncalli, and the constant unrepentant promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II, and absolutely following the Magisterium of the Church in the form of the infallible Code of Canon Law produced by two valid Popes in conjunction with a team of valid and pious Cardinals led by Cardinal Gasparri, it is absolutely clear, that anyone that continues to hold to the Vatican II fake Church is simply not a Catholic. No “clergy” who does can be considered to be anything other than at best a heretic and more likely a knowing Satanist with pedophile friendly intent at a minimum. And as such, as per Catholic infallible dogma as produced by Pope Paul the IV in his ex cathedra pronouncement Cum-Ex Apostolate Officio, such heretics should be shunned, others warned against them and deprived of all natural human kindness. In Catholic thought they are worse than mere murderers, for they intend to cosign your soul to eternal Hell.

      As I said in my book RTCC at the end, the term Sedeprivationist today, should really only be used for two reasons:

      • Etymologically it is a more correct term, because strictly speaking, the chair (sede) of Peter is not actually empty (vacante) but rather it is filled by an impostor that is preventing (privation) the proper filling of it by a valid Bishop.
      • As a memory and remembrance of a great and courageous theologian and Bishop, Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. keep in mind that because he was made Bishop in 1981 by Bishop Thuc he was later “excommunicated” from the fake “Catholic” Church of Satan by none other than Ratzi the Nazi in 1983, just when the “new” (fake and perverse) Code of Canon Law was produced.

      In all other respects, Sedevacantism is absolutely correct and no one can make any argument against it, theological, canonical, logical or of any other valid kind. Let us therefore now look at that.

      The Basic Premise of Sedevacantism

      The essence of Sedevacantism is literally childishly easy to understand

      1. If you are not catholic, you cannot be Catholic clergy.

      2. If you defect from the faith publicly and notoriously, you are not Catholic.

      That’s it. That is literally it. It really is not more complicated than that.

      The Satanists pretending to be Catholic (fake clergy) will try to tell you that no man has a right to judge the “pope” as being a heretic, which is a conflation of one true fact with a lie, as is their usual modus operandi.

      It is true that no man can pass judgement on the Pope. But there are two important points to note:

      ANYONE can judge a non-catholic, non-Pope as being a non-Catholic non-Pope. In fact it is dogmatic catholic law that ANYONE can call out a heretic.

      Secondly, it is not any man that decides if a pope is or is not a heretic, regardless of whether he had been voted in validly originally or not. It is, in fact, the INFALLIBLE Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which in its valid and infallible wisdom, produce the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which was approved by two Popes along with their Cardinals and therefore made infallible. And the Code of 1917 in Canton 188 part 4 reads as follows:

      Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: 

      4º A fide catholica publice defecerit; 

      Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

      4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;

      See that? Without any declaration and upon the fact itself. it really burns them. And if you want a totally autistic view of the whole of canon 188.4 that atomises the ghosts of dead horses, well then, here you go.

      Right then, given canon 188.4 it is absolutely clear that anyone who does not specifically and actively condemn the fake Popes since 28th October 1958 and their heretic Vatican II documents, and changes to the UNCHANGEABLE Holy Mass (see Quo Premium also in RTCC), cannot be thought of as properly Catholic, and any “clergy” doing so are absolutely not valid clerics of Catholicism.

      So we now come to the distinctions between current day Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists. What are they?

      Having discussed this matter in some detail with a valid priest of the IMBC, the statement told to me was that this priest and thus most of the IMBC I would guess, simply take the charitable position that they, as individuals prefer not to pronounce the current heretics in the Vatican as being actual heretics, including, the (in my opinion) never-was-catholic Bergy the Oleous.

      That is a valid personal position that a clergyman can take. It is based on the fact that only God really knows the Foro Interno of a human being, that is, his true heart concerning anything at all.

      HOWEVER, and it is a big however, by ALL external indications (Foro Externo) the (at best) heretics in the Vatican (actual Satanists as far as I am concerned) ALL, without exception fulfill the precepts of Canon 188.4. And canon 188.4 refers to and does NOT invalidate in any way Cum-Ex-Apostolato Officio which was an ex-cathedra pronouncement of valid Pope Paul the IV, and which in any case, was even before this an obvious thing anyone of normal intelligence knew. In general, Papal ex-cathedra pronouncements are made only to further clarify an solidify a simple and obvious fact known to all but under attack by gnostics, Satanists and enemies of the Church. So, these fake Popes absolutely ARE to be treated as heretics in a practical sense. Which of course, all Sedeprivationist clergy does. They do not perform Una Cum (one with) masses (they do not use the names of fake popes in the Mass) and they do not promote or promulgate Vatican II and warn people against it, all as they should. The only practical difference is they do not outright call Bergoglio and such as actual heretics because, in a spirit of charity they hold the position that perhaps, by some miracle or mystery unknown to them, Bergoglio and such are all afflicted by some mind-worm, or whatever that makes them not actually responsible, somehow, for their heresies.

      Well. They are entitled to their personal view, of course, and for the record, I do not have a personal view as such on Bergolgio etc. I mean, if I had to bet my life on it I would bet they are actual Satanists, non-Catholics from the start and heretics only in the best of cases (because to be a heretic you have to first have been Ana actual Catholic at some point), but honestly, absent any enforced need to make a judgement, I don’t have an opinion. I simply follow Canon Law and Catholic dogma and since they walk like a heretic, quack like a heretic, smell like a heretic, act like a heretic, and do everything else under the sun as a heretic, I will treat them, as is my duty as a heretic.

      That’s it, and that’s all. In any case, the Sedeprivationists do that too with the only exception they don’t call them actual heretics due to their rather (in my opinion) unnecessary charity towards what I consider to be spiritual, intentional would-be mass-murderes of souls.

      So, in essence, in practical terms, there is no real difference between a Sedeprivationist and a Sedevacantist.

      One last note, if anyone says that if Bergoglio were to repent he would become valid Pope, this is, of course, absolute nonsense, since a heretic, even if he repents, by infallible and perennial dogmatic and divine Law, as pronounced infallibly in Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio, cannot ever again have ANY authority over anyone and must spend the rest of their days in constant penance in a monastery with, again, I repeat, no possibility to teach or have authority over anyone, ever again.

      So, in essence and practice we are all Sedevacantists today. Sedeprivationism was a kind idea that has, in the course of time, been demonstrated to have been mostly overly charitable wishful thinking.

      Nevertheless Father (and later Bishop) Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers was an outstanding theologian and Catholic clergyman. May God keep his soul in the eternal presence of His beatific vision as per His Will.

        Sede Priest Explains Cassiciacum, etc.

        Father Steenbergen is one of the most awesome people I know, and I am glad he did this interview. He even refers to the Finnish couple who came to visit me towards the 1:17 mark, and shortly after, indirectly, to people like me, with words to the effect of… you wouldn’t BELIEVE the kind of people that are coming to get baptised these days! Meaning people with no Catholic history in their background whatsoever that come to it in almost miraculous ways. And it’s true. Just over a decade ago, the idea I would one day be a hardcore Catholic would have made me spill my drink if I had been drinking. And here I am now.

        All sorts of people are waking up to the truth, and it’s accelerating from the attendances I have seen over the last few years.

          What Next?

          There are three paths I can go down with respect to the next book I write.

          NAZI MOON (linked) is now available at least in the US and CANADA and should be available soon in other countries too.

          Do you Prefer I next write:

          View Results

          Loading ... Loading ...

          I have been asked to do the relationship book by friends and men in general for years; at least 20 of them. I resisted the impulse* for at least a couple of decades, primarily because, as one of my alter egos/nicknames —given to me by friends in Italy over 20 years ago— said in one of the graphic novels he appears in: “Any man that says he has understood all there is to know about women, is either a liar or insane.” And it’s close enough to the truth in some ways. Nevertheless, I feel that after two divorces, a lot of women in between, and finally a proper Catholic marriage, not to mention 4 children I fathered, I have probably made —and persevered!— and (one hopes), learnt enough that it is probably acceptable to pass on a few pointers to younger men; at least on those issues I feel I have now got enough experience to retroactively note when I did the right thing (regardless of outcome), and when I did the wrong thing (again, regardless of outcome). I mention this, because as I say, there have been a lot of people asking me for this for a long time.

          With regard to my non-fiction, each book I have written so far, is really mostly a compilation of my theories and conclusions formed with many years of experience.

          The Face on Mars was the result of a lifelong interest in Astronomy from very early childhood. I understood what a light-year was at age four, thanks to an uncle who was, and remains, a total geek to this day. He also sent me a telescope in my early teens, with which I observed the mountains of the moon, and how the moon itself moved. I also saw Haley’s comet with it, from our home in Africa at the time. And to this day the concepts I put forth in that book were then, and for the most part continue to remain today, unique. Some have badly plagiarised aspects of it (hello Graham Hancock) but the overall main issue had not been understood by anyone I am aware of before I saw it. And most remain totally ignorant of it, despite the predictions and theories I made back in 1995, playing out as correct in the intervening time. The update in 2014 also added a new dimension to the reality of my ideas, which is partly expanded on a lot more in my fiction work.

          Systema was similarly, a book I wrote after I had personally spend decades in the martial arts world. And I wanted to demystify a LOT of the nonsense that goes with many martial art “concepts” and their related egos, and which —in particular— seemed to have a vortex of “mystic ninjas” concerning the Russian system. Which is an impression many martial artists might have if they have not experience of it firsthand. By merely watching YouTube videos or hearing “fantastic” stories of almost magical ability, they are most likely going to assume it is some woo-woo nonsensical “martial art”. That thought is disabused within minutes of confronting any of the top exponents of it. Unfortunately, as always, along with the really good practitioners, there were also a lot of “mystic ninjas” and some of the practitioners did nothing to demystify the situation, so I did it. I have been doing martial arts since I was a very small child, thanks to my dad, so I had pretty extensive knowledge of it before I put hand-to-keyboard after almost four decades of it.

          Reclaiming the Catholic Church was in some ways the “odd man out” because I had a road to Damascus Event in 2013 and the book came out in 2020, that is, only 7 years later. However, I had been reading different books on all the main religions, mysticism, “spiritual” and even New Age stuff, again, since my teens, and literally infiltrating various cults as a hobby, in order to see if anyone had anything that was demonstrably true, real, or worthwhile. I had settled on a basic Zen-Agnosticism, with a clear understanding there must be an intelligence behind creation (the math, astronomy, biology and physics, as well as logic, pretty much confirms it many, many, many times over) but no sense of a God as such that was specifically interested in us mere mortals, much less me specifically. That changed in a radical, unexpected and utterly surprising way, that while “subjective” in the sense that I cannot prove it to anyone else, was absolutely objective and very much so for me. The other part that helped was that because the Catholic Church has ALL of its rules and dogmas written down, it was fairly easy to follow the thread of its history and see the astonishing truth it is founded on. As it was, to see that the current inhabitants of the Vatican are, without putting too fine a point on it, flat out Satanists.

          BELIEVE! Instead, published a year before RTCC, was a much smaller work, putting out my new, or updated, basic outline philosophy. For those who have read both books, you will notice that BELIEVE! is not even a fifth of the size of RTCC, at just under 100 pages, and is a lot more open with respect to overall views and concepts. RTCC was the follow up that basically said, “OK, so that’s sort of where I am with respect to religion as a whole (BELIEVE!) now let’s take a look at this one path that I state is the best one I can see so far, and in this book, (RTCC), I went full autist, covering every aspect of Sedevacantism (i.e. the actual, current, only Catholicism left) and demonstrating it in a manner that no one has so far even attempted to refute, much less succeeded. The result is that RTCC is the foundation on which BELIVE! is really sitting on, which is probably why even if a much smaller and less detailed book, BELIEVE! has resulted in now over 100 people converting to Sedevacantist Catholicism (aka simply: Catholicism).

          The reason I point all this out, is because in these last two non-fiction books, it becomes obvious that even my overall looser and more generic ideas, as expressed in BELIEVE!, for example, clearly have had a lot of genuinely positive effects on people who read them. And we know it was this that sparked the results, because BELIEVE! came first, and yet, even without all the details (presented in RTCC), it had a serious impact on people’s lives.

          I see a LOT of confusion, struggles and heartache among young men today concerning intimate relationships and finding the right woman.

          I literally get questions, emails, or messages on the topic to a frequency that is starting to become hard to keep up with. And as anyone that reads my blog knows, I have a rather low opinions of PUAs, and would very much hate to be mistaken for one. That said, I know for a demonstrable fact that my advice benefits these younger men, because they are getting married, having babies, and resolving issues they had for many years of their lives. I have literally had everything from friends, neighbours and even strangers, asking for advice, on an ad hoc basis, to hypnosis sessions with people that were under clinical care as supposedly paranoid schizophrenics under medication that went on to stop the medication (yes with doctor approval and full knowledge of my sessions with them) and go on to have a productive life with a functioning relationship, when prior they were 29 year old virgins. And I have been doing this for at least 15 years, with positive results.

          So, perhaps, there is some utility in putting together some of the baseline concepts concerning male-female interactions and so on.

          The other options (SF saga continuation) or YA SF books are, respectively, more a divertimento for myself and, a less fun, but I think helpful addition to the current dearth of adventure stories for boys mostly. I am not aware of anything like the Hardy Boys and so on coming along anytime recently, which is why Castalia House is doing well printing old classics. I would not enjoy writing such books as much as my own adult Science Fiction, but it would not be too difficult to do and they should be able to be produced fairly quickly. Although, I am not likely to be acclaimed as a children’s author anytime soon, or even long after I am dust, so the effort might not be worth it.

          Anyway, I’d appreciate your thoughts on the matter, so please feel free to leave comments after you vote, thanks. 

          * Vox, on this post, referring to someone else, Taleb, in this case, said something that holds true for most of us. Personally I have always genuinely tried to resist the temptation, and often people have been quite “deflated” when trying to make me their “guru”, when, after being asked something I know little or nothing about or at least I don’t feel qualified to take a stand on, I simply say “I have no idea”. Some were quite insistent nevertheless and I always consciously dissuaded that, as I explained in some detail in my book Systema: The Russian Martial System.

            All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
            Website maintained by mindseed design