Fr. Hewko Conference: Letter of Bp. Thomas Aquinas 2/3/24, Fr. Hewko (England)

[Deus Vult]

Letter of Bp. Thomas Aquinas 2/3/24, Fr. Hewko (England)

[Stone]

Here is the Letter by Bp. Aquinas that Fr. Hewko is referencing: 

WHY DOES THE RESISTANCE EXIST?

by Mgr. Tomas de Aquina OSB

Taken from here [computer translated]

The reason for the existence of the Resistance is none other than Bishop Fellay with his words and actions.

His words minimized the seriousness of the crisis and the Council. His actions exposed Tradition to run the same fate as the Ecclesia Dei communities.

Bishop Fellay didn't speak as Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre strongly denounced the Council's mistakes as well as those that were the cause of those mistakes. He warned virtually all the popes about their responsibilities. He told John Paul II that if he continued on the path of ecuмenism he would no longer be the good shepherd, and in the drawing about Assisi he said, with images and words, that John Paul II would go to hell if he continued to be an ecuмenist.

He [Archbishop Lefebvre] told Cardinal Ratzinger that he, Ratzinger, was against the Christianization of society. He denounced the apostasy of Conciliar Rome. He denounced the mistakes and those who made them, whoever they were. He defended priests and faithful from modernist contagion. An invalid but infamous excommunication was exposed. He did not back down in the defense of France in the face of Muslim danger. He protected us against Dom Gérard's close temptation.

He was, in short, like the former bishops: the defender of Christianity and the basis of Christianity, which is Faith. He was the man of theological virtues, who sustained our faith and all virtues.

And Bishop Fellay? Did he continue Archbishop Lefebvre's actions? No. Both in word and in deed, Bishop Fellay distanced himself from Mgr. Lefebvre.

Regarding Religious Liberty, he minimized the gravity of what the Council said. He did not tell the popes that which Archbishop Lefebvre had told them. He didn't condemn the errors like Archbishop Lefebvre. He did not talk about the two churches as Archbishop Lefebvre. He did not clearly distinguish the official Church and the Catholic Church, but spoke of a "Concrete Church," confusing the faithful and even priests.

What specific church, specifically, is this? Do we have to be in this church? We are in the Catholic Church.

We recognize the Pope, but not the Conciliar Church that Cardinal Benelli spoke of. We recognize the Pope, but not his doctrine or his actions contrary to Tradition. These acts are not Catholic, but anti-Catholic.

It was under the influence of Bishop Fellay that the 2012 chapter modified the principle enunciated by the 2006 chapter: there is no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This didn't please Bishop Fellay and it was changed. Under certain conditions, the Fraternity can now reach a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. It's a legal loophole. The legal gap that could lead to the Fraternity on the path of the Ecclesia Dei communities. He didn't go that far, but he lowered his guard and Rome took advantage of that.

Bishop Fellay repressed the internal resistance in the Fraternity by expelling Bishop Williamson and some priests; then he punished others, such as the seven deans who rightly protested against Rome's marriage docuмent. Bishop Fellay disorganized Tradition, walked away from Archbishop Lefebvre's line and made others also stay away from it.

This was the reason for the existence of the Resistance: resisting such a departure.

We want to follow Archbishop Lefebvre in everything, in doctrine and also in practical solutions, because, as Aristotle and St. Thomas teach, the examples of the ancients serve as principles of action. We follow Mgr. Lefebvre in doctrine and action, especially in relation to modernist Rome, and this to be faithful to eternal Rome, Teacher of truth and holiness.

25 January 2024

[Stone]

Fr. Hewko also mentioned this book at the 30:10 minute marker in the above conference: