Traditional Catholicism in Campos, Brazil: An interesting history

[GiftOfGod]

The Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney is a "former Ecclesia Dei community" in Campos, Brazil that has an odd history going back a bishop who didn't allow the New Mass in his diocese until 1981 before (possibly) becoming a sedevacantist and co-consecrator at Écône in 1988, followed by "illicit" consecrations by SSPX bishops, and a "reunion" with Rome.

Antônio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos from 1949 to 1981, pictured below, become friends with ABL during the Second Vatican Council. As Bishop of Campos, Brazil, it appears he refused to implement the fruits of the Council, including the New Mass. However, he did retire according to the law of the Conciliar Church in 1981. I believe +de Castro Mayer to be the only bishop to actually resist the New Mass while in office (if anyone knows details or information to the contrary, please let me know).


After his retirement, "his progressive successor Bishop Carlos Navarro promptly ordered all priests under his jurisdiction to use exclusively the New Mass. Thirty priests, declined in conscience to obey this edict.  They were expelled from their churches, +de Castro Mayer formed the Priestly Union of St John Vianney (SSJV), and they continued to minister to their 30,000 traditional following in houses, halls and garages." He continued his friendship with ABL, participating in several joint declarations with ABL against the Conciliar Church, culminating in his presence at the Écône Consecrations in 1988. Some people claim that +de Castro Mayer was a co-consecrator but others claim that he merely "assisted" ABL in the consecrations. Multiple trustworthy witnesses to the consecrations said that +de Castro Mayer was telling people that "we have no Pope!" Interestingly, no disciplinary action from the Vatican regarding the consecrations named or implicated +de Castro Mayer.

In 1991, +de Castro Mayer died the month after ABL's death and left control of the SSJV to Fr. Licínio Rangel. Fr. Rangel was consecrated three months later by Bernard Tissier and "assisted" by de Galarreta and Williamson, all SSPX bishops consecrated by ABL. There was not much outcry from Rome, perhaps because the SSPX bishops were already in a state of excommunication.

In 2000, Bishop Rangel "approached the Holy See with a view to regularizing their position. By this time the SSJV had 100 chapels and 50 churches, a flourishing seminary,  a hundred religious sisters, a hospital for the mentally handicapped, an orphanage and schools educating over 3000 children in the traditional Catholic Faith and liturgy."

"On 15 August 2001, +Rangel together with all 25 of the member priests reconciled with the Holy See. He addressed a letter to Pope John Paul II in which he confirmed his full submission to and communion with Rome. Pope John Paul responded on 25 December welcoming them into full communion with the Church and withdrawing any censures imposed on them. He also created the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney on that day, with its territory matching that of the Diocese of Campos, and granted its members the right to celebrate Mass in the form instituted by Pope Pius V as amended by Pope John XXIII."

+Rangel died in 2002 but not before co-consecrating, with the approval of JPII, Fr. Fernando Arêas Rifan ?(with "Cardinal" Darío Castrillón Hoyos as the principal consecrator) and making him successor. It is not clear if the Old Rite of Episcopal Consecration was used on Rifan.

Fast forward to 2021: I didn't see Rifan's name listed among the signatories of the cuckold communiqué, so I expected him and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney to be taking a quiet stand against Francis.

Boy was I wrong. Rifan is trad-lite and even worse than the FSSP/ICKSP by requiring concelebration of the New Mass:

After some digging I found the following

http://archives.sspx.org/bishop_de_castro_mayer/campos_accordance/bishop_rifan_concelebration.htm

http://www.uvoc.org/bishop_rifan_answers_questions_.htm

Ninguém pode ser católico se mantendo numa atitude de recusa de comunhão com o Papa e com o Episcopado católico. De fato, a Igreja define como cismático aquele que recusa se submeter ao Romano Pontífice ou se manter em comunhão com os outros membros da Igreja a ele sujeitos (cânon 751). Ora, se recusar continua e explicitamente a participar de toda e qualquer Missa no rito celebrado pelo Papa e por todos os Bispos da Igreja, por julgar esse rito, em si mesmo, incompatível com a Fé ou pecaminoso, representa uma recusa formal de comunhão com o Papa e com o Episcopado católico.

[No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751). 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.] 

Open and shut case sadly.

Of course, one hopes that other societies do better but the point is it doesn't matter whether at X or Y point in time Z act traditionalist or seem firm. Even the, supposedly, most traditionalist of groups tend to crumble over time when forced into the official structures of the church. Campos is one of the reasons many in the SSPX were opposed to formal recognition efforts with Rome, because if it happened to Campos it would be arrogant to say it couldn't happen to them.

As for the rest, resistance to an extent is possible, is is probable though? Who knows, one is permitted to doubt it given that many of these societies distinguish themselves from the SSPX solely on the basis of alleged "loyalty" to Rome. It's notorious for example that the FSSP, and other societies, are often given permission to be in a diocese only after the SSPX appear. In any event the Pope could dissolve such societies altogether, replace their superiors etc... as he has done with others (franciscans of the immaculate ring any bells? the order of malta?) and let's not even get started on what happens when they start putting new "saints" into the old calendar or making other edits to the 1962 as they have threatened to do. I would be surprised if those steps don't follow if, god forbid, Francis is allowed to live long enough or a bad successor is appointed.

The point of all this is a certain schadenfreude that, contrary to those who calumniated the SSPX and ABL, all of the predictions of ABL, the SSPX and those who opposed formal recognition within the structure of the church of the SSPX have come true. Again. As happened on previous occassions such as Campos.

Also, to make things worse Bp Rifan of Campos didn't even seem to think there were any issues with TC and instead goes on to complain about rad trads here https://www.gloria.tv/post/4rR3Zbk8AJLzCqCz9Sy8NA6L1  There, but for the grace of God, go I...

That's the dude who concelebrated a sort of private Novus Ordo with Francis, for which a photographer was present. He's a good boy who obviously hopes Francis or Pope Blase I will make him a Cardinal.

Traditionalist Catholicism in Campos is a wild ride.

[Prayerful]

That last is Blase and Theo. I wonder if Cupich would restore the man who got him Chicago.

I suppose omitting Dom Antonio de Castro Mayer from the excommunication letter was good politics. Minimising any rebellion against V2 seems to have been a prime objective, and was largely successful. Bugnini was wise enough to grant indults to potential malcontents (Josemaria Escriva considered defecting to Orthodoxy, or so it is claimed, for example) and urged Paul VI to allow the Heenan indult worldwide, as happened in 1984.