CathInfo.com

Yes, that's what rational people do. It's impossible to philosophize or seek the truth without generalizing. Exceptions don't make discussion useless, they prove the rule.

This has nothing to do with my opinion(s) about Fr. Hewko. The statements I said (above) stand on their own. Anyone the least bit objective, with any skill at pulling out the "essence" of a person/group, extracting the big picture, whatever you want to call it, will understand what I'm getting at.

Fr. Hewko attracts exceptionalists, special boys, weirdos, autists, whatever you want to call it. He de-facto claims he's the "only true resistance" and likes to boldly fight against those who he should be allied with. He nit picks and finds fault with those he should be friendly with, and obviously encourages this in his flock by his example if nothing else.

And any "group" that is basically a cult of personality (directed to a single man) is going to be like this. Especially a bit weird, "apocalyptic" or waiting for the end, etc. It's hard to not be apocalyptic when your group/church is affiliated with only a few other living room churches dotted around the entire United States.

But it's not simply about numbers or size either. You could have a small group but the priest is more normal, and/or different priests come to serve your chapel, and the outlook of most parishioners will be more balanced.

This is definitely an interesting topic of conversation. But what it's NOT is "random ad-hominems that have no basis, merely springing from Matthew's personal hatred" or something like that.

What do YOU think, dear viewer?

Unlike many on this forum I wasn't brought up as a traditionalist Catholic. In fact, it has only been within the last 5 years or so that I discovered Traditional Catholicism, having only really known the N.O. prior to that. 
Consequently it has taken some time to learn about all the different personalities that have emerged from this movement. The history of the SSPX, the 9, the post ABP Lefebvre era of the SSPX, the expulsion of Bp Williams and the priests loosely gathered around him, the various sede bishops and their priests, etc. It's all quite interesting and somewhat sad to see the various factions that have formed as well as the scandals that each group has had to deal with or attempt to sweep under the carpet. It's like piecing together bits of information one reads here and there since there is no comprehensive history of the resistance which has been published.
I only know Fr. Hewko through the prolific sermons he posts on youtube and I think he is a powerful voice for the Faith. Someone so outspoken is likely to draw detractors. I sense within him a frustration that other priests and bishops are silent in a time in history when they should most be raising their voices. I've never met anyone who attends his masses or retreats so I don't have an opinion of their character. 
Basically I listen to everyone, from the Dimond Brothers to SSPX priests, Fr Jenkins, and those belonging to no group who are traditionalists. I've learned a lot from of all of them. Without being a theologian I can also disagree with all of them depending on a particular position, like Bp Sanborn being neutral about the vax or the Dimonds claiming JPII was the antichrist. It does seem that each group is dug in with their views and fairly inflexible when it comes to cooperating with other groups. This was revealed when Bp Roy proposed a conclave recently and how much flak he took for it. I think Fr Hewko is totally wrong about Bob Prevost being the pope but that doesn't negate all the other good work he is doing in his missions. 

How could the Canadian cop claim he had a warrant for the gentleman's arrest?

Introduced June 10, 2026 , not yet law, but coming soon...Bill C-34

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2026/06/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-combat-online-harms-particularly-those-impacting-children.html

Categories of Harmful Content
The Safe Social Media Act will target seven categories of harmful content:

Content that sɛҳuąƖly victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;

• Content that induces a child to harm themselves;
• Content used to bully a child;
• Content that incites violence;
• Content that foments hatred;
• Terrorism or violent extremism content; and
• Intimate content communicated without consent.

************
The videos he produces are probably crossing the red line of some other Canadian law.
 Remember the +W vid, and b0nnbs would exp10de for effect?...That is a no-no in Canada. Expect more rules, (banning bibles for example) to be imposed.
P A X .