Signs of Schism emerging in the "resistance" of Fr. Cardozo

You just can't make this stuff up. It really is a sad state of affairs. Two blogs have just come out full Ambrose (the impostor 'bishop' invited to Kentucky last year to cause scandal). One of these is the blog of the El Paso Mission (a estrogen-dominant group that chose to name it's chapel after Ven. Maria de Agreda). The other blog is the Fr. Cardozo led Pale Ideas. As of now, they have posted the articles in Spanish and Portuguese and promise English soon. The title of the post is: "Fr. Ortiz and friends: it is a duty to alert the faithful". This is as to show us that we must be careful with those who follow Fr. Ortiz. (That's right. They are warning us against Fr. Ortiz because he warned us about the false bishop, Ambrose.) They then characterize Fr. Ortiz by posting a picture of Judas Iscariot with the words: "The traitor receiving  his compensation, guided by the Father of Lies. Who guides the desistance?"

Fr. Cardozo recently with Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer in the El Paso Mission.

It should be noted that the Pale Ideas blog is under Fr. Cardozo, who has been meeting recently with Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer. What is incredible is that in the post they say that Ambrose was "falsely accused of being an orthodox" and that Fr. Ortiz writes in the "style of the sophists that elevate certain bishops to the status of divine". All of the questions raised by Fr. Ortiz have been dealt with they tell us. In the post, they refer to Ambrose as "monsenhor", while asking the question to the reader if Fr. Ortiz is writing his 36 page report in aspirations for a "mitre".   The level of depravity of the chapels under the care of Fr. Cardozo is incredible. What next? They actually use the word "mitre" with quotation marks, as if to say that Fr. Ortiz is seeking to become a "bishop", a false bishop. So, they consider Ambrose a Catholic bishop, whom they call Monsenhor, falsely accused of being a scismatic, but they deny that bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson will be true bishops with "mitres". Finally, they accuse those of us that are a little more mentally balanced than themselves of being great divisors worrying ourselves with those who are "still remaining Catholic" (because we aren't). All of this comes not long after they posted a blog casting Bishop Thomas Aquinas, OSB into hell.

What will we see next from this group?


See the link from Pale Ideas here and the El Paso Mission here.

Exposing the Pfeiffer-cult: Who is Paul Hernandez?

It is necessary to warn Catholics about the many dangers lurking within the Fr. Pfeiffer gang. Fr. Pfeiffer came onto the resistance scene in 2012 as being one of the most outspoken voices against the new direction of Menzingen. He soon began to upload every one of his sermons, some up to an hour or more in length, to his YouTube channel 469fitter. Unfortunately, Fr. Pfeiffer has since caused a lot of harm to the Catholic resistance by his many scandals exposed by good priests and former associates like Fr. Chazal, Fr. Ortiz, Fr. Voight, and others. (See the many posts on Cath Info, the site Ecclesia Militans, and Non Possumus to know more.)

 The purpose of this post is to expose Fr. Pfeiffer's right hand man and cat's paw, Paul Hernandez, also known as Pablo the Mexican. The seriousness of disassociating with the Pfeiffer-sect becomes even more compelling when we take a look behind the scenes and not just at whom the schismatic pretend bishops are that offer 'Mass" on his altar.

Who is Pablo the Mexican? Why does Fr. Pfeiffer insist on this man being at the heart of his operation?

Pablo the Mexican, lay exorcist and 'spiritual vigilante'.

The Phoenix new times published an article (here) about Paul Hernandez in 2001. Here are some excerpts from that story:

Paul Hernandez sits in a dimly lighted two-room apartment on the west side of Phoenix and prepares for battle…He's a self-styled exorcist, a spiritual vigilante who's spent the past 19 years trying to smack Satan into submission…This work can get dicey, Hernandez is quick to advise you. He says he was once rushed to Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center after evil apparitions pounded his kidneys. He says that on another occasion, four cherubic-looking little demons restrained his arms and legs while he was reclining in a La-Z-Boy chair. He also recounts being plagued by a series of mysterious eye infections and foot ailments over the years.

If all this is true -- it's difficult to confirm most of his stories and those who have asked him to perform exorcisms describe much more mundane sessions than Hernandez -- why does he put himself through the aggravation? After all, he's not a priest or an appointed church official. He's a plumber by trade, better equipped to expel clogs from a drain than demons from a human body.

Hernandez brings some of that brawling, pipefitter mentality to his exorcism work. Confronted with a person he believes to be demonically possessed, his first response is to disregard church piety and simply shout at the devil -- as he would at a lazy co-worker: "Hey, knock off the bullshit!"

These days, he's a solitary figure: divorced from his wife, keeping his distance from most of his 14 siblings, frequently taking extended sabbaticals from work to concentrate on exorcism projects, and changing residences so often that even longtime pals have trouble finding him.

When a friend recently asked Hernandez where he was living, the self-appointed spiritual warrior cryptically responded, "I can't let people know where the Bat Cave is."

Ultimately, what's unique about Hernandez's exorcism work is that unlike Catholic priests -- who have the authorization of the church behind them -- or Larson -- who's got the power of the airwaves behind him -- he's a renegade, who seems bolstered by nothing but his own unrelenting obsession with Satan.

Such obsessions are often derided by modernists as "spiritual paranoia," and Hernandez frequently does sound more than a little paranoid. For instance, when discussing the legal problems of his 22-year-old son, who has been busted for offenses ranging from methamphetamine to concealed-gun possession, Hernandez proclaims: "The devil hates my boy real bad." Similarly, he blames demonic influence on his ex-wife's decision to leave him nine years ago, and on his car's occasional failure to start.

…he decided to apprentice with the local plumbers union; he spent five years learning his craft before becoming a full-fledged union member. He quickly developed a reputation as a dedicated worker, and a hard-nosed ball-buster, who thought nothing of reprimanding lax workers, or pushing union leaders to make greater contractual demands.

In one case, he says, he even threatened to "squeeze the nuts" of a group of firefighters he encountered buying building materials at Home Depot, believing they were taking contract work away from his union.

Hernandez says word started to get out about his exorcism work, and complete strangers began approaching him for help. In one case, Hernandez received a call from a parole officer. The PO was handling the case of a brawny, sandy-haired Tolleson kid named Cage Keller, and didn't know where else to turn.  

In the summer of 1999, Hernandez was driving home after seeing a movie, when he impulsively decided to pull into the parking lot of Chico's, a popular south Phoenix bar. Inside the bar, he struck up a conversation with Beltran, and she told him about her problems. He offered to perform an exorcism at her house.

In 1997, when Hernandez missed a court date related to a traffic ticket, he asked then-pastor Kenneth Dean to write a letter on his behalf. Dean complied, and his March 24, 1997, letter described Hernandez as a "lay exorcist." It explained that his exorcism work occasionally "makes him dysfunctional," rendering him unable to show up for appointments because he's too busy tackling demons. For that reason, Dean asked the judge for leniency.

Pablo the lay exorcist’s position at Fr. Pfeiffer’s seminary.

-Pablo is in charge of the Youtube channel which uploads all of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko’s videos. Sometimes Pablo even his own videos. The You tube channel is called 469fitter, in reference to plumbing and pipefitting. The videos of the scandalous communication in sacris that took place in Pfeiffer’s seminary with the schismatic false bishop Moran are currently viewable on the You tube channel. There is a grave obligation to warn all Catholics to stay far away from this organization and not send seminarians there, as Fr. Ortiz confirmed in his report about the visit of the false bishop.

-Pablo is also in charge of the official and copyrighted website of the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminary of Fr. Pfeiffer. The website is known for having calumniated Bishop Williamson.

-Pablo, along with another woman, is in charge of the finances of the Pfeiffer seminary.

-When Fr. Pfeiffer and other priests are not present in the seminary, Paul Hernandez is placed in charge of the seminarians. It has been reported by some seminarians that Pablo had been watching sexually explicit movies that caused scandal at the seminary. (linkhere)

- One ex-seminarian reported that Pablo is sometimes up at night drinking with a married woman. (link here)

- Pablo lives and holds a key position at the seminary but does not attend Mass or frequent the sacraments. 

- In November of 2014, Pablo the Mexican sent a letter to Mass coordinators making subtle threats claiming to practice Omerta, a mafia-code of silence in committing crimes. (link to letter)

- Many faithful have complained and complained asking Fr. Pfeiffer to break ties with Pablo. Fr. Pfeiffer ignores the complaints of the faithful and continues to maintain this relationship with Pablo even though he has caused many scandals to his opeartion.

- Priests have also denounced Fr. Pfeiffer's relationship with Pablo, but Fr. Pfeiffer ignores their voice.

What do priests and former associates of Fr. Pfeiffer say about Pablo the Mexican?

Fr. Voight:

" Why is a known apostate in charge of the seminarians on the weekend? How is this man tied to the “boss” and is this a friendship that is wholesome and beneficial for the formation of theseminarian? How many priests have asked the question: “Why does father keep that person in the seminary? Do birds of a feather really flock together andwhat kind of bird is this “Pablo”? What kind of apple? (Paul Hernandez is alias Pablo and alias Marco Andolino). If it is true that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks then we must conclude that Fr. Pfeiffer's friend, Pablo,is hateful, arrogant, rude and condemning. This is the type of individual who isassisting in the formation of new priests.

"I cannot accept that a practicing and practical apostate (i.e. Pablo) can be good for seminarians. Fr. Pfeiffer tells the young men that they need to know evil to fight it (I believe he is referring to his friend's actions and speech). Then as one seminarian correctly reasoned: “the seminary ought to bring in prostitutes to encourage the virtue and vow of chastity.” It makes no sense but try to tell that to the "boss” (Pablo). 

"Finally, I want to expose the aliases of your favorite person, Pablo the Mexican. Pablo becomes Marco Andolino when he wants to say nasty things about others on the internet. He is Paul Hernandez who seeks to become “one who must be obeyed.” He is a coward, a thief and a hindrance to your mission. He is creating a hateful environment for the seminarians. 

 "When you returned you failed to uphold the priestly authority over the layman. This is lay investiture at its worst. This is a seminary and he is an employee. It was at that point that you lost my respect and trust. I am sorry it happened but you placed me in conflict with Pablo and I will not hesitate to do my duty. You failed to judge by the fruit that was evident. Fr. Hewko recognized it but you were more concerned with Pablo the Mexican. By the way, I learned that the weekly food budget of Pablo was $750 per week. Funny, we were able to have good meals and it only cost me $200 for that week and I was not all day inthe supermarket but got home to work with the seminarians.

"While Pablo was on vacation I told him I didn't want him in the priest's house
and I locked the doors at midnight. He came and tried to get in at 1:30 a.m.
He broke a window. Was he ever corrected? What gives him the right to the
priests' house? What gives him the right to take over the bishop's room? Why
not give him your room or purchase a trailer for him? In my mind he is the boss
and you are a pawn in his hands. He is there continuously and you only
a few days at a time. You want the titles; he wants the power. It is a sad state
of affairs."

Download the complete pdf of Fr. Voights letter here.

Fr. Chazal about Pablo:

"Pablo 'the Mexican Exorcist' introduced this 'bishop' to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko."    here

Fr. Ortiz about Pablo:

"The first practical element that the fathers overlooked in running their seminary is that it is time consuming. How did the fathers intend to reconclie this task with the very busy apostolate outside of the seminary? One of the Fathers' 'solutions' to this problem was to entrust the seminarians to an unqualified layman, Pablo, duringtheir absence..."

"Another sign, revealing a dangerous drifting towards this personality cult mentality, is how Fr. Pfeiffer is using cunningly some laymen to enforce his personal power. For instance, Clergy and faithful, have been disturbed and concerned by how Fr. Pfeiffer has been using Pablo Hernández’ services for years in his Seminary, though it is publicly known that this man does not approach the Sacraments, claims to be an ‘exorcist,’ and has worked most of his life as a worker union official. Those who have lived close enough to Father and Pablo affirm that there is a very close bond among them. Pablo is very much in control of finances and is the person on which Father can always count for the ‘tough’ jobs, using always ruthless methods and his websitesto attack Father’s and his own opponents. Equally concerning isthe fact the Fathers, during their frequent absence from the Seminary, entrust the seminarians to Pablo’s hands to the point of giving them ‘spiritual conferences’ (sic) and fully running the house when the Fathers are away. All the attempts of Father’s friends begging him to dismiss Pablo have been mysteriously not listened to… In any case, Father gives him FULL support and continually excuses his behavior." (link to full document here)

Conclusion

With the voices of several priests, laymen, and seminarians united to denounce an apostate in charge of a Catholic seminary, the fact remains clear that support for the operations of Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko cannot be justified.

The Grave Error of Fr. Pfeiffer-English/español

El Error Grave del Padre Pfeiffer
The Grave Error of Fr. Pfeiffer


Because this detail was basically overlooked and drowned out from the clamor resulting from the leak of personal information from the site OLMC, and because it is a subject of grave importance, I am posting it on its own thread.  To put it into greater context one must read the Open Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer which can be found here.                                 


The delicate subject of the Communicatio in sacris was addressed in the Open Letter, which never received a reply of any sort as of today.  I am convinced that it is not a matter which any Traditional Catholic can ignore.  There is a grave error to be found, which whether you support Fr. Pfeiffer completely or not, everyone should be asking him to clarify on this issue.  If you support Fr. Pfeiffer, and after understanding the issue of this error, you deliberately choose to support him on this error, I am publicly calling into question your belief in the Catholic religion and simply suggesting that perhaps being loyal to Fr. Pfeiffer is more important to you than being loyal to Christ's Church. 

Fact: The SSPX celebrates, without exceptions, the 1962 Tridentine rite of the Mass. 


fact The communicatio in sacris is a sin and a canonical crime. In order for the canonical crime of communicatio in sacris, canon law requires certain specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the rite is "non-Catholic". This requirement is sine qua non. The Tridentine Mass is not a non-Catholic rite, so one can never commit the crime of communicatio in sacris assisting a true Tridentine Mass. 


Fact  The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says: "Communicatio in sacris, i.e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions...". 
www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5695 
Prümmer, "Manuale Theologiae Moralis", Herder, 1961, T 1, n° 522 (boock used in the SSPX) says: "Communicatio religiosa seu in sacris... est positiva, quando catholicus participat in culto hereticu aut infideli" ("Communicatio religiosa seu in sacris... is positive, when a Catholic participates in the heretical or infidel religious services [cult]") ... 



Fact: As cited in the Open Letter, Fr. Pfeiffer has publicly asserted that attending any SSPX Mass would be a sin-crime of Communicatio in sacris.  This recording is public and anyone can find various sites that have published this and attempted to bind the faithful's conscience to this error.  Fr. Pfeiffer, because this error was public, should publicly have to retract this error due to the devestating effects that it has caused to the common good.  As of today, he has not. 

Conclusion  One may well conclude that Fr. Pfeiffer does not understand the term Communicatio in sacris, or that he is deliberately being deceptive.  The only other option to be concluded is that he does not believe that the 1962 rite of the Mass IS a valid Catholic rite; I do not believe that this is the case, but because his words are public and the grave error is present, he is obligated to retract under the pain of grave sin if he understands the danger and damage he has caused to the salvation of souls.  If the reader has come to understand what this means and holds to this position, he also has an obligation to withdraw this position of a priest that propagates and obliges such grave errors onto the Catholic faithful. 


Adverse thoughts and opinions on this topic are most certainly welcome. Before responding please read both responses from a resistance priest, which can be found added as updates to the Open Letter on the link provided. Thanks. 

In Christo Rege, 
Michael Fuller 
Brazil



En español

Debido al hecho que hay un detalle ignorado o sea que no recibió atención debido a un otro escándalo de informaciones difundidas por el sitio oficial de la iglesia OLMC y porque lo considero de primer importancia, lo estoy dando su proprio comentario aquí. Para entenderlo en un contexto mejor, se requiere leer la Carta Abierta al Padre Pfeifer que se puede encontrar aquí .

El tema delicado sobre el Communicatio in sacris fue abordado en la Carta Abierta y nunca recibió ninguna respuesta hasta hoy.  Estoy convencido que no es un asunto que nosotros tradicionalistas podemos ignorar. Hay un grave error que se encuentra y aún si se apoye al Padre Pfeiffer o no, después de entenderlo eso, si se escoge deliberadamente a apoyarle al error, yo públicamente estoy cuestionando su creencia en la Fe Católica y sugiriendo simplemente que es mas importante apoyar al P. Pfeiffer que ser leal a la Iglesia fundada por Cristo para tales personas.

Hecho: La FSPX celebra sin excepciones el rito Tridentino del año 1962 de la Santa Misa.   

Hecho: La communicatio in sacris es un pecado que además es un delito canónico. Para que exista el delito canónico de communio in sacris, la ley canónica exige ciertos requisitos precisos. Uno de estos requisitos es que el rito sea "acatólico". Este requisito es sine qua non. La misa tridentina no es un rito acatólico. Entonces, nunca se puede cometer el delito de communio in sacris asistiendo a una verdadera misa tridentina.  

Hecho:  La "Enciclopedia Católica", dice: "Communicatio in sacris, es decir, la participación activa en las funciones religiosas no católicas ...".

www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5695

Prümmer, "Manuale Theologiae Moralis", Herder, 1961, T 1, n ° 522 (boock utilizado en la Fraternidad San Pío X) dice: "Communicatio religiosa seu in sacris ... est positiva, quando catholicus tome parte en culto hereticu aut infideli" ("communicatio religiosa seu in sacris ... es positivo, cuando un católico participa en los servicios religiosos heréticos o infieles [culto] ") ...

Hecho: Como fue citado en la Carta Abierta, P. Pfeiffer ha afirmado públicamente que asistir a cualquier misa de la Fraternidad es un pecado-delito de Communicatio in sacris.  Esta grabación es publica y cualquier persona puede encontrarla en los varios sitios que la han subido y han tratado obligar la consciencia de los feligreses con ese error. Porque este error fue anunciado públicamente, solo es correcto pedir que el P. Pfeiffer renuncie públicamente este error, debido a los efectos devastadores al bien común.  Hasta hoy, no lo ha hecho.

Conclusion: Uno puede concluir bien que el P. Pfeiffer no entiende el término Communicatio in sacris o que a propósito está siendo engañoso. La única otra opción que se puede concluir es que el no cree que el rito Tridentino del misal de 1962 es un rito válidamente católico y yo no creo que esta es la situación. Porque sus palabras son públicas y el error existe, el está obligado retirarlo bajo pena de pecado grave si el entiende el peligro y daño que ha causado a la salvación de las almas.  Si el lector ha entendido lo que significa y mantiene esta posición, también tiene la obligación de retirarla la posición que fue propagada por un cura que obliga este tipo de error a los fieles católicos.

Pensamientos y opiniones adversos son bienvenidos pero sugiero cordialmente que antes de adicionar un comentario lean las respuestas adicionadas a la Carta Abierta de un sacerdote de la resistencia. 

Muchas gracias.

Michael Fuller
Brasil     

Open Letter (Carta abierta) to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer-English/español

Open Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer, English and Spanish


Rev. Father Pfeiffer,

November 13, 2014


I would like to communicate to you in a public correspondence how much I admire your fight for the Faith and Tradition and your resistance to a deal with modernist Rome.  It was only by accident that a couple years ago I stumbled across your you-tube video of May 27th, 2012 during the same week that it was published.  It was this video and the subsequent events of that summer which opened my eyes to the problem, which persists, of the leadership of the SSPX.  Your courage in speaking was especially inspiring to me, and I listened to your sermon several times that week.  

Since that time many things have changed, which are not even necessary for me to describe here.  The principal fact which is now different from that year is that there are now literally dozens of priests who have left the SSPX or have been dismissed due to their disagreement with a compromise to the modernist Roman authorities, the primary of these priests being His Excellency Bishop R. Williamson.  Within recent days there seems to be a disagreement between yourself and at least one or two other resistance priests, so much so that it has been perceived by the faithful and published in the public forum, as well as receiving attention in a recent “question and answers’ session in Canada. (*1) 

Because it seems odd to the faithful that you would remain quiet about this issue, I feel compelled to address it in this letter.  It seems that the true point of disagreement between yourself and other resistance priests is due to your position regarding SSPX Masses.  It seems that you first began to promote your position of "red-lighting" (prohibiting attendance at) all SSPX chapels collectively at least as early as March 10th, 2013 in a sermon where, not specifying if you were being objective or subjective, you stated that all SSPX priests are "guilty" of "wickedness of doctrine" and that it is no longer permitted to the faithful to attend any SSPX Mass because it would be communicatio in sacris with heretics. (Here at minute 46:15- "Every SSPX priest is a modernist" at minute mark 1:00:00 the explanation of communicatio in sacris begins.) The basis for this generalized prohibition of the SSPX Masses was the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay, which was later reported by Fr. Morgan in Catholic Family News to have not only been withdrawn but also "renounced". (*2) 

With these brief details which I have laid out thus far, I find myself obliged to ask you in the public forum, as these details have all received a great deal of public attention among traditional Catholics and also due to the confusion and division which have resulted, several questions which I will enumerate so as to elicit a more precise response and clarification that may serve to foster unity among Traditional Catholics if possible. 

1) If Bishop Fellay has publicly renounced the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, is there some new reason why the faithful are obligated to avoid all SSPX Masses collectively?  Are you still claiming that all SSPX Masses are to be avoided or do you prefer the position which has been deemed more prudent by other resistance priests which calls for caution of SSPX chapels on a case by case basis (yellow-lighting)? 

2) I currently only attend Masses offered by resistance priests but know several priests who are offering Masses in the SSPX chapels and preach very strongly against modern errors, Vatican 2, and the New Mass and have a solid doctrine. If there is certainly the Traditional Faith and Sacraments being offered by individual SSPX priests (and no one doubts this) and the 2012 April 15th Doctrinal Declaration was renounced, does your "red-light" position not conflict with that position of the Society which has always been that where there is solid Catholic doctrine and Traditional Sacraments one may attend Mass? 

3) What is your position towards the numerous other resistance priests who claim that there are many good priests in the SSPX and do not prohibit their faithful from attending SSPX Masses?  Do you also consider these priests as being "guilty" of deceiving the faithful or allowing the faithful to be in communion with heretics?  Do you also prohibit the faithful from attending these other resistance priests' Masses, as would be the logical conclusion?

4) Because of the recent conflict perceived by the faithful between another priest who had recently left the SSPX to help the resistance and yourself, do you not feel that you are possibly jeopardizing the growth of the resistance or even de-motivating other priests from leaving the SSPX and helping the resistance?

5) The biggest concern currently among the faithful regarding yourself, it seems, is that you allow an associate, Pablo, to run your copyrighted Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church © website and post calumnies against His Excellency Bishop Williamson and at least one other resistance priest.  Because it is not like your character to remain silent on issues of this type, it raises even more concern.  Do you choose to not denounce Pablo and his slanders against a prince of the Church and other priests because of "human respect"?  Have you chosen to not speak on this matter because you agree with Pablo and share his views at least to some extent? 


Reverend Fr. Pfeiffer, because I respect you and admire you as a priest and also for the sake of clarity, I hope you will respond to these questions that I have outlined, especially those regarding attendance at the Masses of resistance priests who do not "red-light" SSPX Masses and the opinions expressed on your chapel website regarding the good bishop. 

In Christo Rege,

Michael Fuller

Brazil

footnotes

•

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kTtOUdw9iw

•

 2  http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/953ab2028f6e49e8149ffba1c7b51918-119.html

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/bishop-fellay-on-doctrinal-declaration.html

Update #1: a resistance priest responds

Dear Michael:

This is to complement what you rightly say in your letter.
About the supposed communicatio in sacris that would be committed by those who attend SSPX Masses, it is unreasonable to say that, you couldn't even say that one would have committed  this transgression actively and formally attending the new Mass.
From the course on canon law in my seminary:

"Communicatio in sacris" with non-Catholics:
             The Church never practices the dogmatic tolerance (ie, theological and religious) for the non-Catholic sects, because that would be nothing more than the indifferentism condemned by the Church [1].
            The "communicatio in sacris" is forbidden (cn 1258.)
-The attendance and active participation "in sacris" or taking part in the functions of non-Catholics, is prohibited in any manner whatsoever (. Cn 1258 § 1), provided that such participation means any approval of the other forms of false worship, produces scandal among Catholics, is dangerous to the Catholic faith involved, and confirms the non-Catholic in its error.
- By "non-Catholic sacred function" any sacred function is to be understood: assemblies, sermons, sacraments, liturgical, religious burials, etc. All of these are prohibited with religious intention, even if the prayers are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching. It is not lawful to hear their preaching, receive their sacraments (baptism gr v: 985 cn, 2nd, marrying a non-Catholic minister speech, hearing mass in a schismatic church, etc....).
- The "passive" assistance is the only physical presence of a Catholic in a non-Catholic religious function, and can be tolerated as long as there is no danger of perversion or scandal (cn 1258 §. 2).
- It is tolerated for serious reasons (if in doubt must be approved by the Bishop), by reason of a civil office or taxed honors (cn 1258 § 2.).
NB: The ban on actively attending the sacred functions of non-Catholics was lifted at the time of Vatican II.

It is a legal monstrosity to extend this crime to other circumstances as described in the law, and the law requires that the sacred function that is attended is "non-Catholic", so attendance at the New Mass may be sin under certain circumstances. It can never be considered a crime or sin of communicatio in sacris, even less so would this be the case with attending a Society Mass.


God bless you.

Quote: "If it is the same principle being applied, why would the same term not apply?"

Response from a priest of thee Resistance who is a lawyer:

Because there is a basic principle of universal penal law (including criminal canon law): "nullum crimen sine lege praevia poenali" (no crime without a pre-existing criminal law). The communicatio in sacris is a sin and a canonical crime. In order for the canonical crime of communicatio in sacris, canon law requires certain specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the rite is "non-Catholic". This requirement is sine qua non. The Tridentine Mass is not a non-Catholic rite, so one can never commit the crime of communicatio in sacris assisting a true Tridentine Mass.
Another basic principle of universal criminal law is this: "odiosa sunt restringenda" ( the unfavorable must be restricted). The crimes must be interpreted restrictively. According to this elementary principle of law throughout the world, it is prohibited to qualify as crime the actions similar to a crime. The crimes are described accurately by the law. The crime of communicatio in sacris is described in the canon 1258. So Fr. Morgan says "the closest we can find ... case is the case of the so calledCommunicatio in sacris", and he does not say: "this is a case of so called Communicatio in sacris". 

Therefore, it is a serious mistake, a true legal aberration, to qualify as communicatio in sacris the attendance of Tridentine Masses of the SSPX or other Catholic congregations because priests who celebrate are liberal.
Attending Masses of certain SSPX priests can be a sin for certain people in certain circumstances, but it can not be a sin and a crime of communicatio in sacris for anyone.

En español

Una Carta Abierta al Padre Joseph Pfeiffer en español y inglés

Noviembre 13, 2014

Reverendísimo Padre Pfeiffer,

Me gustaría comunicar con usted lo cuanto que yo admiro su lucha para la Fe Católica y Tradición y su resistencia a un acuerdo con la Roma modernista en una correspondencia pública. Fue por casualidad que unos varios años atrás, yo encontré su homilía de you-tube del 27 de mayo, 2012 en la misma semana que fue publicada.  Fue por causa de la misma homilía y los acontecimientos del verano de 2012 que me di cuenta del problema, que aún existe, que se trata con la cúpula de la Fraternidad San Pío X.  El coraje que usted demostró en hablar fue especialmente una inspiración para mí y asistía su sermón varias veces en aquella semana. 

Desde entonces muchas cosas han cambiado, cosas que ni precisan una descripción en esta carta.  El hecho principal que ha cambiado desde entonces es que ahora hay literalmente decenas de sacerdotes quienes salieron de la FSPX o fueron echados fuera debido a su inconformidad con la traición de la Fraternidad a las autoridades Romanas, principalmente entre ellos es el Monseñor R. Williamson. Más recientemente, parece que hay un desacuerdo entre usted y, por lo menos, uno o dos otros de estos mismos sacerdotes de la resistencia, tanto así que fue percibido por los feligreses y publicado en foros públicos, como también recibió atención en una charla de “preguntas y respuestas” en Canadá. *

Porque nos parece extraño que usted padre aguarda silencio sobre estos asuntos, me siento obligado abordarlo en esta carta.  Es la verdad que aparece que el punto del desacuerdo entre usted y los otros sacerdotes de la resistencia es debido a su posición de dar la “luz roja” a (prohibir la asistencia de) las misas en total de las capillas de la Fraternidad.  Esta opinión, si no me engaño, fue expresada explícitamente por la primera vez por usted en un sermón, sin explicar si hablaba objetivamente o subjetivamente, diciendo que todos los sacerdotes de la Fraternidad son “culpables” de la “maldad de la doctrina” y que ya no se permite asistir ninguna misa de la Fraternidad porque sería comunicatio in sacris con herejes.  Usted dijo que la base para esta prohibición generalizada de las misas de la FSPX fue la Declaración Doctrinal del 15 de Abril del obispo Fellay. Después, esta misma declaración fue no solamente retirada pero también denunciada como nos comunicó el P. Morgan en el periódico Catholic Family News. *

Considerando estos breves detalles, me encuentro obligado a hacerle unas preguntas públicamente, como estos detalles ya han recibido mucha atención pública entre católicos tradicionales y también debido a la división y confusión que han resultado. Voy a enumerar estas preguntas aquí para poder obtener una respuesta precisa y clara que servirá, si fuera posible, para promover la unidad entre los católicos tradicionales.

1) Si el monseñor Fellay ya ha denunciado su Declaración Doctrinal del 15 de Abril, será que hay una nueva razón por obligar a los fieles a evitar todas las misas de la FSPX? Usted aún pretende que todas las misas de la FSPX deben ser evitadas o ¿será que usted ahora prefiere a la posición determinada más prudente por los otros sacerdotes de la resistencia de usar precaución (dar la luz amarilla) y evaluar las capillas caso por caso tratándose con si hay doctrina buena o no?

2) Actualmente yo solo asisto misas ofrecidas por los curas de la resistencia pero yo conozco varios sacerdotes de la FSPX que predican fuertemente contra los errores modernos, el Segundo Concilio Vaticano, la nueva misa y que también dan la buena doctrina Católica.  Si ciertamente hay la Fe y los sacramentos tradicionales ofrecidos por sacerdotes individuales de la FSPX (y no existe duda sobre este asunto), y que también la Declaración Doctrinal del 15 de Abril fue denunciada por la cúpula, ¿será que su posición de la “luz roja” está reñida con la posición que la Fraternidad siempre ha tenido con respeto a la asistencia de las misas donde hay sacramentos tradicionales y la buena doctrina Católica?

3) ¿Cuál es su posición sobre los numerosos otros sacerdotes de la resistencia que pretenden que todavía hay buenos sacerdotes dentro de la FSPX y que no prohíben los fieles de asistir las misas de los sacerdotes de la FSPX?  ¿Usted también considera que estos sacerdotes son “culpables” de engañar a los fieles por permitir ellos estar en comunión con herejes como sería una conclusión lógica de su posición?

4) Considerando el conflicto recientemente percibido por los fieles entre usted y un otro sacerdote de la resistencia que ha salido de la FSPX para ayudar a la resistencia, ¿Será que usted no se siente como si esté comprometiendo el crecimiento de la resistencia o desmotivando otros sacerdotes de dejar la FSPX y ayudar a la resistencia.

5) La preocupación actualmente más grande entre los feligreses por lo que se refiere a usted, me parece, es que usted permite que un asociado, Pablo, maneje su sitio sujeto a copyright, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church ©, y subir comentarios calumniando Su Excelencia Monseñor Williamson y por lo menos un otro sacerdote.  Porque esto no es normalmente lo que observamos, que usted queda silencioso en asuntos así, existen más preocupaciones. ¿Usted escoge no denunciar al Pablo y sus calumnias por el “respeto humano? ¿O será que ha escogido no hablar sobre este tema porque la verdad es que está de acuerdo con el Pablo y también comparte su perspectiva hasta cierto punto?

Reverendo Padre Pfeiffer, porque yo lo respecto y lo admiro como un sacerdote y también por el bien de la claridad, espero que responda a estas preguntas que yo he enumerado aquí y especialmente las que se tratan de la asistencia de las misas de los sacerdotes que no dan la “luz roja” a todas las misas de la FSPX y también las opiniones expresadas en su sitio oficial de la capilla en cuanto al buen obispo.

In Christo Rege,

Michael Fuller
Brazil

notas

•

1  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kTtOUdw9iw

•

2   http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/953ab2028f6e49e8149ffba1c7b51918-119.html 
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/bishop-fellay-on-doctrinal-declaration.html

Actualización #1: Un padre de la resistencia responde

Estimado Michael:

Esto es para complementar lo que usted bien dice en su carta.

Sobre la supuesta communicatio in sacris que cometerían los que asisten a las misas de la FSSPX, es descabellado afirmar eso, pues ni siquiera se afirma que se cometa ese delito-pecado asistiendo activa y formalmente a la misa nueva.

Del curso de derecho canónico de mi seminario:

“Communicatio in sacris” con los acatólicos:

            La Iglesia nunca practico la tolerancia dogmática (es decir, teológica y religiosa) respecto a las sectas acatólicas, porque eso no sería otra cosa que el indiferentismo condenado por la misma Iglesia[1]. 

           Se encuentra prohibida la “communicatio in sacris” (cn. 1258):

-        La asistencia o participación activa “in sacris” o tomar parte en las funciones de los acatólicos, está prohibida de cualquier modo que sea (cn. 1258 § 1), porque tal participación significa siempre alguna aprobación del culto ajeno, produce escándalo entre los católicos, es peligroso para la fe del católico que participa, y confirma al acatólico en su error.

-        Por “función sagrada acatólica” se entiende toda función sagrada: asambleas, sermones, sacramentos, acciones litúrgicas, sepulturas religiosas, etc. En todas ellas está prohibido tener parte con intención religiosa, aún si sus oraciones no estuvieran en contradicción con la doctrina católica. No es lícito oír sus predicaciones, recibir de ellos los sacramentos (v. gr. el bautismo: cn. 985, 2º; el matrimonio con intervención de un pastor acatólico, oír misa en un templo cismático, etc.).

-        La asistencia “pasiva” es la sola presencia material de un católico en una función sagrada acatólica, y se puede tolerar con tal que no exista peligro de perversión ni de escándalo (cn. 1258 § 2).

-        Se tolera por graves razones (en caso de duda debe ser aprobada por el Obispo), por razón de un cargo civil o para tributar honores (cn. 1258 § 2).

N. B.: La prohibición de asistir activamente a las funciones sagradas de acatólicos fue levantada en tiempos del Concilio Vaticano II.

Es una monstruosidad jurídica extender este delito a otras circunstancias que las descritas en la ley, y la ley exige que la función sagrada a la que se asiste sea "acatólica", por eso la asistencia a la misa del NOM, pudiendo ser pecado bajo determinados supuestos, nunca puede ser delito o pecado de communicatio in sacris. Menos, entonces, la asistencia a alguna misa de la Fraternidad.

Dios lo bendiga.

Respuesta de un sacerdote de la resistencia que es abogado:

Porque hay un principio básico en el derecho penal universal (incluyendo el derecho canónico criminal):"Nullum crimen sine praevia lege poenali" (no crime without a pre-existing penal law). La communicatio in sacris es un pecado que además es un delito canónico. Para que exista el delito canónico de communio in sacris, la ley canónica exige ciertos requisitos precisos. Uno de estos requisitos es que el rito sea "acatólico". Este requisito es sine qua non. La misa tridentina no es un rito acatólico. Entonces, nunca se puede cometer el delito de communio in sacris asistiendo a una verdadera misa tridentina.

Hay otro principio básico en el derecho penal universal:"odiosa sunt restringenda" (lo desfavorable debe ser restringido). The crimes must be interpreted restrictively. Según este principio elemental del derecho en todo el mundo, está prohibido calificar de delitos las acciones similares a los delitos. Los delitos están descritos con precisión en la ley. La communicatio in sacris está descrita en al canon 1258. Por eso Fr. Morgan dice "the closest case we can find... is the case of the so called Communicatio in sacris", and he does not say: "this is a case of so called Communicatio in sacris".

Por lo tanto,  es un error grave, una verdadera aberración jurídica, calificar de communicatio in sacris la asistencia a misas tridentinas de la SSPX o de otras congregaciones católicas porque los sacerdotes que las celebran son liberales. 

Asistir a las misas de determinados sacerdotes de la SSPX puede ser pecado para ciertas personas en ciertas circunstancias, pero para nadie puede ser un pecado y delito de communicatio in sacris.