This article is total nonsense.
The author doesn't know what he's talking about on a single point he raises.
His theological categories are totally self-invented.
If we are going to make judgments on such things as heresy and automatic loss of office and so forth we have to work with the theological tools we find in Church doctrine and practice and theological tradition.
The author's use of the complex case of Pope Honorius is bogus. Honorius was never condemned as a heretic and declared to be an "illegitimate but valid" pope by the Church. No Doctor, no approved author, no pontiff ever spoke of such a monstrosity as an "illegitimate but valid" pope.
What this author is doing is called "making it up out of broadcloth as you go along."
I believe that such activity is the essence of mainline Traditionalism. Pietistic hysteria is shamelessly indulged at the expense of all truth and reason and reality. And worse, these shamelessly confabulating hysterics dare to put on the airs of wide and cautious scholarship and scold those who, as distinct from them, are merely in some sort of contact with Catholic reality. "You're proud, you fail to make distinctions etc..."
I can distinguish a Traditionalist apologist with a semblance of a case from one who is just taking advantage of the ignorance of his readers. Guimares is in the latter group.
I have read many of Guimares's works. I think that there is a certain crookedness of approach to Catholic reality in every other line of his. His besetting devil is undoubtedly the common Traditionalist devil whereby Vatican II is the Pit of Error one minute and ithen (in the light of Tradition, of course) a regrettably defective but not altogether unworthy beacon of at least SOME Catholic truth.
What Guimares would have done if his theology were really so "elementary" is cite one Doctor or Approved Author who supported it. He didn't do that because he can't. His aberrant fantasies about a valid but illegitimate pope are not even in the mix.
People moan and groan about the Masons and the Illuminati and the One World Order "Year Zero" philosophy. What we really need to guard against is the absolute decadence of Holy Reason to be found among so-called Traditionalist apologists. The "thinking" of Guimares cuts us off from history, from Tradition, from the Living God, from other men of what the Scholastics called Adequate Mind. It's just a bad dreamy, psychedelic blast from the late 1960s and early 1970s we could all live without. It's like this crazy, kooky hyperdulia aspergillum head trip.
His treatment of issues is sloppy. All sedevacantists hold that there are NO valid sacraments in the Novus Ordo cult? That's untrue. He probably is referring only to the post-1969 Orders and Eucharist. But, I think, ALL sedevacantists hold that some priestly geezer ordained in the old rite and celebrating the Indult Mass is providing a valid sacrament. (Unless he is a formal Modernist and does not intend to do what the Church does etc...)
But it's not enough to accuse Guimares of being a slob as a controversialist. Anyone can nod while making a case, and presuppose things which should have been spelled out for the record. I think that with Guimares the misrepresenation of what sedevacantists hold about Novus Ordo sacraments is more than an oversight. He's laboring overtime to make them look as bad as possible, truth be damned.
Let's take a look at what Guimares has to say about the Church and Protestant orders and sacraments. No. Let's not. It's bad for the soul to have such queasy excretions appear before one's mind. How does one go about achieving such perfect mystical union with the Spirit of Untruth?
Do I really need to spell out how wrong he is here? Did Queen Victoria invite Leo XIII to tea after all? It would take a Chesterton to do justice to the paradox involved, but I think I can at least state it: The power that some of these Traditionalist apologists enjoy lies in the very fantasticality of their penchant for being totally wrong about everything.
As for "creating confusion", what about Traditionalists who hold Paul VI to have been a true pope with true concern for the Faith no less, but question the validity of his Mass and his new crop of bishops and priests after 1969? Archbishop Lefebvre certainly raised doubts about the validity of the Novus Ordo Orders and Eucharist, and spoke of his obligation to provide the faithful with certainly valid priests and sacraments.
Why pick on the sedevacantists when it comes to proposing theories that have their troubling obscurities and apparent contradictions? A dear Holy Father who also happens to be the Antichrist on his off days is not already a source of chaos and suffering, with no help from sedevacantists?