Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/p-mario-trejo-el-bravucon-en-chihuahua/)
It's not a rumor let's face it.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 --- ???
-
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.
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.
-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.
- 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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!
-
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.
-
Here is the testimony of one of the faithful implicated, his name is Guillermo Muñoz:
Soy uno de los fieles de la Fraternidad en Chihuahua, México (o al menos hasta hace poco lo era)....
Efectivamente, las cosas se están dando como la nota dice... expulsiones, fuertes sugerencias a permanecer callados, no correos, no reuniones con Sacerdotes anti-acuerdistas (de hecho solo el P Cardozo ha levantado la voz) porque los otros se dicen anti-acuerdistas pero nos expulsan de la Capilla.
La observacion que yo haría es que no somos 50... somos mas de 90 fieles los que estamos actuando en Chihuahua.
Saludos
http://nonpossummus.foroactivo.mx/t31-el-padre-trejo-empieza-a-cortar-cabezas-empezando-por-chihuahua (http://nonpossummus.foroactivo.mx/t31-el-padre-trejo-empieza-a-cortar-cabezas-empezando-por-chihuahua)
He said: I'm one of the faithful of the Society from Chihuahua, Mexico (at least I was recently).
Indeed, things are happening as the note says ... expulsions, strong suggestions to remain silent, no emails, no meetings with anti-acuerdistas Priests (in fact, Father Cardozo is the only one that raised his voice) because the others priests say they are anti-acuerdistas but they expelled us from the Chapel. The observation I would make is that we are not 50 ... we are more than 90 faithful who are acting in Chihuahua. regards
-
Fight the good fight, Christera! Remember, if you are fighting for the Church and the true faith, you will endure persecution!
-
How can people even speculate that this is not another case of persecution of the neo-sspx gang???
:confused1:
-
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
When the neo-SSPX talks about "canon law" they should be disregarded.
-
Many thanks for your kindly words Emerentiana! God bless you too.
Another testimony:
Me permito aclarar algunas inexactitudes que aparecen en los medios, recibidos por este foro .
1. El Padre Ernesto Cardozo no celebró una sino seis misas, del domingo 17 al viernes 22 de junio.
2. En la ciudad de Chihuahua el centro de culto, es la Capilla San José y pertenece al Priorato del Norte con sede en Gómez Palacio, Durango.
3. No fue una advertencia sino una amenaza de expulsión a quienes asistieran a Misa con Padre Cardozo, lo vieran, se entrevistaran o comunicaran con él.
4. Las personas que asistieron, recibieron sacramentos (incluso enfermos en su hogar), invitaron al Padre a comer, se entrevistaron asciende a un centenar, sí cien personas en el transcurso de la semana, contando hombres, mujeres y niños. CIEN ALMAS.
5. Entre ese centenar se pueden contar con los dedos unos cuantos que asistieron por “curiosidad” para llevar información. El resto movidos por piedad, devoción a la Santa Misa y por la necesidad de conocer la realidad de los acontecimientos debidos a la relación de la FSSPX con Roma, dado que los sacerdotes responsables no hablaban del asunto.
6. Las sanciones se han recibido telefónicamente y en el confesionario, sin testigos ni pruebas de lo actuado, como correspondería a sanciones canónicas.
7. Quienes asistieron representan familias numerosas convencidas de la Tradición de la Santa Iglesia y de la Roma Eterna, discípulos de S. E. Mgr. Lefebvre, en desacuerdo con las negociaciones y la adhesión a Vaticano II.
Quien puede proporcionar datos con mayor precisión es la fiel expulsada, Rosa Ivonne Baeza, por abrir las puertas a un sacerdote valiente que se resiste a ver morir la obra de Mgr. Lefebvre y la tradición de la Iglesia. En tiempos de persecución las Misas “se pueden celebrar en cualquier lugar”, y en este caso fue en un hogar, y no en la Capilla hermosa que reconstruyó el mismo Padre Cardozo.
Para gloria de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo y su Madre Admirable.
A google translation:
Let me clarify some inaccuracies in the media, received by this forum.
1. Father Ernesto Cardozo celebrated not one but six Masses, Sunday 17 to Friday 22 June.
2. In the city of Chihuahua the center of worship is St. Joseph's Chapel and belongs to the North Priory based in Gomez Palacio, Durango.
3. It was not a warning but a threat of expulsion for those who attend Mass with Father Cardozo, to see, be interviewed or communicated with him.
4. The people who attended, received sacraments (even sick at home), invited Father to eat, met amounts to a hundred, yes one hundred people during the week, including men, women and children. HUNDRED SOULS.
5. Among the hundred can be counted on the fingers a few attended by "curiosity" to carry information. The rest moved by piety, devotion to the Holy Mass and the need to know the reality of events due to the relationship of the SSPX with Rome, as the priests in charge of the case do not speak.
6. Sanctions have been received by phone and in the confessional, without witnesses or evidence of the proceedings, as would correspond to canonical sanctions.
7. Those attending represent large families convinced of the Tradition of the Holy Church and the Eternal Rome, disciples of S. E. Mgr Lefebvre, disagree with the negotiations and adherence to Vatican II. Who can provide more accurate data is the lady expelled, Rosa Ivonne Baeza, to open the door to a brave priest who refuses to see the death of Mgr Lefebvre's work and the tradition of the Church. In times of persecution the Masses "can be held anywhere," and in this case was in a home, not in the beautiful chapel rebuilt by the same Father Cardozo. To the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Wonderful Mother
-
It is true that Fr Cardozo was responsible for enlarging the Church of San José in Chihuahua, and he secured a beautiful statue of St Joseph for the church. The current superior in Mexico may have forgotten all this, but the faithful have not which is why they welcomed Fr Cardozo with open arms.
The incident where he refused the sacraments to a person... Clarification: there were 2 men and they had criticised and insulted publicly the SSPX and Fr Cardozo himself. He demanded, as was his right as a priest, that they publicly retracted their comments and insults. They refused to do so. He asked for the support of his Superior which he gave at first, then he retracted, although even Mons Tissier de Mallerais agreed with Fr. Cardozo. Unfortunately, the Sup.Gen. supported the superior in Mex and Fr Cardozo had to leave and eventually was sent to Brazil. I know these things from the faithful.
The SSPX is in a mess. It was not a good idea for one man to be the Superior General for so long as he became a law unto himself. Power does corrupt, even when a person does not realise this is happening to him. M. Fellay needs our prayers as never before, that he have the courage to return to Mons Lefebvre's original plans for the Society.
Viva Cristo Rey!
-
It was not a good idea for one man to be the Superior General for so long
Rectors Letter, August '94
...as Bishop Fellay explains in the ... Press Conference he gave on July 15, the regulations of Mother Church and her practice for congregations like the Society of St Pius X definitely indicate that a superiorate of 24 years – a quarter of a century – is to be the exception rather than the rule, and so the General Chapter, by changing the Superior General, aligned itself on the wisdom of Mother Church.
http://stas.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/186.html
-
The incident where he refused the sacraments to a person... Clarification: there were 2 men and they had criticised and insulted publicly the SSPX and Fr Cardozo himself.
Not true. One of these faithful had written a comment in a forum criticizing the superior and he was not asked to publicly retract; instead he was punished by not allowing him to serve as an altar assistant. Then, several weeks later, other faithful wrote a comment asking for someone to lead the resistance against +Fellay and his accomplices and then both were called to publicly retract. They never offended nor insulted Fr. Cardozo, at least, not publicly.
He demanded, as was his right as a priest, that they publicly retracted their comments and insults. They refused to do so. He asked for the support of his Superior which he gave at first
Not true. Fr. Cardozo decided to refuse the sacraments until a public retraction. He was asked to explain why telling the truth could be considered a sin, and Fr. Cardozo refused to answer.
Then, someone told Fr. Cardozo that one of these faithful had received sacraments in other of the SSPX chapels in a different city. Fr. Cardozo got mad and insulted the "rebels" from the pulpit.
An explanation in detailed was distributed in the chapel and published on the net by one of these faithful and then Fr. Trejo, the district superior, decided to refuse him the sacraments and even the right to attend the Holly Mass.
Fr. Cardozo went to Argentina for a little while and then he was assigned to Brazil, where he recently exhorted priests and faithful to stop Bishop Fellay selling out the SSPX.
The SSPX is in a mess. It was not a good idea for one man to be the Superior General for so long as he became a law unto himself. Power does corrupt, even when a person does not realise this is happening to him. M. Fellay needs our prayers as never before, that he have the courage to return to Mons Lefebvre's original plans for the Society.
Viva Cristo Rey!
I don't think it has something to do with time. Just look at how long Pius XII reigned as the Pope (which is much much more than a superior general). If power is going to corrupt someone, it will do it in few years or even few months. Again, it is not a matter of time.
-
It makes no sense at all to compare the tenure of the Superior General to that of a Pope, none at all. :kick-can:
-
Sorry 'Adolphus' but your explanation is only partly correct. Fr Trejo did refuse the sacraments in agreement with Fr Cardozo, but then changed his mind after meeting up with those men in question. Mons. T de Mallerais also agreed that the sacraments should be withheld, but then as is usual with the bishops, he left for another assignment so was unable to make further comments.
One of the men did publish on the internet but refused to retract. The fact that Fr Trejo changed his mind with regard to the men led to the disagreement between him and Fr Cardozo, so Fr Cardozo appealed to Menzingen but they supported Fr Trejo and Fr Cardozo was sent home to Argentina, and later posted to Brazil.
The faithful in Chihuahua (and some other areas) continue to express their feelings against those priests in Mexico who are against an agreement but fear for their future having seen the harsh reprisals around the world against those priests who wish to remain faithful to Mgr Lefebvre. How can one justify such reprisals for simply wishing to stick with the position adopted by Mgr Lefebvre? If you listen to those priests who have spoken out, they have not once said anything that went contrary to the position the SSPX has held since its inception.
-
Mgr Lefebvre was wise as he was holy. We should remember that he had said that he not want one of the bishops to be the superior, so that his authority as superior would not be in conflict with his authority as a prelate, since as the SSPX bishops did not have a diocese they did not have episcopal authority. This is why, orginally, Fr Schmidberger was elected. It was clearly a mistake for the SSPX to have elected one of the bishops as superior. The four bishops were of equal standing and could act in one accord, each carrying out his duties, without one of them dictating to the other three. Mgr Lefebvre was indeed a wise person. We must continue to pray fervently for renewed unity in our beloved SSPX :pray:
-
We must continue to pray fervently for renewed unity in our beloved SSPX
Bishop Fellay no longer believes in the unity as Bishop Williamson is excluded from the General Chapter. Very disturbing given the fact Fr Richard Williamson was the first name presented to Rome, and Fr Bernard Fellay was not even listed.
It needs to be established as to how/why Fr Bernard Fellay is now Superior General.It's a big mistake that he was elected Superior General.
-
Yes, John Grace, this is exactly the anomally that was created when Mgr Fellay was elected superior. It is inexplicable that he can forbid Mgr Williamson from attending the General Chapter when we know that all four bishops are permanent members of the General Chapter! None of the bishops can dictate to another, they are equal, but as Superior General, bishop Fellay is overstepping his authority against a fellow bishop. And this is an ANOMALY!
-
Sorry 'Adolphus' but your explanation is only partly correct. Fr Trejo did refuse the sacraments in agreement with Fr Cardozo, but then changed his mind after meeting up with those men in question. Mons. T de Mallerais also agreed that the sacraments should be withheld, but then as is usual with the bishops, he left for another assignment so was unable to make further comments.
One of the men did publish on the internet but refused to retract. The fact that Fr Trejo changed his mind with regard to the men led to the disagreement between him and Fr Cardozo, so Fr Cardozo appealed to Menzingen but they supported Fr Trejo and Fr Cardozo was sent home to Argentina, and later posted to Brazil.
The faithful in Chihuahua (and some other areas) continue to express their feelings against those priests in Mexico who are against an agreement but fear for their future having seen the harsh reprisals around the world against those priests who wish to remain faithful to Mgr Lefebvre. How can one justify such reprisals for simply wishing to stick with the position adopted by Mgr Lefebvre? If you listen to those priests who have spoken out, they have not once said anything that went contrary to the position the SSPX has held since its inception.
Don't be sorry. We are here to comment and to expose what we know and what we think. I'm sure I missed something that could be important, like that +de Mallerais took part of this. I did not know it at all.
Anyway, ASAIK, the decision of refusing the sacraments was taken unilaterally by Fr. Cardozo, but it was then backed by Fr. Trejo. However, some priests disagreed with the measure, since Fr. Cardozo's argument was that publishing critics on the net was a public sin, and therefore it was necessary to repair it publicly. These other priests stated that publishing in the internet could not be considered a public sin, specially if the publication was signed with an alias, which is very common.
Probably this made Fr. Trejo to change his mind, but by that time, one of the "rebels" had already distributed a detailed explanation of the situation exposing +Fellay's deceiving declarations and even one Fr. Trejo's inexplicable statement. So, the lifting of the sanction was applied only to one of the faithful.
Some of those priests that you say "fear for their future" have been working against the agreement and against the deceiving much longer ago that many of those priests whose sermons and letters have been published in the last weeks. It is just that they work in a different manner. Accusing them to "fear for their future" is at least a rash judgement.
I agree with you when you ask: How can one justify such reprisals for simply wishing to stick with the position adopted by Mgr Lefebvre?
-
Neil-- You are doing a great job ! Just report the facts as you receive them. The conspirators are not, just like during the Vatican Council II, telling the priests or the faithful anything of the truth-- they just feed us garbage and keep us in the dark! OUR faithful priests need the support of the Catholics, and the Catholics need to know that Bp. Fellay and his inner circle are meaning to turn the Society Of St Pius X over to Rome! Fellay said publicly he does not care if there is a split. Can you imagine!! The image of Christ,leaving the 99 to go and save the one errant sheep has now got to be revised to an image of Fellay, kicking out the 75 faithful to go have dinner with the wolves and his few remaining sheep. You can go to www.sossaveoursspx.com. (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com)There is a listing of the honor roll of hero priests and bishops.(http://null)
-
All of us need to remember that the priests who first spoke out on The preamble, are the ones that will perservere. The rest who hesitated will be re educated and stay with the Neo SSPX.
History repeats itself over and over. All you have to do is know what happened after Vatican 11. What about England under Henry the 8th?
A tiny percentage of priests and bishops spoke out early. It has been said that 40% of the Bishops during Vatincan 11 were opposed.............but most of them went along with the changes. If they didnt they were kicked out of their rectories. Some that resisted, were re educated.
This is exactly what will happen to the SSPX. The re education process has been going on for a long time. It will go in full force soon.
The acceptance of the New missal was one of the changes. Now, all of these priests that remain will have to use this new missal, and accept all of the other changes. Saying the Novus Ordo will come later, after the re education.
The Church of the Beast has to clamp down first, and dissolve all tradition.
I thought maybe more of the SSPX priests would perservere, but due to the small number that spoke out, Ive changed my opinion to 10%.
I never thought in my lifetime I would see this process repeat itself.
Im horrified and sickened!
Im so thankful to God that I was able to perservere in the traditional faith after Vatican 11, and raise my children traditional.
I have often said "We have not yet resisted unto blood" I believe thats what is in store for all traditional Catholics who are not sucked into the church of the beast.
We will be marginalized, as Bishop Williamson is, isolated, and discredited. We will even be labeled terrorists.
I see Bishop Williamsonacting as an independent bishop. I believe he will ordain priests and travel around the world ministering to the remnant Church. His days with SSPX are finished. I believe he will be ousted from the Society.
-
Benedict XVI and "Pius XII" on +W's Catholicity
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9316
Kreuz.net is a German discussion board for traditional Catholics. In August of 2010, a poster there named "Pius XII" described Bp. Williamson's entry into the Church as follows (post #68):
German
Es gibt keine Zukunft des Christentums in Europa ohne Rom, ohne den Papst. Die Kirche war immer bunt und weit, sie war geeint im Dogma (wovon es nicht allzuviele gibt) und in der sichtbaren Institution, die wieder durch den Papst verkörpert wird.
B. Williamson hat kein Verständnis für die Institution, weil seine Konversion in die Konzilswirren fällt und er „echten“ Katholizismus nie kennengelernt hat, nur Notstandskatholizismus.
Google translation to English
There is no future of Christianity in Europe without Rome without the Pope. The church was always colorful and well, she was united in dogma (of which there are not too many) and is visible in the institution that embodies again by the pope.
B. Williamson has no understanding of the institution, because his conversion is in turmoil and the council he has met the "real" Catholicism never, only emergency Catholicism.
My touch-up of the Google translation (disclaimer: I don't know German)
There is no future for Christianity in Europe without Rome, without the Pope. The Church has always been variegated yet united in dogma (of which there are not too many) and is visible in the institution that is embodied by the Pope.
B. Williamson has no understanding of this institution because his conversion happened during the turmoil of the council, and he has never experienced "real" Catholicism, only crisis Catholicism.
The following is from Peter Seewald's book, Light of the World, which contains his interview with Benedict XVI. The interview was conducted in July of 2010, but the book did not come out until November 24, 2010. (from The Tablet)
Seewald: Would you have signed the decree lifting the excommunication if you had known that among the four bishops there was a person who denied the existence of the nαzι gas chambers?
Benedict: No. If I had known, the first step would have been to separate the Williamson case from the others. Unfortunately, though, none of us went on the Internet to find out what sort of person we were dealing with.
Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, [sic] never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope …
I am struck by the similarity of these two statements (the bolded parts), especially given their timing. It's almost as if the key method of discreditation is rehearsed, as if the two popes somehow had conferred on the matter. Benedict XVI speaks it (presumably privately) to Mr. Seewald in July. "Pius XII" writes it in August on a German-based public discussion board. But the book doesn't come out until November.
In other posts on kruez.net, "Pius XII" identifies himself as a lawyer, is openly derisive of Bishop Williamson, openly promotes the wisdom of Bishop Fellay, and openly advocates for a union between the Society and Rome.
Not new information but a reminder. It's worth reading the posts of "Pius XII".
-
All of us need to remember that the priests who first spoke out on The preamble, are the ones that will perservere. The rest who hesitated will be re educated and stay with the Neo SSPX.
History repeats itself over and over. All you have to do is know what happened after Vatican 11. What about England under Henry the 8th?
A tiny percentage of priests and bishops spoke out early. It has been said that 40% of the Bishops during Vatincan 11 were opposed.............but most of them went along with the changes. If they didnt they were kicked out of their rectories. Some that resisted, were re educated.
This is exactly what will happen to the SSPX. The re education process has been going on for a long time. It will go in full force soon.
The acceptance of the New missal was one of the changes. Now, all of these priests that remain will have to use this new missal, and accept all of the other changes. Saying the Novus Ordo will come later, after the re education.
The Church of the Beast has to clamp down first, and dissolve all tradition.
I thought maybe more of the SSPX priests would perservere, but due to the small number that spoke out, Ive changed my opinion to 10%.
I never thought in my lifetime I would see this process repeat itself.
Im horrified and sickened!
Im so thankful to God that I was able to perservere in the traditional faith after Vatican 11, and raise my children traditional.
I have often said "We have not yet resisted unto blood" I believe thats what is in store for all traditional Catholics who are not sucked into the church of the beast.
We will be marginalized, as Bishop Williamson is, isolated, and discredited. We will even be labeled terrorists.
I see Bishop Williamsonacting as an independent bishop. I believe he will ordain priests and travel around the world ministering to the remnant Church. His days with SSPX are finished. I believe he will be ousted from the Society.
I agree completely...
But remain confident, The Immaculata will guide & protect us!
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4834454468822424&pid=1.5)
“My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.”
- Our Lady of the Rosary, June 1917
-
Not new information but a reminder. It's worth reading the posts of "Pius XII".
Yes, it is all coordinated. The lawyer seems to be tasked to serve as intermediary and coordinator of the society for the Zionists, the Freemasons, and the Vatican.
-
Great Post Emerentiana. God Bless you my friend.
-
Great Post Emerentiana. God Bless you my friend.
God Bless you too, Cristera!