Transcription: Saving Souls in Wartime: Fr. Hewko (& Bp. Rejects Error)

[Stone]

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.