Dear reader:

After thanking you for having begun to read this letter, I want to warn you about the content of it, so that you don't get discouraged if you find it excessively long (44 pages).

Actually, the letter itself consists of the first 10 pages, sufficiently decompressed to facilitate reading.

From page 11 to the end you will find ten Annexes , necessary to prove what you have advanced in the text and not be accused of affirming for free without demonstrating. These Annexes can be discarded, but they constitute, in many cases, a true study and reflection material.

You can read, eventually, only Annex XI , my resignation letter, which summarizes my reasons. I would say that points 7) , 15) , 16) , 17) and 18) of this letter contain the essentials of the problem.

However, if to understand the whole of my resolution, you want to accompany me patiently in reading, let's start:

In Buenos Aires, Argentina, I belonged from the age of eight until I entered the Seminary of Paraná, which can be called a “reactionary parish” ; in which I was formed by the books and conferences of Fathers Leonardo Castellani, Julio Meinvielle, David Núñez, and Professors Jordán Bruno Genta and Carlos Sacheri, among others.

I thank the divine Providence that in 1965, when I was only eleven years old, I sent Father Carlos Morani to my Parish, who until his premature death, in June 1970, was the guide and supporter of the Center for Orthodox Studies Catholic , source of my intellectual formation.

In 1976, after a year of intense struggle against a new Pastor, appointed in 1975 to destroy our parish materially and spiritually, it was time to enter the Seminary. He was very clear and defined that he could not and should not do it in the Archdiocesan of Buenos Aires. Like so many other young people in the seventies, I turned to the one of the diocese of Paraná, where I had the opportunity to know by the newspapers the suspension to divinis of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, its motives and its consequences, as well as the convictions and teaching of the illustrious prelate. Until that moment the question of Novus Ordo Missæ had not been raised in me .

I remained three years in an atmosphere of more and more rare, always wondering "what Mass will I pray once ordered?", "What do I do with all this conciliar doctrine that is mixed in philosophy, theology, catechism, the piety, liturgy, canon law? ” Those who know me will understand that all this was the subject of discussions with certain professors and classmates.

It was clear that he could not continue that way. January and February 1979 were for me months of reflection and prayer to arrive at the resolution that I should leave the Conciliar Church to associate myself with the combat of Monsignor Lefebvre for the Catholic Church and his Tradition against the New Church ; that he must adhere to Eternal Rome and reject neoprotestant and neo-modernist Rome . Like three years before, this new decision earned me another break with the ecclesial environment and with my friendships ...

During my Seminary and my first five years of priesthood in the Priestly Fraternity San Pío X, although complex doctrinal situations were presented (the Indult of October 1984, for example), the presence of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, his interventions, and then the remoteness and lack of information from my position in Argentina, prevented things from getting too disturbing.

The first serious alarm was the disturbing environment in which we had to live from November 1987 to May 1988. After the announcement in June 1987 of upcoming episcopal consecrations, we now did not know how the famous Roman conversations would end .

In June 1988, through L'Osservatore Romano , I became aware of the Agreement Protocol signed on May 5. My first reaction was to say: Rome lies! And God is witnessing to me that I had not followed Monsignor, if he had continued with that Protocol, whose complete content is really that provided by the Vatican newspaper and that, however, many of the priests of the Fraternity and the whole of the faithful do not know. But in June, the consecrations for the 30th day were already decided, and I considered that the sad docuмent was truly relegated to oblivion. To understand what it is, see Annex X : letter from Father Ceriani to Monsignor Fellay of May 29, 2009.

I am very sorry that I did not ask Monsignor Lefebvre at that time for a clear and sharp retraction of the signing of that docuмent which, even today, is the subject of discussion in the Fraternity and a dangerous weapon in the hands of the conciliar Rome .

For 12 years or so, thanks to the position obtained by the episcopal consecrations of 1988, we quietly live the development of all the Institutions of the Great Work of the Catholic Tradition, which is not a movement in the Official Church as intended Benedict XVI (and as it seems to have been accepted by Monsignor Fellay, since we read in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 74: “We had asked for this, since 2001, as a sign of benevolence on the part of the Vatican towards the traditional movement "(...)" An approach is feared between the head of the Church and our movement " ) .

As of the year 2000, the question of regaining contact with the Rome occupied by modernism began ; and in 2001 the famous préables , prerequisites, prerequisites appear . God and some members of the Fraternity are witnesses that, from the beginning, the thing seemed very equivocal to me; but my apprehensions did not go beyond private comments.

It was in July 2004 that I decided to intervene before my Superiors. Indeed, as can be seen in my Appeal ( see Annex I ), when Monsignor Bernard Fellay announced in June 2004 that he had asked Rome to " officially withdraw the Decree of Excommunication Declaration" I sent the same letter to seven of my Superiors (the four Bishops, the First Assistant, the General Treasurer and the Secretary General) to point out that this request implied the acceptance of the excommunications and that, sooner or later, we would end up accepting the unacceptable: the lifting of them.

Monsignor Fellay and Monsignor Tissier de Mallerais were content to respond that it was only a "imprecision of language."

Three important letters to these Bishops, including a canonical work on the issue (see summary in Annex II ), did not even deserve an answer. How to understand that you want to dispute doctrinally with the Conciliar Rome and not give a response to a member of the Fraternity?

On the other prerequisite, the request for the “liberation of the Mass of always” , “the possibility of celebrating the Tridentine Mass”, did not intervene until the publication of the Motu proprio of July 7, 2007.

Why? Because the argument of authority based on Monsignor Lefebvre was too strong to try, for an argument of reason , to oppose the request for a liturgical equality of the Catholic rite with the bastard rite . Monsignor Lefebvre, in fact, on several occasions he had made the same request, thinking that this situation would be only temporary and that the usual Mass would quickly displace the montinian rite.

I point out, however, that I did not sing the Te Deum to my Guatemalan parishioners and that I preached twice, in Guadalupe and Martinique, to explain the harmfulness of this docuмent.

Despite having done several works since the publication of the Motu proprio to demonstrate its harmfulness and its opposition to the work of the restoration of the Holy Mass, I could not publish only one, and this after having overcome numerous difficulties to overcome the reluctance of my District Superior. The conclusion of that article says:

a) Because of its material cause this Motu proprio states that the Rome of neo - modernist and neo - Protestant trend continues to move away from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in the XX a session of the Council of Trent.

b) Due to its intention, this Motu proprio is simple as the dove and prudent as the snake; but, it must be said, its blessed simplicity is one more cunning of the snake, capable of deceiving even the chosen ones themselves.

However, keep it by the way, dear faithful, your head will be crushed by the Immaculate ...

I did not bother to send the other studies because I knew that they would not be accepted, because they did not conform to the opinion of the Superior General regarding the interpretation of this docuмent (see summaries in Annex III ).

I apologize to the Church, to the Work of Tradition, to the Fraternity and to all the faithful for not having reacted before. Sorry for my bad example!

On December 30, 2008, I spoke personally with my District Superior about the second prerequisite (the “withdrawal of the decree of declaration of excommunication” ) and about an editorial he intended to publish on January 1. I handed him the work of Annex II in my own hands .

Once he published his editorial “From one prerequisite to the other”, I sent him a letter on January 6, 2009 and again on January 20, without getting an answer. (See what corresponds to this topic in Annex IV ).

Published the Decree of January 21, contrary to what happened in almost all Priories, in our chapels of the Antilles the letter of the Superior General was not read to the faithful, as it contained inaccuracies, contradictions and a serious ambiguity regarding the acceptance of the Vatican Council II (this was recognized and the text was modified, but not the rest). Nor do we sing the Magnificat . The "lifting of excommunication" did not inspire us to celebrate ...

Through my Prior, who attended on Monday, January 26, a meeting of Priors convened by Monsignor Fellay in Paris, I turned to my Superiors with a loud voice and asked for a review of the acceptance of the Vatican Decree within one week, without this being an ultimatum .

At that meeting, Monsignor Fellay said that in his letter of December 15, 2008 he had not asked for the lifting of the excommunication , but for the withdrawal of the decree declaring the excommunication, but that he would not request a retraction from Rome.

I had a long telephone conversation with my District Superior on Thursday, January 29, during which I told him, among other things, that, if it is true that the Vatican Decree is false, it must be denounced as such and rejected.

He asked me for a month to see how things evolved; and told me that he was going to do his best to change the situation.

Taking into account the urgency and severity of such a context, I replied that one month seemed too long for me and that, therefore, I maintained the period of one week.

But as he told me that he was going to do his best to change the situation, I thought I had understood the problem; and then I asked him to remove from the official website of the District of France, La Porte Latine , three information that did not correspond to reality:

a) “The complete file of the withdrawal of the decree of the excommunications of 1988” . Letting readers know that Rome granted the "withdrawal of the decree of excommunication" and not the "lifting of excommunication."

b) Two videos that talk about the “rehabilitation of Monsignor Lefebvre” . With which the readers interpret that Rome has vindicated and relieved the person of Monsignor Lefebvre.

c) In one of these videos, a phrase allegedly extracted from the Decree appears and makes it say:

"I declare private censorship of excommunication latæ sententiæ" .

In fact, the original text reads: "I remit (...) the censorship of excommunication lat æ sententi æ (...) and I declare private legal effects as of today the Decree then published."

The difference is big. What is intended to make us believe? Thinking of reassuring me, the Superior of the District told me that the text of the video had been prepared before knowing the text of the Decree ... So there were several texts? Was there an exchange of them between Rome and the Fraternity? Was a consensus reached? Because the words are almost identical, but not their arrangement in the text ...

Unfortunately, on Saturday, January 31, nothing had changed in La Porte Latine , but, on the contrary, two interviews with Monsignor Fellay were published that contribute to increasing the confusion.

In the one of the weekly Monde et Vie, Olivier Figueras asks “Did you expect, Monsignor, this excommunication uprising?” And Monsignor Fellay responds “I expected it since 2005, after the first request letter of the excommunication uprising that he had addressed at the very request of Rome . Because it was clear that Rome did not ask for this letter to refuse to lift the excommunication. ”

I began by sending my Appeal to the four Bishops and the Major Superiors of the Fraternity in the hope that, as I beg of you at the end of the text, they would reconsider before God the current situation and that, following the example of Monsignor Lefebvre at the time of Protocol, they would retrace their steps. He intended to extend the shipment to priests and parishioners.

That was when they arrived, with an hour interval, two messages:

- a call from the Secretary General saying that he should stop sending because in an hour an official communiqué of Monsignor Fellay would come out clarifying things.

- an electronic message from the District Superior saying that the Communiqué would be issued in the following week, but that the General House had not accepted that the inaccuracies contained in La Porte Latine be corrected . It is today that there are still there!

Without having received any official Communiqué, I completed the shipment to the Major Superiors and did not move forward, renouncing to extend the shipment to certain priests and parishioners as I had intended to do.

On Monday, February 2, I received the official, Confidential Communiqué, reserved only for priests, in which the decision to accept as is and without censoring the Vatican Decree is confirmed .

To explain why a retraction was not required from Rome, Monsignor Fellay wonders if, given the circuмstances and the situation of the Church, we could expect much more; and then he says that "Rome never retracts", that it would be illusory and even dangerous to ask for it, and that we must save the principle of authority.

I wonder, what has changed in the situation of the Church between December 15, 2008 and January 21, 2009? Also, " Rome never retracts "? It's wrong! I sent Monsignor Fellay and Monsignor Tissier de Mallerais some historical references on this point (see Annex V ).

I could not endorse this situation with my silence, which became more and more ambiguous: it was my obligation to make my Appeal public . I did it on Tuesday, February 3.

If we look back, we realize that for twenty years, in fact, the Fraternity has gone through several very different stages, without anything justifying, apparently, this progressive sliding:

´ Satisfaction and joy for being declared excommunicated by that “system that qualifies itself as a Conciliar Church, a falsified, evolutionary, Pentecostal and syncretistic church” , which self-excommunicates for the same fact (see Open Letter of the Superiors in July 1988; Annex I ).

´ Declare and try to prove that the excommunication is not valid, without insisting that the excommunicated is modernist Rome.

´ In September-November 2005, satisfaction, joy and use of the statements of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: “They are within the Church. There is only this fact that a full one is missing, a more perfect one - as this has been said during the encounter with Monsignor Fellay - a fuller communion, because communion exists. ”

´ Reiterated statements to indicate that the fact of the declaration of excommunication by Rome constitutes an obstacle for the apostolate, and that, therefore, it is necessary to request the withdrawal of said declaration.

´ In short, acceptance, satisfaction, joy and gratitude of the decree that lifts the excommunication and sends the censorship.

On Monday, February 9, I was invited by the District Superior to participate in a meeting of priests at the Flavigny Seminary, France, to present my position and to take advantage of the occasion to interview privately with Monsignor Fellay and himself.

Things changed during the week and on Monday 16 I found a very different situation. As expected, I was silenced and received the First Canonical Admonition on expulsion, if it persisted in public appeal.

Therefore, when the context regarding Rome is more and more ambiguous, publicly plead with the four Bishops of the Fraternity to reconsider before God the current situation and, following the example of Monsignor Lefebvre, retrace their steps, ask them to confirm again to priests and parishioners in the good fight for Eternal Rome against the conciliar Church , all this is considered a crime by the current authorities of the Priestly Fraternity San Pío X!

To the Canonical Admonition I responded, by letter dated February 24, saying:

I affirm that I intervened publicly because the confusion of the terms that exist and the situation of humiliation “of the survival operation of the Work of Tradition” , which compromises its very existence, put me in front of a true “state of necessity” .

I testify that I acted in "good faith" , with "good will" and with "righteousness of conscience" , knowing that since 2004 I had tried, by private means, to avoid reaching the current situation, but without results.

On Tuesday, February 17, he had handed Monsignor Fellay and the District Superior a job in which he developed 4 points:

1) the two preliminaries have not fulfilled their objective and have proved ineffective

2) what was requested in neither case was not obtained.

3) in both cases it has been said that something very different from reality was obtained.

4) the two legislative acts of Rome have humiliated the Holy Mass and Operation Survival of the Work of Tradition. (See Annex VI ).

I draw the reader's attention to the fact that the meeting of these four points constitutes an improper use of the Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and an outrage to the Mother of God.

Furthermore, willingly throwing yourself into this "ѕυιcιdє operation" implies tempting God, who already saved the Work of Tradition in 1988 ... "You will not tempt the Lord, your God" ...

I also made in my letter of February 24 the request that in the Letter to Friends and Welfarers No. 74 the situation be finally clarified, both with regard to the faithful and with respect to the anti-Christ and modernist Rome :

May the Fraternity recognize the published ambiguities and clarify them.

A) Remain in the current position, without looking for new contacts.

B) If the antichrist and modernist Rome tries to have new contacts, especially theological debates, demand as preliminary to any debate, and not as a matter of debate:

a) The suppression of the distinction between “ordinary form and extraordinary form” of the same rite.

b) The rehabilitation without ambiguities or conditions of Monsignor Lefebvre and Monsignor de Castro Mayer.

c) The formal and public declaration that the FSSPX did not request “the lifting of excommunication”, as the Decree of January 21, 2009 says.

Meanwhile, those conferences of Monsignor Fellay in February reserved two surprises.

The first shock was when Monsignor Fellay expressed with simplicity: " I am tired of arguing about words."

Some days later, in the aforementioned letter of February 24, I highlight the inconvenience of the Superior General and express:

“I verify that the confusion has not been created by Rome, nor by the priests of the Fraternity, nor by the faithful, but by the Superior General and the Superiors of Districts.

Indeed, Rome has always used the same language, erroneous, but clear and precise.

The Fraternity, on the contrary, over the past eight years, has fallen into error in terms, which has engendered confusion in the spirits of the priests and the faithful.

The consequence of this error in terms and of this confusion in the spirits is ambiguity and inaccuracy in official communiqués and in articles published in the press ”. (See Annex VII ).

The second confusion was caused when Monsignor Fellay said that “Some, to make things easier, make an identification between the Official Church and the Modernist Church. But it's a mistake, because we talk about a concrete reality . ”

When the questions arrived, I simply referred to a conference and an interview with Monsignor Lefebvre, reading some passages.

In addition, in the letter of February 24, I ask if this “concrete reality” is “the visible church” of Dom Gérard. And I say that I do not want a new confusion about the words that lead the Superior General to fatigue from a new discussion; because, in effect: Rome has always used clear and precise language. Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre and the Fraternity authorities, too. Today, on the contrary, the Superior General expresses an unusual and disconcerting idea, unknown in the language of our Founder; he must use clear and precise formulas to avoid a new confusion, this time regarding the identification between the "official church" and the "modernist church" or "conciliar church"; he cannot change the nature of our combat; If he does not want to accomplish this mission, he must resign. (See Annex VIII ).

As I did not even receive acknowledgment of receipt of this letter, I sent another on March 10. On March 9, the District Superior writes to me saying he responds to my letters of February 24 and March 10 (sic). Actually, just answer my disclaimer about the Canonical Admonition contained in my letter of February 24. In substance, he tells me:

“The Fraternity has not abdicated its will to combat the great errors and heresies transmitted by the conciliar Rome. Consequently, the approaches or contradictions that you deplore remain accidental. They do not justify a public reaction like the one you have done. Only a true capitulation of the Fraternity in the fight against the faith could have legitimized this public protest ”.

On March 17, I respond to this letter raising the problem in its concrete reality:

´ Is it accidental that the Roman rite of Holy Mass (which had never lost its right) has, de jure, lost its condition in an ordinary and official way?

´ Is it accidental that the antichrist and modernist Rome , through its own Motu, humiliated it, relegating it to the rank of “extraordinary form” and joining it to the “bastard rite”, which would be the “ordinary form” of the only Roman rite?

´ Not having reacted to such innovation, does it not already constitute a true capitulation of the Fraternity in the fight for faith?

' The Roma antichrist and modernist , by the Decree of January 21, 2009, humbled "survival operation" of the episcopal consecrations, presenting not only as unlawful, but also as worthy of punishment and reprehensible. Is it accidental not to have demanded that the honor of the consecrated bishops, of the two consecrated bishops, of the Fraternity, of the entire Work of Tradition, and above all the honor of the Church be washed?

Is it accidental not to have reacted to such defamation, which calls into question the continuity of our mission?

If that does not yet constitute a proven capitulation of the Fraternity in the fight for faith, it surely leads to that.

It seems that the Superior General, to make things easier, does not want to do more identification between the official Church and the modernist Church. Is this accidental?

Do not! It is not accidental to our fight; it is a true denaturalization of the combat of the Work of Tradition by the Catholic Church against the conciliar Church.

On April 21 I receive an email from the District Superior, dated 18. There I read:

“The fraternity's fight is to keep, transmit, propagate and confess the Faith. Fight, consequently, all the errors and heresies professed by“ the conciliar church ”that weaken and corrupt it. Maintain its protest against these errors and these heresies, at the same time that some concessions would be made, as long as the principles of the conciliar revolution were not deactivated. Finally, in the current circuмstances, and in accordance with the declaration of the General Chapter of 2006 as well as the strategy incessantly repeated by our Superior General, of not accepting to conclude canonical agreements before having obtained the moral certainty that Rome has renounced the deadly principles of the Council. Here is what constitutes the fundamental part of our combat.

I confess that such statements disoriented me even more. According to the District Superior:

It is accidental that the Roman rite of the Holy Mass has lost its status in an ordinary and official way;

´ it is accidental that the antichrist and modernist Rome has humiliated him, relegating him to the rank of “extraordinary form” and joining him to the “bastard rite”;

It is accidental that the honor of the consecrated bishops, of the two consecrated bishops, of the Fraternity, of the entire Work of Tradition, and above all the honor of the Church;

It is accidental to no longer identify between the official Church and the modernist Church ...

While I reflect on the answer, the Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 74 arrives , confirming the ambiguities and counter-truths already denounced, at the same time as the intention to dispute with the antichrist and modernist Rome without demanding clarification or denying its falsity . This whole strategy, very clear in itself, is concealed under the "smoke screen" of the 12,000,000 Rosaries. This Letter motivated the comments in Annex IX .

Indeed, as Father Leonardo Castellani says: " Living " protesting " is not a religious ideal. He protests once against abuse; and then you start living against abuse or out of abuse . ”

After trying to “live against abuse” during these last months, presenting my “protests” privately, I have reached a situation that I understood:

- or that the abuse was going to expel me (put me out ), if I continued to live against him,

- or that he had to make the decision to live outside the abuse .

In the same way that I fought in our beloved reactionary parish of adolescence; just as I chose the seminar that I had to enter outside of Buenos Aires; just as one day I decided to leave it; thirty years later I assume the responsibility of leaving the Priestly Fraternity San Pío X, to defend my faith and my priesthood, attacked by the antichrist and modernist Rome , inspiring and disseminating the conciliar heresy .

My resolution to leave already contracted, on April 29, I briefly answer the letter from the District Superior: None of his letters gives me a precise answer to my questions. Therefore, you can be calm, since I will not return on these subjects; I see that it is useless ...

There was still a big surprise. On May 7, I receive a letter from the Superior General, Monsignor Fellay, dated April 11. First mail after June 3, 2005! It is sad to see that he has no other purpose than to express his anger, to deploy threats and utter insults.

The invoked authority, which I keep recognizing, comes from God, certainly; but it has not been conferred to insult his subjects. Working in this way, he demonstrates, once again, that he has no other argument than voluntarism: "sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas" .

At this stage of events, my answer is simply to teach the abuse of authority. Two other correspondences will see the light (See Annex X these four cards).

I am perfectly aware of the importance of the responsibility I assume and that, from now on, I will be considered as “clericus vagus” , without any recognition, nor from the official Church (30 years ago I have resigned from it) , nor from the Work of Tradition that adheres to the nominalism and voluntarism of the current authorities of the Priestly Fraternity San Pío X, which prevent them from continuing the fight for the Catholic Church against the Official Church, conquered by the Conciliarism.

This motive, added to the outrage of the Blessed Virgin and temptation against God, constitutes the ultimate reason for my departure. See Annex XI , 7) , 15) , 16) , 17) and 18) .

If necessary, I repeat once again that I answer and I have null and void, both in law and in fact:

- the Motu proprio Summorum pontificuм , of July 7, 2007, which intends to assimilate the Sacred Roman Rite of Holy Mass to the "montinal bastard rite" ,

- the alleged excommunications of 1988, the Decree that seeks to declare them and the Decree of January 21, 2009 that attempts to lift them, letting them believe they were valid.

Said challenge and its consequences I consider them a distinction of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. These, in effect, have absolute right to know that the priest they are addressing is not in communion with a counterfeit, evolutionary, Pentecostal and syncretistic church.

Divine Providence wanted Monsignor Lefebvre, 21 days before his death, to write these words as comforting as prophetic, to them I appeal:

Every spirit of distrust of the priests who deserve trust diminishes the strength and firmness of resistance against the destroyers of the Faith. ” (Preface to No. 1 of the Docuмentation on the Revolution in the Church , Ecône, March 4, 1991).

Father Juan Carlos Ceriani

Fort de France, August 4, 2009