It looks like Fr Cardozo was able to bring the Sacraments to some US locations recently.

 :rahrah:

http://www.cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.com/2015/10/abbe-cardozo-en-floride-septembre.html

Why does he wear a beige soutane?
 

Why does he wear a beige soutane?

 

That color was standard military issue for Army in World War II.  All officers and enlisted men had at least trousers in beige and formal dress required beige shirts as well, with a tie of either beige or dark brown.  After the war, many of them continued to wear it for the rest of their lives, perhaps out of habit, but maybe something more.

I don't know if Fr. Cardozo's reason is related, but the Church practiced solid Catholicism in 1945, and all the field Masses were exactly what we have today in our most traditional chapels.  That is to say, a Catholic Mass with well-dressed Army soldiers in attendance during WWII was a church full of men in beige from wall to wall, the only variation being beige or dark brown ties.

I don't know about Navy or Marines, but I think Air Force dressed like Army.

.

He's in Brazil most of the time. He travels a lot

http://farfalline.blogspot.com.br/p/missas-no-brasil.html

Mexico is very far, very far.
His sermons in Brazil are in portuguese with spanish accent .In fact some may say it's spanish with portuguese accent :)
 He's from Argentina.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Pe+cardozo

Here's a powerful sermon:

Por que condenar formalmente o Concílio Vaticano II? = "Why  formally reject Vatican II?

Concílio = Council

He's in Brazil most of the time. He travels a lot

He's from Argentina.

Here's a powerful sermon:
Por que condenar formalmente o Concílio Vaticano II? = "Why  formally reject Vatican II?"

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EYPp_xlycP0[/youtube]

Interesting facts:  Being from Argentina and traveling a lot, he must have some experience with Bergoglio's history in that part of the world.  But his outlook on the Faith is obviously quite different, to say the least.  I can't help but wonder what Fr. Cardozo would be doing about now if he had been elected Pope instead???

What does Fr. C have to say about Pope Francis, being from the same neighborhood, practically speaking?  He mentions "Francisco" in his sermon.

I get the impression that he could write a book or ten about this topic.  

Still, it would help if I could hear him in English.  Does he speak English?

One thing's for sure:  
There is someone who has a real gift for setting up the backdrop for an altar.
The simple white curtain bordered with nicely arranged red draperies is wonderful to see.
Am I imagining things, or is the wall behind the draperies curved, so it kind of embraces the altar?

.

Quote

He's in Brazil most of the time. He travels a lot

He's from Argentina.

Here's a powerful sermon:
Por que condenar formalmente o Concílio Vaticano II? = "Why  formally reject Vatican II?"

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EYPp_xlycP0[/youtube]

Interesting facts:  Being from Argentina and traveling a lot, he must have some experience with Bergoglio's history in that part of the world.  But his outlook on the Faith is obviously quite different, to say the least.  I can't help but wonder what Fr. Cardozo would be doing about now if he had been elected Pope instead???

What does Fr. C have to say about Pope Francis, being from the same neighborhood, practically speaking?  He mentions "Francisco" in his sermon.

I get the impression that he could write a book or ten about this topic.  

Still, it would help if I could hear him in English.  Does he speak English?

One thing's for sure:  
There is someone who has a real gift for setting up the backdrop for an altar.
The simple white curtain bordered with nicely arranged red draperies is wonderful to see.
Am I imagining things, or is the wall behind the draperies curved, so it kind of embraces the altar?

.

He mentions Francis in other sermons. This one for instance:



The title in english: "Summary about the Crisis in The Church"

There's are great information about Bergolgio as a Bishop of Buenos Aires.  I'd save this video and ask someone who speaks spanish/english to translate to you, it's a very good video regarding the crisis in the Church, don't miss it.

I don't feel safe to translate Fr. Cardozo words into english. As you have noted my english is not good.

In the other video I did the best I could to give you in bad written english what he have said.

Por que condenar formalmente o Concílio Vaticano II? = "Why  formally reject Vatican II?"

This question, "Why formally reject Vat.II", is a very timely question these days.

I would really like to know what Fr. Cardozo has to say in answer to his own question.

Let me say this about that:

In all the history of the Church, the first 20 Ecuмenical Councils were convened for two purposes IN COMMON, for there were also other purposes unique to particular synods.

But the two common purposes were fundamental in ALL 20 of the Great Councils.  What were those two common purposes?

Answer:  The two purposes common to all 20 of the first great councils of the Church were these:  They were all a gathering of the world's Catholic bishops with the 2 objectives to   1)  Define Church doctrine (defend the truth, clarify teaching, formalize dogma), and   2)  Anathematize error (condemn heresy, fight against ambiguity, denounce evil).  

Secondly, while an ecuмenical council is not a sacrament, certainly we are not prohibited from applying the same standards of quality to the councils as we apply to the sacraments, insofar as regards validity.  In order for a sacrament to be valid, it must have 3 things:  proper form, proper matter, proper intention.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that in order for a council to be valid, it must have proper form, matter and intention, as well.  

Thirdly, we have the principle of Sacred Tradition.  In everything the Church does, the issue of what the Church has done always and everywhere in the past is of paramount importance.  This applies to the sacraments, obviously, such as Baptism and the use of pouring water and the need for the same person who pours the water which washes away original sin from the soul of the recipient, to be the person who pronounces the words of Baptism, etc.  Consequently, any so-called baptism that has one person pouring the water and some OTHER person saying the words, even if the words are proper, the baptism is not valid.  The same person has to pour the water AND say the words at the same time or else there is no baptism taking place.

If we were to set aside the questions of form and matter for the moment, and only look at intention, what do we find?

We find, in the history of the Church, that is, BEFORE Vatican Council II, each and every one of the first 20 Councils were convened with the intention to define dogma and to condemn heresy.  Therefore these are to be held as essential criteria for a Council to be valid.  If there is a council or synod called with the intention to do otherwise than to define dogma and condemn heresy, that would be an invalid council.  To exemplify this point, there was a synod of bishops where their intention was to update the liturgy and move the Church's practices forward to be more relevant to the times.  This synod was CONDEMNED as utterly null and void by a subsequent pope, for the very reason that there was no intention to define truth and doctrine and to rule against lies, falsehood and error.  

What do we find at Vatican II, then?  

Answer:  At Vat.II we find not only an implicit desire to not define doctrine and to not condemn error, we find from the VERY START, that is, in the Opening Speech of John XXIII, on October 11th, 1962 (53 years ago this past Sunday), we find the openly and specifically contradictory intention. We have John XXIII "Good Pope John" saying that this is not a doctrinal council but rather it's a "pastoral council" (never before in the history of the Church had there been a "pastoral" council called by the Pope), and furthermore, it would proceed without any adherence to the "prophets of gloom" (universally recognized as an allusion to the 3 Fatima children in particular and to the Fatima message by extension), for there would be no anathemas pronounced in this council.  

For these reasons, the only sane answer is that Vatican II was not a council of the Church.

Since it was not a council of the Church, it must be formally rejected by all Faithful Catholics.

.

Quote

Por que condenar formalmente o Concílio Vaticano II? = "Why  formally reject Vatican II?"

This question, "Why formally reject Vat.II", is a very timely question these days.

I would really like to know what Fr. Cardozo has to say in answer to his own question.

Let me say this about that:

In all the history of the Church, the first 20 Ecuмenical Councils were convened for two purposes IN COMMON, for there were also other purposes unique to particular synods.

But the two common purposes were fundamental in ALL 20 of the Great Councils.  What were those two common purposes?

Answer:  The two purposes common to all 20 of the first great councils of the Church were these:  They were all a gathering of the world's Catholic bishops with the 2 objectives to   1)  Define Church doctrine (defend the truth, clarify teaching, formalize dogma), and   2)  Anathematize error (condemn heresy, fight against ambiguity, denounce evil).  

Secondly, while an ecuмenical council is not a sacrament, certainly we are not prohibited from applying the same standards of quality to the councils as we apply to the sacraments, insofar as regards validity.  In order for a sacrament to be valid, it must have 3 things:  proper form, proper matter, proper intention.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that in order for a council to be valid, it must have proper form, matter and intention, as well.  

Thirdly, we have the principle of Sacred Tradition.  In everything the Church does, the issue of what the Church has done always and everywhere in the past is of paramount importance.  This applies to the sacraments, obviously, such as Baptism and the use of pouring water and the need for the same person who pours the water which washes away original sin from the soul of the recipient, to be the person who pronounces the words of Baptism, etc.  Consequently, any so-called baptism that has one person pouring the water and some OTHER person saying the words, even if the words are proper, the baptism is not valid.  The same person has to pour the water AND say the words at the same time or else there is no baptism taking place.

If we were to set aside the questions of form and matter for the moment, and only look at intention, what do we find?

We find, in the history of the Church, that is, BEFORE Vatican Council II, each and every one of the first 20 Councils were convened with the intention to define dogma and to condemn heresy.  Therefore these are to be held as essential criteria for a Council to be valid.  If there is a council or synod called with the intention to do otherwise than to define dogma and condemn heresy, that would be an invalid council.  To exemplify this point, there was a synod of bishops where their intention was to update the liturgy and move the Church's practices forward to be more relevant to the times.  This synod was CONDEMNED as utterly null and void by a subsequent pope, for the very reason that there was no intention to define truth and doctrine and to rule against lies, falsehood and error.  

What do we find at Vatican II, then?  

Answer:  At Vat.II we find not only an implicit desire to not define doctrine and to not condemn error, we find from the VERY START, that is, in the Opening Speech of John XXIII, on October 11th, 1962 (53 years ago this past Sunday), we find the openly and specifically contradictory intention. We have John XXIII "Good Pope John" saying that this is not a doctrinal council but rather it's a "pastoral council" (never before in the history of the Church had there been a "pastoral" council called by the Pope), and furthermore, it would proceed without any adherence to the "prophets of gloom" (universally recognized as an allusion to the 3 Fatima children in particular and to the Fatima message by extension), for there would be no anathemas pronounced in this council.  

For these reasons, the only sane answer is that Vatican II was not a council of the Church.

Since it was not a council of the Church, it must be formally rejected by all Faithful Catholics.

.

"Por que condenar Formalmente Concílio Vaticano II"? (translation  = "Why Formally reject Vatican II?")  is the title of video. During the video Fr. Cardozo explains what is a Council and why Vatican II is not a Council of the Catholic Church.

See the title is in " " and because it's in portuguese I thought it would be a good idea  to translate the title to english.