Author Topic: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer  (Read 1953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Venantius0518

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
  • Reputation: +59/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some of them are perhaps complete nonsense -- filler to "pad" his seminary numbers, and hence its legitimacy. The more "seminarians" he has, the stronger his argument to the bishops of the world that "I need your support" and/or "I need to be consecrated a bishop".

    That having been said, I don't think that applies to many of them. These are young men who are presumably interested in becoming priests. They have spent months, or years, at the seminary, presumably not dating girls during that time. I know there is no regularity at that lame excuse for a "seminary", nor regular classes, but these young men at least are engaging in a slipshod apprenticeship of sorts, sometimes lasting years.

    I believe many of these young man have/had vocations -- but that Fr. P's "seminary" is putting these vocations in jeopardy -- and some of the vocations have already been destroyed. Think of all the good those young men could have done for the Church if it weren't for Fr. P's stubbornness, opposition to +W, his willfulness "I'm going to have my own seminary darn it!". He should have released them and encouraged them to join a real seminary. I wouldn't want to be Fr. P at the Judgment.

    After their experiences in Boston, KY, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them gave up the faith, much less just their vocation.
    A ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary spirit in the leader breeds a ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary spirit in his followers.
    .
    Fr./b. Pf will have much to account for, as we all will, but the deepest parts of hell are paved with the souls of bishops and priests.

    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 448
    • Reputation: +269/-48
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, it does not contradict the constant Magisterium of the Church.  But I will not get into detail so as not to derail this thread.
    I agree with Lad. There is no basis to use the description "constant", unless someone actually thinks constant is the last 800+ years and even then, a very narrow definition of what BOD means compared to now.
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and ƈσmmυɳιsm... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22451
    • Reputation: +12589/-3460
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Hewko told me that he felt the entire thuc line to be valid.

    Interesting.  I’m afraid that Fr. Hewko has lost some credibility in this area after having supported Moran despite convincing evidence that he was doubtful at best.  Did he tell you this at a time when he still supported Moran?
    Vigano for Pope !!!

    Offline Venantius0518

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 277
    • Reputation: +59/-27
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting.  I’m afraid that Fr. Hewko has lost some credibility in this area after having supported Moran despite convincing evidence that he was doubtful at best.  Did he tell you this at a time when he still supported Moran?
    If I remember correctly, it was before Moran was ever in the picture.
    .
    Interestingly, Fr. Hewko told me he believed the entire Thuc line to be valid and legitimate while Fr./b. Pfeiffer told me he believed the exact opposite, that the entire Thuc line is not valid or legitimate.

    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 180
    • Reputation: +99/-85
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If I remember correctly, it was before Moran was ever in the picture.
    .
    Interestingly, Fr. Hewko told me he believed the entire Thuc line to be valid and legitimate while Fr./b. Pfeiffer told me he believed the exact opposite, that the entire Thuc line is not valid or legitimate.
    Oh boy. Canon 209 covers for any irregularity regarding the consecration by a sede, even if Bishop Webster was outside the Church. The reconsecration after the ceremony covers for the rest.  I'm not sure there's a way to say it didn't happen.    


    Offline Venantius0518

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 277
    • Reputation: +59/-27
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • , even if Bishop Webster was outside the Church. 
    i don't think so.
    .
    If the conditional consecration happened, prove it.

    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 180
    • Reputation: +99/-85
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • i don't think so.
    .
    If the conditional consecration happened, prove it.
    Yea, even if Webster was excommunicated, orders were communicated to Pfeiffer.  Canon 209. 
    • OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the Sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favor of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.
     

    Offline MarcelJude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 58
    • Reputation: +70/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This sermon is regarding the consecration of Fr.(Bp.) Joe Pfeiffer. Fr. Chazal clearly states his take on how the cosecration went. The consecration creates a question of validity. The line that Fr.(Bp.) Joe Pfeiffer is creating could be a noxious line. Dangerous, POISONOUS!!The consecration is a question of validity.By the looks of it, Fr.(Bp.) Joe Pfeiffer has officially cut the line between him and the late Archbishop Lefebvre. Please watch the video.
    TradCathPinas
    .
    .
    .
    Marian Corps of St. Pius X



    Offline Venantius0518

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 277
    • Reputation: +59/-27
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yea, even if Webster was excommunicated, orders were communicated to Pfeiffer.  Canon 209.
    • OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the Sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favor of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.

    1. Not if he didnt say the correct form.
    2. Not if his own ordination is in question.
    3. Even if fr. Pfeiffer is a bishop, who would accept his utter hipocracy and bashing his own consecrator the day after his consecration? 
    It is questionable no matter how you slice it.
    .
    I am glad to be away from that mess.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16