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 5339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 revolutionary spirit in the leader breeds a revolutionary 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.

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.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
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?

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

  • Supporter
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.