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
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.
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 ecumenism.”
http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bp-williamsons-heresies-part-1-fr-pfeiffer-sermon-october-2016.4439/
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 cum” priests ought to be avoided because of their error? Will you deny Fr. Cardozo is a non-una cum priest via mental reservation that he says “una cum 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.”
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.”
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.
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.
