Did you even read this? When I first started, I thought he was leaning toward Bennyvacantism. But then he spends a couple paragraphs shredding Ratzinger, exposing him for a Modernist who applies the Hegelian dialectic and has always been "on the other side of the fence," shredding even his "Motu" movement.
When asked if his position was similar to that of the SSPX, while opposing sedevacantism, refused to give a direct answer, but instead launched into a discussion of the Bennyvacantist theory. To call this a endrosement of R&R is just pure fantasy and confirmation bias.
CMV: From many parts of the Catholic world, especially in the conservative milieux, one hears people say that Benedict XVI would be the true Pope and that Bergoglio would be an antipope. This opinion is based on the one hand on the conviction that his Renunciation is invalid (because of the way it was formulated, because of pressure from outside forces, or because of the distinction between munus and ministerium papale) and on the other hand on the fact that a group of progressive Cardinals allegedly tried to have their own candidate elected at the 2013 Conclave, in violation of the norms of John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. Beyond the plausibility of these arguments, which if confirmed could invalidate the ɛƖɛctıon of Bergoglio, this problem can only be resolved by the supreme authority of the Church, when Providence deigns to put an end to this situation of serious confusion.
Someone (Sean Johnson who alleged it perhaps) please explain how THIS answer is an endorsement of R&R?
He doesn't reject sedevacantism, but, rather, launches into the Bennyvacantist thesis and says that the question can only be resolved by the authority of the Church.
He basically said that it's POSSIBLE that Bergoglio is invalid. And I have never once in all his writing seen him refer to Bergoglio as Francis.
Yet, as for Bennyvacantism, he shreds Benedict as a pseudo-conservative applying the Hegelian dialectic (a term known only to "cօռspιʀαcʏ theorist" types).
It was the INTERVIEWER who suggested that his position is similar to the SSPX R&R because he had stayed away from sedevacantism. Instead of CONFIRMING this premise of the interviewer, he launches into a paragraph where he says that it's possible that Bergoglio is illegitimate. How does that endorse R&R?
He's inching closer and closer to sedevacantism rather than R&R, but I think that he's currently at the sede-doubtist position. He's saying, essentially, that it's possible that Bergoglio is not the Pope (while having no love for Ratzinger), but that he's deferring to the authority of the Church on the matter.
Does this sound familiar?
Archbishop Lefebvre, July 1986:
It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait