Thank you for the post.

Father Wathen had the grace to discern the newChurch papal hijacking when most traditionalist were willing to give the modernist popes ever benefit of the doubt.



This simple, but highly intelligent Diocese priest led the traditionalist movement with his 1971 book, The Great Sacrilege.
He put everything on the line, even taking-on the homo Jєω-pope, Paul VI.

Father was onto the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic infiltration of the Church and made the Jєωs were nervous they'd lose control of the traditionalist movement.

Only then was +ABL's SSPX infiltrated, financed and given the media attention allowing them to be on the forefront of the Trad- world.   And now we can see, those hireling-chickens have come home to roost, in the form of the Menzingen brothehood.



Sedeprivationism is a term coined by William J. Morgan an English layman and a traditional Catholic apologist.

The word Sedeprivationism is an amalgamation of two words, “sede” and “deprivation” into a single descriptive term. Morgan developed the term in order distinguish it from Sedevacantism, a position which he held himself.^[1]


He applied the term to one of the Catholic theological explanations for the Vatican II crisis. It holds that the Novus Ordo Popes have been defective Popes. This analysis follows the principles of the late French theologian, Bishop Michel Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P.. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers presented his thesis in a publication with the title “Cahiers de Cassiciacuм” and therefore called commonly the "Cassiciacuм Thesis."

Accordingly, Sedeprivationism might be defined as an ecclesiastical Catholic position that the papacy, the See of Peter, is not obtained and held in conformity with one of two prescribed requirements of a legitimate papal election by the Novus Ordo popes. The two mandatory requirements are:

1. That the pope is elected legitimately by valid designated electors. This aspect designates the papal candidate as “materially”^[2] elected and designated candidate to the office of pope.

2. That the newly chosen pope-elect expresses his acceptance and that on giving his assent he receive from Christ the “form” of the Papacy i.e. the indefectible power or authority promised to St. Peter and his successors by which the elected candidate “formally” becomes Pope and actually takes hold of the Office of the Papacy.

Both of these aspects are required and should any candidate fail in either one, then he does not hold the office of Pope. The Catholics of the Sedeprivationist school hold that all claimants of the papal office from at least Paul VI through Francis (the Novus Ordo Popes) are invalid and that they do not hold the papal office except by right of designation due to a failure to receive the “form” of the Papacy (i.e. the Authority) because his acceptance is impeded by a defective intention^[3] arising from their manifest disposition of apostasy ; further, that a valid papal election has indeed transpired.

Source

This is the paragraph:

I disagree. Fr. Wathen is saying this man is a true pope.

He's saying that he both is and he isn't -- which is basically sedeprivationism, Chazalism, and many other variants on the same thinking.

Wathen held Paul VI to be a true pope and preached against sedevacantism. 

I think the similarity in the OP resides in the possible conversion of the "avowed conspirator who became the Roman Pontiff". In Sedeprivationism, if the materialiter pope were to abjur his heresies and repair the damage done, then he could become at once the formaliter pope. No other conclave would be necessary. 

He did not recognize JPII as a "pope elect" but as pope and argued that the first see is judged by noone therefore sedevacantism, to him, was a dead letter.

He got around this by saying that the Order of St. John which he claimed to be a part of, had permission to say the old Mass and was outside the local bishop's jurisdiction.

Right, he was against "straight, black and white" sedevacantism.  Even St Robert Bellarmine was as well, since St Robert said that the Church had to take some sort of action (i.e. deposition, council, etc).  Fr Wathen did not believe that the laity or a priest or a single bishop can say that "the chair is empty".  The issue of the pope is not decided by vote, or majority opinion.  It is decided by the Church officials.  However, what we can say as the laity, and what many saints have said (including St Robert) is that UNTIL the Church officials take action against a heretical pope, we can resist his errors.  Sedeprivationism says that a heretical pope loses his spiritual office but not his temporal one (until the Church does something).

The issue of the bishop's jurisdiction and saying mass is a completely separate issue from sedevacantism.  Even if there was no pope, a priest would still have to obey his local bishop and have jurisdiction.  It's completely unrelated.

Potato, potatoe.  The church must first decide the pope is a heretic before they judge that he’s no longer the pope, therefore able to be deposed.  

From a non-Church official’s standpoint (ie 95% of the Catholic world), there is ABSOLUTELY NO scenario where they can decide that a pope is no longer a pope (ie he is a pernicious heretic).  Such a decision, as St Robert says, would come after a FORMAL Church rebuke (probably 2 rebukes, as St Paul mentions), then in absence of a return to orthodoxy, the Church would level the FORMAL charge of heresy, and then STEP 2, would be the deposition and removal from office.  

So all this talk today about “I think the pope is a heretic”, or “it’s obvious he’s a heretic” is meaningless without a Church investigation and a FORMAL decision.  This is why Fr Wathen was against sesevacantism: because as it is practiced today, it leads to chaos because it presupposes a PERSONAL decision on a matter which is supremely a decision by Church officials alone.