Author Topic: Response from TIA Regarding the Alleged Sedevacantism of dCM (Read 5747 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** May 09, 2014, 01:57:36 PM »

CI-

Below, please find the questions I submitted, and the response I just received, from Mr. Guimaraes at TIA regarding the alleged sedevacantism of +CDM:

Give Proof that Bishop Mayer Was Not Sedevacantist

Dear TIA,

I am a regular contributor to Cathinfo.com (i.e., a Resistance forum which of late is being overrun by sedevacantists).

A current thread is featuring contentions by sedevacantists that Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer was sedevacantist (i.e., they allege he told several people at the 1988 consecration ceremony in Econe that “there is no Pope.”)

This thread can be found here.

Against this contention of the sedes, another poster found this excerpt on the TIA website:

“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.”

The TIA webpage where this excerpt is found is located here.

Question: Could you please email me an English translation of the speech Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer made which your site says proves he is not a sedevacantist?

And could you also point me to a citation from the Catholic newspaper in which you say it was published?

This would greatly help us in our efforts against the sedevacantist deceivers.

Pax tecuм,

Sean Johnson

______________________

The Editor responds:

Dear Mr. Sean Johnson,

If you will read more carefully the mentioned statement about Bishop Mayer, you will see that it was not made by any writer of TIA. It was made by Mr. Don McLean, Editor of Catholic.

I believe you should address your request to him and not to us.

Cordially,

Atila S. Guimarães, editor of TIA website

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2014, 02:00:43 PM »

So, bye bye Miss American pie . . .

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2014, 02:05:36 PM »

Mr. Guimaraes sounds a little impatient with you, Sean!

Luker · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:02:43 PM »

Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:07:43 PM »

Quote from: Luker

Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

True, this response does leave the matter hanging.

Still, it should be possible to track down the issue of "Catholic" in which Mr. McLean says the speech which contradicts claims of +CDM's alleged sedevacantism is contained.

Any ideas on how to track down an issue of a defunct newspaper published by a now non-existent religious community?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:08:58 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Mr. Guimaraes sounds a little impatient with you, Sean!

Mith-

I noticed that too!

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:09:26 PM »

I am forced to interject here --

Why all the abbreviation +CDM?

His name is Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer.

So it would be dCM or at least DCM.

But his name is abbreviated CDM in no language.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:14:39 PM »

Quote from: Luker

Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

Ditto what Luker said.

Sean, if you decide to pursue this Don McLean, please let us know if you receive an answer--regardless of whether it is for, against, or unclear.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:17:13 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Luker
Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

True, this response does leave the matter hanging.

Still, it should be possible to track down the issue of "Catholic" in which Mr. McLean says the speech which contradicts claims of +CDM's alleged sedevacantism is contained.

Any ideas on how to track down an issue of a defunct newspaper published by a now non-existent religious community?

Would either the SSPX or Resistance seminary have archives?

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:21:43 PM »

Quote from: Luker

Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

That's very big of you to think well of Sean Johnson, but did you read the last sentence?

Sean Johnson wrote to TIA:

Quote

This would greatly help us in our efforts against the sedevacantist deceivers.

To me this description of us is gravely unjust. Not one of us has tried in any way to deceive. We have put forward evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony of what occurred the day of the consecrations from those present there.

The irony is that none of us would have assumed deception from Sean Johnson, we all give him the benefit of the doubt that he is being honest and of good will, yet he presumes that we are deceivers.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:23:25 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Luker
Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

Ditto what Luker said.

Sean, if you decide to pursue this Don McLean, please let us know if you receive an answer--regardless of whether it is for, against, or unclear.

Pete-

I will try to track down this issue of "Catholic," but failing that, would probably let the matter die.

Yes, I agree the SSPX or someone should have a copy, but as nobody mentions which issue (or even which year) the alleged contradiction is contained in, it would require a bit of digging.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:26:28 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Luker
Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

That's very big of you to think well of Sean Johnson, but did you read the last sentence?

Sean Johnson wrote to TIA:
Quote
This would greatly help us in our efforts against the sedevacantist deceivers.

To me this description of us is gravely unjust. Not one of us has tried in any way to deceive. We have put forward evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony of what occurred the day of the consecrations from those present there.

The irony is that none of us would have assumed deception from Sean Johnson, we all give him the benefit of the doubt that he is being honest and of good will, yet he presumes that we are deceivers.

I did not say your deception was deliberate.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:31:38 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Yes, I agree the SSPX or someone should have a copy, but as nobody mentions which issue (or even which year) the alleged contradiction is contained in, it would require a bit of digging.

Correct me if I am wrong - we're going back several years - but was "the Catholic" not a monthly? I use to subscribe, and I believe it arrived every month. Also, it was not that thick a newspaper, so I don't imagine it would take too long to flip through.

Start from the date Mgr Lefebvre consecrated bishops and go to the date Don McLean wrote his letter to TIA. It should not take any more than an afternoon.

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2014, 04:49:29 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Luker
Sean, thanks for posting the answer you recieved from TIA. It probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear but it was still worth the effort. Knowing the truth always is.

You are a good man in my books
:cheers:

That's very big of you to think well of Sean Johnson, but did you read the last sentence?

Sean Johnson wrote to TIA:
Quote
This would greatly help us in our efforts against the sedevacantist deceivers.

To me this description of us is gravely unjust. Not one of us has tried in any way to deceive. We have put forward evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony of what occurred the day of the consecrations from those present there.

The irony is that none of us would have assumed deception from Sean Johnson, we all give him the benefit of the doubt that he is being honest and of good will, yet he presumes that we are deceivers.

I did not say your deception was deliberate.

None of us are deceivers. I am very careful to only state the truth. The word "deceivers" is very strong, and clearly suggests a willful act, not a mistake.

So you know, I never deceive. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I form all of my judgments on evidence, and I would never tell you that I am certain about something, unless I have good reasons to believe that something is certain. If I was less than certain, I would tell you that.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, based on the reliable testimony of reputable witnesses that Bp. de Castro Mayer was a sedevacatist and that he publicly professed this on the day of the consecrations 30 June 1988.

This is a fact, supported by evidence. When I state this to you, there is no deception. I have weighed this matter out, and I trust the testimony of the reliable witnesses, and it also fits with other testify about the bishop which supports the fact that he was a sedevacantist.

This seems to bother you, because it does not fit with your narrative, but your first obligation must be to the truth, wherever it leads.

Definition of Deceive:

Quote

de·ceive[/b] [dih-seev]
verb (used with object), de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing.
1.
to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude: They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.
2.
to be unfaithful to (one's spouse).
3.
Archaic. to while away (time).
verb (used without object), de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing.
4.
to mislead or falsely persuade others; practice deceit: an engaging manner that easily deceives.
Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English deceiven < Old French deceivre < Latin dēcipere, literally, to ensnare, equivalent to dē- de- + -cipere, combining form of capere to take

SOURCE

peterp · « **Reply #14 on:** May 09, 2014, 06:03:46 PM »

I notice John Lane claims two witnesses, Fr. Schmidburger and Mr. William Morgan, confirmed that Bishop de Castro Mayer said those words.

It the latter case this is false. Mr. Morgan was relaying what he had read in the September 1988 issue of a Belgium publication "Mysterium Fidei". In the former case, it could be Fr. Schmidburger was merely confirming he had heard such rumors.