Author Topic: More disturbing news ! (Read 7066 times)

Cristera · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2012, 04:27:28 PM »

Here is the testimony of one of the faithful implicated, his name is Guillermo Muñoz:

Quote

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

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

Emerentiana · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2012, 04:56:57 PM »

Fight the good fight, Christera! Remember, if you are fighting for the Church and the true faith, you will endure persecution!

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2012, 05:20:35 PM »

How can people even speculate that this is not another case of persecution of the neo-sspx gang???

:confused1:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2012, 05:32:47 PM »

Quote from: AntiFellayism

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.

Cristera · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:12:52 PM »

Many thanks for your kindly words Emerentiana! God bless you too.

Another testimony:

Quote

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:

Quote

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

1531 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 06, 2012, 01:46:18 PM »

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!

PAT317 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 06, 2012, 04:32:33 PM »

Quote from: 1531

It was not a good idea for one man to be the Superior General for so long

Rectors Letter, August '94

Quote

...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

Adolphus · « **Reply #22 on:** July 06, 2012, 10:54:43 PM »

Quote from: 1531

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.

Quote from: 1531

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.

Quote from: 1531

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.

1531 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2012, 11:40:57 AM »

It makes no sense at all to compare the tenure of the Superior General to that of a Pope, none at all. :kick-can:

1531 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 07, 2012, 11:55:17 AM »

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.

1531 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 07, 2012, 01:48:19 PM »

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

John Grace · « **Reply #26 on:** July 07, 2012, 02:42:24 PM »

Quote

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.

1531 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 07, 2012, 02:58:50 PM »

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!

Adolphus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 07, 2012, 07:13:13 PM »

Quote from: 1531

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?

hugeman · « **Reply #29 on:** July 09, 2012, 10:05:45 AM »

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.There is a listing of the honor roll of hero priests and bishops.