You are either an idiot or completely ignorant on the subject if you believe…

So Bp. Sanborn has made this video, which is short enough and to the point enough I suggest you watch it if you are at all interested in the Catholic Church and the Sedeprivationist vs Sedevacantist positions and why both are valid and Catholic. The Video is here.

The Newsletter from Bp. Dolan he is responding to is here. And the part that offended and was read out by Bp. Sanborn in on the third page on the left hand side.

Now some ground rules and truths:

1. I have some direct experience and knowledge of Bp. Sanborn and his behaviours, both public and private.
2. I have no knowledge or experience whatsoever of Bp. Dolan and the only behaviours I am privy to at this point in time is the newsletter referenced above. This will naturally tend to give Bp. Dolan somewhat of an advantage in my view of the disagreement/s that may exist between these two men and that, as far as I can tell and as far as the video by Bp. Sanborn himself seems to indicate are being made PUBLIC, by Bp. Sanborn himself, not by Bp. Dolan. If this is indeed the case, as I suspect, then this alone in and of itself is a strike against Bp. Sanborn, but I reiterate that as I have no more context other than the single newsletter referenced above, I may be in ignorance of other potentially public communications that Bp. Dolan may have made that are more specific than the ones present in the newsletter.
3. I am a layman. Normally, in pious times of the Church’s light shining across the globe powerfully, my opinion would be merely one that would be discussed among other Catholic friends as we argue amicably for this or that perspective, not to hear the sound of our own voices mind you, but to find the closest way to the absolute Truth that we can, by prodding each other’s brains, as good friends and good Catholics should. However, given the confused, confusing and ever present snakes of deception pretending to be Catholics while trying to lead souls to Hell (see for example my exposé on the Freemason Milo, the charlatans, EM Jones, Taylor Marshall, Church Militant and their Opus Dei sponsors) it is incumbent upon every Catholic man to stand firmly against any such practices or deceivers or deceptions. In this case, I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned:
   1. BOTH Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan are VALID Catholic Bishops. As such they are princes of the Church. And as such a modicum of respect for their courage and position is due.
   2. That said, they are both human beings and as such, inevitably both will have their flaws, as, of course, do I and no doubt mine are far more profound and numerous, nevertheless, my shall we say rather debased position does give me some advantage in a few respects, firstly, I fear no man, nor any man’s judgement, I submit and subject myself wholly and totally only to the Judgement and Will of God the Father, Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit. I may and I do, submit to the requests, observations, judgements, edicts etcetera, etcetera, of VALID Catholic Clergy that is:
      1. Validly ordained and in good standing with the infallible magisterium of the Church as presented in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.
      2. Issuing such pronouncements in accordance with same.
      3. Issuing such pronouncements in accordance with my own conscience once I have carefully examined it to ensure it is not my ego, pride or other human flaw impeding me to obey such pronouncements.
   3. It is a scandal and a shame if these two men cannot put their differences aside and regardless of their personal opinions, permit each other to work together against the enemies of the Church. I would therefore implore them to BOTH make a public statement of tacit support for all the LICIT efforts made by the other party towards increasing the reach of the remaining Catholic Church and saving souls, and to keep their personal misgivings of one another private and if possible to resolve them in private too.
   4. Given the times, anyone sufficiently learned in the matter should point out errors, but to keep these private if possible and make them public only when necessary. In this specific instance, I am undoubtedly skirting the edge of the abyss, but for whatever reason, it seems I live there, on that edge and always have, I pray, that whatever failing I do in this, God forgives me. Whatever my errors may be they are, in this, I am quite sure, not of pride or ego, but of genuine wish for all Catholics and all would-be Catholics, to rise up as a wave of light against ALL the current darkness. That all said, do not, for one second, hesitate to think that I will tell you exactly where to go, if you think I was kidding about point n.2 above. Critique all you like, but if it is not licit, expect both barrels. To the face. Twice over. It is not a time for pussy-footing around as Catholics.

Now to the video and newsletter. First the “offending” part of the newsletter, here it is quoted below (7 minutes in):

Friday’s St. Martin I suffered exile and a miserable death rather than accept the heresy of only one will in Christ. It sounds obscure to most, doubtless, but we must hold the whole Catholic Faith without compromise. Even the best today want to make us believe that bad though he be, Bergoglio is the validly elected pope, and that the Novus Ordo, One World Church, is identical with the Catholic Church. That’s a theological error, and savors of heresy. As we honor the anniversaries of our churches, we remember that there is only one Church, the unchanged Catholic Church. If people would only understand this truth, so much confusion would be dis-
sipated, so much peace—though at a price!—would ensue.

Well, taken on its own, as I specified above, I am doing, I see absolutely nothing wrong with hat paragraph.

Now, it may be that the “best” in question IS directed specifically at Bp. Sanborn and the sedeprivationist position in general, but if that is the case, I certainly cannot say that from this newsletter or this paragraph at all. And unless it is specified elsewhere, someone self-identifying with those “best” would, by their OWN choice, be falling in precisely that category as described by Bp. Dolan.

There is, however, a principle of distinction between Sedeprivationism and Sedevacantism that absolutely needs explaining and precision if we are to understand things properly.

Sede vs Sede?

The Sedevacantists essentially state that the current occupiers of the Holy See, from fake Pope John the XXIII (henceforth known only as Roncalli) to today are not Popes in any way, shape or form. In fact, they are not even Catholic, being public, notorious heretics, so have absolutely zero standing in the Catholic Church, they are impostors, fakes, Freemasons and Satanists (I repeat myself) and as such deserve only our contempt. It is the position I too hold, though I call myself a Sedeprivationist, the reason for which I explain below.

The Sedeprivationist hold with the Cassiciacum theory produced by Father Gerard de Lauriers. It is available in the original only in French by a publication that will not allow reproduction of it. I have read it (yes I read French quite well, thank you) and in a nutshell it states that the fake Popes could be assumed to have been validly elected as Popes in a material sense, but not in a spiritual sense and especially given their behaviour as public notorious heretics, they could not be considered legitimate or valid Popes nor obeyed as such. This position was not unreasonable at the time it was formulated because the takeover of the Vatican by Freemasons was for many (especially laymen but also some pious clergy) so sudden that one dared not initially believe almost the entire Church had been converged to heresy and handed over to a bunch of heretics (and in fact much worse, never-were-Catholic, Satanists). Using the principle of charity and benefit of the doubt, Father De Lauriers, who was an outstanding theologian proposed that even IF the Popes had been validly elected, by supposedly valid Cardinals and so on, their behaviour precluded them from being actual Popes. It was a charitable, pious, best case scenario thesis that in my opinion hoped to reconcile, correct and bring the Church back together. Unfortunately, the rot was so deep and the very weapon used by the enemy is our good natures in order to get inside our guard to stab us, that the thesis, in hindsight, was clearly over-charitable. And given what we NOW know about the entire process, the level of Freemasonic infiltration etc it is patently obvious that the Sedevacantist position is the correct one (if you do not know, read my book Reclaiming The Catholic Church, which unlike the fake Catholic Taylor Marshall’s book Infiltration I wrote myself and has actual verifiable facts in it). There is one tiny aspect that the Sedevacantist position ignores however, and that is that the Chair, technically speaking is NOT empty (which is what sede vacante means). It is filled by an impostor PREVENTING it being filled licitly and validly. Hence my slightly subversive use of the word Sedeprivationist. I do this for two reasons:

1. The sedevacantist position is undoubtedly correct.
2. The charity of Fr. De Lauriers should be lauded, if, at times, ignored. Particularly by people like me and my brothers in arms against lies, deception and Satan’s little helpers. My current position is that if we could get rid of all the fake clergy we also got rid of 100 genuine men that aspired to be real Catholic Priests and were merely deceived, well, so be it. God will sort them out. Leave all retards behind. We will cross that bridge and burn it, so we can only march forward. People like me are the tip of the spear. We will make errors. We may seem at times uncharitable or cruel. We are neither, and although we may well be thought of as a necessary evil, without men like us, Christendom would have been swallowed by the hordes of enemies long ago. So… God must at least in some way, deem us necessary, since I count people like Bohemand, Tancredi, Jean Parisot le Vallete and so on among our number, and pray I can only measure up to those men. YET, in the name of tempering our fiery natures, it is good to remember (for better times at least) that Piety, Humility and Charity are great virtues, and only Courage bridges those three with the ones of Fortitude, Justice and Reason. And those who operate on the first three are generally better men than those who operate in the latter three. So I use the term yes to co-opt it, but also to remember its founder as the honourable and charitable way to do things, being always higher in intent than our own, more practical ways.

Now that you know these things, let us move to the video of Bp. Sanborn.

What Bp. Sanborn gets right

1. Bp. Sanborn is absolutely right concerning the differences between Sedeprivationist and Sedevacantists being essentially irrelevant in terms of taking the Church forward. There is indeed no higher authority to decide between them, and the errors of one or the other position when compared to ultimate truth must be for every man to decide for himself. Given the history we know, the details we know, the facts we have to hand, personally, I have zero doubt that the sedevacantist position is closer to correct. Nevertheless, the Priest who baptised me and was there for my confirmation and marriage and has been outstanding to our family is a Sedeprivationist, and we have indeed discussed this very topic at some length. I absolutely respect his position, his advice and his counsel and I have no doubt he is one of the best human beings I have ever had the good fortune to encounter. Undoubtedly a much better man than I am. Even so, I disagree with him on his position and he has stated that my technical position is correct. It cannot be assailed, but for his ultimate devotion to charity. And make no mistake that this priest is “soft” in any way. He is not. The point is that he is a priest of piety. Possibly one of the very few who would rather die than break the confessional seal as an example.
2. Bp. Sanborn is correct that Sedes of either name should and do work together and that their theological disagreement is not one that should cause strife or division. We both agree the fake Popes are fake. One is more charitable to the way they got there, the other is more logical. Given the current situation, there is simply no logical way that Bergoglio or Ratzinger can even be considered Catholic at all. In fact the Sedeprivationist position is that you should absolutely treat these people all as heretics, their only difference is that they say that charity should prevent you from stating it outright. I interpret it as basically the whole “we are too polite for that”. Well, I am not. My behaviour is roughly the equivalent of at a prestigious gala of famous dignitaries, some guy charging in, calling out one of the guests of honour as a disgusting pedophile, dunking him in the punch-bowl and dragging his semi-conscious body out by dragging and kicking him to the exit where he goes on to curb-stomp him. It’s not pretty. It’s not polite. But… if you’re one of the kids he raped, or one of the further ones he was going to rape if no one stopped him, I absolutely believe, it is necessary. And if I were a spectator, I would simply stop a waiter and ask that a new punch bowl is brought on and can they please cover up the blood splatter, before continuing my conversation before I could sneak off to congratulate the “barbarian” for his style and efficiency.

3. But that’s me and my weaknesses, and we are here to try to reconcile differences. And in that respect Bp. Sanborn is also correct in his closing argument when he says that there should not be trouble made.

4. He is right that the usurpers are using the structures of the Catholic Church to promote their heresy, but it is not just heresy and error they are promoting, they are, in fact, ushering in, Satanism, which is a religion and a very old one, so while technically it is not a new religion, Bp. Sanborn is, however, being too charitable in simply saying or believing that the Novus Orcians are simply promoting heresy, as if it was just a big, bad mistake. It’s not a mistake. It’s intentional and malignant with evil intent at that. So, TECHNICALLY right about Novus Orco not being a NEW religion, but it is pointless to say that, since it is certainly NOT Catholicism either, but its most ancient enemy.

What Sanborn gets wrong

1. BUT he also says that (about not making trouble) after making a very public and very specific accusation video, based, from what he himself presents in the video, heresay (that may well be true, but is not public as far as I can tell from the video. I heard…He said…or…this guy told me…is the definition of heresay) and one newsletter that has zero direct attacks. Does this mean Bp. Dolan has not made public attacks? I don’t know. I haven’t looked and I probably will not. But based on Sanborn’s own video it is not looking good for Sanborn.
2. On Bp. Dolan calling Covid cowards “girls” for bowing to the worldly laws instead of doing their priestly duty on the further point of Bp. Dolan not offering money for doing it to pay for eventual lawyers or bail. Errr… sorry, you are a Priest! You have CHOSEN to devote your life to God and sacrifice yourself to the world for the sake of the realm of God. If you need to go to jail, by all means try to avoid it, escape, lie to the worldly authorities (it is NOT a sin to do so when necessary, Jesus Himself lied to the Pharisees after all), do the Holy Mass in secret, whatever, but to bend to the worldly will as a Priest and claim you did it to avoid some jail time? Really? You dishonour the very frock you wear. It’s like a cop saying he will not enter a school with an active shooter because he is scared he might get shot! It’s your JOB! MOVE YOUR ASS! Unlike soldiers, cops and Priests don’t get drafted, they chose it. So, no. Bp. Dolan is 100% correct and he SHOULD shame such cowardly Priests. Rightfully. We need direct, in your face, face in the punchbowl truth these days.
3. He states that Bp. Dolan is accusing him and his seminarians of holding the position that Bergoglio is a validly elected Pope. And in the very next sentence he states that Bergoglio is a validly elected Pope and thus a Pope elect but that he is not Pope. At the very least Bp. Sanborn here does a poor job of explaining what I explained above in the Sede vs Sede section. I am not even sure most Sedeprivationist hold that Bergoglio WAS (even potentially) validly elected at this point in time, but it was the POTENTIAL position of the original theory of Cassiciacum. In other words that even IF the (fake) Pope HAD been validly elected, it would only be a valid MATERIAL (Worldly) election and NOT a Spiritual election, necessary to make one the Vicar of Christ on Earth. It is, a rather rarefied, super-abundantly charitable theological theory. And it was this back then already in the late 1960s. To hold it today is to my view absolutely in error. BUT, technically it IS the Sedeprivationist position. Now… IF Bp. Dolan then went on to MISREPRESENT the situation by further saying that the Sedeprivationist hold Bergoglio to actually be a valid Pope to all effects, then THAT is indeed a lie. But if all he said is that the Sedeprivationist hold the Bergoglio to be validly elected MATERIALLY ONLY. Then he was perfectly correct. And if, as I suspect, Bp. Dolan did not clarify the position, then, well, we can perhaps accuse him of being a little less charitable, a little bit more “pragmatic” in his fire and brimstone in order to avoid confusion, but we can’t fully call him an outright liar. The Cassiciacum position was ALWAYS a very fragile, ethereal thing and frankly, while we should pay homage to Fr. De Lauriers, it is time to move on and reclaim the Church.
4. Bp. Sanborn makes the comparison between thugs who have hijacked a car to describe the Novus Orco clergy and pointedly calls them Heretics. Yet he refutes the point that the Novus Orco Church is a different Church from the Catholic Church. This is patently false. While he hides of the fact that the usurpers are using the infrastructure of the Catholic Church, just like a car thief has now taken use of your car, it is obvious that:
   1. The car/Church does NOT belong to them
   2. The uses they are putting it to are not only NOT legitimate and criminal, they are in DIRECT opposition to the licit uses YOU, the rightful owner were putting it to. The analogy would be you going to take your pregnant wife to the hospital so she can give birth, getting the car hijacked and the thugs using it to drive to the hospital to murder newborn babies while they leave you by the side of the road. It’s all well and good for you to say that the car is the same car, (the Cathedrals too are indeed still the same, as is all the worldly structures of the Church) it is, but the purposes, intent, use and drivers of it are in direct opposition to everything that car/Church was meant to do. You can hardly say it is not a “New” Church. Physically the structures remain the same, but they have been defiled, they are being used to perpetuate crimes against should and bodies and pervert the truth. The Novus Orco are NOT Catholic. Their religion is NOT Catholicism. There is literally no point at all to not call them out as a fake, new, different religion, because that is what the Novus Orco is.

Arguable Either Way

1. Assuming it is true that Bp. Dolan characterised the Sedeprivationist position as a tentacle of the Novus Orco Church, and let’s for argument sake ALSO assume it was a PUBLIC statement, which, in fairness, I think is assuming quite a lot. It sounds to me as if the statement by Bp. Dolan may have been made in private conversation, in which case, my explanation here would have even more weight. An argument can be made, that by this continued excess of charity and not simply labelling public notorious heretics as such publicly, the Sedeprivationist faction is unwittingly (and unwillingly) helping the Satanists to continue their wearing of the Church structures like a snakeskin for their demon-infested Church of Moloch that it really is. IF this was the intent, then the characterisation might be unfortunate or lead one to perhaps rushed conclusions, especially if taken out of context, either about Sedeprivationist or about Bp. Dolan, or both. Nevertheless, it has a certain sound logic to it. And, if we are going to be charitable, as Sedeprivationist indeed are, then, surely, this interpretation would be the more correct one.
2. Ok about the fake “Old Catholic Church” having failed, true, but it is also a fact that these people were intentionally trying to destroy Catholicism and Bp. Sanborn states it clearly himself. The Freemasons/Carbonari/Satanists did this intentionally to take over these structures so as to fool the masses. So how can you say that the present usurpers are not a “new” Religion that is separate from Catholicism? It seems pedantic and irrelevant.

Bp. Sanborns Questions:

Q1. When did this Novus Orco Church begin?

A1. Worldly, on the 28th October 1958 when Roncalli was invalidly elected false Pope John XXIII. Spiritually, when Satan and his third of the host were driven from heaven. Simple. Not sure why he is unaware or pretends to be.

Q2. Was Bp. Dolan not part of the NO originally?

A2. Let’s assume yes and the answer will follow below.

Q3. Was Bp. Dolan not ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre?

A3. I believe he was. Fuller answer below.

Q4. Was Bp. Dolan not part of the SSPX which had as its stated purpose the reconciliation with the NO Church?

A4. I believe he was. Fuller Answer below.

Q5. When did you (Bp. Dolan) make a public abjuration from the NO Church? And here Bp. Sanborn states that as Bp. Dolan says the NO is a separate Church, a public adjuration must be made as if one were previously a Lutheran say. It is a kind of twisted logic and if it were valid then one could accuse Bp. Sanborn, by the same logic of actually BEING a Novus Orco Church guy. Here, I believe, we see the crux of the matter and I think it boils down to something neither side has mentioned and possibly that neither side understands consciously. Here it is, the Answer to the above questions:

A2,3,4 and 5. Being ordained by a man who was trying to navigate the absolute carnage of the Vatican II era while trying to preserve what he thought he could salvage or repair of the Catholic Church is not a sin. Nor is the ordination invalid. Bishop Lefebvre was indeed in error in trying to reconcile with what in all likelihood he had either not recognised as, or didn’t want to believe were Satanists within the very church he loved. But being in error does not make you a heretic. It does not prevent you from validly ordaining Priests other Bishops in good faith. Nor does being validly ordained by such a man and you yourself genuinely believing you are doing your best to navigate the same storm make you a heretic. merely in error. And we all are to some degree or other. Importantly though, like Bp. Sanborn, Bp. Dolan corrected his errors and eventually left the now essentially logically bankrupt SSPX.

As a result of the above, there is absolutely no need for an abjuration, because one never stopped being Catholic. Never belonged to the Church of Satan that the impostors clearly belong to. So there is no need to say you don’t belong to it!

Let me make an analogy that is easier to understand. If a bunch of Nazis decide to wear US army uniforms and infiltrate the trenches of the US Army and start murdering American soldiers in their sleep, are they now US Soldiers? NO. Clearly not. And if a US soldier in the trenches calls these Nazis out and says they are not Americans but Nazis in disguise, and belong to a different army, is he wrong? Does he now have to swear that he has no allegiance to the US Army because THE OTHER GUYS ARE WEARING THE SAME UNIFORM?!? It’s idiotic and ridiculous. Of course not. He is a US soldier and has to abjure or swear fealty to no one he hasn’t already done so. And he is doing his duty by calling out the impostors as belonging to the enemy army and NOT the US army. Simple. Again, I want to be charitable but Bp. Sanborn is not, I believe, stupid, so this, to me, stinks of sophistry.

Bp. Sanborn further embroils himself in deception when he asks who lifted the presumed excommunication of Bp. Dolan since he was originally “Novus Ordo” and this according to Bp. Dolan is a different Church. But this is an inversion. To return to the soldier analogy. Bp. Dolan never took off his uniform. He always was a US Soldier (Catholic) and if the leadership of his Army now tell him to shell his own positions and he does, in ignorance, in obedience, in essentially innocence, he is NOT at fault. Especially since, once he realises that his superiors are in reality Nazi spies in disguise as US soldiers, he stops following their fake orders, raises the alarm and calls them out as enemies. There is not guilt he has to expiate. There is no “nazi loyalty” he ever gave to the impostors. IF he did anything wrong he did it in honest error and by being fooled. He certainly does NOT need to once again swear loyalty to the US army. Whenever left. The other guys infiltrated into it. His conscience is clear. As it should be. In short, I think it is a deceptive and disingenuous question, a straw man. The same applies to deceived Novus Orco lay people who then become Sedes.

But it gets worse. He asks who now has the right to lift the excommunication of all those NO priests who have not yet refuted the V2 NO fake Church. The answer of course is no one and the answer as to whom, if any are potentially t least valid clergy, the answer is almost certainly none. The reason is simple.

1. Most of them were NOT ordained by valid clergy.
2. Most of them were not ordained validly. (1 and 2 here are two different things).
3. Of the tiny proportion left that we might assume have been somehow validly ordained, these must be exceedingly old and therefore utterly aware of the heresy of Vatican II yet have remained silent for decades. Case in point: “Archbishop” Vigano. Such people, are by definition, public, notorious heretics in word and deed. They promulgated the V2 heresies for decades and as such fall foul of Canon 188.4. They are public notorious heretics and indeed there is no one who can forgive them their heresy, but even if there were, their lot would be t spend the rest of their lives in secluded penance with authority over no one.

In conclusion then, even if there WERE any valid NO priests that could potentially become forgiven or be assumed to be Catholic, their lot is to have authority over no one, and hence are completely irrelevant to the future of the Church. This is a good thing, because it precludes the infiltration of any of these supposed “Catholics” into the actual, growing, resurgent, real, Catholic Church.

Conclusions

Bishop Sanborn is certainly a valid Catholic Bishop, nevertheless he is a Bishop of Power, as Rodney Stark labels such people. He is interested in the material aspects of the Church. He wants to “win” so to speak, by having more seminarians, more Churches, more laypeople contributing money to more structures being built and so on.

I do not know personally, and I am not accusing Bp. Sanborn of doing or being this way for personal gain. For all I know he may be, but I absolutely and without reservation give him the benefit of the doubt in this as I always did from the beginning. In fact, I’ll go a step further and state categorically that from my perspective, such clergy are, at times, required. The worldly aspects of Church buildings, funds for seminarians and resident priests and so on are realities of the world, and someone pushing to get these things is required and useful. Often such men can get corrupted by the power they wield. They can become gluttonous, or proud, dictatorial, revered in their cult of personality, and I have reason to suspect that certainly Bishop Sanborn has at least some of these flaws to whatever degree or other. As, I remind you, we all have flaws. That said, his errors will tend towards those that in ancient times were labelled as the avarice, gluttony and so on of the proud, power-hungry, worldly Popes.

I do not know Bp. Dolan at all, and never interacted with him, but judging from his tone and assuming the things Bp. Sanborn said about him in the video are true, it sounds to me that Bp. Dolan is more a puritan sort, which we may refer to as belonging more to the Church of Piety. The errors of such clergy tend to be either excessive charity (which got us where we are today) or, sometimes, a zeal bordering on Donates where if anything or anyone has the tiniest flaw then they are expelled for heresy.

In short, if these men are Power vs Piety, they will invariably disagree and nothing good can come of it. So I hope they put it all behind themselves and move on in a positive manner. Some form of public reconciliation, however superficial, would firstly demonstrate both men are willing to submit their ego to a higher need and secondly, for that very reason, be welcome by all Catholics I believe.