Bishop Sanborn: Heresy, Mental Instability, or Gatekeeping?

Catholic Men Have a Duty to Truth

¹⁵ But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

¹⁶ And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

¹⁷ And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

—Matthew 18: 15-17

A Warning:

This is long, if you don’t care about the proof for the necessity of this, you can simply skip to the videos of Bishop Sanborn, where he convicts himself, —at minimum— of truly disordered thinking, in the most charitable of possibilities.

Part I - The Duty to Call-Out Heresy, Error, and Attacks on the Church

Before I point out the utter shambles that is the “reasoning” of Bishop Sanborn, by simply using his own words against him, and especially since I know there will be a great uproar of HOW DARE YOU from the cult of personality he has built over the years,¹ let me first of all establish with absolute clarity, the duty EVERY Catholic has to call out heresy, and therefore, my obligation to do so. Not out of personal vehemence or opinion, but due to absolute, and perpetually immutable, Divine Law, enshrined in the Bible, Canon Law, and Catholic tradition.

The case is already made in the passages from Matthew 18 above, which comes directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, and should suffice already on its own, but just for completion, here are the relevant Canons from the Code of Canon Law of 1917:

Canon 188

Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444, 2168, 2314, 2379, 2388

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;

…

Canon 1324

It is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, but also those errors should be diligently fled that more or less approach [heresy]; therefore, all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which these sorts of depraved opinions are proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See.

Canon 1325

§ 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.

§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.

§ 3. Let Catholics beware lest they have debates or conferences, especially public ones, with non-Catholics without having come to the Holy See or, if the case is urgent, to the local Ordinary.

Canon 2315

One suspected of heresy who, having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretics.

Canon 2316

Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy.

Canon 2317

Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 1347

Those pertinaciously teaching and defending, whether publicly or privately, doctrines that have been condemned by the Apostolic See or a General Council, but not formally defined as heretical, are prevented from the ministry of preaching the word of God and [from the ministry] of hearing sacramental confessions and from any office of teaching, with due regard for other penalties that a sentence of condemnation might establish or that an Ordinary, after a warning, concludes were necessary to repair scandal.

And lastly, in Catholic Tradition: It has always been the case that the armed non-clerical part of the Church, that is, the normal laity, usually (but not always) led by the Nobility, has always held a position that is normally subjugate to the clerical part of the Church. The Order of hierarchy, in terms of doctrine is Pope —> Bishops —> Priests —> Nobility —> Laity. However, because it is the duty of every Catholic to call out error, or heresy, and not have anything to do with it, the Nobility and Laity have, as a last resort, the possibility to revolt, and remove from office even standing supposed Popes, if they promulgate heresy, and such events have happened multiple times in Church history, as they should have.

Now that the Principle is established, allow me also to demonstrate that the conditions in Matthew 16 and 17 have also been fulfilled, and long ago too.

Part II - The Conditions for Public Reprimand Being Fulfilled

Bishop Sanborn, towards the end of 2019, on his own authority decided to replace the people that had been responsible for organising the Mass in London, with is own Protégé. The previous Co-ordinator and his family had organised the venue, collected the priests from wherever they were arriving, be it airport or train station, bringing them to the venue, along with all the relevant paraphernalia for the Mass, setting it up, and performing their duties during the Mass, ofter as altar servers, in order to help the priest perform it. And had done so peacefully and well for years. This sudden and abrupt change of co-ordinator was done against the wishes of the small Catholic community that was present, and had been present, in London for years; a trouble-free, small community of faithful that met every week for Holy Mass, prayers, and some camaraderie.

It was gently pointed out to Bishop Sanborn that he had no authority to do this, since Canonically, absent a valid Pope, as we have been since 9th October 1958, no cleric has jurisdiction over any diocese on Earth. He ignored this. Forcefully, he immediately asked that all financial accounts be handed over to his authority, along with all the duties that the previous people had been performing dutifully, unpaid, and out of simple devotion to the faith be immediately handed over to his new protégé.

Again, Bishop Sanborn was warned this was really something he had no authority to do, but he claimed he had moral authority to do so. This, of course, is nonsense. Firstly, there has never been any such thing canonically to override the express fact that absent a Pope no cleric has jurisdiction to do anything other than provide sacraments, the Mass, and basic, ordinary instruction. In fact, even the passing on of orders to new clergy is simply assumed due to the law of silent assent. That is, it is assumed to be valid, but if and when a new and valid Pope is ever elected, that Pope may well revoke such ordinations. If he says nothing however, they are assumed valid, since in Roman Law silence is equivalent to assent. But in the second place, no one can claim moral authority for themselves! It is not a claim you can validly make for yourself! In fact, doing so, almost inevitably means that person is probably the least likely to actually have any such thing! Moral authority is not claimed, it is given by others. Which is precisely why, when a fake or heretic “Pope”, somehow ascends to the throne, or becomes a heretic while upon it, the people have a right and a duty, to remove him from his post, by physical force if necessary. And in the inverse, it is why a truly humble and pious individual, can be repeatedly begged by the populace to be Pope, even if personally he would prefer not to be. This happens because the people recognise such a person has moral authority to be Pope as a result of his true commitment to the Catholic faith. The classic example being Pope Celestine V, who just wanted to be left alone to be a hermit.

This complete reversal of what is Just, true and actually moral, instead of merely pretending to be in order to gain illicit authority over people, is also why I am duty bound to speak out against Bishop Sanborn publicly. My silence otherwise would be complicity in the lies, nonsense, and undoubted heresy he is leading the faithful towards.

Now, Bishop Sanborm was warned and repeatedly so, in private, about his actions being illegal, authoritative and canonically erroneous.

His response was to deny the sacraments to all those who would not comply with his edict.

Fearful of not having sacraments at all, about half the congregation submitted to the new “organiser”, who promptly screwed it up to the extent they had no venue to do the Mass, expenses shot through the roof, and Bishop Sanborn’s primary concern, which was to increase the number of faithful paying money into the account set aside for it, instead of growing collapsed. About half the congregation decided to abandon that congregation, due to their conscience telling them that being held hostage to, or blackmailed with, a removal of sacraments, was morally repugnant as well as canonically anathema.

That was enough for me to post a few emails to the whole congregation and Bishop Sanborn himself too. This was, the part in Matthew 16, where I did not call him out privately any longer, as I and others had already done, but called him out in front of all the “brothers and sisters” of the congregation, still keeping the issue internal to that congregation and thus at least for then, preventing a wider scandal.

The result was the aforementioned roughly 50-50 split of the congregation, the complete shambles and ineffective behaviour of the new appointee, and general collapse of the congregation to a fraction of what it had been, with much discord, discontent and upset for all to go round.

I did one more private attempt to have Bishop Sanborn see the light and wrote to him privately, stating clearly that if he simply reversed his error, I would apologise publicly and submit myself to the new regime. Below is my email to him dated 18 November 2019, but a preamble is required to put it in context.

His previous email to me was essentially a ruse to do what he did subsequent to my letter, which was to ban me from his Mass (on which more later), and was a request to take down a part of my blog, where an ex-girlfriend is displayed nude, albeit in a pose that is no more pornographic than a Venus de Milo sculpture, and is there with her full consent even more than a decade later.²

This request was prompted by the weasel that Bishop Sanborn had requested be the new co-ordinator. A “man” so underhanded, sneaky, and petty, not just in this instance which honestly was and is inconsequential to me, but in the way he infiltrated a Catholic moms private channel, just to be a spy trying to cause strife and report “scandal” to either Bishop Sanborn or whoever acted for him on things that were never scandalous at all in the first place, were private discussions between Catholic ladies —where a man had no place to be in the first place— and they were perfectly justified in expressing between each other; which ultimately was just a spelt out thought that they may wish to consult with a priest about various aspects of Catholic dogma so as to be better equipped to instruct their children. Frankly, not only not a scandalous thing, but a perfectly humble and dutiful thing to think about. This weasel in human form, however, presented this as some affront to Bishop Sanborn, who, according to weasel-boy, would have to “approve” of the priest in question, which is, of course, absolute nonsense and a flat out lie. And even if it were true under normal circumstances, of us having a valid Pope (it would not be so even then), the fact one is not present, means Bishop Sanborn has the exact same authority of jurisdiction over such things as an aborigine from Sentinel Island.

Nevertheless creatures like weasel-boy thrive on manufacturing drama and strife so they can present themselves as the moral authority.

Having expressed my opinion of him, word got back to him, and in the typical fashion of such “men” he apparently expressed the terror that I might bitch-slap him to his knees in the middle of the next Holy Mass service, which I found funny, in all honesty. And while it is true, that in a different era, it is absolutely what he deserves, sadly, in the modern day, doing the right thing is often punished severely by the secular powers; so the suggestion, while morally correct, was practically absurd.

With that explained, here then is my letter below:

Dear Bishop Sanborn,

I am glad you wrote, I meant to write to you individually in due course, but was awaiting confirmation on some things before doing so. As I have now verified this information, I am responding to your email and other things beside it.

There will undoubtedly be elements of this email that you don’t agree with or even that upset you, nevertheless I hope you read it through and consider it fully before taking any rash decision.

Believe it or not, in the early days of what has become rather unnecessary drama, I actually advocated for your position. Unfortunately, at this stage, the whole situation has reached a comedy of errors level for which I too have my faults, and perhaps more than most. That all said, let me start at the beginning and forgive me, but I will be very direct, both to save time and because I have got the sense from reading your blog and in general that you too prefer a direct approach. I have divided this email into three parts, one personal, one general and finally I end with suggestions for what I hope we can agree so that the maximum benefit to all the faithful can be achieved. Despite our differences in public, I do hope and believe our intent is the same, the helping to save souls. I would even go further and say that in all probability, in private and if we had a chance to get to know each other, you would find we are not far apart at all in terms of pragmatical approaches. That being the case, I see no reason why we cannot make, from this unfortunate situation, something positive come of it so that more persons are inspired rather than demoralised. I hope therefore you will agree with my proposal.

Personal Items

First let’s get the matter of my blog out of the way, especially since it has already been addressed publicly. My blog is not going to change, nor am I taking anything down on your request. I have amended the about page and that is that. There is, however, one concession I will make at the end in the suggestions. That said, all the items you or others may find objectionable were put there long before I converted to Christianity and will continue to stand as an example, so that many who are lost or are where I was can see that even someone like me can come to Christ. To those who would be scandalised by it, all they have to do is not go there. The internet is a big place, they can find other things to watch or read.

Furthermore, you will find I am not susceptible to any kind of emotional blackmail or pressure. At all.

As I explained publicly, there are very few people whose opinion of me may get me to alter my course in life, above all, God and my conscience as directed by Him, and then a very select few close people, and none of those would have any success in asking me to modify or hide my past.

Lastly, if I were a cynical man, I would think your request to me stems from Mr. [weasel-boy] being rather worried about simply sharing the same physical space of any room I may be in, and as such designed to elicit the response I already have made public so that perhaps you will make a public announcement of my not being allowed to attend the Mass. Mr. [weasel-boy]’s worries are known to me as is his type of personality and character, which are also familiar to me, sadly, through long experience of dealing with such men. That said, let me be very clear that I have no intent of causing a public scandal in what I effectively think of as our Church. I go there to receive the sacraments and see other people I like.

The fact that Mr. [weasel-boy] and I, short of a true miracle, will in all likelihood never be friends is irrelevant to me, nor should it be any cause of strife. While in a temporal and worldly way I find his behaviour duplicitous, two-faced, cowardly and driven by ego, in a spiritual way I pray for him and hope he finds peace, serenity and experiences God’s love. Nor is it for me to judge him, ultimately. That of course is not to say that I will not reply in kind if he doesn’t stay in his lane with respect to me and mine. All that Mr. [weasel-boy] has to do with regard to me, is simply keep his peace and not cause direct or indirect attacks on me and mine and I won’t disturb him in the least. In fact, at the last Mass I complimented his wife on the performance of his children as altar boys. I hope that will help put his mind at ease, as some of the worries he voiced where quite absurd as well as simply outright false, so much so, I found them quite ridiculous.

General Items

As I said I will speak plainly. Given the current situation of the Church, I personally found your rather autocratic approach to actually be rather in line with my own thinking. And while canonically it might not be correct, and while the moral authority you claim is, frankly, something every person can only decide for themselves, I honestly found very little fault with it. In fact, given you created the Mission, I personally have no problem whatever with you even dictating who does what with respect to its general running. I honestly don’t. I only got involved in this whole affair because to an extent or other it was brought to my attention that some unfairness was being done to [previous co-ordinator] and his family.

Before I got involved, I also asked that every aspect of this situation be shared with me, because I saw my involvement in it would probably only make more drama, and I was only willing to do so, in the sense of becoming a personal lightning rod for whatever was your ultimate decisions, in order to frankly shield the [previous co-ordinator and family] who have served loyally and humbly for a long time, while also exposing some of the underhanded behaviour of Mr. [weasel-boy].

As it happens, not all the information was shared in what I would have thought was the right, timely and open manner I specifically asked for, and as a result I too made errors in my open letters and general approach. In fairness, I also believe you had only good intentions too with regard to replacing Mr. [previous co-ordinator] with Mr. [weasel-boy], I just happen to think you are picking absolutely the wrong person for the job, but I also believe Mr. [weasel-boy] is very accomplished at presenting whichever face he deems necessary to get what he wants, and your previous relationship with his brother (of whom I know nothing and therefore assume he is a perfectly good man) may colour your views. At any rate, regardless of my opinion, like I said, I personally have zero objection to you placing whoever you want in charge. Time will tell soon enough if I was right or wrong, and I’d be perfectly happy to wait and see. Unfortunately, most of the other parishioners do not see things this way. The English people tend to like to follow the rules, and they generally always reject authoritarian type edicts. And sadly, canonically, your position is not correct, and morally, for a variety of reasons I am sure you can imagine, almost everyone is quite against your view since it has been seen now that there has been what is perceived as a using the sacraments and delivery or not of them and the Mass as a kind of stick to keep the parishioners in line.

Whether you believe me or not, Bishop Sanborn, despite my many faults, being a liar is not generally one of my sins, and as such, I want to specify that I have tried very hard to get the so-called “rebels” to see reason and that your position is not in any way affecting spiritual matters, at least, not until you stated that those who do not submit to your temporal authority in worldly matters are not welcome to the Mass in your second open letter. Even after this letter, I did still try to get those unhappy with your views to try and come to seeing things differently, but I admit I have failed in this at every turn.I therefore now propose the following solution, which I hope you will consider.

Suggestion

If you were to write a public letter stating that:

1. Everyone is welcome to the Mass and that,

2. While currently Mr. [weasel-boy] is the co-ordinator and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, (especially since Mr. [previous co-ordinator] has officially resigned and made quite clear he will no longer have any responsibilities as co-ordinator) you will in due course review this both in line with the expected performance of the Mission as well as the input of the faithful, which you will take into account (perhaps after a trial period of say 3 or 6 months?) and you ask the patience of any disaffected, as practical matters do need to be taken care of.

I believe this would, I am certain, assuage any ill feeling and restore trust in your guidance and leadership as well as remove any sort of appeal to canon law of any sort. Nor would it change the co-ordinator since I very much doubt anyone at all would want to put themselves forward at this point anyway. Meaning Mr. [weasel-boy] would be free to act as co-ordinator as per your wishes and you can in due course verify yourself the performance.

If you can find it to write such a letter, I for my part promise the following:

1. I will write a public letter of apology, to the limits of my conscience, to yourself and the parishioners and also post the same on my blog and leave it as the main landing page for at least a month, but in any case I would leave it on the site permanently.

2. I will keep this letter and its contents private, (unless you specifically wish me not to, in writing) and not share it with any other parishioner, of this or any other country, or worse someone not of the Catholic faith, now or in the future, nor allude to it in any way.

3. I will also ask that one condition is that if you do make reference to this letter yourself, you release the whole letter. Or else, make no reference to it at all, my only intent here being to not be selectively quoted or taken out of context or in a new context not in keeping with the facts and this entire letter.

I believe such an action on my part would restore any semblance of disrespect as well as make public those errors I do feel I have done in good conscience (and they are not few), as well as restore the situation both canonically as well as emotionally for any parishioners that now have doubts and who will not otherwise attend Mass again, given these are a majority of the attendees, I hope you will find it in your own conscience to accept this suggestion.

Sincerely in Christ

Giuseppe Filotto

His response to me was, sadly, predictable:

Dear Mr. Filotto,

If you do not remove the objectionable material from your website, you may not receive sacraments at the Mass center in London.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bishop Sanborn

To which I responded in kind, since I knew, from logic, life experience, and having dealt with such egos before multiple times in life, that, as any hunter knows, all you have to do is wait, and eventually, such people expose themselves.

It seems you have made your choice rashly, Bishop. In line with the cynical view of things I presented in my letter.
So be it.

Giuseppe

To forestall any further accusations I want to point out that:

1. My statement that I would maintain my letter private was conditional on Bishop Sanborn reversing his error, which he did not do, hence freeing me from any such condition, and secondly, I have nevertheless kept its contents private for over six years, simply because I felt releasing it then would probably have caused more strife than good. But today, the balance has swung the other way. Keeping quiet about Sanborn’s authoritarian insistence on completely absurd tenets of his version of the Thesis of Cassiciacum, is damaging to all, and his refusal to have seminarians be ordained in his seminary unless they profess the erroneous, and frankly heretical Thesis, is a disgrace, as is the continued promulgation of the nonsensical, illogical, never before-seen rubbish that holding to that absurd theory inevitably requires, as has been amply demonstrated in a detailed breakdown of all the main nonsensical positions of the Thesis as produced by the people who created the site Contra-Thesis.

2. Regarding the “offending image” on my blog, it will stay, as will any and all other errors I may have blogged about in my life before getting baptised. No one is forced to go and look at my blog, and no one has to agree with it, but I as a man, will NEVER try and scrub my past so as to present a false aspect of who I was, what mistakes I made and so on. As all humans, I made plenty of mistakes, but throughout my life, to the best of my ability, I have always tried to act honestly, and as such, whatever errors I have made, in the main, have been genuine errors. I can no more “regret” making them than I can thinking 2 plus 2 was 10 before I knew anything about math as an 18 month old child. And what I will absolutely NOT do, is scrub my past to make me look more “respectable”. It’s dishonest, cowardly, and frankly, beneath me, my honour, my dignity, and disrespectful of anyone that may look upon me and my history. And as a matter of “look at the fruit it bears” kind of view, after one hundred or so, I lost count of how many people returned or converted to true Catholicism after reading my short book BELIEVE!, and that is, I am certain, because in that book, I never tried to hide who I was. And I present my argument in the same manner in which I lived and thought, or arrived at becoming Catholic. And the “warts and all” display clearly struck a chord with readers, who like me, were merely ignorant of the true Church, and rebelled against its impostor, not the actual Catholic religion itself.

3. I have kept the identity of weasel-boy and others involved redacted, even if those familiar with the events of the time will know who is who, because ultimately this post is not about any one individual; not even about Bishop Sanborn himself. It is about protecting the truth of the Catholic Church and ensuring souls are safe from lies, error, and madness, intentional or otherwise as it may be.

And now, having demonstrated that Bishop Sanborn has had ample time to reform, was asked to do so not only by myself but by other too with which I am perfectly familiar (but is not for me to divulge), and similarly been asked before multiple Catholic witnesses to reverse his errors, and years after he has used the sacraments as a cudgel, instead of the salvific duty a cleric has to dispense them to the faithful, it is time to publicly call him out, and I do so by using his own words, as shown below.

Part III - Bishop Sanborn, in his own Irrational Words

1. The Thesis does not say what the Thesis says…

I did not do the overlay of the woman confused by calculus on the below, and it does add a perhaps slightly disrespectful tone to the clip, nevertheless, it’s hard to find fault with it if you actually listen to the words, and I am not a video editor by any means, so, it is what it is.

2. Since Fake Popes invalidly elected are “Popes” in principle, so are fake “Priests” also “Priests” in principle!

So we go from Fake Pope, invalidly elected, to fake priest invalidly ordained, under an invalid rite, by invalid Bishops, who are not Catholic and do not profess the Catholic religion, but an impostor version that literally is 180 degrees in opposition to Catholic dogma. Yet these are, according to him “priests in principle”.

There is a further total AMERICANISM here, notice how he repeatedly refers to legalism over fact. This is absurd, nonsensical, and anti-human, but is a completely pervasive way of thinking in the general American zeitgeist raised on Hollywood presentations of legal dramas, and the actual American legal system itself, which is, of course, an absurdity and a lie, since it is absolutely rooted in the Freemasonic duplicity on which the entire USA was founded. Legalism over humanity is demonic, but the average American has been marinated in this “find the loophole in the law and it’s all good” type of thinking, and believing this is normal and rational. It is not, of course, it is a complete nonsense and a travesty of justice.

But the Catholic Church does not operate on the basis of ANY Anglo-Saxon Law, it is founded and exists purely in ROMAN LAW, which is based on justice first above all, as is absolutely logical and humane, and has as the primary purpose, the protection of the individual person, and his or her dignity and humanity before God. There is no “case-law” in Roman Law, because each case is judged on its merits, and where a specific Law does not exist, it is extrapolated by EXACT logic; which —for those who can do it— is as clear and obvious as basic math.

The fact is that pretty much no American —even smart and educated ones— can today to very good logic, much less the average Anglo-Saxon person. Nevertheless, for those who take up the Clerical orders, instruction in Latin and Roman Law is not optional, yet Bishop Sanborn here demonstrates either abysmal ignorance of the most fundamental and basic principles of Roman Law, or utter contempt and malice towards it. He also, of course, completely ignores canon law too.

3. Begging the Satanists for a Seat at the Table

It is extremely hard for me to view this in any way other than Bishop Sanborn being an intentional corruptor of what small remnant of Catholicism is left. How can someone who professes to say that the Pope is not validly the Pope and that the Novus Ordo clergy are not valid either, state, in good conscience, that if “appointed” (invalidly of course) to a fake Cardinalate, he would accept (with the of course obvious fake humility disclaimer that he would be really under such duress to accept but that he probably would)?

My personal opinion is that I don’t believe his false humility for a second. I think he would salivate at the chance to do so as it would, in his eyes, make him even more “relevant” and able to (corruptly, whether he is conscious of it or not) bring in his disciples into the greater fold of the fake Novus Ordo Church.

Conclusions

The idea that only the fake clergy of pedophiles, cocaine-snorting, homosexual orgies indulging, freemasons, satanists, communists, shills and stooges that form the Novus Ordo Satanic impostors of Catholicism are the ONLY ONES, who can elect a new Pope, is of, course absurd in its entirety.

It runs counter to everything that Catholicism stands for and of course, against the immutable Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio that clearly states, that EVEN IF, a cleric WAS valid, once he is guilty of heresy, he can NEVER, EVER, —even if forgiven— have clerical authority or perform the sacraments to ANYONE, for the rest of his life.

So, why then, is Bishop Sanborn doing what he does?

There can only be one of three explanations:

1. He is mentally unfit.

   This means he is either too stupid, ignorant, and incapable of correctly reading Canon Law, the Bible, and basic Catholic Dogma, to perform his duties as Bishop in any responsible manner. It includes everything from his possibly being senile, which does not appear exteriorly at least to be the case, to having some form of arrogant or narcissistic ego and personality that makes him believe his way of seeing things is superior to the Church’s millennia-long established dogma, as well as Divine Law, and there is evidence of this to my view anyway given his behaviour over time.

2. He is more concerned with money and Power than Truth.

   I certainly saw this as being the case in the 2019 events. And he absolutely does treat the affairs of the Church under his domain as a business. In short, he is a Bishop of Power, not piety, as Rodney Stark defined it. I don’t in principle even have an objection to this, while they are not my favourite clergy, those priests and Bishops who accumulate wealth and power and then use it —or at least a good chunk of it— to create and expand more and better Catholic things, such as churches, seminaries and so on, are also needed. But when this takes precedence over the actual basic mission of the Church, then it’s time to remove the corrupt individual from office. By not ordaining more Bishops, controlling the number of priests that do get ordained and so on, it keeps the faithful bound to him and his “crew”, funneling all donations to his organisation, and thus, by extension, to him.

3. He is an Intentional Gatekeeper, working for the Enemy.

   This is the worst possible explanation and would be in addition to point n. 2 above. I am not ready to claim this is the case for certain, at least not yet, however, on circumstantial evidence alone, it is very hard to ignore this as a real possibility. What better way to try and destroy what is left of the True Church, than by teaching, promulgating, and promoting, a completely false theory that in essence states that the Satanists in the Vatican, merely need to say: “Ooopss! Sorry, we didn’t mean it, Vatican II was bad, let’s ignore it and move on,” and suddenly, magically, every fake priest and Bishop and Cardinal under them becomes valid. It is also typical of how the enemy really moves. By tiny degrees, subtly, infiltrating, subverting, and over a long time-scale. There is certainly enough evidence here for the probability to remain a definite possibility.

Whatever of those three options it is, the fact is clear that Bishop Sanborn is simply not fit to perform his duties in accordance with the Catholic Churches’ dogmas, and as such needs to be absolutely, and completely ignored. Do not take Mass with him, do not attend his Mass, do not go to confession with him, do not donate to him, and do not consider him a Catholic going forward, until he either corrects his errors in full, abandons the. Thesis and repents. While there is still a tiny window wherein he cannot possibly yet be fully accused of heresy, his errors have been promulgated for years, and it is now time he receives a formal and clear warning from the laity, if the other clergy will not do so, and that if within six months he does not repent, then we must consider him a heretic.

And finally, please remember two things:

1. As per Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio:

   • (iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.

So, yeah, I’m not being harsh or disrespectful. I am doing my Catholic duty as a layman that is duty bound to call out such things. And remember that in Catholic Dogma, and Roman Law too, timidity or silence in the face of evil, error or madness, is cowardice and complicity.

And,

2. While it doesn’t really matter or make any practical difference in any way, for those of a technical mind, I and my family, are, nobility. If even of the lowest rank (Patricians, though a separate branch of the family are Marquises), therefore, not only do I have a duty to call out such things, but on a personal level, because I DO believe, not only in jest, that Noblesse Oblige, it is incumbent upon me —and moreso than on normal laity— to perform this duty. Not just for myself, but for all Catholics. And I do so gladly, and without any fear whatsoever concerning the undoubted reprisals and attacks my doing so will foster.

In Closing

I have prayed the full rosary, to the best of my ability, and recited the Lord’s prayer too in the appropriate places too, on this, and I would also like to close with a personal prayer, which I share here with any who may find it useful.

Lord, please guide me, my actions, and hands, in Justice above all, but also Truth, Mercy, Charity, Patience, and Humility. Forgive me my many sins, weaknesses, and failings, undeserving though I am of your Grace. And permit me, by your guiding hand, to serve your purposes as best I can, while you keep my family and loved ones from suffering harm or pain on my account.

1. Composed of what I am sure are —in the overwhelming majority, or even possible totality of cases— good, pious, well-intentioned, Catholics, who are nevertheless in deep error thanks to the false teachings of Bp. Sanborn himself, as well as held hostage psychologically by the fear induced in them by his well-recorded practice of blackmailing people who disagree with him —on canonical grounds, no less— from receiving the sacraments.

2. The link is at the end of this note, because I am not one to ever hide my past from anyone, but you are warned that it is not for pious eyes, and if you go and look at it, that cost, whatever it may be on your soul, is entirely on you. Link.