Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: thebloodycoven on July 30, 2020, 09:27:39 PM

Title: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: thebloodycoven on July 30, 2020, 09:27:39 PM
+
M

JULY 30, 2020
“Then Jesus saith to them: All you shall be scandalized in Me this night. For it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.’” (St. Matthew 26:31)
 
This is a brief Statement denouncing the consecration of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer by “Bishop” Neal Webster. This is a scandal for Holy Mother Church, the true Catholic Resistance and for the vocations at OLMC in Boston, Kentucky.
 
Let it be known that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would absolutely condemn this action and express, once again, the doubtfulness of the Thuc line of bishops, let alone any connection with Palmar de Troya in Spain, who have elected their own pope decades ago.
 
Let it be known that the priestly line of “Bishop” Webster is from: Bishop Thuc, to Clemente ("Pope" Gregory XVII!), Terrason, Hennenberry, to Webster.
 
The episcopal lineage is from: Bishop Thuc to Des Lauries to McKenna to Slupski to Webster.
 
“Bishop” Neal Webster is also a public supporter of the Feeneyite position on the denial of the Baptism of Blood and Desire (“Votum”;), which contradicts the constant Magisterium of the Church.
 
Once again, let us beg Our Lady of the Holy Rosary to crush the Church’s enemies. Let us hold the clear position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre always faithful to Mother Church, her Traditional Magisterium, the Traditional Sacraments and the categorical refusal of doubtful sacraments and dangers to the Faith!
 
Once again, we see the sad casualties of a Pope and hierarchy failing in their duty! Indeed, when the shepherd is struck the sheep scatter!
 
In Christ the King,
 
Fr. David Hewko

https://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/48837769
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 30, 2020, 09:31:41 PM
 :facepalm:  Some truth here, some non-truth.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on July 30, 2020, 10:27:41 PM
:facepalm:  Some truth here, some non-truth.


Would love you to elaborate Pax.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Francisco on July 31, 2020, 06:12:26 AM

Would love you to elaborate Pax.
Let me try:
The sentiments expressed by most here would it have been Fr Chazal who got himself bishopped/episcopalized or whatever, would have been the exact opposite.And there would be no Winona Latinists or audio/visual scrutinizers.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Kolar on July 31, 2020, 06:57:57 AM
If Fr. Chazal were consecrated by a doubtful bishop it would be questioned. If he were consecrated by Bishop Williamson it would not be questioned.
Fr. Pfeiffer has had nothing but doubtful bishops for awhile. Ambrose and now Webster. Palmer de Troya separated from the Catholic Church decades ago.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on July 31, 2020, 07:31:02 AM
Someone please explain specifics about the doubt of this Bishop Webster.   
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on July 31, 2020, 08:13:03 AM
Someone please explain specifics about the doubt of this Bishop Webster.  
Never mind, I found another thread. 
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on July 31, 2020, 09:50:44 AM
+
M

JULY 30, 2020
“Then Jesus saith to them: All you shall be scandalized in Me this night. For it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.’” (St. Matthew 26:31)

This is a brief Statement denouncing the consecration of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer by “Bishop” Neal Webster. This is a scandal for Holy Mother Church, the true Catholic Resistance and for the vocations at OLMC in Boston, Kentucky.
 
Let it be known that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would absolutely condemn this action and express, once again, the doubtfulness of the Thuc line of bishops, let alone any connection with Palmar de Troya in Spain, who have elected their own pope decades ago.
 
Let it be known that the priestly line of “Bishop” Webster is from: Bishop Thuc, to Clemente ("Pope" Gregory XVII!), Terrason, Hennenberry, to Webster.
 
The episcopal lineage is from: Bishop Thuc to Des Lauries to McKenna to Slupski to Webster.
 
“Bishop” Neal Webster is also a public supporter of the Feeneyite position on the denial of the Baptism of Blood and Desire (“Votum”;), which contradicts the constant Magisterium of the Church.
 
Once again, let us beg Our Lady of the Holy Rosary to crush the Church’s enemies. Let us hold the clear position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre always faithful to Mother Church, her Traditional Magisterium, the Traditional Sacraments and the categorical refusal of doubtful sacraments and dangers to the Faith!
 
Once again, we see the sad casualties of a Pope and hierarchy failing in their duty! Indeed, when the shepherd is struck the sheep scatter!
 
In Christ the King,
 
Fr. David Hewko

https://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/48837769
(https://mєdια.tenor.com/images/61be97bcfbebf88b73ca73717d7b50fa/tenor.gif)
Fr. Hewko told me that he felt the entire thuc line to be valid.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Ekim on July 31, 2020, 11:23:10 AM
Validity and legitimacy are two different things.  Something can be valid but not legitimate.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 31, 2020, 12:32:01 PM
This condemnation is more anti-Webster than anti-Pfeiffer.  Very unfair.  Fr Hewko indirectly blames +Webster for Fr P's seminary problems, by referring to "OLMC vocations" as if they are legitimate vocations (which is highly questionable). He also condemns +Webster for feeneyism, while not condemning Fr P for the same.  Where is the denouncing of Fr P for accepting this consecration?  Where is Fr P's guilt in all this?  I agree with the overall criticism, but it seems a very one-sided attack.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: donkath on July 31, 2020, 11:09:14 PM
This condemnation is more anti-Webster than anti-Pfeiffer.  Very unfair.  Fr Hewko indirectly blames +Webster for Fr P's seminary problems, by referring to "OLMC vocations" as if they are legitimate vocations (which is highly questionable). He also condemns +Webster for feeneyism, while not condemning Fr P for the same.  Where is the denouncing of Fr P for accepting this consecration?  Where is Fr P's guilt in all this?  I agree with the overall criticism, but it seems a very one-sided attack.

Thank you.   Makes sense.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 01, 2020, 04:43:37 AM

“Bishop” Neal Webster is also a public supporter of the Feeneyite position on the denial of the Baptism of Blood and Desire (“Votum”;), which contradicts the constant Magisterium of the Church Catholics who do not believe that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards

There, now that is precise.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 02, 2020, 10:21:56 AM
There, now that is precise.
I do believe the rewarder God thing is possible, but just a theory so to speak.  I do think that a denial of BOD *even for catechumens* does deny the text of Trent.  But I always make this distinction whenever asked about this.  Am I the only one?
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Matthew on August 02, 2020, 10:30:52 AM
by referring to "OLMC vocations" as if they are legitimate vocations (which is highly questionable).

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.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 02, 2020, 11:16:27 AM

“Bishop” Neal Webster is also a public supporter of the Feeneyite position on the denial of the Baptism of Blood and Desire (“Votum”;), which contradicts the constant Magisterium of the Church.

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.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 02, 2020, 11:17:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: LeDeg on August 02, 2020, 11:56:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Ladislaus on August 02, 2020, 02:27:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 02, 2020, 07:18:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on August 02, 2020, 08:19:05 PM
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.    
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 02, 2020, 08:52:22 PM
, even if Bishop Webster was outside the Church. 
i don't think so.
.
If the conditional consecration happened, prove it.
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Tradman on August 03, 2020, 08:34:34 AM
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. 
 
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: MarcelJude on August 03, 2020, 08:45:48 AM
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.
https://youtu.be/TZW0UHUPrkg (https://youtu.be/TZW0UHUPrkg)
Title: Re: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 03, 2020, 12:25:21 PM
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.