Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. David Hewko's Statement on the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer  (Read 5338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.


“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.


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?

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
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.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter

“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.