Fr. Hewko Conference: "Did Abp. Lefebvre Teach Confusion?" - January 8, 2023

[Stone]

Fr. Hewko Conference: "Did Abp. Lefebvre Teach Confusion?" - January 8, 2023 (Alberta, Canada)

[Thomas]

This was a good, balanced conference. Pointing out errors of individual prelates but always fairly. Simply repeating their own words and noting how +Lefebvre preached the opposite. 

Common sense conference. Good for the soul. Good to hear good doctrine. Appreicated the answers to the questions at the end too. 

Deo gratias for good priests who preach the truth in season (when it's popular) and out of season (when the majority of the priests and bishops have deviated onto a different path).

[SAguide]

Here is a link to the recording and transcript of the sermon Fr. Hewko gave in 2012 whereby he fully obeyed and at the same time got his point across by simply quoting Archbishop Lefebvre.
       

                                                                  https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=375

[Ruthy]

This was a good, balanced conference. Pointing out errors of individual prelates but always fairly. Simply repeating their own words and noting how +Lefebvre preached the opposite. 

Common sense conference. Good for the soul. Good to hear good doctrine. Appreicated the answers to the questions at the end too. 

Deo gratias for good priests who preach the truth in season (when it's popular) and out of season (when the majority of the priests and bishops have deviated onto a different path).

I thought the very same thing!!+

[Stone]

This was a good, balanced conference. Pointing out errors of individual prelates but always fairly. Simply repeating their own words and noting how +Lefebvre preached the opposite. 

Common sense conference. Good for the soul. Good to hear good doctrine. Appreicated the answers to the questions at the end too. 

Deo gratias for good priests who preach the truth in season (when it's popular) and out of season (when the majority of the priests and bishops have deviated onto a different path).

I thought the very same thing!!+

Ditto. No animosity for those prelates who have forsaken him, just objective points on why they are wrong. A very rare quality - reminiscent of Archbishop Lefebvre who reacted similarly. It's about the defense of the Faith.

[Stone]

When Fr. Hewko preaches and speaks against the dangers of the Fake Resistance clergy (as was done in the above conference) in allowing people to go to the New Mass, allowing for grace in the New Mass, for saying that the New Mass can nourish one's faith, it is being out of a love for the Truth and a love for Christ the King. He is simply repeating what Archbishop Lefebvre and many other good priests have said in the decades since Vatican II. But it is tempting for those who support the Fake Resistance, who don't love the Truth and the True Mass above any individual person or prelate, to polarize the issue, to make it a personal conflict between Fr. Hewko and the Fake Resistance under Bishop Williamson's shadow leadership, to make it about 'persons.' But it isn't. That is just smoke thrown up to obscure the issue. 

The issue is about truth, about doctrine, about Christ the King. Our Lord does not share His Throne with the Conciliar Church. There is only One, True Church that is His Bride and it is the Catholic Church of all Time. Not the Vatican II Church. Not the Vatican II that all the Conciliar Popes have used as an excuse for promoting error, blasphemy, and heresy.  

To highlight even further the dangers of the Novus Ordo, aside from Fr. Hewko and Archbishop Lefebvre's words on the New Mass, the following excerpts are taken from Archbishop Viganò's recent letter of January 21, 2023, The Latin Mass and Novus Ordo cannot coexist, this is a ‘battle between Christ and Satan. There can be no mistaking Archbishop Viganò's words. It is at the point of the Mass at which the heart of the battle lies. Those who make allowances for the New Mass - note Archbishop Viganò's certainly does NOT - are no friends of Christ the King. The poor priests in the Conciliar Church may be forgiven for not knowing better but the words and actions of the well-formed, well-trained Fake Resistance clergy cannot be so easily overlooked for spewing error.

If, therefore, Vatican II was, as is evident, an instrument whose authority and authoritativeness was fraudulently used to impose heterodox doctrines and protestantized rites, we can hope that sooner or later the return to the Throne of a holy and orthodox pontiff will cure this situation by declaring it illegitimate, invalid, and null, like the Conciliabolo of Pistoia. And if the reformed liturgy expresses those doctrinal errors and that ecclesiological approach that Vatican II contained in nuce, errors whose authors intended to make manifest in their devastating scope only after their promulgation, no “pastoral” reason – as Dom Alcuin Reid would like to maintain – can ever justify any maintenance of that spurious, equivocal, favens hæresim rite, so utterly disastrous in its effects on God’s holy people. The Novus Ordo therefore does not deserve any amendment, any “reform of the reform,” but only suppression and abrogation, as a consequence of its irremediable heterogeneity with respect to the Catholic Liturgy, to the Roman Rite of which it would presumptuously claim to be the only expression, and to the immutable doctrine of the Church. “The lie must be refuted, as Saint Paul insists, but those who are entangled in its traps must be saved, not lost,” writes Dom Alcuin: but not to the detriment of revealed Truth and of the honor due to the Most Holy Trinity in the supreme act of worship; because in giving excessive weight to pastorality we end up putting man at the center of sacred action, when he should instead place God there and prostrate himself before Him in adoring silence.

And even if this may arouse astonishment in the proponents of the hermeneutic of continuity conceived by Benedict XVI, I believe that Bergoglio is for once perfectly right to consider the Tridentine Mass as an intolerable threat to Vatican II, since that Mass is so Catholic as to disavow any attempt at peaceful coexistence between the two forms of the same Roman Rite. Indeed, it is an absurdity to be able to conceive of an ordinary Montinian form and an extraordinary Tridentine form for a Rite that, as such, must represent the only voice of the Roman Church – una voce dicentes – with the very limited exception of the venerable rites of antiquity such as the Ambrosian Rite, the Lyonese Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, and the minimal variations of the Dominican Rite and similar rites. I repeat: the author of Traditionis Custodes knows very well that the Novus Ordo is the cultic expression of another religion – that of the “conciliar Church” – with respect to the religion of the Catholic Church of which the Mass of Saint Pius V is a perfect prayerful translation. [...]

And it is very true, beyond any possible refutation, that there is no possibility of reconciliation between two heterogeneous, indeed opposed, ecclesiological visions. Either one survives and the other succumbs, or one succumbs and the other survives. The chimera of a coexistence between Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible, artificial, and deceitful: because what the celebrant does perfectly in the Apostolic Mass leads him naturally and infallibly to do what the Church wants; while what the president of the assembly does in the Reformed Mass is almost always affected by the variations authorized by the rite itself, even if in it the Holy Sacrifice is validly realized. And it is precisely in this that the conciliar matrix of the new Mass consists: its fluidity, its ability to adapt to the needs of the most disparate “assemblies,” to be celebrated both by a priest who believes in transubstantiation and manifests it with the prescribed genuflections and by one who believes only in transignification and gives Communion to the faithful in their hands. [...]

ere it is not a question of “dressing up” the Montinian Mass like the Ancient Mass, trying to use vestments and Gregorian chant to hide the pharisaical hypocrisy that conceived it; it is not a question of cutting out the Prex eucharistica II or celebrating ad orientem: the battle must be fought over the ontological difference between the theocentric vision of the Tridentine Mass and the anthropocentric vision of its conciliar counterfeit. 

This is nothing other than the battle between Christ and Satan. A battle for the Mass, which is the heart of our Faith, the throne onto which the Divine Eucharistic King descends, the Calvary on which the immolation of the Immaculate Lamb is renewed in an unbloody form. It is not a supper, not a concert, not a show to display eccentricities or a pulpit for heresiarchs, and it not a podium for holding rallies.

It is a battle that will be strengthened spiritually in the clandestinity of priests who are faithful to Christ, who are considered to be excommunicated and schismatics, while inside the churches, along with the reformed rite, infidelity, error, and hypocrisy will triumph. And also the absence: the absence of God, the absence of holy priests, the absence of good faithful souls. The absence – as I said in my sermon for the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome (here) – of the unity between the Chair (Cathedra) and the Altar, between the sacred authority of the Shepherds and their very reason for being, following the model of Christ, ready to be the first themselves to ascend Golgotha, to sacrifice themselves for the flock. Whoever rejects this mystical vision of his own Priesthood ends up by exercising his authority without the ratification that comes only from the Altar, the Sacrifice, and the Cross: from Christ Himself who reigns from that Cross over both spiritual and temporal sovereigns as King and High Priest. [...]

When the 13-years old Agnes was led to her Martyrdom on January 21, 304, many among the faithful and priests had apostasized the Faith under the persecution of Diocletian. Should we fear the ostracism of the conciliar sect, when a girl has given us such an example of fidelity and fortitude before the executioner? Her heroic fidelity was praised by Saint Ambrose and Saint Damasus. Let us ensure that we, unworthy though we may be, will be able to merit the future praise of the Church while we prepare ourselves for those trials in which we testify that we belong to Christ.