Christian Education in the “Dark Ages” is taken from Volume XXIII (1898) of The American Catholic Quarterly Review.
I have to shake my head each time I hear Fr. David Hewko acknowledge Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope (see first video below) when he himself doubts whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is a validly consecrated bishop (see here). I have demonstrated (see here) that if one doubts whether or not a man elected to the papacy is a validly consecrated bishop, then he must necessarily doubt whether or not the elected man is a true pope. This conclusion infallibly follows from the premises. Yet Fr. Hewko, in concluding that Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope, is like one who tries to make “five” be the sum of “two plus two”. On the one hand, Fr. Hewko readily (and correctly) admits that when it comes to the sacraments, one must be morally certain that they are valid before receiving them, that is, receiving them in a state of doubt about their validity is not permitted. On the other hand, however, when it comes to the papacy, for which a validly consecrated bishop is necessary, Father readily accepts Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope even though he doubts the validity of his episcopal consecration. Hmm. Just think about the tremendous power that Father is acknowledging Jorge Bergoglio has over him (and his faithful). See here for examples. Now I know that this is not a very strong analogy because receiving doubtful sacraments is sacrilegious, whereas submitting to the jurisdiction of one who doubtfully has a claim to it is not sacrilegious. Nevertheless, it is downright imprudent, especially given that the office of the papacy, as constituted by Jesus Christ, is the greatest office on earth! But make no mistake about it; this imprudence is at most a practical decision. It cannot be used to deny the logical conclusion that Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful pope. It is this conclusion that I am still awaiting Fr. Hewko to explicitly admit.
The second video below is a sermon by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer where he correctly states that the consequence of doubting the validity of the episcopal consecrations of Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio is that they cannot be (considered) popes.1 (This is not an endorsement of Fr. Pfeiffer’s apostolate. I am simply giving credit where it is due.) Of course, however, Fr. Pfeiffer is dead wrong that Jorge Bergoglio is the current pope.
Let us pray that Fr. Hewko comes to explicitly admit the logical consequence of his premises, and let the cards fall where they may.
The videos will automatically start and stop at the relevant sections after clicking the “Play” button. The first video section is 15 seconds long and the second video section is 25 seconds long.
In defending the position that Benedict XVI is the true pope, I have heard that it does not matter who is pope because all the conciliar popes were Modernists and Jorge Bergoglio is no different. Some have even claimed that Benedict XVI is worse than Jorge Bergoglio. Really? Those who make such statements are simply wrong. There is a huge difference between the conciliar popes and Jorge Bergoglio and it is this:
The conciliar popes were not public manifest formal heretics; Jorge Bergoglio is!
And this, other than the canonical argument, proves that Jorge Bergoglio is not a true pope because a true pope cannot be a formal heretic.
Let us read the following excellent Facebook post by Fr. Paul Kramer explaining this:
The video will automatically start and stop at the relevant section after clicking the “Play” button. The section is 2.3 minutes long.