Sedeprivationism vs Sedevacantism

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

The situation concerns the growing gulf between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists.

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

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

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

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that is not what Sedeprivationists mean when they use the term, and they try to hold onto the completely outmoded and outdated theory of Cassiciacum of Father, and later Bishop, Guérard Des Lauriers.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is really not hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Catholicism, Increasing Happiness, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism. RSS 2.0 feed.