You resist Vatican II. Good! You resist the New Mass. Good! You resist acknowledging Benedict XVI as the true pope. Bad!
Get out of your material schism. Stop acknowledging Jorge Bergoglio, an anti-pope, as the true pope. Otherwise, you risk a formal schism with the true pope and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which leads you to risk separating yourselves forever from Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
A valid sacrament requires the correct matter and form, the intrinsic causes, and a valid minister and the intention to do what the Church does, the extrinsic causes. For a sacrament to be intrinsically invalid, at least one of the intrinsic causes must be defective. Now in some Traditionalist circles, it is claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre held that the validity of the New Rites of the Sacraments is doubtful. By not making any qualifications, they make it seem like the Archbishop was speaking about the matter and/or form of the New Rites. If it is their intention, they are not correct. Take, for example, the Fr. Stark issue. Here are the words of the Archbishop during a 1983 conference in Ridgefield, Connecticut:
Note that Archbishop speaks about studying each case and not making one judgment across the board. If he held that the matter and/or form was doubtful, he would indeed be right to make one judgment across the board. Now, this example is for the New Rite of Ordination. What about the New Rites of the other Sacraments? For all the other New Rites, one would have difficulty finding Archbishop Lefebvre placing doubt on the matter and/or form as approved by Rome, except for the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation because of the permission given in the New Rite to use vegetable oil instead of olive oil. For the New Rites of the Sacraments, rather, the Archbishop was chiefly concerned with the intention of the minister due to a poor formation. However, as mentioned above, this is an extrinsic factor. Therefore, these Traditionalist circles need to be careful when they make broad statements and attribute them to the Archbishop or take the Archbishop’s words out of context.
In the following sermon, Fr. David Hewko implicitly admits that he doubts whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope. Father states, “Pope Francis, he may be valid, his priesthood, his consecration. It may be valid. It may not be.” I have demonstrated in this post that by doubting Jorge Bergoglio’s episcopal consecration, it necessarily follows that his being a true pope is doubtful as well. Here, again, is the argument:
Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.
But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope.
Now Fr. Hewko does not state in this sermon the same about Benedict XVI. However, at about the 8-minute mark of this sermon, Fr. Hewko leans towards the Church in the future condemning the New Rites as invalid because of a defect of intention. If Fr. Hewko applies this to the case of Benedict XVI, who was consecrated in the New Rite, then Fr. Hewko doubts whether or not Joseph Ratzinger is a true pope as well.
Fr. Hewko condemns the idea that this doubt automatically makes one a Sedevacantist; he is correct. First of all, Sedevacantism is traditionally understood to mean one who holds, whether as an opinion or with moral certitude, that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since 1958. However, Fr. Hewko accepts John Paul II as a true pope. Secondly, as you can see from the above syllogism, the most that can be concluded is doubt, but not “opinion” or “moral certitude” about whether or not the Chair of Peter is vacant. Nevertheless, Fr. Hewko’s doubt allows him to hold that the Chair of Peter has potentially been vacant1 since 2005 (i.e., 15 years), if he doubts Benedict XVI’s consecration, or since 2013 (i.e., 7 years), if he doubts only Jorge Bergoglio’s consecration. He leaves it up to the Church to finally decide in the future.
Let us analyze Fr. Hewko’s position more closely on a scale of certainty from one proposition to its opposite:
1. I am morally certain that Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio are true popes. Fr. Hewko denies this proposition.
2. I am of the opinion that Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio are true popes. Fr. Hewko denies this proposition.
3. I am of the opinion that Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio are not true popes. Fr. Hewko denies this proposition.
4. I am morally certain that Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio are not true popes. Fr. Hewko denies this proposition.
Fr. Hewko’s position lies somewhere between 2 and 3. It would be fair to state that his position is the following, assuming he doubts both Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio’s episcopal consecration and that he leans towards the invalidity of the New Rite of Consecration:
I doubt whether or not Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio are true popes with a leaning towards the position that they are not true popes.
What I cannot accept is that Archbishop Lefebvre would hold Fr. Hewko’s same position regarding Benedict XVI (again, assuming what I wrote above). Archbishop Lefebvre never raised a doubt about the validity of the episcopal consecration of Joseph Ratzinger, with whom he had intimate dealings. Therefore, I have no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre would hold this position:
I am morally certain that Benedict XVI is a true pope.
If Fr. Hewko, however, clearly acknowledges the validity of the episcopal consecration of Benedict XVI, then all is good because, after all, Benedict XVI is the true pope!
The video will automatically start and stop at the relevant section after clicking the “Play” button. The section is 4.3 minutes long.
A generous soul has translated into English “The Visions of Hell of St. Frances of Rome” from the French booklet that itself was made by taking her visions from the French book set “The Devil in the Lives of the Saints”. You may download it here.
You may also hear Fr. Hewko’s sermon on these visions here.
In this post, I demonstrated that if one holds that Novus Ordo Rite of Consecration is doubtful, then he must conclude that Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful pope. The same would apply to the current pope, Benedict XVI. In a thread started today (January 23, 2020), the Admin of The Catacombs inches ever closer to unambiguously holding the position that Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio (who I hold as an antipope) are doubtful popes. You may read the thread here. Now I qualify it with “ever closer” because I sense that the Admin still wants to be able to say that Jorge Bergoglio is pope. Here is how the Admin ends the thread:
“For Mélanie Calvat to use the phrase ‘doubtful popes’ in her prophecy validates the prudent stance taken by Archbishop Lefebvre and all his true sons that these Conciliar popes [particularly Benedict XVI and Francis to whom this prophecy may well apply!], are still considered ‘popes.’ But one cannot say with certainty that they are not doubtful.”
To pinpoint the words of interest, the Admin is saying that “Benedict XVI and Francis are still considered ‘popes’, but one cannot say with certainty they are not doubtful”. Notice the double negative, which is a good way of muddling expressions. Let’s make it a bit more clear:
I consider Jorge Bergoglio to be the pope, but I cannot say with certainty that there is no doubt he is the pope. In other words, I consider Jorge Bergoglio to be the pope, but not to the degree where I can say that he is certainly the pope.
Basically, based on the expression, the Admin holds that “Jorge Bergoglio is the pope” as an opinion. However, the Admin has to go back and state that “it is my opinion that the New Rite of Consecration is valid”. If the Admin insists that the validity of the New Rite of Consecration is doubtful, then the Admin has to conclude that “Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful pope”. The Admin has to pick one or the other. Which one is it?