Listen starting at the 46 minutes mark.
Thank you, Fr. Hewko. I pray that one day soon you will come to accept, and publicly and unequivocally acknowledge, the truth that Jorge Bergoglio was never pope.
Fr. David Hewko
Bishop Williamson’s Foreword to Contra Cekadam Opposes the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII
For Fr. Francois Chazal’s book titled “Contra Cekadam” (see pdf version here), His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson wrote the foreword. Here is the quote of interest for our purpose:
“…..for the sake of the Church as a whole, God preserves the Pope’s headship until the highest competent Church authorities can make a public declaration of his heresy (to prevent chaos in the Church), and then and only then does God dispose him. No such declaration has been made since Vatican II.”
Bishop Williamson here essentially expresses Opinion No. 4 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine:
“That a manifest heretic does not fall from the pontificate by himself ipso facto, but must be judged by the Church to fall from office.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 49. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)
Let us see what St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and great ecclesiologist, writes about Opinion No. 4:
“The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)
So Bishop Williamson’s position opposes the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.
Let us see what Fr. Paul Kramer, who has extensively studied this subject and written two volumes on it, writes about Opinion No. 4:
“Opinion Number Four is heretical, because it attributes to the pope’s inferiors a power to judge him who is absolutely immune from judgment; and to act as final arbiter in a dispute on a matter of faith, which pertains exclusively to the full and supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge of all disputes.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 51. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)
So Bishop Williamson’s position opposes the scholarly work of Fr. Paul Kramer. However, please note that Fr. Paul Kramer is basing his commentary on the teaching of Vatican I which dogmatically asserts that the pope has full and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. Therefore, no Church authority, whether singly or together, has jurisdiction over a valid (or presumably valid) pope such that they can canonically judge him for heresy (or anything else). Fr. David Hewko, to his credit, does not hold this error (refer this post).
In addition to the above error, Bishop Williamson’s position (and Fr. Hewko’s in this case) opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII because it in effect denies Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church. If the pope does not lose his office until the Church authorities publicly declare his heresy, then the public sin of manifest formal heresy does not per se separate the heretic from the Church. I have written extensively on this matter in this post, so please refer to it.
Now to Bishop Williamson’s credit, he seems to be opening his eyes since writing his erroneous position in the foreword because he has in the past year admitted that it is not certain that Jorge Bergoglio is pope (see this post and this post). However, he does not explain the reasons for his comments. Hopefully, he will do so in the near future.
My friends, Opinion No. 4 is the one in my estimation held by most of the clergy and faithful in Traditionalist circles. It is the position pushed by John Salza and Robert Siscoe in their dreadful work titled “True or False Pope”. We must reject it. If you want a solid scholarly work on this matter, please read Fr. Paul Kramer’s two volume set of “To Deceive the Elect”.
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.
Fr. David Hewko’s Position on the Pope and Heresy Opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII
In previous posts (see here, here, here, and here), I have written about Fr. David Hewko’s positions on the pope, heresy, and related matters and that his positions oppose the Magisterium of the Church in her doctrine and Canon Law. Unfortunately, Father continues to publicly teach his errors to the faithful. The one that has recently received my greatest attention is the same one I presented in this post, that is, that a heretical pope, even if he admits to teaching heresy, would remain pope until a future pope judges him because the Church does not have jurisdiction over a pope. Fr. Hewko repeated this error in two separate conferences he gave in July 2023 (see here at the 1 hr. and 7 minutes mark and here at the 1 hr. and 8 minutes mark). I have already pointed out in this post that the proposition that only a future pope can judge a present pope for heresy is a falsity if the presumption is that the person being judged is pope because an equal does not have jurisdiction over an equal, so Father’s argument fails just on this point. However, there is a bigger and more fundamental problem with Father’s position which I have also already briefly written about (see here) and that is that Father’s position indirectly denies the following proposition which must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.
I have made many posts demonstrating that this is the teaching of the Church, the Fathers, and theologians (see this page). This infallible teaching is of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. I have asked Fr. Hewko via private messages to unequivocally affirm or deny this proposition, but he has refused to do so. It is my impression that he sees it as a theological opinion rather than Church teaching. Note that my question of Father has nothing to do with its application to Jorge Bergoglio. I simply wanted him to affirm or deny the proposition itself. I have asked the same question of Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., and he unequivocally affirmed it (see here). Fr. Rafael admitted to me that this proposition is of Divine and Catholic Faith even though he publicly acknowledges Jorge Bergoglio as pope. The proposition is one thing; the application of it to a specific person is another. Of course, I do not agree with Fr. Rafael regarding its application. If Jorge Bergoglio has not shown himself to be a public manifest formal heretic, then I do not know who could ever be shown to be one barring the heretic’s own admission.
The proposition may alternatively be written as such:
One who knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly asserts a proposition that is in direct contradiction to a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith separates himself from the Church by that very fact.
Note again that Fr. Hewko’s position is that even if a pope were to admit he teaches heresy he would still remain pope. Now how much more evidence does one need to condemn a heretic as a heretic when the heretic himself admits to teaching heresy??? Fr. Hewko’s strange position most closely resembles Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is such:
“That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 49. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)
Let us see what St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and great ecclesiologist, writes about Opinion No. 3:
“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)
So Fr. Hewko’s position opposes the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.
Let us see what Fr. Paul Kramer, who has extensively studied this subject and written two volumes on it, writes about Opinion No. 3:
“Number Three is false, because, (as I have proven in Volume One), it is de fide that a public heretic is severed from membership ipso facto by the very nature of heresy, and loses office ipso jure; but a public heretic who remains pope while no longer a member would still be the chief member; and he would still hold office even after losing his office ipso jure. The consideration of these absurdities proves that the opinion is against the Catholic faith; yet, this opinion is still popular among many ignorant Catholics.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 51. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)
So Fr. Hewko’s position opposes the scholarly work of Fr. Paul Kramer.
Now the teaching of the most authoritative person I am presenting in this post (I previously wrote about this more briefly here) that Fr. Hewko’s position opposes is that of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis. I want to make clear from the start that Pope Pius XII does not write about papal heresy in this encyclical, but what he does teach has irrefutable implications for a heretical pope if it were possible for a pope to become a public manifest formal heretic. Let us start with the following:
“In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt.”
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
(Paragraph 22)
Note here that Pope Pius XII distinguishes between those who “separate themselves from the unity of the Body” of the Church from those who have “been excluded by legitimate authority“. We learn in the following from the same encyclical how one separates himself from the unity of the Body:
“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Let us in the following remove the terms “schism” and “apostasy” to make the statement more clear in regard to “heresy”:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does…..heresy…..”
The first thing to note about this teaching is that Pope Pius XII is speaking about public heresy and not occult heresy. This is understood from the term “Body of the Church” which signifies visibility. The second thing to note is that Pope Pius XII uses the term “suapte natura” in the authoritative Latin which is translated into English by the Vatican as “of its own nature”. See also this post which shows “suapte natura” translated into English in a dictionary of ecclesiastical Latin as “by its very nature”. So the sin of heresy of (or by) its own (or very) nature severs a man (who publicly manifests formal heresy) from the Body of the Church. Now a thing that causes a change due to its own nature allows for no exceptions to the change that that thing causes. As an example in the physical order, fire due to its own nature causes the air around it to become warmer. As an example in the moral order, adultery due to its own nature causes one who knowingly, consciously, and willingly engages in it to be guilty before God of mortal sin. There are no exceptions in either case. Likewise, the sin of heresy due to its own nature causes the heretic to be separated from the Church. His sin of heresy causes him to change from being a member to being a non-member of the Church. And this applies whether the heretic was formerly pope, bishop, priest, religious, or layman. There are no exceptions. Note that I do not specify “Body” of the Church in the proposition “the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church” because if one does not belong to the “Body” of the Church he is not a member of the Church at all. Pope Pius XII makes this evident in the same encyclical when he states that “actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith“. There is such thing as a partial member, member of only the Soul of the Church, member of only the Body of the Church, or any other similar nonsense. One is either a member of the Church or he is not. Period. In regard to occult heresy, it is the more common opinion amongst theologians that occult heresy does not cause loss of Church membership.
Now going back to Fr. Hewko’s position, we can see how it opposes the teaching of Pope Pius XII. Fr. Hewko holds that a pope remains pope (and a fortiori a member of the Church) even if he himself, the pope, admits that he teaches heresy, whereas Pope Pius XII teaches us that the sin of heresy of its own nature (suapte natura) separates a man from the Church. Who do you believe? The answer is obvious. Now if Fr. Hewko would try to defend himself by stating (I don’t believe he would actually state this) that a man can still be pope despite being severed from the Church, then he would be admitting that the papal office can exist severed from the Church. To admit such would positively oppose the divine constitution of the Church.
Now in addition to Fr. Hewko’s position being in opposition to a teaching of the Church that must be held with Divine and Catholic Faith, it becomes very dangerous in regard to a future formal schism. Many foresee, including myself, that Jorge Bergoglio, a public manifest formal heretic and therefore an antipope, or one of his antipope successors will foment a formal schism. If this occurs and if Fr. Hewko at that time still holds the same position he holds today, he (and those who think like him) will consider Jorge Bergoglio or his successor the true pope no matter what heresy he utters and consequently enter into a canonical formal schism. At that point, my friends, we must all consider that the absolute red line in that we would no longer be morally permitted to support bishops or priests that go that route. Let us pray and hope that our loved ones like Fr. Hewko do not end up going that route. I encourage those readers who know him to speak to him about this post.
I know that I have written this many times in previous posts, but I cannot urge you enough to read Fr. Paul Kramer’s two volume set. I have studied it diligently and it is a wealth of information on this subject. It is an excellent scholarly work!
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.
“We Do Not Have the Canonical Authority to Judge These Popes” – Fr. David Hewko and Fr. Hugo Ruiz
In a statement dated July 1, 2023 (see here), Fr. David Hewko and Fr. Hugo Ruiz asserted the following:
“We cannot accept Sedevacantism as a ‘solution’ to the crisis of the Church because denying that all the last popes are popes takes away from the Church even the very hope of finding a solution and an end to the tremendous crisis. We do not have the authority to canonically judge these popes, only a truly Catholic pope in the future will have the authority to do it.”
From one point of view, it is true that the Fathers do not have the authority to canonically judge Jorge Bergoglio. Since they presume that Jorge Bergoglio is pope, it is not morally licit for them to even think that they can bring him to trial, even if they were the lawfully appointed inquisitors. This is because, as taught by Vatican I, the pope has supreme and universal jurisdiction over all ecclesiastical matters. However, it is also true that a future pope could not judge Jorge Bergoglio if he too were to presume that Jorge Bergoglio was pope. This is because an equal does not have jurisdiction over an equal. But what if a putative pope were to be considered as being vehemently suspect of heresy and therefore a doubtful pope? Since a doubtful pope is different than one presumed to be pope, the situation changes:
“It is only if the pope’s opinions, being indicia of heresy, were to qualify him as a suspect of heresy, that those opinions themselves would render doubtful the validity of his pontificate. In such a case it would fall within the jurisdiction of the Church to determine whether or not the suspect is pertinacious, and therefore disqualified by heresy from holding office as an incapable subject of the papacy, or just a valid pope who holds an honestly mistaken opinion, as was the case with Pope John XXII.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 48. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition)
In this case (of a doubtful pope because of vehement suspicion of heresy), the Church would not have to wait for a future pope to judge the case:
“‘For a doubtful pope is considered no pope, and thus, to have power over him is not to have power over the pope.’ For this reason, Bellarmine explains in CAPUT ix. (De utilitate vel etiam necessitate celebrandorum comciliorum) of De Concilliis et Ecclesia, that one of the reasons which would necessitate the convening of a council would be ‘suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff if it should happen’. Bordoni also explains that only a true and certain pope is above a council, but doubtful popes and pertinacious heretics (because they are incapable subjects) are subject to a council: ‘solus verus & indubitatus Papa est supra Concilium, et non alii de quibus dubitatur, ergo subijciuntur Concilio.'”
(Ibid. pp. 106-107)
So we see that the Church has the right to try a putative pope vehemently suspect of heresy.
From another point of view, Canon Law does give any Catholic the right to form a private judgment, when there is sufficient evidence, that a putative pope has lost office. I will use the 1917 Code since the Fathers hold to this Code rather than the 1983 Code. Canon 188.4º states the following:
“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: A fide catholica publice defecerit.”
“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
Note that the Canon does NOT require a declaration from a competent Church authority for the loss of office to take place. Why? Because it recognizes the doctrine that public defection from the Catholic faith (of which being a public heretic is one kind) is an act which per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates one from the Church. No longer being a member of the Church due to his public defection, he loses his office. This Canon is the Church’s legislative formulation of that doctrine. Note that the Canon states that the office becomes vacant by the FACT of public defection from the Catholic faith. It does not state that the office becomes vacant because of a DECLARATION of the Church; it actually asserts the opposite, that is, “without any declaration”. A fact is perceived by the senses and apprehended by the intellect. Therefore, a judgment (private, without juridical force) of public defection, when there is sufficient evidence, can be made by a simple layman. If this was not the case, then Canon 188.4º would not make sense in stating that the loss of office occurs without any declaration because if one cannot make the judgment on his own despite the factual evidence and the Church does not make a declaration, how would anybody know that the loss of office took place? Canon 188.4º is therefore made futile by such an erroneous interpretation.
But doesn’t public defection from the Catholic faith mean joining a sect? It CAN mean joining a sect, but one does not have to join a sect for public defection from the Catholic faith to occur:
“On page 139 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, Fr. Gerald McDevitt writes: ‘The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.‘ The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349-350), that public defection from the faith means: ‘Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)'”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition)
But does Canon 188.4º apply to a pope? It applies to any office whatsoever. This is indicated by the Latin term “quaelibet”:
“That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, ‘quælibet officia vacant ipso facto’ – and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supreme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) ‘applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.’ (p. 346)”
(Ibid.)
Fr. Hewko and Fr. Ruiz would do well to carefully study Fr. Paul Kramer’s outstanding two volumes on the question of a heretical pope (IF it were possible for a pope to become a heretic). It would assist them in leading the faithful in the correct direction on this matter.
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.
Fr. David Hewko Indirectly Denies that the Public Sin of Manifest Formal Heresy Separates the Heretic from the Church
In a post titled “Fr. David Hewko Gives Us Little Hope on What Can Be Done with a Heretical Pope“, I wrote about a conference that Father gave in which I stated that it was Father’s position that “if ‘Pope’ Francis were to admit in front of a panel of inquisitors that he knows he teaches heresy, then the most that can be done is for the inquisitors to ask him to step down from the ‘papacy'”. What I failed to explicitly point out in that post is that Fr. Hewko’s position indirectly denies that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, which must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith, because Francis, according to Fr. Hewko, would still be pope despite his own admission that he was a heretic. Note that I emphasized “indirectly”. Therefore, Father’s position as stated is not strictly heretical.
Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis the following:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Paragraph 23) [Emphases mine]
Heresy (along with schism and apostasy) of its own nature severs a man from the Church. Therefore, Francis, in the hypothetical situation presented above, would sever himself from the Church and consequently lose the papacy. However, according to Fr. Hewko, Francis would remain pope despite his own admission of heresy. In other words, the severing from the Church would not take place because of his heresy. Fr. Hewko’s position, then, indirectly denies the teaching of Pope Pius XII (see this page for more information on the subject of the public sin of manifest formal heresy). Now if Fr. Hewko would try to defend himself by stating (I don’t believe he would actually state this) that a man can still be pope despite being severed from the Church, then he would be admitting that the papal office can exist severed from the Church. This would be absurd; it has no foundation in magisterial teaching.
Let us pray that Fr. Hewko comes to recognize his error and turns away from it.
Fr. David Hewko’s Teaching regarding Public Heresy and Church Membership Opposes the Codes of Canon Law
Fr. David Hewko wrote the following in the September 2022 Issue (#20) of his Sorrowful Heart of Mary SSPX-MC newsletter:
“It must be added that, while speaking of the authorities of the Church as ‘heretical’ or ‘schismatic’, it does not mean in the canonical sense or that they have necessarily broken from the Church. For this, it would be necessary that their heresy or schism be declared notorious by canon law, which seems almost impossible, since the authorities of the Church must do this.”
Let us break this down.
The “this” in the “for this” refers to an authority of the Church being heretical in the canonical sense or having broken from the Church. In order for “this” to happen, the heresy of that authority of the Church must be declared notorious by canon law by a higher authority of the Church. In other words, a public manifest formal heretic must be declared to be such by the competent authority of the Church. Until such time that happens, we must not consider that authority as being a public manifest formal heretic. Therefore, he maintains his membership in the Church. In a conference given by Fr. Hewko in Alberta, Canada on January 8, 2023, he follows this same line of thinking (see this link at the 1 hr., 11 minutes, and 30 seconds mark).
Now this teaching of Fr. Hewko opposes the 1917 Code of Canon Law in Canon 188.4º, which states:
“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
Fr. Hewko’s teaching also opposes the 1983 Code of Canon Law in Canon 194 §1.2º, which states basically the same thing as the 1917 Code:
“The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church.”
Both Canons do NOT require a declaration from a competent Church authority for the loss of office to take place. Why? Because both Canons recognize the doctrine that public defection from the Catholic faith (of which being a public heretic is one kind) is an act which per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates one from the Church. No longer being a member of the Church due to his public defection, he loses his office. These Canons are the Church’s legislative formulation of that doctrine. Note that the 1917 Code states (and is implied in the 1983 Code) that the office becomes vacant by the FACT of public defection from the Catholic faith. It does not state that the office becomes vacant because of a DECLARATION of the Church; it actually asserts the opposite, that is, “without any declaration”. A fact is perceived by the senses and apprehended by the intellect. Therefore, a judgment (private, without juridical force) of public defection, when there is sufficient evidence, can be made by a simple layman.
Now if (and this is a big “if”) Fr. Hewko means by his position that the public sin of manifest formal heresy does NOT per se separate the heretic from the Church and that, rather, it is the Church’s declaration and ONLY the Church’s declaration that separates the heretic from the Church, then not only does Fr. Hewko’s teaching oppose the Codes of Canon Law, it also opposes the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in a doctrine that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith, and therefore his teaching implicitly contains heresy. Pope Pius XII clearly taught the following:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
Therefore, the public sin of manifest formal heresy DOES per se separate the heretic from the Church (see this page for posts related to this proposition). As a matter of fact, positive ecclesiastical laws (like Canon Law) are not required for one to cease being a Catholic because it is of the very nature of the “sin” of heresy that separates one from the Church. The “crime” of heresy, which seems to be what Fr. Hewko is writing about, belongs to positive ecclesiastical law. Therefore, we don’t need to bring up at all the “crime” of heresy and the corresponding canonical process in order to judge that one has fallen into heresy and thereby separated himself from the Church. Without the “crime” of heresy, Fr. Hewko’s teaching becomes moot unless he really meant to express it in relation to the “sin” of heresy. And note that the two Canons mentioned above are NOT in the penal section of the corresponding Codes. Therefore, they are not Canons dealing with canonical crimes such as the “crime” of heresy. Rather, they deal with the “sin” of heresy (i.e., in respect to being one kind of public defection from the Catholic faith).
Now I know that Fr. Hewko does not intend to oppose the Codes of Canon Law, especially the 1917 Code, and he definitely does not intend to teach heresy, even implicitly. However, what he has done is worse than just speaking in sermons because he actually wrote his teaching down on paper. Therefore, I advise anyone and everyone who is close to Fr. Hewko to point out his erroneous teaching in the hope that he will retract what he wrote (and what he said) and correct himself.
Fr. David Hewko Gives Us Little Hope on What Can Be Done with a Heretical Pope
Fr. David Hewko gave a conference (see the video below) in Alberta, Canada on January 8, 2023. At the 1 hr., 9 minutes, and 30 seconds mark, he answers a question regarding a heretical pope. Father’s position is that if “Pope” Francis were to admit in front of a panel of inquisitors that he knows he teaches heresy, then the most that can be done is for the inquisitors to ask him to step down from the “papacy”. If Francis refused to step down, then it would have to be left in God’s Hands to take him down. Whereas Father is correct that no one is above the pope and therefore the pope cannot be forced to step down, the following are some problems with Fr. Hewko’s position:
1. If one begins with the idea that Francis is a true pope, then Francis could outright refuse to even go in front of a panel of inquisitors. The case would then stop before it even started. Remember that Francis has not even responded to the dubia put forth by cardinals.
2. The Church teaches that heresy per se separates the public manifest formal heretic from the Church. This proposition must be believed with Catholic and Divine Faith. If Francis were to freely admit that he teaches heresy, this would unequivocally fall under this proposition. Therefore, if Francis was a true pope and if it was possible for a true pope to fall into heresy, then he would automatically fall from the pontificate.
3. A true pope cannot be a formal heretic. Therefore, if Francis was to freely admit that he teaches heresy, it would demonstrate that he is not a true pope.
Fr. Hewko’s position, unfortunately, gives us little hope that anything substantial can be done with Francis. We just have to accept that he is the pope, yet potentially a formally heretical one. The good news, however, is that Fr. Hewko is wrong. Francis is not a true pope as he was in the first place not validly elected. Secondly, his public manifest formal heresy is post factum evidence that he is not a true pope (see Point No. 3 above) because he was not validly elected. Now I know that Fr. Hewko (and those that hold his position) will say that if heresy per se separates the public manifest formal heretic from the Church and that Francis is a public manifest formal heretic, then I would have to admit that all the conciliar popes were public manifest formal heretics because they were of the same substance as Francis. Therefore, I would have to admit being a Sedevacantist. Fr. Hewko is wrong again. The difference between Francis and Pope Benedict XVI, for example, is not simply one of degree; it is one of substance. Pope Benedict XVI was not a public manifest formal heretic; Francis is one. Fr. Paul Kramer demonstrates this in his Second Volume of To Deceive the Elect, the Case against Bergoglio.
Look. I love Fr. Hewko and he continues to do good work, but the reality of the matter is that he is not well learned on this subject. Therefore, please do not listen to him on this subject. If you want the truth on this subject and related matters, please read both volumes of Fr. Paul Kramer’s To Deceive the Elect. Fr. Kramer meticulously goes through this subject using the original Latin sources. He also refutes John Salza and Robert Siscoe on several points that have caused a mess in the minds of those who consider themselves Traditionalists, even those of the so-called Resistance.
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.
Fr. David Hewko Laments over the State of the Resistance
In the sermon below, Fr. David Hewko rightly laments over the state of the Resistance. He correctly points to the failures of the bishops of Archbishop Lefebvre and others. However, one major cause that he does not point to is the fact that the Resistance, as a whole, has adhered to an antipope and the head of the Conciliar Church, Jorge Bergoglio, since 2013. Fr. Hewko himself regularly, in his sermons, emphasizes “ex” Pope Benedict XVI, so Father is part of the problem. Meanwhile, others and myself have tried to wake up the Resistance to the fact that Benedict XVI is the true pope but with little positive response from the Resistance clergy. How can Our Lord bless the Resistance, as a whole, when it continues to adhere to Jorge Bergoglio as pope despite the evidence that he is an antipope?
Now many say that Pope Benedict XVI is a man of Vatican II, so he is not much different that Jorge Bergoglio. Whereas it is true that Benedict XVI is a man of Vatican II, he is not a public manifest formal heretic. The same cannot be said of Jorge Bergoglio. He has shown himself beyond a doubt to be a public manifest formal heretic. Fr. Paul Kramer documents some compelling pieces of evidence in his two volumes (thus far) of To Deceive the Elect to that effect. The fact remains that Pope Benedict XVI is the one who has the charism of infallibility; he is the one with the power to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; he is the one with universal jurisdiction over the Catholic Church. Until the Resistance accepts that Benedict XVI is the true pope, it will remain in a material schism and hence move sluggishly along.
Please keep in mind the gravity of schism. It is a mortal sin, objectively speaking, against the theological virtue of Charity and the First Commandment. The very act of a Catholic saying, “Francis is the pope of the Catholic Church,” is, objectively speaking, an act of schism. Therefore, this is not a matter to be taken lightly.
Fr. Hewko Gratuitously Characterizes My Position on Who Is the True Pope as “Absurd” – Fr. Paul Kramer
Fr. Paul Kramer’s writing below is based on this response to Fr. David Hewko.
“In such a situation [i.e., of a doubtful pope], the only thing that can be certain is the verifiable existence of positive doubt, which all moralists and canonists teach is a just reason to withdraw submission to a papal claimant. This is why I made a reply to Fr. David Hewko, who has characterized my position on the question of whether Francis or Benedict is the true pope without examining my arguments, but simply gratuitously labelled it as ‘absurd’. In my reply I explained my position that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and is therefore an incapable subject of the papacy. Even if a man who was elected pope should later be discovered to have been a heretic at the time of his election, he would not be a valid pope, but would simply need to be removed. That is the ruling of Pope Paul IV, confirmed by Pope St. Pius V. The proposition that a heretic pope would first need to be judged by the Church to lose office is logically incoherent and heretical. Fr. Hewko says, ‘The Pope is the highest authority on earth and no one can depose him. He must step down by his own volition, as Pope Benedict did.’ Fr. Hewko assumes a priori that Benedict renounced his munus; yet a careful analysis of the act of renunciation proves that he did not unequivocally renounce his claim on the munus, as is necessary by law for the act to be valid. Fr. Hewko has failed to explain how we can know that Francis is the pope when there are two claimants to the munus, and many Catholics are not certain as to which claimant would possess the supreme authority to judge the question; and after they depart this world, which claimant’s successor will possess the authority to judge these matters with finality. When it is said in response by others, ‘the Church’ must judge, is it not understood that the definitive and final judgment can only consist of a judgment ratified by a certain pope, and not a doubtful one? And such a ratification of a judgment of ‘the Church’ cannot be made unless the question would first be resolved? And how would it first be resolved, so that the judgment of ‘the Church’ could be ratified by a certain pope, unless men first arrive at a private judgment through the use of the intellective faculty of judgment to arrive at a reasonable and certain conclusion; so that the private judgment becomes a general consensus, leading to a universal acceptance of one claimant over the other? This is how schisms caused by antipopes were historically resolved: Not by a definitive judgment of ‘the Church’, which is quite impossible while the positive doubt persists over which man is the true pope representing the authority of the Church; but by private judgment which becomes the prevailing general consensus, and finally becomes a universal acceptance of one claimant over the other. Thus, the private judgment of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter the Venerable, gained general ascendency, so that the whole Church eventually accorded universal acceptance and obedience to Innocent II, and abandoned Victor IV, who then submitted to Innocent II. This is how disputed papacies have nearly always been decided, when by means of private judgment a general consensus was reached in favour of one claimant;”
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 176-178). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.
Fr. Hewko Is Correct that No One Can Depose the Pope
“Fr. Hewko says, ‘The Pope is the highest authority on earth and no one can depose him. He must step down by his own volition…..'”
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 177). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.