Sede Picante: The Man Behind the Muppets

A Trad YouTube Streamer Who Spreads the Faith by Roasting Catholic Inc.

Most of you have never heard of Sede Picante. He’s part of a newer corner of the Catholic internet that isn’t trying to compete with the usual “talking head” model. His show is built around live commentary on short clips from mainstream Catholic and traditionalist personalities, with a rotating cast of puppets that make the contradictions humorous and therefore easier to see and harder to excuse. It’s fast, improvised, and sometimes abrasive, but it’s also strangely effective: it turns the “Catholic media class” into something you can analyze in real time rather than passively absorb.

I wanted to interview him because he has a clear theory of why certain narratives keep winning online, how incentives shape what people will say, and why humor can disarm the “serious tone” that often functions as a shield for bad arguments. Even if you end up disagreeing with his style, his diagnosis of the ecosystem is worth hearing. Traditional media has plenty of earnest voices. I’m interested in the voices that can expose the stagecraft.

For those interested in seeing more of Sede Picante, links to his YouTube channel, X channel, and Substack channel are below.

YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@RealSedePicante/streams

X: https://x.com/realsedepicante

Substack: https://substack.com/@sedep

My questions to Sede Picante are in bold. What follows each question is his unedited answer.

Interview

For readers meeting you for the first time, who are you, and how do you want a skeptical Catholic to understand you before they ever click your channel?

What I would want a skeptical Catholic to understand is we don’t have to judge according to the side we are on. My shows are not there to pronounce dogma—that is the function of the Holy Priesthood—rather my shows are to break down mental walls on topics and to try to find jokes where I can.

Give the one sentence description of your show. If someone asks “what does he do,” what’s the cleanest answer?

He flames people.

Paint the picture of a typical episode. What happens from the moment you go live to the moment you end, and what makes an episode feel like a “win” to you?

When I go live, I have 15-20 minutes of content cut. I’ve already looked at it, and mostly know how the show will go—in fact I could do the show entirely offline without an audience. I never think a show is a “win.” I generally feel empty and tired after a show. Wanting to do a show is itself a character I play.

Why clips as the raw material? When did you realize short clips would do more work than long lectures, essays, or debates?

The podcast world I follow as a content consumer is related to a 90s New York radio show called the Opie and Anthony Radio, and in particular their shows named Jocktober. Those particular shows were the hosts reviewing other people’s shows and roasting them.

As for long essays and debates, it’s not generally the content I like to consume. We already have excellent Traditional Catholic priests making sermons and long speeches, but we don’t have more than a dozen episodes of Fr. Cekada roasting his intellectual enemies.

When you watch a clip, what are you listening for? Bad theology, rhetorical sleight of hand, hypocrisy, emotional manipulation, trend-chasing, brand protection, something else?

It changes for each person. For example, for Taylor Marshall he is a simpleton, so I look for him trying to explain complex things. For Michael Matt or Trent Horn I look for the points where they are talking down to and lecturing their audience. Joe Heschmeyer and Nick Cavazos don’t know the faith and often make theological mistakes. I have tried to do the same thing to Louie Verrechio and WM Review, and it is nearly impossible to find things to pick on.

The content creators I pick on have complete control of their shows. They are bad at content. They make mistakes. So I don’t have to necessarily have something I’m looking for, they will almost always give you something to cut.

The puppet voices are the signature. Where did that idea come from, and what problem did it solve that a straightforward “talking head” format never could? My favorite is “Dare Sae.” Can you tell us a little bit about how he was created?

Since I was nine or ten, I have been doing voices with stuffed animals. I was completely home schooled and had no friends at all. Being the 7^th out of 13 children, we role played stories we made up. At thirteen I had mentally written a whole book out, a project I occasionally work on today.

The particular characters for the podcast started because I saw someone else doing it, and it was extremely easy to switch into characters from my original format. Sir Dare Sae’s voice is my impression of a character from a British sitcom show. He is actually a Beatrix Potter animal, who is supposed to be very indignant and say bad English words. I don’t know how accurate I am though in my characterization of my own characters.

(Sir Dare Sae)

Why the live format at all? What does the risk, the improvisation, and the audience presence let you accomplish?

The shows I regularly watch are live and part of the fun is the audience interaction. I’ve seen dozens of shows such as the Taylor Marshall show, wherein simply reading the chat would make a better show. There are many different takes on this, and many shows misunderstand the use and purpose of the live chat.

Like a standup comedy show, the audience can be used to banter and make jokes with. Some of the people in the live chat are your “elite” and you try to always put their comments up or read them. It adds to the flavor just having them. Likewise you will necessarily gather haters. Like a comedy show, you put haters front and center and make them a joke. To this day I have only banned one person because he was blaspheming.

Walk me through your preparation process. How do you collect clips, organize them, decide the order, and create an arc so the episode feels coherent?

I simply watch and almost never move the clips. So what you will watch is clipped from minute 2, then 5, then 11. The role of the title of each clip is for the host to verbally fill you in. So it might go like this:

Clip 1, Eric Sammons will say Pope Francis is the greatest recent pope. Clip two, taken10 minutes later, the host will introduce it as, now Eric will say Pope Francis did X, Y and Z. At this point the host can fill in any missing relevant knowledge. The host’s narration generally ties the whole episode together.

I must admit...I don’t think the episodes are coherent. I think they are entertaining.

You’ve said people want “a show.” What do you mean by that, and what separates a real show from content sludge?

A show is something you put on. It’s like a Saturday morning cartoon. It’s a show you put on after you’re done with more serious theological shows. What I consider content sludge is people doing the show for the sake of merely hanging out. Or where the show drags on without a point. Some podcasters do it almost as a scheduled adult play time.

How did you end up in the traditional world in the first place, and what was the moment you realized the mainstream Catholic framing wasn’t going to hold together for you?

Growing up by the age of 9-10 I knew my Novus Ordo priest was a goof. From my time at Franciscan University I could tell the priests there had about +90% failure rate at being Catholic in their sermons. I understood this growing up, but had not applied it to the rest of the world and especially the online world, until I had failed my masters and went home around 2013.

What was your on ramp: liturgy first, doctrine first, scandal first, or something more personal?

The ramp to Tradition for me is complex. I recall the stories of Vatican II being implemented by my mother, so I always had a concept of a traditional nun ending the school year in a full habit and next year coming in a miniskirt. My mother was directly in the firing line of Vatican II as it happened during her years in high school.

Perhaps it really became real from a continually grating experience while in the pre-theologate program at Franciscan University. Sumorum Pontificum happened while I was at Franciscan and I was studying sacred music at the time, which was one of the first times I really developed my traditionalism.

I was R&R and slightly obnoxious at my parish, but I have always been introverted and mostly was quiet. No one really explained the whole Traditionalist clergy story to me so I largely dismissed any alternative to Modernist Rome as a hopeful but false dream.

Who were the first Catholic voices you trusted early on, and what eventually broke the spell?

The earliest Catholic voices I trusted were few and far between. I studied philosophy and my minor in theology I found boring and unappealing. When I focused my study in sacred music, it opened theology up to me.

My youngest brother broke the spell during the Covid lockdowns when he convincingly argued the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. Essentially it is impossible that traditionalism is not true. I simply needed to find it and I found it was easy to tell that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Sanborn and other voices were true Catholics, and that the Church was in them. I have always had a strong sensus fidelium and one sermon is enough to know.

A Catholic possess a certain clarity in discussing the Faith which is lacking in the modernists. I would also read the sedevacantist blogs, mostly for sources, a book by John Daly against Michael Davies, and listening to hundreds of hours of podcasts.

What was the first contradiction you saw that you couldn’t unsee, the one that started the chain reaction?

The first contradiction I saw was in junior year first semester in college. We were studying Sacrosanctum Concillium and the history of sacred music from St. Pius X’s new liturgical movement. Dr. Paul Weber pointed out the following problem.

Sacrosanctum Concilium:

n22 .3 Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

n26 of the 1975 GIRM reaffirms that the music minister can choose any sacred song that creates the proper atmosphere of celebrating the mass

In short the music minister can alter the text of the mass by changing the text of three of the “Propers” at mass - the Introit, the Offertory and the Communion texts - thus violating the ecumenical council of Vatican II. The proper reading of these two texts means A) the GIRM takes its authority from a document it contradicts, which denies the soundness of Catholic doctrine, or B) It means that the GIRM authorizes mortal sin, which denies the holiness of the Church in her sacraments.

In a word, the Novus Ordo Missae itself was irreversibly tainted at its birth. While the 2011 GIRM would “fix” some problems, it really was an admission that the Novus Ordo Missae is likely invalid from 1969-2010 and that the Traditionalists were right in the 1970s. Notably the improvements to the text in 2011 are not universal.

You describe yourself as a jester archetype. When did you realize that register is where you communicate best, and why do you think it works on the audience you’re trying to reach?

A homeschool mother I met while I was in college told me this. She asked me once, “Which mask are you wearing today?” It rang true with me then and it would continually reappear. Thus when I do a show I try to deliberately enter into a character, with a voice and a particular vocabulary.

It’s not where I communicate best, it is the default setting I want to return to. I have a bad habit of wanting to laugh or smirk at something every few minutes. A clip show is a series of interesting things I get to show you. It is a sort of stage and a comical persona goes with it.

You’ve said the Catholic podcast world is better understood as a business than as a pursuit of truth. Explain what you mean, and explain what changes once someone sees the incentives clearly.

Human beings demonstrate themselves by action. While the internal dialogue of each person colors their experience of themselves, action is what we can analyze. Many people want to know about the crisis in the Church and end up going to Taylor Marshall. Did they really want to know about the crisis or did they want to use a middle man to have an intellectual experience?

Podcasts, whether it be comedy, video games, interviews or theology are essentially the same exact product. I’m reminded of a time in Masters where my philosophy professor was teaching a class and something seemed off. I came to the conclusion he was simply regurgitating someone else’s class and he had neither passion nor care. We were not pursuing intellectualism or truth, it was just a job the same as any other job. Now consider Michael Matt. He’s always right and he never changes what he says until he says the exact opposite. It is nothing more than an exercise of ego driven pleasure.

So now if we put this in market terms, what is the business selling? Dopamine. An experience. The business is simply a drug which uses theology as the vehicle. Unless there is Truth, it is merely tickling the brain chemicals.

Translate “game theory” into normal language. How do incentives shape what Catholic creators will say, what they avoid, who they will criticize, and who they will protect?

Game theory is thinking purely in terms of benefits. I will get X benefits from Y action. If X is greater than Z I will always perform Y action. It is a logical deduction based online strategic lines of behavior.

There is a specific strategy that podcasters use to get views: you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. It is a sort of tit-for-tat strategy which works like this. I invite an important person onto my show. This tells the community of podcasters I am both someone to be invited onto their shows and that I am am acceptable member of the community.

Thus most content creators are beholden to those more important people. This series of interrelationships causes people to self-censor. A “party line” develops without anyone ever needing to say anything. When the main content creator changes his mind it sends out a ripple effect and most of the small characters suddenly fall in line.

Without anyone needing to say a word, the “group think” sets in and individuality starts to disappear. Thus we see at the very outset of “pope” Leo’s reign, Taylor Marshall backing off criticism and suddenly everyone does too. A party line has been established. There could be much more to be said about it, but this outline seems to be applicable to many groups of Catholic content creators.

What are the biggest tells that someone is protecting a brand or a pipeline rather than pursuing clarity?

Traditional Catholics have a very black and white version of truth. There is a particular nature to things and a strict mortality is derived from it. The Mass are these exact sets of words and actions, the Church is this exact society with definable goods it seeks to achieve.

A particular function means a particular nature and this applies to all things with an end. When the pope does not do his divine function and content creators start making excuses for their pope, it exposes that these exceptions to the rule are a coping mechanism. Something fundamental has been lost and it is always lost for a reason.

This deviation is what is meant by “protecting a brand.” It allows abuses to continue and lies to become mainstay. There are some young people still today who reject that the idol worship happened in the Vatican, not because they intend to lie, but because protecting the brand necessitates lying. Truth is the victim of these tactics, and poisons any charitable dialogue. I don’t think they do it intentionally, but out of necessity to protect their brains from cognitive dissonance.

You’ve said you throw bombs and then bring receipts. Define “receipts.” What counts as evidence in your world, and what’s a fake substitute for evidence?

I love to hurl accusations. For example, I’ve said some sedes care more about worldly views than helping people. Then I play the “receipts” which are video clips of the person I am roasting announcing they spent their podcasting budget on advertising for their videos.

In a sense it is merely holding people accountable. What I have found is many content creators will not link to or show exact quotes. They will sit in front of a camera and go off the top of their heads and inaccurately present their opponents. While this is not technically a fallacy, the video format is specifically made to show things. “Well I think” becomes the content, while facts are left out.

The art of podcasting is narrative creation. Bringing receipts shows you are truthful. Sometimes I will sit on evidence for 6 months and run my mouth about how bad my villain of the day is. All the while I know and won’t show the evidence until I’m challenged to bring the receipts.

You’ve also said good art has to feel slightly awkward or “off.” What do you mean by that, and how does that principle shape your timing, your puppets, and your use of clips?

In comedy, control of the room is essential to progressing your show. If there is a killer bit or a joke you really enjoy, as the host you sit in it. The trick is to sit in it just too much or too little. Let’s say for example, you play a clip of someone saying something terribly dumb, like Anthony Abbate saying the pope can be a public heretic and be pope.

You play the clip and pause. The Muppet looks at the camera for about 6 seconds. Then you replay the clip when you see the chat is responding to the lack of noise. The awkwardness of a total tonal interruption make you have control.

In a similar manner, the strangeness of seeing a Muppet do theology has a certain charm to it and a certain eyebrow raising weirdness. This middle ground between normal and offensive is where interest naturally peaked and the most precious currency in content creation is attention. It should feel slightly embarrassing to watch my show.

You’ve used the phrase “White-ian method.” Define it in plain English, and give one concrete example of how it changes the way you build an episode or choose targets.

This topic is rather complex and would take me quite a long to to fully develop my thoughts so I’ll give a dumbed down version. There is a common trope, “don’t judge me” and “you’re uncharitable.” In order to get around this, I generally abstract a character into a personality type. Taylor Marshall isn’t a person, but “a dad with a microphone” a “Ph.D” a “podcaster”.

So let’s analysis these, “a dad with a microphone” is a pretentious way of saying, I’m serious but not too serious, but it could also mean “don’t hold me accountable.” Ph.D means a “serious thinker” who has spent years thinking. A podcaster is usually a very low tier brain who does general content. Taylor is also a Thomist and a “Thomist” is usually someone out of touch with reality from thinking too much.

So according to the “types” what is Taylor Marshall? A fake intellectual who uses big ideas to gain clout but who is incapable of actually expressing them. I’m not judging or saying he’s a bad person. I’m saying he is a car that only drives 55 mph.

Michael Matt is a loud man who acts like a school yard bully. He readily tells you about his credentials and angrily repeats insults hurled against him. Does Matt actually present complex arguments in his CIC conference? No. He collects important people. He presented Candice Owens, and inflated her importance. He’s collected many trad voices in the past.

He’s a wannabe rockstar with a fragile ego. I’m not saying he’s a good person or a bad person—I don’t care. But upon the analysis of a fragile ego, now I want to find content of him defending and justifying himself, because it will be most juicy. So the “white-ian method” is to abstract people and philosophies into “types.”

You seem to think that referring to historical events is a bad argument for Traditional Catholicism, why is that?

An historical event can be shown from multiple view points and relying on it is almost always bad. Let us take the Econe Consecrations of 1988. From the view point of the Novus Ordo in the pew, Lefebvre caved to pressure and was excommunicated. To the traditionalist he recounts the same event as the day Tradition triumphed over modernism. To the sedevacantist who already had his Thuc line bishops years in advance, the event is a “what took you so long?”

The best argument therefore is the abstract in the following form. The Econe Consecrations were for the good of souls, the celebration of the sacraments, and the preservation of the Traditional way of life. Have we thrown JPII under the bus with this statement? Not necessarily and so you can a wider conversation without being stuck in political alignments and purity tests.

There is an art to argumentation that neither castigates particular people while preserving the essence of the argument. Hence we do not have to present the argument as Lefebvre good and JPII bad, but we can a more vague and welcoming argument. Of course there is always a reason to present a literal case, but often it is misused.

Does being the middle child of thirteen explain more about your instincts than you’d like to admit?

The middle child is the forgotten one and generally picks up negative and manipulative traits to gain attention. The annoying voice that is trying to needle the topic just because he can. That’s me.

That is also the easiest explanation of what Sede Picante does. That hand that keeps going up and asking another dumb question just trying to get a reaction.

What are some of the hobbies you have off stream? What happens to creators who become pure content beings?

When I’m not streaming and working, I often loose myself in endless hours of podcasts. It isn’t uncommon for me to put 4-5 hours down a day. I dabble in writing music and have written music for about 14 years. I compose primarily electronic video game type music, but have also penned a few hymns for when I was a music director. I also dabble in writing books, of which I have started 7 drafts, and finished 2.

In short, I become totally overwhelmed and completely submerged in making and consuming content.

Let’s pivot to the Kevin Davis conversation. For readers who missed it, what was that exchange really about under the surface?

Kevin Davis stands as a lay face of the CMRI, so he is in essence an institutionalized content creator. He has access to bishops, priests, conferences and is one of the largest sedevacantist channels. I am the upstart channel that can do whatever I want to do.

Under the surface there was a bit of bad blood on my part, that the larger sede channels largely ignored season 1 of the Sede Picante show. While it is true I deleted most of season 1 after a crash out when Kennedy Hall said he didn’t have to accept the Immaculate Conception, I found the other sede content creators cold towards me and my approach to content.

The way I see it is, we need both, the serious and the hilarious, because at some point another serious video is boring. After 2-3 serious videos, I’m generally tapped out. I believe the spectrum of content should be varied for a varied audience.

Kevin’s central concern was gravity: heaven and hell are on the line. What’s your best answer to the concern that comedy risks cheapening the stakes?

I think Mr. Davis is very naive because he was brought up sede. Having to endure decades of spiritual and mental abuse myself, I don’t take it lightly. There is no “winner take all” mentality in Davis. It’s just “say the truth” and therefore you did everything you needed to. It’s weak and effeminate.

What one should do is analyze the value of the conversation and you behave accordingly. If the person has a zero chance of conversion, then you be polite and try to plant a seed, or you should completely burn the bridge as any further conversation would be entirely pointless. If the person is weak, you should dominate the interaction so that no audience member is left with a doubt as to the outcome.

In the case of Kevin Davis’ and Mario Derksen’s conversation with Anthony Abbate, it went exactly as I thought. A total victory for Trad Inc. and a total loss for Sede Inc. Abbate had several months earlier profaned the bible with glee as his co-host read an intentionally racist translation of the Holy Word of God. That a Catholic would ever consider this content is beyond me. I was scandalized to the point that I refused to watch or cover Avoiding Babylon or even directly talk to them. Many other Trads have no issue with Anthony and Rob over this public mortal sin, for we must remember, only disloyalty to the ringleader and the 6^th commandment sins are real sins for Trad Inc.

So what did Sede Inc. do about this? Nothing. Not a peep, just the usual polite “you’re reading the theology wrong.” They rolled over and died just for an extra 5,000 views? They threw away the moral high ground for politeness. Even if not intended to be so, it was a slap in the face.

Words are weapons and the word that cuts deeply with a laugh at the end of it hurts more than the polite and eloquent dialogue of a theologian. When the jester takes stabs at the King’s faults, he says things no one else is allowed to, and everyone makes sure not to laugh too hard. The King has no clothes and we are right to deride him; Vatican II has no Holy Ghost and we are right to mock it. The false church in Rome is a whore, why should I hold any respect for her who holds none for herself?

Another concern was resemblance: that this style starts to feel like “accommodating the Faith to the internet.” How do you distinguish your method from that accusation?

Podcasting as I do it is visual story telling. You see the clip, the character comments how the logic doesn’t work. The audience laughs. This is 100% accommodating the Faith to the internet.

This is why Sede Picante needs the sermons of Holy Priests and the Lives of the Saints on the Catholic Family Podcast channel. The integrity of the faith will not be preserved by comedy, but by those whose duty it is to preserve it, namely the Good Catholic Priests.

There’s also the scandal risk. How do you keep ridicule from bleeding into irreverence toward the Faith itself, especially with weaker Catholics watching?

I do struggle with this. Sometimes I get flamed for it. I have to recreate characters and concepts in my head sometimes. My chat is very loyal to me and calls me out from time to time. I find the older crowd is more offended than the younger crowd, but this is a personality and cultural temperament difference.

You’ve been open about being abrasive on X. What are you trying to accomplish in those moments, and where do you draw the line so it stays ordered?

I generally try to make my posts into sarcastic or glib responses. I think Twitter should be one giant giggle fest making someone the butt of the joke. If you actually care about what people say online, you might waste hours arguing with someone who is incapable of caring.

You’ve said priests are the main characters and lay creators can drift into replacing them. What boundaries keep you from “playing cleric” in tone or posture?

This is a huge issue very few realize. Trent Horn is more of a Catholic Priest than most Novus Ordo priests. Theology is very novel to most Catholics and many are willing to discuss their thoughts on theology at length. Using theology gives a heightened sense of importance to a lay content creator. This is how many errors are spread around. The posture of “I’m a serious person” often drifts into a pseudo-clerical tone.

To counter this I try to use characters and just say mean things, usually aimed at disproving errors.

Where are your hard lines with humor? Clergy, accusations, private lives, families, rumors, language, sexual material. What gets an automatic “no” from you?

Whatever is publicly posted is fair game. I rarely go after clerics, except for some observational humor which I have done, I think, twice. Blasphemy gets an automatic No from me—except when it is impossible to not do content without it, for example reviewing Christine Harrington proclaiming she has visions of God.

I tend to take things as comedy, if there’s a joke I can make I’ll make it, but generally I tend to avoid rate R content. I’m not saying I don’t say bad words—I definitely do from time to time. This an area where it is very hard to be truly Catholic.

Give one concrete example where your comedic approach did what serious argument could not: someone stayed in the room, reconsidered a trusted influencer, or stopped excusing an obvious contradiction.

Taylor Marshall is a great example. Because his voice is very good for audio, when you clip it, you get out of the “television mesmerize state.” I did an episode once where I went over Taylor Marshall acting like a 16 year old girl with a new phone who just discovered Instagram. I’m not joking either. He and Timothy Gordon talked about taking pictures if they became pope and where they would take them and what they would be wearing. When edited to be in isolation, it’s straight stupid.

This character assassination isn’t merely necessary, but makes it very difficult to offer a defense. This undoes some of their credibility, because most R&R influencers can’t exist without a “virtue platform.” Showing them to be little more than mental teenagers in the bodies of 40 year-olds takes the legs out of their credibility.

You’ve referenced big figures as easy targets, including Taylor Marshall. What’s your general playbook for puncturing a high-reach figure?

The comedy comes to you very easily with some people. Taylor Marshall, when he announced his campaign to run for president, happily read his chat and exclaimed, “There’s a Lutheran who is going to vote for me!” I clipped it. The stand up comedy comes in easily here.

Before I ever pressed record I watched probably every single clip of Norm Macdonald and dozens of Rodney Dangerfield and Don Rickles clips. There is something about words that comedians have which has always appealed to me and once you catch a joke about how Taylor Marshall is appealing to every Christian religion you know his platform will be generic nonsense.

The playbook is to analyze and understand your character and figure out what he actually knows. For example, I’ve studied economics and I know most theologians are incapable of accurate economic thinking so when they talk about “payday loans” I already know their take, the truth and the sources.

If your strategy worked as intended for five years, what would be different in Catholic online discourse, and what kind of man would it produce?

What it would do is expose a lot of talking heads for being jokes. I want Michael Matt, to be a laughing stock, I want Kennedy Hall to be a joke. Just saying their names, should bring a certain shame. It’s supposed to produce a sharper quicker intellectual, who doesn’t fall for obvious pandering and slogans and instead cuts through those over used lines such as, “We must fight the pope to save the church!”

---

If you value independent Catholic analysis and want to help keep this work going, you can make a contribution or subscribe below. Every donation and subscription directly supports the writing, research, and production of Hiraeth in Exile.

Thank you for helping preserve independent Catholic journalism rooted in truth and tradition.