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?
Ambrose-
I don't CARE what John and Pete say.
If the transcript TIA sends back shows CDM making statements at the consecrations supportive of JPII's papacy, then it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the rumors of him telling people there is no pope are bunk.
Until that transcript arrives, the matter is on hold.
John Lane and Pete Vere are stating what witnesses at the 1988 consecrations told them. John Lane has related what William Morgan and Fr. Smidberger, both witnesses to this fact, have stated.
Pete Vere has related what some of the witnesses at the consecrations, who later embraced the indult, stated the identical story as those related by John Lane.
When evaluating witnesses, you must examine their reputations and motives for their statement.
William Morgan, a sedevacatist, was a close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, and would not lie about something so grave.
Fr. Smidberger, if anything would not be supportive of Bp. Castro de Mayer's sedevacatism, but still relates the truth of the event, showing his integrity.
The same can be said of Pete Vere's witnesses that returned to the indult. They have absolutely no good reason to lie, as this fact is not supportive of their position.
With that said, I, along with you look forward to the transcription of the speech, and we can pick this up again when you post it.
Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 48133 times)