The Catacombs

Full Version: Fr. Cardozo Sermon [2016]: On the Errors of Bishop Williamson
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 33 [January 2016]

He Who Gathers not with Me…
A Sermon by Fr. Ernesto Cardozo
Ipatinga, Brazil, February 28, 2016

The words of today's gospel are really very wonderful. They are quite relevant to the topic we will talk about today. The gospel says, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” “He who gathers not with Me, scatters.” I repeat, “He who is not with Me is against Me.”

How do we know? How do we know whether we are with Christ and not against Christ? For it is possible that we are deceiving ourselves. Luther, I suppose, would say that he was with Christ. The heretics, I suppose, 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 whether we are with Christ? Let us analyse some words. Christ says, “He who loves Me keeps My word.” He who loves Me, will keep My word. He also says, “He who loves father or son more than Me, is not worthy of Me.” Is that not so? Am I lying? Is this in the Gospel?

But do you know what the problem is, dear faithful? Deus veritas est. God is truth. That magnificent dialogue with Pilate, when Christ tells Pilate, “He who is of the truth hears My voice.” - Qui est ex veritate audit vocem meam. “He hears Me.” He hears Him [pointing to the crucifix]!

But, there's a problem that deep inside we would not like to see. We get used to it. We like to make mistakes. We accommodate ourselves to error. This magnificent last gospel that I never get tired of praising and asking you to meditate on it! The liturgy does not offer us these little pictures just for us to look at them. They are to be read and meditated. Just listen to what it says. It says  that the Word came unto His own, and His own received Him not. His own did not receive Him! He was the light of the world, but the world preferred darkness. And Truth Itself ended there [on the cross]!

Defending the truth, dear faithful, is not easy. For it means defending God, defending God in a hostile place. Jesus Christ Himself tells us, “I send you amongst wolves, like lambs amidst wolves.” True or false? We like lies. We get used to lies, because the truth is uncomfortable. The truth leads to a reaction, don’t you see? There is the case of Saint John the Baptist. What happened to St. John the Baptist? He enunciated truth! He denounced an adultery! And what happened to him? He ended up with his head cut off! Watch out! Humanly speaking, we would say, how stupid! Since it was only about adultery, why didn’t he keep quiet? But, St. John the Baptist told Herod, “No, Herod, this is not good! She does not belong to you!”

Let's look at another example, an example that we have analysed in a sermon before, here in Ipatinga. The example of Thomas More! Thomas More is a great saint! He and Bishop John Fisher were opposed to the adultery of the King, Henry VIII. Do you recall this story? I don't want to tire you by repeating the same sermon on Thomas More, but was Thomas More wrong? Was Bishop Fisher wrong? Bishop Fisher went against at least 80 bishops in his country. Thomas More was practically the only layman against a whole nation that wanted to apostatise. And which did apostatise. Do you remember the story, or do you want me to tell it to you again? The case of Thomas More will never tire us, my dear faithful, because it is a case of a man going against the flow. And going against the flow is very hard. Here in this world it is hard. But up there, God rewards it.

But let us take a step back. A conflict has arisen in the Resistance, a very serious conflict. It's not just a small problem where one person says this and another writes that. Here we have a problem about the Faith, a problem of the Faith through which we run the risk of damning ourselves eternally! Watch out! I lament the superficiality with which sometimes I have seen it treated. No, this is not a problem about someone writing this and another person saying that and still another saying something else. No! And we never go back to the cause.

Let’s take another example. Let's suppose I turn the lights off and I shout, “Fire, fire!” People will start running away, running into each other and falling over. And, of course, they’ll start quarrelling. “Why did you step on me?” “Why did you push me?” And they go on with such things without realising that I am the guilty one because I turned off the lights. In the same way, suppose that there is a fire outside, and they enter here yelling, “Fire, fire!” And someone says, “What a way to enter the room, running like that! Can you speak a little bit quieter?” That is, they criticise the effects, but not the cause. So if someone yells “Fire,” before we criticise the person running who yelled “Fire,” let's go out and see if there really is a fire.

Let’s go to the cause. This is the problem. This is what hasn't been studied. This is the sad reality. They look at it sideways. What is the cause? I ask you, my dear faithful, let's see. Until September at least, if I remember correctly, did we have any serious problem here? I do not believe so. Maybe there could have been some human dislike, foolishness that exists in every society. But did we have a problem about the Faith here? Tell me if there was a problem about the Faith. And when did the problem start? Please do not be scandalized when - please!- when I start talking, wait for me. The problem started when Bishop Williamson started writing three Eleison Comments in favour of the miracles in the new mass. Yes, do you remember? Three Eleison Comments

When Bishop Williamson wrote these three Eleison Comments, we, the priests that are in the firing line, come to a certain place, and they asked us: “Father Cardozo, what is this?” And I confess to you that it had been some time since I had read the Eleison Comments. Why? Because, among other things, they’d cause spiritual disquiet in me. And I had to sit down and read the Eleison Comments.

And when I did this, the first thing I did was to get in contact with a priest in Mexico who publishes Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments. You know who he is. And I told this priest, “Please Father, do not publish this. There are errors.” This priest told me, “Father, you are completely right, but we will publish it so that our enemies do not believe we are divided.” Oh, dear! Oh, dear! Have you read the gospel, when Our Lord tells us: “Let thy speech be yes yes, no no, whatever is over and above this comes from the devil.”? Be careful! “It comes from the devil!” This dear Father, recognizing that this paper contained errors, said, “You're completely right, but…” And this is when the problem began. This is when it started.

I am a priest. People ask me, “Father, is this true or false?” I have to follow Our Lord’s word, I have to say yes or no. Anything beyond this is done by the devil. It is my duty, and I told him, “No, this is not right.” Meanwhile, I started seeing atrocities. Please do not be scandalised. The monks who read it, said, “I don't see any error in these things.” Great Thomistic people, who 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 the Catholic Church.

I finally dared to write an article on December 9th saying that there is a fuss concerning this. And I started by simply stating a fact of common sense. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Do you remember? That's the gospel. I'm not making it 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 is. A sophist is a person who tries, through deceit, to make a lie pass for the truth. It's as if I would say this ceiling is black, and I would use words and mix them up to make you believe that the ceiling is black. But the ceiling is white. And the priest from Mexico, we have to recognise it, is an excellent sophist, an excellent sophist. I do not know what good it will do him, but he is an excellent sophist.

And starting with this article in which I intended to defend the fact that there can be no miracles and so on and so forth, I was called everything, not in a very nice way. It's ugly to open your email, to click here and click there, and see that they are telling you that you are an imbecile, that you are so proud, you are going against St. Thomas, who do you think you are...? It’s not nice. I have a back, and 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 it occurred to me to explain it to them, at the end of the year, to go back to the same matter, this time jokingly—joking so as 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 ORDERLY. God cannot make a round triangle. God cannot make the sun rise in the north tomorrow, or in the south, but not in the east. God is orderly. But after this it seems like there was no argument that they liked.

Do you know what this is? [He holds up a book.] The title says, “Catechism of St Pius X.” Question: “Is this catechism trustworthy?” Modernists would say, “Throw it in the garbage.” But I think I am among Catholics. Is this trustworthy? [The people say yes.] Are you sure? Be careful, watch out what you say, look to what you have said. I read this Catechism of St. Pius X soon 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 read it. Of course, there are things, 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, it’s very easy to deal with this. These little miracles go against the sanctity of the Church. But of course, there are so many things—we read so many things—that it is impossible to know precisely where we read certain things. And one is also busy trying to make arrangements for trips, missions, etc., thinking that the people read the catechism, thinking that the clergy read their catechism. Please repeat to me whether this is a Catholic catechism. A catechism is, in principle, a compendium of all Catholic dogma. True or false? Have you all said true? Then take the consequences! Read it! Maybe some of you have the same edition. Look at the last two pages. It's easy—turn the first and the second last two pages. Be careful, I did not write this, this is not an edition for dear Fr. Cardozo. Sit tight! Bear with what you are going to read. And remember, the truth hurts, and it hurts a lot. And sometimes it is hard to say “I was wrong.” And I know there are many who are waiting to say, “But Fr. Cardozo, how can you say these things against Bishop Williamson?” Just listen to what St Pius X has to say. The saint talks about the marks of the Catholic Church. And I repeat: he talks about the marks of the Catholic Church, not of the marks of Cardozo’s Church, not of Williamson’s church, but the marks of the Catholic Church.

Referring to the mark of Holiness, it says:
Quote: “The faithful that reads the history of the church with a sincere heart, will see the holiness of the Church shine, not only in the essential sanctity of its invisible head, Jesus Christ, the sanctity of the sacraments, of the doctrine, of religious institutions, of a great number of its members, but also of an abundance of celestial gifts, of sacred charisms, of prophesies, and”–pay attention here—“and miracles that Our Lord, denying them to other religions, makes shine on the face of the earth, this gift of holiness endowed exclusively on His one and only Church.”

I repeat, “…and miracles that Our Lord, denying them to other religions, makes shine on the face of the earth, this gift of holiness endowed exclusively on His one and only Church.” So, 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 it by saying that there are little miracles in the new church?

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 has started receiving letters saying, “Watch out, we are defending error!” A dear Father from Colombia wrote to all the priests and both bishops and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, if we are going to defend error, if we are going to fight error with error, we are doing wrong!” Then the great sophist from Mexico answered me and said, “Father Cardozo, what you said about there being no miracles outside the Catholic Church is beside the point.” What? It’s beside the point? How is it beside the point?

I ask, is the new mass part of the Catholic Church? And how do we know that it is not of the Catholic Church? Because of its errors, because the goal of the new mass is ecumenism, because our BIG LIONS for the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, did not cease 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 fellow priest, supposedly a traditional priest, 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! We enter into contradiction. Then I told him: “Father, I thought that the new mass was a mass from another church!” But Father insists, “No, no, no! It’s of the Catholic Church.” Of course, what’s going on here? What are we doing here? For, if the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church, please tell me what we are 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 our being here. And I think many of us would not have to be here.

But, let's finally put the movie on pause here. In mathematics, and in everything, not only in 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 the error, this error will influence the course of the analysis, and will increase exponentially [St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that: Parvus error in principio est magnus in fine - A small error in principle becomes great in its end results. The Catacombs]. Something that began as a small error will become a very big error. When I told you here on December 30th to be careful because we are looking at the tip of the iceberg, I think you did not assess the harm that 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.

Even Bishop Faure, trying to justify and support Bishop Williamson, gave a sermon, I believe on December 12th. Yes, on December 12th in Mexico. For those who understand a little bit of Spanish, I suggest that you read it. When I listened to Bishop Faure’s sermon, favouring the little miracles in the new mass, I started feeling afraid, because I was hoping that Bishop Faure would have said, “Williamson, forget about this subject; talk about Beethoven instead.” When you listen to it - you can hear it on the ‘Non Possumus’ website - it's so obvious, if you are honest, and want to do a little penance for Lent, listen to this sermon, and you will see that it is even WORSE than the three Eleison Comments by Bishop Williamson. I was so terrified! Be careful! This does not amuse me, ladies and gentlemen! It doesn't amuse me! I told Bishop Faure, “Please, Monsignor, I beg you to study your sermon, and count the number of times that you contradict yourself!”

Remember, yes, yes, or no, no; when you go beyond that, the devil comes. Then I received an email from Bishop Faure. This email says: “Cardozo, there are miracles outside of the Church!” just like that, as if to say, “Oh, stop being a bother!” And it was put in bold letters. Furthermore, “Where did you see Archbishop Lefebvre say that the new mass is not a mass 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’s not that the Archbishop wrote a quote about the new church. No! “The New Church”! There's another book that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote called “The New Mass.” I know that I had it, but I see that somebody borrowed it, and it was never returned. Well that's the way it goes. How can Bishop Faure ask me where I saw that Archbishop Lefebvre says that the new mass is a mass that’s outside 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? You do? You know who they are. In all truth, I had a very high opinion of them. When one says “Dominican monk” you know that you’re referring to someone whose life is secluded in the cloister and who spends his time, his life, studying theology. That is to say, they are persons who know a little bit more than just the catechism, supposedly. Then, the Dominicans entered the discussion. They got involved in the fuss. Ok, and I read this [He holds up a paper.], which is titled “The Neo-modernist Sect that Occupies the Catholic Church, by the Dominicans of Avrillé.” I did not count all the contradictions, but if you have this document, count them! There is more than one.

This document was repeated by the future bishop, Dom Tomas Aquinas. In the first part, this document tries to explain the relationship between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church. Read it, pay attention please, because I notice that nobody reads, that many people say they read, but in reality they don't. It says, “The conciliar, neo-modernist church is therefore neither substantially different from the Catholic Church (beep, beep, beep), nor absolutely identical to it.” Wow! That is, it is neither equal nor different. Excuse me! What do you call this? CONTRADICTION!

Sorry, in Spanish this is a contradiction. But wait; there are still prettier things to come. “She, the conciliar church, mysteriously has something from one, and something from the other.” That is to say, the Lutheran church mysteriously has something Catholic, you 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, the conciliar church is a foreign body that occupies the Catholic Church, but… (I'm glad you are sitting down. Will the ones who are standing, please hold on to the wall?) “…but, it is necessary for us to differentiate between them, without separating them.”

Let's see whether I can explain it myself. The conciliar church is a foreign body, the Dominicans say. Let's imagine a tick on my hand. It is necessary to differentiate between them, the tick and my hand, but not separate them. Pardon me! Do 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 filth of a bug that's biting me here [on Father's hand], it’s modernism. And this [Father's hand] is the Catholic Church, I differentiate between them. I can separate them.

Ladies and gentlemen, didn't Archbishop Lefebvre tell us there shouldn't be any agreements with these people [the modernists], that when they convert to the faith, they will find us Catholics? Archbishop Lefebvre said that, didn’t he? Did Archbishop Lefebvre tell us, “You have to differentiate between the bug of modernism, but do not separate it from the Church?” Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that? No, ladies and gentlemen! I cannot coexist with error. What's more, the defence of the truth, love for the truth, implies a fight against error. I cannot permit the tick to continue sucking my blood, because that's going to kill me. It’s that simple. So, if I see Our Holy Mother, the Catholic Church, infected with modernism, what do I have to say? “Oh yes, I can differentiate between them: this priest is a showman, and that priest is good. But I cannot separate them.” I don't know if you realise where this [idea] is taking us? I don't know whether I am too discerning. Don't you realize that it is leading to an identification of the Catholic Church with the conciliar church, just as Bishop Fellay is doing? Because Bishop Fellay says, “This visible church [the church of Vatican II], is the Catholic Church.” That means we are going in the same direction. We have left the neo-fraternity to remain Catholic, and now we find that we are steering the ship's bow toward the neo-fraternity, toward the neo-fraternity's position. Please open your eyes; don’t be imbeciles! Forgive me, but use a little bit of sense. No one works without having a purpose. Why are they saying these things; why are they saying 1+1=3? And why are they saying, “The new mass is good”? And why are they saying: “The new mass is a mass of the Catholic Church”? BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING US TO THE SAME PLACE [as Bishop Fellay]!

OK. But let us now go on to another detail. In January, I left to go to another mission. I thought that the people were at peace, that they understood, but I think I was mistaken. And when I arrived, I got the news that the future bishop, Dom Tomas Aquinas, is blocking me from the apostolate in São Paulo. The sacristan is here; he is my witness. I wasn't in agreement with Dom Tomas Aquinas, because he was defending Bishop Williamson with all his strength. Dom Tomas Aquinas was saying in letters that I had to correct myself—that I had to submit to the hierarchy [of Bp. Williamson - The Catacombs]. 

But how embarrassing it is to have to say words that the bishop is not going to support! And when I left, I told the sacristan, and he is a witness, that our dear Cecilia’s baptism was to take place. And I told him, look out! 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 courtesy. I was received as if I were a heretic. It is funny, because they asked him, “Dom Tomas, why can't Fr. Cardozo say Mass in São Paolo?” “It's because he is against the hierarchy. Can you imagine? If he goes to the monastery and gives a sermon that he doesn't believe in the miracles, it would create a conflict between the hierarchy and Fr. Cardozo.”

Specifically, who is in agreement with St Pius X about this infamous point of the miracles? Am I or is Bishop 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 he insisted and insisted stubbornly. I even went as far as to write: “Monsignor, please stop this fuss. To save myself I don't need miracles outside the church. Stop the division that you are about to cause in the Resistance.” And his answer, which my friend reproduced [in an article answering Bishop Williamson’s errors], was: “Dear Fr. Cardozo, have patience. This chaos is just starting. Patience! I give you my blessing. Good bye.”

A chaos that he started [Bishop Williamson]! Which he is causing! I'm sorry. “And the chaos is barely starting.” So you’d better hold on. Hold tight! But I tell you again, don't come and tell me that I'm causing a 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 who went against the hierarchy! Because the hierarchy, as long as it remains Catholic, is great. But when it opposes Catholic doctrine… Excuse me! 

Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre go against the Pope, the hierarchy? Watch out! I have the honour of having been ordained by him. I cannot betray this man, and much less, betray Him [Our Lord]. Just because I like Bishop Williamson, I cannot swallow this tale, and tell all of you, “Ladies and gentlemen, there are little miracles.” What foolishness! I’d be attacking the sanctity of the Church, and this error is leading 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 His body, the immaculate spouse of Christ, cannot mysteriously embrace a prostitute. Let’s 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, ladies and gentlemen; and I've noticed that we need to learn much more of our catechism. Remember that Jesus Christ also said, “He that 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. I’m sorry; 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 who denies doctrine, the one who attacks Catholic doctrine, or the one who is simply asking, “Please defend the Catholic catechism.”? Souls are at stake! And they are scandalised and say that Fr. Cardozo has a group of people who put things into his head, implying that I am subnormal, that I cannot think!

What are we to do? People ask me, “Father, what are you going to do? Are you going to the consecration of Bishop Tomas Aquinas? What do you think about the consecration? Is it okay to have a consecration?” Yes, for me, it would be excellent for a consecration to take place, and for there to be a bishop in each state of Brazil, or at least one bishop in each country. That would be excellent. But let that bishop be Catholic. Otherwise he would be useless. If the future bishop Tomas Aquinas is going to continue in this attitude of attacking the sanctity of the Church, the unity of the Church, pardon me, I will not walk down that road.

“But Father, you will be left without a bishop, what are you going to do?” What? How's that? You do not understand anything. How am I going to be left without a bishop? When I hear these things, when they tell me these things, I think we are on a different planet. To whom have I been talking and preaching? How am I going to be left without a bishop? Is it perhaps that I'm going to be left without St. Augustine, without St. Ambrose, without St. Anthony Mary Claret, without St. John Fisher? Because all of those thousands and thousands of bishops, and many 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, trying to save the situation, some people say, “They are only saying that it might be possible.”

Ladies and gentlemen, if I deny a dogma of the faith or put it into doubt, I sin gravely against the faith. Read your catechism. If I tell you I think it’s possible that there's no hell, I am committing a grave sin against the Faith, as grave as if I had told you that there is no hell. Why? Because I cannot cast doubt on something that has 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’s beautiful to say that we love God, and "Long live Christ the King" and I don't know what else! But when the situation arises, in which we have to take a risk for the Truth, “Oh dear! Oh no! We will be left without a bishop!” I was listening to an audio in which someone said, “I need a bishop.” Do you know what? I NEED THE FAITH. If there’s a Catholic bishop, blessed be God! If there's no Catholic bishop, I regret it. God, The Divine Providence, will see how to fix this problem. But in order to have a bishop, I will not give up a single ounce of my Faith. I don't know whether I have made myself clear. Don't come and tell me, “You are a rebel; you are here to divide.” 

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have never taught any error against the faith here. And let whoever 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 grave error against the faith, and they are persevering in their error.

Let us continue with the catechism. And this really scares me, 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 are there against the Holy Ghost?” says the catechism. There are six sins against the Holy Ghost: to despair of our own salvation, to presume of being saved without any merits, to fight against the known truth… I repeat: to fight against the known truth. Are you going to tell me that these three bishops—we will include Dom Tomas as a bishop—haven't read the Credo? Don't they pray it every Sunday? It says, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” What is this? Didn’t they know this truth? And now they are crushing those who defend it? They have no sense of shame!

Let them do whatever they want to me, but I will not go along with this. I want to die a Catholic. Why don't I use the title of The Resistance anymore? Because, when they say resistance, they immediately associate it with Williamson. Excuse me, as long as Williamson doesn't retract, refer to me personally as Catholic. Nothing else! Do not come to me with adjectives that get subverted. I'm Catholic, period! Prove to me that I am not! Be careful! Prove to me that I am not! Whoever comes to try to prove that I am not Catholic, before doing so, must partake of this catechism. Completely! All of it!

Ladies and gentlemen, a few years ago you asked me to come and take care of Ipatinga, and I did so gladly. You know it! I haven't lied to you; I haven't taught bad doctrine. But attention, please. There's a sign outside that reads: “CATHOLIC MISSIONS” and I hope that that sign continues to say, “CATHOLIC MISSIONS”. I don't want the sign to change to “Williamson’s Mission” or whatever name you want to use. No, I am not here for that. If it’s going to be like that, excuse me; I have a lot of work, too much work. If because of this I am now told, “Go away, because we want to be one of Williamson's sect” or whomever else's, okay, good luck, my friends! I will continue on my way. I’m not afraid to leave. St. Paul has a beautiful verse: “I know in Whom I have believed.” And just this past Saturday we read a verse in the Epistle that I would suggest many of you read and re-read, and meditate on it. It is the verse, “Cursed be the man who puts his trust in another man.” I ask: is Williamson God? Is Bishop Faure God? Is the future Bishop Dom Tomas Aquinas God? Are all of the Dominican monks—even though there are two, whom I know of, who are firm, trying to fight error—are they God? Do I have to yield my intelligence and say, okay gentlemen, “So be it,” as Dom Tomas Aquinas is asking me to do?

I would like Dom Tomas Aquinas to be like the other Dom Tomas Aquinas when Bishop Williamson came. [See:]. When Bishop Williamson started to praise Benedict XVI, Dom Tomas interrupted him saying, “Be careful; watch out! Don't continue!” A perfect intervention! Perfect! How sad he hasn't repeated this act of faith now. How very sad! I'm so sorry! I am so sorry because Dom Tomas Aquinas, as you know, I have told you—I will be grateful to Dom Tomas until the day of my death because he received me when I left São Paulo [and the SSPX]. My eternal gratitude! But not because of that gratitude am I going to accept the errors that they are now upholding.

But going back, I repeat, if there's any question and you think that I'm a heretic, that I'm here to divide the Resistance, that is, that I'm a stupid person who doesn't know how to think, that all my friends are filling my head with ideas, making me go astray, I think you are underestimating me a little bit.

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 leave. No problem. Thank God, my dear friend Eric will receive me in his home. 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! OTHERWISE, I’M WASTING MY TIME, WHICH I CAN USE FOR MUCH MORE PRACTICAL THINGS THAN WASTING MY TIME WITH SECTARIANS. IS THAT CLEAR? Is it clear 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.” Okay. This is what I will ask you, whether you are Catholics, do you keep His word without trying to distort it by saying “more or less,” or “it may be.” No, no, ladies and gentlemen.

There's a letter going around now, a little letter from dear Fr. Trincado, the great sophist, with a lot of issues about this and that. I read it some time ago. He sent it to me a long time ago. I'm sorry; I'm not going to discuss even one period or one comma with a sophist. Not a period, not a comma. And I'm going to ask a favour of whoever wants to come and discuss this problem, a favour of intellectual honesty. Bring me a little note that says, “I adhere totally and absolutely to the Catholic doctrine which among other things is contained in this catechism. [He holds up the catechism of St Pius X.] For, if you come to me with sophisms, I don't want to waste my time.

How is it possible, that after 40 years in the fight, there are traditionalist priests who come and tell me that the new mass is good? My God! And that the conciliar church cannot be separated from the Catholic Church? My God! My 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 we enter into a sect. You choose! And I ask you to tell me at least by Saturday because I have to get my things in order. 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. For, maybe this catechism is prepared by dear Cardozo, to lie to you. No! No, there are a lot of them [catechisms]. Read it! Because a lot has been said, and a lot of stupidities have been said because we do not know the catechism.

And let us end 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 of the creed. The others have!


[Emphasis - The Catacombs.]
A reminder...