Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: epiphany on July 05, 2022, 10:34:39 AM
-
I could not believe my eyes when I saw it in their bulletin. It is great Weist is no longer saying mass, but to turn to Fr. Hewko?
Does anyone know anything about Fr. Washicko? I will continue to pray for all at OLHC, trying to continue the legacy of Fr. Schell, God rest his soul. I am fairly certain he is not happy with Fr. Hewko is saying mass at OLHC.
-
Well, it just lists him as a "visiting" priest. He is in fact an undoubtedly valid priest ... unlike some who have shown up there in the past.
-
From STAS
Washiko center left, Hewko is deacon on the right.
(https://i.imgur.com/iDqOVS7.jpg)
-
I don't know for sure, but it is quite likely that there was a Washiko and Hewko recently ordained in the past 2-3 years. I knew they were at the seminary.
I forgot Fr. Hewkos nephew was recently ordained. I pray it is that Fr. Hewko rather than the one who was associates with the Pfeiffer camp in KY. Although, I am not sure how Fr. Schell would think about an sspx at the chapel. An sspx priest never said mass while I was there.
-
I pray it is that Fr. Hewko rather than the one who was associates with the Pfeiffer camp in KY.
Not "associates" but "associated".
-
Fr Hewko hasn't been associated with Fr /Bishop Pfeiffer for over 3 years
-
I could not believe my eyes when I saw it in their bulletin. It is great Weist is no longer saying mass, but to turn to Fr. Hewko?
Does anyone know anything about Fr. Washicko? I will continue to pray for all at OLHC, trying to continue the legacy of Fr. Schell, God rest his soul. I am fairly certain he is not happy with Fr. Hewko is saying mass at OLHC.
Fr. Washiko was ordained last month.
-
Fr Hewko hasn't been associated with Fr /Bishop Pfeiffer for over 3 years
Still has the same beliefs, though.
-
Not "associates" but "associated".
Nope. Associates.
-
The Fr Hewko mentioned in the newsletter is Fr James Hewko, Fr Davd Hewko's nephew. Fr Burfitt has also been saying Mass there recently.
-
Nope. Associates.
Any proof? Your saying "nope" due to your dislike of Father Pfeiffer doesn't make your allegation true. As another poster mentioned, it's been several years. Father Chazal also associated with Fr. Pfeiffer for a time.
As for having the same beliefs, what are those ... other than the same beliefs held by a majority of the Resistance priests?
-
As for having the same beliefs, what are those ... other than the same beliefs held by a majority of the Resistance priests?
The two big ones are:
1) The heretical belief that a well-disposed communicant dos not receive an increase of sanctifying grace from a validly confected Eucharist at the Novus Ordo;
2) Bishop Williamson is in the service of Bishop Fellay to lead a "false resistance" back into the arms of captured Menzingen (YouTube "Fr. Pfeiffer 2016 London conference");
Beyond these, you can find a veritable litany of complaints from the pro-Hewko forum here: https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=19
And within that subforum, more specifically, here: https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=1377
Its mostly nonsense, of course, but that doesn't stop them from saying it, or Fr. Hewko from "teaching" it.
-
There's nothing heretical about opinion #1 ... and #2 is merely speculative conspiracy theory.
-
There's nothing heretical about opinion #1
The Protestant notion expounded by the Pfeifferians/Hewkonians is heretical, in light of Session 7 of the Council of Trent:
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto...let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.
This is precisely what they teach.
-
The Protestant notion expounded by the Pfeifferians/Hewkonians is heretical, in light of Session 7 of the Council of Trent:
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto...let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.
This is precisely what they teach.
And again against the condemned Protestant notion of sterile, graceless sacraments:
”The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those who are capable and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex opera operato)...”
(Davis, Fr. H. Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. III, p.3. 1943)
-
I thought Weist was long gone. He's still there?!
-
I thought Weist was long gone. He's still there?!
Weist had joined up with Pfeiffer, saying Mass in a recent widow's backyard, in a large air-conditioned tent. Then he disappeared.
-
I thought he was Old Roman Catholic, so what would he be doing at Kentucky?
-
The Protestant notion expounded by the Pfeifferians/Hewkonians is heretical, in light of Session 7 of the Council of Trent:
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto...let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.
This is precisely what they teach.
No, that's not what the Church is teaching here. This is a condemnation of the Prot heresy that the Sacraments do not confer grace ex opere operato but merely ex opere operantis.
While any Mass has infinite value, and even a single Mass would suffice to convert the entire world, and a single Holy Communion could immediately turn someone into a saint, God has chosen to "throttle" the graces that come from the Sacraments. Saints are quite clear, for instance, that fewer graces go out to the people from Masses said by gravely unworthy priests. Catholics could not hope to receive much (if any) grace from the Sacraments conferred by the schismatics. But the amount of grace that actually transmits from the infinite well of graces (in any given Sacrament) to souls is entirely up to God, and there's absolutely nothing in Church teaching that precludes God cutting off the conferral of grace from Sacraments that were confected sacrilegiously, such as from a Black Mass, or from the Novus Ordo. Grace is grace, a free gift, and God can withhold it from souls as He pleases. It's perfectly legitimate to speculate that God would withhold conferring grace through the Sacrament confected at either a Black Mass or an Orthodox Mass or a Novus Ordo Mass.
Of course, it's a moot point, since the NOM is invalid, a blasphemous congealing of heretical and blasphemous Prot liturgical concepts along with the sacrilegious replacement of the Catholic Offertory with a disgusting тαℓмυdic table prayer.
-
No, that's not what the Church is teaching here. This is a condemnation of the Prot heresy that the Sacraments do not confer grace ex opere operato but merely ex opere operantis.
While any Mass has infinite value, and even a single Mass would suffice to convert the entire world, and a single Holy Communion could immediately turn someone into a saint, God has chosen to "throttle" the graces that come from the Sacraments. Saints are quite clear, for instance, that fewer graces go out to the people from Masses said by gravely unworthy priests. Catholics could not hope to receive much (if any) grace from the Sacraments conferred by the schismatics. But the amount of grace that actually transmits from the infinite well of graces (in any given Sacrament) to souls is entirely up to God, and there's absolutely nothing in Church teaching that precludes God cutting off the conferral of grace from Sacraments that were confected sacrilegiously, such as from a Black Mass, or from the Novus Ordo. Grace is grace, a free gift, and God can withhold it from souls as He pleases. It's perfectly legitimate to speculate that God would withhold conferring grace through the Sacrament confected at either a Black Mass or an Orthodox Mass or a Novus Ordo Mass.
Of course, it's a moot point, since the NOM is invalid, a blasphemous congealing of heretical and blasphemous Prot liturgical concepts along with the sacrilegious replacement of the Catholic Offertory with a disgusting тαℓмυdic table prayer.
In paragraph one, you completely misconstrue the nature of the debate, so as to divert the conclusion: Although the Prots did/do erroneously hold to an heretical ex opere operantis conception of sacramental grace, they based it upon a continuation of the Jєωιѕн sacraments of the old law, in which the sacraments were truly merely empty signs, containing no grace (the latter being produced only according to the disposition of the recipient). Hence, the Jєωs/Prots believe in sterile sacraments which contain, in and of themselves, no grace, and therefore do not transmit it.
That’s what the two Canons I quote are condemning (as proven by the fact that they are speaking of “the sacraments of the new law,” in contradistinction to the sacraments of the old law).
Conversely, (and note Trent using the following words to rebuke the Prot importation of obsolete Judaic sacramental theology), in “the sacraments of the new law,” if the sacrament is validly produced, the grace inheres, and if the recipient does not erect an obex gratiae (ie., obstacle to grace), he infallibly (“every time”) receives an increase of sanctifying grace.
So when Pfeiffer/Hewko claim the sacrament is validly produced, but no grace transmits to a well-disposed communicant, they are flatly heretical (and anathematized).
Because you err on this fundamental point, you commit a second one in your second paragraph: You directly contradict Trent by speculating in such a way as to put God against Trent. What the Holy Ghost has declared is infallibly the case, Lad says otherwise, effectively pitching God against Trent:
Trent: Grace always passes from a validly confected sacrament to a well-disposed recipient.
Lad: Grace might not pass from a validly confected sacrament to a well-disposed recipient.
If an Eastern Catholic in the state of grace should mistakenly wander into an Orthodox chapel and receive Communion, he surely (infallibly) receives the transmission of sanctifying grace.
Lad can oppose Trent (yet again: Remember, he also wants you to believe the entire Church, with all its popes, saints, doctors, and theologians, has misinterpreted “voto” for 550 years), but he has no power to change it.
His third paragraph, well, par for the course.
-
As for having the same beliefs, what are those ... other than the same beliefs held by a majority of the Resistance priests?
He has also been mum regarding Tetherow and Urrutigoity, and supports Poisson, Cordaro, and Roberts.
-
Weist had joined up with Pfeiffer, saying Mass in a recent widow's backyard, in a large air-conditioned tent. Then he disappeared.
Poor widow.
-
I thought he was Old Roman Catholic, so what would he be doing at Kentucky?
KY takes anyone now.
-
KY takes anyone now.
Right, credibly-accused pedophiles/sodomites, "bishops" with dubious-at-best Holy Orders ... in a compound run by a former "lay exorcist" practitioner of Santeria.
-
I thought he was Old Roman Catholic, so what would he be doing at Kentucky?
Both Pfeiffer and Wiest were in Orange County CA. As someone said on another thread, maybe Pfeiffer planned to set up Pfeifferville West.
-
Right, credibly-accused pedophiles/sodomites, "bishops" with dubious-at-best Holy Orders ... in a compound run by a former "lay exorcist" practitioner of Santeria.
Not to mention receiving Holy Orders (allegedly) from a Bishop (Webster) who's both a Sedevacantist and a Feeneyite ... despite having publicly railed against both SVism and Feeneyism. Didn't he call these heresies?