Fr. Cardozo is a former SSPX priest.

Born in Argentina, he is presently active in Brazil. He was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre in 1986.

He was a founding member of the Resistance, and broke off from Bp. Williamson over the bishop's position regarding attendance on the new mass, Valtorta, hosting paedophiles, etc...

Today the published an interesting text.

Apparently, he shifted position from R&R to some kind of Sedevacantism.

Original text is in Portuguese. Below is an automatic translation.

https://farfalline.blogspot.com/2022/07/a-posicao-das-missoes-cristo-rei-sobre.html?m=1

https://farfalline-blogspot-com.translate.goog/2022/07/a-posicao-das-missoes-cristo-rei-sobre.html?m=1&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The position of Christ the King Missions on the See of Peter

Dear faithful of the Christ the King Missions of Brazil,

I enclose some manifestations that prove the thought of Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre on the theological stance of the SÉ VACANTE. 

It remains clear that Monsignor Lefebvre never flatly refused to accept it, although in 1983, due to problems with sedevacantists(*) in the USA, he wrote that he maintained the opposite. It was a declaration because of specific problems, to contain the excesses that occurred. 

In favor of the vacant See(**), these words are summarized: 

 
 

MON. LEFEBVRE ON THE SÉ VACANTE. 

 

 

1. “ The Church that affirms such errors is schismatic and also heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic ” . See Reflections on Suspension a divinis . July 29, 1976. 

2. “ To whatever extent the Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church ”. Idem. Reflections on Suspension a divinis. 

3. “ Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto invalidate the election...there are so many reasons why a Pope has not become Pope, or cannot continue to be one ”. See Le Figaro. August 4th, 1976. 

4. “ In this clearly exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs shortly after the death of a Pontiff ”. Idem. Le Figaro. 

5. “ If it happened that the Pope was no longer the servant of Truth, He would no longer be the Pope ”. See Lille. August 29, 1976.

6. “ It seems impossible that a successor of Peter could in any way fail to convey the Truth which He is under obligation to convey; for He cannot (without disappearing from the papal line of succession) not transmit what the Popes have always transmitted ”. See econe. September 18, 1977.

7. “ It is possible that we are obliged to believe that this Pope (he was referring to John Paul II) is not Pope... it seems impossible for a Pope to be a heretic, publicly and formally ...” Cf. Easter Sermon. March 1986.

8. “ It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside the Translation. It's impossible... For, for the moment, they find themselves in a rupture with their successors. This is impossible. They are no longer found in the Catholic Church .” See econe. September 4, 1987.

9. “ Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the wind. It is true. Rome is in apostasy... They left the Church. This is right, right, right .” Idem. econe. 

10. Monsignor considered all conciliar reforms unacceptable? Let's see: 

“ We hold void … all post-conciliar reforms, and all acts of Rome performed in this impiety .” See Joint statement with Monsignor Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer after the Assisi meeting . December 2, 1986. 

11. “ How can a successor of Peter, in such a short time, cause more damage to the Church than the Revolution of 1789?... the most profound and impactful in its History... Something that no heresiarch has ever managed to do ?... Do we really have a Pope or an INTRODUCTOR in the Chair of Peter? ". Cf. Sermon on Paul VI. 1976. 

 

Dear friends, after studying the Vatican Council 1869/1870, which defines the Dogma of pontifical infallibility , it remains very clear to me that the Roman Pontiff can NEVER err, in matters of faith and morals, while acting as Pope; either in his Extraordinary Magisterium, as in the case of Pius XII when declaring the Dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady , or in his Ordinary Magisterium, for example, when giving catechesis, publishing an encyclical, etc., which he must do for the WHOLE Church, and always in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, if we see in Rome a gentleman dressed in white, but continually acting as an antichrist, based on and on account of the Dogma of Pontifical Infallibility, to which every Catholic must adhere without question, it is clear that we can say that the Holy See is vacant, but not empty, because it is OCCUPIED by a usurper . And this since the death of Pius XII. 

We are, then, before two Churches: one, the true, the always Catholic, One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic; and the other false, self-proclaimed post-conciliar, which is bastard, ecuмenical, globalist, friend of all enemies of the Catholic, guided by the spirit of evil, of lies. 

Our history, as a mission, began by separating us from the NEO-Fraternity which, under the direction of the scoundrel de Fellay, placed itself under the dominion of the modernists, accepting the new mass and the new sacraments (they no longer ordain on condition the modernist priests who join its ranks, for example, because they recognize the validity of the sacrament of modernist ordination); accepting its Second Vatican Council – “ 95% good and 5% questionable ” ( dixit Fellay) – recognizing it as the true Church of Christ – cf. Letter to the three bishops, signed by Fellay, in April 2021  – proclaiming Benedict XVI as a “traditional Pope”, when Monsignor Lefebvre himself warned us about him saying thathe was our worst enemy in Rome . 

Having clarified this point about the vacant and occupied Holy See , I want to tell you that our position is, following the thought of Monsignor Lefebvre, SEDE -OCCUPATIONIST , because the See is, in fact, obviously, VACANT , but it is not EMPTY , as it was at the time of the death of a Pontiff, but is OCCUPIED BY A USURPER . And that, personally, I have no problem with people attending the Sedevacantist Fathers' Masses, on the contrary, I encourage them to do so, but, as I don't know all the Sedevacantist Fathers that circulate in Brazil, I ask you to keep the most elementary prudence, but, in principle, I am not opposed to their attending their Masses. 

I remain at your disposal for any further clarification.  

The following is Canon 1323m of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which masterfully summarizes what the Church teaches on Pontifical Infallibility: 

Quote

Can. 1323. 

Quote

§ 1. Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt quae verb Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive sollemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.

Quote

§ 2. Sollemne huiusmodi iudicium pronuntiare proprium est tum Oecuмenici Concilii tum Romani Pontificis ex cathedra loquentis.

Quote

§ 3. Declares seu definita dogmatice res nulla intelligitur, nisi id manifeste constiterit. 

Quote

§ 1. We must believe with divine and Catholic faith everything that is contained in the written word of God or in divine tradition, and which the Church, by solemn definition or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes as divinely revealed. 

Quote

§ 2. The act of giving solemn definitions belongs both to the Ecuмenical Council and to the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra.

Quote

§ 3. No truth is to be taken as declared or dogmatically defined until it is manifestly stated. ( See note below .) 

Quote

Note 1323. The ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church is that exercised by all the Bishops of the world in their dioceses, under the dependence of the Pontiff. The teachings of the ordinary magisterium are of equal value to those of the solemn magisterium. 

In the Missions, we continue the fight, we continue to be Catholics and on mission throughout Brazil, under the protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and His Most Holy Mother, the Immaculate Conception Aparecida. 

Long live Christ the King!

With my affection and blessings. 

Father Ernesto Cardozo. 

 

Grades:

(*) The US sedevacantists claim that the Cathedral is vacant. But the term is incorrect. Because the See is not vacant because of the death of a Pope. It's an extraordinary situation . She's VACANT because we don't have a Catholic Pope, and she's BUSY because there's a usurper. In fact, there have been several, since the one who called himself John XXIII. And to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, it is better to use the terms correctly. 

(**) Monsignor Lefebvre, at the time, did not found any movement or Church, everyone knows that. It is therefore incorrect to say that he was, in fact, a SEDEVACANTIST, as it is incorrect to say that he was not. His position is clear that the Cathedral is VACANT, but OCCUPIED by a usurper. Don't want to put yourself above Monsignor or in his mind, to know what he actually said. Just read his writings, speeches, sermons. 

"Vacant but not empty" ... sounds like a variation of sedeprivationism or Father Chazal's sede-impoundism.  At another point, he says "vacant but busy" (the latter probably being a translation issue).

I agree with him regarding his overall assessment of Archbishop Lefebvre's position (modern R&R always try to spin +Lefebvre as if he had been a dogmatic sedeplenist, but he was clearly not).

I do think he exaggerates the scope of infallibility "in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton termed it).

Papal Encyclicals are not "infallible", although they can contain infallible teachings ... again, as Msgr. Fenton described in his article on the subject.  One cannot attribute infallibility to a type of docuмent, but rather to teachings within the docuмent that meet the notes of infallibility.

Unfortunately, many SVs end up exaggerating the scope of infallibility "in the strict" sense rather than speaking to the OVERALL infallibility and indefectibility of the Magisterium.  This can lead to strange outcomes, like holding any passing comment in an Encyclical (even if the Pope didn't intend to teach it definitively) as being on a par with a solemn dogmatic pronouncement.  I believe that the true position lies in the middle of the extremes between this exaggeration of infallibility and its minimalisation by R&R.

If he became a sede because of Lefebvre, then it was for the wrong reason.

Still great to see a convert.

"Vacant but not empty" ... sounds like a variation of sedeprivationism or Father Chazal's sede-impoundism.  At another point, he says "vacant but busy" (the latter probably being a translation issue).

I think he is trying to say the term sede vacante is incorrect, it is sede impedita.

I do think he exaggerates the scope of infallibility "in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton termed it).

Papal Encyclicals are not "infallible", although they can contain infallible teachings ... again, as Msgr. Fenton described in his article on the subject.  One cannot attribute infallibility to a type of docuмent, but rather to teachings within the docuмent that meet the notes of infallibility.

Unfortunately, many SVs end up exaggerating the scope of infallibility "in the strict" sense rather than speaking to the OVERALL infallibility and indefectibility of the Magisterium.  This can lead to strange outcomes, like holding any passing comment in an Encyclical (even if the Pope didn't intend to teach it definitively) as being on a par with a solemn dogmatic pronouncement.  I believe that the true position lies in the middle of the extremes between this exaggeration of infallibility and its minimalisation by R&R.

Sure, a more precise term would be safe. They require obedience even though they are not per se infallible.

    The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

    Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

    On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.

    (St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation, p. 160.)

If he became a sede because of Lefebvre, then it was for the wrong reason.

Still great to see a convert.

I think he is trying to say the term sede vacante is incorrect, it is sede impedita.

Sure, a more precise term would be safe. They require obedience even though they are not per se infallible.

I don't think he became a SV (or some flavor thereof) BECAUSE of +Lefebvre.  I think he's merely pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, +Lefebvre was NOT dogmatically anti-SV and even leaned toward it at times.  But Father Ringrose (going down the same path) posted an audio from the Archbishop where he affirmed the SV Major, namely, that this degree of destruction is not possible since the Church and the papacy are in fact guided by the Holy Spirit ... and that SV is a real possibility.