The Errors of Bp. Sanborn

Despite what many detractors think of me, the reality is that the title of this post is being extremely charitable. I am assuming error where Bp. Sanborn himself refers to the VAERS results and states that (paraphrasing) “we don’t even know if the adverse reactions are related to the vaccines” That is PRECISELY wrong. The VAERS site exists specifically for listing adverse reactions within a certain period of vaccination. But perhaps you are one of the utter morons that believes that 108 professional athletes collapsing on live television in the field of games like soccer, basketball, etc etc in the last few months, something that has NEVER happened before in the entire history of television, is —as the newspapers would have you believe— just “coincidence”. If you are that limited in your powers of observation, then perhaps, you might actually believe that all the sudden deaths from Cardiac Infarctions, Pulmonary and Brain Embolisms, and other noted side effects directly related to what is known as the “clot-shot” are not related to the non-vaccine, genetic experimental Pfizer, AstroZeneca, etc “Covid-19” injections at all. You may of course, also believe that there is no correlation between you walking in the rain without an umbrella and getting wet.

But let’s start at the beginning.

UPDATE: As it turns out, the ACTUAL Numbers of people who have already died from the Covid Deathshots are a conservative 300,000 in the USA Alone. Watch this video interview between Joseph Mercola And Steve Kirsch. There are not two yahoos on the internet. Steve has spent approximately 6 million US dollars to ensure the science done on the Covid fake Vaccines is correct and he USED to be a strong advocate FOR them. But like any honest man, when confronted with the truth he corrected his erroneous position. It’s a VERY interesting video and not a second of it is boring. I strongly suggest you watch it to understand what is really going on.

The Video in question from Bp. Sanborn is on Youtube here, and I have saved a copy just in case. It’s 34 minutes long and I will time stamp the more relevant portions. Before all this however, let me begin with one glaring omission. Bp. Sanborn states it is not a mortal sin to get “vaccinated” with these clot shots, yet he never addresses or mentions in any way the fact that tissues from murdered babies has been used in the creation of these demonic injections.

The sophist media and pharmaceutical companies make a big deal of the fact that (according to them, if you are inclined to believe them) there are no actual murdered baby cells in the clot-shots themselves. Great news, right? Well… not so fast… every single one of the non-vaccine clot-shots have been created thanks to “research” done and developed using murdered baby cells and tissues. So… it’s like saying…

“Hey, when you eat a McDonald’s burger… There is no murdered baby meat in them at all! None! Great right? And oh, yeah, we figured out how to make burgers by creating all the “research” using murdered babies to cook a bunch of meat until we came up with the burger shape to fit our buns. But it’s all just cow meat now, honest!”

And here is an archived page that explains a bit more about that.

Now, even given the example above, would it be a mortal sin to eat one of those “all cow” burgers? Or take the “no baby parts, honest!” clot shot? I’m no Bishop, and no Priest, just a simple layman, but here is my take:

If one is wholly ignorant of the entire process, when one has the ability to find out at their fingertips, then one is at the very least guilty of sloth.

You’re going to inject yourself, or worse, your children, with something that has NEVER been tested in humans, and that when tested on animals resulted in 100% death of all the animals after the 4th or 5th “booster” shot, (I forget the exact details, except I think it was on Gibbons) but you’re not going to learn ANYTHING about it? When the internet exists?

I suppose that’s ok, if you’re some barely literate person in some country with little or no access to the internet and so on. I am not saying that such levels of ignorance don’t or can’t legitimately exist. I am saying if you have access to the Internet and an IQ about 100, and you DO NOT find out for yourself what is in the things and where they come from, then you are guilty of sloth. At the very least.

Secondly, if you ARE aware of the murdered baby “research”, again, I am not a Bishop, or a Priest, but I, personally will have nothing to do with anything that I am aware of comes from doing any research on murdered babies. I just can’t see myself facing Jesus one day and saying, “Yeah well, *I* didn’t murder them myself, and you know, they were already dead and the research had been done, so it was kinda fine, right? Wouldn’t want to waste it…” But maybe you’re comfortable with it.

My question here for Bp. Sanborn is: Why do you not address this issue at all?

Now to the points he DOES mention, which I feel are grave errors.

• Right from the start he states that he did not want to comment at all because he felt the issue was political. I find this astonishing for at least two important reasons.
  • Firstly, by this very admission he is clearly recognising that the entire Covid clot-shot circus is POLITICAL and has nothing to do with health, yours, mine or anyone else, and therefore is, by default a MORAL issue, which leads directly to the second point,
  • If it is political, how can you not comment on it, given it literally affects people’s lives and they may be confused about their moral and theological obligations concerning this POLITICAL issue being forced on the whole of humanity? At the very least it looks like cowardice to me.

• At about 1m 25s he states: We clergy are not competent to make scientific judgements.
  • In the first place, this is again, a matter of sloth. You don’t have to be a scientist to use your God-given reason and ability to read and count to figure out quite a lot really.
  • In the second place, while I accept him at his word that he may well not be competent in the field of general science or even the specific field related to the vaccines, that is a failing of his own. Not one I feel he should be criticised for, let me be clear, but it most certainly does NOT apply to ALL clergy. I personally know priests that studied biochemical engineering before becoming priests. And some of us laymen are very well qualified to be able to interpret, understand and even correct so-called scientific data.
  • Thirdly and even more importantly, if Bishop Sanborn is not able to even verify for himself if the scientific method has even been applied at all regarding these clot-shots and the entire circus around them, then I seriously question whether he has the ability to do basic logic at all, and my personal opinion concerning listening to much of anything he says on that basis would be extremely seriously compromised thereafter.

• At 2m 15s he states: We have no authority to declare the vaccine sinful. He goes on to state that a declaration of that nature would pertain only to the Holy See (which, being currently absent a valid Pope, is therefore a moot point). Again, I find this to be not just astonishing, but utterly wrong.
  • In the first place, ANY clergy, and in fact ANY layman, for that matter that has the mental capacity to do the work involved in finding out the details of something, has the right to personally and as his or her conscience dictates, decide for themselves what is or is not sinful, but they absolutely also have the right to tell their brethren what they have concluded. Of course, from a layman, this holds no imposition on other laymen, but if from a valid Priest or Bishop, and they have done the relevant work, why on Earth would they not be able to tell you what is or is not a mortal sin? That is the entire point of their existence! Bishop Sanborn is in absolute error when he states that pronouncing something a mortal sin or not is a jurisdictional issue! Canon Law is very clear on this. During an Interregnum, it is true that the clergy has no jurisdictional authority, and this affects many things, but it does NOT affect a clergyman’s duty to point out issues that are clear in divine law. It would be like saying that because there is no Pope a Priest cannot say that cutting off the left leg of 3 year olds to fit them with a robotic exoskeleton leg that will “benefit them later in life” is fine. Why do I pick such a weird example? Because it is something new, never tried or done before and supposedly all for “our benefit”. But I assure you, doing such a monstrous thing would offend God and absolutely be a mortal sin. And I for one, fully believe and agree with that clergy that states that using murdered babies to do ANYTHING with it, is a mortal sin.
  • In the second place, if you refuse to agree that using murdered babies to create ANYTHING is a mortal sin, then please go ahead and show your working out. Bishop Sanborn has not done so at all.
  • What Bishop Sanborn is doing here is essentially taking the position that whether or not using murdered baby parts to create something down the line that does NOT contain murdered baby parts directly is or is not a sin is something only the Pope can decide. I suppose it could be a complicated legalistic argument for some. One might discover for example that say aspirin was originally invented thanks to the use of murdered babies and now after decades that aspirin is produced without any dead babies whatsoever, and most of us have no idea how aspirin came about anyway, are we committing mortal sin if we take an aspirin? But the point is that this is happening NOW. It is not some decades old thing. The dead baby parts may be from 1973 in some cases, but again, we KNOW this NOW. I wasn’t around when aspirin got invented and it had been around for a long time when I was born and did not use any baby parts at all at least since then. This is not the case here. So, if you are inclined to be on the “it’s all cow burgers now” team, I suppose you could agree with Bishop Sanborn that it is a “mystery” for the present time. Well, guess what the Church strongly advises you to do if something is suspect: HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. In fact, the entire Cassiciacum theory, which states that the current fake Popes are Popes only materially but not spiritually, by that very reasoning makes it absolutely clear you are to treat the current impostors as completely invalid Popes even if you might choose to not call them heretics. So even in the classical Sedeprivationist thesis Bishop Sanborn by his very existence KNOWS we are to absolutely avoid anything that is suspect. And anything coming from murdered babies absolutely fills that minimum barrier of being at least suspect! So to put this point down to “error” is truly stretching my charity to its very limits, and frankly, somewhere beyond it.

• From 4m in he states that all that the clergy can do is present the moral rules that exist (as per the existing infallible magisterium of the Church). Great! I agree! So please do that. What, EXACTLY is the Catholic position for using murdered baby parts to build something that supposedly later benefits us even when we stop using the murdered baby parts to physically put it together? Because I’m fairly sure even a dumb layman like me has got that one figured out correctly. So why is Bp. Sanborn NOT doing his duty here? I am genuinely curious. I’d like to know. Because the answer can only be one of the following:
  • Invincible ignorance. He has not taken the time, is not capable of, does not have the mental, or moral, or both, requisite faculties to investigate the issue or even be aware of it. I personally find this possibility absolutely unlikely, but, if this is the case, then it is worrying in the extreme that this person is a Bishop and that anyone listens to him.
  • Sloth. Despite feeling entitled to make this video Bp. Sanborn has not bothered to investigate the matter at all and is completely unaware of the murdered baby issue. Again, I find this at the very least unlikely and in any case, if this is the case, again, absolutely worrying. I don’t want any of my Bishops to be slothful, sloppy and arrogant to this extent.
  • Complicity. I again find this likelihood absurdly unlikely. I cannot believe that Bishop Sanborn, whatever his human failings, would knowingly be on board with the likes of Bill Gates and his cohort of demoniacs to achieve the ends of the elite.
  • Personal Ego. This, unfortunately, from past occurrences, and in fact, even just more recent events I have blogged about in detail here, I do find most likely. That is, if I had to bet on it, and I would not like to, but if I did, my bet would be that Bishop Sanborn is somewhat himself caught up in the narrative, might be a little fearful of death himself (God only knows why, as Catholics are not prone to fear of death, but I suppose he may have plans to do much more than he has done (and he has done a lot, no doubt)) and being of boomer age, is susceptible to boomer ways of thinking and believing, it is only human of course, nevertheless, this would be all in the service of error and not Catholicism.

The point of leaving the faithful in something of a limbo regarding the murdered baby parts in the creation of the non-vaccine genetic experiments is not one that Bishop Sanborn himself misunderstands. He wrote on his blog a lengthy entry clearly pointing out that either one believes the Pope is legitimate or he believes he is not, but in either case “opinions” is not the correct path in theology. His post is here. The point here is clearly that in theological matters, “opinionism” and indeed opinions themselves, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the dogma of the Church and in this case a clergyman (or even a layman if none other will do it) needs and should point out the correct rules concerning such a matter. Currently however, Bishop Sanborn has remained silent on the matter of the murdered babies. Certainly in the video being discussed. If and when he expresses his official stand on it, I may well require to correct this entry when I become aware of it. And of course, if it needs to be revised, I will absolutely revise it, as charitably as possible.

• At about 7 minutes in he is asked his personal opinion and he states that he does NOT think it is a mortal sin to take it, and that in his view it all boils down to one (and only one) question, and that being how much do you trust the “medical science” involved.
  • I put “medical science” in inverted commas because I want to be clear, first of all, of the point that this is NOT the only question at all, as the four points above demonstrate, there is the murdered babies part, which Bp. Sanborn avoids entirely.
  • But in the second place, while I have great trust in the scientific method when it is correctly applied, I can state with absolute certainty that the scientific method has not come within a light year’s distance of anything the media or the politicians have presented us with concerning covid.
  • THAT is scientifically absolutely demonstrable to a level of certainty that approaches something more certain than the sun rising in the East tomorrow morning. So if Bishop Sanborn thinks the clown show that has been presented to us for two years now is “medical science” then I have to absolutely be clear that anything this man says from here on is something I am absolutely unlikely to pay any attention to, because someone so absolutely devoid of the most basic ability to do logic, has no business whatsoever leading souls at all.

• At 8m25seconds or so he states that in comparison to the number of people that have taken it, the adverse reactions are a minuscule portion. Here I will give Bishop Sanborn the benefit of the doubt and assume that due to his boomer sensibilities he simply takes the mass media numbers at face value without having bothered to do any checks himself. This benefit of the doubt however does reinforce a staggering level of lack of preparedness, logic and willingness to do the work when considering the importance of the topic. Nevertheless, let’s look at the perpetrators’ OWN NUMBERS. Even according to them, over 30,000 people have died of it. Here is an archived link to some official figures.
  • Keep in mind the MSM has lied to you about literally everything, so why would this be any different, but even so, these are based on VAERS (official Vaccination Adverse Reaction) numbers. Here is the thing though: Not all patients fill in an adverse reaction forms, especially since there is in any case no recourse because all the big Pharma are completely immune from any fault if you die like flies from it. So what’s the point? But even more interesting, even if you DO report it, the doctor in question has no obligation to pass it on. In short, it has been known for decades that VAERS data is from 10 to 100 TIMES under reported. Which in real numbers means that from 300,000 to 3,000,000 people have died of the clot-shot. And some 10 to 100 MILLION are likely having some adverse reaction to it, many of them life-threatening and permanent.
  • I think most people now know personally someone or multiple someones or are related to people who have died or been permanently damaged from the clot-shots. I personally know of two so far and I am not counting friends of friends etc. These numbers are going to keep being impossible to hide in the coming months and years, especially for the booster takers.

• He states that the VAERS numbers, show it has a very, very low incidence of death or serious injury, wait… so… he IS aware of the numbers as reported above then? Or is he just parroting what the MSM tells him on TV? But even more astonishing, he says that we don’t know the VAERS numbers are even related to the actual (non) Vaccines. I mean… that is the WHOLE POINT OF VAERS. It tracks adverse reactions from vaccines! It not only is directly related to the non-vaccines, it was created for the very purpose of monitoring such adverse reactions and keeping track of them. Once again, I will put this down to invincible boomerism, but that’s not a good thing, whichever way you slice it.

• At 9m 50s or so, after discussing vaccines and his own experience of taking the polio vaccine he repeats that this is Nothing new at least twice. This is a gross error. First of all, the current clot-shots are NOT vaccines, have never been vaccines and never will be. In fact, they went and changed the definition of Vaccine in online dictionaries because people started to become aware that this is GENETIC MODIFICATION shots. And for those of you that think that mRNA doesn’t change or affect your DNA, look, let me make it simple: Unless you understand the actual biochemistry involved, be silent. And secondly, it makes your body produce spike proteins according to the people that produce this monstrosity. Yes, it DOES change you at a fundamental cellular level and there is a reason that it does that. It’s designed to. There is even beginning to be some evidence that clot-shot babies, that is, babies born to people who took the clot shot and somehow survived both the pregnancy as well as the birth and did not have one of the many, many, many spontaneous abortions that the clot shot induces, seem to be of a different type of human altogether; with physical abilities that take place much sooner than normal babies. A development that generally means stronger physical specimens but with comparatively lowered IQs. There are also several reports of graphene, and other parasites possibly of an artificial nature in the clot shots, but even if you ignore totally all the let’s say more fringe parts of this story (but with plenty of evidence), the simple fact remains that these clot shots are NOT vaccines. So this IS something new. Something completely new, untested and global in scale. Furthermore, while presenting himself as technically incompetent to discuss vaccines, here he speaks authoritatively on them? That is in itself a contradiction.

• at about 14m he begins to answer a question relating to the Cassiciacum theory and states that sedevacantists have a problem if they state that the seat is empty of any kind of legitimate Pope because they then have to account for how there could be a break in the dogmatic position of the Church that there has to be, and I quote: “An unbroken succession of hierarchy, that is Popes and Bishops, from the time of St. Peter until the end of the world.” Once more, I am stunned at the theological error here. First of all it is clearly NOT Catholic dogma that there has to be an UNBROKEN SUCCESSION (of Popes) because if that were the case, then the Church would have ended immediately after the death of St. Peter, before the next Pope was chosen. It is TRUE that there needs to be an unbroken hierarchy, but this is preserved by the living Bishops EVERY TIME A POPE DIES. And they keep this hierarchy in place, in a sort of jurisdictional emergency mode, until a new Pope is elected, REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG THAT TAKES. While this is the LONGEST period without a valid Pope the Church has ever experienced, it is not the ONLY time the Church existed without any Pope at all. There have been periods of a few years before that had no Pope at all on the seat. And there were approximately equal length periods as the current one, of some seven decades, when one could hardly be sure WHO was the real Pope because up to three at a time claimed the spot and it was only resolved after their deaths in many cases. Plus, we have had over 40 antipopes before 1958, so his theological rhetoric is just plain wrong on the facts. The unbroken succession of hierarchy continues to exist right now and Bishop Sanborn is part of it. As long as a single Bishop exists, as St. Irenaus pointed out, there is the Church. And we have more than just Bishop Sanborn. Which frankly, given these grave errors, is a relief.

• He goes on to state hardly a minute later that the notorious, public heretics occupying the Vatican have no authority within the Catholic Church but have legitimate titles to hold those positions. This is once again, a glaring error of huge proportions. Canon 188 part 4 is very clear on the point: ANY office, of a public, notorious heretic is lost by the very fact that they act as a public notorious heretic. And you can’t be more public and notorious than the fake Popes and fake Bishops promoting Vatican II heresy for the last 60 plus years since the documents are supposed to be for all mankind. Add to that that MANY of these vermin were exposed as actual Freemasons by Mino Pecorelli and others (Mino paid with his life for it) and the troublesome fact that Freemasons cannot be Catholic, and it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Sedevacantist position is correct and that the original Sedeprivationist thesis, put forward by fr. Gerard de Lauriers was a charitable way to permit some still honest Catholic clergy of the time that may have resided in the Vatican to try and make amends. To hold to such a theory now in the hope that a confirmed aider and abettor of pedophiles, actual pedophiles themselves, cocaine snorting homosexuals who perform orgies with each other, or some other foul Satanist, “converts” and fixes the Novus Orco dumpster fire, is frankly, not just absurd, because it is, but it is, once again NON-CANONICAL. Even IF such vile creatures did, genuinely repent and convert; by canonic law, as clearly detailed in the ex-cathedra pronouncement of Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio of Pope Paul the IV they are to have authority over NO ONE, and spend the rest of their days in seclusion in perpetual repentance and penance. And the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the only valid code in existence for catholics, clearly refers to it:
  • The Latin version of the Code definitely lists Cum ex… in its footnotes, also recorded by Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s in his Fontes (sources). This is true not only for Can. 188§4 but also for several other Canons dealing with heresy, (Codex Iuris Canonici, Peter Cardinal Gasparri, Newman Press, 1957.) The Code lists Cum ex… as a source not only for Can. 188§4, but also for Canons 167§3, 2264, 2314, 2316 and 2317.

• The error here in theology is monstrous. It literally puts people who believe this totally illogical stance in the position of being at the mercy of pedophiles, homosexuals, freemasons and satanists, hoping that they “convert” and then, AGAINST INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC DOGMA, go on to lead the Church back to health. It is not just absurd, it is literally impossible. Even if God were to save and cleanse the souls of every single satanist in the Vatican and make them repent, by DIVINE LAW, they would NOT be permitted to lead anyone or anything. Sequestered for life in a monastery in perpetual penance does not mean, become a fully legitimate Bishop or Pope able to lead the masses back to real Catholicism. And this is IMMUTABLE and perpetual law. Infallible law at that. So, once again, the error here is of catastrophic proportions.

This takes us to not quite half-way of the entire video, but I believe I can rest my case here, as none of these points get resolved, fixed or addressed in any way that can be considered exculpatory later on.

So, while Bishop Sanborn remains a valid Bishop to date, his errors of theology and morals are gigantic and a Catholic should not and cannot remain silent in the face of them. Remaining silent when clergy goes on a merry ride to Hell in a sledge of broken theology that contradicts canon law at every turn is how we got here in the first place.

I was not around in 1958, but I assure you, there is no way in Hell that I will keep silent when clergy are acting improperly, teaching in error and ignoring the infallible magisterium of the Church, whatever their reasons, be it ignorance, sloth, stupidity, giant egos, personal power, or even power for “the greater good” or, God-forbid, actual complicity with the enemies of God, our Lord and the Church, I will speak out, and tell them to their face if need be.

As God is my witness.

And I pray in earnest that may He see to it I never, ever, falter in this regard as long as I draw breath, and then after too.

Tags: sedeprivationism, sedevacantism, the kurgan

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.