Fr. David Hewko Again Attacks the “Non-Resignationist” Position – February 9, 2020

In the following sermon, Fr. David Hewko again attacks the “Non-Resignationist” position and yet again he fails to provide a substantive argument to support his attack.  As Fr. Kramer wrote about one month ago (see here), “Fr. Hewko has characterized my position on the question of whether Francis or Benedict is the true pope without examining my arguments, but simply by gratuitously labelling it as ‘absurd’.”  We still wait for Fr. Hewko to back up his attacks with some meat.

On another note, Fr. Hewko continues to call Jorge Bergoglio “pope” but without any qualification.  As I have shown in this post, Fr. Hewko’s position must needs be that Jorge Bergoglio is a “doubtful” pope given that he doubts whether or not Jorge Bergoglio’s episcopal consecration was valid.  I hope he will come to speak more accurately in future sermons.

The video will automatically start and stop at the relevant section after clicking the “Play” button. The section is 40 seconds long.

6 Responses to Fr. David Hewko Again Attacks the “Non-Resignationist” Position – February 9, 2020

  1. “We still wait for Fr. Hewko to back up his attacks with some meat.”

    This is a definite need at this point in time. There is a definite problem with the absence of real evidence to support the claim that Pope Benedict resigned the munus/office of the papacy and not just the ministry as canons 188 and 322-2 require in order for the resignation to be valid.

    Without a valid resignation, Pope Benedict remains the pope, and no other claimant to the papacy can be validly nor canonically elected.

    As Father states the same claim repeatedly that jorge bergoglio is pope, he must have reasons and proofs. According to all standards of necessity, the proof should be properly addressed for the greater good of souls.

    It would be no stretch to consider that Archbishop Lefebvre would [ as he always did ]
    provide definite proof for the faithful in order that we understand fully regarding matters of such great importance.

    • What is peculiar to me is that some people will accept Benedict XVI’s resignation as valid, but they reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I ask them, on what basis, then, do you accept the resignation as valid? No answer. What if a pope said, “I renounce eating bananas. Consequently, on such and such date, the cardinals will convene to elect another Pontiff.” Would these people accept this as valid???

      • This question needs to be asked and needs to also be answered because if POPE BENEDICT XVI DID TRULY RENOUNCE EATING BANANAS, this would most definitely, positively, unequivocally, indubitably, unfailingly, and most certainly lead any person to believe that he meant to resign the papacy.
        In fact, it has never been proved that Pope Benedict renounced eating bananas.

  2. My disappointment regarding the avoidance and omission of salient quotes from Archbishop LeFebvre keeps me ever vigilant because the faithful really need to know ALL that was given in TRUTH from the wisdom of Archbishop LeFebvre and ALL that he fully expressed as our faithful leader of Tradition.
    I wonder at the inconvenient quotes that are withheld, and what this could be about.

  3. Father Hewko says that Benedict is a bad pope.

    Archbishop LeFebvre states that Cardinal Ratzinger was one of a few traditionalist Cardinals in a conference he spoke at in New York.

    How does Father Hewko explain these following words of wisdom from Archbishop LeFebvre?

    There is a true struggle going on in Rome between the few traditionalist Cardinals Cardinal Oddi, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Pallazini, on one side, and all the progressive cardinals on the other: Cardinal Casaroli, Cardinal Pironio, Cardinal Baggio; and all those who are in the Congregations of Worship: Cardinal Casoria with Msgr. Virgilio Noe; and then in the Congregation of Faith, Msgr. Hamer, a Dominican, all these are Modernists and each time that they go to see the Pope they say, “Above all, no turning back, no return to Tradition, out of the question!”

    Conference Of His Excellency
    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
    Long Island, New York
    November 5, 1983

  4. Father Hewko states that they are both [ Pope Benedict XVI and COUNTERFEIT POPE jorge bergoglio] bad popes and that all the vatican II popes are bad popes. There is a sorrowful state of confusion when one is not facing the truth of the difference from being a bad pope such as Pope Benedict and the other vatican II popes and being an uncanonically and therefore an invalidly elected pope such as is jorge bergoglio. According to the wisdom of Archbishop LeFebvre the following are his words:

    “On the other hand, if it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and invalid election are some causes which could make it happen that a Pope never was one or would cease to be one. In this obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs after the death of a sovereign pontiff.”
    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, August 2, 1976.

Leave a Reply