Author Topic: Fr. Cardozo calls heresy to deny BOD (Read 4024 times)

catholicunity · « **on:** November 17, 2015, 09:39:45 PM »

Ex-SSPX Priest, Fr. Cardozo, who travels to Mexico, USA and other latin america countries

He answered me directly saying "The Church issued a condemnation for those who deny Baptism of Desire"

He was referring to the letter which was sent to Boston in 1949 "Protocol 122/49." (The letter was only published in 1953 by the Archdiocese of Boston' newsletter)

When asked directly about where the Church teaches baptism of desire, he used the example of the Good Thief in the Gospel and also St. Augustine "City of God".

We can also thank the SSPX for fighting Fr. Feeney and Sedevacantism. They have done a great job.

P.S: The " Protocol 122/49 " does not condemn anything related to Baptism because the letter is about "No Salvation Outside the Church" dogma

catholicunity · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2015, 09:48:22 PM »

One adult was going to be baptized by him, but when asked about Baptism of Desire, the Baptism was delayed.

(It was during the asking period that Fr Cardozo gave him the example of the Good Thief, St Augustine and Protocol 122/49).

catholicunity · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2015, 10:11:44 PM »

To note:

I was being sarcastic in the part thanking the SSPX for doing what they have done to Fr. Feeney and to people who hold the theory that these Popes are Antipopes.

In truth I must tell you that what they have done is really diabolical! How can a CATHOLIC society release one book to attack a Priest that was right? (Fr. Feeney)

Fr. Feeney was right about "No salvation outside the Church" and was persecuted by Rome, Modernists and by the SSPX!

Also it looks like they brainwash the seminarians. After having experience with Fr. Cardozo, Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer, I really believe they teach evil and bad things to seminarians.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2015, 10:12:26 PM »

.

The writings of St. Augustine are not authoritative in every detail. I have read that his early works and his later works do not agree on this. What made him change? Maybe he saw the confusion and bad fruit of BoD and recognized the problem that it is.

The Good Thief has nothing to do with Baptism because he died before Holy Baptism was instituted, therefore he was in the Old Dispensation, before the Church was born (on Pentecost Sunday). There was no baptism as a Sacrament at that time. Nobody had been baptized before Christ instituted the Sacrament, and the first mention of the institution in Scripture is at Our Lord's Ascension into heaven, 40 days after Pentecost. The baptism of John (the Baptist) was not a sacrament. It was the precursor to Holy Baptism.

If Fr. Cardozo was using the Traditional Form of Baptism there would be no mention of any BoD, so he must have been using some newfangled corruption of the Sacramental form, which could have invalidated his baptism anyway. Baptisms have been validly administered for 2 thousand years without any questioning about the theological speculation of whether a mere desire for it suffices without water.

I used to be an advocate of Fr. Cardozo but now I'm not so sure any more. How sad.

These are crazy days.

.

catholicunity · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2015, 10:15:55 PM »

Fr. Cardozo also said about St Thomas Aquinas but didn't quote him directly, instead he sent me a file with some parts of St Thomas teaching that I was already aware and I told him two times: "St Augustine wrote a book after City of God correcting some positions, including Baptism and St Thomas Aquinas was wrong on some issues (conception of Blessed Virgin Mary) so he is not infallible. "

Also the file he sent me is very bad, the file omits parts of Encyclicals from Pius IX and use another parts to prove "Baptism of desire"

Cantarella · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2015, 10:28:41 PM »

That is yet another example of the SSPX liberal theology on EENS. The right wing liberals are busy anti-Fenneyite advocates.

Quote

He answered me directly saying "The Church issued a condemnation for those who deny Baptism of Desire"

He was referring to the letter which was sent to Boston in 1949 "Protocol 122/49." (The letter was only published in 1953 by the Archdiocese of Boston' newsletter)

His response is not true and the error can be easily demonstrated: Father Feeney's position on the theological speculation of "Baptism of Desire" was first published 1952 in his book, Bread of Life. That was three years after the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949.

catholicunity · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2015, 10:38:31 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

That is yet another example of the SSPX liberal theology on EENS. The right wing liberals are busy anti-Fenneyite advocates.

Quote
He answered me directly saying "The Church issued a condemnation for those who deny Baptism of Desire"

He was referring to the letter which was sent to Boston in 1949 "Protocol 122/49." (The letter was only published in 1953 by the Archdiocese of Boston' newsletter)

His response is not true and the error can be easily demonstrated: Father Feeney's position on the theological speculation of "Baptism of Desire" was first published 1952 in his book, Bread of Life. That was three years after the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949.

I sent him the protocol 122/49 in Spanish but he replied with a quote by St. Augustine from City of God.

Then I asked him again to please read the letter. No answer.

I answered also with this quote

St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: “As for the thief, although in God’s judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized."

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2015, 12:29:36 PM »

Good job Fr. Cardozo, an excellent priest. Since he is Argentinian, you would have used your time better to ask him about Francis instead of feenyism (an American problem).

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2015, 05:27:39 PM »

Quote from: catholicunity

I sent him the protocol 122/49 in Spanish but he replied with a quote by St. Augustine from City of God.

Then I asked him again to please read the letter. No answer.

I answered also with this quote

St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: “As for the thief, although in God’s judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized."

You could also send him "A Sermon to Cathechumens on the Creed" by great St. Augustine . Full text here:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Sermon-to-Catechumens-on-the-Creed

Emphasis in this passage:

Quote from: St. Augustine

16. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, “Our Father,” who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2015, 05:34:49 PM »

I am absolutely certain that Fr. Cardozo is an upright priest and knows his doctrine. I know him personally. He is one of the priest that offers Mass at the chapel I attend. I would not put much stock in what was stated about him on this thread.

Motorede · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2015, 08:52:01 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Good job Fr. Cardozo, an excellent priest. Since he is Argentinian, you would have used your time better to ask him about Francis instead of feenyism (an American problem).

Since he is Argentinian and your priest, perhaps you should inform him that he is ignorant of this American problem and shouldn't act so negatively against the faithful until he informs himself.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2015, 09:37:26 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

I am absolutely certain that Fr. Cardozo is an upright priest and knows his doctrine. I know him personally. He is one of the priest that offers Mass at the chapel I attend. I would not put much stock in what was stated about him on this thread.

He could be a fine, upstanding priest and yet be ignorant on one point. It's up to him to become informed. We don't get Church doctrine from private letters from one cardinal to another. The liberal agenda that grew into the Modernism of Vat.II was alive and well in 1949, and that infamous protocol letter is a perfect example of that. Remember how they waited until the author died before making it public.

.

OldMerry · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2015, 10:10:41 PM »

https://hieronymopolis.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/architects-of-confusion-scanned-by-hieronymopolis.pdf

Here again is the link to the explanation that St. Benedict Center itself wrote concerning that Protocol and their entire issue. But rarely do any SSPX people care to hear St. Benedict Center's side, as they have no use for Fr. Feeney, are poisoned against him, and don't care to seek the truth in the matter. "Feeneyites" and sympathetic discussions of him are only tolerated on this website here, in a putting up with it while "holding your nose" kind of way. The SSPX was no where near clear to holding EENS correctly, including the Archbishop, until they were forced to face the fact that there were 3 defined dogmas on this matter. But because the SSPX often has the attitude about things that, "If we do not 'find' it first, or 'believe' it first, or 'say' it first, then we aren't interested in it, and/or will attack such an issue and its adherents instead" they thusly used their time going after Fr. Feeney and the Center in the issue of EENS, but particularly its further application via the BOD/BOB matter. The fact that a truly devoted priest, a superior theologian, found a weak spot, an error, in the application of this doctrine, means nothing to most SSPX's, because they want to buy the Modernist Church's handling and persecution of this priest. But if it was Arch. L., it would have been a different story entirely. The main work of the SSPX was the supplying of truly ordained priests and the Tridentine Mass and true sacraments throughout the world. It is obvious why the defense of this doctrine and its ramifications was not given to them. I have elderly friends from other countries, and in the US, who say they never learned BOB/BOD. They learned water only. They were given orthodoxy in the matter.

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** November 18, 2015, 10:49:25 PM »

Quote from: Merry

https://hieronymopolis.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/architects-of-confusion-scanned-by-hieronymopolis.pdf

Here again is the link to the explanation that St. Benedict Center itself wrote concerning that Protocol and their entire issue. But rarely do any SSPX people care to hear St. Benedict Center's side, as they have no use for Fr. Feeney, are poisoned against him, and don't care to seek the truth in the matter. "Feeneyites" and sympathetic discussions of him are only tolerated on this website here, in a putting up with it while "holding your nose" kind of way. The SSPX was no where near clear to holding EENS correctly, including the Archbishop, until they were forced to face the fact that there were 3 defined dogmas on this matter. But because the SSPX often has the attitude about things that, "If we do not 'find' it first, or 'believe' it first, or 'say' it first, then we aren't interested in it, and/or will attack such an issue and its adherents instead" they thusly used their time going after Fr. Feeney and the Center in the issue of EENS, but particularly its further application via the BOD/BOB matter. The fact that a truly devoted priest, a superior theologian, found a weak spot, an error, in the application of this doctrine, means nothing to most SSPX's, because they want to buy the Modernist Church's handling and persecution of this priest. But if it was Arch. L., it would have been a different story entirely. The main work of the SSPX was the supplying of truly ordained priests and the Tridentine Mass and true sacraments throughout the world. It is obvious why the defense of this doctrine and its ramifications was not given to them. I have elderly friends from other countries, and in the US, who say they never learned BOB/BOD. They learned water only. They were given orthodoxy in the matter.

Quote from: Brother Francis Maluf M.I.C.M

If Monsignor Lefebvre had been willing to accept our suggestion, if he had been willing to study the entire Father Feeney controversy, ultimately, — just like Father Feeney — he would have understood clearly that the Modernists were determined to destroy the beautiful Mass of Trent precisely because it proclaimed and protected the fundamental dogma, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

If he had opposed the New Mass, the new ecuмenism, and other changes in the Church from the high ground of doctrine, his defensive position would have been morally unassailable. His opposition would have been based on defined dogma to which every Catholic, including the pope, must give his assent — dogma which no Catholic, including the pope, may change, or ignore, or deny. He would have been able to attack the Modernists in Rome where they are most vulnerable, where their only defense is silence or outright lies, and the only course of action left to them is an unjust use of the sheer power of rank — obey or else! That is exactly what they did to Leonard Feeney, and it is exactly what they would have tried to do to Marcel Lefebvre. But in the Archbishop’s case, it might have been a different ball game. Father Feeney was one lone priest with a small lay following challenging the yet-untarnished prestige of the Jesuit Order, the Hierarchy and Rome. Monsignor Lefebvre — with his growing number of priests, facilities, and world-wide support, challenging a clearly identifiable Modernist “occupation force” in Rome — could well have been an antagonist they could not swallow.

But none of these things happened. The Archbishop fought the good fight, but on his enemy’s favorite ground — in the arena marked “discipline,” where obedience is supreme. He was provoked into an act which the Modernists convincingly claimed was “disobedient” and “schismatic,” and the cause of Traditionalism the world over suffered a severe setback.

................

We do not enjoy writing about the Society of Saint Pius X as we have here. Yet, the disagreement between us is fundamental and we cannot remain silent to their provocations. We continue to respect them for their heroic fight for the Mass Immemorial, but their weakness on the foundational Dogma of Faith, as the Archbishop’s own words clearly show, is severe. Since they choose not to discuss it with us in truly Catholic fashion, we can only conclude that they do not believe extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the sense in which it was defined ex cathedra by three popes and believed by the whole Catholic world since the first Pentecost Sunday in 33 A.D.

About the Society of Saint Pius X

http://catholicism.org/about-sspx.html

OldMerry · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2015, 06:37:44 AM »

Why would the Holy Ghost fathers be in Africa? Why was Arch. Lefebvre in Gabon? Because Africans, yes the natives there, need the One True Church. And they needed to be baptized with water. Then they could advance to receiving the Bread of Life. EENS and baptism of water drives the missionary life of the Church. Indeed, it, of necessity, drives the Church in this world for all of us.