The USAs James Bonds…

This, in my personal experience, has been about the level of US gathered “intelligence”.

The Yanks may be top class at collecting information on you, including video of you straining on the toilet and everything else you ever did. And they are probably pretty good at killing you if they deem it necessary. Not so it looks like an accident to anyone of normal intelligence, what with two shots to the back of the head being rules suicides and so on, or people dying suddenly with their insides cooked as if from a microwave weapon. But still, probably good at doing that as well as uploading terabytes of child porn to your hard drive from their quadrillion bytes of it that they produce for their various blackmail operations around the world.

Or shipping tons of class A drugs anywhere. Or selling, raping, and dismembering children for parts. Probably very efficient at that.

But when it comes to actual interpretation of data on the ground… well… this is more their speed:

And that pretty much explains why there are now hordes of retards thinking we live on a flat Earth and that the moon is a “lamp” despite the fact that you can see mountains on it and the sun/shadow line on it and it moving with a small telescope.

It also explains why almost no one now understands the terms “objective reality” and “objective truth”.

They probably think they are lost artefacts from an as yet undisclosed Indiana Jones film where it turns out Indiana Jones was really black, gay and trans.

For those of you who don’t read wop, copy and paste into google translate. The title is: The Sadness of the Italian. The 8 minute video is basically Bisanti saying how in general most people are terribly unhappy with their marriage and children because they are no longer free.

Ho guardato questo video di Pietro Bisanti. Otto minuti, che incapsulano un po’ l’Italia in generale.

Bisanti è un personaggio interessante. È stato Carabiniere per (mi pare) oltre 20 anni, diventando maresciallo, e poi ha lasciato tutto per diventare un consulente legale e fare incontri di igenismo (dieta, salute del corpo e mente, etc).

Quelli che mi conoscono sanno bene che io del igenismo ne so poco, ed è comunque un argomento, a mio avviso, dove se qualcuno davvero sà qualcosa di utile, è difficile capirlo. Credo che Pietro abbia trovato un suo equilibrio in questo campo, e di sicuro potrei migliorare la mia salute (idealmente mangerei solo pesce e acqua, e quando ho vissuto a Venezia e ho fatto così, stavo molto bene).

Comunque l’argomento qui è ben diverso, e su questo, mi permetto di criticare, in modo positivo, quello che dice Pietro riguardo la famiglia.

In sunto, lui non è che sia contro la famiglia, anzi, lo dichiara proprio che non lo è, ma piuttosto, fa un avviso che la maggior parte degli Italiani in coppia, sono dei disperati infelici, che si sentono intrappolati come topi in gabbia dalle lore vite malsane.

E questo è vero. Ma lo era vero anche 30 anni fa.

All epoca ho notato che l’Italiano medio era un povero oppresso. Un ometto che doveva sopravvivere in costante compressione. Da un economia e governo di merda che lo calpestavano da sempre, a tradizioni sempre più taglia-palle (evirazione per voi più colti) che alla fine stritolavano l’anima.

Grazie a quel pazzo con tutti i suoi difetti che è mio padre, io ero cresciuto dall’età di quattro anni, in Africa ancora nera. Nel senso di buio e situazioni che all’europeo medio sembrano da film o assurde ma che per me erano quotidiane e comunque di vita reale. In Italia, dai 19 ai 30 anni o giù di lì, quando visitavo, vedevo invece uomini che si preoccupavano di avere la cravatta in sintonia con le calze. Cosiddetti “adulti” che parlavano di tutto e di più incluso di situazioni Africane che avevano visto solo su TG1 come se fossero degli esperti in materia. Le donne dipinte e “serie” che alla fine, povere insoddisfatte, erano rimaste inacidite dalla vita primariamente perché nessuno le sbatteva a suon di cazzo come si deve.

Mi faceva sia ridere che tristezza come queste “signore” tutte ben-tirate, e di una tristezza interiore palpabile, si accendevano in un lampo, quando, (apposta, e fatto proprio per constatare da me stesso se queste erano donne o manichini da negozio ben arredati), a prescindere da se erano “accompagnate” (verso la tristezza eterna a giudicare dai loro occhi morti) o meno, agivo in un certo modo, teoricamente “scorretto”.

Guardarla negli occhi, con un lieve sorriso, dopo una brevissima ma reale “guardatina” al suo corpo ben tirato e ben vestito e i suoi capelli ben pinzati e occhi ben dipinti, e anima fredda che ti guarda come dall’alto, e tenerla lì con lo sguardo quel battito o due in più che le facevano dubitare… Ma…questo chi è? È un maniaco? Perché non ha già guardato altrove? Non è intimidito…

E poi magari dicevo qualcosa di taboo in quell’ambito. A prescindere se il marito era lì o meno, anzi, di solito, dopo le mie accertazioni lo facevo apposta con il marito o compagno lì. Per carità umana.

“Hmmm… complimenti alla mamma però. Ti ha fatto proprio bene.”

E mentre rimaneva a bocca aperta, senza sapere cosa dire, il marito similmente muto, aggiungevo oltre: “E poi, sei proprio tutta ben compressa per bene, ma secondo me…(sguardo diretto al marito) tuo marito è molto fortunato anche nella camera da letto, a porte chiuse ovviamente!” E alzavo le mani in finta arresa/scusa per il mio comportamento da “selvaggio” senza educazione. Quando andava bene, i mariti si svegliavano sorridenti, le donne arrossivano un po’ ma soddisfatte, e io mi auguravo che almeno quella sera lì scopassero come Dio comanda ai mandrilli.

Purtroppo, tante volte, la donna abbassava gli occhi e con un sorriso triste diceva qualcosa come “Eh… magari. Se solo fosse…” O peggio, lo faceva il marito. E li, la mia anima selvaggia pensava che forse, un colpo di .45 in testa sarebbe stata una morte più dignitosa.

È vero quello che dice Bisanti. L’infelicità e ovunque. La stupidità umana, come ho capito da ragazzino (e prima che avessi letto il detto di Einstein) è l’unica cosa che è veramente infinita.

Le nostre piccolezze, e debolezze e cattiverie e egoismo e schifezze di carattere sono una montagna di schifo che ci trasciniamo dietro tutti.

Eppure, nonché io sia diventato Cattolico solo nel 2017, (Sedevacantista perchè sono gli unici Cattolica rimasti, gli altri sono dei poveri ignoranti che non hanno nessuna idea della lora teorica religione, che seguono un satanico pro-pederasta maledetto che fa finta di essere Cattolico, tantomeno Papa) si vede che lo spirito di crociato, l’ho sempre avuto.

Anche quando ero ateo, e poi Zen-Agnostico per la maggior parte della mia vita, ho sempre, sempre, sempre, creduto che se non fosse per l’amore, per la passione interna di VIVERE, la vita non avrebbe nessun senso.

Mi ha fatto ridere quando qualche anno fa, ricercando la storia dei miei antenati ho scoperto che il mio ramo di famiglia d’argento, erano ancora patrizi anche se il ramo d’oro erano marchesi, ma la cosa interessante era il motto della nostra araldica: Omnia Vincit Amor.

Tutto vince l’amore.

Del resto il nostro nome, Filo, e greco per Amico. Amore.

Ed è così.

Bisanti è uno interessante perché anche lui, ha l’anima guerriera. Non la scegliamo noi, siamo semplicemente fatti così. Dentro abbiamo una fiamma che non si spegne. Bisanti ha fatto la sua vita, e presumo che da carabiniere di cose sull’umanità ne ha viste tante, che vuol dire, che anche lui, ha “lavorato” nelle fognature. Ma qualcuno lo deve fare, e se è vero che il più delle volte è tutta merda, se sei intelligente, la fognatura ti fa anche apprezzare meglio un tramonto. Una bella ragazza che ti sorride. Un bambino che rincorre un pallone.

La TV, I giornali, tutto e tutti, ti perseguitano e fanno sentire che non hai abbastanza, e devi correre di più.

E io, invece, sto benissimo sotto una pianta nella Savannah Africana e mi divertirei tutto il giorno a far vedere a mio figlio e le mie figlie i diversi tipi di scarafaggi che si trovano la.

È facile? No. Ho due divorzi alle spalle, 5 figli/e di cui solo 3 condivisi con la mia attuale moglie. Ci sono stati litigi? Tanti. Tribunali? Si.

Ho 53 anni e ho traslocato 54 volte.

Ho passato anni a divertirmi con tante donne carine e divertenti e abili a letto e anche fuori. Ma alla fine, al contrario dell’Italiano medio, ero arrivato a un punto dove potevo più o meno fare quello che volevo. Viaggiare dove volevo, avere gli hobby che volevo. E mi sbattevo una figona dopo l’altra e le cambiavo appena mi irritavano, cosa che i vicini di casa hanno notato al punto da venirmi a chiedere come facevo perché loro erano a secco da mesi e io ne avevo una nuova ogni due o tre giorni.

A un certo punto mi sono reso conto che mi stavo annoiando. Le avventure erano tutte simili. Vado a vedere il Giappone, o faccio la guardia del corpo in Africa, o insegno Systema a Londra o Karatè a Città del Capo, o vado a caccia di animali o di fiche. E alla fine? È tutta distrazione. Ho imparato tante cose e letto tantissimi libri, ma non ci sono più giungle inesplorate e nessuno mi vuole dare una navicella antigravità per andare a visitare altri pianeti. Cosa rimane?

Una famiglia. Ed è vero. È indubbiamente l’avventura più grande.

Sai come si definisce una vera avventura? Un disastro che riesci a sopravvivere e poi racconti. E stato un macello. Piuttosto che subire certi dolori che ho subito avrei preferito mi fosse saltata via una gamba in Afghanistan o in qualche merda di posto. Ma… me ne pento? No.

Ho una figlia che adoro da una donna che per me non esiste più come io non esisto per lei. Una figliastra dalla mia terza moglie che, come la mia di figlia, ha complicato le cose tra noi in tanti modi, e un figlio di quattro anni e due figlie una di due anni e mezzo e l’altra di sette mesi, con la mia presente moglie.

È facile? No. Anche lì, spesso sarebbe più facile per me, di sicuro, fare il cecchino in una trincea Russa o Afghana o in culo ai lupi.

Ma ne vale la “pena”? Si. Mille volte si.

E cambierei qualcosa? Certo. Vorrei avere qualche milione di Euro in più, che aiuterebbe tutto di sicuro. E ci permetterebbe di fare cose in più, ma anche lì primariamente per loro, perché io di viaggi ne ho gia fatti tanti, ma vedere le loro espressioni quando imparano e vedono cose nuove è fantastico.

Non è la vita che ci fa infelici. Siamo noi e le nostre menti piccole e spiriti assediati e rimpiccioliti. La gente pensa che la felicità sia avere la libertà di fare tutte le perversioni che vogliono senza ostacoli. E non è lì. O i soldi, e certo aiutano in questo mondo malsano e caduto, ma non è lì.

E si tua moglie può essere una spacca-cazzo noiosa. E tu un represso attristito. Certo. O puoi capire, frocietto, mezza-sega di “uomo” che la vera felicità viene dal DECIDERE. Dal darti tutto, cuore, corpo e anima, e se e quando perdi la partita, come dice il poema IF di Rudyard Kipling, ricominci da capo con attrezzi rotti e nervi usurati, senza lamentarti e continuando.

Perché la vita non é il cercar di “essere felici”. Poveri mentecatti intellettuali. La vita è il VIVERE.

Sei in un mare di merda? Nuota! Sei triste? Cambia! E alla fine, se incominci a capire quello, capisci che il Cristianesimo ha ragione. Il sacrificio è un dono. Quando smetti di lamentarti come un effeminato che si piscia addosso all’idea di attraversar la strada da solo, e accetti che devi scavalcare montage usando le unghie e i denti e muscoli che non hai, allora, poi, incominci a capire il vero senso della vita.

Ma se mi sposo poi posso essere infelice? Si.

Ma se divorzio poi posso perdere la casa e/o i figli? Si.

Ma se ho dei figli poi magari sono una merda di padre? Si.

Ma se… Si. Si. Si.

Alzati, ignobile verme. Mettiti in piedi. Schiena dritta. Cammina, codardo.

Voi lì, sofferenti, pensate che il picco della civiltà siamo noi. Poveri idioti.

Il picco della civiltà era il 1095. Quando Cristiani credenti hanno venduto tutto ciò che avevano e sono andati a spaccare il culo ai mussulmani che saccheggiavano, violentavano, rapivano e schiavizzavano i Cristiani da quasi 400 anni.

E l’hanno fatto non per soldi o gloria personale, ma nel più dei casi perché erano credenti prima, e poi, in cerca di gloria solo al secondo o terzo posto. Studia la storia vera di cosa è successo nelle crociate. Studia l’assedio di Malta del 1565. Studia Leonida e i suoi 300 (più qualche migliaia di “Greci”).

Perché sei così debole, Italiano? Eravate un Popolo di gente che tagliava una collina e importava il marmo da centinaia di chilometri per farsi una villa senatoriale sui giardini Palatini.

I miei antenati, per leggenda, erano i Troiani, che hanno perso la lora guerra e loro città e terre per “amore” o una bella fica, e a giudicare dai miei antenati più vicini, e anche me stesso, ci stá. Ma siamo anche stati Normanni e Franchi. Veneti da tante generazioni. E crociati che stavano ritornando in Italia nel 1200. E si, siamo una stirpe di gente che non sa stare fermi, che esplora, conquista o si difende e sono stati bravi a uccidere e lottare per generazioni. Ma per necessità non intenzioni maligne dall’inizio.

E tu chi sei? E non importa se non sai la storia della tua gente. Perche alla fine, chi sei tu, lo decidi tu.

Tu chi sei Italiano?

Perché cosi piccolo di anima? Perché così debole?

Perché e difficile? Ma poverino. Fa la bua!

Nella chat di Bisanti, su 159 commenti, c’erano solo 3 persone che avevano una visione positiva della coppia e del procreare. Tanti erano “felici” di essere “liberi”. E uno, povero diavolo, era così sconfitto che si era arreso al non procreare al essere solo, senza amore, senza vita. In essenza, aspettando di morire e estinguere la sua linea.

E Klaus Schwab sorride. E la gente come lui continuerà a farlo, come ha sempre fatto, fino a che qualche barbaro biondo non gli staccherà la testa dal collo a calci. Ma ovvio, al presente andare degli Europei, il barbaro sarà un africano o arabo, possibilmente analfabeta, che arriverà a lui dopo che migliaia di loro sono morti cercando di scavalcare il recinto e andare oltre il suo esercito privato.

Quindi, Italiano. Alzati.

Hai tre scelte:

1. Rimani inerte. E scomparisci dalla nostra terra tu e tutto il tuo DNA, per sempre, come nebbia grigia di notte che scompare senza che nessuno senta neppure una lamentela.

2. Diventa schiavo come ti vogliono e esiti un po’ di più. Allo stesso modo che dura un po’ di più un topo di laboratorio.

3. Alzati. Combatti. Procrea. Costruisci un modo di uomini che scelgono di essere “schiavi” del loro dovere come uomini, di essere protettori di amore, giustizia, onore, famiglia.

E se sei già così morto dentro che non osi neppure rischiare, togliti dalla mia strada. Non conti. Sei solo sfumature nella distanza in un dipinto di cui non sai e non saprai mai, nulla.

Vox recently posted on Arthur C. Clarke and the various accusations of pederastry against him.

As a teenager I read many of Clarke’s SF books. I enjoyed his stories far more than Asimov’s though I liked Asimov’s non fiction essays more.

It’s fair to say that he was, at the time, probably one of my favourite authors.

Then I read about the allegations of his using young Sri Lankan boys for sex shortly before a supposed knighthood.

I never touched another of his books again and never bought one again.

Vox is understandably embarrassed by having published two of Clarke’s short stories, but the journalist who wrote the article on Clarke arguing both for and against the allegations states that:

Even if the allegations against him are true, I don’t believe that we should engage in a phony cleansing act of burning all his books and writing him out of history. The fact is, Clarke, no matter how dark his hidden side, inspired a lot of genuine discussion about humanity’s potential future. This can’t be erased, nor should it. It’s the same with Gary Glitter. Removing his songs from radio play and refusing to stock his music in record shops didn’t change the fact that his music career brought a lot of enjoyment to a lot of people, as well as idolization. All of us are a mixture of light and dark and in these kinds of cases the two extremes can be so far apart it defies belief, but truth should always prevail over wishful dismissal.

It’s the typical moral relativity of the journalist. And that, upon cold and calculated consideration, I cannot, in any way agree with.

It goes back to how much sewage are you ok with in your ice cream.

The answer is obvious. None.

If the choice is to remember Clarke, or any other pedophile, for his “good” works and making light of, or at least not shining a broad spotlight of cleansing laser light on his being a filthy sexual pervert and rapist of children…

OR

Burn all his books, destroy his home and his grave site and blot his name from history, aside from the one fact, that he was a filthy pedophile, along with all his works, then consider me as the willing and conscious completely censorious and absolute inquisitor.

Now, there are people who will say, what about Stalin or Pol Pot, and so on, real monsters on a much grander scale than the mere raping of a few dozen children, right? In fact, those evil men were probably indirectly responsible for lots more child rapes too.

Sure, it is true, yet there are two or three points to make.

First, in the case of a Stalin or a Pol Pot, they affected the world far more than a SF writing pedophile, their deeds are necessary to be remembered as a warning. Their gigantic evil to be indeed recalled. And as much as possible, we should know about them; the whole truth of them.

But Clarke, despite supposedly coming up with the idea of geosynchronous orbits for satellites, didn’t change the world in any meaningful way.

Secondly, he was not only a pederast but an anti-christian occultist, as is evidenced from the short story or book (I forget), where the “saviours” of humanity who increase our technology gradually over time, never show themselves because in the end, they reveal themselves to look precisely like devils, bat-wings, hoofs, arrowed tails and all.

There was also the other book about all the children becoming some sort of singularity, which thankfully I read when young and still ignorant of Clarke’s proclivities, but I am sure it would make my skin crawl now with whatever perverse undertones were buried in it.

The point is that his evil deeds have a spiritually filthier and intrinsically more personally twisted darkness than those of a power-hungry madman.

Vlad Dracul, might embody both, with his penchant for impaling men women, children and babies. Supposedly to halt the Muslim invaders, which he did, but no man can do that and be considered anything but a human skin sack, host to a whole horde of demonic entities.

A Stalin or a Pol Pot are cruel tyrants and certainly fit to be called mass-murderers, but it’s not really “personal” for them. It’s just a means to an end. Sure it requires the murder of a few million people, but it’s done by others and it’s just so their greed and lust for power is sated. They are egomaniacs, and ruin entire ethnicities of people, yes. But their evil is more akin to that of a tsunami that wipes out a village than the one of a teenager that tortures the family cat to death.

The family cat torturer is more like the pedophile.

And as far as pedophiles go, my personal hope, is that every country on Earth will reinstate the death penalty for the rape of children. Preferably by burning them at the stake.

And I happen to believe that all normal men and women who have children, are likely to agree with me.

And their idiot followers.

Let us now take the scalpel to this fraudulent impostor, and his idiot follower that re-posted his lies, Mary Ann Kreizer, she of “Catholic” Churchianity whom Adam mentioned, which got my baleful inquisitor’s eye to take notice of the specious nonsense she re-posted on her Churchianity blog.

Here we go then. His words in normie texts, and my rapier thrusts through his blackened heart, in artistic italic.

What is sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.Where does this theory come from?

This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called “the third world war.” The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.

No. Not “errors”. Outright reversal of Catholic dogma that is wholly incompatible with the unchanging divine laws and dogmatic truths the Catholic Church has always held as immutable. In other words, the propagation of flat out, outright heresy, which makes anyone doing so publicly automatically a heretic, and therefore no longer able to hold ANY office in the Catholic church nor be treated as a Catholic of any kind, since they have defected from the faith. No judgement or pronouncement needs be made by anyone in such cases. The law itself convicts and judges them, as per Canon 188.4 of Canon Law of 1917.

The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be “real” popes.

No Catholic can consider a public, notorious and pertinacious heretic, as anything but a heretic. That is the dogmatic, unchangeable, infallible, instruction of the magisterium of the Church, and as a Catholic, one MUST obey this very obvious, simple, immutable rule.

Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?

No, far from it. There are many different positions.

Lies and half truths. We will dissect each in turn.

Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a “pope.” Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example.

Trailer park “Popes” are not serious Catholics. For a new Pope to be elected, even if conditions allowed for it and were good for it (they are not) a conclave of really ALL the remaining valid Bishops and several priests should be publicised, held, and agreed by all of the remaining Bishops. Such a conclave would then be valid, but, given the present conditions where a majority of supposed “Catholics” are hoodwinked into believing the arch-heretic Bergoglio or one of his predecessors right back to Roncalli was a valid Catholic, never mind a Pope, the situation is not ideal. And Prudence, a Catholic virtue, makes it clear a lot more awareness needs to be spread before such an event can take place.

Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.

No. They are anti-popes anyway. And the Cassiciacum theory as mentioned above was a very charitable option when confusion and fear was still present during and just after Vatican II. The benefit of 60 plus years of hindsight and documentation makes it clear that the sedeprivationist theory is better in name only because the current impostor, non-Catholic by virtue of his massive heresy, is merely a physical occupant of the chair, preventing it from being rightfully filled, but he is in no way a Catholic and therefore not Pope in any respect, material, formal, spiritual or any other way.

Some sedevacantists consider their position as a “likely opinion,” and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests,

These are not Sedevacantists, but confused ignorants or intentional deceivers trying to infiltrate and corrupt the ranks of actual Catholics (i.e. sedevacantists).

while others, called “ultra” by the Fr. Coache,[1]

Aka actual Catholics

make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope.

Lies. It is not prayers for an arch-heretic or non-Catholic satanic impostor we object to. It is the joining of such a creature to the most holy sacrament of all, the transubstantiation present in the Holy Mass, the corruption of which is a mortal and most serious sin.

But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.

Lies. You can, and should, of course pray for a valid and real Pope.

And nothing prevents you from praying for the Satanist currently pretending to be Pope, publicly or privately.

What is meant by being pope materialiter?

The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head.

Absolute nonsense and a flat out lie. This is not an issue at all. The Church has existed without a visible head/Pope over 260 times.

Each time a Pope dies there is no Pope until the next VALID one is elected. There have been periods of more than 2 years without ANYONE on the throne of Peter before, false or real Pope. And over 70 years when there were at least 2 and even 3 Popes and no one could be sure which was the real one until quite some time after they died and some were declared antipopes posthumously. What the liar here is trying to imply is that over 60 years without a valid Pope somehow makes the Church invisible or defecting or non existent. It’s nonsense because there is literally ZERO dogma on how long an interregnum (period between Popes) can last, while there is absolute and irrefutable dogma right from the time of the first Apostles and specified specifically by St. Ignatious that as long as there is one valid bishop left, there is the Church. And there are quite a few more than one left!

The partisans of the so-called “Cassiciacum Thesis”[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy).

This theory was a charitable possibility back when it was created in the late 1960s. The reality is that after Montini, none of the remaining “bishops” in the Vatican were Catholics, all having defected from the faith as per Canon 188.4 so, they were not Catholic, the fake “Popes” they “elected” were not Catholic and as such, they could not possibly be valid Popes. It’s not even necessary to prove the heresy of their actions after the fake election. They had become heretics as per Canon 188.4 long before being elected. The utility of Sedeprivationism today is simply in that the word is more correct from an objective perspective. The current impostor is preventing the legitimate occupation of the chair. If it were physically empty it would be easier and better.

So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.

Nonsense. Anyone promoting Vatican II is a heretic and thus a non Catholic. Anyone subscribing to the Novus Ordo position is NOT a Catholic at all. Whether due to ignorance (and laziness to educate themselves of their own supposed religion) or intentional wish to deceive. As such, they clearly hold no position whatever in the Catholic Church and their “pronouncements” hold as much validity for Catholics as the bleating of a goat.

What do you think of this solution?

For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their “form,” then no visible Church hierarchy is left.

More lies. There are several valid Bishops around the world. Bishop Stuyver in Belgium, Pivarunas, In the USA and Dávila in the Mexico, as well as others. The Church remains indefectible and visible. Certainly more so today that say in the year 200 when Catholics were persecuted and had to have the holy mass hidden away in catacombs.

Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.

A fake Pope has no authority.

What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?

They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore…

Yup. Pretty conclusive. And I note no valid argument or even a pretend one is forthcoming.

The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore…

Again, yup. Pretty conclusive. And again, no argument against provided.

But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate.

It doesn’t matter what St. Bellarmine said. Or Thomas Aquinas, or ANY of the doctors of the Church prior to 1917, because the Code of Canon Law of 1917 ENCOMPASSES ALL OF THE DOGMA OF THE Catholic Church. All of it. And then tells you how to act according to it, by the infallible magisterium of the Church which compileted, vetted the 26,000 documents or so used to produce it, and then had another 41 years of feedback that resulted in precisely ONE tiny change to canon 1099 part 2 by Pope Pious XII himself.

The deceivers always try to lead you away from the very simple and clear concept that ALL the rules of the Catholic Church are embodied in the Code of Canon Law of 1917. So it doesn’t matter at all what this or that theologian or even Pope, said before 1917. Their opinions, decrees, etc. have ALL been accounted for already in the code of canon law of 1917. It’s simple. And the code that governs public defection from the faith is extremely simple, straightforward and determinant: it is canon 188 part 4, which reads:

Canon 188.

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

For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium;

He did. As soon as he accepted all the direct heresies present in 15 of the 16 documents of Vatican II and the implied heresy of the 1 document that has no direct heresy but is an order to spread the other 15 documents throughout the Earth by all means possible.

and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest.

It can’t be more open and manifest than being meant for every soul on Earth, as the Vatican II documents are designed to be.

But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church.

Lies. Any properly catechised six year old would be able to spot the heresies in the Vatican II documents. Read my book Reclaiming The Catholic Church if you want the details on each document.

And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.

The proof is clear and obvious and has been for over 60 years. Only liars, deceivers, invincible ignorants and those too scared and lazy to research their own supposed religion remain willingly and knowingly “unaware”. How could so many be in such error? Have you been hiding in a cave for the last 3 years? Have you not realised yet the level of ignorance, deceit, cowardice and fear present in the poor humans you share this planet with?

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not,

Yes, absolutely, he should, since the INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH put together the Code of Canon Law of 1917, and that Code, this being itself infallible, tells him he should do so. As per Canon 188 part 4.

for according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy.

Nonsense. And in any case, as already explained, it does not matter at all what some common or less common theologian thought or said or did. What matters is THE INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH. End of. Canon 188 part 4. Fin.

For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

Absolute lie. Read Canon 188 part 4 above. NOTHING needs be said by anyone. The judgement, and conviction is automatic by the law itself. Which, of course, a child understands. The absurd position of these absolute liars is that a “Pope” that proclaims that sacrificing babies on the altar is part of the Mass, should be respected as Pope. It’s absolute nonsense that only an inveterate liar could even mention with anything resembling a straight face.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]

Nonsense and flat out lie by Novus Orcians pretending to be Catholic clergy. Again, the only thing that matters is what the Code of Canon Law of 1917 says.

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

What absolute bullshit. Catholicism is NOT a popularity contest. It is about the TRUTH. These Satanists are trying to say that if a majority says 2+2 is 5 we should all just go along with it.

While it is true most people are this shallow and stupid, it is not the way of anyone honest or sane. And it certainly is NOT the way of anyone Catholic.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

Again, what absolute bullshit. A fake Pope is really kind of a Pope… errr… no. A child gets it. If you don’t, why is that?

I reiterate: theologian opinions are irrelevant. What does the Code say? Oh, right, code 188 part 4. Boom. Done and done.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

Absolute bullshit. Yet again. “Eeerrr well, that guy swinging a golf club on the basketball court really IS a basketball player, honest! And we should all accept him as a basketball player/referee. And Bruce Jenner is a beautiful woman!” Yeah…. No.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

Absolute nonsense. A public defection from the faith makes you a public heretic with no pronouncement required by anyone. I.e. these perverts are not even Catholic, never mind clergy. Canon 188 part 4. It’s real clear, and they hate it.

How does their canonical argument fare?

The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559).

No. Another lie. We base it on Canon 188 part 4, which REFERENCES Cum-ex apostolato officio, because in essence, Canon 188 part 4 does precisely, concisely and infallibly, all that Cum-ex apostolato officio said should be done when dealing with heretics.

But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated.

It didn’t lose anything. It was incorporated in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 in the form of code 188 part 4 which is perfectly clear and does all that cum-ex apostolato officio did and ALSO references Cum-ex apostolato officio.

See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching.

Notice the weasel words as they avoid to mention Canon 188 part 4, while trying to say “something” of it remains… hoping no one checks. You know what Cum ex apostolato officio says? It is a papal encyclical, infallible and immutable forever because pronounced ex cathedra that clearly details how heretics are NO LONGER part of the Catholic Church, have zero authority and even if they had had some prior to becoming heretics, anything they did becomes null and void and anyone that receives them as if they were not heretics also becomes a heretic. That is ALL that it says, so, yes, its dogmatic teaching remains and is totally encapsulated in Canon 188 part 4.

And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.

You made no argument. You just lied repeatedly, tried to obfuscate, conflate and deceive. Those are not arguments. They are the lies of a liar.

Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?

Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.

More sophistry, conflations and lies. Vatican II does not contain “errors” it contains flat out heresy. And anyone promoting it by canon 188 part 4 becomes a heretic publicly, notoriously and without anyone needing to do or say anything. Very simple. Montini created or approved 14 of the 16 documents and Roncalli 2 of them, making them both heretics and non Catholics.

Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that “the gates of hell had prevailed” against her.

Nope. Not all of it. Just most of it. Precisely like we are told in the Bible (the way is narrow and in the end even the elect would have lost faith if Jesus did not return). Sedevacantism is perfectly in line with Bible teaching concerning both numbers and the End times. Or even just “bad times” as was the Arian heresy when almost all Bishops became heretics save a couple or three.

For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.

Which is embodied in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 and the few remaining valid Bishops. It certainly does not reside with non Catholics falsly “ordained” by other non Catholics, pretending to be Catholic clergy.

It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, “L’autorite du Concile,” pp.32-63.

Nonsense. The rantings or pronouncements of Satanic freemasons have nothing to do with Catholicism and can be fully and totally ignored.

One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as “necessary for salvation” (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be.

So you admit it’s all a pile of dung, created by non Catholics, so why are you following or at least joining the name of the Molochian in charge with the sacrament of the Mass? Repent, deceiver!

Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with (“una cum“) a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?

The expression “una cum” in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is”in communion” with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church “and for” the pope, her visible head.

Absolute and total lie. Una cum is Latin for, literally: One with.

In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church “una cum …me indigno famulo tuo,” which does not mean that he prays “in communion with…myself, your unworthy servant” (which does not make sense!), but that he prays “and for …myself, your unworthy servant.”

Absolute lie. Ask anyone that can read and speak Latin. The bishop must pray for the Church as one with (her) though being an unworthy servant. Una cum does NOT mean “and for” it mean “one with”. This is easily verifiable.

But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?

St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be “united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity.” He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.

Again, aside from the fact already mentioned multiple times that what the good doctor Aquinas said is irrelevant since we have CoCL 1917, the deceiver here tries to conflate two distinct and separate points:

One can pray for heretics, sure. But what one cannot do is JOIN the name of a fake heretic “pope” with the holy mass. Which is the consecration of the host and the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Because this would be most severe blasphemy, akin to a black mass, where a consecrated host is defiled on purpose. They are NOT the same thing.

All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, “non habet effectum.”

Joining the name of a satanist with the offering of the Mass is blasphemous. Full stop. If you want to pray for the Satanist, do so, but it is NOT part of the ritual sacramental offering performed by any valid Catholic priest.

In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively,

Lie. It has been proven logically, factually, canonically and objectively. So much so that literally no argument exists against it. Only flat out lies, and deceptions by way of sophistry, conflation, and intentional seeding of confusion.

and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences).

It is absolutely imprudent and in fact ultimately damning for your soul NOT to study and see for yourself the veracity of Sedevacantism and the lies of the Novus Orco sect.

That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.

Which is why real Catholic priests left his nonsensical position of “recognise the Pope as Pope but resist him!” Which is absolutely schismatic at best and heretic at worst. If a Pope is valid then as a Catholic you OBEY him. No ifs ands or buts. And if he is not a valid Pope then you owe him nothing but contempt and scorn, and as per Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio, you should deprive him of all natural human kindness.

Fr. Munoz[4] points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)

Absolute nonsense. All the Saints were Catholics and Sedevacantist are Catholics. All that a sedevacantist is, today, is a valid Catholic.