Clicks57
Quo Primum
1
April 25 30th Anniversary of the death of Bishop de Castro Mayer. ONE FAITHFUL DIOCESAN BISHOP This declaration was made by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer during the June 30, 1988 Episcopal Consecr…More
April 25 30th Anniversary of the death of Bishop de Castro Mayer.

ONE FAITHFUL DIOCESAN BISHOP This declaration was made by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer during the June 30, 1988 Episcopal Consecrations for the Society of St. Pius X, called "Operation Survival" by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. “My presence here at this ceremony is a matter of conscience: It is the duty of a profession of the Catholic Faith before the entire Church and, more particularly, before His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, before all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present. “St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a public profession of Faith in every circumstance, but when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even at the risk of one's life. “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis in the Church, a crisis which touches it in its essence, in its substance even, which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, the two mysteries essentially united, because without the holy priesthood there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and by consequence, no form of public worship whatsoever. Equally, it is on this basis that one constructs the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. “Because of this, since the conservation of the priesthood and of the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and the pressure brought to bear by many, I am here to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of Faith. “It is sorrowful to see the lamentable blindness of so many confreres in the episcopacy and the priesthood, who do not see or who do not wish to see the present crisis, nor the necessity to resist the modernism momentarily ruling, in order to be faithful to the mission which God has confided to us. “I wish to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which is dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. The two of us have drunk at the same source, which is that of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church. “May the Most Holy Virgin, our Mother, who at Fatima maternally forewarned us of the gravity of the present situation, may she give us the grace to be able, by our attitude, to help and to enlighten the faithful in such a manner that they will distance themselves from these pernicious errors, of which they are the victims, deceived as they are by many of those who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost. May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work.” Bishop on Tradition, Family and Property (America Needs Fatima) Here is a letter from Bishop Castro De Meyer on the group (he worked with them for years): This letter was published in the Campos daily, La Folha de Manhspan in 1991; the original text, however, is dated 1984, two years after Bishop de Castro Mayer’s break with TFP. It appeared in Le Sel de la Terre, [no. 28, Spring 1999], in an article entitled “Documents sur la T.F.P”. Dear XXXXX, I owe a response to your grieving letter of September 24, which, as the postmark indicates, you sent me on September 25. [1984] In this case, I can only offer the sole advice: pray, pray much, above all the Rosary or at least the five decades of the Rosary, asking the Virgin Mother, Mediatrix of all graces, to enlighten your son and make him see that TFP is an heretical sect because, in fact, although they do not say or write it, TFP lives and behaves in accord with a principle which fundamentally undermines the truth of Christianity, that is, of the Catholic Church. In fact, it is de fide that Jesus Christ founded His Church — destined to maintain on earth the true worship of God and to lead souls toward eternal salvation — as an unequal society, composed of two classes: one which governs, teaches and sanctifies, composed of members of the clergy, and the other — the faithful — who receive the teaching, are governed and sanctified. This is a de fide dogma. St. Pius X wrote that the Church is, in its very nature, an unequal society, meaning that it comprises two orders of persons: shepherds and flocks, those who belong to the various ranks of the Hierarchy and the faithful multitude. These two orders are so completely distinct that the Hierarchy alone has the right and authority to guide and govern the members to the Church’s ends, while the duty of the faithful is that of allowing themselves to be governed and to obediently follow the way given by the governing class (The Encyclical, “Vehementer”, February 11, 1906) [7]. And the entire history of the Church, as can be seen in the New Testament, attests to this truth as a fundamental dogma of the Church’s constitution. It was to the Apostles only that Jesus said: Go and teach all nations. Too, the Acts of the Apostles show us the life of the Church in the times following Jesus Christ. Because of this, it is a heretical subversion to habitually follow a lay person, therefore, not a member of the Hierarchy— as the spokesman of orthodoxy. Thus, they do not look to what the Church says, what the Bishops say, rather what this or that one says…. Nor does it end there: this attitude — even if not openly avowed — actually positions the “leader” as the arbiter of orthodoxy, and is accompanied by a subtle but real mistrust of the hierarchy and of the clergy in general. There is a visceral anticlericalism in TFP: everything that comes from the clergy is prejudicially received. Basically, it holds that all priests are ignorant, not very zealous or interesting, and have other such qualities. Well, then, keeping in mind the divine Constitution of the Church which was instituted by Jesus Christ, TFP’s habitual anti-clericalism, latent, makes it an heretical sect, and therefore, as I have said, is animated by a principle contrary to the dogma established by Jesus Christ in the constitution of His Church. Nevertheless, TFP had a healthy beginning. There was a certain evolution of the apostolate carried out by the bi-weekly newspaper of the Marian Congregation of St. Cecelia, titled, O Legionario. As a serious and well intentioned movement, it sought to strengthen the intellectual and religious formation of the members of that Congregation and, consequently, of the bi-weekly’s readers. It was influential throughout Brazil. That was the era of [its] obedience to Monsignors Duarte and Leme. I accompanied and approved its apostolate, also when it began to stray into an anticlerical spirit, which began by its consolidating its position and then reversing it by putting the clergy in tow behind a charismatic layman, with his monopoly on orthodoxy. Perhaps I gave it support beyond a licit point. I retracted it only when it became clear to me that my warnings were not being taken into consideration. They had become useless. It is just to observe that the straying of certain members of the hierarchy …explains the TFP scandal, but it doesn’t justify the positions they came to take. Even less so, those of their leader, Plinio. At this time, as I said at the beginning of this letter, the remedy is prayer. First, because without prayer nothing is obtained: Ask, Our Lord says, and you shall receive. It is necessary to pray, because charismatic fervor produces a certain fanaticism: individuals become incapable of seeing objective reality, of perceiving even fundamental errors, because of this inversion of following a lay person instead of the legitimate Shepherds of the Holy Church. So much more so when, as I have observed, members of the Hierarchy unfortunately and frequently utter words and take positions which any Catholic can see are dissonant from doctrine and from the guidance of the Church of the ages….. I ask Our Lord that he grant you, and your entire family, a holy and happy Christmas and many years filled with God’s grace. I ask that you pray for me, Servant in Christ-Jesus, Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos sspx.org/B_DeCastroMayer/de_castro_mayers_ltr_paul_vi.htm BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER'S LETTER TO POPE PAUL VI WITH RESPECT TO THE PROMULGATION OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE GIVEN AT CAMPOS, BRAZIL ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1969 These two documents, the letter to Paul VI, and the attached explanatory comments were translated from Tradition: Doctrine-Actualite published by the General House of the SSPX in Menzingen, Switzerland, pp. 23-29. Most Holy Father, After a close examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, which will enter into use on November 30 next, and after having prayed and reflected a great deal, I consider that it is my duty, as a Catholic priest and bishop, to lay before Your Holiness my anguish of conscience, and to formulate, with the piety and confidence that a son owes to the Vicar of Christ, the following request. The Novus Ordo Missae shows, by its omissions, and by the changes that it has brought to the Ordinary of the Mass, as well as by a good number of the general rules that describe the understanding and nature of the new missal in its essential points, that it does not express, as it ought to do the theology of the Holy Sacrifice as established by the Holy Council of Trent in its XXII session. The teaching of the simple catechism cannot overcome this fact. I attach below the reasons that, in my opinion, justify this conclusion. The pastoral reasons that could, perhaps, be invoked, initially, in favor of the new structure of the Mass, cannot make us forget the doctrinal arguments that point in the opposite direction. Furthermore, they do not seem to be reasonable. The changes that prepared the Novus Ordo have not helped to bring about an increase in the Faith and the piety of the faithful. To the contrary, they remain very disturbed, with a confusion that the Novus Ordo has increased, for it has encouraged the idea that nothing is unchangeable in the Holy Church, not even the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Moreover, as I indicate in the attached reasons, the Novus Ordo not only fails to inspire fervor, but to the contrary, diminishes the Faith in central truths of the Catholic life, such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament, the reality of the propitiatory Sacrifice, the hierarchical priesthood. I hereby accomplish an imperious duty in conscience by demanding, humbly and respectfully, that Your Holiness might deign, by a positive act that eliminates every doubt, to authorize us to continue using the Ordo Missae of St. Pius V, whose effectiveness in bringing about the spread of Holy Church and an increase in the fervor of priests and faithful has been proven, as Your Holiness reminded us with so much unction. I am convinced that Your Holiness’s fatherly kindness will bring to an end the perplexities that have risen in my heart of a priest and bishop. Prostrate at Your Holiness’ feet, in humble obedience and filial piety, I implore your Apostolic Benediction. + Antonio de Castro Mayer Bishop of Campos, Brazil COMMENTS ON THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE The Novus Ordo Missae consists in general norms for the text of the Ordinary of the Mass. Both the text and the norms propose a new Mass that does not consider sufficiently the definitions of the Council of Trent concerning this matter, and constitutes, for this reason, a grave danger for the integrity and purity of the Catholic Faith. We have only examined here a few points, that, we believe, establish that which I have affirmed. I. Definition of the Mass In its no.7 the new Ordo gives the follow as a definition of the Mass: "Cena dominica seu Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: ‘Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum’" (Mt. 18:10) 1. In this definition: There is insistence on the Mass understood as a meal. Moreover, this way of seeing the Mass can be found frequently, all along the general norms (cf. v.g. nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56 etc.). It seems even that the intention of the new Ordo Missae is to inculcate this aspect of the Mass, to the detriment of the other, which is essential, namely that the Mass is a sacrifice. In fact, in the quasi-definition of the Mass given in article 7, the character of the sacrifice of the Mass is not signified. Likewise, it attenuates the sacramental character of the priest, that distinguishes him from the faithful. Furthermore, nothing is said of the intrinsic value of the Mass, independently of the presence of the assembly. Much to the contrary, it is supposed that there is no Mass without the "congregatio populi", for it is the "congregatio" that defines the Mass. Finally, the text allows a confusion to exist between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, for it applies to the Mass the text from St. Matthew which only concerns the spiritual presence. The confusion between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, already seen in article 7, is confirmed in article 8, which divides the Mass into a "table of the word" and a "table of the Lord’s body". But it also hides the aspect of sacrifice in the Mass, which is the principal of all, since the aspect of a meal is only a consequence, as can be deduced from Canon 31 of the XXII session of the Council of Trent. We observe that the two texts from Vatican II, quoted in the notes, do not justify the concept of the Mass proposed in the text. We also note that the few expressions, that are more or less passing references, in which are found expressions such as this, at the altar: "sacrificium crucis sub signis sacramentalibus praesens efficitur" (no. 259) are not sufficient to undo the ambiguous concept, already inculcated in the definition of the Mass (no. 7), and in many other passages in the general norms. II. The Purpose of the Mass The Mass is a sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity. Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. To the contrary, that which, in the Mass of St. Pius V, shows clearly this sacrificial end is suppressed in the new Ordo. Examples include the prayers "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas" from the Offertory and the final prayer "Placeat, tibi, Sancta Trinitas". Likewise the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity has ceased to be the Preface for Sunday, the Lord’s Day. As well as being the "sacrificium laudis Sanctissimae Trinitatis" 2, the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Council of Trent insists greatly on this aspect, against the errors of the Protestants (Chapter 1 & Canon 3). Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. Here and there can be found a reminder of one or other expression that could be understand as implying this concept. But it never appears without the shadow of a doubt. Also, it is absent when the norms declare the purpose of the Mass (no. 54). In fact, it is insufficient to express the theology of the Mass established by the Council of Trent to simply affirm that it brings about "sanctification". It is not clear that this concept necessarily implies that of propitiation. Moreover the propitiatory intention, so clearly visible in the Mass of St. Pius V, disappears in the New Mass. In fact the Offertory prayers Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi and that for the blessing of the water Deus qui humanae substantiae… reformasti have been replaced by other that make no reference to propitiation at all. It is rather the sense of a spiritual banquet that they impress. III. The Essence of the Sacrifice The essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass lies in repeating what Jesus did at the Last Supper, and this not as a simple recitation, but accompanied by the gestures. Thus, as the moral theologians have said, it is not enough to simply say again historically what Jesus did. The words of consecration must be pronounced with the intention of repeating what Jesus accomplished, for when the priest celebrates, he represents Jesus Christ, and acts "in persona Christi".3 In the new Ordo there is no such precise statement, although it is essential. To the contrary, in the passage that speaks of the narrative part, nothing is said of the properly sacrificial part. Thus, when it explains the Eucharistic Prayer, it speaks of the "narratio institutionis" 4 (no. 54 d.) in such a way that the expressions: "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit" 5 and another at the end of the consecration: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem" 6 have the meaning indicated by the explanation given in the preceding general norms (no. 54 d.). We remark that the final phrase of the (traditional) consecration "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis"7 were much more expressive of the reality that in the Mass, it is the action of Jesus Christ which is repeated. Furthermore, placing other expressions in the midst of the essential words of consecration, namely "Accipite et manducate omnes" 8 and "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes" 9, introduce the narrative part into the same sacrificial act. Whereas, in the Tridentine Mass the text and movements guide the priest naturally to accomplish the propitiatory sacrificial action and almost impose this intention on the priest who celebrates. In this way the "lex supplicandi" 10 is perfectly in conformity with the "lex credendi" 11. We cannot say this for the Novus Ordo Missae. However, the Novus Ordo Missae ought to make it easier for the celebrant to have the intention necessary to accomplish validly and worthily the act of the Holy Sacrifice, especially given the importance of this action, not mentioning the instability of modern times, nor even the psychological conditions of the younger generations. IV. The Real Presence The sacrifice of the Mass is bound to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Real Presence is a consequence of the sacrifice. By transsubstantiation the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Savior is accomplished, and thus the sacrifice takes place. As a consequence the perpetual Victim is present on the altar. The Blessed Sacrament is nothing other than the Victim of the Sacrifice, who remains once the sacrificial act has been accomplished. As a consequence of the new definition of the Mass (no. 7) the new Ordo allows ambiguity to exist concerning the Real Presence, which is more or less confused with the simply spiritual presence, indicated by the phrase "where two or three are gathered in my name". Moreover, the suppression of nearly all the genuflexions, traditional expression of adoration in the Latin church, the thanksgiving seated, the possibility of celebrating without an altar stone, on a simple table, the equating of the Eucharistic Banquet with a spiritual meal, all lead to the obscuring of the Faith in the Real Presence. The equating of the Eucharistic Banquet to a spiritual meal leaves open the idea that Jesus’ presence in the Blessed Sacrament is bound to its use, as his presence in the word of God. From this it is not difficult to conclude with the Lutheran error, especially in a society that is little prepared to think on a higher plane. The same conclusion is favored by the function of the altar: it is only a table, on which there is not normally place for the tabernacle, in which the Victim of the sacrifice is customarily kept. The same can be said for the custom for the faithful to communicate with the same host as the celebrant. By itself, this gives the idea that once the sacrifice is completed, there is no longer any place for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. Thus none of the changes in the new Ordo Missae lead to greater fervor in the Faith towards the Real Presence, but they rather diminish it. V. The hierarchical priesthood The Council of Trent defined that Jesus instituted his apostles priests, in order that they, and the other priests, their successors, might offer His Body and Blood (Session xxii, Canon 2). In this manner, the accomplishment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is an act that requires priestly consecration. On the other hand, the same Council of Trent condemned the Protestant thesis, according to which all Christians would be priests of the New Testament. Hence it is that, according to the Faith, the hierarchical priest is alone capable of accomplishing the sacrifice of the New Law. This truth is diluted in the new Ordo Missae. In this missal, the Mass belongs more to the people than to the priest. It belongs also the priest, but as a part of the assembly. He no longer appears as the mediator "ex hominibus assumptus in iis quae sunt ad Deum" 12 inferior to Jesus Christ and superior to the faithful, as St. Robert Bellarmine says. He is not the judge who absolves. He is simply the brother who presides. We could make other observations to confirm what we have said above. However, we feel that the points that we have raised suffice to show that the new Ordo Missae is not faithful to the theology of the Mass, as established definitively by the Council of Trent, and that consequently it constitutes a serious danger for the purity of the Faith. + Antonio, Bishop of Campos FOOTNOTES Translation of article 7: The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or meeting of the people of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). i.e. Sacrifice of praise of the Most Holy Trinity. i.e. in the person of Christ. i.e. the narration of the institution. i.e. the Church commemorates the memory of Christ himself. i.e. Do this in memory of me. i.e. As often as you do this, do it in memory of me. i.e. Take and eat all of you. i.e. Take and drink from it all of you. i.e. the manner of praying. i.e. the rule of our Faith. i.e. taken from among men for those things which are of God. ADDENDUM His Excellency, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer made reference to the above letter to the Pope, along with his Considerations on the Novus Ordo Missae in the presentation that he made to his clergy of the A Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae (otherwise known as the Ottaviani Intervention). This critical study had been sent to Pope Paul VI by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci during this same year of 1969. Bishop De Castro Mayer received it, had it translated into Portuguese and sent it to his priests with this commentary: Several priests of the diocese have asked me for some explanation of the Novus Ordo Missae. As the reading of it made me perplex on several issues, I had written to the Holy Father, explaining them, and asking for the authorization to continue with the old Ordo. Since I received no response, I continued, in accordance with the legislation that is in vigor, with the Tridentine Mass. However, I believe that the booklet of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci is very useful for the study by the Reverend Fathers. It is with this in mind that I am sending a translation to my dear collaborators. The priests will understand that the subject is not to be publicly debated. sspx.org © 2010 sspx.org/…DeCastroMayer/bishop_antonio_de_castro_mayer_a.htm BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER A Brief Biography on The Lion of Campos This brief biography originally appeared in the July 1991 issue of The Angelus upon Bishop De Castro Mayer's death. Dom Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, Brazil, departed to God in his 87th year on April 25, 1991. Born in 1904, Dom Antonio was from Campinhas in Sao Paulo. He studied theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, where he obtained a doctorate. Before becoming Bishop, as a priest of the Sao Paulo diocese, he successively and successfully filled the posts of Professor in the Provincial Seminary of Sao Paulo, was Canon of the Cathedral, Parish Priest of the parish of Saint Joseph of Belem in the eastern section of Sao Paulo, and finally that of Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Sao Paulo. He was, at the same time, General Counsellor of Catholic Action for the Archdiocese and, in that function, he wholeheartedly supported Catholic lay organizations in their efforts to check Communist infiltration. In 1948 he was appointed and consecrated Coadjutor Bishop of Campos, assuming the direction of the diocese one year later. In the 1950's Bishop de Castro Mayer published a lengthy and timely "Pastoral Letter on Problems of the Modern Apostolate," in which he attacked Modernism, whose ravages he already had foreseen. During the 1960's Bishop de Castro Mayer fought against the Communists on the home front and against the Modernists in Rome. In 1964, Brazil was barely kept from falling into the Communist bloc -this due to devotion to Our Lady of Fatima and the regular recitation of the Rosary by large multitudes of the people. But the Brazilian episcopate was divided on the question of the socialist land reforms, which were the beginning of Communism. Many of them approved this reform but Bishop de Castro Mayer, along with Archbishop Sigaud, led the minority of bishops who opposed it, thus playing a central role in the defeat of Communism in Brazil. In Rome he was again associated with Archbishop Sigaud in the formation of the Coetus lnternationalis Patrum, an organization of traditional bishops to counter the Modernists' attempts to take over the Council. This organization founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and presided over by Archbishop Sigaud, amongst other things, had a petition signed by over 450 bishops asking for the condemnation of Communism. It was Bishop de Castro Mayer who presented this petition to the Council, although to no avail. Bishop de Castro Mayer was especially outstanding for his refusal to accept the post-conciliar changes in the liturgy. Until his forced retirement in 1981 the traditional Latin Mass was celebrated throughout his diocese, along with all the other traditional Catholic practices and devotions -and he was to continue this battle even when replaced by Bishop Navarro. The majority of the priests in the Diocese of Campos (336 of them!) resisted the Modernist orientations of the new bishop and remained faithful. Dom Antonio was thus able to maintain a completely traditional "diocese" within a diocese, with around 40,000 faithful, which he organized in parallel chapels to protect the faithful from the enemies within. His association with Archbishop Lefebvre strengthened further in 1983 when they wrote a joint Open Letter to the Pope in which they publicly exposed the proliferation of errors within the post-conciliar Church that all of their private efforts had until then done nothing to stop. His understanding of the gravity of the crisis of faith in the Church was so profound that he was to be found at Archbishop Lefebvre's side on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations of 1988. His so crucial presence was, as he himself explained, "to accomplish my duty: to make a public Profession of Faith." Soon after this historic event he began to lose his physical strength and eventually died of respiratory failure on April 25, 1991 (exactly one month after Archbishop Lefebvre). He was buried on the following day, at 4:00 p.m., in a chapel crypt of Our Lady of Carmel in Campos. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON BISHOP DE CASTRO MAYER, THE DIOCESE OF CAMPOS, BRAZIL AND THE SOCIETY OF SAINT JOHN MARY VIANNEY The story of Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer, and how he kept an entire diocese faithful to Catholic Tradition. Available from Angelus Press Written by the priests of the Fraternity of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos, this book shows the position taken by these priests in the face of the errors of modernism and fideicide. Available from Angelus Press OTHER ONLINE ARTICLES BY BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER BISHOP DE CASTRO MAYER'S LETTER TO POPE PAUL VI With respect to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae The book is simply, a tour de force. It's really in two principal parts - Bishop de Castro Mayer's formation and resistance, and then how the Novus Ordo Church systematically expelled and defamed priests and faithful attached to the Catholic Faith. Active in Catholic Action, Dom Antonio (as they refer to their bishops in Brazil) lived a simple life as a bishop and was never idle. This was exemplified in his pastoral letters, one of which bears, in text and commentary, extended treatment: "...It is important, then, in the highest degree, to launch in unity and with discipline all the Catholic forces, all the peaceful army of Christ the King to win over all the people who groan in the shadows of death, who are deceived by heresy or by schism, by the superstitions of old Gentility, or by the many idols of modern neo-paganism." (from a pastoral letter) He goes on to describe the state of too many modern Catholics who describe themselves as devoted children of the church, attend Mass, know their catechisms and say their prayers, but whose entire lives are saturated with false liberal ideas, such as separation of Church and State, or liberty, equality and religious freedom, all the heresies in which history and government and schools and media have steeped us...The spirit that animates their behavior is not Catholic; their Catholic behavior is simple habit, like the brushing of their teeth...On one side, they acquiesce to the seductions of the liberal world that surrounds them; on the other side they maintain enough Catholic habits to convince themselves that they still guard and uphold the "pure, invariable, inextinguishable brilliance of Catholic doctrine"... (Dr White) 67 These sorts of words, combined with the solid formation he had already received, made for an implacable opponent of Modernism. In another place, he says: "The devil instills then, to arrive at his end, a spirit of confusion which seduces the souls to profess error cleverly hidden in the appearances of Truth. We cannot look for, in this fight, that the adversary will give out statements clearly contrary to Truths already defined" (69). The book also recalls an ally of Tradition, Bishop Sigaud, who also played a great role at the Council with the Coetus Fathers. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' Marcel Lefebvre (which we hope to review here in good time) provides in its middle section, a good companion to Dr. White's treatment of the Council through Bishop de Castro Mayer's eyes. And for those of us, who have come to rely on accounts like Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's Rhine flows into the Tiber as reference books, it is particularly telling to see narrative accounts, like those in the now dual biographies of the Archbishop as well as this work. These narrative accounts are often studies in an enormous impending disaster - at first slowly in the Preparatory Commissions, most notably in the Bea/Ottaviani confrontation - all the way to the utter treachery perpetrated in the pidgeonholing of a schema condemning communism - a cowardice that in no way paid tribute to names like Mindszenty, Stepinac, Slipyi, and the countless other Catholics struggling to be faithful under an iron fist and curtain. The Council finished, the doors to the world open, and Tradition thrown out those open doors on her ear, Dr. White remarks: As most of the fathers of the modern-day Church were engaging in an exuberant fling of hyper-delight over the possibility of "renewal," leaping and spinning and reeling with the intoxication of the heady fumes of release that always follow the easing of the bonds and restraints of order, this bishop sat on the sidelines, soberly observing, his head full of worry, his heart full of sorrow... 87 He wrote to Rome and stated openly and unequivocally that he would "not accept" the new Mass..."The pope allows the new Mass; I will not forbid you to say it; follow your conscience." 93 Then Dr. White puts in words one of the attitudes that made the precipitous post Vatican II collapse possible: An intellectual laziness that led to a blind priest-dependence and persisted for too long made the devastation of recent years possible...This submission without thought, without reason, without sense, may have worked during the years the Church had her reason and sense, but when the zanies took over and ran rampant, everything went haywire. 96-97 It is not within the scope of this review to reprint the highly edifying (and hard-hitting) words of Bishop de Castro Mayer, but here is an excerpt of a response to a question from Paul VI posed through the nuncio, viz. "What problems do you have with my pontificate? If you have difficulties, tell me frankly and directly." Frankly and directly, His Excellency stated, among other things: The length of the years has formed in my spirit the conviction that official acts of Your Holiness do not conform with those of the Pontiffs that went before, though with all my soul I wanted to see them as the same. 101 (emphasis in original) In typical fashion of the usurpers of the Vatican that have ruled since the Council, the letter was only acknowledged as received. No response was given. The response was even less to a letter authored to John Paul II (of supremely infelicitous memory). An excerpt contained: With all respect, I dare to say to Your Holiness that this sickness can be ended at once through pontifical pronouncements relating to the above matters, and, in general, on the various matters of Doctrines and Morals which emphasize, in an unequivocal manner, their uniformity with the teachings of the two-thousand-year-old Church of Christ. 150 Not even an acknowledgement of receipt was obtained. Dr. White also discusses His Excellency's heroic steadfastness with the Archbishop at the 1988 consecrations. Dr. White casts their stance thus: ...the presence and actions of Bishop de Castro Mayer gave these consecrations greater grave significance in the history of the Church in our time...The missionary bishop and the partriarchal bishop, the archbishop who traveled the globe to foster the Faith world-wide and the prelate who remained at home to preserve the Faith in the one diocese assigned to his care, these two "faithful witnesses" joined together at this moment to present to the world two faces of the Faith - the apostolic and the pastoral. 243 The book then turns to the expulsions of the priests and faithful from the churches which in many cases they had built with their own hands. Truly, the Church had gone "into the cocoon of Vatican II a bright butterfly and transformed itself into a peculiarly ungainly hairy caterpillar" (162). The pattern was the same everywhere, Bishop Navarro, the hired gun of the false Church, a man who allowed "obedience" to trump Faith and Doctrine, systematically ejected every single priest in the Diocese who refused to say the Novus Ordo. The faithful, unlike many faithful in this country, were properly catechized and followed their priest into "exile." They opened their homes, their garages, their lay-owned wayside chapels, and began the work of restoring. Again. Not with much wealth, for Campos is poor, but with joyful hearts and a steadfast faith. Alas, the book in its present form has a happy ending. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais performed an episcopal consecration for a selected priest (Bishop Licinio Rangel, RIP) of the Campos "Priestly Association of St. John Vianney" as the exiled priests had incorporated themselves. It even tells of the articulate and firm nature of one of the most prominent priests, a Padre Rifan - which we have come to know as the great accuser of Traditionalists (see here for our "seven deadly sins") and a man, who given the depth of research in Dr. White's book, is found to be an even bigger traitor to the cause of Tradition. Yet we know that there is not a happy ending in Campos now. Campos was an example of a faith that never hesitated. We hesitate to write more, as the alliance with the neo-Vatican authorities is still new. But as we can see in the text below a man most unworthy of Bishop de Castro Mayer utters (through a spokesman): Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate. That sorrowful gaze on the face of Bishop de Castro Mayer that Dr. White alluded to earlier in the book upon the conclusion of the Council must now, absent of the beatitude he certainly enjoys, in a certain way, countenance the face of the man who gave his priesthood to such a betrayer (Bishop Rifan) of the very essence of the Catholic priesthood. He has abandoned support for the Mass of all Time for the support of the Novus Ordo Missae - a ceremony which in its spirit departs from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated at Trent. A more fitting epitaph for this lion of the faith would not come from a man who received the priesthood from him, but from an enemy: "Dom Antonio is a symbol of a solid man who knew how to fight. We did not agree with him, but we admired him." 247 And from the Acknowledgements to The Horn of the Unicorn: "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer are the two great saints of the modern Church. Once this catastrophe ends they will be instantly canonized." Requiescat in pace, Dom Antonio. Don't, as I did, wait to read this book. It will reaffirm your faith and your belief in our present struggle just as much as reading a book on doctrine or the life of a saint. Indeed, it is, in a way, a life of a saint. 1985 joint letter to Pope John Paul II This was a joint letter sent to Pope John Paul II composed by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer at St. Pius X Seminary in Econe during the latter prelate's visit in 1985. The letter summarizes the root causes of the ecclesiastical crisis and begs the Holy Father to remedy the matter. A letter to Pope John Paul II from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer Econe August 31, 1985 During the 15 days preceding the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Your Holiness has decided to gather together an Extraordinary Synod in Rome, with the purpose of making the Second Vatican Council, which closed 20 years ago, "an ever more living reality." On the occasion of this event, allow us, who took an active part in the Council, to make known to you with all due respect our apprehensions and our desires, for the good of the Church, and for the salvation of the souls entrusted to us. These 20 years, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith himself says, have provided sufficient illustration of a situation resulting in a real self-destruction of the Church, except in those areas where the millennial Tradition of the Church has been maintained. The change wrought within the Church in the 1960s was given concrete form and expression in the Council by the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which granted man the natural right to be exempt from any restraint imposed on him by divine law to adhere to the Catholic Faith in order to be saved, a restraint necessarily embodied in ecclesiastical and civil laws in subordination to the legislative authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This freedom from any restraint by divine law or human laws in the matter of religion is inscribed among the freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, an impious and sacrilegious declaration condemned by the popes and in particular by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Adeo nota of April 23, 1791, and in his Consistory Allocution of June 17, 1793. From this Declaration on Religious Liberty the following consequences flow, as from a poisoned spring: Religious indifferentism of states, even Catholic states, carried out over 20 years, at the instigation of the Holy See. The ecumenism pursued unceasingly by yourself and by the Vatican, an ecumenism condemned by the Church's Magisterium, and in particular by the Encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI. All the reforms carried out over 20 years within the Church to please heretics, schismatics, false religions and declared enemies of the Church, such as the Jews, the Communists and the Freemasons. This freedom from the restraint of divine law in the matter of religion obviously encourages freedom from restraint in all divine and human laws, and destroys all authority in all areas, especially in the area of morals. We have never ceased protesting, both during the Council and after the Council, at the incredible scandal of this false religious liberty. We have protested in speech and in writing, in private and in public, resting our protest upon the most solemn documents of the Magisterium: among others, the Athanasian Creed, the Fourth Lateran Council, the Syllabus (No. 15), the First Vatican Council (DS 2008), and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the Catholic Faith (IIa IIae, Questions 8 to 16), a doctrine which has been that of the Church for almost 20 centuries, confirmed by Canon Law and its applications. That is why, if the coming Synod does not return to the traditional Magisterium of the Church, in the question of religious liberty, but instead confirms this serious error from which heresies flow, we shall be forced to think that the members of the Synod no longer profess the Catholic Faith. For their actions are contrary to the immutable principles of the First Vatican Council, which stated in the fourth chapter of the Fourth Session: For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, or the Deposit of Faith, and might faithfully expound it." This being so, we can only persevere in the Church's holy Tradition and take whatever decisions are necessary for the Church to keep a clergy faithful to the Catholic religion capable of repeating with St. Paul, "For I received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you." Holy Father, your responsibility is heavily engaged in this new and false conception of the Church which is drawing clergy and faithful into heresy and schism. If the Synod under your authority perseveres in this direction, you will no longer be the Good Shepherd. We turn to our Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, rosary in hand, begging her to impart to you her Spirit of Wisdom, as to all members of the Synod, in order to put an end to the invasion of Modernism within the Church. Holy Father, be so good as to forgive the frankness of our approach to you, which has no other purpose than to render unto our one and only Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the honor which is due to Him, as also to His one and only Church, and deign to accept our homage as devoted sons in Jesus and Mary. (Signature: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle (Signature: Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer) Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos 1983 open letter to Pope John Paul II This open letter to Pope John Paul II was written jointly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer on November 21, 1983, during a visit made by these bishops in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Open letter to Pope John Paul II: an episcopal manifesto Given at Rio de Janiero, Brazil on November 21, 1983. Holy Father, May Your Holiness permit us, with an entire filial openness, to submit to you the following considerations. During the last twenty years the situation in the Church is such that it looks like an occupied city. Thousands of members of the clergy, and millions of the faithful, are living in a state of anguish and perplexity because of the "self-destruction of the Church." They are being thrown into confusion and disorder by the errors contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and especially the liturgical reforms, the false notions diffused by official documents and by the abuse of power perpetrated by the hierarchy. In these distressing circumstances, many are losing the Faith, charity is becoming cold, and the concept of the true unity of the Church in time and in space is disappearing. In our capacity as bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, successors of the Apostles, our hearts are overwhelmed at the sights throughout the world, by so many souls who are bewildered yet desirous in continuing in the faith and morals which have been defined by the Magisterium of the Church and taught by Her in a constant and universal manner. It seems to us that to remain silent in these circumstances would be to become accomplices to these wicked works (cf. II Jn. 11). That is why we find ourselves obliged to intervene in public before Your Holiness (considering all the measures we have undertaken in private during the last fifteen years have remained ineffectual) in order to denounce the principal causes of this dramatic situation, and to beseech Your Holiness to use his power as Successor of Peter to "confirm your brothers in the Faith" (Luke 22, 32), which has been faithfully handed down to us by Apostolic Tradition. To that end we have attached to this letter an appendix containing the principal errors which are at the origins of this tragic situation and which, moreover, have already been condemned by your predecessors. The following list outlines these errors, but it is not exhaustive: A latitudinarian and ecumenical notion of the Church, divided in its faith, condemned in particular by the Syllabus, No. 18 (Den. 2918). A collegial government and a democratic orientation in the Church, condemned in particular by Vatican Council I (Den. 3055). A false notion of the natural rights of man which clearly appears in the document on Religious Liberty, condemned in particular by Quanta cura (Pius IX) and Libertas praestantissimum (Leo XIII) An erroneous notion of the power of the Pope (cf. Den. 3115). A Protestant notion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, condemned by the Council of Trent, Session XXII. Finally, and in a general manner, the free spreading of heresies, characterized by the suppression of the Holy Office. The documents containing these errors cause an uneasiness and a disarray, so much the more profound as they come from a source so much the more elevated. The clergy and the faithful most moved by this situation are, moreover, those who are the most attached to the Church, to the authority of the Successor of Peter, and to the traditional Magisterium of the Church. Most Holy Father, it is urgently necessary that this disarray come to an end because the flock is dispersing and the abandoned sheep are following mercenaries. We beseech you, for the good of the Catholic Faith and for the salvation of souls, to reaffirm the truths, contrary to these errors, truths which have been taught for twenty centuries in the Church. It is with the sentiments of St. Paul before St. Peter, when he reproached him for having not followed "the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2, 11-14), that we are addressing you. His aim was none other than to protect the faith of the flock. St. Robert Bellarmine, expressing on this occasion a general moral principle, states that one must resist the pontiff whose actions would be prejudicial to the salvation of souls (De Rom. Pon., I.2, c.29). Thus it is with the purpose of coming to the aid of Your Holiness that we utter this cry of alarm, rendered all the more urgent by the errors, not to say the heresies, of the new Code of Canon Law and by the ceremonies and addresses on the occasion of the Fifth Centenary of the birth of Luther. Truly, this is the limit! May God come to your aid, Most Holy Father. We are praying without ceasing for you to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Deign to accept the sentiments of our filial devotion, H.E. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, International Seminary of St. Pius X Econe, Switzerland H.E. Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer Riachuelo 169, C.P. 255 28100 Campos, (RJ) Brazil