Dr. David White, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the Faith They Preserved

The Remnant Newspaper ^ | February 15, 2025 | Robert Morrison

[ebb tide]

Dr. David White, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the Faith They Preserved

My journey to Catholicism began in earnest in Dr. David Allen White’s classroom in 1993, a few months after he published his biography of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, The Mouth of the Lion. As an agnostic plebe in Dr. White’s Naval Academy English class, I naturally had no idea that he would eventually lead me to the religion that Bishop de Castro Mayer fought so valiantly to preserve. But Dr. White was a truth-teller, and he gradually taught me (and many other midshipmen over the years) that the Catholic Church is the only church established by God to preserve and teach the immutable truths we need to accept if we hope to please God and save our souls.

Dr. White passed away on February 11th, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, after having done far more to preserve the unadulterated Catholic truth since Vatican II than almost all of the bishops combined. Bishop de Castro Mayer was one of the very few bishops since the Council to fight on the side of Dr. White, Catholic Truth, and God. Looking back at The Mouth of the Lion, it is clear that the descriptions of the bishop’s unshakable Faith can be applied to Dr. White as well — the two men shared not only the same set of religious beliefs but, more importantly today, a clear vision of how Catholicism was under attack and what must be done to preserve it.

Why Tradition?

In the final chapter of The Mouth of the Lion, Dr. White provided one of the finest descriptions of Catholic Tradition and Truth that one can find:

“The real question is ‘Why Tradition?’ And the answer is central to any definition of ‘Catholic.’ Tradition is nothing less than the Timeless Truth of the Church and Its Means of Conveyance. If the Truth taught by the Church is God’s Truth, then it must be Timeless, it must be eternal. God’s Truth cannot change or alter or shift or grow through time. Truth is Truth to the end of time, and beyond, into eternity. The popular modern notion that Truth can evolve or expand or improve is absurd. If any Truth can transmogrify or metamorphose, then it cannot be God’s Truth, Who is Perfect and Eternal and Unchanging. All priests and bishops and popes always took a solemn vow to pass on the Faith as it had been passed to them. This was done to insure that the Truth of God as given to man would be preserved and protected through the Catholic Church in the person of those same men, men who had received the special graces to oversee the job of preservation. It was not their job to improve or embellish or modify that Truth; their job was to communicate that Truth to those in their care and bequeath that Truth as a great legacy to the next generations. That is Tradition; this is the safeguard of the profound Truth given to man by God Himself and preserved in the loving arms of Mother Church. This is what has been violated; this most basic, most simple, most quintessential responsibility of the Church has been discarded.” (p. 270)

Dr. White and Bishop de Castro Mayer were willing to fight and sacrifice for the unadulterated Catholic Truth because it is God’s Truth. It does not really matter if we happen to like the tenets of the Faith — what matters is that it is the religion that God gave us and we must accept and follow it. Bishop de Castro Mayer expressed this powerfully in an open letter to his clergy and faithful from June 1, 1981:

“Now, in relations with God, which are the fundamental relations of man, there is nothing more important than the purity and integrity of the Faith. In effect, by Faith, we believe with an absolute certainty the Truths which exceed our intellectual capacity, only because God has revealed them. In doing so, we give homage to the ineffable transcendence of God and we acknowledge our dependence because He is our Creator and our Sovereign Lord. Heresy opposes itself to the Faith, precisely because it denies the sovereignty of God. In effect, the heretic esteems himself capable of making a personal judgment on revealed Truths, rejecting those which are incomprehensible to him or contrary to scientific conclusions. Thus he makes himself a judge of divine thought. He re-enacts the rebellion of Lucifer who sought to equate himself with God, deciding on his own what was true and what was error.” (p. 112)

Any attempted modification of the Faith changes not only the content of beliefs but also the entire basis for believing: it stops being God’s truth and instead becomes the man’s attempt to parrot God’s Truth.

As Dr. White explained, though, the timeless aspect of Catholic Truth does not mean that it must always remain stagnant:

“Bishop Castro de Mayer goes on to warn against an equally dangerous false adherence to tradition that leads to archaism, an excessive attachment to the old for the sole purpose of destroying what currently exists. . . . Bishop de Castro Mayer, like his friend and eventual collaborator Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, had no false, sentimental attachment to tradition for its own sake. They were attached to tradition only in so far as it was the expression of the basic Truths of the Faith, but they did not deny the possibility of organic development in the expression of those Truths. The principal concern was the expression and preservation of that Truth.” (p. 68)

The ways in which Truth is expressed may develop organically for the sake of better communicating that Truth, but the test is always whether the Truth is actually preserved. If Saints Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Pius X would not recognize it as the same Faith they defended, then an impermissible deviation has likely occurred.

As Dr. White saw so well as a master of literature and language, the enemies of God’s Truth achieve many of their most important victories by manipulating definitions.

The Threats to Catholic Truth

Like Archbishop Lefebvre and the pre-Vatican II popes, Bishop de Castro Mayer sought to warn his flock against the encroaching threats to Catholic Truth:

“Now, beloved sons, what is denied today under a pretense of ‘New Theology’ brings back into the Holy Church the deleterious poison of modernism. According to these ‘new theologies,’ the dogmatic Truth is only a vacuum which is filled in differently in the successive epochs of History. The words are the same, but the concept varies. . . . Guard yourselves, dear brothers, against these novelties. Revealed Truth is always the same. And the perfection which exists in the course of the ages is not the evolution from one concept to another new one, but the progress in the knowledge of the same concept which becomes clearer, which becomes more profound. There is greater insight into revelation, by which, the procession of Truth becomes more intimate and more intense. There is not the elimination of one Truth which is succeeded by another. In the Church, in life, there is vigorous growth, but always growth of the same nature, for development, not for change.” (pp. 64-65)

Remarkably, these words are from 1950. Dr. White commented on Bishop de Castro Mayer’s words with the wisdom of a man who had fought similar battles in academia:

“This warning is amazing coming when it does. It is a superb definition of the wily way in which the modernists make their moves and destroy under the pretext of preservation. By our time, the modernists have emptied most of the basic vocabulary of the Church and the Faith of its meaning and substituted new definitions of their own so that one may speak to them of the necessity of teaching the young about the resurrection of our Lord and they will nod and wink, pretending to comprehend and agree, only to go off and spout their own infernal ideas about the continuation of Christ’s ‘spirit’ in the world and teaching nothing of our Lord’s bodily resurrection from the dead. If challenged, they will insist they have taught the doctrine of the resurrection. According to their own dim lights, they have; they have taught the doctrine of the resurrection as redefined by Hans Küng or by themselves, but certainly not the historical fact long defined as a dogma of the Church. Again if challenged, they will smile and deny they are changing anything, instead insisting that they are only ‘penetrating more deeply into the Truth,’ or ‘progressing in understanding of revealed knowledge,’ or ‘evolving organically in time towards the Omega Point.’ They are, in fact, offering their own definitions of Truth rather than those dogmas as defined by the Church; this is called Protestantism; it is a heresy.” (pp. 65-66)

These last words from Dr. White exemplify a strength he shared with all other true defenders of the Faith: he knew that defending Truth often required labeling error as error, and heresy as heresy. And, as Dr. White saw so well as a master of literature and language, the enemies of God’s Truth achieve many of their most important victories by manipulating definitions.

Blind obedience has led to a situation worldwide in which the saints could not possibly recognize most “Catholic parishes” as Catholic.

Protecting the Foundations of the Faith

As Dr. White described, Bishop de Castro Mayer taught his flock to identify and resist the methods of the modernists:

“The modernists can transform themselves like Proteus and become something new and different whenever discovered or challenged. They can absorb and make their own any objection you raise against them. Nevertheless, Bishop de Castro Mayer in his first pastoral letter of 1950 warned his faithful to ‘guard’ themselves against the coming shocks that would threaten the foundations of their Faith and he continued to teach his faithful the methods the modernists would use to unleash the shock waves, passing off lies under the cover of Truth, keeping the surface seemingly intact while uprooting and destroying the foundations.” (p. 66)

This is impressive, but how exactly did Bishop de Castro Mayer teach his flock? Dr. White’s discussion of a 1953 pastoral letter provides the answer:

“[H]ere in words printed in 1953, the bishop warns his priests and his faithful: ‘The devil instills then, to arrive at his end, a sprit of confusion which seduces the souls to profess error cleverly hidden in the appearance of Truth. We cannot look for, in this fight, that the adversary will give out statements clearly contrary to Truths already defined.’ The warning is clear —hidden under the appearance of Truth, error will be smuggled into the church, deceiving souls to their peril. To offer further explanation, the bishop devotes the majority of the lengthy letter, over one hundred pages, to examples, specific examples of error subtly masquerading as Truth. He assembles a little catechism of eighty propositions in which a Truth is stated, but, next to it, a slightly altered version of that Truth, an alteration that tips into error, is also given. Each pair of seemingly identical statements is then followed by a brief commentary explaining the differences between the two statements, why one is true, why the other is touched with error. All the examples relate a modernist twitting of a Truth taught by the Church.” (p. 69)

Bishop de Castro Mayer had the foresight and grace to carry out this vital work ten years before Vatican II. If only he had been tasked with performing this same service prior to the Council he might have helped prevent the horrifying calamities that multiplied in its wake. Now that we have every reason to appreciate the tremendous value of his efforts, though, there is even more reason for faithful shepherds to undertake similar efforts to teach the faithful (and priests and bishops) the differences between truth and error.

It is almost universally the case that those who have blindly obeyed have also been acting in tandem with the inclinations of fallen (and lazy) human nature.

Blind Obedience versus True Fidelity

One may wonder, though, whether these efforts paid off. Dr. White related the results in the bishop’s diocese compared to the rest of the world. Here, he described the blind obedience with which most of us have some familiarity:

“The faithful of the diocese of Campos were unlike the rest of the Catholic faithful of Brazil or the rest of Latin America or Ireland or Spain or Italy or America whose Faith was based on blind obedience and little more (‘whatever Father says . . . .’). An intellectual laziness that led to blind priest-dependence and persisted for too long made the devastation of recent years possible. When word came from the modernists in Rome, the people always listened to what their priest said and blindly obeyed. In instance after instance, they simply went along. ‘A new Mass? Yes, Father.’ ‘Communion in the hand? As you say, Father.’ ‘Communion while standing? My knees hurt anyway, Father.’ ‘No more private confessions? I could use extra time on Saturdays, Father.’” (p. 96)

We see evidence of this all around us — blind obedience has led to a situation worldwide in which the saints could not possibly recognize most “Catholic parishes” as Catholic. But Bishop de Castro Mayer had taught his flock to resist the anti-Catholic innovations, so they did:

“When the iron fist of the new authority descended at last on the diocese of Campos and demanded that the faithful there, in step with all the other faithful around the world, sacrifice their traditional Faith, their Mass, the Faith of their children, the faithful rose up and with one voice said ‘NO!’ That voice, while it certainly sounded from the depths of the heart, had its strength and conviction from the reasons of the head. This was possible because Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer had taught his faithful their Faith, a Faith replete with understanding.” (p. 97)

The faithful of Campos did not adhere to their Faith through mere habit or because it was easier. Rather, they adhered to the Faith because it is God’s Truth. Indeed, it is almost universally the case that those who have blindly obeyed have also been acting in tandem with the inclinations of fallen (and lazy) human nature. As Dr. White observed, this might have worked in previous times, but it is a formula for losing the Faith today:

“The 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. The faithful, even those who intuited something might be wrong, trusted in their bishops and their priests and accepted each new outrage with a nod of consent. This was sloth in its most profound sense, spiritual laziness, a refusal to know what is necessary for our salvation and a refusal to act for our own spiritual good. The faithful acquiesced in the destruction of their Church; it was easier than thinking, arguing, acting. They simply did what they had been told to do.” (p. 97)

Those who practice blind obedience today would not recognize or accept the Faith of Saints Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Pius X. And those saints would not recognize or accept the religion of Francis or any sycophants who think that obedience to heretics is more pleasing to God than faithful adherence to His Truth.

May God reward Doc White for all he did to spread this devotion to Our Lady and preserve and transmit the Catholic Faith he loved so dearly!

Fatima and Devotion to Our Lady

As Dr. White and Bishop de Castro Mayer understood so well, we know that we must stand with the saints, but it is still difficult to comprehend how all of this is happening in the indefectible Church that God promised us He will never abandon. Dr. White began his final chapter of The Mouth of the Lion with a discussion of one of the great gifts God has given us to help understand this mystery:

“When Our Lady appeared to the shepherd children at Fatima, she made a promise to them. Though she gave to them a chronicle of the difficulties and disasters to be visited on mankind and the Catholic Church because of the loss of Faith throughout the world, nevertheless she told them that ‘in Portugal, the Faith will always be preserved.’ The obvious implication of Her words is that throughout the rest of the world the Faith would not be preserved, and the subsequent history of the Church, especially since the wrenching Second Vatican Council, has shown Our Lady of Fatima’s implied prediction to be accurate.” (p. 269)

Strictly speaking, Catholics are not required to believe in the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima. And yet, if we take Our Lady’s warnings seriously the current crisis is not only more comprehensible but also a sign that those who remain faithful to Tradition are doing God’s will.

Moreover, the messages of Fatima also tell us of the great, but simple, weapon we have to combat those who seek to destroy the Church: the rosary. Dr. White included two anecdotes about Bishop de Castro Mayer’s love for the rosary which are worth recalling today, the first of which we probably ought not to emulate too closely:

“He himself would pray the rosary at all hours of the day or night. His priests recount that when traveling with him, he would often awaken them at odd hours to pray the rosary because he loved to say the prayers with company. One time during a visit to the Society of Saint Pius X Seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, the bishop awakened his traveling companions after the hour of the seminary ‘lights out,’ at time of strictly enforced quiet, and announced his wish to pray the rosary. They reminded him it was late and the seminary was observing a time of quiet and repose, but his devotion to Our Lady would not be deterred. They went with him as he began walking up and down the seminary hallways, his voice booming out the Hail Marys. The heads of incensed seminarians began to appear in doorways as more and more doors flung open. Upon encountering the vibrantly fervent Bishop de Castro Mayer as the praying culprit, they softly shut their doors and sheepishly returned to their beds.” (pp. 54-55)

The second anecdote highlights the same devotion manifested more peacefully:

“The months passed and the aged man grew weaker, finally being confined to his bed, and in that day, he was forced to stop celebrating the Mass he loved so dearly. The celebration of the Mass now being beyond his physical powers, he maintained his devotion to Our Lady by using the little strength left to him to pray the rosary. Padre Possidente, one the priests who cared for him during his final months, relates that when Dom Antonio was sleeping and had to be awakened for his meals or his medication, the task was not simple. The priests often had a difficult time attempting to awaken the elderly bishop. Finally, they discovered an easy method. One had only to place one’s head near Dom Antonio’s head and recite quietly in his ear, ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee, Blessed art Thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus,’ and the dark, probing, wise eyes would open wide and the weak voice would muster the strength and breath to finish the prayer without missing a beat, ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.’” (pp. 245-246)

Dr. White, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and all of the great defenders of Catholic Truth today share this devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the rosary. May God reward Doc White for all he did to spread this devotion to Our Lady and preserve and transmit the Catholic Faith he loved so dearly! Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us!

[ebb tide]

Ping

[Trump_Triumphant]

Dr. White was a gracious man who remained faithful to the Faith of our Fathers. May his soul rest in peace.