Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: hollingsworth

PV:

Quote

For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.

 I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.

I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread.  I am not a sedvacantist either.  But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil.  V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not.  Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith."   But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him.  This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period.  Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.

Thanks hollingsworth. As self-contradictory as I find your position expressed above, I can respect you for being honest in recognizing these contradictions. I am sure you are someone who in real life, like Sean Johnson, I would enjoy riding and drinking beer with.

Same here, Pete!

Adversaries need not be enemies.

It is manly competition in my mind, to test one's convicions, and see if one's side prevails, not animus.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Mithrandylan

And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand.  Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false?  I don't know.  Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.  

Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?

But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist.  The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.

Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.

The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.  

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."


There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

I remember this.  It was given in 1983, yes?  As I mentioned earlier, my observation is that ABL was at least cautiously optimistic about JPII, and there is a seeming lack of "hardline" quotes in the very early 80's.

Three years later, he was telling his seminarians they might have to become sedevacantists if the apostasy doesn't stop.  Has it stopped?

And five years earlier he posed quite a few difficult questions to Fideliter, I believe (unsure about the magazine's name, but sure about the time period and the sedevacantist inquiry he entertained).

Also the quote you've given is from IHM, yes?  Well, knowing ABL to be the diplomat that he was, and trying to keep trads together rather than needlessly divide them, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might cater to his audience a bit.  I do not say that this is wrong, especially considering his own undecidedness on the issue, but it certainly paints a different picture than the typical "anti-SV ABL" we have all become so accustomed to hearing about.

The only thing your quote proves, I think, is that ABL's method of approach was a reactive one, applying Catholic principles to the situation as it changed.  Toward the end of Paul VI's ruin when the N.O. was in full swing, he was entertaining sedevacantism publicly.  In the early 80's he was not so sure JPII was a Church-wrecker so he tried to stay closer to him; and then after Assisi and the modernist trap in '88 he was back to how he had been in the late seventies.

If this is intended to prove that he was anti-sedevacantism, it doesn't.  That he had some issues with some sedevacantISTS is granted-- you'll notice that 1983 was the year of the split with the nine.  A lot of bad feelings around that.

Sean, is this the speech you are waiting for the transcript of ?

From the same thread on Bellarmine: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618

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!

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Luker

Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:



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.


Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618


Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions.  I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity.  Thanks again and God bless !

 :cheers:

It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).

When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.

There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor.  John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.  

The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times.  This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Mithrandylan

And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand.  Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false?  I don't know.  Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.  

Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?

But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist.  The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.

Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.

The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.  

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."


There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

I remember this.  It was given in 1983, yes?  As I mentioned earlier, my observation is that ABL was at least cautiously optimistic about JPII, and there is a seeming lack of "hardline" quotes in the very early 80's.

Three years later, he was telling his seminarians they might have to become sedevacantists if the apostasy doesn't stop.  Has it stopped?

And five years earlier he posed quite a few difficult questions to Fideliter, I believe (unsure about the magazine's name, but sure about the time period and the sedevacantist inquiry he entertained).

Also the quote you've given is from IHM, yes?  Well, knowing ABL to be the diplomat that he was, and trying to keep trads together rather than needlessly divide them, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might cater to his audience a bit.  I do not say that this is wrong, especially considering his own undecidedness on the issue, but it certainly paints a different picture than the typical "anti-SV ABL" we have all become so accustomed to hearing about.

The only thing your quote proves, I think, is that ABL's method of approach was a reactive one, applying Catholic principles to the situation as it changed.  Toward the end of Paul VI's ruin when the N.O. was in full swing, he was entertaining sedevacantism publicly.  In the early 80's he was not so sure JPII was a Church-wrecker so he tried to stay closer to him; and then after Assisi and the modernist trap in '88 he was back to how he had been in the late seventies.

If this is intended to prove that he was anti-sedevacantism, it doesn't.  That he had some issues with some sedevacantISTS is granted-- you'll notice that 1983 was the year of the split with the nine.  A lot of bad feelings around that.

One reading of your response would imply ABL was uncertain, unstable, wavering from one position to another, and therefore unreliable.

Another reading would be that he was simply reactive to the changing circuмstances (i.e., prudent rather than principled, which throws a monkey-wrentch into the argument that "no agreement before the doctrinal issues are resolved" was a matter of principle rather than prudence).

And in this latter case, why not extend the same courtesy to Bishop Fellay:

"Yes, we had to resist Rome for a long time, but then things changed under BXVI, so I was willing to see if he was serious, but then he renigges, and under Francis we have to be firm again."

In other words, is Bishop Fellay really a liberal (as the Resistances charges him with), or like Lefebvre, is he just "reactive?"

Pete,

I am happy to see a man who puts the truth first.  I find it edifying that you as a "non-sede" will put the truth first even if it is in favor of the "sede" position.  
You could count me in your list of those that would have a beer with you.   :cheers: