These comments were posted on Facebook on January 15, 2020, under this post.
This is so rich. Please read it carefully. It was posted on Facebook on January 13, 2020.
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!
In the following section of this talk, Fr. Paul Kramer rightly explains that we cannot wait for a future pope to resolve the current “two” pope situation. It must be resolved now!
The video will automatically start and stop at the relevant section after clicking the “Play” button. The section is 6.5 minutes long.
Don Minutella, who was “excommunicated” last year by his bishop, acknowledges that Benedict XVI is the true pope. This is in Italian. I apologize to the non-Italian speakers, but this talk was too good to ignore.
It is so sad to see that many in the conciliar church are waking up to the truth in this matter. Meanwhile, we have the Catholic Resistance, who are supposed to be the cream of the crop, continue to accept Jorge Bergoglio as the true pope. I do not doubt that even if Jorge Bergoglio were to publicly perform a black mass, many in the Catholic Resistance would still acknowledge him as the true pope. This is how brainwashed they have become!
In the sermon linked below starting at 48 minutes, Fr. David Hewko speaks out against the “Resignationist” theory and calls it “absurd”.
1. Father states that the term “munus” (office) needs to be clearly defined.
The term is defined in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law. See pages 2 and 3 of my paper “Benedict Is the True Pope!”. The term “ministry” on the other hand is not defined in either Code. You may also find here an extensive study on the two terms by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.
2. Father states that Benedict XVI recognizes Jorge Bergoglio as pope.
The term “pope” as used by Benedict XVI in reference to Jorge Bergoglio needs to be understood in a qualified sense. Benedict XVI renounced the active exercise of the ministry, that is, the government of the Church. Meanwhile, he retained the office and the passive exercise of the ministry. See here for a diagram. Because he renounced the active exercise of powers that belong to his own office, he calls that person who exercises them “pope”. Big deal. It is still Benedict XVI who has the charism of infallibility and universal and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church because these belong to the office.
3. Father states that he is sure Archbishop Lefebvre would not hold to the “Resignationist” theory. Why? Because there were those in the 1970s who held that the true pope was being held in a dungeon and that the visible one was an imposter; Archbishop rejected this. Is Father really comparing a public act on the part of Benedict XVI, which is available for everybody to read and in which he clearly retained the office, to some conspiracy theory and then using that poor comparison as a ground for why Archbishop Lefebvre would surely reject the “Resignationist” theory? That’s not very convincing!
The reality is that Benedict XVI is the true pope. Father needs to accept that, and so does the rest of the Catholic Resistance.