Dear Father Hewko,
I still fondly remember the Masses you and/or Fr. Pfeiffer said at the chapel here outside San Antonio when we were just getting started. I also appreciate the pioneering efforts of Fr. Pfeiffer and yourself in getting the Resistance established. I still have fond memories of those "good old days" when I picked you up from the airport, talked with you at the potluck afterwards, etc.
I and many others had been saddened to see your continued support for an organization that was increasingly losing its Catholic bearings and causing so much confusion and so many evils, especially among the fervent Catholics who wanted to stay faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre's position (a.k.a. the Resistance). So many Catholics had a high opinion of you as a priest; they honestly wondered aloud why you would continue to work for and defend such individuals as Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo.
Many of them, myself included, are giving their thanks to God upon hearing this news.
As you might recall, I first began criticizing Fr. Pfeiffer in a measured fashion in 2014 right after Fr. P began attacking Bp. Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, etc. It was an easy decision, because I was taught to defend good and attack evil. I hadn't even met Fr. Zendejas at the time (except perhaps when I handed him a case of Priest Meeting tapes back in 2003 when I was head of the Audio Department at S.T.A.S., but I digress) But my criticisms of Fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC were A) restricted to what was necessary, B) concerning grave matters affecting the Faith and the Traditional Catholic remnant, and C) always within the bounds of Catholic charity. As the owner of CathInfo, I made sure that my own posts and those of others met these standards of morality.
Hopefully you can reconsider your opinion of CathInfo, which is not just a single soul (which can be good, evil or in-between) but rather a large gathering of hundreds of Traditional Catholics, the largest such forum on the Internet and officially pro-Resistance. The vast majority of CathInfo members are of good will, seeking to keep the Faith and save their immortal souls. The reason I ask you to reconsider your opinion is because you have expressed the official "party line" regarding CathInfo in several of your recorded sermons in the past. What can I do besides take you at your word?
As for the past, I am quick to forgive. I'm a nobody, held up only by God's grace, so I'm not concerned about anything said against me personally in the past; However, truth, justice, and charity require me to be concerned about the good name and reputation of the hundreds of devout Catholics who frequent CathInfo.
I speak for many when I say this is good news, and I believe this new development can only help the situation of Traditional Catholics in America, specifically in the Resistance. The only question is how much good will be done, and how far the good effects will spread. We're in for a long, drawn out battle, so the more charity and unity we can foster and maintain, the better.
In Christo,
Matthew M
I think extracting himself from OLMC (praise God!) is a MAJOR step. There are other things that need to be said/addressed/dealt with, but for now, I think Fr. Hewko needs some space and time to work through things. I know I would need it if I were in his shoes.
I didn't know Fr Hewko was against this site. Great letter.
So he’s lost Moran and Fr. Hewko. What will Fr Pfeiffer do now?
Transcription of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qUX9rurhWsWe DO pray that Fr. Hewko finds is way back to his Father's house, but that is NOT olmc.
February 13, 2019
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
We have been notified via internet today that Fr. David Hewko intends as of now no longer remain with Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Seminary in Boston, Kentucky USA. As Superior of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Seminary I would like to request all to pray for Fr. Hewko that he may find his way “back to his Father’s house.” We are grateful for his help and fidelity over his years here in our work for the Salvation of Souls and preservation of our most Holy Faith. The door is always open for his return. Please keep our 15 seminarians, 2 postulants and 3 priests and all helpers in Our Lord’s vineyard in your prayers as well.
In Christ the King,
Reverend Father Joseph Pfeiffer
We DO pray that Fr. Hewko finds is way back to his Father's house, but that is NOT olmc.
15 seminarians? Slapping a cassock on a monkey does not seminarians make.
2 postulants? Under the direction of what nun?
3 priests:
- fr. Pfeiffer, who is controlled by pablo
- "fr" poisson who has questionable legitimacy
- fr. Roberts, the perv
What a joke.
Father Hewko is a Prodigal Son Fallen in among the Hogs
Hell Rejoices
The Hand of Evil Moves The Trad Catholics of Immaculate Virtue
So he’s lost Moran and Fr. Hewko. What will Fr Pfeiffer do now?Maybe sell the farm and move everyone to Guyana ?
We DO pray that Fr. Hewko finds is way back to his Father's house, but that is NOT olmc.I forgot about fr. Pancras, but isn't he just a visiting priest? Perhaps they all are...
15 seminarians? Slapping a cassock on a monkey does not seminarians make.
2 postulants? Under the direction of what nun?
3 priests:
- fr. Pfeiffer, who is controlled by pablo
- "fr" poisson who has questionable legitimacy
- fr. Roberts, the perv
What a joke.
By their fruits you shall know them. Loyalty for the sake of loyalty is not to be admired.Indeed!
I would help either one of them if asked.
I pray for all involved.
Looking at the whole picture, it is such a sad story. Both Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko had wonderful priestly qualities. Back when Fr. Hewko left the SSPX there was nowhere for him to go and he most likely ended up in Kentucky out of necessity. Fr. Pfeiffer was too ambitious and jumped to conclusions thinking +BW would consecrate him a bishop. When +BW not only wasn't going to make him a bishop but wasn't going to endorse his Seminary, Fr. P started to turn on +BW and eventually convince Fr. Hewko to do the same. By their fruits you shall know them. What fruits have they given? I can't think of one. Obviously Fr. Hewko has made excuses for Fr. Pfeiffer because he owed him much for his help and unfortunately his allegiance to him was distorted. Look how many years it took for him to see that Pablo was a scandal to OLMC. In his letter he is just now saying that Pablo is a problem when everyone else saw this since the beginning. Loyalty for the sake of loyalty is not to be admired; nonetheless, he can still come out of this the better for it with his and our prayers.
Fr. Pfeiffer can even come out of this. I don't think anyone of us should wish them more failures. I would help either one of them if asked. There is even hope for Pablo. If he could swallow his pride and if he really cared for Fr. Pfeiffer he should know that he must leave as soon as possible if anything good can result from this. The damage is done and there is no recovery that could justify him staying in Kentucky after all his wrong doings. I didn't say forgiveness because he is still alive. Everyone who has loved Fr. Hewko and every mission that has had them are suffering because the truth has hit the fan. Better late than never and without pain there is no gain. I pray for all involved.
Remember the lie out of Boston, KY several months ago that Pablo was leaving (or had left)? Just goes to show you what a bunch of propagandists and liars they are. These words were obviously penned by Pablo. They have his fingerprints all over them -- I know how he writes. I'm not going to give away how I know, or he might try to change this or that.I agree. I think those lines posted beyond Fr P's signature were added by Pablo 'pro bono'. I'm not sure Fr P knows about or would even approve of them being piggy-backed onto his statement. I will continue to pray that Fr Pfeiffer will return to unity with the resistance bishops, and I hope others here will as well. Nothing left in the hands of Our Lady is ever a lost cause. 1MT
Looking at the whole picture, it is such a sad story. Both Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko had wonderful priestly qualities. Back when Fr. Hewko left the SSPX there was nowhere for him to go and he most likely ended up in Kentucky out of necessity. Fr. Pfeiffer was too ambitious and jumped to conclusions thinking +BW would consecrate him a bishop. When +BW not only wasn't going to make him a bishop but wasn't going to endorse his Seminary, Fr. P started to turn on +BW and eventually convince Fr. Hewko to do the same. By their fruits you shall know them. What fruits have they given? I can't think of one. Obviously Fr. Hewko has made excuses for Fr. Pfeiffer because he owed him much for his help and unfortunately his allegiance to him was distorted. Look how many years it took for him to see that Pablo was a scandal to OLMC. In his letter he is just now saying that Pablo is a problem when everyone else saw this since the beginning. Loyalty for the sake of loyalty is not to be admired; nonetheless, he can still come out of this the better for it with his and our prayers. Fr. Pfeiffer can even come out of this. I don't think anyone of us should wish them more failures. I would help either one of them if asked. There is even hope for Pablo. If he could swallow his pride and if he really cared for Fr. Pfeiffer he should know that he must leave as soon as possible if anything good can result from this. The damage is done and there is no recovery that could justify him staying in Kentucky after all his wrong doings. I didn't say forgiveness because he is still alive. Everyone who has loved Fr. Hewko and every mission that has had them are suffering because the truth has hit the fan. Better late than never and without pain there is no gain. I pray for all involved.God turns His back on the obstinate.
Just wanted to point out that on the 469 fitter video of February 13, 2019 at 3:33 there is a coat of arms complete with a faded out compass behind it.Please explain the significance.
I just left a phone message for Fr. Hewko and sent him an email as well. Hope to get some info I can share here on CathInfo, but I'm not holding my breath.
Thanks Klas. Any word on what his future plans are?Nope!
Complete Pabloectomy.:applause:
Thanks Klas. Any word on what his future plans are?Looks like he is quite busy already.
But how does Fr Hewko plan to get Holy Oils?
To my surprise I actually got a rather prompt email response, but no new info beyond what has already been posted here on CathInfo. In particular I had asked if he was free to shed any light on the seemingly strange and mysterious relation/attachment between Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo, the consequences of which have been so very negative.
To that he simply stated, "I don't know."
Oils in an Emergency |
| ROME, MAY 22, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university. Q: Could a priest bless paraffin oil in hospitals for emergency baptism, confirmation and the sacrament for the sick? This is the type of non-animal oil that is normally found in hospitals easily. I believe it is distilled from petroleum. Will the three sacraments given with such oil be valid because the proper oil is unavailable in emergencies? Second, what if a simple blessing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is given for the oil because the blessing formulae were unavailable, will the three sacraments for the seriously sick be still valid? — J.T., Taiwan A: There are several questions involved here. First, what oils are we referring to? For the sacraments the Catholic Church blesses three separate oils during the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. The oil of catechumens is used for the non-essential complementary rites of baptism. The oil of the sick constitutes the matter of the sacrament of anointing of the sick. And then there is chrism, which is the essential matter of the sacrament of confirmation and is also used during the complementary rites of baptism, priestly ordination and some other rites such as the dedication of a Church or altar. The basic ingredient of the first two oils is olive oil; only the formula of blessing distinguishes one from the other. Chrism is a mixture of olive oil and balsam. Of these three, only in the case of the oil of the sick is there foreseen the possibility of another oil being used and of the priest's blessing the oil in case of emergency. Pope Paul VI brought about this possibility in the 1972 apostolic constitution Sacram Unctione Infirmorum. Referring to the matter of the sacrament the Holy Father established: "Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture." He also permitted that priests could bless this oil in case of emergency. This norm was later incorporated into Canon 999 of the Code of Canon Law which determines who may bless the oil: "In addition to a bishop, the following can bless the oil to be used in the anointing of the sick: 1) those equivalent to a diocesan bishop by law; 2) any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament. "Canon 1000 §1. The anointings with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the liturgical books are to be performed carefully. In a case of necessity, however, a single anointing on the forehead or even on some other part of the body is sufficient, while the entire formula is said." In those cases where the priest has blessed the oil himself for a particular situation, No. 22 of the Order for the Pastoral Care of the sick stipulates, "If any of the oil is left after the celebration of the sacrament, it should be absorbed in cotton (cotton wool) and burned." Unlike the case of the sacrament of the sick, Canon 880 §2 states, "The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament." There are less-specific norms regarding the oil of catechumens because this oil is not essential to the sacrament and in an emergency it is sufficient to baptize with water using the Trinitarian formula. At the same time, the ritual foresees the possibility of carrying out all the rites in an abbreviated form. If a person who receives an emergency baptism survives, the post-baptismal complementary rites (anointing with chrism, the white garment, and baptismal candle) are usually carried out at a convenient date in a church or oratory. Therefore, to answer the specific questions of our reader: — Paraffin oil is not suitable as valid material for any sacrament. If olive oil is unavailable for anointing the sick, another vegetable oil may be used. Chrism and the oil of catechumens must be that blessed by the bishop. It is thus incuмbent on the parish priest and hospital chaplain to make sure that he has all three oils readily available. — Only the oil of the sick may be blessed by a priest in emergency cases. One of the three formulas for blessing this oil must be used as appropriate in order to assure validity. The third formula, for exceptional circuмstances, is the briefest: "Bless + Lord, your gift of oil and our brother/sister N., that it may bring him/her relief." It would not be sufficient to make a generic blessing with no mention of the context of the sacrament of the sick. * * * [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]Follow-up: Oils in an Emergency [6-5-2012] In the wake of our comments on blessing of holy oils by a priest (see May 22), an attentive reader called my attention to an oversight on my part regarding the blessing of the oil of catechumens. To wit: "Regarding the Oil of Catechumens, the general 'Rite of Blessing of Oils, Rite of Consecrating the Chrism,' found in an appendix in the previous English Sacramentary, in No. 7 of the introduction does mention the possibility of a priest blessing the Oil of Catechumens for 'pastoral reasons.' This permission is also found in the RCIA, at No. 101 in the U.S. English edition (or No. 129 of the Latin original)." The text of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults says, "The oil used for this rite is to be the oil blessed by the bishop at the chrism Mass, but for pastoral reasons a priest celebrant may bless oil for the rite immediately before the anointing." Another reader asked about the mixing of blessed and unblessed oil for the sacraments. We addressed this question in an earlier response and follow-up on Jan. 30 and Feb. 13, 2007.[/font][/size] |
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcbsnews2.cbsistatic.com%2Fhub%2Fi%2Fr%2F2011%2F12%2F07%2Fdb69caad-a643-11e2-a3f0-029118418759%2Fresize%2F620x465%2F05b9c30b9dd1d596bae82923632da0c3%2FAP110503160506.jpg%23&f=1)
Father Hewko's Dragnet Interrogation
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.d9WlJgP4AhLV-heUu4_1sQHaFj%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
"In all due respect Padre, you want us to believe you lived with Hernandez and Fr. Pfeiffer for 7 years... and didn't notice or figure out what was going on with them?"
That's 2,555 days of working, going to Mass, talking, eating, drinking and praying together... and you couldn't figure out what they were up to?
Who do you think is interrogating you... a dummy neo-SSPX trad!?!
Let us pray for all the priests and Fr.Hewko
Aw,come on! All you want us to do is pray for Father? Look how much juicy gossip the topic has provided already. If all we should do is pray for him and the other priests, then forum members may be forced to move on to some other, less interesting topic, which won't get near the hits. :-[What is your problem? Having a bad day today, or what?
Someone was asking about Holy Oils. I found this:
With the recent abdication of Fr. Hewko from OLMC this question becomes relevant. I found the following:
ROME, MAY 22, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: Could a priest bless paraffin oil in hospitals for emergency baptism, confirmation and the sacrament for the sick? This is the type of non-animal oil that is normally found in hospitals easily. I believe it is distilled from petroleum. Will the three sacraments given with such oil be valid because the proper oil is unavailable in emergencies? Second, what if a simple blessing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is given for the oil because the blessing formulae were unavailable, will the three sacraments for the seriously sick be still valid? — J.T., Taiwan
A: There are several questions involved here.
First, what oils are we referring to? For the sacraments the Catholic Church blesses three separate oils during the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. The oil of catechumens is used for the non-essential complementary rites of baptism. The oil of the sick constitutes the matter of the sacrament of anointing of the sick. And then there is chrism, which is the essential matter of the sacrament of confirmation and is also used during the complementary rites of baptism, priestly ordination and some other rites such as the dedication of a Church or altar.
The basic ingredient of the first two oils is olive oil; only the formula of blessing distinguishes one from the other. Chrism is a mixture of olive oil and balsam.
Of these three, only in the case of the oil of the sick is there foreseen the possibility of another oil being used and of the priest's blessing the oil in case of emergency. Pope Paul VI brought about this possibility in the 1972 apostolic constitution Sacram Unctione Infirmorum. Referring to the matter of the sacrament the Holy Father established:
"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture."
He also permitted that priests could bless this oil in case of emergency. This norm was later incorporated into Canon 999 of the Code of Canon Law which determines who may bless the oil:
"In addition to a bishop, the following can bless the oil to be used in the anointing of the sick: 1) those equivalent to a diocesan bishop by law; 2) any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament.
"Canon 1000 §1. The anointings with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the liturgical books are to be performed carefully. In a case of necessity, however, a single anointing on the forehead or even on some other part of the body is sufficient, while the entire formula is said."
In those cases where the priest has blessed the oil himself for a particular situation, No. 22 of the Order for the Pastoral Care of the sick stipulates, "If any of the oil is left after the celebration of the sacrament, it should be absorbed in cotton (cotton wool) and burned."
Unlike the case of the sacrament of the sick, Canon 880 §2 states, "The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament."
There are less-specific norms regarding the oil of catechumens because this oil is not essential to the sacrament and in an emergency it is sufficient to baptize with water using the Trinitarian formula. At the same time, the ritual foresees the possibility of carrying out all the rites in an abbreviated form.
If a person who receives an emergency baptism survives, the post-baptismal complementary rites (anointing with chrism, the white garment, and baptismal candle) are usually carried out at a convenient date in a church or oratory.
Therefore, to answer the specific questions of our reader:
— Paraffin oil is not suitable as valid material for any sacrament. If olive oil is unavailable for anointing the sick, another vegetable oil may be used. Chrism and the oil of catechumens must be that blessed by the bishop. It is thus incuмbent on the parish priest and hospital chaplain to make sure that he has all three oils readily available.
— Only the oil of the sick may be blessed by a priest in emergency cases. One of the three formulas for blessing this oil must be used as appropriate in order to assure validity. The third formula, for exceptional circuмstances, is the briefest: "Bless + Lord, your gift of oil and our brother/sister N., that it may bring him/her relief." It would not be sufficient to make a generic blessing with no mention of the context of the sacrament of the sick.* * *[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Follow-up: Oils in an Emergency [6-5-2012]
In the wake of our comments on blessing of holy oils by a priest (see May 22), an attentive reader called my attention to an oversight on my part regarding the blessing of the oil of catechumens. To wit:
"Regarding the Oil of Catechumens, the general 'Rite of Blessing of Oils, Rite of Consecrating the Chrism,' found in an appendix in the previous English Sacramentary, in No. 7 of the introduction does mention the possibility of a priest blessing the Oil of Catechumens for 'pastoral reasons.' This permission is also found in the RCIA, at No. 101 in the U.S. English edition (or No. 129 of the Latin original)."
The text of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults says, "The oil used for this rite is to be the oil blessed by the bishop at the chrism Mass, but for pastoral reasons a priest celebrant may bless oil for the rite immediately before the anointing."
Another reader asked about the mixing of blessed and unblessed oil for the sacraments. We addressed this question in an earlier response and follow-up on Jan. 30 and Feb. 13, 2007.[/font][/size]
The use of vegetable oil for Extreme Unction (or its diluted counterpart, "Anointing of the Sick" in the conciliar religion) would almost certainly be invalidating.Yes. I'm sure I need to be conditionally Confirmed...