Fr. David Hewko and the Admin of The Catacombs Forum Distort the Teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre on “Who Is the Pope” Question

In this sermon, Fr. David Hewko tries to make the case, using the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre, that it is only up to the Church to decide on the matter of who is pope. The implication is that one cannot form a private judgment on the matter during a time of crisis before the Church gives a definitive judgment.  Rather, we must in the meantime accept he who the world accepts as pope.  The Administrator of The Catacombs Forum supports Fr. Hewko by making the following statement on this thread:

“This is why no ‘lay armchair theologian’ nor ‘Father X,Y, or Z’ can make declarations on who is Pope and who is not. This is one of the fundamental errors with the sedevacantist theories, including the resignationist theory.”

Where does Archbishop Lefebvre, in any of the quotes provided by Fr. Hewko in this sermon, say that as a matter of principle, one cannot make a judgment of conscience? As a matter of fact, at 10 minutes and zero seconds the Archbishop is quoted as saying, “As long as I don’t have any evidence that the pope is not the pope, then the presumption is for him.” So the Archbishop points to evidence as being the determining factor.  He did not state that a judgment of conscience can never be made. Therefore, Fr. Hewko and the Admin have distorted the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre by making it seem that he was giving a universal principle when in fact he was only making statements about the particular cases of the conciliar popes up until Pope John Paul II.  Based on the evidence, the Archbishop could not judge they were not popes.  So, Fr. Hewko and the Admin, the Archbishop evidently does not agree with you.

In the case of Benedict XVI, it is Benedict XVI himself who decided that he remains pope by not renouncing the munus.  Hence, it is both of you and the rest of the world that are going against the definitive judgment of the Church, no less than that of the reigning pope!

Fr. Peter Scott on the Novus Ordo Missae

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the effective date of that horrible rite called the Novus Ordo Missae.  Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, who now resides in Nigeria, wrote an article on the Novus Ordo Missae in the December 2019 Issue of “Defende Nos”, the newsletter of St. Michael’s Priory in that same country.  To his merit, Fr. Scott continues to maintain the line of Archbishop Lefebvre on this subject (italics mine):

“A Mass that fails to express fully Catholic teaching concerning the sacrifice and its purpose, as it ought to do, is lacking an essential element. It manifestly suffers from a privation of the good that is due to it. It is not what the Mass ought to be, and cannot attain the purpose of the Mass. It is quite simply evil, and that privation of the due good is to be found in the assembly of ceremonies and prayers of the Mass itself…..The affirmation that the New Mass is evil is an objective statement that this liturgical act as such does not adequately profess the Faith, nor does it attain its end…..”

So what does this mean in regards to the morality of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Missae (italics mine):

“Having established that the New Mass is objectively evil, it necessarily follows that the celebration of or assistance at it is a disorder, opposed to God’s will, and a sin. It is, moreover, a sin against the virtue of religion, namely the sin of sacrilege, to attempt to give glory to God by a ceremony that is not truly, in itself, to His glory…..To assist at such (relatively reverent) Masses is a venial sin of sacrilege. We have no right to do so, just as we have no right to commit any venial sin, not even to satisfy a precept of the Church.”

Did you read that Your Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson?  Did you read that Mr. Sean Johnson?  Why is it that Fr. Scott, even though he is now part of the neo-SSPX, continues to maintain the line of Archbishop Lefebvre in that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil in itself and therefore one must never actively attend it, and yet you both, who claim to oppose the neo-SSPX, teach that it is morally acceptable to actively attend it under certain circumstances?

Please come back to the line of the Archbishop.

Out of Line with Archbishop Lefebvre?

I have been accused by a few people that I am no longer in line with Archbishop Lefebvre because I now accept Benedict XVI as the true pope.  Really?  How do they know that Archbishop Lefebvre would undoubtedly accept Jorge Bergoglio as pope?  They make the Archbishop some kind of static character who would always accept the general consensus of who is pope despite evidence to the contrary.  This is a false characterization of the man.  Did the Archbishop accept the general consensus of the Vatican II Council Fathers?  No.  So don’t fall for it if you too accept Benedict XVI as the true pope or are leaning towards this fact.  This is a matter of evidence and the evidence clearly shows that Benedict XVI did not renounce the office (munus).  Therefore, he is still pope.

“Every One of Them Is Silent….” – Fr. David Hewko regarding the Fake Resistance Bishops

Fr. David Hewko regarding the Fake Resistance bishops being silent on Bishop Williamson’s error regarding the New Mass:

“Every one of them is silent against the error that it’s okay to go to the New Mass if it nourishes your faith.  This is poisonous doctrine.”

Archbishop Lefebvre Conferences to Seminarians in 1983 – Audio