STRENGTHENING TRADITION

(With apologies for the late appearance of this particular EC)

Early in the New Year there is due to be ordained, on the Emerald Isle another priest for Catholic
Tradition, by a bishop who is well-known in that country as a priest but not as a bishop. This is because
he was consecrated in private nearly two years ago, in January of 2021, when the false Covid crisis with
all its travel restrictions was in full swing. It then seemed that Éire might be completely cut off from
England for an indefinite length of time, and then what would have continued to protect in the Land of
Saints and Scholars those Catholics who understand the dangers for their Faith both of the Newchurch
and of the Newsociety of St Pius X ? These Catholics may not be numerous, but by their rare grasp of
the unchanging Catholic Faith they have for the future of the Church a rare importance. The precious
consecration might have remained private for longer, were not circuмstances seeming to become
steadily more hostile to Catholic Tradition.

Now as Catholic bishops are, by the power of their sacramental Orders to ordain priests and to
consecrate bishops, essential for the survival of the Church, so Traditional bishops have been essential to
the survival of Catholic Tradition. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in 1988 without
the clear permission of the Church’s official leaders in Rome, let nobody think that he was simply
defying those leaders, because they had in fact given permission in principle for at least one to be
consecrated. But when it came to fixing a date for that one consecration, Cardinal Ratzinger so avoided
naming a date that the Archbishop saw clearly that he would never in practice be able to use the
permission granted to him in principle by Church Authority. That was the decisive moment for the
Archbishop to understand that Catholic Truth would never be properly defended by the modernists ruling
in “Rome”, and so he went ahead with the consecration of four of his own priests as bishops, to ensure
“Operation Survival”, as he called it, the very survival of Catholic Tradition.

At the time, many believing Catholics did not understand his action, and roundly condemned it, but
today, after Pachamama, and after Traditionis Custodes pretending to abolish the Traditional rite of
Mass, and after a host of other heresies coming from the summit of the Newchurch, many of those same
Catholics now admit that it is thanks to those consecrations of 1988 that the true Church survived. In the
unprecedented crisis of the Church precipitated by its own leaders splitting their Catholic Authority from
Catholic Truth at Vatican II (1962-1965), Archbishop Lefebvre never scorned or defied the true
Authority of the Church, he merely put the Truth of Tradition in front of that Authority as embodied in
neo-modernists, and by his so doing, more and more Catholics still have a Tradition to which they can
rally. Honest souls among them acknowledge Mother Church’s immeasurable debt to the Archbishop.
Now in the early 2020’s, Almighty God has still not yet seen fit to reunite Catholic Truth and Catholic
Authority, so that the neo-modernists are still in control of “Rome”, and the Faith needs still to be
sustained despite “Rome”. Therefore what the Archbishop began by putting Truth before Authority must
be continued. However, while Catholic Truth must be preferred in the last resort to Catholic Authority if
“Authority” opposes that Truth which it was only instituted by Our Lord to defend, nevertheless Truth in
a fallen world does need that Authority to protect it, so that without that Authority on high, Truth has real
difficulties. For instance the Archbishop’s successors had such problems in ruling the Society after his
death that by a policy of deferring to “Rome” much more than he would ever have done, they so changed
the Archbishop’s Society that it needs a new name, e.g. the “Newsociety”. And just as the mass of
Catholics after Vatican II followed their leaders from the Church into the Newchurch, so the mass of
followers of the Archbishop’s Society have followed his successors from his Society into what one can
call the “Newsociety”, because it strains after official approval by the neo-modernists of “Rome”.

Therefore as in 1988, or even more today, for the survival of Catholic Tradition, the necessity arises for the
consecration of bishops without Roman Authority, so to speak, to maintain the Archbishop’s defence of the
Faith above all. Hence the consecration in private of Fr Giacomo Ballini, here in England on January 14,
2021. The on-going Covid crisis showed how bravely he looks after the Mass and the Faith of all time.
Kyrie eleison
Today’s “Rome” will not properly care for sheep ?
We must have shepherds who will the true Faith keep !

Who says that there aren’t other privately consecrated bishops, and conditionally ordained priests….?

Two bishops in every garage now

They're firing up the presses at The Angelus as we speak for a reworking of Father Cekada's old article.

I guess everyone's assuming it was +Williamson himself, but it is strange that he did not use the active voice, "I consecrated ..." but used the passive.  Is he trying to avoid another excommunication?    Will he sign the certificate "Bishop Nelson Williams y [mother's maiden name]" and will he call it an "ugly rumor" that he consecrated +Bellini when interrogated by Father Fullerton?

Why do you assume that +W would outright lie about the consecration if interrogated by Fr. Fullerton? That's harsh. Not that Fr. Fullerton would really care about the matter anyway. 

Why do you assume that +W would outright lie about the consecration if interrogated by Fr. Fullerton? That's harsh. Not that Fr. Fullerton would really care about the matter anyway.

This was a joke.  I was poking fun of the ordinations performed by "Bishop Gonzalez" (used a pseudonym on the ordination certificate), who later denied that he had ordained Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger when he was questioned by Father Peter Scott, calling it an "ugly rumor".  Basically, I was mocking the double standard of Bishop Kelly where his ordinations / consecrations are all certainly valid while multiple other groups' consecrations are not.

You act like this is just a sedevacantist issue (as per usual).  R&R have their own set of dubious Bishop and priests now with the +?Pfeiffer situation.

That's just it. It's not a sedevacantist issue. But you are assuming that they are going to care about the situation. In reality, it doesn't matter what sedevacantists think. 

There was no indication that you were poking fun at anything. At least for those of us who are not "in the know" about sedevacantist ordination/consecrations.

Really, Meg?  I put two of these in those 2-3 sentences:  

And the joke was obvious to anyone who followed the "Bishop Gonzalez" and "ugly rumor" saga.