| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 418 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 416 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz Sermons: Fourth...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons July 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
4 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
|
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Da...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:22 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 10,676
|
Fourth Sunday after Pente...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:22 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 17,696
|
The Lavender Legacy Conti...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:19 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 79
|
Louis Veuillot: The Liber...
Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:13 AM
» Replies: 31
» Views: 5,834
|
Pius X to Prelates: ‘Prom...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:10 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 45
|
Retreat Conference: Disce...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
07-05-2025, 10:29 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 57
|
Retreat Conference: The F...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
07-05-2025, 10:23 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 51
|
Retreat Conference: From ...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
07-05-2025, 10:19 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 45
|
UK Prays! - A Holy Rosary...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
07-05-2025, 07:55 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 10,468
|
|
|
| Transcription: Saving Souls in Wartime: Fr. Hewko (& Bp. Rejects Error) |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2024, 02:43 PM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
 |
Saving Souls in Wartime: Fr. Hewko (& Bp. Rejects Error)
The Catholic Trumpet - slightly adapted | December 2, 2024
In his November 26 sermon, “Saving Souls in Wartime,” Father Hewko reflects on the Feast of St. Sylvester and shares powerful insights from his recent travels through England, Ireland, and Wales. Notably, he recounts his meeting with Bishop Giacomo Ballini in Derry, Northern Ireland, where critical topics concerning the Catholic Resistance were discussed. Father Hewko details Bishop Ballini’s firm rejection of Bishop Williamson’s errors, including the intrinsic evil of the New Mass and the dangers of promoting alleged novus ordo “miracles” without Church approval.
Father Hewko also underscores the necessity of seminaries to preserve the priesthood, in stark contrast to Bishop Williamson’s discouragement of structured formation. Furthermore, Father Hewko touches upon Bishop Ballini’s exorcism over Dublin City Hall amidst Ireland’s spiritual crisis.
This transcript serves as a vital record of Father Hewko’s defense of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s principles and his call to resist modernist errors infiltrating the Church.
-The ☩ Trumpet
Fr Hewko: Feast of St. Sylvester
“Saving Souls in Wartime”
November 26, 2024
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost, Amen.
Today is November the 26th, Feast of St. Sylvester. Just listen to the Collect of the Mass, which really explains the whole life of this saint: “Oh most merciful God, who, when the holy abbot Sylvester was piously pondering over the vanity of earthly things, while he stood by an open grave, didst vouchsafe to call him to the desert. We supplicate thee that, despising earthly things, after his example, we may forever enjoy thy presence. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee, forever and ever. Amen.”
That defines his life, St. Sylvester. He was an abbot of monks, but what moved him to become a monk was to see an empty tomb, to smell the rotting body, to see the features all caved in, grey and lifeless. Indeed, death strikes everyone this way. It is a grace for many people to see death, to see just how passing, how vain, how speedy is this life on earth, and how we must not bank our life on this earth but for Heaven. And how many poor souls are deceived by the vanities, the splendor, the youthfulness, the pazazz of the modern world, and indeed, yes, the internet and all the colors and flashes and video games and all these things. They encapture and rapture the senses. But we are supposed to rise above the senses. We’re supposed to be men of prayer that can restrain our enslavement to the external things and raise our heart and mind and the soul to union with God to contemplate eternal things, and that’s why in many collects of the Mass, the Church will pray, “Lord, grant that I may despise earthly things and seek the heavenly things.”
So, we want to ask this of Saint Sylvester to despise earthly things. Now, just a kind of a side note, but an important point. I just came back from England and Ireland and a short visit in Wales. There were a handful of Extreme Unctions to give. There was a planned adult baptism, but that will be reserved for the next visit or whatever priest visits next in probably April or May, and then we went to Ireland, and that was another quick visit, and I was able to spend four or five hours with Bishop Ballini, and Bishop Ballini was in the northern Ireland in Derry, so he was very gracious to receive my visit with the two seminarians and the driver and another visitor.
So, what came of that visit? It's my second visit with him. He was very gracious, of course, and invited us to lunch. The bishop cooked himself, and basically, I was asking him, “Your Excellency, nobody hears you, nobody knows you, at least here in the US. We say Bishop Ballini, and people say, well, “Who's that? Who consecrated him?” So, I did ask if he would consider making public the video of his consecration. It would certainly settle a lot of questions, and down the road, you know, 15-20 years, people are going to say, well, “How do you know he's valid? How do you know who consecrated him? Where was the ceremony? Who did the ceremony?” So, to make these things public would certainly settle a lot of these questions that do arise with these bishops, and down the centuries, bishops were always consecrated in public churches, and everyone was there, hundreds and hundreds of witnesses to testify to that. So, his answer to that was he didn't deny, he didn't refuse. Maybe he'll consider it, and I think it would help a lot, myself, and let's hope he'll consider that.
It's not the be-all and end-all, but it would certainly settle many questions. We always witness, if you're long in the battle of tradition, we often saw these, what was called, “the garage bishops”, and that was a standing, kind of a standing joke. There's a bishop in every garage, meaning that the Thục Line, they went bishop-consecration haywire. In every garage, they had a bishop. They were consecrating bishops everywhere, and of course, these are questionable from the Thục Line because the Thục Line is riddled with confusion and often doubt, especially when Archbishop Thục consecrated a non-Catholic as a bishop. That's invalid, and it's a terrible sacrilege, and +Archbishop Lefebvre even questioned, was he even in his right mind? But that's another issue, and really, the bottom line is, like many issues today that are debatable and questionable and battles fought over, it's really up to Mother Church to declare when she gets back to good health with a good pope, to declare on the Thục Line- Was it invalid? Was it valid? Does he stand condemned? What's their position? Do they have to be all re-ordained and re-consecrated or reduced to the lay state? I don't know. These are questions for Mother Church. Same with all these apparitions.
We have all these true apparitions and some phony apparitions. Medjugorje is certainly one of those phony ones. Bayside also, and the one down in Texas [Divine Mercy] is certainly doubtful because it's all promoting the New Mass. It's all tied in with ecumenism, and Bayside even was tied in with some witchcraft, I understand. And yes, the apparition says, “Pray the Rosary”, and it's strange. It's true. God can use even a false apparition to bring souls to truth because I know a handful of people who were drawn to Bayside, drawn to even Medjugorje, but through that they started to pray the Rosary, and Our Lady always keeps her promise. If you pray the Rosary, she's going to lead you to salvation and lead you to Her Son. So many people who followed at first Bayside or Medjugorje or false apparitions were led to tradition, and they realized, oh, these are wrong because of these messages that counter tradition.
So anyway, in the course of the conversation, I did ask if he would publicly condemn some of these errors of Bishop Williamson that have been promoted for the past. Since 2014, Bishop Williamson has started promoting these opinions and errors,“erroneous opinions”, we could more accurately call them, and Bishop Williamson himself admits they’re “opinions”. And maybe if he treated the priests who opposed him, because these are publicly being taught, it's not like they're just private conversations, and when Bishop Williamson introduced these erroneous opinions, he always said, “I know that some of my colleagues, some priests will cut off my head for saying this; I know that I'm going to get in trouble for saying this; I know that there's going to be some who don't agree with me”, but then he goes on to say it and introduces it into the public domain.
So when priests do raise their voice, then why are there repercussions such as they don't receive holy oils? In my case, I was told I wouldn't get holy oils unless I publicly promoted the New Mass miracles, especially the one in Poland, Sokółka, and well, I mean, with all respect to Bishop Williamson who was a dynamite bishop and priest in the United States, he did so much good. And I, in fact, I encourage people, listen to his great talks, doctrinal talks in the 1990s and some of his many great interviews, and even now he's doing some good interviews, but you just got to be careful when he promotes “New Mass miracles”, “conservative New Mass”, “New Mass nourishes your faith”, and all these erroneous opinions that can deceive many souls.
And I've been very vocal against these erroneous opinions myself. Why? Because I've seen priests become neutralized. They used to, good priests of the Catholic Resistance, they used to preach out in 2012, 13, 14, 15, but then because they were scared to oppose these opinions being promoted out of Broadstairs, they became silent. And some told me, “you are disrespectful to mention the name of Bishop Williamson, you shouldn't attack him in public”, and so forth. But I think, you know, accuse me if I'm wrong, and if I am, I will gladly apologize and make things straight and humble myself, which I'm happy to do. But I can attest that I have never attacked the name of Bishop Williamson. I have never attacked his person. And I've always repeated over and over again, I have the greatest filial respect and affection and loyalty to what he always stood for, a consecrated bishop of Catholic tradition, who stood for +Archbishop Lefebvre's position until he started changing his positions in 2014. But before that, he was always solid, just like Bishop Fellay. So before 2000, 2001, he was always solid. And in 2003, even he (Bishop Fellay) told Campos, Brazil priests, “Don't make an agreement with Rome, you will be silenced; By accepting jurisdictions from Rome, you will be silenced; And you'll have to compromise with the New Mass and Vatican II”. He was right. But in 2001, and then certainly 2010, 11, 12, he himself committed the same tragic mistake of stepping into the traps of modernist Rome.
So ever since he's been quite silent, and even punished priests who spoke out openly against, for example, the [SSPX bishops] meeting [with] Benedict XVI in 2011, one of the great French priests, Father de Caqueray, wrote a public letter, an excellent letter, which would be worth reading here, but this would be too long. An excellent letter, just blasting that ecumenical prayer service of Pope Benedict XVI. It was a classic SSPX letter, just glorious. And many priests read it from the pulpit. It was a great letter. And then I understand Bishop Fellay rebuked him for putting out that letter publicly.
So Bishop Fellay changed. And why? I don't know. I pray for him. And he's basically turned the Society of the SSPX into something else than what +Archbishop Lefebvre founded. And some of you may remember the old SSPX telling Rome, “We glory in our excommunication!”, “You excommunicate +Archbishop Lefebvre and the three bishops. Why don't you excommunicate us also? Because we don't want to be part of this ecumenical, evolutionary church of Vatican II and the New Mass.” But a wonderful letter, a wonderful spirit. And the SSPX priests and bishops, as +Archbishop Lefebvre left it, were a united front of the soldiers of Christ, spreading the Kingship of Christ, battling the heresies of Vatican II and the New Mass.
And if in those days a priest was teaching the “New Mass nourishes your faith; The New Mass gives grace”, and certainly promoting “New Mass miracles”, he would have been smashed by his fellow priests. And the bishops back then would have done the same. +Archbishop Lefebvre would never have tolerated it. Why? Because the New Mass is not just a liturgical question. It is a doctrinal question, a doctrinal issue. “As you pray, so you believe.” And the New Mass attacks Christ's priesthood. It attacks the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And it attacks the Victim, that Jesus Christ is the Victim on the altar. And all that is ignored, erased, watered down, or obliterated into the meal by the New Mass. So anyway, back to our visit with Bishop Ballini. Let me just make clear some things that we covered.
And I have two letters from him, and I'm going to quote from them. He gave me permission to. He said, you know, “Please tell your faithful where my position is.” And I'm happy to do it. And I'm happy to say that Bishop Ballini, Giacomo Ballini, basically, does not agree with Bishop Williamson's erroneous opinions. And let me draw some quotations from them. Firstly, when he, in the previous letter, he said, I was calling Bishop Williamson a heretic. And I told him I never called him a heretic, ever. I attack his errors, his opinions, but never his person. So then he explains, obviously, in my letter, when I use the word heretic, I did not mean for it to bear its literal sense. I simply used it to hyper-publicly express the reality of some of the disputes which we have witnessed in the last few years. Okay, fair enough.
And then I brought him, brought to him the questions of the new teaching, the new opinions: “The New Mass gives grace; One can nourish one's faith with the New Mass.” This was heavily promoted by Bishop Williamson and heavily attacked by good priests who openly opposed this. And many of the priests wrote Bishop Williamson personally and said, “Why are you teaching this? This is erroneous; This is scandalous.”
So I'm happy to say, Bishop Ballini, he says here, “Can active participation in the New Mass be a meritorious act?” Bishop Ballini says, “I think that we all agree that the New Mass is to be considered intrinsically evil.This belief is at the foundation of our apostolate and our work as priests. If we considered the New Mass only evil in reason of the circumstances, we must agree that there would be certain cases where the New Mass would be good and consequently, we would have to agree in celebrating it in principle. So the question can be brought into more general terms. Can active participation to an intrinsically evil act be meritorious? If yes, what would be the conditions?” And then he goes through numerous quotes from theologians on invincible ignorance and all these other questions, which are kind of aside from the point. And then Bishop Ballini concludes, “I would say that the statement, ‘The New Mass gives grace’ or ‘nourishes one's faith’, is ambiguous and should be clarified in accordance to the moral principles offered. If I were asked if the New Mass gives grace or nourishes one's faith, I would say with a certain sarcasm that for a Catholic, if it is valid, it gives graces, nourishes one's faith as much as a Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox schismatic Church. And if it is invalid, it gives graces, nourishes one's faith as much as a Protestant worship.”
In other words, it doesn't because the schismatic Mass of the Orthodox doesn't pass grace because they're not united to Christ the head and the members. To receive the grace of Christ, we must be united to him. And since the schismatics are not united to him, they're broken off from the true Catholic Church. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this, that because they lack that unity with Christ and the Mystical Body, the grace does not pass, even though their Masses can be valid. And God can give grace to the simple, pious souls in the pews who just don't know better. God certainly will answer their prayers if their heart is pure and humble before him, because God always is generous with his gifts and will want to lead them to the true religion.
So Bishop Ballini goes on to say, “And if it is invalid, it gives graces, nourishes one's faith as much as a Protestant worship. I would then ask the person if he or she would take part in an Orthodox schismatic Divine Liturgy or a Protestant worship. I would say that the New Mass is poisonous for one's faith. And I would quote the words of, The Gospel of St. Mark, 16:18: ‘They shall take up serpents and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.’ If one is not poisoned by the New Mass, this is simply because God performs a miracle by preventing the normal effect of the New Mass to take place, which is to poison the faith.” So if they're not poisoned, it's a miracle, he's saying, that they're not poisoned. “One is not allowed to attempt to tempt God and consequently, absolutely speaking, one is not allowed to take active part in the New Mass.” So of course, happy to say this is the exact position of +Archbishop Lefebvre, who didn't pull any punches. The New Mass is a bastard mass, he called it, illegitimate, destroys the faith, it's a new religion, a new expression of a new religion.
So says Bishop Ballini. So he sides with +Archbishop Lefebvre on that, thank God. And then when I asked him about the New Mass miracles that Bishop Williamson promotes constantly: “New Mass miracles cannot be rejected because of scientific evidence.” And he, Bishop Ballini, basically says, well, the scientists might call it unexplainable, but it's really up to the Church to call it a miracle. So it's wrong to promote these as real miracles, really, until Mother Church declares them as miracles, because we know the devil can deceive, and Bishop Ballini mentions this, and scientists can be wrong. “I have the impression that”, says Bishop Ballini, “there is some confusion on this point. Some seem to imply that a doctor or a scientist have the ability to tell us that a certain fact or phenomenon is a miracle. At best, a doctor or a scientist can say that through the means of experimental science, they are not able to explain a certain fact or phenomenon. This is as far as they can go.
We should keep in mind that they are not infallible and that spirits of different kinds can interfere with their instruments. The Church, speaking through its lawful authorities, after all the necessary investigations, will decide that a certain fact or phenomenon is or is not a miracle.” And then he quotes the Council of Trent about how that “No new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof, who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians and other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety.”
So, and so forth. So, of course, the Council of Trent is dealing with good bishops, not modernists, which we're dealing with since Vatican II. Bishop Ballini then goes on to say, “a fact or phenomenon which cannot be scientifically explained will be accepted as a miracle in the Church only after the decision of the ordinary, the bishop, or the Holy See. Obviously, a fact or phenomenon is what it is, independently from the judgment of the church, but this judgment is not without implications.This is what God himself has decided. No doctor or scientist is going to tell a Catholic that this fact or event is a miracle.Their arguments can be the best in the world, and one may also believe them, but unless one is the ordinary, the bishop, or the Holy See, what one thinks is just one's opinion, which does not imply or require doctrinal assent.”
So, fair enough. And then he goes on to say, “In this matter, the best one can say is that the scientific arguments offered are indisputable, and that the fact or phenomenon in question cannot be scientifically explained. But unfortunately, if one has no authority, because one is not the bishop, ordinary, or the Holy See, one cannot say that the fact or phenomenon in question is a miracle, propriae dictum (properly speaking). It belongs to the lawful authority to decide.”
So, I agree with Bishop Ballini on this. It's really up to Mother Church to decide if these Eucharistic miracles, and many of them, quite a lot of them, are actual true or not. The danger of pushing this opinion is it gives the impression of approval of the New Mass. And that's why I have been very vocal against pushing this opinion, because souls are affected by these opinions. And as I see happen, it won't be the older generation that fought against Vatican II and the New Mass that's going to start going to the New Mass, if they're told that there's New Mass miracles, and “New Mass gives grace”, and “New Mass nourishes your faith”, it's going to be the second generation. And they're going to say, well, you know, there was this bishop teaching that New Mass gives a trickle of grace, there's New Mass miracles, Why can't we go to it? Why do we have to suffer through driving five hours to get to mass, and go through all these sacrifices to keep the Tridentine Mass, when we have a pious Novus Ordo priest who wears his cassock, says Mass reverently, prays the chaplet of the Divine Mercy, has a picture of Sister Faustina and the heartless Jesus with rays of light in this chapel. What's wrong with going to his mass? That's the danger of these teachings. They're going to go to the New Mass. And I've seen it happen through these false teachings.
And so, fair enough, with Bishop Ballini, he pushes it as an opinion. And it is an opinion. And he's right, it should not be promoted and pushed until Mother Church decides. So I told him, well, I was in a position where I was refused holy oils from Bishop Williamson for refusing to promote this nonsense. And he just said, well, he never did that to me, and I wrote him, and I told him I don't agree. So, all right, well, maybe because I am so outspoken against this. So, which I will always continue to be not nothing against Bishop Williamson, but the errors, once they take root in people's souls, it's like a disease, and it does spread. And that's why the great Pope Pius VI, in Autorum Fidei, that +Archbishop Lefebvre loved to quote often, he says, “Any error in any diocese or parish doesn't attack just that parish or diocese, it attacks the whole universal Church.”
And that's why bishops, he says, “you must root out erroneous teachings”. And then I brought to his attention the teaching that, “This is not the time for structure and organization”, which was also promoted in the Eleison comments. And, you know, it's just kind of obvious. Here's what he says at the end of his point. “I am of the opinion that if one wishes to have a structure or organization, he should have it, but I do not have the power or authority to impose one on anyone. At the same time, I do not believe that priests should be ordained without what, in our circumstances, would correspond the most to what traditionally would be recognized as a title.”
So, so again, he's just basically saying what +Archbishop Lefebvre did. We are in an emergency situation. +Archbishop Lefebvre saw we have to save the Catholic Priesthood and the Mass, and he founded the Society of St. Pius X, which was approved by the local bishop, and which is normal. And so the Council of Trent wanted seminaries. And when Bishop Williamson has told numerous people, no, you don't need to go to the seminary. Go back to the world. Go get a job in the world. There's no convent. Go get to go somewhere else. Go back in the world. Well, for +Archbishop Lefebvre, when people came to him, he didn't say, “Go back in the world”, he took it as, this is God telling me I must do something for the Church, for the priesthood. He didn't want to start a seminary at first. He wanted to just peacefully retire. But God called him to something else. So Bishop Ballini does make the point that Bishop Williamson approves his seminary, and he encourages Bishop Faure to start his seminary, and Bishop Thomas Aquinas down in Brazil has the seminary going in his monastery. So, and that's another good point with Bishop Ballini. He is forming priests. He ordained Father Joseph Ortolano, who I knew as a boy on camp, and he also will be ordaining in a year or two another candidate, an American, to the priesthood. So that's a very good point. He is a bishop forming priests. This is what they need to be doing, and so that's good. That's very good.
So, and then recently I was, you know, there's some accusations going about Father Hewko: “He’s Schismatic; He’s a rogue; He’s starting a seminary without permission, without a bishop”, and so forth and so forth. Well, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call this a seminary. I'd prefer to just call it an Oratory and a house of studies. The purpose? To form, if God wills, priests and brothers, and hopefully down the road, holy sisters. Not here, but somewhere else down the road, and I know Canon Law says you have to have a number of priests. You have to have confessors. You have to have the facilities, but Canon Law also is dealing with normal times, and we are not in normal times. So even Bishop Williamson has ordained and encourages some priests to take in boys and form them themselves.
Father Pivert does that in France. He just takes boys in and forms them, and he's teaching them now. He's a good priest, and so down the centuries, priests were often formed by other priests. They would just live with them in the priory, live with them in the rectory or the monastery, and this was often the case. Even St. John Bosco, who wanted to be a priest, lived with a priest to learn Latin, learn basic catechism, start learning the rudiments of philosophy, and that priest taught him. So he lived with the priest. He prayed with the priest, rosary, served mass, and that's quite normal down the history of the Church. So in this terrible crisis of the Church, I'm just doing what I can for the glory of God, and if it's clear to me this is not God's will, I'll close it down gladly tomorrow, but as far as I can tell, this is God's will, and I know Our Lady will provide a good bishop to take care of the boys and ordain them, and hopefully some priests that will join and help teach. So is this the time for seminaries? Definitely, but we have to do all we can in this terrible crisis.
So back to the letter here. Bishop Ballini says, “It is difficult to create seminaries. We hardly have the means, but it is not impossible. Perhaps we should work together and try to unite and not divide. Everything should be done, put in place to continue the holy priesthood and ordain ministers for the celebration of the True Mass.” Of course, Bishop Ballini, his first language is Italian, so normally we wouldn't use the word ministers, that's always associated with Protestants, but in the Canon Law, that's the word used in Latin, ministeriae, but it means, “the priest”.
And then the other point I brought up with him in our conversation in Ireland was about Valtorta, how Bishop Williamson is promoting a book that was condemned in 1948. And interestingly enough, Pope Leo XIII, on January 25, 1897, Bishop Ballini quotes these words, basically saying, “By authority of the Apostolic See, any books that are not approved, that are condemned as heretical, are on the index, they incur an ipso facto excommunication, reserved in a special way to the Holy Father, to the Roman Pontiff.”
In other words, they incur a punishment which only the Pope can remove for promoting bad books. So Bishop Ballini then goes on to say, “However, +Archbishop Lefebvre didn't condemn Father Barrielle, who promoted the Valtorta to seminarians in Écône.” He actually promoted it in the retreats, and he was a big promoter of the five-day retreats, and Father Barrielle was a very good priest. So +Archbishop Lefebvre kind of just tolerated him promoting it, but +Archbishop Lefebvre himself never supported the Valtorta works. In fact, Bishop Ballini quotes +Archbishop Lefebvre. Here's his words. So I quote Bishop Ballini quoting Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is better for us not to spend too much time on the material details of the life of our Lord. These books which represent themselves as revelations of the life of our Lord, in my opinion, can be a danger, precisely because they represent our Lord in a too concrete manner, too much in the details of his life. I am thinking, of course, of Maria Valtorta, and perhaps for some this reading can be good. It can bring them close to our Lord to try to imagine what would have been the life of the apostles with our Lord, the life at Nazareth, the life of our Lord as the visits of the cities of Israel. But there is a danger, a great danger, that is to humanize too much, to concretize too much, and to not sufficiently show the face of God in this life of our Lord. This is the danger. I do not know if we should recommend so much to people the reading of these books if they are not forewarned. I do not know if that would raise them up and make them know our Lord such as He was, such as He is, such as we should know Him and believe Him to be.” So says +Archbishop Lefebvre.
And then Bishop Ballini then says, “My personal opinion on the matter is that having this book being put on the index, we should not promote it in any way. We might tolerate people reading it, but they should be warned about the dangers. Nevertheless, if the promotion of this book is to be understood as a grave sin against faith, one is allowed to wonder why +Archbishop Lefebvre has permitted Father Barrielle to continue his promoting campaign by maintaining him as spiritual director of the seminary in Écône until his death. I imagine that +Archbishop Lefebvre considered the promotion of this book as an act of imprudence, but not as serious as to cut ties with the promoter.”
So again, it was condemned by the Holy Office in 1948 under a good Cardinal Ottaviani. And then I read numerous chapters myself of the Valtorta, and there are some wonderful descriptions, let's be honest, some wonderful descriptions of some details of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Our Lord walking on the water. But there's some things also that kind of make your skin crawl, such as the apostles are sitting with Our Lord, and our Lord is putting his hands over the head of St. John the Baptist and running his fingers through his hair. And yes, that makes your skin crawl. And that's what +Archbishop Lefebvre means by it's too sensual. And then I read another comment of +Archbishop Lefebvre saying it's too sensual, too skin-crawling details. He didn't use those (exact) words.
So anyway, here's what Bishop Ballini in his letter concludes: “When I visit an apostolate, wherever it might be, I try to offer support, public support to the priest or priest responsible for that apostolate. I might not agree on some elements of his or their work and statements, which I might make known privately. But for as long as we agree on the principles, I offer as much support as possible.”
So that's fair enough. And I think with Bishop Ballini, we can say he agrees on the principles- The New Mass is intrinsically evil; It doesn't give grace; It's dangerous; It is the time for seminaries, and New Mass miracles, we shouldn't be promoting them until Mother Church has decided on them. And even at Lourdes, there's thousands of miracles that happened at Lourdes in France, but only four or five have been declared and approved by the Church as miracles, believe it or not. So we have to be, and he's right. And I agree with him on that. So, he says, “I hope that these long pages have not bored or worried you in any way, but that they have reassured you that once the principles are established, a successful collaboration can be brought into being. Let us now move to some more recent events…” and so forth.
And then at the conclusion of the letter, Bishop Ballini said to me, “Dear Father, I think that what needed to be stated has been stated in this long letter and in our conversations. Hopefully this 14 page letter is sufficient to provide the necessary details to establish a framework which would make available to the faithful who put themselves under your care. All the sacraments with the Church can provide into you a durable continuity for your priesthood, your ministry. Many practical aspects could be discussed and will be. It is the duty of each one of us to do our best to stretch ourselves.”
He's quoting St. Paul there, “to stretch ourselves, putting aside many issues that might be secondary so that we may continue the work of the Church, which by its nature is traditional, which was at the heart of the life of +Archbishop Lefebvre. Be assured of my prayers for you and your faithful and please keep all of us in yours. Bishop Giacomo Ballini.”
So he was consecrated a bishop about, I think, two years, two and a half years ago, by Bishop Williamson in England. And it was during the lockdowns. So okay, maybe you can argue it was fine to keep it secret then because England and Ireland, certainly Ireland, was far more severe with the lockdowns than in the U.S. And Bishop Ballini also explained to me the circumstances in Ireland are not all that favorable. And he has to deal with a very communist government and he has to basically walk on eggshells in dealing with the government because it could affect the visas of the seminarians, it could affect other things. So having only met him a few times, Bishop Ballini, I have to say, I heard good news that during the lockdowns he didn't hide in his priory. He went out to say Mass. In one case, I'm told, the police pulled him over and said, “You're over 15 miles away from where you live. Go back. You're not allowed to be driving,” and I'm told by those who talked to Bishop Ballini that Bishop Ballini told them, “look, I'm a priest. I'm taking care of souls. I'm saying Mass. If you want to arrest me, go ahead”. So the police, who are Irish and mostly Catholic, they said, “Oh, okay, Father, go ahead.” And they didn't bother him.
And then he also led a Rosary around the Dublin City Hall and did an exorcism over it, actually, which really needed it because Ireland would approve the abortion bill, which was a horrendous thing. And Pope Francis was there shortly before they passed it. He didn't say a word against abortion. And had Pope Francis told the Catholics, you cannot vote for this bill, otherwise you'll be excommunicated, that would have stopped it right in the bud. But Pope Francis blew his chance. And so it does need an exorcism.
So anyway, my opinion and my conclusion is on these letters and visits with Bishop Ballini, I really wish, and I told him that, I really wish you would publicly preach. I wish you condemned these errors publicly, and it would be more clear, and I wouldn't have to explain to the people what you hold in your opinions. But fair enough, he condemns these. He doesn't agree with Bishop Williamson's errors and erroneous opinions, and he's a bishop willing to help. So I'm not pushing things too quickly, but I just ask your prayers.
I don't want to also be stepping into a trap because Bishop Williamson has abused his authority to punish priests who don't agree with his opinions. And the thing is, he calls them “opinions”. So if anyone disagrees with them, even publicly, they shouldn't be punished because they're “opinions”. So you can argue about opinions. And we know in the history of the Church, for example, it came to fists flying between Jesuit priests and Dominicans over the question of grace and free will. And they argued and argued and it came to fists in some meetings. And it was the pope who had to say, all right, the Jesuits, you hold an opinion on grace and free will that favor more the free will, but it's not condemned, and the Dominicans stand with St. Thomas, which gives more to grace, but that's also not condemned. So, since your both opinions are not condemned, stop fighting. Both opinions can be held and (so) stop fighting. That was what the pope had to settle with the Dominicans and the Jesuits, but it did come to fists. And then you had arguments between the Franciscans and the Dominicans over questions of the Beatitude(s) and the essence of beatitude. And you had other disputes between religious orders. So down the history of the Church, this is not uncommon that there be “opinions”, and sometimes the opinions are condemned by the Church as erroneous.
And we know this is why I'm very vocal about opposing these errors myself, because we have +Archbishop Lefebvre, who spoke very loud and clear: “The New Mass does not give grace; The new mass poisons the faith; The new mass is dangerous to the faith; It's a new religion- Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. As you pray, so you believe.” If you pray as a Protestant, you're going to believe as a Protestant. And +Archbishop Lefebvre even said the New Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. And he would never, he always kept it at the level of the faith. He would never descend to that question, “Oh does it give grace or not”? Because then you get into, oh so if the New Mass is valid, is it a real Mass? Well yes, it would be a real Mass. It would be a real sacrifice. Does it pass grace? +Archbishop Lefebvre said, “No, it doesn't pass grace, even if it's valid”. And he said it can be valid, and I never denied that it can be valid if it's proper matter, form, and intention. And certainly in the early days of the 70s, the priests went from the Tridentine mass into the New Mass, and certainly those early masses, most of them were probably valid, because those priests had the faith. But they didn't like the New Mass, but they were just falsely obeying their bishops.
But as +Archbishop Lefebvre made very clear, as time goes by, and the young priests are formed in the theology of Vatican II, and no longer the sacramental theology of the Council of Trent and of Tradition, they don't believe anymore in the Sacrifice. They don't believe anymore that the Mass is a real reenactment of Mount Calvary. So those Masses wouldn't even be valid. And we know that the Diocese of Chicago and some other dioceses throughout the world have used hosts made with brown sugar or honey or sweet flavor stuff, and it's just not valid. It's invalid matter, invalid form, and invalid intention. So when they change these, it's not valid.
So the question is, “If it's a true valid Mass and the Sacrifice takes place in a New Mass with a priest who has the right intention, matter, and form, does it pass grace?” Well, I'm the first to say this is disputed. It's a dispute among theologians, this question, but it shouldn't be out there saying, “The New Mass gives grace and nourishes your faith.” You can't be saying that because it's a wrong message.
But I agree. Is it disputed? Yes. Is it dangerous to promote it? Yes.
But it's safer to take the position (which) +Archbishop Lefebvre held that: The New Mass is sterile; The New Mass does not pass grace; The New Mass is poisonous. And as Father Pulvermacher said many times, “If you want to know if the New Mass gives grace, do what our Lord said. Look at the fruits”. What's the fruits of the New Mass? Devastation, loss of faith, apostasy, lukewarmness, abuse, and every disaster you can imagine.
So does that give grace? No. In all these, there was a very good issue out of the Recusant a number of years ago rebutting one of the so-called Eucharistic miracles in Buenos Aires, Argentina. And it was a very thorough article debunking that this was not a miracle at all. And it was just a phony. And some of these parish priests and bishops don't mind to have a miracle in their parish because it brings in people and it brings in money. So it pays the bills. So that's why some of these bishops just let it go. Like Medjugorje as well. And the Bishop of Sokółka in Poland, I understand himself, has never declared it a miracle. So we shouldn't be promoting it as a real miracle. And the scientific evidence, yeah, yeah, yes, but it's the Church to declare what's a miracle or not.
So Bishop Ballini, I can say I agree with him on the principles. And it's just some details I don't agree with him, such as I wish he was more vocal myself. But I understand in his situation in Ireland, he has to be a bit careful of the political situation. Fair enough. But I think in principle, I don't think any of you would have an objection either. So let's pray for him. And he gave me permission to quote his letter.
He said, “Father, you can tell your people where I stand.” And I warned him, well, I hope you don't get punished the way I was by Broadstairs. But he just says, “Well, what can you do to me?” So anyway, let's pray for all the bishops of tradition: Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Bishop de Galarreta, the soul of Bishop Tissier. And then the six or seven bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson. And I've said this before many times, at least Bishop Williamson did consecrate bishops, while the Society of St. Pius X, they're not consecrating bishops. And I can bet if they do, it's going to be one approved by Pope Francis. So it's going to be some liberal, maybe Father Paul Robinson, I wouldn't be surprised. He's a big promoter of evolution. And so it'll be some liberal. But at least Bishop Williamson did consecrate bishops. Was it the best circumstances and the best situation? No, but he did. He did. And so the validity of ordinations and consecrations and blessings goes on. So I'd rather work with Bishop Ballini, who at least agrees in principles and doesn't hold the errors of Bishop Williamson that he publicly promotes. I'd rather work with him knowing it's a valid line from +Archbishop Lefebvre than ever, and God forbid, ever work with the Thục Line, which is all full of doubt or some other crazy line. Another line is the Bishop Duarte Costa Line, who was a bishop in Brazil, excommunicated by Pope Pius XII, and he wanted women priests, he wanted the mass in the vernacular. He was just off the wall, yet in the United States, there's a number of priests who are working, saying mass in traditional parishes who are from that line. And I've warned them, “Beware of this Duarte Costa Line, you shouldn't be having priests from this line.”, but some just don't care. And they say, “Well, he says the Latin mass, that's all I need.” No, we need to look into the lineage and make sure it's valid, make sure it's sound and sound doctrine. And that's with +Archbishop Lefebvre, we have that. Thank God.
So anyway, I know this went very long. It's kind of a conference sermon, sermon conference. And I'm not rushing anything, I'm just saying, here's the position of Bishop Ballini, pray for him, and in principle, we have to say, he's sound. He's sound.
I wish he would act in some ways differently, but I'm not living in Ireland. But at least when he went to visit Father Chazal, he did an ordination or some sort down there in Asia, and he gave a sermon, blasting the New Mass. Well, that's normal. It's a normal SSPX sermon, and we're kind of used to that, but it's kind of novel when you hear that anymore from our own bishops.
So let's encourage Bishop Ballini to continue preaching like +Archbishop Lefebvre did, and don't pull punches. Do not pull punches. This is not the time to pull punches. You know, when a boxer enters the ring, he's got to swing. He's got to play smart. He's got to protect his face. He's got to be in a good position. He's got to be fast on his feet. And he's got to blow at the right time at the right place. But he has to blow. He has to pound. He has to swing his arms. He has to swing punches. And so let's pray for our bishops and pray for Bishop Ballini. I'm not saying he's the second +Archbishop Lefebvre. I'm not saying he has the glowing courage of +Archbishop Lefebvre, but maybe with our prayers, he can be a better boxer. So let's pray for him.
And this is quite open. I'm going to make this public. If any of the faithful have any words for me or any advice or any questions for Bishop Ballini that I should relay to him, I'll be happy to. But let's work. I plan to work slowly, and let's hope if God wills, things can work out without any compromise and no silence either. I will never agree to be silent against these errors. So that's what we have to avoid.
Oh Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee
Oh Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee
Oh Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee
And for those who do not have recourse to thee especially, all communists and Freemasons and other enemies of Holy Mother Church, Amen.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
|
|
|
| Pope Francis’ eco-village to promote ecological conversion at 2025 Jubilee |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2024, 03:38 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis’ eco-village to promote ecological conversion at 2025 Jubilee
Pilgrims and visitors will walk through an immersive experience of the pope’s zero-waste farm and gardens.
![[Image: webRNS-Pope-Gardens2.jpg]](https://religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/webRNS-Pope-Gardens2.jpg)
Views of the Borgo Laudato Sì project at the Pontifical Villas’ Gardens in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, Wed., Nov. 27, 2024. (RNS photo/Claire Giangravé)
November 29, 2024
VATICAN CITY (RNS - slightly adapted) — Pope Francis’ plan to build an eco-village in the historic gardens of Castel Gandolfo, the summer residence of the popes, will be complete for the 2025 Jubilee, allowing pilgrims and tourists to participate in an immersive experience of “ecological conversion,” organizers said.
In February 2023, after delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Francis finally launched his “Borgo Laudato Sì” project, which combines sustainable agriculture with environmentally friendly teaching programs aimed especially at vulnerable and marginalized groups. The pope’s ambitious project, inspired by his 2015 encyclical “Laudato Sì,” emphasizes sustainability, a circular economy and integral human ecology, which places the human being at the center and in connection with the environment.
The aim of the Borgo is to become self-sustainable through the use of solar panels and to achieve zero water waste. Pope Francis, who reinforced the care of creation in his 2023 apostolic exhortation “Laudato Deum,” describes water as a fundamental human right in his encyclical, and the Borgo will reflect this principle by using containers to collect rainwater and restructuring the plumbing of the garden’s many fountains to recycle water. Organizers are working to make all intra-garden transport electric. Plastic is banned within the garden.
The goal of the project “is to share with as many people as possible the beauty that there is in caring for creation,” explained Donatella Parisi, communication coordinator of Laudato Si Higher Education Center, speaking to a group of Vatican journalists who were among the first to preview the papal gardens on Wednesday (Nov. 27). The visit was organized by the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome.
The lush gardens, about an hour’s drive south of Rome and extending across 140 acres on the slopes surrounding Lake Albano, were chosen by Roman Emperor Hadrian in 100 C.E. to build his monumental villa, and in the late 1500s, the popes adopted it as their summer residence to escape the bustle and heat of Rome.
Pope Benedict XVI had a special appreciation for the summer estate and could often be seen walking through its manicured topiaries and shady groves. But Pope Francis made clear once he was elected that he had no intention of spending his time at the estate during the summer, or of taking any vacation time. He decided to restructure the estate, devoting over 60 acres of land to the Borgo project. The rest is UNESCO protected land, and the Vatican will limit itself to improving its sustainability and efficiency.
The Borgo will not impact Vatican finances, Parisi said, relying on partnerships with external companies and organizations to pay for the projects.
The Jubilee celebrations, which will last all of 2025, occur on the 10th anniversary of “Laudato Sì” and the 800th anniversary of the “Canticle of the Sun,” St. Francis of Assisi’s famed song honoring creation. The Borgo will inaugurate its farm and agriculture projects in February and will be among the suggested visits for the 30 million pilgrims expected to visit Rome for the Jubilee.
For decades, the popes oversaw a small farm in the garden that produced dairy products and a vineyard that made a modest “wine of the popes.” The Borgo plans to resume this activity, with an eye for sustainability. “It will adopt the most modern techniques to develop an agriculture system that will waste nothing,” Parisi explained, adding that they will not use pesticides.
Olive oil will be made from the 1,000 olive trees of the Borgo, and the garden will produce its own honey and tea. The cow farm is set to become an interactive experience for visitors and will produce organic milk, cheese and even ice cream. As visitors walk through the garden, they will encounter 30 signs, each with one word — such as “water,” “silence” or “tree”— followed by a spiritual and environmental reflection, highlighting both the botanical and spiritual significance of the over 3,000 plant species in the garden.
Trees will guide the visitors through the park, Parisi said. They will be greeted by Mathusalem, a 700-year-old oak. “Trees have a lot to teach us about human relations,” she said, pointing to how they communicate in a horizontal model and warn each other of threats.
To highlight the pope’s support for the project, he recently announced that he will make the general director of the Borgo the Rev. Fabio Baggio, a cardinal at the upcoming consistory on Dec. 7. “It was a kind of seal of approval of the assignments that I had been given recently,” Baggio said shortly after the announcement in a video published by the Borgo.
“We want to prove that it’s possible to be stewards of creation today,” he said. “Small changes can lead to big changes, which can address human challenges.”
A large greenhouse will feature symbolic and ancient plants. Nearby, the Borgo will host teaching projects for groups wanting to learn more about the pope’s ecological vision at the Laudato Sì Center for Higher Education. In collaboration with the charitable cooperative Paths to Citizenship, the Borgo will teach vulnerable groups — including migrants and refugees, former prisoners, disabled individuals and victims of human trafficking — how to care for gardens and land in a sustainable way.
Twenty people from these marginalized groups have already gone through the formation process, and 10 have found stable employment. The 20 experienced gardeners of the Borgo teach the classes. “It’s aimed at people who wish to prove that their vulnerability can be a strength for a community that wants to be welcoming and inclusive,” Parisi said.
Students and children will also be invited to participate in summer schools and projects to raise environmental awareness, and the Borgo will host cultural and artistic events. Businesses that want to be inspired by the principles of “Laudato Sì” will have the chance to participate as well, after passing a rigorous vetting process, Parisi explained.
Pope Francis selected the parish priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Rev. Manuel Dorantes, to become the director of the Borgo’s Center for Higher Education starting Dec. 1. In a statement, Dorantes expressed “humility and gratitude” for the appointment, which will take him away from his urban ministry to serve the marginalized groups welcomed at the Borgo.
Francis’ decision to turn the papal gardens into a sustainable haven has also been met with criticism. Ten families currently live and work on the land and feared, according to recent reports on Italian media, that the pope’s activity would upend their way of living.
At least one of the families living and serving in the pope’s garden has decided to go elsewhere. Parisi said the Borgo hopes to begin a “positive dialogue” with everyone involved. “The Holy See will leave no one on the street,” she said, responding to reports suggesting the families would soon be evicted.
Francis’ changes to the way of life of Castel Gandolfo were not immediately welcomed. The mayor of the town at the time said citizens and shop owners were “in mourning.” But 11 years into this pontificate, the town continues to thrive, attracting visitors who wish to experience its beauty, art and rustic cuisine all year round.
Organizers hope this newest project will attract faithful, especially young people, wishing to be inspired by Pope Francis’ vision for a sustainable, faith-filled and human-centered environment.
|
|
|
|
| Sorrowful Heart of Mary Newsletter - Advent 2024 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-02-2024, 02:36 PM - Forum: Sorrowful Heart of Mary
- No Replies
|
|
Advent 2024
WE MUST CHOOSE SIDES
Dear Faithful,
The great Fr. Gomer de Pauw warned in his talks as early as 1967: “We must choose to be either Roman Catholics or Conciliar Catholics, but we cannot be both!”
Archbishop Lefebvre announced the same necessity to choose in his magnificent Doctrinal Declaration of 1974: “We cleave, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, and to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
“On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Protestant trend clearly manifested throughout Vatican Council II and, later, in all the reforms born of it.”
Opposing Liberal Catholicism on the battlefield of Truth, the great Spanish Catholic writer of the 19th Century, Juan Donoso Cortes, scripted these prophetic words in: Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism, (chapter III, in 1879):
“There is no man whatsoever, whether he recognizes it or not, who is not enlisted in this furious combat; there is no one who does not take an active part in the responsibility of defeat or victory. All are equally engaged in this combat; the galley slave in his chains, and the king upon his throne, the poor and the rich, the healthy and the sick, the wise and the ignorant, the captive and the free, the old and the young, the civilized and the savage.
“Every word that is pronounced is either inspired by the world or by God, and necessarily proclaims, implicitly or explicitly, but always clearly, the glory of the one or the triumph of the other. In this singular warfare we all fight through forced enlistment; here the system of substitutes or volunteers finds no place. Nor is there any exception for old age. Here, no attention is paid to him who says, ‘I am the son of a poor widow’; nor to the mother of a paralytic, nor to the wife of a cripple. In this warfare all men, born of woman, are soldiers!
“And don’t tell me: ‘I don’t want to fight’; for the moment you tell me that, you are already fighting; nor say: ‘I don’t know which side to join,’ for while you are saying that you have already joined a side; nor say: ‘I wish to remain neutral’; for if you wish to be so, you are so, no longer; nor say: ‘I want to be indifferent’; for by these very words you clearly show which side you are on.
“Don’t tire yourself in seeking a place of security from the dangers of this war, for you tire yourself in vain. This war extends throughout space, and will last to the end of time. Only in eternity, the home of the just, can you find rest, because there alone is the combat over. Do not imagine, however, that the gates of eternity shall be opened for you, unless you first show the wounds you earned; those gates are only opened for those who bravely fought the battles of the Lord here, and, like the Lord, carried the cross and were crucified!”
What powerful words of Donoso Cortes! It is true, Our Divine Lord willed to place all of us in these times when we have no choice but to fight. To fight for Him is the greatest honor. Neutrality is not an option! Compromise is not an option! “Hermeneutics of continuity” is not an option! Accepting Vatican II is not an option! Accepting the New Mass, even as “legitimately promulgated,” is not an option! Accepting any compromise with Vatican II and Novus Ordo sacraments, as expressed in the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 of Bp. Fellay, is not an option! The Six Conditions for an Agreement with Modernist Rome is not an option! Accepting to be silenced in return for the “favors” of jurisdiction for confessions and marriages is not an option! Accepting excusing fallacies that the “New Mass can nourish your faith,” or “The New Mass gives grace,” or “The New Mass miracles cannot be questioned,” are not options! Fence-sitting is not an option!
“Either we choose what the Popes have taught for centuries and we therefore choose the Church; or we choose what was said by the Council. But we can not choose both simultaneously, since they are contradictory!” (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre).
Let us never fail to see what an inexpressible honor and grace it is to combat for Christ the King. The battle lines must not be confused and smeared, as Liberals always connive to do. We have received Catholic Tradition from the 20 Councils of the Church, the Ancient Magisterium, from the great Popes of Tradition, from Abp. Lefebvre and priests faithful to Tradition. We are vowed to the riding. We are vowed to the fighting!
O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, keep us faithful! Keep us from ever wavering in the Faith! Keep us from battle fatigue! Keep us attached to thy Crucified Son by thy Rosary and Scapular and always to live and breath in the burning love of thy Immaculate Heart! Sweet Heart of Mary, be my salvation!
In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Viganò: The 'Disassembled' Papacy |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-02-2024, 11:58 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Viganò's summarization of the current state of the papacy, but importantly acknowledging that "in due time, this contradiction will have to be remedied by an authoritative pronouncement..."
November 30, 2024 [Italics in the original, all other emphasis mine]
The never-ending saga of the Resignation of Benedict XVI continues to fuel an increasingly bold and surreal narrative of the events we have witnessed in the last decade. Inconsistent theories not supported by any evidence have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation. But if this has been possible, it is also largely due to those who, knowing the truth, nonetheless are afraid to speak about it because of the consequences that the truth, once revealed, could have. In fact, there are those who <<believe it is preferable to shore up a castle of lies and deceit, rather than having to face questions about a past of connivance, silence, and complicity.
The Exchange of Letters
During a meeting at the Renaissance Mediterraneo Hotel in Naples with Catholics from the local Cœtus Fidelium held this past November 22 [2024], Msgr. Nicola Bux mentioned an exchange of letters with “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,” dating back to the summer of 2014, which supposedly constitute the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation. The content of these letters – the first, written by Msgr. Bux on July 19, 2014 (three pages), and the second, by Benedict XVI, on August 21, 2014 (two pages) – was not released ten years ago, as would have been more than desirable. Instead, only today has their existence been barely mentioned. It so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content.
Why did Msgr. Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response when Benedict was still alive and able to confirm and corroborate it, and instead to reveal only its existence, without disclosing its content, almost two years after his death? Why would he hide this authoritative and very important declaration from the Church and the world?
The Permanent Revolution
To answer these legitimate questions, we must put aside the fiction given us by the media. We must first understand that the antithetical vision of a “santo subito” [immediate saint] Ratzinger and an “ugly and bad” Bergoglio is convenient for many. This simplistic, artificial, and false approach avoids addressing the heart of the problem, that is, the perfect coherence of action of the “conciliar popes” from John XXIII and Paul VI to the self-styled Francis, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The goals are the same, even if pursued with different methods and language. The image of an elderly, elegant, and refined theologian, in a Roman chasuble and red shoes , who granted citizenship to the Tridentine Rite, contrasted with an intemperate globalist heresiarch who does not celebrate Mass and has nullified Summorum Pontificum, while promulgating the Mayan liturgy with thurifying females, is part of that operation of forced polarization that we have also seen adopted in the civil sphere, where a similar subversive project has been carried out by favoring ultra-progressive forces on the one hand and keeping the voices of dissent quiet on the other.
In reality, Ratzinger and Bergoglio – and this is precisely what conservatives do not want to recognize – constitute two moments of a revolutionary process that contemplates alternating phases that are only apparently opposed to one another, following the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A process that did not begin with Ratzinger and will not end with Bergoglio, but rather that goes back to Roncalli and seems destined to continue as long as the deep church continues to replace the Catholic Hierarchy by usurping its authority.
In the Ratzingerian vision, the thesis of the Vetus Ordo and the antithesis of the Novus Ordo are combined in the synthesis of Summorum Pontificum, thanks to the subterfuge of “a single rite in two forms.” But this “peaceful coexistence” is the product of German idealism; and it is false because it is based on the denial of the incompatibility between two ways of conceiving the Church, one corresponding to two thousand years of Catholicism, the other imposed by the Second Vatican Council thanks to the work of heretics who until then had been condemned by the Roman Pontiffs.
The “redefinition” of the Papacy
We find the same modus operandi in the intention expressed first by Paul VI, then by John Paul II, and finally by Benedict XVI to “redefine” the Papacy in a collegial and ecumenical way, ad mentem Concilii, where the divine institution of the Church and the Papacy (thesis) and the heretical demands of the neo-modernists and the non-Catholic sects (antithesis) are combined in the synthesis of a redefinition of the Papacy in an ecumenical way, proposed by the encyclical Ut Unum Sint promulgated by John Paul II in 1995 and more recently formulated in the Study Document of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity issued this past June 13 [2024]: The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical ‘Ut Unum Sint’. It will not be surprising to learn – as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller confided to me in January 2020 in response to a specific question of mine – that Professor Joseph Ratzinger was developing the theory of the Pope Emeritus and a collegial [shared] Papacy with his colleague Karl Rahner in the 1970s when they were both “young theologians.”
During a telephone conversation I had in 2020, a very trusted assistant of Benedict XVI confirmed to me Pope Benedict’s intention – which he reiterated several times to her – to retire to private life in his Bavarian residence, without maintaining either his apostolic name or his papal vestments. But this eventuality was considered inopportune for those who would lose their power in the Vatican, especially those conservatives who had Benedict XVI as their point of reference and had mythologized his figure.
We do not know for sure whether the solution theorized with Rahner by the young Ratzinger was still contemplated by the elderly Pontiff, nor whether the Papacy Emeritus was “resurrected” by those who wanted to keep Benedict in the Vatican, also by making use of external pressure on the Holy See that had materialized with the suspension of the Vatican from the SWIFT system, which, significantly, was restored immediately after the announcement of the Resignation. In fact, the Resignation has created immense confusion in the ecclesial body and has handed over the See of Peter to its destroyer, which in any case is something Joseph Ratzinger has been a part of.
Benedict thus resorted to the invention of the “Papacy Emeritus,” trying, in violation of canonical practice, to keep alive the image of the “fine theologian” and the defensor Traditionis that his entourage had constructed. Moreover, an analysis of the events that concern the epilogue of his Pontificate is extremely complex, both because of the peculiarities of Ratzinger’s intellect and character, and because of the opaqueness of the action both of his collaborators and of the Curia, and finally because of the absolute ἅπαξ of his Renunciation, as carried out by Benedict XVI, a completely new modality never seen before in the history of the Papacy.
On the other hand, this parenthesis of mozzettas and camauros was supposed to have been eclipsed with the handover to the already-selected Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who was nominated by the Saint Gallen Mafia to take Benedict’s place ever since the Conclave of 2005. The role of Benedict XVI as Emeritus had the function of supporting a sort of conservative Papacy (munus) that would keep watch over the progressive Papacy of Bergoglio (ministerium), so as to keep together the moderately conservative Ratzingerian component and the violently progressive Bergoglian component, thereby favoring the public perception of a supposed continuity between the “pope emeritus” and the “reigning pope.”
In essence, a way was found to keep Benedict in the Vatican, so that his presence within the Leonine Walls would appear as a form of approval of Bergoglio and the aberrations of his “pontificate.” For his part, the Argentine saw in this canonical monstrum – because this is what the “Papacy Emeritus” is – an instrument for the destructuring of the Papacy in a conciliar, synodal, and ecumenical way; which, as we know, was a desire shared by Benedict XVI himself.
The Canonical “monstrum” of the Pope Emeritus
It must be said that the institution of the Episcopate emeritus is also a canonical monstrum, because with it the diocesan Bishop sees his jurisdiction “frozen” on the basis of age (upon reaching the age of 75), contrary to the centuries-old practice of the Church. The institution of the category of emeritus, by making the Bishops lose their awareness of being Successors of the Apostles, has also had as an immediate consequence a total de-responsibility, relegating them to the role of mere officials and bureaucrats. The institutionalization of the Episcopal Conferences as organs of government that interfere with and hinder the exercise of the power (potestas) of individual Bishops has certainly constituted an attack on the divine constitution of the Catholic Church and its Apostolicity.
The Episcopate Emeritus, introduced just after the Council in 1966 with the Motu Proprio Ecclesiæ Sanctæ and then adopted by the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (can. 402, § 1), reveals a significant consistency with Ingravescentem Ætatem of 1970, which deprives seventy-five-year-old Cardinals of their Curia functions and eighty-year-old Cardinals of the right to elect the Pope in Conclave. Beyond the juridical formulation of these ecclesiastical laws, their mens [purpose] can only be understood in a perspective of deliberate exclusion of Bishops and senior Cardinals from the life of the Church, aimed at favoring the “generational change” – a real reset of the Catholic Hierarchy – with Prelates ideologically closer to the new requests promoted by Vatican II. This artificial purge of the most senior members of the Episcopate and of the College of Cardinals – and therefore presumably less inclined to innovation – has ended up distorting the internal balance of the Hierarchy, according to a worldly and secular approach already widely adopted in the civil sphere. And when, under the pontificate of John Paul II, the so-called “Montini widows” – that is, the cardinals who had reached the age limit in the 1980s – asked for the revocation of Ingravescentem ætatem so as not to be excluded from the Conclave, it became evident that the progressives of the 1970s were also destined in turn to fall victim to the norm they had invoked for others: Et incidit in foveam quam fecit (Ps 7:16) [he is fallen into the hole he made].
It will not escape notice that, in a perspective of “redefinition” of the Papacy in a synodal key, where the Bishop of Rome is considered primus inter pares [the first among equals], the institution of the Episcopate emeritus and the norms that limit the exercise of the Episcopate and the Cardinalate to the attainment of a certain age, constitute the premise for the institutionalization of the Papacy emeritus and the jubilation of the elderly Pope.
The False Problem of munus and ministerium
From the thesis of the Papacy (I am Pope) in conflict with the antithesis of Renunciation (I am no longer Pope) there emerges a concept in continuous evolution – just as becoming is the absolute for Hegel – that is, the synthesis of the Papacy emeritus (I am still Pope but I do not act as Pope). This philosophical aspect of Joseph Ratzinger’s thought, which is principal and recurrent to him, should not be overlooked: the synthesis is in itself provisional, in view of its mutation into a thesis which will be opposed by a new antithesis that will give rise to a further synthesis, in turn provisional. This incessant becoming is the ideological, philosophical, and doctrinal basis of the permanent revolution inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial front and by the global Left on the political front.
We have therefore witnessed a sort of artificial separation of the Papacy: on the one hand the Pope renounced the Papacy and on the other the persona Papæ, Joseph Ratzinger, tried to maintain some aspects of it that would guarantee him protection and prestige. Since the removal from the Apostolic See could appear as a form of disapproval of the line of governance of the Church imposed by the Bergoglian deep church, both the Personal Secretary and the Secretary of State put strong pressure on Ratzinger to remain “part-time” so to speak, playing on the fictitious separation between munus and ministerium – which moreover was vigorously denied in the Emeritus’ response to Mons. Bux.
Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli has highlighted in his in-depth studies that this arbitrary bipartition of the Petrine mandate between munus and ministerium renders the Renunciation invalid. Since the Petrine Primacy cannot be broken down into munus and ministerium, since it is a potestas that Christ the King and High Priest confers on the one who has been elected to be Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter, Ratzinger’s denial (in the cited letter) stating that he did not want to separate munus and ministerium is in contradiction with Benedict’s own admission that he has based the Papacy emeritus on the model of the Episcopate emeritus, which is precisely based on this artificial and impossible split between being and doing the Pope, between being and doing the Bishop. The absurdum of this division is evident: if it were possible to possess the munus without exercising the ministerium, it would also be possible to exercise the ministerium without possessing the munus, that is, to carry out the functions of Pope without being one: which is an aberration such as to radically invalidate the consent to the assumption of the Papacy itself. And in a certain sense we saw this surreal dichotomy between munus and ministerium realized, when the Emeritus was Pope but did not exercise the Papacy, while Bergoglio acted as Pope without being Pope.
The Desacralization of the Papacy
On the other hand, the process of desacralization of the Papacy that began with Paul VI (think of the scenic deposition of the tiara) continued without interruption even under the pontificate of Benedict XVI (who also removed the tiara from the papal coat of arms). This is to be attributed principally to the new heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II, which made its own the demands of secularized and “democratic” society by welcoming into the bosom of the Church concepts such as collegiality and synodality that are ontologically alien to her, thus distorting the monarchical nature of the Church willed by her divine Founder. It certainly leaves one bewildered and immensely saddened to see how zealously the Conciliar and Synodal Hierarchy has promoted subversion within the Catholic Church. A sequence of reforms, norms, and pastoral practices for over sixty years have systematically demolished what until before Vatican II was considered intangible and unreformable.
It should also be remembered that Benedict XVI’s Resignation was not followed by a normal Conclave, in which the Electors serenely chose the candidate to succeed the Throne of Peter; but by a real coup d’état carried out ex professo by the Saint Gallen Mafia – that is, by the subversive component that has infiltrated the Church during the preceding decades – through the tampering with and violation of the regular elective process and the recourse to blackmail and pressure on the College of Cardinals. Let us not forget that an eminent Prelate confided to acquaintances that what he had personally witnessed in the Conclave could jeopardize the validity of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Also in this case, incomprehensibly, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls have been set aside, in the name of a pharisaical observance of the pontifical secret, perhaps not entirely free from blackmail and threats.
There is an obvious contradiction between the goal Benedict set for himself (i.e., to renounce the Papacy) and the means he chose to do so (based on the invention of the Papacy Emeritus). This contradiction, in which Benedict subjectively resigned but objectively produced a canonical monstrum, constitutes an act so subversive as to render the Renunciation null and void. In due time, this contradiction will have to be remedied by an authoritative pronouncement, but the inescapable fact remains that the form in which the Renunciation was placed does not remove the subsequent irregularities that led Bergoglio to usurp the Throne of Peter with the complicity of the deep church and the deep state. Nor is it possible to think that the Renunciation should not be read in the light of the subversive plan that aimed to oust Benedict XVI and replace him with an emissary of the globalist élite.
The castle of lies in which lay people, priests, and prelates cooperate, even in good faith, remains a cage in which they have imprisoned themselves. In the media dramatization, the actors Ratzinger and Bergoglio have been presented to us as bearers of antithetical theologies, when in reality they represent two successive stages of the same revolutionary process. But appearance, the simulacrum on which mass communication is based, cannot replace the substance of Truth to which the Catholic Church is indefectibly bound by divine mandate.
Conclusion
To the many scandalized faithful, to the many confused and indignant priests and religious, to the few – at least for now – who raise their voices to denounce the coup perpetrated against the Holy Church by Her own Ministers, I address my encouragement to persevere in fidelity to Our Lord, the Eternal High Priest, the Head of the Mystical Body. Resist strong in faith, the Prince of the Apostles admonishes us (1 Peter 5:9), knowing that your brothers scattered throughout the world are undergoing the same sufferings as you. The sleep in which the Savior seems to ignore us while the Barque of Peter is tossed by the storm, must be for us a spur to invoke His help all the more, because only when we turn to Him, leaving aside human respect, inconsistent theories, and political calculations, will we see Him awaken and command the winds and the sea to calm down. Resisting in faith calls for the struggle to remain faithful to what the Lord has taught and commanded, precisely at the moment in which many, especially at the top of the Hierarchy, abandon Him, deny Him and betray Him. Resisting in faith implies not fainting in the moment of trial, knowing how to draw from Him the strength to overcome it victoriously. Resisting in faith ultimately means knowing how to look straight into the face of the reality of the passio Ecclesiæ and the mysterium iniquitatis, without trying to conceal the deception behind which the enemies of Christ hide. This is the meaning of the words of the Savior: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (Jn 8:32).
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
November 30, 2024
S.cti Andreæ Apostoli
|
|
|
|
| Heaven Opened by the Practice of the Three Hail Marys |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2024, 06:33 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
|
HEAVEN OPENED BY THE PRACTICE OF THE THREE HAIL MARYs
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F92%2F96%2F93%2F92969356bd831425c7c03041466f626c.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=17a046551aa9e2d01b3cbaecb1022f54426037fb61651a651cd37fee94e30276&ipo=images)
catholictradition.org
One of the greatest means of salvation, and one of the surest signs of predestination, is unquestionably, the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. All the holy doctors of the Church are unanimous in saying with St. Alphonsus Liguori: "A devout servant of Mary shall never perish."
The chief thing is to persevere faithfully until death in this devotion.
Can there be an easier or more adaptable practice for all than the recitation each day of three Ave Marias in honor of the privileges conferred by the Adorable Trinity on the Blessed Virgin?
One of the first to say the three Hail Marys and to recommend them to others was the illustrious St. Anthony of Padua. His special aim in this practice was to honor the spotless Virginity of Mary and to preserve a perfect purity of mind, heart and body in the midst of the dangers of the world. Many, like him, have felt its salutary effects.
Later on, St. Leonard of Port-Maurice, the celebrated missionary, had the three Ave Marias recited morning and evening in honor of Mary Immaculate, to obtain the grace of avoiding all mortal sins during the day or and night; moreover, he promised in a special manner eternal salvation to all those who proved constantly faithful to this practice.
After the example of these two great Franciscan Saints, St. Alphonsus Liguori adopted this pious practice and gave it his most ardent and powerful support. He counseled its use and even imposed it as a penance on those who had not adopted this good habit. The holy Doctor exhorts, in particular, parents, and confessors to watch carefully that children be faithful in reciting each day their three Hail Marys, morning and evening and recommended it to all the devout young or old.
It is this Saint who suggested adding the aspiration after each Hail Mary: "By thy Immaculate Conception, O Mary, make my body pure and my soul holy."
This practice has been revealed to St. Melchtilde with the promise of a good death, if she was faithful to it every day.
It is also written in St. Gertrude's revelations:
"While this Saint sang the Hail Mary, at the matins of the Annunciation, she suddenly saw spring out from the Heart of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, three bright flames which penetrated the Heart of the Holy Virgin." Then she heard the following words:
"After the Power of the Father, the Wisdom of the Son, and the
merciful Tenderness of the Holy Spirit, nothing approaches the
Power, the Wisdom and the merciful Tenderness of Mary."
His Holiness, Benedict XV raised the Confraternity of the Three Hail Marys to an Archconfraternity and accorded it indulgences.
Our Lady requested the daily recitation of three Hail Marys, revealing the following to St. Melchtilde:
"The first Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Father, Whose omnipotence raised my soul so high above every other creature that, after God, I have the greatest power in Heaven and on earth. In the hour of your death I will use that power of God the Father to keep any hostile power from you.
"The second Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Son, Who communicated His inscrutable wisdom to me . . . In the hour of your death I will fill your soul with the light of that wisdom so that all the darkness of ignorance and error will be dispelled.
"The third Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Holy Ghost, Who filled my soul with the sweetness of His love and tenderness and mercy . . . In your last hour I will then change the bitterness of death into Divine sweetness and delight."
PROMISE:
During an apparition to St. Gertrude, the Blessed Mother promised, "To any soul who faithfully prays the Three Hail Marys I will appear at the hour of death in a splendor of beauty so extraordinary that it will fill the soul with Heavenly consolation."
ACT OF CONSECRATION TO THE BLESSED TRINITY
With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, Daughter of
the Eternal Father, and I consecrate to Thee
my soul with all its faculties.
Hail Mary, etc.
With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, beloved Mother
of the Son of God, and I consecrate to Thee my body
with all its senses.
Hail Mary, etc.
With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, beloved Spouse
of the Holy Ghost, and I consecrate to Thee my heart
with all its affections, and beseech Thee to obtain for me from
the Most Holy Trinity all the graces necessary for salvation.
Hail Mary, etc.
PRACTICE: Recite morning and evening the Consecration and Three Hail Marys in honor of the three great privileges of Mary, together with this invocation at the end of each Hail Mary:
By thy holy and Immaculate Conception, O Mary,
make my body pure and my soul holy;
preserve me this day [this night] from mortal sin.
Imprimatur: Feb. 7, 1963
Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York
Pope St. Pius X gave his Apostolic Blessing to this practice.
The devotion was raised to an Archconfraternity by Pope Benedict XV.
This devotion in its present form is from St. Leonard of Port Maurice.
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: Bishop Ballini Rejects Bishop Williamson's Errors |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-28-2024, 08:24 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
BREAKING: Bishop Ballini Rejects Bishop Williamson's Errors
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/Studio-Project-27.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic Trumpet | November 27, 2024
Deo gratias! Today, we share an important moment for the Catholic resistance. In his sermon titled “Saving Souls in Wartime,” Father Hewko recounted his recent visit to Derry, Northern Ireland, where he met with Bishop Giacomo Ballini. This meeting, part of Father Hewko’s pastoral travels through England, Ireland, and Wales, yielded significant clarifications on critical issues affecting the faithful. Father Hewko emphasized that Bishop Ballini explicitly granted him permission to share the content of their discussions, as well as excerpts from a detailed 14-page letter addressing doctrinal concerns.
Editors Note: In an ironic twist, while reporting a rejection of errors, we may have committed one ourselves. The title has been revised to "rejects" rather than "condemns" to better reflect Bishop Ballini’s rejection of Bishop Williamson’s errors, as relayed by Father Hewko. This adjustment ensures accuracy while honoring Bishop Ballini’s alignment with Archbishop Lefebvre’s principles. We pray for a formal condemnation of these errors—and for Bishop Williamson to fully return to the uncompromising defense of the faith he once so boldly championed.
This article summarizes Bishop Ballini’s refutations of the key errors propagated by Bishop Williamson. The full sermon can be viewed here. More content from this powerful sermon will be released on The Trumpet blog, along with the full word-for-word transcript to be posted later this week on ☩PRAEDICATIO☩.
Bishop Ballini’s Key Refutations
1. The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil
Bishop Ballini firmly rejected Bishop Williamson’s claims about the New Mass, stating it is intrinsically evil and cannot pass grace. He affirmed Archbishop Lefebvre’s teaching that the New Mass is a doctrinal attack on Christ’s sacrifice and the priesthood.
“If one is not poisoned by the New Mass, this is simply because God performs a miracle by preventing the normal effect of the New Mass to take place, which is to poison the faith.”
– Bishop Ballini
2. Condemnation of Eucharistic Miracles in the New Mass
Bishop Ballini warned against promoting alleged Eucharistic miracles from the Novus Ordo, emphasizing that only the Church, through its lawful authority, can determine if a phenomenon is a true miracle. He criticized reliance on scientific evidence alone, noting the potential for deception and error.
“No doctor or scientist is going to tell a Catholic that this fact or event is a miracle... Only the Church, through its lawful authority, can declare it so.”
– Bishop Ballini
3. Maria Valtorta’s Writings on the Index of Forbidden Books
Bishop Ballini condemned the promotion of Maria Valtorta’s writings, which were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Holy Office in 1948. He noted that Archbishop Lefebvre himself cautioned against such writings due to their overly humanized portrayal of Christ’s life.
“My personal opinion on the matter is that having this book being put on the Index, we should not promote it in any way.”
– Bishop Ballini
4. The Necessity of Structure and Seminaries
Contrary to Bishop Williamson’s assertion that “this is not the time for structure and organization,” Bishop Ballini emphasized the importance of seminaries and priestly formation. He aligned with Archbishop Lefebvre’s understanding that the preservation of the priesthood and Mass requires concrete efforts.
“Everything should be done to continue the holy priesthood and ordain ministers for the celebration of the true Mass.”
– Bishop Ballini
Bishop Ballini’s clarifications demonstrate his agreement with key elements of Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance on the New Mass, the priesthood, and the importance of adhering to Church teaching. His rejection of the errors propagated by Bishop Williamson provides important guidance for traditional Catholics as they navigate the current crisis. While some elements of his approach may differ, his principles align closely with the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight for the preservation of tradition.
More content from this sermon will be released on The Trumpet blog this week, along with the full transcript of Father Hewko’s powerful sermon. Stay updated at The Trumpet.
Let us pray for Father Hewko, Bishop Ballini, and Bishop Williamson, that they may remain steadfast in their fight for tradition and the faith.
-The ☩ Trumpet
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis says Synod’s final doc part of his Magisterium, asks ‘that it be accepted’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2024, 05:59 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis says Synod’s final doc part of his Magisterium, asks ‘that it be accepted’
While saying that the document would need 'several mediations,' Pope Francis stipulated that local 'Churches and groupings of Churches are now called upon to implement, in their different contexts, the authoritative instructions contained in the Document.'
![[Image: GettyImages-2156862948.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/GettyImages-2156862948.jpg)
Pope Francis
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Nov 25, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis wants the Synod’s final document to be accepted as part of the Magisterium of the Church
This morning Pope Francis released a formal “Note” to accompany his “Final Document of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops,” that is, the final document for the Synod on Synodality, which included a significant number of non-bishops.
In his “Note,” the Pope asked that the content of this “Final Document” be accepted as part of his Magisterium, that is, his authoritative teaching as the Successor of Peter, the earthly head of the Christian Church—or, as Pope Francis described himself, the “Bishop of Rome.”
In the Italian original, Pope Francis praised the years of meetings that took place before the Synod, saying that they included “listening to the People of God and the discernment of the Pastors.” He also stated that the Church was “illuminated by the Holy Spirit” during the process.
“Recognizing the value of the synodal journey completed, I now hand over to the whole Church the directions contained in the Final Document, as a return of what has matured over these years, through listening and discernment, and as authoritative guidance for its life and mission,” he added.
“The Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter (cf. EC 18 § 1; CCC 892) and as such I ask that it be accepted. It represents a form of exercising the authentic teaching of the Bishop of Rome that has novel features but in fact corresponds to what I had occasion to point out on October 17, 2015, when I stated that synodality is the proper interpretive framework for understanding hierarchical ministry.”
While saying that the document would need “several mediations,” Francis stipulated that “[l]ocal Churches and groupings of Churches are now called upon to implement, in their different contexts, the authoritative instructions contained in the Document, through the processes of discernment and decision-making envisaged by law and by the Document itself.”
This story is developing ….
|
|
|
|
| If We Want to Promote the Kingship of Christ, We Must Dethrone False Ecumenism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2024, 05:54 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
If We Want to Promote the Kingship of Christ, We Must Dethrone False Ecumenism
![[Image: 6959d1a21bb653d431254834da92e8fd_L.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/6959d1a21bb653d431254834da92e8fd_L.jpg)
Robert Morrison - Remnant Columnist | November 22, 2024
No rational observer familiar with Vatican II or its implementation can truthfully deny that the Council’s ecumenical movement was condemned by Pius XII and his predecessors.
“If they elect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.” (Dom Lambert Beaudin, quoted in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s They Have Uncrowned Him, p. 160)
Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical “concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine,” Humani Generis, was the last forceful condemnation of anti-Catholic errors prior to Vatican II. In it, he specifically denounced errors that have been largely unopposed, and even promoted, by the apparent Catholic hierarchy since the Council. Critically, the entire ecumenical movement propelled by John XXIII and his Council constitutes a direct repudiation of these words from Humani Generis:
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
In the name of achieving Christian unity, John XXIII, Cardinal Augustin Bea, and the Council’s other progressive innovators sought ways to undermine this fundamental truth defended by Pius XII. Whereas the Church has always taught that true Christian unity can occur only through a process of non-Catholics becoming Catholic, Vatican II’s innovators sought to pave the way for the borders between Catholicism and Protestantism to seemingly blur and ultimately vanish. As discussed in a previous article, Francis’s Synod on Synodality has essentially achieved this wicked goal by creating the new “Synodal Church,” which is simply Protestantism in union with a “Bishop of Rome.”
Although the existence of the Synodal Church truly represents a new level of wickedness, it should also lead us to reflect on the evils of false ecumenism upon which it depends. No rational observer familiar with Vatican II or its implementation can truthfully deny that the Council’s ecumenical movement was condemned by Pius XII and his predecessors. Moreover, as we can see so clearly with Francis’s Synodal Church, many of the most important initiatives undertaken by Rome in the past sixty years have had the primary purpose of furthering false ecumenism, including:
- Most obviously, the interreligious prayer gatherings initiated by John Paul II’s Prayer Meeting at Assisi
- The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass, which omitted almost everything that makes the Traditional Latin Mass objectionable to Protestants
- Increased roles for the laity, and a corresponding subordination of the clergy, to better reflect Protestant practices
- A diminished role of the papacy, seen most clearly in the recent “Bishop of Rome” document
- A deceptive attempt to water down Catholic teaching so that it no longer presents a serious obstacle to Protestants, although in reality Catholic teaching cannot evolve in that way
In one way or another, almost every unholy development from Rome since the Council has contributed to the advancement of false ecumenism.
Perhaps because false ecumenism has proliferated for the past sixty years, many serious Catholics no longer object to its manifestations. Thus, many Catholics who would argue that Francis is an antipope, or at least the worst pope in history, generally do not complain about the ecumenical prayer gatherings we see from Francis. Likewise, relatively few of Francis’s most vocal opponents appear to have taken issue with the Bishop of Rome document, which clearly highlights the influence of John Paul II in asking non-Catholics to help Catholics reach a new understanding of the papacy:
Quote:“Saint John Paul II not only reaffirmed this ecumenical path but also officially invited other Christians to reflect on the exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. In his milestone encyclical letter Ut unum sint (1995) he used the biblical notion of ‘episkopein’ (‘keeping watch’) to describe this ministry (UUS 94), whose primacy is defined as a ministry of unity (UUS 89) and a service of love (UUS 95). Assuming his particular ecumenical responsibility, and ‘heeding the request made of [him],’ Pope John Paul II recognized the need ‘to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation’ (UUS 95).”
This passage from the Bishop of Rome document helps us understand why those who decry Francis’s heresies can nonetheless remain silent on false ecumenism: they cannot criticize false ecumenism without also calling into question the initiatives of Francis’s predecessors.
Unfortunately, we can have no realistic hope of counteracting those trying to destroy the Catholic Church from within unless we uproot false ecumenism and reassert the Catholic teaching defended by Pius XII and his predecessors. As Fr. Dominique Bourmaud wrote in his One Hundred Years of Modernism, false ecumenism has been the convergence point for the greatest evils afflicting the Church, including Modernism, religious liberty, and the refusal to accept the authority of Jesus Christ and His Church:
Quote:“Of all the topics treated at the Council, that of ecumenism certainly best reveals the affinity and the unity of thought between the Council and the modernists. In fact, the periti who directed the Council are the same men who were targeted and exiled for their modernist ideas fifteen years earlier. It should come as no surprise that the ecumenism advocated and put into practice at the Council should be of modernist inspiration. Ecumenical unity cannot arise from the truth of facts and realities, and so poses a theoretically insoluble problem, to be resolved only in practice. Accordingly, the only solution can be to sacrifice truth and the principle of non-contradiction in the name of an artificial unity maintained by equivocation. To promote ecumenism means signing a treaty of non-aggression, granting all religions citizenship in the great pantheon of creeds. The only commandment is the exclusion of exclusivity: freedom for all in all things, except for those who believe in the truth. The Catholic Church herself is warmly invited to take her place in the assembly, on the condition that she abdicate her pretension to a monopoly of holiness, truth, and unity. The logical consequence of conciliar ecumenism is religious liberty. Religious liberty is the public denial of the distinction between good and evil, between true and false. Religious liberty is the refusal to accept Jesus Christ and His Church as supreme authorities over man. It is the practical affirmation of the egological, modernist conscience, independent of all exterior rule of action or thought. It is the affirmation of liberty as the principle and the sovereign right of man, transcending God and His laws.”
Because the ecumenical innovators refuse to abide by the Church’s teaching that unity can occur through a process of non-Catholics becoming Catholic, they must “sacrifice truth and the principle of non-contradiction in the name of an artificial unity maintained by equivocation.”
The entire ecumenical movement depends upon this assault upon reason and Catholic truth. As such, those who try to oppose Francis and his fellow destroyers, while simultaneously adhering to the principles of false ecumenism, deprive themselves of the only weapon capable of overcoming our enemies: unadulterated Catholic truth. It is, in other words, a futile exercise to insist that Francis must stop promoting heretical nonsense while we turn a blind eye to the heretical nonsense upon which he depends to promote much of his heretical agenda, namely false ecumenism.
To put a finer point on the issue, we can look to some of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church that are undermined by the false ecumenism that Vatican II promoted (long before most of us had heard of Jorge Bergoglio). Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma lists the following infallible truths (among others) which are directly opposed to false ecumenism, because that baneful error encourages non-Catholics to remain outside of the Catholic Church and the sacraments (other than Baptism) which it alone can provide, especially Confession:
- Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)
- The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind. (De fide.)
- The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid all sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God. (De fide.)
- The grace by which we are Justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin. (De fide.)
Any Catholic who seriously attempts to persevere in the state of sanctifying grace knows how absolutely malicious it is for the ostensible authorities of the Catholic Church to even remotely suggest to non-Catholics that they do not need to convert to Catholicism. If we truly love our neighbor, we necessarily want him to have the truths and graces which the Catholic Church offers. If this is not the case, we do not truly love our neighbors.
Turning to the promotion of the Kingship of Christ. Our Lord became man and died for our sins so that we can honor God and save our souls. He also established the Catholic Church, providing it with His truth and the sacraments we need to save our souls and honor God. False ecumenism asserts that men do not need to make use of the Catholic Church — they can remain in their non-Catholic religions that Our Lord did not establish. In this way, false ecumenism constitutes an unmistakable assault on the Kingship of Christ. With false ecumenism, Our Lord becomes merely an advisor, with no real authority to command.
What can be done? We can simply insist on the truths taught by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors in opposition to the false ecumenism that has proliferated since Vatican II. If we insist that false ecumenism is a damnable lie that has only served to lead souls away from the Catholic Church, then we will no longer agree to accept “Christian unity” as the purported justification for essentially all of the disastrous initiatives carried out in the name of the Vatican II revolution. When that happens, we can promote the Kingship of Christ with the full truth that Our Lord has left His Catholic Church, without having to agree to the terms of our enemies who seek only to crown Him with thorns. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
|
|
| The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-25-2024, 06:36 PM - Forum: Sedevacantism
- No Replies
|
|
The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism
The Catholic Trumpet | November 25, 2024
In these unparalleled times of crisis, faithful Catholics are faced with two opposing temptations: blind obedience to modernist Rome and the error of sedevacantism. Both distort the truth and undermine the indefectibility of the Church, creating what can only be described as a simulacrum—a counterfeit reality, carefully crafted to lead souls astray.
Recently, The Catholic Trumpet was addressed in a post from a sedevacantist website, Questions for The Catholic Trumpet, which posed critical questions about our stance:
Quote:“Only the Church, through her divine authority, can judge a pope in matters of heresy, and this occurs only after his death.”
The questions raised include:
1. Why can’t a layman judge, in conscience, a putative pope guilty of the sin of (public) heresy before an official judgment of the Church?
2. If a putative pope is suspect of heresy, why does the Church have to wait until after his death to judge him guilty of heresy?
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and to reaffirm the Church’s timeless teachings. These questions, while seemingly simple, expose the confusion born from the two false extremes of modernism and sedevacantism, both of which obscure the perennial truths of the Faith.
The Catholic Church remains the Mystical Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Ghost, and her indefectibility ensures that she will never fail, even amidst the gravest of crises. Our response to these errors is neither a synthesis nor a reaction but a defense of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as handed down through Sacred Tradition.
Clarifications on Judging a Pope and the Role of the Faithful
1. Why the Church Alone Can Judge a Pope
The authority to judge a pope resides solely with the Church, as established by Christ in His divine constitution of the hierarchy. Private individuals, while able to observe contradictions in a pope’s actions or teachings, lack the authority to declare him a formal heretic or depose him. This principle protects the Church’s unity and visibility, as declared infallibly at Vatican I.
+Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized this when addressing the complexities of papal authority:
Quote:“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades.” (The New Mass and the Pope, 1979)
The example of Pope Honorius I reaffirms this principle: though his writings were later condemned, the Church waited until after his death to issue her judgment. This prudence preserved the Church’s hierarchical structure and prevented destabilization.
2. Sedevacantism: A Hegelian Trap
Sedevacantism, while rejecting modernist obedience, falls into the opposite error of denying the visible authority of the Church entirely. It creates a false dialectic: either accept a heretical pope or deny the existence of the papacy altogether. This false dichotomy undermines the promises of Christ, who assured us, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]” (Matt. 16:18).
+Archbishop Lefebvre warned against this extreme, calling it "a complete mess":
Quote:“The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution... We must keep a little the solution of common sense... to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads.” (Conference, 1989)
While we sympathize with those who have fallen into this error out of zeal for the Faith, we must firmly reject it as incompatible with Catholic teaching. Both modernism and sedevacantism undermine the unity and indefectibility of the Church, albeit in different ways. Modernism distorts doctrine to accommodate novelty, while sedevacantism abandons the Church’s visible structure to safeguard perceived doctrinal purity. Both lead to schism and confusion, contrary to Christ’s design for His Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre exposed this simulacrum when he observed:
Quote:“Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles?”
(Conference, Econe, 1984)
True fidelity lies in adhering to the Faith as handed down by the Apostles, rejecting error without abandoning the visible Church. This is not a middle ground or synthesis but the consistent teaching of Catholic Tradition.
The Simulacrum of the Eclipse Church
The false dichotomy of modernism and sedevacantism forms a simulacrum, a counterfeit Church that exists within the eclipse described by Our Lady of La Salette. This diabolical ring encircles the visible Church, obscuring her from the faithful while ensnaring souls in errors of disobedience and despair.
+Archbishop Lefebvre captured the essence of this counterfeit:
Quote:“We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, saying, ‘There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority.’ That solution doesn’t work either.” (Conference, 1984)
The simulacrum thrives on division, presenting Catholics with false choices that lead away from the perennial Faith. Recognizing and rejecting this counterfeit is essential for fidelity to Christ and His Church.
Reject the Counterfeit
To those ensnared by dogmatic sedevacantism, we call you back to the visible Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which remains indefectible and cannot be eclipsed by error. Reject the false claim that the Chair of Peter has been abandoned, and return to the one true Ark of Salvation.
To those who blindly adhere to modernist Rome, we admonish you to reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its counterfeit church, which promotes novelty and compromise under the guise of continuity. Stop perpetuating the eclipse of the true Church by clinging to modernism, which distorts the Faith and undermines Tradition.
Both dogmatic sedevacantism and modernism represent false positions within the simulacrum of the Church’s eclipse. True fidelity requires breaking free from this counterfeit reality, neither denying the visible authority of the Church nor succumbing to heretical novelties. Trust in the promises of Christ, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and the divine restoration that will come through the Angelic Pontiff.
Let us reject all errors, resist modernist compromises, and remain faithful to the Church of all ages, confident that Christ will guide His Bride through this time of trial. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary intercede for us, and may her promised triumph restore all things in Christ.
Vive le Christ Roi!
The Catholic Trumpet
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/IMG_1892.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
![[Image: Screenshot-2024-12-02-110948.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/FsR27kpK/Screenshot-2024-12-02-110948.png)
![[Image: miniatura-241130-eng.jpg]](https://exsurgedomine.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/miniatura-241130-eng.jpg)
