NEWS: January 15, 20254
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
THE EMPTY & MALICIOUS ACCUSATIONS OF BISHOP WILLIAMSON - PART III
In Part I of this series, I refuted two false allegations of Bishop Richard Williamson in which he accused Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira of founding TFP to be away from the clergy and "paralyzing vocations to the seminary." In Part II, I showed the falseness of Williamson's statement that TFP had implicitly fallen into the "heresy of Laicism" and that Prof. Plinio rebelled against the intellectual direction of Bishop Mayer.
Today, I will end this refutation by examining the two remaining accusations: Prof. Plinio broke with Bishop Mayer out of pride, and he established a cult of personality to himself.
5. Plinio broke with Bishop Mayer out of pride
Bishop Williamson’s reasoning is that Prof. Plinio was very proud and wanted to establish a cult to himself. This would be another cause of the rupture with Bishop Mayer.
Here in Item 5, I will address the real causes of the rupture between the two. In item 6, I will address the accusation of the cult of personality.
Real causes of the rupture between Bishop Mayer & Prof. Plinio
In order to allow the public to make an objective evaluation on this case, I will report now the real reasons for the rupture of the old alliance formed among Arch. Sigaud, Bishop Mayer and Prof. Plinio.
A. The Council
The first crack in the long collaboration of the three mentioned leaders was caused by the Second Vatican Council.
When the Council was convened by John XXIII in January 1959, Prof. Plinio called the two Prelates and stressed the need for them to study and be prepared for the debates, since the progressivists would bring their more prepared theologians to impose their agenda. The two did not take that advice seriously.
At the First Session (1962) Prof. Plinio went to Rome to assist the two Prelates and brought with him a delegation of about 20 lay secretaries to help. It was upon the initiative of Prof. Plinio and the work of these laymen that two enormous petitions were made: a) One asking the conciliar fathers to condemn Communism; b) Another asking the Holy Father to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to the words of Our Lady of Fatima to Sister Lucy.
/bev303_Cou.jpg)
When the First Session was reaching its end and the victory of the progressivists
had become clear, Prof. Plinio suggested the two Prelates make a solemn rejection of the progressivist influence in the Council by reading a declaration during one of the final general assemblies at St. Peter’s Basilica. That declaration would affirm that they rejected the direction the Council had taken and
that, consequently, they would not attend the other sessions. Afterwards, they should leave the assembly hall. If they would have made that declaration, those laymen assisting Prof. Plinio were already prepared to spread the news to all the media of the time.
If that would have occurred, most probably the other three sessions would have been aborted and Vatican II would not have had the consequences it had. The two Prelates became afraid to do so.
Given this refusal, Prof. Plinio did not return for the last three sessions.
When the Council ended in December 1965 and the two Prelates returned to Brazil, Prof. Plinio went to receive them in Rio. At a meeting the three had on that occasion in the presence of other members, the two Prelates – who had signed all the documents of the Council – said to Prof. Plinio: “Now, we have to adjust the heads of the TFP members to accept the Council.” Prof. Plinio replied: “Your Excellencies can cook the Council any way you want, I will never eat it.” This represented another crack in the alliance that had started in 1933.
Later Bishop Mayer, although always celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, allowed many priests and entire religious orders in his Diocese – the Redemptorists and Salesians, for example – to celebrate the New Mass, leaving to each priest the choice to celebrate either of the two Masses.
/bev303_May.jpg)
Regarding Vatican II, he had some objections but did not reject the ensemble. He actually issued two pastoral letters for his clergy on how to apply Vatican II. When asked by TFP members why he signed the Council’s documents, he would allege that it was “just a formality.”
These two positions of Bishop Mayer – his partial acceptation of the New Mass and of the Council – contributed to weaken the alliance with Prof. Plinio, who rejected the entire Council and its fruits. Nonetheless, the alliance of the two continued until 1983.
Arch. Sigaud would break the alliance of the three leaders some years later because he believed that the military takeover of Brazil – 1964 – had initiated the Reign of Mary predicted at Fatima. Consequently, he supported the agrarian reform of the military regime, while Prof. Plinio did not. He also supported Paul VI’s Liturgical Reform, while Prof. Plinio did not.
Publicly, Bishop Mayer would take a better position on Vatican II and continue the alliance with Prof. Plinio.
The alliance of the two leaders was still in force in 1978 when both the Diocese of Campos and the TFP suffered a strong media blow made by Globo TV and the two faced it valorously together.
B. The influence of Fr. Fernando Rifan
It was at that time – 1978 – that a young priest of the Diocese of Campos started to win the ear of Bishop Mayer. Soon he would become his adviser. Ordained priest in 1974 Fernando Areas Rifan had always had a strong hatred for Prof. Plinio and the TFP. He had the capacity proper to cunning intriguers and began to change Bishop Mayer’s traditionalist position and indispose him toward Prof. Plinio.
Regarding Rifan’s doctrinal/juridical work, he instilled in Bishop Mayer’s mind that some principles of John Paul II’s Personalism and Theology of the Body were correct. For example, in the early 1980s in a meeting in the TFP auditorium in São Paulo, in response to a question Bishop Mayer stated that there was nothing wrong with a woman wearing a bikini on the beach; what was wrong would be the man who looked at her with lust.
/bev303_Rif.jpg)
/bev303_Eco.jpg)
It was also Fr. Rifan who convinced Bishop Mayer – at age 76 he did not want to present his resignation as Bishop of Campos – to go to Rome to visit John Paul II. During the visit, see the photo at right, both the Pope and Rifan pressured Bishop Mayer to submit his resignation. He did so during that very trip to the Vatican and his resignation was immediately accepted. Bishop Carlos Navarro replaced him in the Campos Diocese.
It was also Fr. Rifan who convinced Bishop Mayer to go to Écône in 1988 to consecrate along with Msgr. Lefebvre the four Bishops of the SSPX. As a reward for giving this support, Rifan gained full access to the directive cupola of this organization and a decisive voice in it.
Later he would abandon the SSPX position in order to become a Bishop. On his side of this Vatican bargain he officially accepted the Council and the New Mas.
Regarding Rifan’s detraction of the TFP, he was always speaking against Prof. Plinio and the TFP and repeating the slander that they were anti-clerical. When in 1983 a member of the TFP – a secondary school teacher Orlando Fedeli – broke with Prof. Plinio and left the organization with the accusation that the TFP had been transformed into a sect to adore Prof. Plinio and his mother, Rifan found in those false accusations the matter he was seeking to put Bishop Mayer against Prof. Plinio.
To make the rupture irreversible, Rifan arranged to bring Fedeli to Campos and induced him to ask Bishop Mayer for a theological opinion about an imprudent “litany” two teenagers had made in honor of Dona Lucilia, the respectable mother of Prof. Plinio who died in 1968. That “litany” had circulated among some youth of the TFP without the knowledge of Prof. Plinio.
/bev303_Mas.jpg)
As soon as
Prof. Plinio became aware of it, he forbade its circulation and ordered any copies of it to be collected and burned. Nonetheless, Fedeli, who had first “sold” his defamatory material to
O Estado de São Paulo, the unofficial organ of the local Masonry, presented that “litany” to Bishop Mayer as approved and promoted by Prof. Plinio.
Rifan supported Fedeli’s complaints as much as possible and convinced Bishop Mayer to write the theological opinion condemning the “litany.” The latter did write an opinion and declared it was heretical. From this condemnation comes another accusation of the SSPX that the TFP is heretical.
Afterwards, the TFP wrote its defense (see my answer to objection 6), and showed it to three famous theologians of Salamanca – Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, Fr. Royo Marin and Fr. Allonso Lobo – who all officially declared that the accusations of Fedeli had been objectively refuted and that they had found no doctrinal errors in the TFP defense. As for the mentioned “litany,” they affirmed that the content was not heretical, although imprudent, and praised Prof. Plinio for having forbidden it as soon as he became aware of it.
Regarding the condemnation of Bishop Mayer, they stated that the "litany" was not heretical or blasphemous and that his was a hasty opinion that did not take into consideration that the “litany” had been made by teenagers and could not be considered as evidence of the TFP’s thinking.
Unfortunately, Bishop Mayer once again was fooled by Rifan. He never responded to the judgment of those renowned Spanish theologians. However, Rifan would sell Fedeli’s stories to the SSPX. The diatribe of Bishop Williamson shows that those false accusations still continue to reverberate inside the walls of the SSPX.
6. Plinio founded a ridiculous cult to his own personality
Bishop Williamson mentioned in passing that Prof Plinio moved away from Bishop Mayer in order to found a “ridiculous cult” to his own personality.
A. Cult of personality
It is striking that a Bishop from an organization that is called “the Lefebvrists” because it venerates as a Saint its founder as well as his mother, would make a public case of another organization that venerates its founder as a great Catholic and whose members pray for the intercession of his mother in their personal difficulties.
Actually, it is a practice universally accepted in the Catholic Church that an order or a movement be called by the name of its founder as a reflection of the veneration they tribute to him: The Benedictines, the Franciscans, the Dominicans are some of the most illustrious and famous representatives of countless other cases that follow this rule.
/bev303_Med.jpg)
What is wrong and becomes an expression of totalitarianism is the hypnotic cult of personality given to dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung or Fidel Castro, which has no base on their moral or intellectual values but rather on an exacerbation of the propaganda of the Nazi, Fascist or Communist regimes.
Also condemnable is the cult to founders of certain sects, like the irrational cult to Jim Jones, the strange leader of an American sect that moved to the Guyana and ended by committing a collective suicide.
So, when Bishop Williamson maliciously accused Prof. Plinio of founding a “cult of personality” he was implicitly alluding to one of the two condemned cases that I mentioned. This is a grave slander, which should not be on the lips of a Bishop who pretends to be a representative of the Catholic Church and to speak the truth. It is grave because Bishop Williamson knows perfectly well that he is lying.
B. Plinio founded a ridiculous cult
As I mentioned above, the general accusation that Prof. Plinio founded a cult was based upon the witness of Mr. Orlando Fedeli in 1983. This man listed many specific things that supposedly would prove that there was a cult to Prof. Plinio. The TFP published a detailed refutation to each of the specific points of Fedeli that showed the complete lack of foundation to conclude that there was a cult rendered to Prof. Plinio.
This work – Refutation of the TFP to a Frustrated Onslaught – was sent to be analyzed by the same demanding theologians of the Salamanca School – the Dominicans Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, Fr. Royo Marin and Fr. Allonso Lobo – and received their full approval and a definitive guarantee that nothing was against Catholic doctrine.
That book was authored by three writers. I had the honor to be the author of the most decisive part of that refutation. Whoever wants to read this book in English may click here, in Portuguese, here.
/bev303_To7.jpg)
I should add that another traitor of the TFP – Mr. Luiz Felipe Ablas – left the organization some months later, joining Mr. Fedeli and amplifying his accusations by adding that Prof. Plinio had slaves in a secret organization inside the TFP. The TFP published another book – Servitudo ex Caritate – showing that what existed in the TFP regarding Prof. Plinio was not slavery in the proper sense of the term, but a request by some members to Prof. Plinio to be their mediator in their consecration as slaves of Our Lady.
It was something entirely spiritual, outside of any prescribed boundaries of sin, and much less forceful than a vow of obedience. That refutation also received the approval of those same theologians of Salamanca as being entirely orthodox. I had the honor to be its author. Whoever wants to read it in English may click here, in Portuguese, here.
Now then, when these books were published they were sent to all persons who would have been recipients of the venomous slanders of those traitors. I am sure that the directors of the SSPX received copies of those works.
To this certainty I should add another indisputable fact to which I give witness. In 2002, when I had published only three out of 11 volumes of my collection on Vatican II, I received a call from Bishop Williamson asking if he could visit me in Montebello, California, in order to read the eight volumes still to be published. I agreed. He stayed in the SSPX rectory in Arcadia for four or five days, and every day he would spend around five or six hours in the TIA seat reading one of the manuscripts I had written in Portuguese.
On the first day he came, I had on a table in my study the two books I wrote defending Prof. Plinio and the TFP from the mentioned attacks. I addressed the Prelate with approximately these words: “Before Your Excellency starts reading my work on the Council, I offer to discuss with you any of the accusations that the SSPX spreads against Prof. Plinio and the TFP. The books are here as points of reference.” He answered me: “I know these books. I do not want to address those accusations.”
/bev303_Bli.jpg)
So, he was perfectly aware that the books existed and that those accusations were false.
Now the audio that I recently received was posted in Brazil in late December 2024 affirming its original date as January 1999. Bishop Williamson should have known in 1999 what he told me in 2002 about those refutations since the two books were published respectively in 1984 and 1985. If he still had some objections he could have addressed them with me to know the answers. He did not.
In that audio his only reference to these refutations was the phrase: “They strongly deny them [the accusations he was repeating].” He did not give any evidence contrary to those refutations. He simply considered the refutations as nonexistent and continued to repeat the same calumnies to his audience as if they were the truth.
Now then, they are proved lies and slanders. Therefore, this clearly shows that the Prelate has no care for the truth. He repeats the same lies that had been refuted 35 years before because he wants to destroy the good name of Prof. Plinio and the TFP.
So, my conclusion to this accusation is that it is intellectually false, it is absolutely untrue and it is morally contumaciously wicked.
I am not sure what Bishop Richard Williamson will say when he will appear before God, the Subsistent Truth. I hope that while there is still time for him in this life he will undo the evil he did and is still doing by spreading calumnies about Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, one of the greatest Catholics of Church History.
Final observation
Someone might ask me: Since you were expelled from the TFP in 1998, why are you defending it in 2025?
My answer: The attacks of Bishop Williamson refer to the time I was in the TFP. After the death of Prof. Plinio in 1995, the TFP was devoured by sharks, internal sharks serving the external enemies. Today in the few places where the name TFP is still allowed, it is forbidden by its directors to attack the real enemies of the Church and Christian Civilization. Without attacking these enemies the TFP is reduced to a ghost. I keep the fight as it was in the time of Prof. Plinio, so I identify myself with that pre-1995 TFP.
In Part I of this series, I refuted two false allegations of Bishop Richard Williamson in which he accused Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira of founding TFP to be away from the clergy and "paralyzing vocations to the seminary." In Part II, I showed the falseness of Williamson's statement that TFP had implicitly fallen into the "heresy of Laicism" and that Prof. Plinio rebelled against the intellectual direction of Bishop Mayer.
Today, I will end this refutation by examining the two remaining accusations: Prof. Plinio broke with Bishop Mayer out of pride, and he established a cult of personality to himself.
5. Plinio broke with Bishop Mayer out of pride
Bishop Williamson’s reasoning is that Prof. Plinio was very proud and wanted to establish a cult to himself. This would be another cause of the rupture with Bishop Mayer.
Here in Item 5, I will address the real causes of the rupture between the two. In item 6, I will address the accusation of the cult of personality.
Real causes of the rupture between Bishop Mayer & Prof. Plinio
In order to allow the public to make an objective evaluation on this case, I will report now the real reasons for the rupture of the old alliance formed among Arch. Sigaud, Bishop Mayer and Prof. Plinio.
A. The Council
The first crack in the long collaboration of the three mentioned leaders was caused by the Second Vatican Council.
When the Council was convened by John XXIII in January 1959, Prof. Plinio called the two Prelates and stressed the need for them to study and be prepared for the debates, since the progressivists would bring their more prepared theologians to impose their agenda. The two did not take that advice seriously.
At the First Session (1962) Prof. Plinio went to Rome to assist the two Prelates and brought with him a delegation of about 20 lay secretaries to help. It was upon the initiative of Prof. Plinio and the work of these laymen that two enormous petitions were made: a) One asking the conciliar fathers to condemn Communism; b) Another asking the Holy Father to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to the words of Our Lady of Fatima to Sister Lucy.
Sigaud & Mayer could have caused Vatican II to end, but they became afraid of facing the Assembly
If that would have occurred, most probably the other three sessions would have been aborted and Vatican II would not have had the consequences it had. The two Prelates became afraid to do so.
Given this refusal, Prof. Plinio did not return for the last three sessions.
When the Council ended in December 1965 and the two Prelates returned to Brazil, Prof. Plinio went to receive them in Rio. At a meeting the three had on that occasion in the presence of other members, the two Prelates – who had signed all the documents of the Council – said to Prof. Plinio: “Now, we have to adjust the heads of the TFP members to accept the Council.” Prof. Plinio replied: “Your Excellencies can cook the Council any way you want, I will never eat it.” This represented another crack in the alliance that had started in 1933.
Later Bishop Mayer, although always celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, allowed many priests and entire religious orders in his Diocese – the Redemptorists and Salesians, for example – to celebrate the New Mass, leaving to each priest the choice to celebrate either of the two Masses.
Asked why he signed all the documents of Vatican II, Bishop Mayer answered: ‘It was just a formality...’
These two positions of Bishop Mayer – his partial acceptation of the New Mass and of the Council – contributed to weaken the alliance with Prof. Plinio, who rejected the entire Council and its fruits. Nonetheless, the alliance of the two continued until 1983.
Arch. Sigaud would break the alliance of the three leaders some years later because he believed that the military takeover of Brazil – 1964 – had initiated the Reign of Mary predicted at Fatima. Consequently, he supported the agrarian reform of the military regime, while Prof. Plinio did not. He also supported Paul VI’s Liturgical Reform, while Prof. Plinio did not.
Publicly, Bishop Mayer would take a better position on Vatican II and continue the alliance with Prof. Plinio.
The alliance of the two leaders was still in force in 1978 when both the Diocese of Campos and the TFP suffered a strong media blow made by Globo TV and the two faced it valorously together.
B. The influence of Fr. Fernando Rifan
It was at that time – 1978 – that a young priest of the Diocese of Campos started to win the ear of Bishop Mayer. Soon he would become his adviser. Ordained priest in 1974 Fernando Areas Rifan had always had a strong hatred for Prof. Plinio and the TFP. He had the capacity proper to cunning intriguers and began to change Bishop Mayer’s traditionalist position and indispose him toward Prof. Plinio.
Regarding Rifan’s doctrinal/juridical work, he instilled in Bishop Mayer’s mind that some principles of John Paul II’s Personalism and Theology of the Body were correct. For example, in the early 1980s in a meeting in the TFP auditorium in São Paulo, in response to a question Bishop Mayer stated that there was nothing wrong with a woman wearing a bikini on the beach; what was wrong would be the man who looked at her with lust.
A friendly John Paul II receiving Bishop Mayer with Fr. Rifan in 1981; below, Fr. Rifan & Msgr. Lefebvre helping a frail Bishop Mayer in Écône, 1988
It was also Fr. Rifan who convinced Bishop Mayer to go to Écône in 1988 to consecrate along with Msgr. Lefebvre the four Bishops of the SSPX. As a reward for giving this support, Rifan gained full access to the directive cupola of this organization and a decisive voice in it.
Later he would abandon the SSPX position in order to become a Bishop. On his side of this Vatican bargain he officially accepted the Council and the New Mas.
Regarding Rifan’s detraction of the TFP, he was always speaking against Prof. Plinio and the TFP and repeating the slander that they were anti-clerical. When in 1983 a member of the TFP – a secondary school teacher Orlando Fedeli – broke with Prof. Plinio and left the organization with the accusation that the TFP had been transformed into a sect to adore Prof. Plinio and his mother, Rifan found in those false accusations the matter he was seeking to put Bishop Mayer against Prof. Plinio.
To make the rupture irreversible, Rifan arranged to bring Fedeli to Campos and induced him to ask Bishop Mayer for a theological opinion about an imprudent “litany” two teenagers had made in honor of Dona Lucilia, the respectable mother of Prof. Plinio who died in 1968. That “litany” had circulated among some youth of the TFP without the knowledge of Prof. Plinio.
An ambitious Rifan concelebrating the New Mass with Francis: a career of constant betrayals
Rifan supported Fedeli’s complaints as much as possible and convinced Bishop Mayer to write the theological opinion condemning the “litany.” The latter did write an opinion and declared it was heretical. From this condemnation comes another accusation of the SSPX that the TFP is heretical.
Afterwards, the TFP wrote its defense (see my answer to objection 6), and showed it to three famous theologians of Salamanca – Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, Fr. Royo Marin and Fr. Allonso Lobo – who all officially declared that the accusations of Fedeli had been objectively refuted and that they had found no doctrinal errors in the TFP defense. As for the mentioned “litany,” they affirmed that the content was not heretical, although imprudent, and praised Prof. Plinio for having forbidden it as soon as he became aware of it.
Regarding the condemnation of Bishop Mayer, they stated that the "litany" was not heretical or blasphemous and that his was a hasty opinion that did not take into consideration that the “litany” had been made by teenagers and could not be considered as evidence of the TFP’s thinking.
Unfortunately, Bishop Mayer once again was fooled by Rifan. He never responded to the judgment of those renowned Spanish theologians. However, Rifan would sell Fedeli’s stories to the SSPX. The diatribe of Bishop Williamson shows that those false accusations still continue to reverberate inside the walls of the SSPX.
6. Plinio founded a ridiculous cult to his own personality
Bishop Williamson mentioned in passing that Prof Plinio moved away from Bishop Mayer in order to found a “ridiculous cult” to his own personality.
A. Cult of personality
It is striking that a Bishop from an organization that is called “the Lefebvrists” because it venerates as a Saint its founder as well as his mother, would make a public case of another organization that venerates its founder as a great Catholic and whose members pray for the intercession of his mother in their personal difficulties.
Actually, it is a practice universally accepted in the Catholic Church that an order or a movement be called by the name of its founder as a reflection of the veneration they tribute to him: The Benedictines, the Franciscans, the Dominicans are some of the most illustrious and famous representatives of countless other cases that follow this rule.
He follows Voltaire’s counsel: ‘Lie, lie... something will always stick’
Also condemnable is the cult to founders of certain sects, like the irrational cult to Jim Jones, the strange leader of an American sect that moved to the Guyana and ended by committing a collective suicide.
So, when Bishop Williamson maliciously accused Prof. Plinio of founding a “cult of personality” he was implicitly alluding to one of the two condemned cases that I mentioned. This is a grave slander, which should not be on the lips of a Bishop who pretends to be a representative of the Catholic Church and to speak the truth. It is grave because Bishop Williamson knows perfectly well that he is lying.
B. Plinio founded a ridiculous cult
As I mentioned above, the general accusation that Prof. Plinio founded a cult was based upon the witness of Mr. Orlando Fedeli in 1983. This man listed many specific things that supposedly would prove that there was a cult to Prof. Plinio. The TFP published a detailed refutation to each of the specific points of Fedeli that showed the complete lack of foundation to conclude that there was a cult rendered to Prof. Plinio.
This work – Refutation of the TFP to a Frustrated Onslaught – was sent to be analyzed by the same demanding theologians of the Salamanca School – the Dominicans Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, Fr. Royo Marin and Fr. Allonso Lobo – and received their full approval and a definitive guarantee that nothing was against Catholic doctrine.
That book was authored by three writers. I had the honor to be the author of the most decisive part of that refutation. Whoever wants to read this book in English may click here, in Portuguese, here.
Williamson knows these two books & continues to spread the slanders they duly refute
It was something entirely spiritual, outside of any prescribed boundaries of sin, and much less forceful than a vow of obedience. That refutation also received the approval of those same theologians of Salamanca as being entirely orthodox. I had the honor to be its author. Whoever wants to read it in English may click here, in Portuguese, here.
Now then, when these books were published they were sent to all persons who would have been recipients of the venomous slanders of those traitors. I am sure that the directors of the SSPX received copies of those works.
To this certainty I should add another indisputable fact to which I give witness. In 2002, when I had published only three out of 11 volumes of my collection on Vatican II, I received a call from Bishop Williamson asking if he could visit me in Montebello, California, in order to read the eight volumes still to be published. I agreed. He stayed in the SSPX rectory in Arcadia for four or five days, and every day he would spend around five or six hours in the TIA seat reading one of the manuscripts I had written in Portuguese.
On the first day he came, I had on a table in my study the two books I wrote defending Prof. Plinio and the TFP from the mentioned attacks. I addressed the Prelate with approximately these words: “Before Your Excellency starts reading my work on the Council, I offer to discuss with you any of the accusations that the SSPX spreads against Prof. Plinio and the TFP. The books are here as points of reference.” He answered me: “I know these books. I do not want to address those accusations.”
Williamson, voluntarily blind to reality, must rescind his calumnies before he faces God
Now the audio that I recently received was posted in Brazil in late December 2024 affirming its original date as January 1999. Bishop Williamson should have known in 1999 what he told me in 2002 about those refutations since the two books were published respectively in 1984 and 1985. If he still had some objections he could have addressed them with me to know the answers. He did not.
In that audio his only reference to these refutations was the phrase: “They strongly deny them [the accusations he was repeating].” He did not give any evidence contrary to those refutations. He simply considered the refutations as nonexistent and continued to repeat the same calumnies to his audience as if they were the truth.
Now then, they are proved lies and slanders. Therefore, this clearly shows that the Prelate has no care for the truth. He repeats the same lies that had been refuted 35 years before because he wants to destroy the good name of Prof. Plinio and the TFP.
So, my conclusion to this accusation is that it is intellectually false, it is absolutely untrue and it is morally contumaciously wicked.
I am not sure what Bishop Richard Williamson will say when he will appear before God, the Subsistent Truth. I hope that while there is still time for him in this life he will undo the evil he did and is still doing by spreading calumnies about Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, one of the greatest Catholics of Church History.
Final observation
Someone might ask me: Since you were expelled from the TFP in 1998, why are you defending it in 2025?
My answer: The attacks of Bishop Williamson refer to the time I was in the TFP. After the death of Prof. Plinio in 1995, the TFP was devoured by sharks, internal sharks serving the external enemies. Today in the few places where the name TFP is still allowed, it is forbidden by its directors to attack the real enemies of the Church and Christian Civilization. Without attacking these enemies the TFP is reduced to a ghost. I keep the fight as it was in the time of Prof. Plinio, so I identify myself with that pre-1995 TFP.
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |