And now on the R&R…

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.