Quote from: Ambrose

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?

TIA alleges they have a speech from the same event which contradicts your narrative.

Why are you so determined I should not receive it?

Relax.  I never said that I hoped you wouldn't receive it.  What I said is that I am certain that the speech will not contradict the testimony of the witnesses.  I really believe the good bishop would not contradict himself on this matter.

I am looking forward to the speech.  Are they sending you audio as well, or just their transcription?

.

This thread is a good example of why Fr. Pfeiffer does not use the Internet.  

130 posts in the past 24 hours, and they're largely about him.  

But he's not here to defend himself, therefore this is detraction.  

Detraction is a sin.  

But in his absence, he would probably say that he doesn't mind the free publicity.  


.

.

This is one of the few good posts here:

Post

Quote from: Pete Vere

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 possibility 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 support.

.

But he's not here to defend himself, therefore this is detraction.

Interesting. Would this also mean detraction on Fr P's part given that he attacked sedevacantists in a venue where they presumably were not around to defend themselves or their position?

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 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 possibility 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 support.

So, dear Hollingsworth,
   To save your soul, you consciously adhere to a man who is an  anti-Christ, who with other anti-Christs, is running an intrinsically evil conciliar church, just because, at the same time, the same person is also in charge of the Catholic Church--to which you wish to belong?
    What you are saying, it appears, is that, Monday through Saturday "your man" Francis has "left the Catholic faith," but on Sunday morning, he and the rest of the conciliar bishops, come crawling back into the Catholic Church from their conciliar perches, long enough to celebrate an invalid , protestant mass, and this makes them Catholic in your book?
  If Brogoglio is, as you say, an anti-Christ head of a false conciliar church; He Cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. The same person cannot at once be both the devil AND the Vicar of CHRIST.

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?

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.

The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist.  Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.

Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose

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?

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.  

Ambrose-

You do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that indisputable docuмented and recorded evidence from the mouth of CDM would be more credible and weighty than heresay (i.e., "someone told me that...").

I acknowledge that the credibility of the "CDM was a sede" claim is enhanced now that John (unlike Pete) is giving names of the witnesses who corroborate the story.

Nevertheless, nothing anyone can say will suffice to trump the indisputable words of CDM himself, if they end up contradicting what the witnesses are claiming.

Not sure why that is not sinking in.

If you were in a court, and 50 people testified you said one thing, and you later produced a recording that showed you did not say it, would any judge on the planet side with the 50 witnesses?

That is my point.

But for now, it is all academic.

If the speech turns out not to evince the claims TIA says it makes, or if it is inconclusive, your position is strengthened.

But if it does contradict CDM's alleged sede-ism at the consecrations, no amount of witnesses will be able to prevail....unless CDM had multiple personality disorder, and was simultaneously making contradictory claims at the very same event.