Father Ceriani’s RESPONSE TO BISHOP WILLIAMSON
On Friday, August 9, I anticipated a response to Bp. Williamson:
From the selected points, I will begin with the following:
You spoke not when good colleagues were expelled.
Their cause, but not their persons, I upheld.
Usted no habló cuando buenos colegas fueron expulsados.
Su causa, pero no sus personas, he propugnado.
I begin with this point because it clarifies much of [what is covered by] the others. Indeed, at least in my case, it is not true that Bishop Williamson has advocated my cause.
And what is my cause in this case? I have already published it several times. But here it goes again, and in chronological order:
* June 30, 1988: Episcopal Consecrations. I adhered thereto.
* July 1, 1988: Declaration of Excommunication decree signed by Cardinal Gantin.
* July 6, 1988: SSPX Superiors’ open letter to Cardinal Gantin. I adhered to it. I summarize the essentials:
(…) We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society.
Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this.
We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.
(…) To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.
They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.
* September 2000: Bishop Fellay interview by Stefano Maria Paci, published on 30 Giorni No. 9.
* November 2000: Concerned about this interview, I call Bp. Williamson, who downplays my fears and says: “Trust Bishop Fellay”.
* April 2, 2001: New telephone call. Bp. Williamson tells me, “You were right, it all started with that interview”.
* Pentecost 2001: Pilgrimage Chartres-Paris, under the slogan: “For the reconquest”. Here begins a subject of litigation in the District of South America. Opinions are divided about the battle that we must carry out: is it to reconquer or to resist? This translates to the relationship of Father Ceriani with his colleagues and superiors, reaching to the Superior General.
* Between 2001 and 2003 there were several letters of Bishop Williamson as Director of the Seminary of Winona, but always that was needed a clear position, it was never taken. This gave rise to the saying, “Bp. Williamson turns on the right blinker, but makes a left turn”.
* In December 2002, in the District House in South America, I had a personal conversation with Bishop Williamson on the development, strategy and tactics of our fight. Everything [we talk] was centered around the interpretation of Apocalypse and the events of recent times. The theme of the reconquest or resistance also appeared. I will come back to this later.
* June 6, 2004: Letter from Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos officially asking the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication.
* June 18, 2004: Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 66, in which it is announced this official request of the withdrawal of the decree.
Bp. Williamson accepted the request of the withdrawal of the decree of the excommunications. To that I opposed since the very time the request was presented officially in June 2004.
* July 31, 2004: I send a letter about this request to the members of the Council and to the remaining two bishops of the SSPX, being Bp. Williamson one of them.
* August 2004: Response from Bp. Williamson: “Everything would indicate that Bishop Fellay is changing the rifle to the other shoulder. But, do not leave the Society.”
* October 17, 2004: Homily of Bishop Williamson in Saint Nicolas-de-Chardonet. All present interpreted the clear support to the mutiny organized by Father Laguerie and his troops. After the Mass, Father Beauvais showed in the sacristy his anger towards Bp. Williamson.
* Since then until July 2007, Monsignor stays in great silence, except for an interview to Rivarol in January 2007 (over 16 responses, 4 were unacceptable, ie, 25%).
* The General Chapter of 2006 launches the Rosary crusade to obtain the two preconditions. Bishop Williamson, as Director of the Seminary of La Reja, fulfills them. I did not pray a single Hail Mary for those intentions nor promoted them among my parishioners.
* I did not sing the Te Deum to thank the motu proprio. I said it rather deserved the Dies irae …
* Three Eleison Comments on the motu proprio of July 2007: July 14, 2007, August 25, 2007 and September 15, 2007.
* Given the startling declarations of Monsignor about the motu proprio in his Eleison Comments, I decided to write a letter to him in order to clarify things, on September 28, 2007.
* Bp. Williamson replied on December 2.
* This demanded a reply from me entering into the details of the motu proprio. And I decided not to celebrate my 25th anniversary of ordination to the priesthood at the Seminary of La Reja with Msg. Williamson preaching.
* Why so much trouble?
Because the Roman Rite of the Mass, which had never lost its right, lost —de jure—, its status of unique ordinary and official form due to the motu proprio of July 7, 2007.
Because, according to the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, the Traditional Missal must be considered abrogated as the ordinary expression of the Liturgy of the Church.
Because the antichrist and Modernist Rome, through the motu proprio, humiliated the Roman Rite of the Holy Mass, relegating it to the status of “extraordinary form” and uniting it to the “bastard montinian rite” which would be the “ordinary form” of the unique Roman rite.
Because, despite all this, Bishop Williamson did sing a Te Deum, at the Seminary of La Reja to celebrate the motu proprio.
Because Msg. Williamson wrote in his Comment of September 15, 2007: «the so-called “Tridentine Mass” is loaded with Catholic doctrine, so I can only rejoice that the Motu Proprio both recognizes that it was never properly suppressed and grants a certain freedom to priests to celebrate it.»
Because Bp. Williamson received a letter from Father Ceriani, dated December 21, 2007 (which he never responded), that read:
«Do not be seduced by the illusion that the traditional Mass, by itself, maintains or moves, completely and necessarily, the priest and the faithful into the good doctrine. As a proof of this, we see the schismatic Orthodox faithful (who have never changed the liturgy for centuries and yet remain outside of the Church). During the Second Vatican Council the Pope and all the bishops celebrated the traditional Mass, and yet they changed the Tradition of the Church. More recently, those who signed an agreement with Rome, gradually adhered to the new doctrines resulting from the Council Vatican II, and that happened while they were praying the traditional Mass.»
* October 23, 2008: Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 73, launching the Crusade to demand the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication.
* Feast of Christ the King in 2008 in Lourdes: In the midst of an embarrassing syncretism with the Official Conciliar Church, and in the presence of the other three Bishops, Monsignor Fellay officially launches the Crusade.
* December 15, 2008: Letter from Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos asking for the lifting of the excommunication.
* January 17, 2009: Bishop Fellay receives, at 16 hours, from Cardinal Castrillón de Hoyos’s hands, the Decree of the lifting of the excommunications, signed on January 21 (!?), to make it known by Monday 26 (!!??) …
* January 21, 2009: Things are precipitated by the publication of Bishop Williamson’s statements and the threat of the weekly Der Spiegel.
* January 22, 2009: Publication of the decree lifting the excommunications.
* January 24, 2009: Letter to the Faithful and Press release by Bishop Fellay.
* January 25, 2009: Magnificat of gratitude in the SSPX’s houses and lecture of Bishop Fellay’s letter of January 24. I did not sing the Magnificat nor read [to the faithful] the Letter of the Superior General.
* January 29, 2009: Letter of the four bishops to Benedict XVI:
«Most Holy Father,
In sentiments of thanksgiving we wish to express our deep gratitude for Your act of paternal kindness and for the apostolic courage by which You rendered ineffective the measure which was imposed upon us 20 years ago as a consequence of our episcopal consecrations.»
* January 30, 2009: Letter of Bishop Williamson to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
«Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday.»
* January 31, 2009: I send through fax my appeal letter to all Major Superiors of the SSPX, including Monsignor Williamson, who never deigned to respond.
* January 31, 2009: Letter from Bishop Fellay to all members of the SSPX.
* February 3, 2009: Publication of my appeal letter on the Internet, in Spanish and French:
(…) I declare that I make my own all the statements of Archbishop Lefebvre and the authorities of the Society at the time of the episcopal consecrations, and that I subscribe them.
I invite the Society’s current authorities to make them theirs and subscribe them publicly.
I contest and consider null and void, both in law and in fact, the alleged excommunication, the decree which tries to declare them and the decree that attempts to lift them, making to believe that they were not null.
And I beg the four bishops of the Society that reconsider before God the current situation and, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, to step back. In such ambiguous circumstances, priests and the faithful need to be confirmed in the good fight for the Eternal Rome against the Conciliar Church.
Fort de France, January 29, 2009
* February 16, 2009: Letter of Bishop Williamson to Dr. Jesse Gomez Jr., who had asked the Bishop to lead a reaction in the SSPX against Bishop Fellay.
I do not blame any colleague or superior to try to get a viable future for the SSPX as a whole of the wreckage caused by a few bad chosen words on Swedish television. I am not saying that those words were or are false. I am just saying that it cannot be used to repudiate the present leader of the SSPX.
I could resist, if it were to stop a bad deal with Rome, but I do not think that is the current situation. If that were the case, I think I could speak, because the Faith would be at stake, and I have to say what I think. Trust me when I say that the SSPX is not betraying nor abandoning.
+ + +
In light of this chronology, reread Bp. Williamson’s answer [to Fr. Méramo]: Their cause, but not their persons, I upheld …
I highlight some facts and again ask some questions about the riddles contained by the Episcopal poem:
* Did Bp. Williamson approve the Open Letter to the Superiors of the July 6, 1988?
* This Open Letter is inconsistent with everything they did, asked, approved, celebrated and appreciated. How does he explain or justify so?
* Did Bp. Williamson know the real contents of the Letter of December 15, 2008? [The letter in which the lifting of the excommunications was asked, and which stated that «We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations.»]
* If so, when and how did he know the original letter? [The letter quoting the text accepting vatican ii was soon modified to exclude second vatican council after the reaction of priests and laymen.]
* Why did he not say anything about the acceptance of Vatican II that is contained in the Letter of December 15, 2008?
* When and how did he know the Decree of January 21, 2009? [The lifting of the excommunications]
* The fact is that Monsignor did not react against it.
* Did he sing the Magnificat at the Seminary of La Reja on Sunday January 25, 2009? [To thank the lifting of the excommunications.]
* Did he read to the faithful that day the original text of the thanksgiving letter of Bishop Fellay?
* Mgs.Williamson signed the Letter thanking Benedict XVI.
* It is also true that he sent a letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.
* Monsignor did not respond to my appeal.
* He wrote a letter to Dr. Jesse Gomez Jr.
* Bp. Williamson declared [in an interview by] Non Possumus: “I think that what I wrote and thought during that moment was, again, incomplete. But I wanted, I wanted not to depart from Bishop Fellay, I wanted to approve my fellows.”
* What is the “reserve” contained in the letter to Benedict XVI that allowed him to sign it? [Fr. Ceriani is referring to what Bp. Williamson declared in the Non Possumus interview: «after the lifting, he [Bp. Fellay] wrote a letter to thank the Pope. And this letter, I signed it, because there was in this letter of gratitude, after the lifting, a phrase, there was a reserve that allowed me to sign this letter of thanks.»]
* Can Monsignor point to any “Eleison comment” in which he retracts his mistakes and apologizes for giving a bad example?
+ + +
I ask anyone with common sense and good judgment: could it be said that the cause of Father Ceriani has been upheld by Bishop Williamson?
+ + +
I reiterate once again that, on several occasions, privately and publicly, I have drawn attention to the attitudes of Bishop Williamson.
It is not to be forgotten that he has been part in many adverse events that have occurred over the last 12 or 13 years to prepare the Society for the agreement.
Four clear examples I have provided:
1) The acceptance and defense of the motu proprio of July 7, 2007.
2) Asking for, accepting and thanking the lifting of the excommunication in January 2009.
3) Not having challenged nor repudiated, but rather having allowed, even supported and even justified the doctrinal discussions.
4) The related to the regrettable phrase: «to obtain from Rome that precious regularization which Rome alone has the authority to grant.»
Points 3 and 4 have not been answered either now with his poetry …
+ + +
I said that I was going to start with the point on the cause advocated because it clarifies a lot of others. Now let us consider:
The harm was there. For years you did not speak.
One always hopes the harm will never peak.
You praised the Motu Proprio – Roman trick !
It’s true. To see the good I was too quick.
You spoke not when good colleagues were expelled.
Their cause, but not their persons, I upheld.
It appears that, to Bp. Williamson, the fault became to be so grave that forced him to act recently until May 2012 …
Moreover, Bp. Williamson, never clarified the situations prior to his expulsion, nor for what reasons, even long after his expulsion from the SSPX, he still advised the priests to not leave the Society.
+ + +
On August 2, regarding the Rivarol interview, I stated that Bp. Williamson distorts the reality:
«But some Catholics have begun to react. The “Resistance” exploded first of all in the United States in the spring of last year, it manifested itself a little later in South America and in England, but in continental Europe it isn’t in a rush.»
Now, [Monsignor] does not respond to the reality that “The” Resistance” firstly exploded in the United States in the spring of last year; it manifested itself a little later in South America and in England.”
Monsigor knows it.
Then, Bp. Williamson twists reality.
Did he lie? Does he say part of the truth and hides the other?
Only God knows.
It turns out that when Bishop Williamson is inspired by the muses, the reality is different:
The Resistance started well before last year.
It’s true, and those who blazed the trail are dear.
In just eight days he untwists reality, but, is it to straighten it, or simply to appease those “dear”? …
Doubt remains floating.
So I say: keep your sweet tart and appreciation!; Stop being sweet, as Benedict I am not! Your cake is nothing sweet, and actually it is a lemon! [Here, Fr. Ceriani is referring to a cake mentioned in the translation to Spanish of the stichomythic verse]
+ + +
Let us come to spiritual authors recommended Williamson:
You love Maria Valtorta’s crazy work.
That accusation is one I will not shirk.
Usted ama la loca obra de María Valtorta.
Eludir esa acusación no me toca.
The translation [to Spanish] (official?, Informal??) is not accurate. It suggests that it is not Mgs. Williamson who should avoid such charge, but someone else in his place.
As far as I was told, what corresponds [to what Monsignor really said] is: That accusation is one I will not shirk, or shy away, or avoid, etc..
That means: Yes, I like Valtorta, so what?, And that’s why I recommend her as spiritual reading.
Bp. Williamson does not specify whether he likes it all, or just a small part of it, but he likes and shares her writings, despite they have been included in the Index of prohibited books; he upholds their cause and I don’t know if also the person …
God save me from the causes upheld by the Bishop!
+ + +
Then follows another verse:
All kinds of apparitions make you enthuse.
St Paul said, “Sift, and keep what’s good.” That’s news?
Toda clase de apariciones lo entusiasman.
San Pablo dijo, “Tamiza y conserva lo bueno” ¿Hubo en eso mudanza?
St. Paul says in I Thessalonians, V, 19-22: Extinguish not the spirit. Despise not prophecies, but prove all things; hold fast that which is good. From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.
About this there was no change, but not all kinds of apparitions should get us enthused. The “apparitionism” is not a good thing by itself.
We suppose that Francis does not criticize nor judge those who have a tendency towards “apparitionism” … But this is not a reference.
St. Thomas says: Show how to have to be around and singularly to have discretion (Rm 12). In this matter, a careful examination must be applied, selecting the good, rejecting the bad. As to the first one, he says, “despise not prophecies, but prove all things”, namely, the dubious, because the ones are clear don’t need examination. “Believe not every spirit” (I Jn, 4, 1). Regarding the second one, he says, “and yield to the good” (Gal. 4). As for the tirad one: “Depart from all appearance of evil” (Isaiah 7). And he says appearance, because we must avoid even the appearance of evil which is what can be done in the presence of men without causing any scandal to them.
The sensitive point is therefore, the instrument used to examine the prophecies.
I said above I would return to the conversation I had with Bishop Williamson in the District House in South America in December 2002 about the development, strategy and tactics of our fight. Everything we talk was centered around the interpretation of Apocalypse and the events of recent times.
On this subject I told him: I do not examine the Revelation in the light of private apparitions, but examine private apparitions in the light of Revelation. That is, if I find in an alleged apparition something that opposes or even deviates from what has been revealed (Sacred Scripture or Tradition), I consider it as false.
Bp. Williamson, in his trademark histrionics, shaking his head and raising his eyebrows, showed their displeasure.
This is therefore a fundamental point that marks the beginning of two interpretations of the current moment of combat, and establishes two different strategies with their tactics.
While Mgs. Williamson argues that the current fight is one of resistance, however, supported in various apparitions and his interpretation of others, he expects a triumph and a restoration before the Antichrist.
Take for example the interpretation of the Apocalypse of Barthélémi Holzhauser, died in 1658. We know that Bishop Williamson is very adept at this author.
He [Barthélémi Holzhauser] assures that in the middle of the year 1855 the Antichrist will be born, that he will live fifty-five years and a half, and that, therefore, will be defeated by Our Lord in 1911.
Let us not extinguish the Spirit, not despise prophesying, examine everything; let’s stick to the good, let us refrain from all kinds of evil.
Just on that page should we abstain? What assurance do we have for the other ones? It’s about those, among others, that Bishop Williamson is based to say that we are still in the church of Sardis, and assures us what he so often said, and recently stated in his interview with Non Possumus about the end of the crisis:
«A punishment, a divine punishment, a rain of fire. There is nothing else to cleanse the world and the Church.
Our Lady of Akita, in Japan, in 1973, on October 13, ie the day of Fatima, October 13, the day of the miracle of Fatima. This means that Our Lady spoke to this religious lady, in Japan, She wanted to make the connection with Fatima. And indeed, the men of the Church locked Fatima in a drawer and locked it.
Our Lady came to say the same things in Akita, Japan, and She spoke of punishment as never was seen in the history of the humanity.
The good and the bad will perish, priests and laity; the survivors will envy the dead, because the conditions will be so terrible after the punishment.
Many prophecies say it will start with the third world war, because war is a punishment for sin. Sins are abundant. There must be a war to punish these sins.
The war will be amplified. Finally, it’ll be atomic, and atomic bombs everywhere. War, not five-year war as the Second World War, but, according to the prophecies, in two or three months.
And invasion of Europe by the Russians.
The three days of darkness. Many prophecies about this.
And after three days of darkness in which God will remove many of their enemies, not all, but many, and they won’t escape from the wrath of God.
After this a period of peace, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. About twenty five years, said Our Lady of La Salette.
And then, corruption and the coming of the Antichrist.
That’s how I see things. I’m not the only one who sees it that way. But it is not a dogma, it is a possibility, perhaps a probability, but not a certainty.»
Note well that in this interpretation, corruption and the coming of Antichrist is after the establishment of the Kingdom of Mary. Therefore, the Antichrist will trample the Marian kingdom … If after examining all, Bp. Williamson stick to this as being good … well, we better move on to the last point.
+ + +
The verse says:
Cath’lic Resistance you just undermine.
Let time be judge. Its judgment will be mine.
To not lengthen this more, I will reply with the same poem:
The harm was there. For years you did not speak.
One always hopes the harm will never peak…
If that’s the way Bp. Williamson has been with the Society…, letting the time to pass by to then judge…, we can start to anticipate what will happen to the flaccid resistance.
+ + +
Those who have responded since May 2012 have accepted, like Bp. Williamson, the motu proprio, the lifting of the excommunication, not to identify the Official church with the conciliar church, the shameful doctrinal discussions with the antichrist Rome, and a long etcetera …
I repeat what I already said: Bp. Williamson is not trustworthy.
For me, Father Juan Carlos Ceriani, this is not new. And so Bishop Williamson knows too…