Fr. Hewko, Why Do You Reject the Novus Ordo Missae?

In the video linked below, Fr. David Hewko criticizes those who hold to the position that Benedict XVI is still the pope. He says that these people don’t have the authority to make a decision on such a question; rather, they must wait for the Church to decide on the matter.1 For now, we must accept what seems evident, that is, that the cardinals have elected Jorge Bergoglio as pope and that this, therefore, is what we should accept for the time being.  However, Fr. Hewko needs to understand that the Church has already spoken on this matter via its head, Pope Benedict XVI.  He did not renounce his office (munus); therefore, he is still pope.2  And even if the whole Catholic world, including each and every cardinal, accepts Jorge Bergoglio as pope, it matters not; they cannot steal the papacy from one who has not renounced it or who has not met death.  Nevertheless, I ask Fr. Hewko this question:

Why do you reject the Novus Ordo Missae?

After all, the popes from Paul VI onward have accepted it. Every current cardinal and bishop with ordinary jurisdiction accepts it. Yet you sternly condemn it and tell the faithful to never actively assist at it. Who gave you the authority to make such a definitive judgment? The Church has not yet definitively condemned the Novus Ordo Missae as such. So according to your own reasoning regarding the “who is the current pope” question, you should be withholding your definitive judgment and should instead wait for the Church to make a definitive judgment.  Sorry, Father; you cannot have it both ways.  You either have to wait for the Church to make its definitive judgment on all controversial matters or apply your God-given senses and intellect, as taught by Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany,3 to the controversial matters at hand.  I choose the latter.


The video will automatically start and stop at the relevant section after clicking the “Play” button. The section is 3.2 minutes long.


  1. Fr. Paul Kramer here explains the untenability of this argument.
  2. https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2020/01/15/q-when-did-benedict-xvi-state-unequivocally-that-he-is-no-longer-the-pope-a-never/
  3. https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2020/02/02/the-judgment-of-simple-human-reason-duly-enlightened-fr-felix-sarda-y-salvany/

37 Responses to Fr. Hewko, Why Do You Reject the Novus Ordo Missae?

  1. “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.

    We Cannot Through Servile Obedience Go Along With The Schismatics
    Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, of August 2nd, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.

  2. You said that you never called anyone a formal schismatic, yet you post this article; “All Who Accept Bergoglio Are in Formal Schism from Jesus Christ.” imply the same, which is why I made that statement.

    March 2, 2020

  3. For some reason there was not a “Reply” bottom to respond to your post of March 4th at 8:09. The fact that you use the 1983 Code is suspect. Since I have not the time to read all your posts in this regard, please enlighten me by answering my questions. I meant no personal insult. What is your response with the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre, like I said I think this applies to the situation with Benedict vs Francis. Am I wrong, if so how? Nevertheless, eventually Benedict will pass to his judgement, the logical outcome of your stance is that, since Francis is not the Pope & the Cardinals, he has installed will also be invalid, there will be not be enough “true” valid Cardinals to elect the new Pope, therefor the Chair of Peter becomes empty. That is the logical outcome of your assertion. Your assertion is untenable

    • The concept of universal acceptance does not apply in the Jorge Bergoglio case. Why? Because Benedict XVI is still alive and he did not renounce the munus (office). Therefore, the election of Jorge Bergoglio was completely invalid and illegal. If you don’t agree, then you accept that the office of the papacy can be taken away by the cardinals from the current pope and given to another. THAT is untenable.

      • It is your opinion that it does not apply, and you are wrong it is quite logical. It is your assertion that according to the 1983 code his resignation is invalid. The 1983 code was rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre because of all the novelties in it. So you are not following in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre because he rejected the 1983 code, and you are using it. Since you follow the 1983 code, which is full of novelties, you are tacitly support Vatican II. If as you say that he needed to explicitly resign the munus and he didn’t, he did it on purpose to deceive, I doubt the he didn’t understand what he was doing. Deception comes from the devil, and I will not follow anyone the uses deception, or those who support those who use deception.

        • John, please affirm or deny the following proposition:

          The precept of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that binds Catholics 18 and older to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is legitimate.

          • You answer me first. I’ve asked many times, do you fast only on ASh Wednesday and Good Friday only, as is written in the 1983 code of canon law. Or do you fast from Ash Wednesday through Holy Saturday as is stipulated in the 1917 code of canon law?

          • Since you copped out and would not answer my in question I will answer in kind: My penances for Lent are not for public consumption.
            Your hubris blinds you.

          • I did not ask you what are your penances. I simply asked you if you agree or disagree with a precept of the 1983 Code regarding fasting, and this on account of your attitude that seems to approach schism without you realizing it because Pope John Paul II, a true pope, promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Yet you seem to question whether he had the authority to do so. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the SSPX after he died questioned that authority. They only opposed certain canons of the 1983 Code that negatively affected Faith and Morals.

          • You reject the Novus Ordo, even though it was validly promulgated by a true Pope, yet accept the 1983 code with all of its novelties as valid. Please explain.

          • Actually, the Novus Ordo Missae was not legitimately promulgated. Nevertheless…

            John, please affirm or deny the following proposition:

            The precept of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that binds Catholics 18 and older to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is legitimate.

          • So let me ask you then do you agree with the 1983 code for fasting or do you agree with the 1917 code on fasting?

          • The fasting precept of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is binding under pain of mortal sin. The fasting precept of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is not binding under pain of mortal sin.

          • I think this will answer your question, and it’s a long one. I was Novus Ordo Catholic for most of my life. Then one year I had this insatiable desire to learn more about my faith. In the process I discovered the truth about Vatican II, and the New Mass. I also learned about sedevacantism, initially it seemed to make sense. One thing kept gnawing at me. How would a true pope be elected since all Cardinals were, according to the sedevacantist, heretics and therefor no long Catholic and therefor no long able to elect a new pope. I asked myself would God leave his church unable to elect a new pope, no. I knew that that was untenable and rejected it. I came across the SSPX and saw that there was one locally, and I started going to Mass there, and I realized that I had found my home, I found the truth of the True Catholic Faith. I had been going there for 7 or 8 years before 2012, and never once do the priest ever quote anything from the 1983 code of canon law, NEVER. When Lent came around the priest always said that we are to fast during the full season of Lent, because that is what was required by the 1917 code of canon law. Then the Doctrinal Declaration was signed by Bishop Fellay. I was concerned but give them the benefit of the doubt. During a catechism class the priest said that we could accept 95% of the Vatican Council considering tradition, I balked at that, but still gave them the benefit of the doubt. Finally, from the pulpit the priest said, during a sermon, that for Lent we only needed to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, because that is what it said in the 1983 code of canon law. That was the first time a priest ever quoted from the new code in all the years I had been go to that chapel. That was the last straw, I knew I could no long continue going to that chapel, because that showed me, they were embracing the Council.
            The 1983 code of canon law is the implementation and codification of the Second Vatican Councils modernism and ecumenism. What I reject are the novelties of the new code. I don’t know if this answers your question?
            With that let me say something about Benedicts resignation. In his resignation speech he said:
            “I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
            And yes, he said ministry. At the same time as you can see, he also said “the See of Saint Peter will be vacant and a conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked.” To me this indicates his intention was to resign completely, judging from what he said in the speech and the fact that he has not exercised his office. That, or He was purposely phrasing his resignation such as to deceive the people, and deception comes from the devil.
            As I said before, non-resignation only leads to the See of Peter being eventually empty, there is no alternative. For if Francis is not the pope all of his Cardinals are illegitimate and there will not be enough valid Cardinals to elect the next pope. Would God leave us in such a predicament, I don’t think so. Thank you for your response.

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=103&v=Gh_CIoVvaOk&feature=emb_logo

          My husband and I want to exhort you, John, to view in its entirety the above video which is approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes long. In several segments I viewed it, and I just fully finished viewing it. It is valuable tool in unveiling the TRUTH that is our Catholic duty to understand plainly and without prideful interference from priests, others, and ourselves. The TRUTH is that antipope bergoglio is not now nor ever has been pope. Pope Benedict XVI remains pope.

          Falsehood and error does not change into TRUTH even if every person says that they accept Antipope bergoglio as pope.

          To seduce the elect is the operative goal regarding the plan of satan and his minions as they have deceived many in our times.

          Many Traditional priests have so manipulated the TRUTH at this point that you must break free in thought from the control that they have placed upon you and your thoughts as well as your own false concepts that you have placed upon yourself.

          How to do this was given to us by our Lady of Fatima who tells us “My Immaculate Heart shall be your refuge and the road that shall lead you to GOD.”

          Our Mother’s hand will guide you when you pray your daily Rosary, wear your Brown Scapular, and place your Faith in God and His Mother to be your leaders; because this is what SHE TELLS US TO DO in this evil age. ASK AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE TRUTH that you seek.

          Also, Tony is a very good source of evidence for theTRUTH. He has labored greatly in the effort to help others to gain the full TRUTH.

          God Bless you ,Tony, for all your work.

          AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM.

        • John says “I will not follow anyone the uses deception, or those who support those who use deception.”

          Following and Recognition are not the same thing. I am sure Tony “follows” Pope Benedict as much as John “follows” Pope Francis.

  4. The short answer is Pope Pius V gave us permission to ignore the New Mass. it is because Pope St. Pius V when he canonized the Mass said that no one needs permission to say the Tridentine Mass, that it had a perpetual indult. Therefor Priests do not need permission from a Pope or a declaration for a Pope to say the Traditional Latin Mass. In fact Pope Paul VI did not formally ban the Tridentine Mass, and he did not have the right to change the Mass in the first place. Puis V: “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” That is why any Priest can say the Tridentine Mass.

    I also have a question. Since Francis was invalidly elected Pope, and therefor not the Pope,are the bishops and cardinals that he appointed invalid? If so, since those same invalid cardinals will elect the next Pope, does that mean that from this point on no popes will be validly elected? Does that mean since there are no validly appointed Cardinals available to elect the next Pope, all further elections would be invalid and therefore you automatically become sedevanctist? Aspecially since Benedict XVI is not exercising his office. Just asking.

    • “If so, since those same invalid cardinals will elect the next Pope, does that mean that from this point on no popes will be validly elected?” You assume that there are no more Cardinal expect the ones appointed by “Pope” Francis. Yet, there are still Cardinals alive appointed by BXVI and JPII.

      • Yes there are still some Cardinals from BXV! & JPII, but they are small in comparison to those appointed by Francis. And they are being forced to retire as they get older, leaving Francis to appoint more invalid Cardinals. I believe that the vast majority already have been appointed by Francis and will overwhelm those appointed by BXVI and JPII.

    • 1) I, too, reject the Novus Ordo Missae.
      2) This is not about whether one is permitted to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Rather, it is about why we ought not to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae.
      3) If Benedict XVI dies before Jorge Bergoglio, I will not automatically become one who thinks that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958.
      4) Our Lord will take care of the next election. I cannot reject the facts in front of me because of what may happen in the future.

      • You posed the question above “Why do you reject the Novus Ordo Missae? After all, the popes from Paul VI onward have accepted it. Every current cardinal and bishop with ordinary jurisdiction accepts it. Yet you sternly condemn it and tell the faithful to never actively assist at it. Who gave you the authority to make such a definitive judgment? The Church has not yet definitively condemned the Novus Ordo Missae as such. The authority for Father Hewko to condemn it and tell others to avoid it comes from St. Pius V. That was the whole point of what I said earlier.

        I never said that you would be one who says that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958. I said that you would become one from the point of Benedicts death on, since the majority of Cardinals have been appointed by Francis to overwhelm those of JPII & BXVI. Therefor from that point on you would be a sedevacantist.

        Those who believe that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since 1958 use the same logic as you, “I cannot reject the facts in front of me.” They, using their private judgement, use that facts they see to say that there have been no Popes since 1958. You using similar logic see your facts and make a private judgement that Benedict is still Pope. You nor Fr. Kramer, nor Tradkatknight, has the authority to tell anyone that if you don’t believe us, using our private judgement, that Benedict is still Pope is in Formal Schism is an example of your HUBRIS. It is private judgement nothing else, until a Pope or council of the future declare such so. As St. Peter said in 2 Peter 3:16 “the same way as they distort the rest of scripture–to their own destruction.” You are distorting this non-resignation of Benedict XVI for your own agenda,

        I’m sure you mean well, but don’t let your ego over come you.

        • 1) No pope has yet condemned the Novus Ordo Missae as the Novus Ordo Missae. All conciliar popes have accepted it. What Fr. Hewko is doing is using Church doctrine to condemn it by applying his senses and intellect to the case at hand. It is the same thing I do regarding Pope Benedict XVI and his invalid renunciation. The only difference is that I am using canon law in addition to the doctrine of the nature of the papacy. I don’t have to wait for a future pope to make a declaration and neither does Fr. Hewko.
          2) Before Vatican II, Catholics were not called “Sedevacantists” during interregnums. Hence, I refuse the term. You will not change the meaning of “Sedevacantist” to include me during the next interregnum if Benedict XVI dies first.
          3) It is not my private judgment in itself that binds you under pain of sin. What does are the FACTS. And the facts are that Benedict XVI is the true pope and Jorge Bergolio is an anti-pope. The Declaratio of Benedict XVI speaks for itself. By the way, I personally never said “formal” schism. I said “material” schism. Whether or not one is guilty of formal schism depends on the knowledge of and consent to the facts.
          4) Let’s not start resorting to personal insults.

          • First off let me say that yes you did say Material and not Formal, I was mistaken. True also correct that before Vatican II Catholics were not called Sede-vacantists, it is a recent term
            . Let me also say that your statement about “Our Lord will take care of the next election” is a copout and is exactly what the Sede-vacantists say. It is your private interpretations of Canon Law. Please show me where I used personal insults.
            Please explain to me why Benedict only partially resign? Why did he use deception to fool everyone into thinking he has resigned? Deception comes from the devil, and I will not follow a “Pope” who uses deception.
            Let me also quote something from Archbishop Lefebvre: “Another argument put forward by the sede-vacantist is that the exclusion of Cardinals of eight years and over, and the secret meetings . . . render the election of those two Popes, referring to Paul VI & John Paul II, invalid. To assert that they were invalid is going too far; doubtful, perhaps. Nevertheless, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the elections by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate them. That is the opinion of theologians.” From Open Letter to Confused Catholics page 177. I’d say that this also applies to this situation.

          • I am not going to answer all your questions. Some of them have been answered already in various posts. Go to the Pope Benedict XVI category on the right side of my website.

            That I privately interpret Canon Law is false. The meaning is objective. It is there for all to read and understand. Go to Canon 332.2 of the 1983 Code and compare it to the Declaratio of what Benedict XVI actually renounced.

            In regards to why Pope Benedict XVI only partially resigned, I am not certain.

            You referred to my ego as if this is the reason for my actions. That is what I meant by personal insult.

  5. It is misrepresenting Archbishop Lefebvre to state that he would have waited to see, teach, and act on the TRUTH. Look at all the times Archbishop Lefebvre rightly did not wait for the (future) Church to decide.

    Are we correct in not waiting for the future Church to decide if the Novus Ordo is a bastard rite and Vatican Council II is a new religion and not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of all times.

    Furthermore, it is an abomination DEVISED BY SATAN to wait when waiting is the means of further destruction by the continuation of the NOVELTIES including that of two popes sharing the office, one who is the contemplative pope and one who is the active pope .

    Nor is one of them better or worse than the other in terms of Modernism. However, only one of them, Pope Benedict XVI is the validly elected one only VICAR OF CHRIST ON EARTH.

    TO WAIT DEFIES RIGHT REASON AND RIGHT JUDGEMENT.

    ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE DID NOT WAIT IN MATTERS OF PRUDENTIAL RIGHT REASON AND RIGHT JUDGEMENT.

  6. With all the overwhelming evidence that jorge bergoglio is invalidly and uncanonically elected according to canon law, Archbishop Lefebvre would never have waited as this is placing souls in jeopardy and into grave danger.

    The saintly Archbishop Lefebvre would definitely provide loudly and clearly what is the absolute TRUTH for the good of souls.

    The proof that the Archbishop would NEVER HAVE WAITED is that he NEVER DID WAIT to speak and act according to the TRUTH and for the good of souls and HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.

    TAKE COURAGE, Fr. Hewko, and truly follow in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre as many souls are being mislead to recognize Antipope bergolglio while dismissing the one only true Pope Benedict XVI who remains pope.

    This is indeed a very serious situation of which some are also claiming that this falsehood is placing oneself and those souls in one’s care in a possible state of SCHISM.

  7. Did Saint Athanasius wait during the Arian crisis?

    Did Pope Saint Pius X wait to expose the Modernists?

    Did Archbishop Lefebvre wait until it was too late to consecrate Bishops?

    This is clearly a spirit of falsehood while also (mis) leading faithful Catholics to follow this spirit of falsehood.

Leave a Reply