Author Topic: More disturbing news ! (Read 7068 times)

AntiFellayism · « **on:** July 03, 2012, 07:19:58 PM »

WAR IN CHIHUAHUA MEXICO, Faithful expelled, Sacraments denied.
Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic
Cristera
Posted: Jul 3 2012, 10:26 PM

Saint

Group: Members
Posts: 388
Member No.: 1542
Joined: 2-February 11

Father Cardozo was in Chihuahua Mexico some weeks ago. By orders of Father Trejo (Mexico's District Superior):

-The person who received father Cardozo was expelled from the SSPX.

-The faithful who attended the Father Cardozo's Mass were punished:

When some of them went to confession, the priest didn't give them the absolution until they confess as a mortal sin the attendance to that Mass. They did't do it because the attendance to a "vagus" priest Mass is not a mortal sin. So, they didn't receive the absolution neither the Communion. The priest told them there is a canon law about this issue.

-As a result, about 50 people left the SSPX.

Taken from IgnisArdens and http://nonpossummus.foroactivo.mx/t31-el-padre-trejo-empieza-a-cortar-cabezas-empezando-por-chihuahua

theology101 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2012, 08:16:57 PM »

This would probably make much more sense to me if I knew who this person was who led the Mass. Can I assume he is a faithful, Traditional Catholic, and was rejected because of his Traditional stance? Does this Bishop Fellay, though he is in the SSPX, stand in opposition to the SSPX as created by Lefebvre? I'm still not familiar with the stuff going on in the SSPX, and I can't seem to find a good place to start learning about the issue.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2012, 08:26:09 PM »

CAVEAT: This information was posted not long ago on another Traditionalist forum and was questioned as to its substance. That is not to say that the report is not true, but that serious readers are raising - at this time - some question as to its correspondence with any facts, of which none have been provided beyond the rumor stage.

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2012, 10:17:02 PM »

CAVEAT: Let's just remember that "truth = rumors" in the modernist's dictionary.

___

Another trustworthy traditional website has brought this same story to the Spanish speaking world.

Direct link

It's not a rumor let's face it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2012, 10:49:08 PM »

Let me make myself clear: I am not doubting this report, but I would like more
evidence and references. A newspaper article would be most helpful.

The reason is, I know several influential people who are getting used to their
typical reactions to my news announcements. The first thing they accuse me of,
is believing everything I read on the Internet. Especially if it's something I have
seen on Traditio! So I have taken to ignoring Traditio for that reason, so I don't
have to lie and say that I have NOT seen (whatever it is) on that site.

I would like to relate this story to them, but they will not believe it. So if there is
some way someone can PM me with a phone number or email address, so that
I can get a more personal report from a source that would be great. Short of
that, some kind of newspaper article or respectable office to call or even a name
of a priest who can clear it up would be good.

Our traditional priest told us that there is a chance that Fr. Pfeiffer may be coming
to our area to say Mass or at least give a short speech. I was very excited to hear
that news. I would love to meet him. I have listened to several of his online sermons
and they are extremely impressive.

To be clear, I can guarantee confidentiality. I will promise to not reveal the name
or contact info of the source, but I want to tell the truth and say that I know a
person to whom this happened, and I am telling you a first hand account of
their story, because they told me, and it is not hearsay. That's my point.
I will be very guarded with the details, if they don't want something told; just
let me know, and mum's the word!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:04:50 PM »

I'm thinking this Spanish report might be credible, since I would not be able to fake it:

(from "Direct Link" on AntiFellayism post, above)

Como se sabe públicamente, el R.P. Cardozo estuvo en la ciudad de Chihuahua.

Allí celebró una Misa a la que asistieron muchos fieles, aunque los sacerdotes les habían advertido que no lo hicieran.

-Por órdenes del Padre Trejo una de las fieles del priorato de Chihuahua fue expulsada de la Fraternidad por haber recibido al padre Cardozo en su casa.

-A un grupo de fieles que solamente acudieron a Misa oficiada por el padre Cardozo LES FUE NEGADA LA ABSOLUCION EN LA CONFESION porque no confesaron la asistencia a esa Misa como pecado mortal. Se les dijo que mientras no se confesaran de ese “pecado” no se les daría la absolución y menos la Comunión. Se les dijo que el Código canónico contempla este castigo.

- Los demás fieles que también asistieron a Misa ya no se quisieron confesar, pues sabían de las condiciones de la absolución.

-Todos estos fieles (aproximadamente unos 50) decidieron DEJAR LA FRATERNIDAD. Entre ellos están los que todos los domingos cooperan con las flores, acólitos, etc. etc.

-Fue una GRAN PARTE DE LOS FIELES DE CHIHUAHUA QUE HAN DEJADO LA FRATERNIDAD.

Se sabe también que el organista de la Capilla de Guadalajara fue también expulsado de la Fraternidad. Lo inculparon de un escrito que al parecer ni siquiera hizo él.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:26:33 PM »

I can see there is more detail in the Spanish version.

Something about Fr. Cardozo coming to someone's house, and they would be
expelled from the priory?

Something about the faithful who attend Mass every Sunday and help with the
flowers, altar boys, etc.?

It was the greater part of the faithful in Chihuahua who left the Fraternity?
(Were they helping Fr. Cardozo after having left or something?)

The organist of Guadalajara was expelled --- ???

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:47:00 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I can see there is more detail in the Spanish version.

Something about Fr. Cardozo coming to someone's house, and they would be
expelled from the priory?

Something about the faithful who attend Mass every Sunday and help with the
flowers, altar boys, etc.?

It was the greater part of the faithful in Chihuahua who left the Fraternity?
(Were they helping Fr. Cardozo after having left or something?)

The organist of Guadalajara was expelled --- ???

It said that the greater part of the faithful left, about 50 persons, including those who help with the flowers every Sunday, provide Mass servers, etc.

Quote

Allí celebró una Misa a la que asistieron muchos fieles, aunque los sacerdotes les habían advertido que no lo hicieran.

There he celebrated a Mass at which many Faithful assisted, although the priests had warned them that they should not do so.

Quote

-Por órdenes del Padre Trejo una de las fieles del priorato de Chihuahua fue expulsada de la Fraternidad por haber recibido al padre Cardozo en su casa.

By the orders of Fr. Trejo, one of the faithful from the priory of Chihuahua was expelled from the Fraternity for having received Fr. Cardozo in his house.

Quote

- Los demás fieles que también asistieron a Misa ya no se quisieron confesar, pues sabían de las condiciones de la absolución.

The remaining faithful who also had assisted at Mass didn't want to confess, because they knew of the conditions of absolution.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:49:34 PM »

These are faithful Catholics whose ancestors were slaughtered by the Freemason
Calles in the Cristiada, the Cristero war.

But now they're being persecuted by the SSPX!?

This is a very dark hour, when shame knows no bounds.

Does Fr. Trejo, Mexico's District Superior, have a screw loose?
Does he have a clue that his faithful have the fire of zeal in their hearts?
Does he know they are more ready for war than he is?

We across the northern border should be paying very close attention to this,
because if it can happen in Mexico, it can happen here, too.

Our government is just as Freemasonic as Mexico's, and it's the same
SSPX over here, with our own Fellayite District Superior.

Cristero · « **Reply #9 on:** July 04, 2012, 09:28:28 AM »

Hi Neil, I read this last night but obviously couldn't ring our priest for more information because of the late hour. I'm glad to see many are suspicious of this story because it's not as simple as it looks. Fr. Cardozo left Mexico around 3 years ago because he refused communion to a faithful who was criticising Mons. Fellay for a sell-out. Fr. Meramo left at that time and Cardozo demanded his head on a plate for his disobedience to the work of Mons. Lefebvre. 3 years later it is he who is doing the same. Using the excuse that he's defending the work of Mons. Lefebvre he is travelling around bad mouthing the SSPX including our very good priests here in Mexico - none of whom want a sell-out. He sent an email to various faithful (which was then passed on etc) using foul language against the priests here.

The superior (who doesn't want a sell-out either pero, para nada) therefore forbade going to Cardozo's mass to maintain the unity of the faithful and not to cause unnecessary division amongst us who all of us are anti-acuerdistas. Nonetheless, many went to the masses out of curiosity and to have a chance to speak to Father. Many were shocked at how he'd changed, not the same as three years ago.

Two families have left the chapel - around 20 people and a few others - nothing like fifty and certainly not the majority - the church was by no means empty on Sunday. I asked tentatively about the confession story but the priest was unwilling to talk about the sacrament (breaking the seal?) but after speaking to faithful there I know that at least seven or eight people who had gone and confessed it were absolved so the person in the article must have been refused for something else.

This case is nothing like the case of Fr. Chazal or Fr. Pfeiffer and certainly nothing like Mons. Tissier or Fr. Jacqmin.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** July 04, 2012, 09:52:33 AM »

A positive from Ireland is a few more families have started to attend a new chapel. It's independent of the SSPX. Given the turmoil in the Society, I can see this chapel flourishing. The SSPX have only themselves to blame if they are losing support.

The majority of SSPX priests in Ireland are pro-agreement. All I can see happening is further expulsion of priests and laity leaving. Whilst Bishop Fellay remains Superior General, the SSPX will continue to worsen and keep in the direction it goes in.

Those who supported this discussions with Rome can hardly claim surprise with anything.

Adolphus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 04, 2012, 11:42:18 PM »

Quote from: Cristero

The superior (who doesn't want a sell-out either pero, para nada) therefore forbade going to Cardozo's mass to maintain the unity of the faithful and not to cause unnecessary division amongst us who all of us are anti-acuerdistas. Nonetheless, many went to the masses out of curiosity and to have a chance to speak to Father. Many were shocked at how he'd changed, not the same as three years ago.

Cristero, do you know what was exactly what Fr. Trejo ordered? I don't think he has the right to forbid anybody to attend a valid Mass. I think he could have suggested not to attend Fr. Cardozo's mass to avoid a deeper division, but forbidding attending seems to me an abuse. We have to keep in mind that common faithful are not SSPX's members and therefore, are not subordinated to the SSPX's hierarchy.

Now, could you please explain how Fr. Cardozo changed? I understand you say he acts as if he was not the same priest you knew three years ago, before he left, but it would be good to know in which sense he changed.

Quote from: Cristero

Two families have left the chapel - around 20 people and a few others - nothing like fifty and certainly not the majority - the church was by no means empty on Sunday. I asked tentatively about the confession story but the priest was unwilling to talk about the sacrament (breaking the seal?) but after speaking to faithful there I know that at least seven or eight people who had gone and confessed it were absolved so the person in the article must have been refused for something else.

This case is nothing like the case of Fr. Chazal or Fr. Pfeiffer and certainly nothing like Mons. Tissier or Fr. Jacqmin.

Now, you say that seven or eight faithful receive the absolution after confessing to have attended the Holy Mass offered by Fr. Cardozo. That's what is reported in the original post: «the priest didn't give them the absolution until they confess as a mortal sin the attendance to that Mass»

You would need to find someone who accepted have attended Fr. Cardozo's Mass and not confessing this fact as a sin and then ask if the absolution was denied or not.

Anyway, it is really sad to see how the devil is hitting the SSPX and affecting its members and the faithful being attended by them.

Cristero · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2012, 09:06:58 AM »

Hi Adolphus! Sorry, can't give you any details on Fr. Trejo as he's out of the country at the general chapter. When he was last here he did mention something about Fr. Cardozo being a vagus in the sense that he left in a huff from the SSPX and now just wanders about doing his own thing. Our priest mentioned you're not allowed to attend the Mass of a vagus priest. I guess the whole situation with jurisdiction/authority is too complicated for me to work out but I'm sure they know what they're talking about.

I didn't meet Father this time round but those I know who did told me he came across as very bitter. One even said to me he felt very disappointed after speaking to him. He was always a good speaker but this time he used bad words which scandalised some people, particularly when he spoke bad of our priests.

I don't know who the person was who was denied absolution but I guess it must have been something serious. I know from my catechism that you can't be absolved if you're not sorry for what you've done. As you say, you can't be sorry for attending Mass but I suppose if you've been told not to there is some sort of disobedience there.

It's a real shame Father felt he had to come here to divide us and turn some against our priests since they're doing a great job. We've had some real good sermons about not compromising the work of Mons. Lefebvre and some of the adult catechism classes have gone into quite a bit of detail why we could never accept a deal with modernist Rome. I don't know what Fr. Cardozo thought he was telling us that we didn't know already.

Adolphus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:19:27 AM »

Cristero, thank you very much for answering and giving more details in the Fr. Cardozo episode.

I am very sorry to read that Fr. Cardozo has flew off the handle and he uses bad words, specially to refer to some other priests.

Quote

Our priest mentioned you're not allowed to attend the Mass of a vagus priest. I guess the whole situation with jurisdiction/authority is too complicated for me to work out but I'm sure they know what they're talking about.

Well, on this I have to disagree with you. I wouldn't be too sure that they know what they're doing. Fr. Trejo has mistaken several times when trying to handle this complicated situation of the SSPX being sold out. I heard that he was not able to keep Fr. Cardozo quiet after a problem with some faithful that he wanted out of the chapel and that Fr. Cardozo disobeyed him traveling back to a Mass centre when he was commanded not to.

On the other hand, even the SSPX's priests are vagus, in the sense that they do not belong to any dioceses. They were supposed to ask for permission to the ordinary in order to hear confessions. The current state of necessity makes it unnecessary, but the same applies to other vagus priests.

Quote

It's a real shame Father felt he had to come here to divide us and turn some against our priests since they're doing a great job.

I wonder what Fr. Cardozo has in mind at this point. I thought he was going to be welcomed where he has been in the past and probably he thought the same way.

Also, I wonder what those other priests think about the current situation inside the SSPX.

Thanks again, Cristero, for all the information. God bless you!

1531 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2012, 11:37:46 AM »

It is certainly very sad to see the continuing divisions around the world due to the proposed signing of an agreement with Rome, which now seems unlikely... though we shall see. However, regarding Fr Cardozo, he is very much an SSPX priest and was ordained by Mons Lefebvre and he remains very attached to him and what Mons. created. He had a run-in with Fr Trejo the superior, due to some irregularities he uncovered. As had happened with other priests in other parts, he was not listened to by Mons.F., though he had the support at the time of Mons. T de M. The faithful in Chihuahua were also unhappy, and have continued to support Fr Cardozo.
He was eventually moved by Mons. F. to a priory in Brazil, but then spoke out against the agreement, as have Frs. Chazal, Pfeiffer, Koller, Mons. T de Mallerais, etc., and was told to leave and chose to go to the Monastery of Santa Cruz. Somebody said somewhere that the Monastery would be expelled from the SSPX, but it is autonomous, so that's wrong. But, they are also totally against an agreement and follow Mons. Lefebvre; in fact he congratulated the Prior for not signing with Rome years back when Fr Gérard did so. :applause:
From what I have heard personally, Fr Cardozo is angry, and I know that quite a number of faithful who already knew Father when he was in Mexico, did attend a Mass in a private house. There is absolutely no right for Fr Trejo to forbid the faithful from attending a Mass by a priest of the SSPX, even if he being forbidden to use an SSPX church or chapel, as Neil Obstat says 'the faithful are not members and can attend a Mass even by an independent priest. The Society has used independent priests on occasion when it was convenient.
I also know that all the priests I know in the UK are united against an agreement with Rome at this time.
We must continue to pray that unity will be restored, though this may well be very difficult due to strong language on both sides, ie for and against an agreement. The great problem arose because of SECRECY on the part of the Sup. Gen.