Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Cristera on November 01, 2016, 05:26:39 PM
-
Link to SODALITIUM PIANUM (http://sodalitium-pianum.blogspot.mx/2016/10/on-or-about-october-15-fr.html)
On (or about) October 15, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko “invited” His Excellency, Bishop Thomas Aquinas to visit Boston, KY.
Bishop Thomas Aquinas made the following reply:
Date: Mon. 17 Oct. 2016
Dear Father,
I think we are in the same situation than in the beginning of the year when I was obliged to say to you not coming to Santa Cruz if you didn't do something as reparation about what you said towards Bishops of resistance. I heard you or Fr. Hewko or both called Bishop Williamson heretic. How can we speak with you if you say things like this one? I hope you change your positions as to be able to meet you.
May God make you see what is wrong in your behavior.
+Thomas Aquinas
To this reply, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko made this incredible response:
Date: 18 October 2016
My Lord, your Excellency,
You refuse to speak to us because you heard that someone said that they heard that we said "Bishop Williamson is a heretic." Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. Offending the good name of Bishop Williamson means they may not receive the Sacraments of the Church before death.
Seminarians studying for Priesthood may not be ordained since their rector is perceived to be too critical of Bishop Williamson. Is the good bishop's name worth more than the Name of the Lord God, Creator of us all?
Our more than 2000 sheep are unworthy of Sacraments also since they may not honor his Episcopal name sufficiently?
You are a Bishop and will soon meet your Creator and Lord at the Judgement. Will you have to repeat the words of Cardinal Wolsey, the Faithful servant of Henry VIII of England? He said, "If only I had served my God half as well as I served my King." You are indeed a loyal servant of Bishop Williamson, and you are proving it by your worthy actions of defending him by doing whatever is in your power to destroy his perceived enemies.
Did you not tell souls to avoid Fr. Cardozo Masses and sacraments for the same reason?
Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?
You have been a zealous Bishop defending the honor of the Lord of Broadstairs.
I met several times before a Monk - Dom Tomas Aquino who served the Lord of Heaven. What happened to him? Whence has he gone?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre (or any other Catholic Bishop) refuse sacraments, etc. to anyone who called him by bad names?
Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway.
Before you were consecrated you did three evil condemnable acts.
1. You wrote two letters about the New Mass supporting Bishop Williamson's statements on the New Mass.
2. You told souls to reject Fr. Cardozo because of his critical remarks against Bishop Williamson.
3. You wrote a letter of rejection against myself and Fr. Hewko forbidding us to attend your Consecration or even to visit afterwards. Was this the price you had to pay to receive purple and a cross about your chest?
I was told before of a bad monk in Brazil who did not follow the Rule of St. Benedict, who was mentally ill in need of being replaced. No young man should be allowed to enter his monastery etc. I did not believe them. After meeting you in Silver City then in Brazil all doubts were removed.
You should be familiar with being a victim of Calumny and hence owe, in justice, to give Fr. Hewko and I a fair hearing.
In your visit to the USA and Canada there are about 1000 or more souls who won't see you since they are with Boston, KY. They are being left orphans by you and Bishop Faure, mere suffragan bishops of Bishop Williamson - and why?...Because they hold on to the Faith handed down by their Fathers especially Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the New Mass and the New Church or order to remain faithful to "Eternal Rome." Eternal Rome is still here on earth now in all souls that remain at this moment Faithful to Her.
I do not lightly criticize you, but with a heavy hope that your conscience will remember former times when it served God rather than a man. Can you really say that you now are serving God?
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself "heretic" this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, "do good to those who hate you" etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.
If, however, Fr. Hewko and I are preachers of Heresy or grave errors then as a bishop of the Church you must correct us by both pointing out our errors (allowing a defense of course) and teaching the correct way.
God bless you Excellency, we can still come to see you if you allow us, as discreetly or publicly as you wish.
In Christ our King and King of all creation,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Fr. David Hewko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdFknTrE5iE
Commentary:
So Fr. Pfeiffer wants to portray himself as the victim here: Bishop Thomas Aquinas's refusal is totally unreasonable, because contrary to whatever he may have heard, Fr. Pfeiffer never called Bishop Williamson a heretic.
But Fr. Pfeiffer must have an exceedingly short memory, because on one of the forums loyal to him, they place a very great emphasis on this quote from one of his recent sermons (which at the time of the above correspondence was only 2 weeks old!):
“He [Bishop Williamson] says, now, the new Mass has true in it and the new Mass has false in it; the new Mass has good in it, and the new Mass has bad in it. Now the bad is dangerous, but the good and the true benefit the soul.
And this is a teaching which is condemned by Our Holy Mother the Church. It is the foundation of the heresy of ecuмenism.”
Can Fr. Pfeiffer explain how this quote is compatible with his denial to Bishop Thomas Aquinas (above) that "Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway?"
Note also the insincerity which Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko must have secretly harbored within themselves when they requested a visit from Bishop Thomas Aquinas:
Upon receiving the bishop's refusal (which they surely anticipated), they unleash a litany of complaints which obviously would have still been present even had Bishop Thomas Aquinas accepted the invitation.
But if they had all these complaints built up within them, and were so obviously opposed to the bishop to whom they feigned an invitation, then what was the true purpose of the invitation in the first place?
It was surely this: A political move to portray Boston -once again- as the innocent victim of episcopal prejudice for its "unwavering fidelity" to the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre!
In my opinion, such theatrics are not necessary for Fr. Pfeiffer:
If his dupes have stuck with him through a fake bishop, perpetual incoherence, doctrinal errors (e.g., No grace at NOM Communions; communication in sacris to attend SSPX Masses; etc.), alienation from all three bishops, Pablo, and all the rest, I would say productions like this latest episode are not necessary to hold his ground.
Anyone with common sense deserted Fr. Pfeiffer long ago; those who remain cannot be helped.
As for the particular complaints made against Bishop Thomas Aquinas, let’s "unpack" them:
“Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. Offending the good name of Bishop Williamson means they may not receive the Sacraments of the Church before death.”
Response:
Presuming the implication is accurate (i.e., the refusal of holy oils), I would see in it a charitable punishment, intended to bring you (and your dupes) back to your senses. Argumentation has very obviously failed to make any headway with you. What recourse is left? In fact, with all these grievances, why do you even request them from the three bishops? Why not go get holy oils from Mr. Moran (about whose valid and Catholic episcopacy you continue to maintain that you have no doubts)?
“Seminarians studying for Priesthood may not be ordained since their rector is perceived to be too critical of Bishop Williamson. Is the good bishop's name worth more than the Name of the Lord God, Creator of us all?”
Response:
Is it that, or, is it because your hostel (aka “seminary”) was founded in direct disobedience to Bishop Williamson? He told you (in the presence of Fr. Chazal) that he did not trust you to be a rector, but who was he to say such a thing, eh?
And of course, the shotty, irregular so-called formation could have nothing to do with it either, right?
In your mind, those who come to Boston have a right to be ordained! When has the Church ever taught such a thing? If the bishops don’t call your seminarians (and it is always the bishops through which God calls men to the priesthood), it is Providence telling you they are not fit.
“Our more than 2000 sheep are unworthy of Sacraments also since they may not honor his Episcopal name sufficiently?”
Response:
What’s all this sudden talk about the importance of receiving the sacraments, when for years, you have inculcated within your dupes an almost contempt for same?
“You are a Bishop and will soon meet your Creator and Lord at the Judgement. Will you have to repeat the words of Cardinal Wolsey, the Faithful servant of Henry VIII of England? He said, "If only I had served my God half as well as I served my King." You are indeed a loyal servant of Bishop Williamson, and you are proving it by your worthy actions of defending him by doing whatever is in your power to destroy his perceived enemies.”
Response:
Notice that charitable punishments intended to get Fr. Pfeiffer to return to reason are perceived by him as infidelity and treachery.
What can you do for such a one except pray?
“Did you not tell souls to avoid Fr. Cardozo Masses and sacraments for the same reason?”
Response:
Were you not in Canada a couple years ago explaining why “non una cuм” priests ought to be avoided because of their error? Will you deny Fr. Cardozo is a non-una cuм priest via mental reservation that he says "una cuм Petrus?" Does this not evince his sedevacantism? If not, can you please produce an affirmative statement from Fr. Cardozo that he accepts Francis as Pope?
"Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?"
Response:
I happen to know there is quite a bit more to this story (perhaps you do as well?), but pretending what you just said were true, would you not now just have committed a serious detraction before the whole world?
Does that not bother you?
“You have been a zealous Bishop defending the honor of the Lord of Broadstairs.”
Response:
You have been an equally zealous priest, tearing it down.
“I met several times before a Monk - Dom Tomas Aquino who served the Lord of Heaven. What happened to him? Whence has he gone?”
Response:
Rather, you might ask yourself those same questions.
“Did Archbishop Lefebvre (or any other Catholic Bishop) refuse sacraments, etc. to anyone who called him by bad names?”
Response:
I thought you said you didn’t call Bishop Williamson a heretic. Were there other bad names you called him?
Aside from that, how many people do you know who, thinking Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic, nevertheless sought sacraments from him?
That kind of incoherence is found only in Boston.
“You wrote a letter of rejection against myself and Fr. Hewko forbidding us to attend your Consecration or even to visit afterwards. Was this the price you had to pay to receive purple and a cross about your chest?”
Response:
And apparently that letter, rather than causing you to rethink your positions, attitudes, and repent, has instead caused you to increase your obstinacy?
“I was told before of a bad monk in Brazil who did not follow the Rule of St. Benedict, who was mentally ill in need of being replaced. No young man should be allowed to enter his monastery etc. I did not believe them. After meeting you in Silver City then in Brazil all doubts were removed.
You should be familiar with being a victim of Calumny and hence owe, in justice, to give Fr. Hewko and I a fair hearing.”
Response:
A fair hearing? You mean like setting up some Brazilian-Boston “doctrinal discussions” (a la Rome/SSPX)? You think Bishop Thomas Aquinas doesn’t know what your positions are (with a new YouTube sermon/conference every 2 days)?
Your positions ARE the problem.
“In your visit to the USA and Canada there are about 1000 or more souls who won't see you since they are with Boston, KY. They are being left orphans by you and Bishop Faure, mere suffragan bishops of Bishop Williamson - and why?...Because they hold on to the Faith handed down by their Fathers especially Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the New Mass and the New Church or order to remain faithful to "Eternal Rome." Eternal Rome is still here on earth now in all souls that remain at this moment Faithful to Her.”
Response:
If 1,000 souls won’t see Bishop Thomas Aquinas because they are with Boston, that is their choice.
How is the bishop to blame for it?
They are not being left orphans by the bishops, but stupidly choosing you over them.
That also is their choice.
Note also the insinuation that Bishop Thomas Aquinas does not reject the new Mass or the conciliar church, simply because (like all approved theologians before him) he makes distinctions which the dupes are taught to see as compromises.
“I do not lightly criticize you, but with a heavy hope that your conscience will remember former times when it served God rather than a man. Can you really say that you now are serving God?
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself "heretic" this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, "do good to those who hate you" etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.”
Response:
Why not put your money where your mouth is, and go get your “sacraments” from “Archbishop” Ambrose?
If you do, could you also please make another YouTube video showing the dupes receiving those “sacraments?”
“If, however, Fr. Hewko and I are preachers of Heresy or grave errors then as a bishop of the Church you must correct us by both pointing out our errors (allowing a defense of course) and teaching the correct way.”
Response:
This very letter references precisely two such attempts (e.g., The articles you criticize the bishop for writing regarding good fruits), which fell on deaf ears.
Since when has argumentation ever made any headway with you?
And what happens when someone points out your errors? You go twice as far in the opposite direction (e.g., You now declare no grace passes to well-disposed communicants at a valid Novus Ordo Mass, which is proximate to heresy per Trent).
Conclusion:
The invitation by Boston was insincere, in that the response of Bishop Thomas Aquinas was not only foreseeable, but was in fact foreseen in Boston. That it was extended at all, therefore, was really just posturing to justify making public the complaints and grievances which comprise the response of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko. In doing so, Fr. Pfeiffer hoped to portray Boston as being punished for it's alleged "fidelity" to Archbishop Lefebvre, with the effect of tightening the loyalty of the dupes, and securing his ground against further defections. In this he has probably succeeded, but only at the expense of further isolation (were it possible), and guaranteeing that there is no future at all in Boston.
-
Quote:Date: 18 October 2016
My Lord, your Excellency,
You refuse to speak to us because you heard that someone said that they heard that we said "Bishop Williamson is a heretic." Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. Offending the good name of Bishop Williamson means they may not receive the Sacraments of the Church before death.
Seminarians studying for Priesthood may not be ordained since their rector is perceived to be too critical of Bishop Williamson. Is the good bishop's name worth more than the Name of the Lord God, Creator of us all?
Our more than 2000 sheep are unworthy of Sacraments also since they may not honor his Episcopal name sufficiently?
You are a Bishop and will soon meet your Creator and Lord at the Judgement. Will you have to repeat the words of Cardinal Wolsey, the Faithful servant of Henry VIII of England? He said, "If only I had served my God half as well as I served my King." You are indeed a loyal servant of Bishop Williamson, and you are proving it by your worthy actions of defending him by doing whatever is in your power to destroy his perceived enemies.
Did you not tell souls to avoid Fr. Cardozo Masses and sacraments for the same reason?
Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?
You have been a zealous Bishop defending the honor of the Lord of Broadstairs.
I met several times before a Monk - Dom Tomas Aquino who served the Lord of Heaven. What happened to him? Whence has he gone?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre (or any other Catholic Bishop) refuse sacraments, etc. to anyone who called him by bad names?
Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway.
Before you were consecrated you did three evil condemnable acts.
1. You wrote two letters about the New Mass supporting Bishop Williamson's statements on the New Mass.
2. You told souls to reject Fr. Cardozo because of his critical remarks against Bishop Williamson.
3. You wrote a letter of rejection against myself and Fr. Hewko forbidding us to attend your Consecration or even to visit afterwards. Was this the price you had to pay to receive purple and a cross about your chest?
I was told before of a bad monk in Brazil who did not follow the Rule of St. Benedict, who was mentally ill in need of being replaced. No young man should be allowed to enter his monastery etc. I did not believe them. After meeting you in Silver City then in Brazil all doubts were removed.
You should be familiar with being a victim of Calumny and hence owe, in justice, to give Fr. Hewko and I a fair hearing.
In your visit to the USA and Canada there are about 1000 or more souls who won't see you since they are with Boston, KY. They are being left orphans by you and Bishop Faure, mere suffragan bishops of Bishop Williamson - and why?...Because they hold on to the Faith handed down by their Fathers especially Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the New Mass and the New Church or order to remain faithful to "Eternal Rome." Eternal Rome is still here on earth now in all souls that remain at this moment Faithful to Her.
I do not lightly criticize you, but with a heavy hope that your conscience will remember former times when it served God rather than a man. Can you really say that you now are serving God?
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself "heretic" this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, "do good to those who hate you" etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.
If, however, Fr. Hewko and I are preachers of Heresy or grave errors then as a bishop of the Church you must correct us by both pointing out our errors (allowing a defense of course) and teaching the correct way.
God bless you Excellency, we can still come to see you if you allow us, as discreetly or publicly as you wish.
In Christ our King and King of all creation,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Fr. David Hewko
:facepalm:
"Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?"
Response:
I happen to know there is quite a bit more to this story (perhaps you do as well?), but pretending what you just said were true, would you not now just have committed a serious detraction before the whole world?
:confused1:
-
This is just incredible. Words almost fail me. Does this priest-charlatan actually have 1000 followers in the U.S.? 1000 living and breathing trads in America have not yet seen through this man? Well, gooollly!
We mustn't be to quick, then, to judge those faithful who still adhere to Fellay & Co. Their behavior is no more egregious. For me, Fr. Pfeiffer gives new and added meaning to the phrase "priest craft." What an incredible phony he is, not to mention a blithering hypocrite!
-
What’s wrong with Fr. Pfeiffer’s statement?
It’s accurate.
Fr. Pfeiffer does not call Bishop Williamson a heretic.
Listen to this starting at about 12:00, wouldn't hurt to start around 10:00. Can you really tell me he's not calling the Bishop a heretic, or souls like myself that follow him?
https://youtu.be/Oe0MEZdDlHs
-
Whatever the three Bishops' (Faure, Aquinas, Williamson) and priests' beefs are with one another, I totally agree with Fr. Pfeiffer when he says that the Bishops should NOT be withholding the Sacraments from any of the associated faithful.
We are ALL resistors here - we all resist modernist Rome and our wayward Pope.
The Sacraments should never be used as some sort of political football against the Faithful.
It is not right, and it is not just.
Fr. P and Fr. H. wrote:
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself "heretic" this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, "do good to those who hate you" etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.
-
The sects are at war.
-
Whatever the three Bishops' (Faure, Aquinas, Williamson) and priests' beefs are with one another, I totally agree with Fr. Pfeiffer when he says that the Bishops should NOT be withholding the Sacraments from any of the associated faithful.
We are ALL resistors here - we all resist modernist Rome and our wayward Pope.
The Sacraments should never be used as some sort of political football against the Faithful.
It is not right, and it is not just.
You're darn right!
Only one problem: the bishops aren't guilty of this.
They won't set foot in Boston, KY (why would they? They are regularly attacked there, plus there is a notorious apostate living there who may or may not be practicing witchcraft. I certainly wouldn't go there!).
However, even then, +Williamson's charity and concern for the Faithful compels him to offer Confirmations nearby, within driving distance of Boston, KY. I commend him for his wise and prudent behavior.
The TRUTH is that Fr. HEWKO ("the holy one", "the good one" of the two, etc.) and Fr. Pfeiffer have BOTH told their Faithful to boycott the Masses/Confirmations of these bishops. So whose fault is it, if the Faithful don't get confirmed?
It's not the Resistance bishops who are abusing the Sacraments into political footballs. It's Fr. Pfeiffer and his cult.
-
The sects are at war.
What if I punched you in the face while you were walking along, and a few seconds later someone said, "Hey guys, stop fighting! That is not how Christ acted when He was on earth!" wouldn't you be a bit indignant? After all, you weren't "fighting" at all -- you were merely hit in the jaw by a random assailant.
You would be rightfully angry at any third party who dared to lump you (a victim) in with your attacker, condemning you both equally.
That is precisely the case with the "war" between Fr. Pfeiffer's cult and the worldwide Resistance. The fighting and name-calling is ALL coming from one direction: Boston, KY outward to each of its many enemies/targets.
Fr. Pfeiffer's sect is a cross between a cancer, a pus-oozing sore, and a hairy wart on the face of the Resistance.
-
This is just incredible. Words almost fail me. Does this priest-charlatan actually have 1000 followers in the U.S.? 1000 living and breathing trads in America have not yet seen through this man? Well, gooollly!
We mustn't be to quick, then, to judge those faithful who still adhere to Fellay & Co. Their behavior is no more egregious. For me, Fr. Pfeiffer gives new and added meaning to the phrase "priest craft." What an incredible phony he is, not to mention a blithering hypocrite!
1. He actually said TWO thousand. I sincerely hope that is a gross exaggeration.
2. Fr. Pfeiffer reminds me of the Jews, who are always on the attack, and most vicious at that. However, they frequently play the meek victim card. Talk about an example of "you got a lot of nerve!" -- it's the height of chutzpah. (Note that the word chutzpah itself is a Hebrew word!)
-
Fr. Pfeiffer has a lot of nerve!
The things he's said and done against +Williamson represent a FULL SCALE WAR AGAINST HIM. We're not talking about "sufficiently honoring his name". Give me a break!
Fr. Pfeiffer goes full scale war on +Williamson and all of his confreres, and then he has the nerve to pile on the guilt trip that +W isn't taking care of souls. That is outrageous.
Why should +Williamson think he's even welcome at Fr. Pfeiffer's chapels, where the Pfeifferites routinely RED LIGHT +W's Masses, and where +Williamson is viciously excoriated on a regular basis? I wouldn't go there if I were the Bishop!
Yes, it's a horrible situation, but 100% of the blame needs to be placed where it belongs: the corrupted, sectarian, ambitious priest Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer has a lot of nerve!
The things he's said and done against +Williamson represent a FULL SCALE WAR AGAINST HIM. We're not talking about "sufficiently honoring his name". Give me a break!
Fr. Pfeiffer goes full scale war on +Williamson and all of his confreres, and then he has the nerve to pile on the guilt trip that +W isn't taking care of souls. That is outrageous.
Why should +Williamson think he's even welcome at Fr. Pfeiffer's chapels, where the Pfeifferites routinely RED LIGHT +W's Masses, and where +Williamson is viciously excoriated on a regular basis? I wouldn't go there if I were the Bishop!
Yes, it's a horrible situation, but 100% of the blame needs to be placed where it belongs: the corrupted, sectarian, ambitious priest Fr. Pfeiffer.
Absolutely. They must be accustomed to speaking with very gullible group of people who wouldn't even blink when something that hypocritical comes along. They know how insulting their little letter is! It won't elicit a positive response, it's not going to do anything but reinforce the well established divide they themselves created. This seems like desperate posturing in front of a dwindling cult following more than anything else.
-
Quote
"You refuse to speak to us because you heard that someone said that they heard that we said "Bishop Williamson is a heretic." Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. "
I'm totally confused. Am I missing something here?
I thought a priest was a priest for life and even if he left the priesthood, was in the state of mortal sin and a heretic, in time of emergency (death) could administer Extreme Unction .
Don't Fathers JP & Hewko know this?
-
The sects are at war.
What if I punched you in the face while you were walking along...
The best part.
-
Quote
"You refuse to speak to us because you heard that someone said that they heard that we said "Bishop Williamson is a heretic." Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. "
I'm totally confused. Am I missing something here?
I thought a priest was a priest for life and even if he left the priesthood, was in the state of mortal sin and a heretic, in time of emergency (death) could administer Extreme Unction .
Don't Fathers JP & Hewko know this?
[/b]
Of course they know this; it's pure hyperbole on their part; it's a ruse. They are just trying to gain more sympathy with their sheep by showing how unjustly persecuted they are and at the same time "demonizing" the three bishops. They will stoop to anything, as the pharisees did in Our Lord's time, to make them look bad. But, imo, the two "victimized" fathers might be hinting here at not being given fresh Holy Oils every Easter rather than not being able to administer the Last Rites. The old Holy Oils would still be valid but their duped sheep might not understand any of this; which would increase their anxiety and their victim status. The Fathers think that this is a win for them because it tends to solidify their group in the end. But these two priests are playing around with souls and when their sheep become aware of the manipulation, and may this happen soon, please God, the sheep will leave these two hirelings and deservedly treat them as the salt that has lost its savor. One of the many terrible consequences in all this is that once a priest has lost his good reputation it is very difficult to gain it back. Sir Thomas More referred to Cardinal Wolsey as a "scabby sheep". It seems that Fathers P. and H. are close to meriting the same sobriquet.
-
Thank you Motorede I guess I just never thought they'd stoop THAT low.
-
I'm totally confused. Am I missing something here?
I thought a priest was a priest for life and even if he left the priesthood, was in the state of mortal sin and a heretic, in time of emergency (death) could administer Extreme Unction .
Don't Fathers JP & Hewko know this?
[/b]
... But, imo, the two "victimized" fathers might be hinting here at not being given fresh Holy Oils every Easter rather than not being able to administer the Last Rites. The old Holy Oils would still be valid ...
Or, their supply ran out. In which case, they cannot validly administer Extreme Unction, unless they can find a bishop to supply them with new ones?
(Maybe they should have thought of that before starting a war against +BW.)
-
I'm totally confused. Am I missing something here?
I thought a priest was a priest for life and even if he left the priesthood, was in the state of mortal sin and a heretic, in time of emergency (death) could administer Extreme Unction .
Don't Fathers JP & Hewko know this?
[/b]
... But, imo, the two "victimized" fathers might be hinting here at not being given fresh Holy Oils every Easter rather than not being able to administer the Last Rites. The old Holy Oils would still be valid ...
Or, their supply ran out. In which case, they cannot validly administer Extreme Unction, unless they can find a bishop to supply them with new ones?
(Maybe they should have thought of that before starting a war against +BW.)
[/b]
Exactly! Learn to disagree with respect but don't bite the hand that feeds you.
-
This Open Letter to His Excellency is insanely Hypocritical. Boo Hoo the Bishops will not give us oils and give our "seminarians" :/ orders. They want these things from Bishops who they tell their followers not to receive sacraments from or attend their Masses. Which one is it OLMC? Why would you tell your followers to miss their Sunday obligation from a Bishop that you want oils and orders from. Makes zero sense to me. This is getting so embarrassing for Boston. :facepalm:
-
I know that a number of you dismiss Valtorta out of hand. Nevertheless, I feel to quote briefly from the 5th Volume of the Poem. Not long before He sends them out, Jesus reveals with great sorrow how many priests in future generations will behave. Does any priest come to mind as you read below:?
The cassock has remained. But the priest is dead. This will
happen to too many in the course of ages. Useless dark shadows.
they will not be a lever that lifts. a rope that pulls, a fountain that
quenches people’ thirst, corn that satisfies their hunger, a heart
that is a pillow, a light in darkness, a voice that repeats what the
Master says to him. But for poor mankind they will be a weight
of scandal, a weight of death, a parasite, a putrefaction... Horror!
Once again and always I shall have the greatest Judases of the fu-
ture in My priests!
-
Fr. Pfeiffer has a lot of nerve!
The things he's said and done against +Williamson represent a FULL SCALE WAR AGAINST HIM.
You mean "full scale war"against his errors.
Well, what are we supposed to do when a bishop teaches error? –stick our heads in the sand?
We denounce Bishop Fellay’s errors, but we cannot denounce Bishop Williamson’s errors?
We have to condemn error wherever it comes from.
“The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall.” (from article below)
On Condemning Error
The following translated article explains why error must be refuted (wherever it comes from) and also shows why the SSPX, which once performed this duty, should be doing it today.
Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Critical Ministry of the Society by Father François-Marie Chautard
The Chardonnet No. 239 (June 2008)
Even if we have to work from the inside, can we not keep a respectful silence on the modern errors spread by the authorities while preaching sound doctrine?
Actually, respectful silence is only morally possible in order to avoid a worse evil. The story of St. Pius X provides us with an example with L’Action Française, when he felt that a condemnation was inappropriate and would have resulted in far more inconveniences than advantages. However, in the present case, the circuмstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (neglect for the common good of the Faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of error (the apparent ostracism by the visible society of the conciliar Church).
So the answer lies in one word: the good of the Faith. The good of the Faith today involves the condemnation of error for two reasons:
- to keep it yourself. Experience proves, unfortunately, that it is not enough to preach the Truth, but that errors also need to be condemned.
- to prevent the fall of those who might be tempted to succuмb to it.
Let us add the following arguments which weigh in the balance and show that a true love of the Faith cannot be combined today with a respectful silence:
1. The Truth requires the condemnation of error: "preachers of truth must do two things, namely exhort in sacred doctrine, and refute contradiction" (1).
2. The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall: "In case of necessity, where the Faith is in danger, anyone is bound to proclaim his faith, either to instruct or encourage the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers "(2)," if the Faith were endangered, superiors should be rebuked by inferiors, even in public. Hence Paul, who was subject to Peter, rebuked him for this reason "(3).
3. The Truth is better evidenced by distinction from error and the condemnation of it (4).
4. The Truth must not be hidden through fear of criticism which will always exist whatever happens: "It is better to cause scandal than to abandon the Truth " (5).
5. The practice which consists of only searching for traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner which only detects traditional passages) is basically the same which supports ecuмenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (so as to not risk harming an agreement which would favor reconciliation).
6. The rational foundations of our position are based on the betrayal of Rome and Her abandonment of Tradition. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead gradually to forgetting the reasons for our combat and to fall imperceptibly into the combatted errors.
7. The best service that we can give Rome is to not be silent on the conciliar errors and to stand firm. What would one say of a wife or of children who would not warn their husband and father, if he started down a deadly path? Wouldn’t this be not love, but a servile and cruel cowardice?
8. This clarity of exposition and hence this condemnation of error is made more necessary because of the increased confusion in the Church and in particular in traditional circles. This confusion is explained by:
- the bone of contention, Ecclesia Dei, which after more than 20 years, does not cease to carry out its goal: to upset convictions and divide forces.
- a range of increasingly varied doctrinal nuances and therefore a greater confusion of minds, minds that are struggling to form an idea of the situation, which was not the case when both "camps" were well-divided;
- a youth which did not experience the combat of the veterans, did not have to position itself, and therefore needs more precision;
- a loss in some people of the habit of fighting, and with it, of reflecting on the reasons for it, since the last crisis, dating back to 1988, allowed convictions to be renewed.
9. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead first to believing that the crisis is reaching its end, then in a short time, to not understanding the refusal of the authorities of the Society in concluding an agreement with Rome, and thus diminishing this force of resistance.
That being said on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether those who rally have at least kept their starting positions.
Notes
(1) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, Lesson 3, No. 72.
(2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.
(3) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. II.q.33, a.4, ad 2.
(4) This is the procedure of St. Thomas which puts forth objections, the assertion of the Truth, and the answer to the objections.
(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezechiel.
Source : http://laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/20ansapres/critique/critiqu
-
So Defender, who are you defending? Your nut'n but a stinken troll for Boston, IMO.
-
So Defender, who are you defending? Your nut'n but a stinken troll for Boston, IMO.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude of contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error- absolute firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord. It is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe,” September, 18, 1976, A Bishop Speaks)
-
Fr. Pfeiffer has a lot of nerve!
The things he's said and done against +Williamson represent a FULL SCALE WAR AGAINST HIM.
You mean "full scale war"against his errors.
Well, what are we supposed to do when a bishop teaches error? –stick our heads in the sand?
We denounce Bishop Fellay’s errors, but we cannot denounce Bishop Williamson’s errors?
We have to condemn error wherever it comes from.
“The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall.” (from article below)
On Condemning Error
The following translated article explains why error must be refuted (wherever it comes from) and also shows why the SSPX, which once performed this duty, should be doing it today.
Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Critical Ministry of the Society by Father François-Marie Chautard
The Chardonnet No. 239 (June 2008)
Even if we have to work from the inside, can we not keep a respectful silence on the modern errors spread by the authorities while preaching sound doctrine?
Actually, respectful silence is only morally possible in order to avoid a worse evil. The story of St. Pius X provides us with an example with L’Action Française, when he felt that a condemnation was inappropriate and would have resulted in far more inconveniences than advantages. However, in the present case, the circuмstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (neglect for the common good of the Faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of error (the apparent ostracism by the visible society of the conciliar Church).
So the answer lies in one word: the good of the Faith. The good of the Faith today involves the condemnation of error for two reasons:
- to keep it yourself. Experience proves, unfortunately, that it is not enough to preach the Truth, but that errors also need to be condemned.
- to prevent the fall of those who might be tempted to succuмb to it.
Let us add the following arguments which weigh in the balance and show that a true love of the Faith cannot be combined today with a respectful silence:
1. The Truth requires the condemnation of error: "preachers of truth must do two things, namely exhort in sacred doctrine, and refute contradiction" (1).
2. The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall: "In case of necessity, where the Faith is in danger, anyone is bound to proclaim his faith, either to instruct or encourage the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers "(2)," if the Faith were endangered, superiors should be rebuked by inferiors, even in public. Hence Paul, who was subject to Peter, rebuked him for this reason "(3).
3. The Truth is better evidenced by distinction from error and the condemnation of it (4).
4. The Truth must not be hidden through fear of criticism which will always exist whatever happens: "It is better to cause scandal than to abandon the Truth " (5).
5. The practice which consists of only searching for traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner which only detects traditional passages) is basically the same which supports ecuмenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (so as to not risk harming an agreement which would favor reconciliation).
6. The rational foundations of our position are based on the betrayal of Rome and Her abandonment of Tradition. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead gradually to forgetting the reasons for our combat and to fall imperceptibly into the combatted errors.
7. The best service that we can give Rome is to not be silent on the conciliar errors and to stand firm. What would one say of a wife or of children who would not warn their husband and father, if he started down a deadly path? Wouldn’t this be not love, but a servile and cruel cowardice?
8. This clarity of exposition and hence this condemnation of error is made more necessary because of the increased confusion in the Church and in particular in traditional circles. This confusion is explained by:
- the bone of contention, Ecclesia Dei, which after more than 20 years, does not cease to carry out its goal: to upset convictions and divide forces.
- a range of increasingly varied doctrinal nuances and therefore a greater confusion of minds, minds that are struggling to form an idea of the situation, which was not the case when both "camps" were well-divided;
- a youth which did not experience the combat of the veterans, did not have to position itself, and therefore needs more precision;
- a loss in some people of the habit of fighting, and with it, of reflecting on the reasons for it, since the last crisis, dating back to 1988, allowed convictions to be renewed.
9. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead first to believing that the crisis is reaching its end, then in a short time, to not understanding the refusal of the authorities of the Society in concluding an agreement with Rome, and thus diminishing this force of resistance.
That being said on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether those who rally have at least kept their starting positions.
Notes
(1) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, Lesson 3, No. 72.
(2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.
(3) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. II.q.33, a.4, ad 2.
(4) This is the procedure of St. Thomas which puts forth objections, the assertion of the Truth, and the answer to the objections.
(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezechiel.
Source : http://laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/20ansapres/critique/critiqu
I don't think anyone on this forum wants you to be silent against error. Zeal for truth is a good thing--but NOT BITTER ZEAL. That's what got you into trouble. Try Saint Francis de Sales' approach and sweeten your zeal with honey. If you decide to stick to your current M.O. then you deserve to be treated as outcasts. I just don't understand why you people feel you have to attach a sledgehammer to your sword of truth. Disagree respectfully w/ +W if you feel there is a need, but keep your dignity and edify the faithful. Honestly, you attack the three bishops in a similar way that Luther attacked the pope. The pope was not Luther's enemy and +W is not yours--or are you saying that +W is acting deliberately and maliciously against you? If "yes", then prove it.
-
So Defender, who are you defending? Your nut'n but a stinken troll for Boston, IMO.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude of contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error- absolute firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord. It is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe,” September, 18, 1976, A Bishop Speaks)
Doctor! Heal thyself.
-
hahahahhahahahhaa
2000 souls?
hahahahahahahahaha
Also Bishop Williamson has stated multiple times that his PRIMARY reason for not working with the seminarians in Boston is NOT because of Fr. Pfifer but because they are not being adequately formed (no horarium, no curriculum, no instruction, etc.)
-
If Defender weren't such a blazing cult member, he'd be able to recognize the much greater errors of Pfeiffer and Hewko! When was the last time Bishop Williamson pushed a schismatic huckster to say Mass or had a Satanic layman huckster manage a seminary? Nobody's perfect, right?
Imagine for a moment the sheer amount of frenetic energy it takes to defend these sacrilegious men who demand total spiritual, emotional and financial commitment. Move over Jonestown, enter Pfeifferville!
-
Bp. Williamson has his own "problematic" right-hand man.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer certainly have that in common.
-
Bp. Williamson has his own "problematic" right-hand man.
He and Fr. Pfeiffer certainly have that in common.
Know idea who you may be referring to in regards to Bp Williamson's "problematic righ-hand man..." but, I'll tell you this, Fr Pfeiffer branded me of having "Williamsonitis." I'll take this alleged ailment over the other option, Pfeiff-eprosy!
-
The sects are at war.
What if I punched you in the face while you were walking along, and a few seconds later someone said, "Hey guys, stop fighting! That is not how Christ acted when He was on earth!" wouldn't you be a bit indignant? After all, you weren't "fighting" at all -- you were merely hit in the jaw by a random assailant.
You would be rightfully angry at any third party who dared to lump you (a victim) in with your attacker, condemning you both equally.
That is precisely the case with the "war" between Fr. Pfeiffer's cult and the worldwide Resistance. The fighting and name-calling is ALL coming from one direction: Boston, KY outward to each of its many enemies/targets.
Fr. Pfeiffer's sect is a cross between a cancer, a pus-oozing sore, and a hairy wart on the face of the Resistance.
Presumably Mr. JPaul meant the phoney war between the Neo-SSPX and Boston, Kentucky? One would hope. This shell game shouldn't be difficult to see through: Both the Neo-SSPX and Boston sects slyly oppose any continuance of legitimate Roman Catholic episcopal authority and its replacement by the whims of the Novus Ordo Neo-Liberal Communist sect. Not much subtlety here, Brothers and Sisters-in-Christ!
Catholic obedience can only be to the legitimate apostolic succession and not to the whims of the various Marxist-Communist factions since their illegal coup in 1963 when the Gramscian Marxist monster Paul VI seized the Chair of Peter in classic heretic fashion with active support from the Soviet K.G.B.and passive permission from the Western secret police organisations (i.e., the C.I.A., M-15/16, French Securite, and so on).
Perhaps Mr. Matthew is a little too kind to the Boston Mafia sect. Their Ukrainian connections would indicate clear connections with the so-called American Deep State, i.e., C.I.A., N.S.A., etc. Such apostate vermin would gladly unleash a blood bath across America in despicable obedience to their American Jew masters. The contemporary heirs to Judas Iscariot will richly deserve everything they get. It isn't going to be pretty for them.
In brief, we must get our lazy butts out there and VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!
To put this in plain American English: Give me liberty or give me death. The long-awaited Catholic-Christian American (Counter-) Revolution is about to begin. in great earnest.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer has a very inflammatory personality, he is assuming
and crass, defamatory and argumentative.
I stopped listening to anything he has to say this summer
when he lashed out racial slurs against Fr. Pierre Roy of Quebec,
at a "family conference", to be honest I can't believe nobody present
spoke up against him.
-
hahahahhahahahhaa
2000 souls?
hahahahahahahahaha
Also Bishop Williamson has stated multiple times that his PRIMARY reason for not working with the seminarians in Boston is NOT because of Fr. Pfifer but because they are not being adequately formed (no horarium, no curriculum, no instruction, etc.)
I've heard otherwise from parents of seminarians. Wonder if anyone saying this is present there in any serious capacity?
-
I ran afoul of the Boston Pfeiffer cult on you tube..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSjC5HMfRVI
-
unreal, I am banned me from his You Tube channel just for
posting that I didn't approve of Pfeiffer's racist comments against
Fr. Roy in Quebec.
Anyone who thinks calling a fellow priest (and a resistance priest,
at that, although somehow still a heretic according to Pfeiffer)
a "frog priest", and refers to French Canadian masses as
"frog masses" is not a mature Roman Catholic, to accept a priest
talking this way and to applaud him is sick.
-
I have heard good things about Father Roy. It is sad that Father Pfeiffer has sunk so low.
-
unreal, I am banned me from his You Tube channel just for
posting that I didn't approve of Pfeiffer's racist comments against
Fr. Roy in Quebec.
Anyone who thinks calling a fellow priest (and a resistance priest,
at that, although somehow still a heretic according to Pfeiffer)
a "frog priest", and refers to French Canadian masses as
"frog masses" is not a mature Roman Catholic, to accept a priest
talking this way and to applaud him is sick.
"Racist"?
Give me a break.
You must be a special snowflake and not a snowball if you are that easily offended by his lack of political correctness.
Fr. Pfeiffer has been calling the French "frogs" for years and years. You need a much thicker skin.
-
unreal, I am banned me from his You Tube channel just for
posting that I didn't approve of Pfeiffer's racist comments against
Fr. Roy in Quebec.
Anyone who thinks calling a fellow priest (and a resistance priest,
at that, although somehow still a heretic according to Pfeiffer)
a "frog priest", and refers to French Canadian masses as
"frog masses" is not a mature Roman Catholic, to accept a priest
talking this way and to applaud him is sick.
"Racist"?
Give me a break.
You must be a special snowflake and not a snowball if you are that easily offended by his lack of political correctness.
Fr. Pfeiffer has been calling the French "frogs" for years and years. You need a much thicker skin.
Yes, you do need a thicker skin, snowball.
I'm a frog from Quebec and I'm proud of it.
Fr. Pfeiffer is just joking when he calls us frogs and we often have a good laugh about it.
As they say, "If you're not worth a laugh, you're not worth much."
The real problem with Fr. Roy is his sedevacantist error. Let's pray for him.
-
Link to SODALITIUM PIANUM (http://sodalitium-pianum.blogspot.mx/2016/10/on-or-about-october-15-fr.html)
On (or about) October 15, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko “invited” His Excellency, Bishop Thomas Aquinas to visit Boston, KY.
Bishop Thomas Aquinas made the following reply:
Date: Mon. 17 Oct. 2016
Dear Father,
I think we are in the same situation than in the beginning of the year when I was obliged to say to you not coming to Santa Cruz if you didn't do something as reparation about what you said towards Bishops of resistance. I heard you or Fr. Hewko or both called Bishop Williamson heretic. How can we speak with you if you say things like this one? I hope you change your positions as to be able to meet you.
May God make you see what is wrong in your behavior.
+Thomas Aquinas
To this reply, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko made this incredible response:
Date: 18 October 2016
My Lord, your Excellency,
You refuse to speak to us because you heard that someone said that they heard that we said "Bishop Williamson is a heretic." Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. Offending the good name of Bishop Williamson means they may not receive the Sacraments of the Church before death.
Seminarians studying for Priesthood may not be ordained since their rector is perceived to be too critical of Bishop Williamson. Is the good bishop's name worth more than the Name of the Lord God, Creator of us all?
Our more than 2000 sheep are unworthy of Sacraments also since they may not honor his Episcopal name sufficiently?
You are a Bishop and will soon meet your Creator and Lord at the Judgement. Will you have to repeat the words of Cardinal Wolsey, the Faithful servant of Henry VIII of England? He said, "If only I had served my God half as well as I served my King." You are indeed a loyal servant of Bishop Williamson, and you are proving it by your worthy actions of defending him by doing whatever is in your power to destroy his perceived enemies.
Did you not tell souls to avoid Fr. Cardozo Masses and sacraments for the same reason?
Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?
You have been a zealous Bishop defending the honor of the Lord of Broadstairs.
I met several times before a Monk - Dom Tomas Aquino who served the Lord of Heaven. What happened to him? Whence has he gone?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre (or any other Catholic Bishop) refuse sacraments, etc. to anyone who called him by bad names?
Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway.
Before you were consecrated you did three evil condemnable acts.
1. You wrote two letters about the New Mass supporting Bishop Williamson's statements on the New Mass.
2. You told souls to reject Fr. Cardozo because of his critical remarks against Bishop Williamson.
3. You wrote a letter of rejection against myself and Fr. Hewko forbidding us to attend your Consecration or even to visit afterwards. Was this the price you had to pay to receive purple and a cross about your chest?
I was told before of a bad monk in Brazil who did not follow the Rule of St. Benedict, who was mentally ill in need of being replaced. No young man should be allowed to enter his monastery etc. I did not believe them. After meeting you in Silver City then in Brazil all doubts were removed.
You should be familiar with being a victim of Calumny and hence owe, in justice, to give Fr. Hewko and I a fair hearing.
In your visit to the USA and Canada there are about 1000 or more souls who won't see you since they are with Boston, KY. They are being left orphans by you and Bishop Faure, mere suffragan bishops of Bishop Williamson - and why?...Because they hold on to the Faith handed down by their Fathers especially Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the New Mass and the New Church or order to remain faithful to "Eternal Rome." Eternal Rome is still here on earth now in all souls that remain at this moment Faithful to Her.
I do not lightly criticize you, but with a heavy hope that your conscience will remember former times when it served God rather than a man. Can you really say that you now are serving God?
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself "heretic" this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, "do good to those who hate you" etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.
If, however, Fr. Hewko and I are preachers of Heresy or grave errors then as a bishop of the Church you must correct us by both pointing out our errors (allowing a defense of course) and teaching the correct way.
God bless you Excellency, we can still come to see you if you allow us, as discreetly or publicly as you wish.
In Christ our King and King of all creation,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Fr. David Hewko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdFknTrE5iE
Commentary:
So Fr. Pfeiffer wants to portray himself as the victim here: Bishop Thomas Aquinas's refusal is totally unreasonable, because contrary to whatever he may have heard, Fr. Pfeiffer never called Bishop Williamson a heretic.
But Fr. Pfeiffer must have an exceedingly short memory, because on one of the forums loyal to him, they place a very great emphasis on this quote from one of his recent sermons (which at the time of the above correspondence was only 2 weeks old!):
“He [Bishop Williamson] says, now, the new Mass has true in it and the new Mass has false in it; the new Mass has good in it, and the new Mass has bad in it. Now the bad is dangerous, but the good and the true benefit the soul.
And this is a teaching which is condemned by Our Holy Mother the Church. It is the foundation of the heresy of ecuмenism.”
Can Fr. Pfeiffer explain how this quote is compatible with his denial to Bishop Thomas Aquinas (above) that "Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway?"
Yes he can. Here is his explanation.
Fr. Pfeiffer:
“We never said Bishop Williamson is a heretic. We don’t even say the Pope is a heretic. The Pope teaches heresy, and unfortunately, that heresy has to be condemned. But it doesn’t mean he’s a heretic because we don’t know what’s inside of his heart. And so, we don’t even say the Pope is a heretic. The sedevacantists say he’s a heretic. We don’t even say that he’s a heretic. We say, “No, because he’s doing what the world tells him to do.” But he is teaching heresy, and we have to say, “That heresy is wrong. Don’t listen to it.” But he’s still the Pope.
And so, likewise, Bishop Williamson is still a bishop. Of course, he doesn’t have any authority. He’s not a bishop of the diocese or anything. But he still is a bishop who was consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, and therefore, we honor and respect him as the father of our priesthood – Fr. Hewko’s priesthood. We honor and respect him. But, unfortunately, teaching something that’s not right, we have to say,”That’s not right.” That’s all. And that we must stand for the Truth and if we’re mistaken in what we say. Fine. Let it be corrected. But nonetheless, so far, no correction.”
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a09IOF39i5g (at 1:00:05)