CathInfo.com

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.

.

That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.

Please provide the proof of which you speak.

I thought we were engaging in speculation. But no matter, evidence of Mgr AdCM's personal (at a minimum) wavering over sedevacantism is provided by Mgr Williamson in the latter's following public newsletter:

http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/campos-what-went-wrong.html

Evidence does not equal proof.

Additionally, I am a convinced anti-sedevacantist who, from time to time has wondered whether the thesis could be true.

If I blurted out the questions of my internal monologue, it does not mean I am open to the thesis, but only that at that particular time I had a question...which was later resolved.

I am quite sure that such would be the same for +Mayer.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.

.

That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.

Please provide the proof of which you speak.

I thought we were engaging in speculation. But no matter, evidence of Mgr AdCM's personal (at a minimum) wavering over sedevacantism is provided by Mgr Williamson in the latter's following public newsletter:

http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/campos-what-went-wrong.html

Evidence does not equal proof.

Additionally, I am a convinced anti-sedevacantist who, from time to time has wondered whether the thesis could be true.

If I blurted out the questions of my internal monologue, it does not mean I am open to the thesis, but only that at that particular time I had a question...which was later resolved.

I am quite sure that such would be the same for +Mayer.

I suppose that's another possible explanation.

Or perhaps someone in Econe (like a worldly priest disappointed that Mgr Lefebvre had not chosen him for episcopal consecration) spiked Mgr AdCM's salad with hallucinogenic mushrooms during the luncheon preceding the consecrations, so that His Excellency uttered the statement while watching magical unicorns fart rainbows to the tune of Kumbaya.

Thats possible as well.

At this point, though, I would prefer to stick to what is likely over what is possible.

I have seen such things happen, but usually chalked it up to some bad Blatz Light.

Interestingly, the blog to which we were referred several posts back, which is a letter of Bishop Williamson's from 2002, and claims go analyze Bp. deCastro Meyer's  "legalism " vs "sede-vacantism" stance, fails to do any such thing. For ABL to state that "MSGR would be a sede but for his friendship with us" is clear admission that Bp. dCM knew there was no valid pope, but simply kept low key about it. Also, no where in the "analysis" is it explained how the Bp accepted JP as the legal head of his Church there in Campos, bur ignored EVERYTHING he said and did, as if he weren't even alive!
    Even more important, however, in this letter from the seminary, where we brag that the SSPX "is alone" holding the tide against modernist Rome, why is it not even mentioned
that Anglais, Lorans, Schmidberger and Fellay are spending their days courting the Romans, playing around with GREC, and, grnerally, destroying the SSPX? Why bother telling us that "tradition" is supposedly growing in the Phillipines, when, in reality, the SSPX embarked already, under Couture and Pflugger, on a massive program to have SSPX priests go into n.o. Churches, and have N.O. Pres-by-ters come into SSPX chapels??? Would not that have beeen important to tell the faithful as you asked them to "come to the fields and meadows of Winona so we may fill our seminaries with your boys?"
     Perhaps the good bishop was just being obedient; perhaps he was blinded; perhaps he thought he could "fix them( the modernists already in the SSPX)
From the inside." But by not telling the faithful the facts, gave Frllay and Co. Over 12 years of a head start toward treason --and allowed him to solidify his dictatorial power base and place his henchmen into position!
     Lesson to take away? Many members of the so-called resistance even participated and assisted in the SSPX' slide into the New Order. So-- take their arguments against sede vacantism  snd Bp dCM with a grain of salt-- they flavored a lot of things they said to match the then-current party line.

Here's an example: pretend you are the newly consecrated "traditionalist" bishop of Campos. You are in Rome, stating your case and pleading your cause. While there, you run into Anglais in his street clothes. " Why, hello Father, what brings you here?" "Oh--stammer, stsmmer, ( inaudible), We 're meeting with some people in the Congregations!"   Next day, cardinal Canizares casually mentions to you "so nice to see you!! Listen-- why don't you join us this Thursday for our regular
GREC get together? Father Lorans and Schmidberger will be there-- we have a great time!"

" REALLY!??"  "Maybe ", you figure , we priests in Campos had better get off the stick, so to speak. These Econe people are well-advanced in their plans to re-join Rome
Seems the only ones NOT TOLD were the SSPX faithful!