It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:17 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.

Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."

Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.

Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."

I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.

I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 07, 2014 5:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
Sean Johnson wrote:
Anonymous "witnesses" claiming to have heard CDM declaring at the consecrations that there is no pope (when his speech -not sermon- to the contrary apparently recorded by TIA and published in Catholic dispels that urban myth);


There's nothing anonymous about Bill Morgan. He was the father of Fr. Paul Morgan of the SSPX. He was a man widely respected for his integrity, honesty, and solid Catholic learning. He was a friend of the Archbishop. He reported in writing his eyewitness testimony of a not very controversial fact. To my knowledge, the only man who disputed his report was Don McLean, and he only did so on the basis of a speech which was utterly irrelevant to the claim that had been made. Nor was his speech "to the contrary", and I don't know why that allegation is being made. It's silly. Don didn't say that the speech was to the contrary, he merely said that the reported words were not in it, but again, for those who can't follow simple factual reporting, nobody had claimed that Bishop de Castro Mayer said anything about the vacancy of the Holy See in his speech. That would have been impolite in the circumstances, and he was a holy man, not a boorish bumpkin as is found readily on the Internet.

There's nothing anonymous about Fr. Schmidberger, nor me. If anybody doubts my report then Fr. Schmidberger is easily contactable to check if he recalls the event. He does. He told me.

Fr. Barbara was anything but anonymous also. He records two witnesses who reported the same fact. Arai Daniele is not anonymous either. He was a well-known professional pilot for a major airline, who turned to journalism in his retirement (in Fatima), and authored at least two books on Fatima. He knew Bishop de Castro Mayer intimately and served as his courier for documents to and from Archbishop Lefebvre, whom he also knew.

Finally, TIA didn't record the speech. TIA merely re-published Don's "finding" from Catholic. If somebody gets pretty much every fact wrong about something, one wonders!

As for Archbishop Lefebvre, anybody who wants to penetrate his mind needs to take into account texts such as these: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1465

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference April 15th, 1986

Then I would like, since there are different echoes, different reactions, I would like to clarify a little, to a possible extent, that the situation of the Church is a so mysterious situation, that is not as easy to clarify things ...

Then the problem arises.

First problem: the communicatio in sacris.

Second problem: the question of heresy.

Third problem: the Pope is Pope even if he is heretic?

I do not know, I do not settle! But you may raise the question yourselves. I think every sensible man should ask himself the question. I do not know. So, now, is it urgent to talk about this? ...

You can obviously avoid to talk about it... we can talk between us, privately, in our offices, in our private conversations among seminarians, among priests...

Is it necessary to speak to the faithful? Many say:
— No, do not speak to the faithful; they will be shocked; that's going to be terrible, it will go farther...

Well, I said it to the priests, in Paris, when we had a meeting; then to you, I had already spoken to you, I said: I think that, very gently, it is necessary, nevertheless, shed some light on the faithful...

I am not saying it's necessary to do so brutally and launch it as a condiment to the faithful to scare them. No.

But I think that, after all, it is precisely a matter of faith. It is necessary that the faithful do not lose faith. We are to take care of the faithful to keep the faith of the faithful, to protect the faith.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 07, 2014 1:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
It might be useful to point out that Archbishop Lefebvre here clearly states that there is a difference of opinion amongst the priests of the SSPX over the pope question.

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:
Is it necessary to speak to the faithful? Many say:
— "No, do not speak to the faithful; they will be shocked; that's going to be terrible, it will go farther..."


Well, we know which party won the day!

Also,
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:
And it is said [by some of the priests]: "Monsignor will make schism" ... But who makes schism? ... Not me! To make schism is necessary to leave the Church. And to leave the Church, is to leave the faith first.

Who leaves the faith of the Church? The authority is in the service of faith. If it rejects the faith, it is the authority that makes schism. Then it is not us who makes schism.


There can be no doubt about the situation. Bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. Archbishop Lefebvre leaned that way and wanted to prepare the faithful for a discussion of the matter. Many of his priests were frightened by this. They prevailed on him not to proceed down that path. I wonder if they too thought, like their confreres in Campos, that the old man had lost his marbles a little and needed to be watched and guided...

But whatever their motives, no doubt honourable and true, we have the testimony of the Archbishop himself that the difference of opinion existed and was a strong one.

These data are shocking to the ignorant. That isn't a reason to pretend that they don't exist.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 07, 2014 2:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
Here is the speech. There's nothing in it which is incompatible with the reported informal statements of Bishop de Castro Mayer on the same day. His statement, "I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries," is merely referring to the decision to continue to resist Modernism and go ahead and consecrate bishops despite the protests of the Modernists.

Quote:
June 30, 1988

Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.

My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.

Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.

For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.

It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.

I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.

May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 07, 2014 2:15 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
There are still protests, to the effect that there might be an audio recording proving their prejudice, from those who desire to believe that Bishop de Castro Mayer was not a sedevacantist. I have no doubt that these same people, when they find that their view cannot be sustained, will immediately adopt the critical attitude towards him of Bishop Williamson. "He certainly wasn't a sedevacantist. Oh, he was? Yeah, well he was a legalistic moron who didn't have the grace and wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre." We know how the song goes. (Let these people tell us what they think of Archbishop Lefebvre's unambiguous testimony that he himself was pushing the sedevacantist line and some of his priests were opposing him. Why do they not touch these texts? Cognitive dissonance is the modern term for it.)

Is there a recording which will settle the matter? No, there isn't. I have already explained that I visited Don McLean at the time of this controversy and know first-hand from him what his logic was, and it was manifestly flawed. There is no recording of anything but a speech in which the comment, "We have no pope" is not to be heard. That is what Don relied upon as his proof. Now that it has been shown (as was already clear, but whatever!) that TIA can add nothing to the picture, perhaps this particular line of hope will evaporate? No, of course not, they will want to see the copy of Catholic where the statement by Don which they have already seen can be witnessed in actual print. Then that too will be accepted and some other line of defence will be resorted to? Or will they immediately take up their attitude of hostility to the holy and learned man (he was truly a theologian) who was the only residential bishop in the entire world to refuse the revolting New Mass with all of its horrors and heresies? Anybody want to run a tote on this?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 10, 2014 8:53 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
John, I recall many years ago (it was 2002 or 2003) that Bp Williamson said (in his EC?) that Bishop de Castro Mayer was about to declare the See vacant but that Mons. Lefebvre convinced him no to do that. I was in USA by that time and Bp. Sanborn wrote an article on that topic.

Perhaps someone can confirm this and help me with the data?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat May 10, 2014 1:17 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
Yes, that's about right. The EC is here: http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com.a ... wrong.html

Much psycho-analysis and no theology. :) (This one was much more just: http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/149.html )

He needs to do Part II where he describes the (successful) efforts by those close to Archbishop Lefebvre a few years later along exactly the same line. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 10, 2014 1:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
A contributor on another forum is presenting the following quote from "CRA" which would the Counter-Reformation Association News and Views, Bill Morgan's newsletter.

Quote:
According to 'Mysterium Fidei', during his stay at Econe for the consecrations of the four new bishops, the co-consecrator, Mgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer was openly stating: "We have no Pope; one cannot remain Vicar of Jesus Christ, divinely assisted to confirm his brethren in the faith, and nevertheless organise a reunion like Assisi, where the true religion was made equal to false ones". Deo gratias! (CRA, September/October 1988)


This looks accurate to me, and demonstrates that my memory of the newsletter is flawed, so I thank the fellow, whoever he is.

It does materially alter the chain of evidence in relation to Bill Morgan, but it doesn't substantially affect the question of fact at issue - whether Bishop de Castro Mayer held the sedevacantist view himself. We now merely have a different publication testifying to the facts at Econe, and confirming that the Bishop's statements were not made in the speech on the day, as has been repeatedly pointed out. This was why Don McLean's finding even at the time was seen as entirely beside the point.

Further, the coincidence of two texts now comes to light. This one, and the letter quoted by Bishop Williamson in his EC, linked above. Here is the latter text:

"On the other hand he had a tendency towards sedevacantism, as when he would say of John Paul II, 'Whoever does not belong to the body of the Church cannot be its head'."

One can recognise the same man in both texts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 10, 2014 4:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
John Lane wrote:
Yes, that's about right. The EC is here: http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com.a ... wrong.html

Much psycho-analysis and no theology. :) (This one was much more just: http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/149.html )

He needs to do Part II where he describes the (successful) efforts by those close to Archbishop Lefebvre a few years later along exactly the same line. :)


Thanks John, but it seems, therefore, that my memory was wrong.

It seems, according to Bp. Williamson, that Bp. de Castro Mayer wanted to be sedevacantist and Lefebvre convinced him not to be, whereas I thought Bp. de castro Mayer was sede and wanted to declare the See vacant, and this was what Lefebvre prevented.

Quote:
Were it not for me, Bishop de Castro Mayer would be sedevacantist, but in order not to separate from us, he holds back from sedevacantism'.


Nevertheless we have to see when was this said, perhaps later on Bp de Castro Mayer was sede but didn´t declare the See vacant.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat May 10, 2014 5:28 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
It seems, according to Bp. Williamson, that Bp. de Castro Mayer wanted to be sedevacantist and Lefebvre convinced him not to be, whereas I thought Bp. de castro Mayer was sede and wanted to declare the See vacant, and this was what Lefebvre prevented.


I think this is a semantic point only. De Castro Mayer wanted to make a public declaration of vacancy for years before the consecrations, but the Archbishop held him back. I'd call a man in that frame of mind a sedevacantist. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 11, 2014 12:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
From another forum:

Quote:
This is the first paragraph of Morgan’s CRA newsletter of Candlemas (1997), “Silver Jubilee Reflections – Part 6”.

On arriving at Econe for the June 1988 ordinations and consecrations, I asked some members of the seminary if Mgr de Castro Mayer had been able to make the journey from Campos, Brazil. They answered that he had indeed arrived, and had made a “very strong statement” – one, it was added would please me “very much”. In Econe code that could only mean that Mgr de Castro Mayer had made a sedevacantist statement. (In fact, he had done so in the form of succinct reply to the obvious objection that the consecrations were taking place out of union with the Visible Head of the Church. He had countered: “Where is the Visible Head of the Church?” His basic answer took the form of a rhetorical question: “Can we accept as Visible Head of the Church a Bishop who places pagan deities on the altar side by side with Our Lord Jesus Christ?” As a rhetorical question it provided its own negative answer.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 11, 2014 3:50 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
I note with interest that my character is now being questioned by an anonymous fellow. Some criticisms and responses:

Quote:
I would not normally have started replying to this thread but because I had an issue with a previous reference of Mr. Lane's


If anybody has a problem with a reference of mine, they can easily challenge it. Until they do, any insinuation like this is underhanded.

Quote:
by coincidence, I'd read Mr. Morgan's newletter and hence realized another issue, I decided to post - not primarily to correct the error but to see what Mr. Lane's response would be


Well, it is noted that our assailant had within his possession the actual text of Bill Morgan's newsletter but held it back in order to test my reaction to his challenge. I appear to have failed his test, but it isn't apparent why.

What was my reaction to this challenge? I learned of it when it was emailed to me, and if I recall, my first words were, "He may be right," followed by the suggestion that he be asked for his evidence. I don't have access to my email here so I won't insist on this right now. I'll pursue it later.

After the fellow did post his evidence, I then responded by saying, here, "This looks accurate to me, and demonstrates that my memory of the newsletter is flawed, so I thank the fellow, whoever he is."

I don't know what part of this he finds fault with, but I can only imagine that contrary to his own assertion of indifference, he wants me to declare that Bishop de Castro Mayer was not a sedevacantist. I'm afraid I can't do that, as I don't think it's true. I think he was a sedevacantist for years, and only held off declaring it publicly out of love and respect for others who were not as intellectually (and perhaps in some cases, morally) sound.

Quote:
Quote:
asking anyone who doubts it to contact the person(s) in question for confirmation


Ambrose: "Neither Mr. Lane, myself, or anyone else said that you need to go to Fr. Schmidberger and ask him ..."
John Lane: "If anybody doubts my report then Fr. Schmidberger is easily contactable to check ..."


There's something weird going on here. All that happened is that I testified to a conversation that I had with somebody whom everybody knows is not inclined to support sedevacantist arguments. When challenged, I pointed out that since I have been entirely open about the source, others who doubt it can check for themselves if they like. The main thought behind that was that since I had named the source, and he could easily be contactable, I would hardly be testifying to a falsehood. (People with dishonest agendas generally use pseudonyms and hide their sources). I certainly don't care whether they contact Fr. Schmidberger or not - it depends upon whether, like me, they want to get to the facts, or whether, like our assailant, they purport not to be interested whether the facts are the facts or not. The point here is that I didn't "ask" anybody to contact Fr. Schmidberger. Apparently something about this matters, but it escapes me what it would be. Perhaps the assailant is just trying to win a debate point so as to chip away at his target?

Quote:
Ambrose: "... a man of his intelligence is not likely to misunderstand the words of another ..."
John Lane: "... my memory of the newsletter is flawed ..."

Ambrose, do you understand what constitutes a reliable source?


That's a pretty smarmy response. My memory after a quarter of a century is flawed. Actually, my memory of this whole event wasn't too bad. I recalled what de Castro Mayer actually said with substantial accuracy some 25 years after reading it, I was right that the statements attributed to de Castro Mayer were not in his speech but rather given informally, that he said the same thing to several people, that Bill Morgan was there on the day, the Bill Morgan reported it in his News and Views, that Don McLean's argument even at the time was seen to be beside the point. What I forgot was that Bill Morgan didn't hear the comments himself, but was only repeating what another publication had reported.

Quote:
BTW, I notice how, to defend his position, Mr. Lane when responding to Mr. Johnson's comment about anonymous "witnesses", promotes Mr. Morgan to an unimpeachable source.


I think he was an unimpeachable source. He was an extraordinarily careful, intelligent, honest, Catholic man. He also did what all actually serious Catholic fathers desire above all, but most of us never achieve - he produced a priestly vocation. He used his real name, and put his home address on his newsletters. There's a man of real courage and integrity. His character really does contrast very starkly with the kind of anonymous, weak, and ignorant folks who offer their views on the Internet these days. Even comparing him with decent and upright men, with some kind of learning, such as Fr. Boulet of the SSPX, one is struck immediately by the contrast in carefulness, seriousness, sobriety of judgement, etc. But that's just my view.

Again, the actual point here being made by our assailant is not stated, he merely asks you to "notice" something which in fact is unremarkable. At that point I thought Bill Morgan was a primary witness to the facts. His credibility was therefore absolutely central to the matter.

Quote:
John Lane: "... but it doesn't substantially affect the question of fact at issue - whether Bishop de Castro Mayer held the sedevacantist view himself. We now merely have a different publication testifying to the facts at Econe ..."

Excuse me? Testifying? Facts? No Mr. Lane, the best you have is a secondary source alleging Bishop de Castro Mayer said those words.


I accept that Bill Morgan as direct witness would be a primary source, and Mysterium Fidei reporting what two others have said is a secondary source. This is why I wrote the words that our assailant carefully removed when he (part) quoted me: "It does materially alter the chain of evidence in relation to Bill Morgan, but it doesn't substantially affect the question of fact at issue..."

It's a fact that de Castro Mayer said those words. Our assailant is disputing that (whilst claiming he doesn't care either way). Whether a source is primary or secondary, the reality is that when a publication publishes something as fact, it puts its credibility behind it. That is what I had in mind when I used the term "testifying".

But there's another thing here which is weird, I think, and it's the notion that there is any real dispute about the facts at all. Nobody serious, that I know of, apart from Don McLean, has disputed that de Castro Mayer said those words, and that's because we all know what he really thought. Everybody who was close to him and disagreed with him never touches this matter, because they'd either have to admit they disagreed with him or alternatively, lie about his views. Those like Arai Daniele who was close to him and agreed with him, have told others, including me, what he really thought. Bill Morgan as late as 1997 was innocently repeating in his newsletter his opinion of de Castro Mayer's real views. No sign of addressing a dispute then, just a plain statement of fact. I say, that's because as far as I know there simply wasn't any dispute.

Quote:
Ambrose: "... it is one more source among many ..."
No it is one of one.


No, it's one source of that particular story - i.e. what happened at the consecrations. The story was repeated by two other indisputably high-profile sources, Fr. Barbara and Bill Morgan, and disputed by whom? We have other sources for the fact that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist, as is already clear. We've named them.

Quote:
Ambrose: "... he was a sedevacantist ..."
Quote:
No, (i) that the bishop said those words has not been established as fact, (ii) even if the words were said privately that does not confirm a sedevacantist position. Since by that criteria - taking a single private quote and ignoring everything else - Archbishop Lefebvre would be sedevacantist as noted by Mr. Morgan (which is why its irrelevant):
"... Mgr Lefebvre's post-consecrations statement, made at the Fraternity's school near Bitche (Alsace-Lorraine). Here the Archbishop stated, going even beyond his 15th June press conference, that those who had excommunicated him had themselves long been excommunicated. That statement entailed that John Paul II was not a valid Pope."(CRA, Candlemass 1997)


This is not logical. Bill Morgan's comment quoted here can be disputed just as any such inference from ambiguous data could be, which the reference to "excommunication" (a canonical penalty not necessarily incompatible with possession of the papal office) certainly is. So the comment by our assailant is not logical on that score. Further, we're not forming our judgements based upon a single quote. What a foolish assertion! Indeed, even in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre there are plenty of grounds for thinking that he himself was privately of the opinion that the See was vacant but did not think it prudent to declare it.

What is also illogical in this is to claim that the words, "We have no pope" are patient of any interpretation than that their author thinks that the See is vacant. Whether he chooses to announce that opinion is an entirely separate question, which has no bearing whatever on what they mean.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 12, 2014 6:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
My immediate reaction to the challenge regarding the Bill Morgan newsletter (our assailant had not posted the text, but rather had simply asserted that Bill Morgan was not a witness but was relying on another journal, which as it turns out, he was):

Quote:
From: John Lane
Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2014 3:02 PM
To: ...
Subject: RE: Another Bp. de Castro Mayer Question

Dear ...,

He may be right, of course (I can’t easily dig out the newsletter), although Bill Morgan was there on the day himself. Would your anonymous contributor care to supply some evidence for HIS assertion?

In any case Fr. Schmidberger confirmed the fact directly and independently. The notion that he was confirming rumours is a supposition unsupported by the evidence. He knew exactly who I was. We sat there for an hour or more arguing about sedevacantism. It was in that context that I asked and he confirmed the fact.

The stories about Archbishop Lefebvre are true too, and they are supported by his own words in various conferences. He was personally sede or strongly sede-leaning and he was surrounded by men who were panicked by the notion. Nothing has changed. Just look at the reactions to these things now, even when indisputable.

Yours in Our Lady,
John.

_______________________________

From: ...
Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2014 7:54 AM
To: John Lane
Subject: Another Bp. de Castro Mayer Question

Hi John,

Do you have anything from Mr. Morgan attesting that he was a witness at the 1988 consecrations?

I am being challenged on this point, the poster Peterp wrote the following in response to my assertion that William Morgan was a witness. This man is alleging that W. Morgan was relying on the September 1988 issue of a Belgium publication "Mysterium Fidei.

Any help would be appreciated. Do you have a copy of Mr. Morgan's newsletters or any other form of evidence in regards to this?
...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 12, 2014 9:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bishop de Castro Mayer on the pope question
God Bless Bishop De Castro Mayer!

He is my favorite :D . He prepared his diocese against the Conciliarist heretics that would assault him during his watch of the sheep. Never happened under his watch, and most of all he kept his sanity under such tremendous pressure to the contrary.

Now if he would have only said so publically he would have certainly gained even more graces, but I am quite content with the fact that he never was fooled. A true man of God, may the Lord have him in His mercy.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun May 18, 2014 10:00 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.