The Catacombs

Full Version: Another Fake Resistance Bishop
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(With apologies for the late appearance of this particular EC)
Early in the New Year there is due to be ordained, on the Emerald Isle another priest for Catholic Tradition, by a bishop who is well-known in that country as a priest but not as a bishop. This is because he was consecrated in private nearly two years ago, in January of 2021, when the false Covid crisis with all its travel restrictions was in full swing. It then seemed that Éire might be completely cut off from England for an indefinite length of time, and then what would have continued to protect in the Land of Saints and Scholars those Catholics who understand the dangers for their Faith both of the Newchurch and of the Newsociety of St Pius X ? These Catholics may not be numerous, but by their rare grasp of the unchanging Catholic Faith they have for the future of the Church a rare importance. The precious consecration might have remained private for longer, were not circumstances seeming to become steadily more hostile to Catholic Tradition. Now as Catholic bishops are, by the power of their sacramental Orders to ordain priests and to consecrate bishops, essential for the survival of the Church, so Traditional bishops have been essential to the survival of Catholic Tradition. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in 1988 without the clear permission of the Church’s official leaders in Rome, let nobody think that he was simply defying those leaders, because they had in fact given permission in principle for at least one to be consecrated. But when it came to fixing a date for that one consecration, Cardinal Ratzinger so avoided naming a date that the Archbishop saw clearly that he would never in practice be able to use the permission granted to him in principle by Church Authority. That was the decisive moment for the Archbishop to understand that Catholic Truth would never be properly defended by the modernists ruling in “Rome”, and so he went ahead with the consecration of four of his own priests as bishops, to ensure “Operation Survival”, as he called it, the very survival of Catholic Tradition. At the time, many believing Catholics did not understand his action, and roundly condemned it, but today, after Pachamama, and after Traditionis Custodes pretending to abolish the Traditional rite of Mass, and after a host of other heresies coming from the summit of the Newchurch, many of those same Catholics now admit that it is thanks to those consecrations of 1988 that the true Church survived. In the unprecedented crisis of the Church precipitated by its own leaders splitting their Catholic Authority from Catholic Truth at Vatican II (1962-1965), Archbishop Lefebvre never scorned or defied the true Authority of the Church, he merely put the Truth of Tradition in front of that Authority as embodied in neo-modernists, and by his so doing, more and more Catholics still have a Tradition to which they can rally. Honest souls among them acknowledge Mother Church’s immeasurable debt to the Archbishop. Now in the early 2020’s, Almighty God has still not yet seen fit to reunite Catholic Truth and Catholic Authority, so that the neo-modernists are still in control of “Rome”, and the Faith needs still to be sustained despite “Rome”. Therefore what the Archbishop began by putting Truth before Authority must be continued. However, while Catholic Truth must be preferred in the last resort to Catholic Authority if “Authority” opposes that Truth which it was only instituted by Our Lord to defend, nevertheless Truth in a fallen world does need that Authority to protect it, so that without that Authority on high, Truth has real difficulties. For instance the Archbishop’s successors had such problems in ruling the Society after his death that by a policy of deferring to “Rome” much more than he would ever have done, they so changed the Archbishop’s Society that it needs a new name, e.g. the “Newsociety”. And just as the mass of Catholics after Vatican II followed their leaders from the Church into the Newchurch, so the mass of followers of the Archbishop’s Society have followed his successors from his Society into what one can call the “Newsociety”, because it strains after official approval by the neo-modernists of “Rome”. Therefore as in 1988, or even more today, for the survival of Catholic Tradition, the necessity arises for the consecration of bishops without Roman Authority, so to speak, to maintain the Archbishop’s defence of the Faith above all. Hence the consecration in private of Fr Giacomo Ballini, here in England on January 14, 2021. The on-going Covid crisis showed how bravely he looks after the Mass and the Faith of all time.

Kyrie eleison

Today’s “Rome” will not properly care for sheep ?
We must have shepherds who will the true Faith keep !
Quote:... Hence the consecration in private of Fr Giacomo Ballini, here in England on January 14, 2021. The on-going Covid crisis showed how bravely he looks after the Mass and the Faith of all time.

According to this logic, Australia and several other countries that had heavy COVID restrictions should also have their own bishops?
With so many doubtful consecrations, it would have been nice to have some video of the ceremony to be released at this point.

Not that I think that Bishop Williamson didn't correctly consecrate Fr. Ballini. But it sets a perhaps dangerous precedent. One that may not produce much good fruit with so many doubtful clergy wandering around. It may only encourage more and more clandestine ordinations and consecrations which may leave doubts in the minds of many laity.

Hopefully a video will be forthcoming.
This bit:

Quote:Therefore as in 1988, or even more today, for the survival of Catholic Tradition, the necessity arises for the consecration of bishops without Roman Authority, so to speak, to maintain the Archbishop’s defence of the Faith above all.

...strikes me as particularly insincere. Isn't this the same man who has been telling us in sermons and conferences that the SSPX was a good thing for Archbishop Lefebvre to have done in the 70s and 80s, but not a good thing for us to do today..? Isn't this the man who has been telling people that the time for structures is over? That the era of the seminary is over, God doesn't want it any more? That there are no longer going to be new priests because we have no longer got "the straw to make the bricks" (meaning, there aren't any young men left who are capable of being made into priests)..? 

Some of us will recall some not-so-ancient history. This same Bishop Wiliamson encouraged Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko to start a seminary, no small undertaking. They managed it, with occasional help from other priests and a lot of good people put a lot of time, effort and money into helping. This very same delinquent bishop then refused to do anything, even to give tonsures to the seminarians. He didn't do a single tonsure. Even during 2013 and 2014 when he was still pretending to support it, when he would turn up to do confirmations and preach a sermon in the seminary chapel, he was trying desperately to undermine it behind the scenes. And in the meantime his minions and bootlickers spread a constant stream of gossip online, the gist of which was that the seminary wasn't good enough. And yet now, the order of the day seems to be ordaining young men who have had no seminary formation, who lived in Fr. Ballini's house and taught themselves using textbooks. 

The truth is, we've tried very hard to keep seminaries a viable option for the future of the Church, but we've been consistently denied the services of a bishop, from day one. The Fake Resistance, by contrast, have plenty of bishops to go around, but no interest at all in seminaries.
The vacillating Bishop Williamson. Some of us remember a time (catalogued by The Recusant) when Bishop Williamson made the following blithe comments:

Quote:· Congregations and seminaries are not needed today. They are outdated. God does not want there to be a structure or congregation for the Resistance.

· Seminarians who are ready for ordination should not be ordained, because there is no structure or congregation for them to be ordained into.

· We shouldn’t try to get priests to work together. It’s bound to fail, so it’s better not to attempt it at all.

We all can clearly recall that this was never the mentality of Archbishop Lefebvre. Like the SSPX, the Archbishop has become a kind of mascot, to be brought out and paraded around when convenient. But his teachings and guidance are not followed.
(01-06-2023, 09:19 AM)Thomas Wrote: [ -> ]With so many doubtful consecrations, it would have been nice to have some video of the ceremony to be released at this point.

Not that I think that Bishop Williamson didn't correctly consecrate Fr. Ballini. But it sets a perhaps dangerous precedent. One that may not produce much good fruit with so many doubtful clergy wandering around. It may only encourage more and more clandestine ordinations and consecrations which may leave doubts in the minds of many laity.

Hopefully a video will be forthcoming.

Fr. Ballini's dream finally came true. Just like Fr. Pfeiffer, he had wanted to become bishop one day.
(01-10-2023, 05:45 AM)Genovese Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-06-2023, 09:19 AM)Thomas Wrote: [ -> ]With so many doubtful consecrations, it would have been nice to have some video of the ceremony to be released at this point.

Not that I think that Bishop Williamson didn't correctly consecrate Fr. Ballini. But it sets a perhaps dangerous precedent. One that may not produce much good fruit with so many doubtful clergy wandering around. It may only encourage more and more clandestine ordinations and consecrations which may leave doubts in the minds of many laity.

Hopefully a video will be forthcoming.

Fr. Ballini's dream finally came true. Just like Fr. Pfeiffer, he had wanted to become bishop one day.

I sincerely hope that isn't true. Imagine *wanting* such a thing! Raising the stakes so dramatically, ensuring that when you die you have a far greater responsibility to answer for and a much harsher judgement than you would already have had, making it even harder for you to save your soul, ensuring in effect that every little fault and failing and sin on your part doubles, triples and quadruples its effects even further afield than when you were a priest, which is bad enough to begin with compared to a layman... I just can't imagine any Saint accepting such a thing without at least a certain degree of reluctance.
Regarding this "not so ancient history" from The Recusant's previous post: 

"Some of us will recall some not-so-ancient history. This same Bishop Wiliamson encouraged Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko to start a seminary, no small undertaking. They managed it, with occasional help from other priests and a lot of good people put a lot of time, effort and money into helping. This very same delinquent bishop then refused to do anything, even to give tonsures to the seminarians. He didn't do a single tonsure. Even during 2013 and 2014 when he was still pretending to support it, when he would turn up to do confirmations and preach a sermon in the seminary chapel, he was trying desperately to undermine it behind the scenes. And in the meantime his minions and bootlickers spread a constant stream of gossip online, the gist of which was that the seminary wasn't good enough. And yet now, the order of the day seems to be ordaining young men who have had no seminary formation, who lived in Fr. Ballini's house and taught themselves using textbooks. "

While I sincerely appreciate The Recusant's input, I believe it's very important to remember that it was rather common knowledge over here in the states that B. Williamson, much to his credit, requested rather early on that Pablo be removed from the seminary. B. Williamson requested this due to his concern of Pablo's possible negative influence over the seminarians. Fr. Pfeiffer told us this himself, several times, while trying his best to convince us that the seminary could not function without Pablo and he believed B. Williamson wanted Pablo gone in order to ensure the failure of the seminary.
While I cannot be absolutely certain of B. Williamson's true intentions (and neither can Fr. Pfeiffer), nor can I be sure of what was true, twisted truth, or just blatantly false information from Fr. Pfeiffer, it is worth reflecting and considering how very differently perhaps the course of things could have gone if Fr. Pfeiffer had simply obeyed this simple request from the bishop, trusted in God rather than Pablo, and soldiered on without this layman at the seminary.
In hindsight, it looks as though B. Williamson's request was prudent, to say the least.
Fr Pfeiffer is not simply a victim of B. Williamson's neglect. It's far deeper than just that, but let's not open that big can of worms, anymore than needed.
Just fyi...
(01-19-2023, 03:10 PM)TheRecusant.com Wrote: [ -> ]I sincerely hope that isn't true. Imagine *wanting* such a thing! Raising the stakes so dramatically, ensuring that when you die you have a far greater responsibility to answer for and a much harsher judgement than you would already have had, making it even harder for you to save your soul, ensuring in effect that every little fault and failing and sin on your part doubles, triples and quadruples its effects even further afield than when you were a priest, which is bad enough to begin with compared to a layman... I just can't imagine any Saint accepting such a thing without at least a certain degree of reluctance.

https://ibb.co/HqzZXwW