A Must Read

Admin

Administrator
Midst the confusion created by Shepherds and leaders who promote private opinions as the way to go there has arisen the need to avoid 'generalising', and recognize the truth no matter who says it. The following article is a summary of the differences and similarities of Bishop Williamson's Disastrous Actions. - English translation of a Letter to Father Cardozo 1/17/2016

Dear Father,

Patience. This chaos is about to get even worse. We are going to need even more patience. I send you my blessing, In Christo, +Richard Williamson

This chaos seems not to have an end, and a faithful priest (Father Cardozo) warned to leave controversial things to the private sphere and to try to confirm the faithful in the war against modernism -which is his duty as a bishop. Bishop Richard Williamson is not worried about the division and confusion he created with his imprudent Eleison Comments, but he anticipates that this chaos will continue to get worse. And in fact it continues. We need more patience because the bishop has decided to continue with his work of the destruction of the "Resistance," and to hold on to the same position of Bishop Fellay. At this moment, there is almost no difference between the "Resistance" and the "Neo-SSPX." Bishop Williamson and his followers (Bishop Faure, Father Tomas Aquinas, Fr. Trincado, etc.) continue to have a similar position as Bishop Fellay's, which contradicts Archbishop Lefebvre's and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer's. Let's consider the following:

- Bishop Fellay: 95% of the second Vatican council is acceptable (interview with magazine La Liberté, 5/11/2001)

- Bishop Williamson: the neo-church is somewhat Catholic (EC 445). Catholics, be generous! Recognize God's intention to save many souls outside of the "tradition," (EC438).

- Dominicans of Avrillé: The Catholic Church has, mysteriously, something of the conciliar church. It is necessary to distinguish them, without separating them. (Le Sel de la terra, winter 2015)

- Father Thomas Aquinas: it cannot be said, absolutely, that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. ("Em defensa de D. Williamson I").

- Bishop Faure: it is not possible that God has abandoned 98% of the souls. We have to read attentively and understand what Bishop Williamson wants to say. There can be, within us, the danger of radicalization. (Sermon 12/06/15, Saltillo, Mexico)

- From the Catechism: "There's no salvation outside of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, just as there is no one outside of Noah's Arc, which was the figure of the church, was saved."

- Archbishop Lefebvre: it was the council and its aftermath, that destroyed the Holy Mass, destroyed our Faith, destroyed the catechisms and the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in civil society. How can we accept it? (Homily, November 19, 1989)

"Let no one deceive you, this is not a contest between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. This is the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church". (Sermon Econe June 29, 1976)

"The conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks away from the Catholic Church as it has always been. It has its new dogmas, new priesthood, new institutions, its new cult, all of them already condemned by the church in many official and definite documents. (...) This conciliar church, therefore, is not Catholic." (June 29, 1976)

"We never wanted to belong to this system that calls itself conciliar church, and identifies itself with the Novus Ordo, with indifferent ecumenism, and with the secularization of society. Yes, we have nothing to do, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of religions of Assisi. We don't ask for anything better than to be excommunicated..." (Open letter to Cardinal Gantin).

"To talk about the means of "salvation" of other religions is heresy. And "to respect their way of behavior and their doctrines, is a fact that scandalizes the true Christians." (From liberalism to apostasy, p. 191)

Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer: the church that adheres formally and totally to Vatican II, with all its heresies is not, and can never be, the Church of Jesus Christ. To belong to the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, it is necessary to have the Faith, that is to say, not to doubt or deny any article of the Revelation. Well, the church of Vatican II accepts doctrines that are heretical." (The Roman Catholic, August 1985). He who adheres himself to the Vatican, without any restriction, just because of that fact, disconnects himself from the true Church of Jesus Christ. Nobody can, at the same time, be Catholic and endorse all that Vatican II has established. We would say that the best way to abandon the Church of Christ, the Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, is to accept without reserve all that the Vatican II proposed and thought. He is the anti-Church." (Diarios de Los Padres de Campos-#33)

Father Cordoza

++++++++++++++++

RELATIONS WITH MODERNIST ROME

- Bishop Fellay: if the Pope calls me, I will rapidly go...better still, I'll go running! (Interview with "30 Days," magazine #9, October 2002)

- Bishop Williamson: if the Holy Father gives me the authority to found a religious society, I would be in the next plane to Rome. (Post Falls, Idaho, USA, June 1st. 2014)

- Bishop Faure: if in the future, I would be invited to go to Rome to speak with the Pope, I would go with Bishop Williamson. (Interview, March 2015)

- Father Thomas Aquinas: it is false that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure were expelled because they opposed any kind of relations with Rome. (Answer to Menzingen, March 2015)

Archbishop Lefebvre: supposing that at a determined time Rome calls us, that they would like to see us to return to the dialogue...at that moment it would be I who would impose the conditions. I will not accept to be in the situation that we found ourselves during the conversations. That's finished. (...) if you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk. (Interview by Fideliter, #66, November-December 1988)

What church are we talking about? If it's about this conciliar church, it would be necessary that we, that have fought against it for 20 years, because we want to be the Catholic Church, to integrate into this conciliar church to make it Catholic? THIS IS A COMPLETE ILLUSION! It is not the subjects who make the superiors, but the superiors that make the subjects. In all this Roman Curia, amongst all the bishops of the world, who are progressivist, I would have been completely asphyxiated, couldn't have been able to do anything, not even to protect the faithful and the seminarians. (Interview a year after the episcopal consecrations, Fideliter #70, July-August 1989)

THE NEW MASS


- Bishop Fellay: the New Mass was legitimately promulgated (Doctrinal Declaration April 15, 2012)

- Bishop Williamson: the new mass can and is still is used to build the faith. There are cases where you can assist the new mass. This is almost heresy, but this is what I think. I'm not going to say that everyone should stay away from the new mass. (Mahopac Conference, New York, 6/28/2015)

There are elements in the new mass that can nourish our faith. (EC 445)

In the New Mass, we can preserve the faith (EC 447)

There are miracles in the New Mass (EC 438), these miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition who have to some extent or another stood back from the Novus Ordo framework. (EC 438)

Since the 1960’s a Mass of Catholic sheep have become too worldly to deserve to keep the true rite of Mass, they have loved the Mass enough not to lose it altogether. (EC 438)

- Father Trincado: Father the New Mass has a place inside the Catholic Church. (Letter to Fr Cardozo, 12/13/15: but, my dearest father, the argument related to the possibility of the miracle outside of the Catholic Church, has no relation to the 3 EC of Bishop Williamson, which are about the possible miracles in the NO Masses, because these Masses are celebrated inside the Church,

- Bishop Faure: where did you see that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is outside the Church? (Letter to Father Ernesto Cardozo, 1/6/2016: "where did you see that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the new mass is outside the Church? I know, there is ONE quote on which we could think that...one out of one thousand?")

- Father Thomas Aquinas: we should come to the conclusion that there is something good in the New Mass. ("In defense of Bishop Williamson II")

"I don't see anything wrong in Bishop Williamson’s writings." (Catechism monastery of Santa Cruz/ RJ, December/2015)

"I believe Bishop Williamson didn't write anything wrong" (letter to Father Cardozo 1/27/2016)

- Archbishop Lefebvre: we are convinced that this new rite of the Mass expresses a new faith, a faith that is not ours, a faith that is not the Catholic faith. This New Mass is a symbol, an expression, an image of a new faith, a modernist faith". (sermon Econe, June 29, 1976)

Since this reform is the fruit of liberalism and modernism, it is entirely poisoned; it comes from heresy and it ends in heresy, even though all its acts are not formally heretical. (The Mass of All Times" p. 352)

This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little, we are clearly obliged to reject it ("The Mass of All Times" p. 353)

With relation to the New Mass, let us immediately destroy this ridiculous idea: if the new mass is valid, we can participate in it. The church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of the schismatic and heretics, even if they are valid. It is evident that we cannot participate in the sacrilegious masses, and neither in the Masses that are a danger to our faith. (Declaration about the new mass and the pope, 11/811979).

RELATIONS WITH THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH THEIR POSITIONS:

- Bishop Fellay: Sedevacantists!
- Bishop Williamson: Ecclesiovacantists (EC 445)
- Father Thomas Aquinas: I advise people not to receive him(...) I've heard that in Ipatinga they removed Bishop Williamson's portrait from the Mission. As long as this lasts, it is hard for me to take any other position." (Letter to Father Ernesto Cardozo, 1/27/2016

Dear Father Cardozo,

You should be aware that I do not advise people to receive you. The reason being the controversy surrounding Bishop Williamson's writings.

I think Bishop Williamson didn't write anything bad, and that this is an unnecessary controversy which is causing harm to many people who end up walking away, one way or another, from Bishop Williamson.

I think the best thing for you to do is to reach an agreement with Bishop Williamson, so that I can again recommend your presence to the people who are asking me what to do.

I've heard that in Ipatinga they have removed Bishop Williamson's portrait from the Mission. As long as this lasts, it is hard for me to take any other position."

I will talk to you more later.
En Xto Rege.
ir, Thomas Aquinas


Prohibition to the faithful of San Pablo to invite Father Cardozo to say mass - Monastery of Santa Cruz/RJ, January 2016

Prohibition to the faithful of Santo Andres to invite Father Cardozo to say mass - Monastery of Santa Cruz/RJ, February 2016

- Bishop Faure: do not invite Father Cardozo to say Mass. (Letter to the faithful of Santo Andres)

- Father Trincado: you are using in your website, a cross that I designed; I named it the cross of the resistance, and I made it public in Non Possumus. Well now, it happens that, I do not want that cross to be used by sites that publicly criticize any of the two bishops of the resistance, and regrettably you have done so in the site that you manage. Consequently, I ask you to remove all the pictures of the cross from your site." (Letter to a parishioner from Ipatinga, 12/21/2015)

Expulsion from the mission of a parishioner for having published an article against assisting the Neo-SSPX masses.

"Will you please remove my name from your contact list" (letter to a parishioner from Ipatinga, 1/10/2016).

- Carlos Nougue: keep away from these "pure ones" ! Letter to the Brazilian resistance members, 12/18/2015)

ATTACKS AGAINST FRANCISCO


-Bishop Fellay: (?)
-Bishop Williamson: (?)
-Bishop Faure: (?)
-Father Thomas Aquinas: (?)


Given the above, it is only possible to conclude that Bishop Williamson is no longer a defender of the Faith as many still believe, but an absolute liberal who is taking souls into grave error, and that he doesn't care about the division he is causing and the sheep that are left on the way. The "Resistance" is now only resistance in name. His only end is to stop any reaction to modernism and to create situations to alienate and weaken Catholics that, nevertheless, remain firm. Watch how they create a controversy, see who follows them blindly, and promote/reward them (episcopal consecration of Father Thomas Aquinas, 3/19/2016); thus creating a structure against those who do not share their position.

There are no major attacks against modernism, neither attacks against Francisco, who pronounces a heresy every day. On the contrary, Bishop Williamson affirmed that Tradition needs a generous spirit (EC 438) and his only job is to fluster and defend issues that he refuses to condemn. (Ex: VCII, Conciliar church, and the new mass). As a consequence we have priests that are putting down their swords in exchange of a miter, and many lukewarm and flattering faithful, that poorly know their basic catechism and blindly believe everything that their bad superiors tell them, without questioning, just because they are bishops and belong to a religious order. They're happy with appearances.

We, Catholics - I don't want to use any other adjectives - cannot follow this pathway paved by Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, because they are unreliable bishops and their doctrine is at least dangerous; on the contrary, if we do not end up in modernism or in the Neo-FSSPX, we will follow a dead and lukewarm path, and we could incur a divine curse: " I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm—neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out my mouth. (Apocalypse III, 15-16)

Because of all these reasons, my conscience refuses to continue following these two bishops (now three, with Father Thomas Aquinas, who's always defending Bishop Williamson, and who forbids the faithful to attend Father Cardozo's Masses), and I ask my friends and the faithful not to follow in this path and to separate themselves from these bad shepherds. It's better not to have a bishop than to have bishops who are a danger to our Faith. We're living now the times spoken of by Sister Lucia, when we would not be able to trust in any bishop, and each Catholic would have to answer for his own salvation. We must unite ourselves only to those priests that remain firm and faithful. Do not be afraid! Our Lord is in control, and we do not have to worry. He will give us the necessary graces for these exceptional circumstances, through His Most Holy Mother. He who loves Our Lord and Our Lady, must, … keep the faith and these things shall be added unto you. (Matt 6:33).

- Thiago Maria, parishioner of the Mission Cristo Rey de Ipatinga/MG

Fr. Cordoza ddresses Bishop Williamson's, Bishop Faure's, Dom Tomas de Aquino's
& Fr Trincado's Errors.


Today's gospel and epistle are really, very wonderful, they are very relevant to the topic we will talk about today. The gospel says, “He who is not with Me is against Me”. “He who does not gather with Me, scatters”. I repeat, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” How do we know, how do we know that we are with Christ and not against Christ? Because it is very possible that we are deceiving ourselves. Luther, I suppose that he said that he was with Christ. The heretics, I suppose that they claimed that they were with Christ. “He who is not with me is against Me”! What do we do to know this? How do we know if we are with Christ? Let's analyze these words. Christ says, “he who loves Me will keep My word”. He who loves Me, will keep My word. He also says, he who loves his father and his son more than Me, is not worthy of Me. True? Am I lying? Is this in the Gospel? Ok!

But do you know what the problem is, dear faithful? Deos veritas est. God is truth. That magnificent dialog with Pilate, when Christ tells Pilate "he who is of the truth hears My voice" Qui ses veritas audit mea. He hears Me (...) listens to Him (pointing to the crucifix)! But, there's a problem, that deep inside we would like to see. We get used to seeing it (...) we make room for it (...) We peacefully live with error. This magnificent last gospel that I never get tired of praising and asking you to meditate on it (...) the liturgy does not put these little pictures just for us to look at them, they are there so that you can read them and meditate on them. Just listen to what it says, it says that the Word came to His own and His own did not receive Him. His own did not receive Him! He was the light of the world, but the world preferred darkness, and Truth Itself ended up there (on the cross)! To defend the truth, dear faithful, is not easy, because it is about defending God, defending God in a hostile place. Doesn't Jesus Christ Himself tell us, I send you amongst wolves, like lambs amidst wolves. Is that true? We like lies. We get used to lies, because truth is inconvenient, truth provokes a reaction, you see?

We have the case of Saint John the Baptist. What happened to St. John the Baptist? He denunciated truth! He denunciated an adultery! And what happened to him? He ended up having his head cut off! Be careful! Humanly, we would say, how Stupid! To denounce the adultery, why didn't he keep quiet? But, St. John the Baptist told Herod, this woman does not belong to you!

Let's see another example (...) an example that we have analyzed in a sermon before, here in Ipatinga. The example of Thomas Moore. Thomas Moore is a great saint, he and Bishop Fisher, were opposed to the adultery of The King, Henry VIII. Do you recall this story? I don't want to repeat the same sermon on Thomas Moore in order not to tire you, but, was Thomas Moore wrong? Was Bishop Fisher wrong? Bishop Fisher was against at least 80 bishops in his country. Thomas Moore was practically the only layman against a whole nation that wanted to apostatize (...) and apostatized. Do you remember the story, or do you want me to tell it to you again? The case of Thomas Moore will never tire us, my dear faithful, because it is a case of a man that goes against the current, and to go against the current is very boring, here in this world it is boring (…) but in the other life, in Heaven, God will reward it.

But let us talk about it. A conflict has emerged in the resistance, a very serious conflict. It's not only a small problem (...) it is a big problem, a problem about the Faith, with which we run the risk of eternally damning ourselves! Be careful! I lament the superficiality with which sometimes this problem has been treated. "No, this is not a problem about this lady wrote this, and this man said that,", no, no there's a big problem here. A big problem about the faith and we never go back to the cause (...).

Let's suppose that I turn the lights off and I tell them, Fire! Fire! People will start running, falling and tripping, and they start fighting (…), why did you hit me, why did you push me (...) without realizing I am the guilty one because I turned the light off. It will be the same, supposing that there s a fire, and they start yelling, fire, fire, and they enter the room (...) and someone says “What a way for you to enter the room, running, can you speak a little bit softer?”, that is to say, this is to criticize the effects, not the cause. And if someone yells, fire, before we criticize the person running who yelled fire, let's go out and see if there's really a fire, go to the cause. And this is the problem, and this is what hasn't been studied (...) this is the sad reality, they look at it sideways, and go forward. And what is the cause?

I ask you, my dear faithful, let's see (...) until September, did we have a serious problem here? I do not believe so. Maybe there could have been personality problems, human foolishness that exist in every society. But did we have a problem about the Faith? (...) tell me if there was a problem about the Faith (...) and when did the problem start? Please do not be scandalized when I start talking, wait (...) the problem started when Bishop Williamson started writing three Eleison Comments in favor of the miracles in the new mass, yes, remember? Three Eleisons. When Bishop Williamson wrote these three Eleisons, we, the priests that are in the firing line arrived at a certain place and they tell us (...) Father Cardozo, what is this? And I confess to you that it had been sometime since I had read the Eleisons, why? Because among other things it would cause in me some spiritual inquietude, and I had to sit down and read the Eleisons.

And when I did this, the first thing I did was to get in contact with a priest that is in Mexico and who publishes the Eleisons of Bishop Williamson, well, you know him. And I tell this priest, “Please Father, do not publish this, there are errors... this priest tells me, “Father, you are completely right, but, we will publish it so that the enemies do not believe we are divided.” Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye! Have you read the gospel, when Our Lord tells us (...) let thy words be yes, yes or no, no. Whatever happens after this, comes from the devil (...) be careful! It comes from the devil”. This dear Father, recognizing that this paper contained errors, says, “you're completely right, but (…)”, and this is when the problem began. And this is when it started. I am a priest (...) people ask me (...) Father is this true or false? I have to follow Jesus’ word, I have to say yes or no no (...) anything that happens after this, the devil does. It is my duty, and I told him, this is not right. Meanwhile, I started seeing atrocities (...). Please do not be scandalized. The monks that read and say, "I don't see any error in these things, persons, great Thomists, that say they don't see any error” (...) Do you remember? Do you want me to mention names? It is not necessary. Specifically, Bishop Williamson says and maintains, and insists that there are miracles outside of the Catholic Church.

I finally dared to write an article on the ninth of December saying that there is a fight concerning this: and I start stating simply a fact of common sense (...) a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (...) remember? that's the gospel, I'm not making this up, these are Christ’s words, the Infinite Wisdom, this would have been enough to put an end to this problem. But, I don’t know if you know what a sophist (casuist) is (...) a sophist is a person who tries, through deceits, to make a lie pass for the truth, it's as if I would say this ceiling is black, and I would use and mix words to make you believe that the ceiling is black, but the ceiling is white. And the priest from Mexico, we have to recognize this, is an excellent sophist, excellent sophist. I do not know what this is going to help him with, but he's an excellent sophist.

And after this article in which I had the idea to defend the fact that there can be no miracles etc, etc..Not in a very nice way, I was called everything. It's not nice to open your email, to click here and click there, and see that they are telling you, you are an imbecile, you're so proud, you're going against St. Thomas. Who do you think you are? (…) it’s is not nice (...)

I have a back, I don't like to be talked about behind my back (…) but let us continue (...) I'm up to here with these lies.

Bishop Williamson said, there are miracles outside the Catholic Church and he insisted on this. And I had the idea to explain, at the end of the year, to go back to the same matter, this time jokingly - jokingly in order not to cry. (…) I started talking about the cherry on the cake and all of those things. I explained that God is omnipotent and he can do whatever he pleases and wherever he pleases, but God is an orderly God. God cannot make a round triangle, God cannot make the sun rise on the north tomorrow, or on the south, but on the east. God is orderly (...) but it looks like that after this, there was no argument that they liked.

Do you know what this is? The title says, Catechism of St Pius X. Question: Is this catechism trustworthy? The modernists will say, “put it in the trash can”. But I am, apparently, I believe, among Catholics (…) is this trustworthy? Are you sure? Be careful, be careful with what you said (…) careful with what you have said (…) I read this catechism of St Pius Xa little after I met Archbishop Lefebvre. I felt the need to reinforce the catechism I had learned as a child so I bought the catechism and I read it. Of course there are little facts, little details that we don't remember (...) when this problem about the little miracles in the modern mass arose, one of you called me and asked me, “Father Cardozo, what do you think.?”. I told him, this is very easy to treat. These little miracles go against the Sanctity of the Church. But of course, there are so many things, we read so many things, it is impossible to know precisely where we read certain things, and one is also busy trying to make arrangements for the trips, the mission, etc, and thinking that the people read the catechism, thinking that the clergyman read the catechism. Please repeat to me if this a Catholic catechism (…) A catechism is, in principle, a compendium of all the Catholic dogma. Yes or No? Have you all said yes? Well, you’ll assume the consequences (…) read.

Maybe some of you will have the same edition, (la Edición de Permanencia) the last two pages, it's easy, after the first, the second, last two pages. Be careful, I did not write this, this is not an edition for Fr Cardozito. You have to hang on to what you are going to read, and remember, truth hurts, and it hurts a lot, and sometimes it is hard to say, I was mistaken, and I know there are a lot who are waiting to say, but Cardozo how can you say these things against Bishop Williamson? (...) just listen to what St Pius X has to say, gentlemen (...) the Saint talks about the marks of the Catholic Church, and I repeat, talks about the marks of the Catholic Church, not of the marks of the of the Church of Cardozo, not of the church of Williamson, but the marks of the Catholic Church. Speaking of the mark of sanctity he says:

"The faithful that reads with a sincere heart the history of the church, will see this sanctity shine, not only on the essential sanctity of its invisible head, Jesus Christ, the sanctity of the sacraments,of the doctrine, of the religious corporations, of a great number of its members, but also abundance of celestial gifts, of the sacred charisms, of the prophesies, and --attention here-- and miracles with which Our Lord, denying these to the other religions, makes shine upon the face of the earth, this gift of sanctity of which exclusively his only church is endowed. I repeat, and miracles with which Our Lord, denying these to the other religions, makes shine upon the face of the earth, this gift of sanctity of which exclusively his only church is endowed”


. Well, did I teach anything in opposition to this? I ask, "Did I teach this"?.Did I attack the sanctity of the church? Did I attack saying that there are little miracles in the new Mass?

The great sophist of Mexico tells me, because he begins to receive, because of course, I'm not the only fool that realizes the problem, there are a lot of fools, he starts receiving letters saying, be careful, we are defending error. A dear Father from Colombia writes to all the priests and the two bishops and tells us…gentlemen, if we are going to defend error, if we are going to fight error with error, we are going the wrong way”, after this, the great sophist from Mexico answers me and says: (...) “Padre Cardozo, the work you did saying that there are no miracles outside the Catholic Church is beside the point”. How is it beside the point? One question: Is the new mass of the Catholic Church? And how do we know that it is not of the Catholic Church? Because of its errors, because the objective of the new mass is ecumenism, because our BIG LIONS for the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, did not stop saying that this new mass is the mass of a new church, which is not the Catholic Church.

Of course, when one listens to this, coming from a brother priest, supposedly traditional, supposedly from the resistance, who tells you besides, that the new mass is good, and that the new mass is of the Catholic Church, I'm sorry, but I thought there was going to be a short circuit. Why? Because we are in contradiction (...) then I tell him: “Father, I thought that the new mass is a mass of another church” (...) and Father insists (...) “no, no, no, it is of the Catholic Church”. Excuse me: what are we doing here? Because if the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church (...) tell me please: what are we doing here? Why don't we go to our parishes maybe there we will have air conditioning. Tell me, what are we resisting? Please, because I repeat. If the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church, I don't really see any sense in being here. And I think many would not have to be here.


But, let's stop the movie here. In Mathematics, and in everything, not only Mathematics, when you start something, for instance to say 1+1=3, that is to say, you start with an error. If you do not correct this error, this error will influence the course of the analysis, and will increase exponentially. Something that began as a small error, will become a big, big, big error. When I told you here, on December 30, be careful, we are looking at the tip of the iceberg, I think you did not measure the harm this 1+1=3 has done. Why? Because to justify that 1+1=3, they start saying that the mass, the new mass is good, that it is of the Catholic Church. Including Bishop Faure, trying to justify and backing up Bishop Williamson, gives a sermon, I believe on the 12th of December (...) yes, on the 12th of December in Mexico.

To those who understand a little bit of Spanish, I suggest that you listen to it. When I listened to this sermon of Bishop Faure, favoring the little miracles in the new mass, I started shaking, because I was hoping that Bishop Faure had said: "Williamson, forget about this subject, talk about Beethoven better”. When you listen to it, you can listen to it on non possumus website, it's so obvious, if you are honest, and want to do a little bit of penance for lent, listen to this sermon, and you will see that it is even WORSE than the three Eleisons from Bishop Williamson. I was so terrified, careful, this does not amuse me, gentlemen, doesn't amuse me, that I told Bishop Faure: "Please, Monsignor, I beg you to listen to your sermon, and count the many instances you contradict yourself." Remember, yes, yes, or no, no; When you get out of this, the devil comes. And then I received an email from Bishop Faure. This email says: “Cardozo, there are miracles outside of the Church” like this. But (...) as if saying “Ay, stop bothering”. And it was put in bold letters. Furthermore (he writes) “Where did you see that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the new mass is a mass that is not of the Catholic Church?” I'm sorry! I almost had a heart attack; that is to say, Bishop Faure defends the fact that the new mass is a mass of the Catholic Church.

I went to Argentina to look for two little books. There's a book by Archbishop Lefebvre titled "The New Church", it is not that the archbishop writes a quote about the new church, no, "The New Church." There's another book that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, it is called “The New Mass”, I know that I had it, but I can see that somebody borrowed it, and it never was returned, well that's the way it goes. How is it that Bishop Faure tells me that where did I see that Archbishop Lefebvre says that the new mass is a mass that's outside of the Catholic Church? But it doesn't stop here. The error is exponential. Let's see, what do we have here? Do you know the Dominican monks of Avrillé? Yes? You know who they are…in all truth, I had a very high concept of them. When one says Dominican monk, you know that you refer to a life that is secluded in the cloister and spends his time, his life, studying theology, that is to say, they are persons that know a little bit more than just the catechism, supposedly.

Then, the Dominicans become part of the discussion, they get involved in the fight, ok, and I read this that's titled: “The Neomodernist Sect that occupies the Catholic Church.”, the Dominicans of Avrillé. I did not count all the contradictions, but if you have this document, count them, there are more than one. This document was repeated by the future bishop, Dom Tomas de Aquino. This document says, trying to explain the relationship between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church (...) I'll read it to you, pay attention, please, because I notice that nobody reads, that many say they read, but in reality they don't read. The conciliar church, the Neomodernist church is not, therefore, neither a substantially different to the Catholic Church (beep, beep, beep), nor absolutely identical to it”. Wow! That is, it is not either equal or different; excuse me. What do you call this? CONTRADICTION. Sorry, in Spanish this is a contradiction, and wait, there are still prettier things coming. (...) “She, the conciliar church, mysteriously has something from one, and something from the other”. That is to say (...) the Lutheran church has, mysteriously, something Catholic, see, like baptism, they make the comparison. Here they say something that is very true, and I share it with you. It is a foreign body that occupies the Catholic Church, that is to say, the conciliar church is a foreign body that occupies the Catholic Church, but (…) I'm glad you are sitting down, and the ones standing, please hold tight to the wall. “It is necessary for us to distinguish them, without separating them”.

Let's see if I explain myself (…) the conciliar church is a foreign body that's occupying the Catholic Church (…) let's imagine a tick on my hand (…) it is necessary to distinguish them (…) see? this is the tick (…) this is me, (my hand), but do not separate them. Pardon me, did you realize that you have separated yourselves from your parish? Why did you separate yourselves from your parish? Because you didn't want to become infected with modernism? If I have this bug that's biting me here (Father's hand), and this (Father's hand) is the Catholic Church, I can distinguish them, but cannot separate them, the Dominicans are telling me.

Gentlemen, didn't Archbishop Lefebvre tell us “There shouldn't be any arrangements with these people (the modernists); when they convert to the faith, they will find us, the Catholics? ”. Didn't Archbishop Lefebvre say that? True? Did Archbishop Lefebvre tell us, “You have to distinguish the bug of modernism, but do not separate it from the church?”. Did archbishop Lefebvre say that? No, gentlemen. I cannot coexist with error, what's more, the defense of the truth, love for the truth implies a combat against error. I cannot permit that the bug continues sucking my blood, because that's going to kill me (…) so, if I see Our Holy Mother the Catholic Church infected with modernism (…) what do I have to say…oh, yes I can distinguish them (…) but I cannot separate them. I don't know if you realize where this is taking us (Bishop Williamson's, Bishop Faure's, Dom Tomas de Aquino's, Fr Trincado's position)? I don't know if I'm too perceptive (…) Don't you realize that it is leading to an identification of the Catholic Church with the post conciliar church, just what Bishop Fellay is doing? Because Bishop Fellay says: “This visible church (the church of Vatican II), is the Catholic Church”; that is to say, we are going the same way. We have left the neofraternity to remain Catholic, and now we see that we are directing the ship's bow towards the neofraternity, towards the neofraternity's position. Please open your eyes, do not be imbeciles! (...) forgive me, but just use a little bit of reasoning.No one works without having an end. Why are they saying these things; why are they saying “1+1=3”? And why are they saying: "No, the new mass is good".? And why are they saying: "No, the new mass (the modern mass) is a mass of the Catholic Church?

Good (….) but let us now go to another detail. In January, I left for to go to the other missions (…) I thought that the people were in peace, that they understood, but I think I was mistaken. And when I was about to leave (...) I got the news that the future bishop, Dom Tomas de Aquino is blocking me from the apostolate in São Paulo. The sacristan is here, he is my witness, I wasn't in accord with Dom Tomas de Aquino, because he was defending Bishop Williamson with all his strength (a capa y espada). Dom Tomas de Aquino was saying in letters that I had to correct myself, that I had to submit myself to the hierarchy, but how embarrassing it is to have to say words that the bishop is not going to support. And I told the sacristan, and he is a witness (…) when I left, there was going to be a baptism of our dear Cecilia, and I told him, be careful, if Cecilia wants the baptism done, there’s no problem, no problem, it is a valid, licit baptism. Well, I did not receive the same condescendence. I was received as if I was a heretic (…) it is funny, because they ask him, Dom Tomas, why can't Fr Cardozo say Mass in Sao Pablo? No, it's because Cardozo is against the hierarchy, can you imagine, if he goes to the monastery and he says he doesn't believe in the little miracles, he would create a conflict between the hierarchy and Fr Cardozo.

Specifically, in this famous point of the little miracles, who is in accord with St Pius X? I'm sorry, B Williamson? Did I deny the magisterium of the church? Did I deny the sanctity of the church? I'm asking! I didn't. He did! And with pertinence, he insisted and insisted. I even went as far as to write: (to Bishop Williamson) “Monsignor, please stop this fairy tale, to save myself I don't need little miracles outside of the church. Stop the division that you are about to cause in the resistance.” And the answer that my friend stated (in the letter answering Bishop Williamson’s errors). “Dear Fr Cardozo: Patience. This chaos is barely starting. Patience. I give you my blessing. Good bye”. A chaos that he started (Bishop Williamson), the cause. I'm sorry. “and the chaos is barely starting”. So you better hold on (…) hold on (...) but I tell you again, don't come and tell me that I'm causing division in the resistance, that I'm causing scandal, that I'm against the hierarchy and so many other things. Do you know who ordained me? Someone that went against the hierarchy (…) because the hierarchy, as long as it remains Catholic, it's great (…) but as long as it opposes the Catholic doctrines, excuse me, (…) Archbishop Lefebvre did not go against the papal hierarchy? (…) be careful, I have the honor of having been ordained by him. I cannot betray this man, and be careful (…) much less, betray Him (Our Lord). I cannot, just because I like Bishop Williamson, swallow this fairy tale, and tell all of you:Gentlemen, there are little miracles, little foolishness. I'm attacking the sanctity of the church, gentlemen, and this error is taking us to attack the unity of the church”. Why? Because of what I just told you about the Dominicans. The dominicans who say the conciliar church is mysteriously united to the Catholic Church (…) the Catholic Church is the immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ, and the immaculate spouse of Christ has as her head, Christ Himself. And the same Christ, that is, the head, and the body of the immaculate spouse of

Christ cannot be embracing mysteriously with a prostitute (…) let see if you understand it. Or is the catechism that hard?

We are talking about the catechism, we are not talking about the Summa Theologica, we are talking about the catechism, gentlemen; and I've noticed that we need to learn more our catechism. Remember that Jesus Christ says also: “he who loves his father, his mother, his son, more than Me, is not worthy of Me” (....) it seems that we have to love Williamson above all things. Pardon me. I continue to try to follow the first commandment. Is that a sin? Is that heresy? Is that a scandal? Just as I have read in an email: “What a scandal”! (...) Who's creating the scandal, the one that denies the doctrine, the one that attacks Catholic doctrine, or the one that is simply asking please, gentlemen, defend the Catholic catechism? The souls are at stake!

And they are scandalized saying that Fr Cardozo has a group of people putting things in Father’s head, implying that I cannot think! And what are we to do? Some people ask me, “Father, what are you going to do? Are you going to the consecration of Bishop Tomas? What do you think about the consecration? Is it ok to have a consecration? Yes, for me, it would be excellent for a consecration to take place, that there is a bishop in each state of Brazil, or at least one bishop in each country, that would be excellent. But for that bishop to be Catholic, if not, he would be useless, gentlemen. If Bishop Tomas, future bishop Tomas, is going to continue in this tessitura of attacking the sanctity of the Church, the unity of the Church; pardon me, I will not follow that way. “But father, you will be left without a bishop, what are you going to do?” What? How's that, gentlemen, you do not understand anything. “How is it that I'm going to be left without a bishop?” (...) when I say these things, when they tell me these things, I think we are on a different planet (…) who have I been talking and preaching to? How is it that I'm going to be left without a bishop? Is it perhaps that I'm going to be left without a St. Augustine, without a St. Ambrose, without St. Anthony Mary Claret, without Bishop John Fisher?

St. Ambrose
Because all of those bishops, thousands and thousands of bishops, and a lot of them saints, have supported and defended the sanctity of the Church and the unity of the Church, they have not attacked it, and have not cast doubts on it. Because some people, trying to save the situation, say: “they are just saying that it can be possible (…)” Gentlemen, if I deny a dogma of the faith or if I put it into doubt, I sin gravely against the faith. Read your catechism.
If I tell you “I think that it is possible that there's no hell”, I am committing a grave sin against the Faith, as grave as if I had told you, there is no hell. Why because I cannot cast the doubt on something that's already been defined by the Church. Let's see if we understand. Let's see if we are realistic and if we really love the Truth. Because it is very pretty to say that we love God, and "viva Cristo Rey" and I don't know what else! But when the situation arises, in which we have to decide for the Truth. Aye, no, we will be left without a bishop”. I was listening to an audio in which someone said “I need a bishop” You know what But I, in order to have a bishop, will not compromise an ounce of my Faith. I don't k? I NEED THE FAITH. If there are any Catholic bishops, blessed be God. If there's no Catholic bishop, I regret it; God, The Divine Providence, will see how to fix this problem.now if I have made myself clear. Don't come and tell me:” you are a rebel, you are here to divide”, gentlemen, I believe I have never taught an error against the faith here. And the one that says the opposite, come to me and prove it. I'm not denying the hierarchy of Bishop Williamson, of Faure or any other bishop, I am saying that those gentlemen are in a big error against the faith, and they persevere in their error.

Let us continue with the catechism. And this really scares me, gentlemen, because we are talking about clergymen. Do you know, what one of the sins against the Holy Ghost is? I'm going to refresh your memory (…) How many sins of the Holy Ghost are there? The catechism says: there are six sins against the Holy Ghost: to despair of our own salvation, presumption of being saved without any merits, to fight against the known truth. And you are going to tell me that these three bishops, we will include Dom Tomas as one bishop; haven't they read the Credo (…) don't they pray it every Sunday (…) which says “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church (…) what's this (…) they didn't know this truth? (…) and now they are stepping on it into the ones defending it? They have no shame! Let them do with me whatever they want, but I will not follow this, I want to die a Catholic.Why don't I use the title of resistance (…) because when one says resistance, they immediately associate it with Williamson, and excuse me (…) as long as Williamson doesn't retract himself, refer to me personally as Catholic (…) only that! Do not come to me with adjectives that are crooked (…) I'm Catholic, period! And prove to me that I am not! Be careful! Prove to me that I am not!

He who comes to try to prove that I am not Catholic, before doing that, he has to eat this catechism, and all of it.
Gentlemen, some years ago, you asked me to come and take care of Ipatinga, and gladly, I did it. You know! I haven't lied to you, I haven't taught bad doctrine, "But, attention, please (...) there's a sign outside that reads: CATHOLIC MISSION, and I hope that that sign continues saying, CATHOLIC MISSION. I don't want to change the sign to “Williamson Mission” or whatever name you want to use (...) No, I am not here for this (…) Pardon me, I have a lot of work, too much work (...) If with this I'm told now, “go away, because we want to be one of Williamson's sect or whomever else's”: ok, good luck, my friends, I will continue going my way. I am not afraid to leave. St. Paul has a beautiful phrase: “I know in whom I have believed.”

Just this past Saturday we read in the epistle, one phrase that I would suggest to you, to read and re-read, and meditate on it, it is the phrase: “cursed be the man who puts his trust in another man”. I ask you: is Williamson God? Is Bishop Faure God? Is the future Bishop Dom Tomas de Aquino God? Are all of the Dominican monks, (even though, there's two, that I know are firm, trying to fight the error) are they God? Do I have to bow down my intelligence and say, ok gentlemen, “Amen” as Dom Tomas de Aquino is asking me to do? I would like that Dom Tomas de Aquino was as the other Dom Tomas de Aquino when Bishop Williamson came (you can see it in a video when Bishop Williamson started exalting Benedict XVI, Dom Tomas interrupts him and says, be careful, be careful, don't continue (...) perfect interruption, perfect (…) too sad he hasn't repeated this act of faith now, too sad! I'm so sorry! I so sorry because Dom Tomas de Aquino, and you know, I have told you, I will be grateful until the day of my death to Dom Tomas because he received me when I left San Pablo (SSPX), my eternal gratitude! But not because of that gratitude, I'm going to accept the errors that they are now sustaining. But going back to the same. I repeat, if there's any matter that you think that I'm a heretic, that I'm here to divide the resistance, that is, I'm a stupid person that doesn't know how to think, that all my friends are filling my head with ideas, they are making me divert, I think you are underestimating me a little.

If you want to continue being Catholic, I will come here, if you do not want to continue being Catholic, excuse me, I'll pack my bags, and will go (…) no problem. Thank God, my dear friend Eric will receive me in his house. We can move the chapel to a different place, no problem. But please tell me, (…) BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH HERETICS! I DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH SECTARIANS! I WANT TO WORK WITH CATHOLICS! IF NOT, I’M WASTING MY TIME, WHICH I CAN USE IN BETTER THINGS THAN TO BE WASTING MY TIME WITH SECTARIANS. IS THIS CLEAR? Is it clear to you that I intend to follow the commandment to Love God above all things? And how do I prove that I love God above all things? Because I keep his word. “He who loves me will keep my word” (…) good, this is what I will ask of you, if you are Catholics, keep his word, and do not try to distort it, saying more or less, or it can be (…) no, no gentlemen.

Now there's a letter going around, a little letter from dear Fr Trincado, the great sophist, with a lot of questions about this and that. I read it some time ago, he sent it to a long time ago, I'm sorry, I'm not going to discuss, not a period, or a comma, with a sophist. Not a period, not a comma. And he who wants to come to discuss this problem, I'm going to ask him a favor (…) a favor of intellectual honesty. Bring me a little letter that says, I adhere totally and absolutely to the Catholic doctrine, which is contained in this catechism (catechism of St Pius X ) because if you come to me with sophisms, I don't want to lose my time.

How is it possible, that after 40 years in the fight, there are traditionalist priests that come and tell me that the new mass (the modern mass) is good (…) My God!
And that the Conciliar Church cannot separate from the Catholic Church, my God! Time is gold (…) and I do not want to waste it on stupidities.

Today is a very important day for this mission, because, depending on what you decide, either we save ourselves, or we condemn ourselves. Either we continue being Catholic, or become a sect. You choose! And I ask you, that at least by Saturday you tell me (…) because I have to get my things, I have to see where I'm going to go, what I'm going to do. Just a simple thing (…) But I repeat, before answering me, read this (…) because maybe this catechism is prepared by Cardozito to lie to you, no, no, there's a lot of them (catechisms) read it! Because a lot has been said, and there has been said a lot of stupidities (…) because we do not know the catechism. And let us finish with that phrase from the gospel: “He who is not with me, is against me” and as far as I know, I have not denied any dogma or article from the creed, the others have!

VIVA CRISTO REY!

++++++

 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
The above is certainly a must read to see the astounding differences and similarities provided in the quotes of the three so called resistance bishops who are in direct contrast to Archbishop Lefebvre and in likeness to the revolution of Bishop Fellay.

When it was posted in early 2016, there is obviously more of the "chaos" ensued throughout its year incited by the conciliar-resistance.

Really, what are these so called resistance bishops fighting when they all point to conciliarism?

Like the Valdez oil disaster, they hit the rocks, and now list.
 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member
Thanks for reminding us about this letter and sermon.

Pointing out the similarities in statements of the three “resistance” bishops with Bishop Fellay which are different from those of Archbishop Lefebvre reveals a lot. It shows us, as Father Cardozo says in his sermon above, that:

We have left the neofraternity to remain Catholic, and now we see that we are directing the ship’s bow towards the neofraternity, towards the neofraternity’s position.”


Another good point from Father Cardozo’s sermon is what St. Pius X says about miracles and the sanctity of the Church.


Father Cardozo:

Speaking of the mark of sanctity, he [St. Pius X] says:

"The faithful that reads with a sincere heart the history of the church, will see this sanctity shine, not only on the essential sanctity of its invisible head, Jesus Christ, the sanctity of the sacraments, of the doctrine, of the religious corporations, of a great number of its members, but also abundance of celestial gifts, of the sacred charisms, of the prophesies, and --attention here-- and miracles with which Our Lord, denying these to the other religions, makes shine upon the face of the earth, this gift of sanctity of which exclusively his only church is endowed. I repeat, and miracles with which Our Lord, denying these to the other religions, makes shine upon the face of the earth, this gift of sanctity of which exclusively his only church is endowed.”

-end of quote-


St. Pius X says that miracles are “exclusive” to his “only” church (the Catholic Church) and denied to the other religions (the Conciliar Church).

Also note that St. Pius X says, that miracles “make shine upon the earth, this gift of sanctity.” This is the purpose of miracles. But there is no sanctity in the Conciliar Church, thus there can be no miracles in the Conciliar Church

This quote of St. Pius X proves Bishop Williamson wrong.


And Father Cardozo later says in his sermon:

“… I cannot, just because I like Bishop Williamson, swallow this fairy tale, and tell all of you: ‘Gentlemen, there are little miracles, little foolishness. I’m attacking the sanctity of the church, gentlemen, and this error is taking us to attack the unity of the church.”

Good points, Father Cardozo.
 
Top