This is really not about Fr. Hewko ...
Nov 7, 2019 8:10:56 GMT
Post by Admin on Nov 7, 2019 8:10:56 GMT
Well, dear friends, many of us have been treated to another valiant effort to show that Fr. Hewko is in error with respect to understanding Archbishop Lefebvre’s teachings on New Rite Sacraments.
I was kindly included as one of over ninety (international) recipients of an email recently with its only message being an attached PDF document sent out by the 'Chief in Charge' at OLMC, entitled “Rebuttal.”
The PDF is a three-page letter, addressed ‘Dear Faithful’ and it attempts to demonstrate that Fr. Hewko neither properly understands nor properly preaches the correct comprehension of the New Rite Sacraments according to Archbishop Lefebvre. The letter concludes by expressing “we hope that Fr. Hewko recants from his position that misrepresents Archbishop Lefebvre.” I am including the PDF here (with the names of the authors [first names only were given] redacted): Fr. Hewko Fr. Pierre-Marie and Archbishop M....pdf (66.43 KB) As an aside, anyone of the many recipients of this email will be able to corroborate that not one iota of the remainder of the letter was altered in any way in the redacted PDF.
Dear Faithful,
Greetings as we approach the season of Advent.
A few days ago, Fr. Hewko, once a Priest at Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC), KY published his 6th Newsletter dated October/November 2019, where he rebukes OLMC for promoting that "the new sacraments are all valid, and cannot be doubted".
The new accusation isn't new at all, but one among the many in his series of newsletters and sermons to the faithful since his departure from OLMC. Below is a list of statements from Fr. Hewko on the new rite of sacraments, ordinations and episcopal consecrations, listed in chronological order.
A few statements of Fr. Hewko on the new rite of sacraments, ordinations and episcopal consecrations
• In his departure letter from OLMC, dated February 13, 2019, he questioned the Priesthood of Fr. Poisson by stating the following "Fr. Poisson had been previously ordained in 1996, by a bishop consecrated in the New Rite, making this first ordination doubtful"
• In his May 3, 2019 newsletter Issue #3, he writes the following "I hold exactly the same position of Abp. Lefebvre on the objective dubiousness of the New Rite of ordinations and episcopal consecrations."
• On July 13, 2019, in a sermon where he defends questions that he subscribes to Sedevacantism, he states "Cause he (Fr. Poisson) himself does not doubt his own validity. But he should at least question it. ..."
• In his November 2019 newsletter Issue #6, he writes the following "OLMC in Kentucky, seems sadly to have joined the ranks of the Fake Resistance on this score, since they promote now, that "the new sacraments are all valid, and cannot be doubted!?" This approval goes for the new rite of ordinations and consecration of bishops as well."
Fr. Hewko vs Fr. Pierre-Marie: Who is misrepresenting Archbishop Lefebvre?
Had he read the article 'Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecrates is Valid' by his SSPX brother Priest, Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., in the December 2005 edition of Angelus Press, it would have resolved his concerns.
On page 7, Fr. Pierre-Marie makes the following statements:
"Archbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by God to sustain the little flock of the faithful, never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome.
We know that he was informed of the objections made against the ritual, especially by Fr. Kröger. If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he would not have failed to say so given the seriousness of the consequences."
There is a contradiction in the statements made by Fr. Hewko in his May 2019 newsletter, and Fr. Pierre Marie in his December 2005 article available on Angleus Press. They are presented below:
(b) Archbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by God to sustain the little flock of the faithful, never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome - Fr. Pierre-Marie, December 2005
Both statements (a) and (b) above cannot be true simultaneously, which leaves us with some observations.
(I) Pre-2012, i.e. SSPX era
(i) If Fr. Pierre-Marie misrepresented Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, he would or should have been admonished by his superiors and brother Priests at the SSPX in 2005, when the article was written.
(ii) It seems that there was no rebuttal from the SSPX to Fr. Pierre-Marie's article from 2005 - 2012 (the 2012 Doctrinal declaration with Rome).
(iii) One should not forget that Fr. Hewko was with the SSPX in 2005. Hopefully, Fr. Hewko has read Fr. Pierre-Marie's article and can tell the faithful as to which of the two statements (a) or (b) represents the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the new rite of episcopal ordinations?
(II) Post-2012, i.e. SSPX-Resistance era
(i) We are not aware of any rebuttal given by the SSPX-Resistance to Fr. Pierre-Marie's 2005 article after its formation in 2012; a good 7 years since the article was published. If the SSPX did not rebut the article, shouldn't the SSPX-Resistance have done so, as to correctly represent Archbishop Lefebvre?
(ii) After 2012 and as of date, the SSPX-Resistance has split into various factions, namely True Resistance, False Resistance and Independent Priests. However, none of these factions have provided a rebuttal to Fr. Pierre-Marie's article. Doesn't this sound unusual?
SSPX, the Resistance factions and Independent Priests have a duty to honor Archbishop Lefebvre's legacy
Irrespective of which faction or affiliation one belongs to, in Catholic charity, shouldn't the various Bishops and Priests of the SSPX and/or the various Resistance factions provide a rebuttal to Fr. Pierre-Marie's article if he is misrepresenting Archbishop Lefebvre's position? Isn't this the teaching of Our Lord (Matthew xviii: 15-17)?
As of date, we are not aware of any rebuttal from the SSPX or the SSPX Resistance that was formed in 2012, and the various Resistance factions to Fr. Pierre-Marie's article, from 2005 till today.
This means that the position taken by Fr. Hewko, i.e. "I hold exactly the same position of Abp. Lefebvre on the objective dubiousness of the New Rite of ordinations and episcopal consecrations", is a misrepresentation of the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, should be rejected by Traditional Catholics, and that Fr. Hewko must recant from this erroneous view that he upholds.
This means that Fr. Pierre-Marie's position, i.e. "Archbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by God to sustain the little flock of the faithful, never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome" should be upheld by Traditional Catholics.
If Fr. Hewko believes that Fr. Pierre-Marie has misrepresented Archbishop Lefebvre's position, then in Catholic charity, we would be eager to know the reasons as to why Fr. Hewko believes that he has correctly represented Archbishop Lefebvre, but Fr. Pierre-Marie has not. Moreover he should explain to the faithful his position on this matter since the publishing of Fr. Pierre-Marie's article in 2005.
While we continue and pray for good health and wellbeing of Fr. Hewko, we hope that Fr. Hewko recants from his position that misrepresents Archbishop Lefebvre.
Pax Christi,
[redacted]
November 3, 2019 Well. There is so much that can be said to refute this specious position: that Archbishop Lefebvre approved all New Rite Sacraments as valid – without grave reservations. He did say that they were valid but never without stating immediately that, because of the rampant corruptions in the aftermath of Vatican II, that they were doubtful! He consistently preached that all the New Rite Sacraments were to be avoided. And if priests ordained in the Novus Ordo came to tradition, he stated that the circumstances of each ordination was to be carefully reviewed and investigated for the elements of validity. The Archbishop did not say that the Novus Ordo Ordinations were to be accepted at face value, as unequivocally valid. Ironically, that is what the SSPX now says (in its Doctrinal Declaration) and how it treats priests from the Novus Ordo coming to tradition, no one is conditionally reordained anymore. And now these last months, that is what we are hearing from OLMC.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew he did not personally have the authority to declare the New Rite Sacraments invalid. He knew that some good pope would in the future and not necessarily in his lifetime. Until that happened, Archbishop Lefebvre ‘handed down what he received,’ warning the bishops, priests, and laity to avoid these new Sacraments; he reminded us over and over that they were composed by men who wanted to align themselves with the Protestants and who wanted to promote the ‘cult of man.’ So he preached repeatedly, that they were doubtful, to avoid them whenever possible, to conditionally reconfirm and conditionally reordain whenever there was a doubt that the original Confirmation or Ordination was not valid. We can do no better than to follow this simple wisdom.
Please consider two simple objections to the thesis of this letter, which is essentially that since the SSPX did not formally denounce Fr. Pierre-Marie's study on the New Consecration Rites, that it therefore accurately reflects the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre and this being the case, Fr. Hewko is misrepresenting the Archbishop by saying the New Sacraments are doubtful though possibly valid.
Objection #1
Let us use our common sense and ask the question that immediately comes to mind when reading this letter: If Fr. Hewko is mistaken about Archbishop Lefebvre, why isn’t Archbishop Lefebvre himself used by the authors of this letter to demonstrate that? The Archbishop should be, after all, the primary source of their ‘rebuttal’, not Fr. Pierre-Marie (who would be a secondary source as they say in writing classes). This is, dare one say, an inexcusable omission. If you want to publicly accuse Fr. Hewko of an error and ask him to recant his position that (supposedly) misrepresents Archbishop Lefebvre, then at least do us the courtesy of showing exactly how this has been done. To waste our time with secondary opinions and sources is just that, a waste of time.
Fr. Hewko certainly is well known for regularly quoting the Archbishop in his sermons. Notice too, Fr. Hewko was also careful to include many passages from the Archbishop in the recent (Issue 6) newsletter referenced in the above letter. Again, this is the proper manner of making an assertion based on the words of someone else: to actually quote that person. Why not fight fire with fire, so to speak? Not that one is promoting a quote-mining war but really, the abundance of words by Archbishop Lefebvre supporting everything Fr. Hewko is saying on New Rite Sacraments, well, it leaves one rather embarrassed to see this simple step so completely ignored by the authors of this letter.
Here is the small sample of quotes Fr. Hewko included in his last newsletter (Issue 6) from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia and Archbishop Lefebvre, that easily testify to the truth of Fr. Hewko's statements on the New Rite Sacraments:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia
Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question . Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means.
Archbishop Lefebvre
1990 - Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bishop de Castro Mayer
... because priests and faithful have a strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests. Secondly, because the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church.
1988 - Ordination Sermon
Why Ecône? At that time perhaps you did not perfectly realize the fight that Ecône leads. You came because of your desire to be formed in Tradition. Indeed, it seemed to you that to separate oneself from Tradition was to separate oneself from the Church and, therefore, to receive possibly doubtful sacraments and a formation which is certainly not according to the principles of the Magisterium of the Church of All Times.
1988 - Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Necessity of Reordinations
Ecône, 28 Oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
[T]hank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics. We are in the time of great apostasy. We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world. ... We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ. ...Marcel Lefebvre
1985 - Sermon
And so they reformed the Mass, [they made] the New Mass, the new sacraments, the new catechisms, the new Bible. All is changed by the spirit of ecumenism, to be closer to the Protestants.
1983 - Letter to American Friends and Benefactors (shortly after the "Nine" left)
The Society does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful sacraments is increasing. In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by priests imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circumstances is necessary.
1983 - (April 26th) Conference to the Ridgefield Seminarians - "The Fr. Stark Issue"
"...that is the reason why I said to you yesterday [...] that we must do an inquisition, (a study of each case) to know what the situation really is - in this case - not in all cases in general (i.e. not a blanket judgement) but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid. And I...I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: 'You must be re-ordained.' Otherwise, if I think that is ordination is valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the Sacrament. (NB: It would be a grave sacrilege to knowingly do so).
1983 - (April 28th) Conference to the Ridgefield Seminarians
"... we believe that what the Catholics have taught, what the Popes have taught, what the Councils have taught for twenty centuries, we cannot possibly abandon. We cannot possibly change our faith: we have our Credo, and we will keep it till we die. We cannot change our Credo, we cannot change the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we cannot change our Sacraments, changing them into human works, purely human, which no longer carry the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is because, in fact, we feel and are convinced that in the last fifteen years something has happened in the Church, something has happened in the Church which has introduced into the highest summits of the Church, and into those who ought to defend our faith, a poison, a virus, which makes them adore the golden calf of this age, adore, in some sense, the errors of this age.
1982
It provided the opportunity to generalize, to extend the sickness which already existed in the Church, and to extend it in an official manner, to the extent that one can almost say now that error spreads in the Church through obedience, which is something unheard of in the Church; that we are obliged by obedience to accept doctrine which is no longer truly orthodox, and sacraments which are doubtful.
1980 (April) - Letter to Friends and Benefactors
We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition.Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace. ... It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.” ... The Church cannot content herself with doubtful sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. [...] It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come. And it is because these novelties were introduced by a clergy infected with Modernism, that the most urgent and necessary work in the Church is the formation of a profoundly Catholic clergy. We give ourselves to this work with all our heart [...]. The Church was saved from Arianism. She will be saved as well from Modernism. Our Lord will triumph, even when, humanly speaking, all seems lost. His ways are not our ways. Would we have chosen the Cross to triumph over Satan, the world and sin?
One hopes that all can see that the Archbishop spoke his words on avoiding doubtful New Sacraments on the firm foundation of the pre-Vatican II teachings, e.g. see the Catholic Encyclopedia source on Probabilism; and Fr. Hewko is in turn, making both the pre-Vatican II teaching and Archbishop Lefebvre, the firm foundation for his preaching. There is a continuum there in the preaching of Fr. Hewko. There are no abrupt ruptures.
Sadly, some will recall that this trend of twisting the Archbishop’s words into new meanings by OLMC (and trickling down to its seminarians and laity - as this letter demonstrates) with respect to the new Sacraments first began to rear its ugly head in the immediate aftermath of Fr. Hewko’s leaving OLMC.
In response to this trend, something of a running list of the many quotes by Archbishop Lefebvre that rightly express his thoughts on New Rite Sacraments has been compiled on The Catacombs: see On the Doubtfulness of Conciliar Sacraments and Validity
But, dear friends, even before this, because of the twisting of the words of the Archbishop, first by the SSPX and then by the Fake Resistance, a close examination of the books, sermons, conferences, etc. of Archbishop Lefebvre were the frequent nourishment of the Resistance beginning in 2012. This is a six-year old habit now! A well-honed habit born out of a necessity in repeatedly being force-fed deliberate mutilations of the mission, purpose, and guiding principles of the original SSPX bequeathed to us. Our inheritance from the Archbishop has been plundered and stripped of its beauty by those who were supposed to guard and defend it. And who can argue that it was really Fr. Hewko who has consistently and regularly encouraged us since 2012, to read for ourselves the words of Archbishop Lefebvre? Who has insisted we understand the fight that we are in by going back to our founder's guidance, without its being reworked by the Conciliar SSPX and Fake Resistance?
Objection #2
Why is the position of a compromised-SSPX the only refutation to Fr. Hewko that can be mustered?
Now one might be tempted to say that in 2005, the SSPX wasn’t officially compromised, therefore the study by Fr. Pierre-Marie is to be valued. But, dear friends, even the Fake Resistance’s Mr. Sean Johnson, in his recent Catalogue of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction of the SSPX, in chronicling the many, many compromises by the SSPX since the 1990’s away from the original position of Archbishop Lefebvre, duly notes the compromises in this very same study of Fr. Pierre-Marie. This aptly responds to the concerns of the authors of the letter that no one contradicted Fr. Pierre-Marie's study.
Here is an excerpt of Compromise #102 from that Catalogue, addressing this very same study of Fr. Pierre-Marie’s that is used as a ‘rebuttal’ to Fr. Hewko. Let us really see who is following Archbishop Lefebvre: Fr. Pierre-Marie/SSPX or Fr. David Hewko:
#102: Double Compromise (Valid Episcopal Rite; Tutiorist Position Toward Sacramental Validity):
With the 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI to the papacy, the discussion regarding the validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration heated up, as Benedict XVI was the first pope to be consecrated a bishop according to the new rite. A determination of the issue had huge implications: If the form of the new rite was invalid, or even doubtful, would Benedict XVI truly be the Bishop of Rome?
Until that time, the matter regarding the validity of the form of the new rite was a disputed matter open for debate within the Society, with some of its best theologians declaring the new rite "doubtful."
One such theologian was none other than Bishop Tissier de Malleris, who, having received the book of Dr. Coomaraswamy La Drame Anglican, which declared the new rite invalid, responded in a 1998 letter:
"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”
After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.
As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.
Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,
+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.
As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.
Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,
+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
In 2007, former US District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott wrote an article titled "Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?," which explained to the faithful why is was essential to conditionally ordain priests (and bishops) coming to the Society from the conciliar church, who had been ordained in the new, doubtful rites:
"When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.
We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)
Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity." sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)
Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity." sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
But in the same article, Fr. Scott states his belief that Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. (Avrille) had demonstrated the validity of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration (a disputed contention within Tradition and the SSPX), but nevertheless proceeds to cite another 2007 Le Chardonnet article by Fr. Nicolas Portail (SSPX), in which the latter declares:
"The authors correctly observe that this rite is the vehicle of a conception of the episcopacy according to Vatican II. It also shows that the functions that are special to the episcopal order (ordaining priests, consecrating churches, administering confirmation...) are not mentioned in the consecratory preface, in opposition to other prefaces in the Eastern Rites. In addition, the specific error of collegiality is explicitly mentioned in the consecrator’s allocution. It cannot be denied that this rite is, from a traditional perspective, weak, ambiguous, imperfect, defective, and manifestly illicit."
Additional articles of Fr. Celier (there he is again! Any time there is a chance to strike at Tradition, he emerges!) and Fr. Calderon supplemented those of Fr. Pierre Marie and Fr. Scott.
The validity of the form was now beyond question in SSPX circles: Only a sedevacantist (allegedly) could question it!
But as the quotation from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais demonstrates, it was not always so (and nobody ever accused Bishop Tissier of being sedevacantist).
This new position/policy was implemented to smooth the way for negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI.
In this regard, the aforementioned International Committee Rore Sanctifica seems to have made a rather prophetic response to all the pro-validity SSPX rebuttals to its study. Speaking of these allegedly validly consecrated bishops, it stated:
"One wonders whether or not one will in the near future see these individuals on the altars (tables) used by the Society. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows." www.the-pope.com/letterpmv.html
The advent and acceptance of conciliar Bishop Huonder (Diocese of Chur, Switzerland) by the SSPX is the personification and fulfillment of that prophecy.
In short, it is a double compromise and change:
For the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will conclude the new rite is certainly valid.
And for the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will no longer maintain our tutiorist position with regard to sacramental validity. [Red font emphasis - The Catacombs. All other emphasis in the original.]
So, we see the importance of recognizing the political milieu that Fr. Pierre-Marie’s Study was born out of, i.e. the SSPX was highly motivated to announce their approval for the New Rites of Consecration.
One cannot help but feel pity for the (certainly misguided though perhaps well-intentioned) authors of this letter. They are fighting a losing battle. One who truly understands the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who has studied his writings and his words, also understands that Fr. Hewko is dead to rights on how he is preaching on the New Rite Sacraments. There is not "misrepresentation" of the Archbishop's words as the authors of this letter state. Fr. Hewko is, after all, simply repeating what the Archbishop preached, in season and out of season.
But sadly, many abuse the humility of the Archbishop (in not taking it upon himself to declare all the New Rite Sacraments, the New Liturgy, etc. categorically and completely invalid as the sedevacantists do) by twisting his words it into a categorical approval and promotion of those same New Rite Sacraments (as the SSPX did in its Doctrinal Declaration and now too OLMC). This is a corruption of what he preached. The proof is easily available for those who want the truth and cherish it. Read Archbishop Lefebvre! It's all right there.
It is easy to see that this issue is really not, as the authors of this letter purport, a 'Fr. Hewko not following Archbishop Lefebvre' issue. It is in fact, an 'OLMC not following Archbishop Lefebvre' issue. OLMC have backed themselves into the proverbial corner with the status of Fr. Poisson and while trying to extricate themselves have only made things worse. When Fr. Poisson first came to OLMC, he was told by Fr. Pfeiffer he needed to be conditionally reordained. This was the same decision arrived at by Fr. Pfeiffer with respect to Fr. Voigt and who advocated for him to be conditionally reordained in 2013. This is how Archbishop Lefebvre, the old-SSPX, and Fr. Pfeiffer used to approach New Rite Ordinations. So why the attacks on Fr. Hewko for preaching as he has always preached on the new Sacraments? It is Fr. Hewko who has been consistent and steady-state. Where is the rupture from Archbishop Lefebvre that he is being accused of?
Give me a break.