ßBack
COMMENTARIES OF FATHER MARTIN STEPANICH, O.F.M., S.T.D.
Father Stepanich insists on being
characterized as a “Retired Traditional Catholic Priest.” And
nothing else. While in point of fact there is much more than this that
can be said about him, I must respect his request. I am grateful to him for the
privilege of putting some of his writings on my web page:
Dear Correspondent:
You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, session IV, which states
clearly that St. Peter, the First Pope, has “perpetual successors” in
the primacy over the universal Church….”
You understandably wonder how it could be that there are still
“perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the man who men who have claimed to be
Popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could
not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.
The important thing here is to understand just what kind of “perpetual
succession” in the Papacy Our Lord established.
Did Our Lord intend that there should be a Pope on the Chair of Peter every
single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of
the Papacy’s existence?
You will immediately realize that, No, Our Lord very obviously did not
establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of Popes. You know that, all
through the centuries of the Church’s existence, Popes have been dying and that
there then followed an interval, after the death of each Pope, when there was no “perpetual
successor,” and no Pope occupying the Chair of Peter. That Chair became vacant
for a while whenever a Pope died. This has happened more than 260 times since
the death of the first pope.
But you also know that the death of a Pope did not mean the end of the
“perpetual succession” of Popes after Peter.
You understand now that “no Pope” does not mean “no papacy.” A vacant
Chair of Peter after the death of a Pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of
tat Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of
the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.”
Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that,
the moment one Pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as Pope,
He nevertheless did not do it that way.
Our Lord did
it the way we have always known it be, that is, He allowed for an
interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death
of each Pope.
That interruption of the succession of Popes has, most of the time,
lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the
interruption olasted longer than that, considerably
longer.
Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to
last before a new Pope was to be elected, and He did not declare that, if the
delay in electing a new Pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was
then terminated, so that it would have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”
Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of
the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a Pope
So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter brought
on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so,
does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of Popes after St. Peter has come
to an end.
What we must realize here is that the Papacy, and with it the
“perpetual succession” of Popes is a divine institution, not a human
institution. Therefore man cannot put an end to the Papacy. No matter who long God may allow heresy to prevail at the Papal
headquarters in
Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the Papacy.
But He will not do so, because He has made His will known in His Church that
there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first
entrusted to St. Peter.
We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has
lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight. But
we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the
return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it
and in the way He wills it.
If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified genuinely
Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope, God can, for
example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional
Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.
God can interveen in whatever way it may
please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in
His Holy Church.
Nothing is impossible to God.
Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M.
Dear Faithful Catholic:
Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “Doubting Thomases” who say that they “just can’t believe” that the
Chair of Peter could be vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25
years, without the “perpetual succession” of Popes being thereby permanently
broken.
Those “Doubting Thomases” presumably grant
that the “perpetual succession” of Popes remains unbroken during the relatively
short intervals that follow upon the deaths of Popes. And you indicate that, at
least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public
and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope, and that the
Chair of peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a
pubic heretic.
But as you sadly say, the “Doubting Thomases”
changed their views after they read the Declaration of the Ecumenical Council
Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in
y0our letter of
Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing
more than that. St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the
primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will
last until the end of time.
Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s
Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes
would supposedly come to a final end. Yet the “Doubting Thomases”
imagine they see in the
Curiously enough, the “Doubting Thomases”
never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a
supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of Popes. Their imagination
has gotten them into an impossible situation. They “just can’t believe”
that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years, or more, while,
at the say time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could
possibly be a true Catholic Pope. At one and the same time they Do have a Pope, yet they do not have a
Pope. They have a heretical “Pope” But they do not have a true Catholic Pope.
Not being able to convince the “Doubting Thomases”
that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown
“Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “Doubting Thomases” see the light.
But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you
have already quoted from
Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the
“perpetual succession” of Popes, no matter how long pubic heretics may occupy
Peter’s Chair. The Catholic papacy comes from God, not from man. To put an end
to the “perpetual succession” of Popes, you would first have to put an end to
God Himself.
Father Martin Stepanich,
O.F.M; S.T.D.
A CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SOCIETY OF PISU X
Dear Faithful Catholics:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter (Dated June 25) of one
Paul, who identifies himself as a 3rd year seminarian at the SSPX
seminary in
Seminarian Paul takes issue with my article “Finishing with Sedevacantism,” that you had given him, and says that he
“feels” that I have some “mistaken ideas” about sedevacantism.
Let Paul just skip that “I feel” bit and get down to sound and mature thinking
and clear understanding about the terms “material heresy” and “formal heresy.”
In order to do so, Paul would do well to recall the first the meaning of
“formal sin” and “material sin.”
Paul presumably understands that “material sin” means something that is
in itself sinful, but which one does not realize is sinful when committed, and
so is not considered to be guilty before God of an actual sin. “Formal sin,” on
the other hand, is a sinful act committed knowingly and willingly, with
sufficient realization that it is sinful and with full consent of the will,
thus making one guilty before God of actual sin.
This is exactly how the terms “material heresy” and “formal heresy”
must be understood. Seminarian Paul should have no trouble understanding that
“material heresy” is in itself an heretical idea, but which one does not realize is heresy, so
he is known by the awkward term “material heretic.” “Formal heresy,” on the
other hand means a heretical idea that one knows to be at variance with the
Catholic Faith, yet nevertheless approves of it and deliberately teaches it to
others. So he is then by that very fact (ipso facto) a “formal heretic,”
that is, a conscious and wilful heretic.
But Seminarian Paul, like anti-sedevantists in general, shows that he has no clear notion of what the terms “material heresy” and “formal heresy” really mean, nor does he know just how and where to apply these terms. This becomes evident when Paul unwinds what he calls a “fictitious example” of a “Bishop Smith” teaching his “parishioners” the heaesy that “men can be saved in all religions,.” The “parishioners” protest such heretical teaching, though in vain. Finally, as a last resort, the “parishioners” denounce “Bishop Smithy” to one “Cardinal Jones, who represents the higher authority to which “Bishop Smith” is subject.
Seminarian Paul makes the glaring mistake of arbitrarily designating
“Bishop Smith” as nothing more than a censure-free and innocently ignorant
“material heretic,” even though he so plainly portrays the bishop as one who
knowingly and publicly persists in preaching heresy to his ‘parishioners.”
This could only mean that by that very fact (ipso facto), “Bishop Smith”
becomes a wilful “formal heretic.” Paul surely understands that “Bishop
Smith” by wilfully and publicly preaching heresy, ipso fact separates
himself from the true Catholic Faith, and therefore, also from the Catholic
Church. Furthermore, he thereby ipso
fact deposes himself from his ecclesiastical office, even though
formalities of ecclesiastical censure have not as yet been put into effect and
the censures have not yet been made public by competent authority.
In effect “Bishop Smith” ipso fact excommunicates himself from the
Catholic Church, and he ipso facto makes himself unfit for the
office which he had held.
After falsifying the true status of “Bishop Smith,” seminarian Paul proceeds to falsify
also the role of “Cardinal Jones” in this case. Paul makes it look as though
“Bishop Smith” first becomes a “formal heretic” only when “Cardinal Jones”
tells him to his face that he is a “formal heretic.” In reality, however, the
duty of “Cardinal Jones” is to verify the facts through thorough questioning.
When “Cardinal Jones” sees that “Bishop Smith” stubbornly refuses to give up
his public and wilful heresy, he officially makes it public, for
everyone to know, that “Bishop Smith” is an unrepentant heretic, and is
ordered to leave the office he had held as Bishop and as Pastor of his Church.
Not being able to get things straight about the true status of public
and wilful heretic “Bishop Smith,” seminarian Paul easily fails to get things
straight about the real status of public and wilful heretic John Paul II. He readily acknowledges that John Paul II is
indeed a heretic, but he arbitrarily classifies him as a so-called “material
heretic,” thereby implying that John Paul II does not fully realize that he is
teaching and promoting heresy. He further implies that John Paul II is some
kind of insufficiently educated dummy, who doesn’t know heresy when he sees it.
The big stumbling block for Seminarian Paul is the fact that there is
no earthly power that can remove a pope from his exalted position. Paul does
not seem to comprehend as his Catholic Faith tells him, that Public and
Wilful Heretic john Paul II has by the very fact of his heresy (ipso facto)
separated himself from the true Catholic faith, and therefore, cannot be
even a true Catholic nor a member of the Catholic Church, nor can he be a true
Catholic occupant of the Chair of Peter. So in actual fact, John Paul II has
removed himself from the true Chair of Peter, which is the Chair of Truth,
not the Chair of Error, and the Chair of the True Catholic Faith, not the Chair
of Heresy.
But seminarian Paul nevertheless insists that John Paul II still
legitimately occupies the Chair of Peter, because he is supposedly only a
“material heretic.” Paul fails to comprehend that the true Chair of Peter is no
place for a heretic, whether he be called a “material” or a “formal” heretic.
Paul cannot seem to see that the same spiritual damage is done to souls whether
John Paul II is regardedas a “material” or as a
“formal” heretic. And the same damage is done to the Catholic Faith and to the
Catholic Church, which can in no way what so ever be allied with heresy, and in
the same way, dishonour falls upon the true Chair of Peter whether the wilful
and public heretic supposedly occupying it is called a “material” or a
“formal” heretic. There is no doubt that wilful and public heretic John Paul
II, is surely sitting on something, but it most
certainly cannot be the true Chair of Peter.
Like all anti-sedevacantists, seminarian Paul
is scandalized by any sedevacantist who insists that
he Chair if Peter us vacant. And, to try to silence sedevacantists
from saying so, anti-sedvacantists like to use scare
arguments and with them they try to make sedevacantists
feel ashamed of thinking for supposedly “judging” a Pope.
The word “judging” is turned into a trick word against sedevacantists by anti-sedevacantists,
who give the word “judging” only one meaning, the meaning that allows
wilful and public heretic John Paul II to stay on the Chair of Peter. To anti-sedevacantists, to “judge” means only to “assume
jurisdiction” over a Pope and make a “juridical declaration” that the Chair
of Peter is vacant.
What seminarian Paul with other anti-sedevacantists,
fails to realize is that God gave all of us the ability to judge the
difference between right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and sin, truth and
error. And no one needs to “assume jurisdiction” in order to use that gift of judging
received from God.
In addition to that natural gift of judging, God gave us, with the gift
of the Catholic Faith, the ability to judge the difference between what is in
accord with the Catholic Faith and what is contrary to the Catholic Faith. To
use that gift of the true Catholic Faith effectively, we must be sufficiently
well-informed about the true Catholic Faith and understand correctly all that
the Faith teaches.
Presuming that seminarian Paul really knows the true Catholic Faith, he
should be easily able to understand that we are obliged to use God’s gift of recognizing
and judging what we find to be contrary to the true Catholic Faith. In
other words, we are obliged to profess the Faith by speaking out in protest
when we recognize the public and wilful act of heresy of John Paul II. To
refuse to do so is a failure to profess the Faith fully and courageously. We
cannot claim to be truly to be professing the faith if we go only so far as to
recognize the public and wilful heresies of John Paul II, and then stop
short of drawing the logical and unavoidable conclusion that the true Chair
of Peter is vacant.
Here we can go back to Paul’s claim that no power on earth can remove a
Pope from the Chair of Peter. Paul would do well to give serious thought to the
Divinely-given authority of a Pope’s confessor. Though a Pope’s confessor
cannot issue any public decree of removal of a Pope from the Chair of Peter, he
certainly has the power to rebuke and admonish and warn an unrepentant
heretical Pope, and even to command him to give up his public and wilful
heresy, or else depart from the Chair of Peter. And a Pope’s confessor can
refuse absolution to an unrepentant heretic Pope. So a Pope is not really as
totally untouchable as some would like to think.
Anti-sedevacantists also like to use that old
half argument about the hierarchical make up of the Church. They keep telling
us that Our Lord set up the Church with an indispensable hierarchy so if the
pope and the hierarchy fall from their position through public “formal heresy,”
that would mean the end of the Church. But they always forget to stress the
fact that the hierarchy established by Our Lord is a hierarchy professing the
true Catholic Faith. Of what good is a supposedly Catholic-looking Hierarchy if
it does not profess the true Catholic Faith?
Seminarian Paul should realize that man cannot destroy the Church
founded by God. A public and wilful heretical Pope can not destroy God’s
Church, nor can a heretical hierarchy do so. Even if everything should seem
lost, Our Lord can raise up true Catholics “from the stones” if He so wishes,
and He can likewise bring to a repentance
and amendment many a public and wilful heretic in any and all the levels
of the Vatican II’s so-called “Church.
If seminarian Paul will allow the true Catholic Faith to lead him to
the right conclusions, he will be able to see clearly and unavoidably the true
status of public and wilful heretic John Paul II.
ON THE THUC CONSECRATIONS.
Editor, Francinta Messenger:
The “letter from Father Martin” (that appeared in one of your previous
issue) brought out the expected protestations from some would-be lay “experts,”
who pretend to know it all in regard to the question of the licity and validity of the Thuc
consecrations of Bishops. Yet their knowledge and understanding of the theology
of the Sacraments is appallingly shallow and superficial.
Even though some lay “experts” have shown themselves
to be as practically impossible to convince that they are lacking in clear
knowledge and understanding of all that was involved in regard to the Thuc consecrations, we nevertheless offer them at least
something to think about.
Let the supposed “experts” realize that priests and bishops who go
wrong and who even join subversive anti-Catholic societies,
do not stop being priests and bishops when they do so. The basic
priestly power to offer Mass and administer the Sacraments, received at
ordination, remains in the fallen priest or Bishop. The indelible mark
of the priesthood remains, no matter how far-gone a priest or Bishop may be.
A Bishop receives the fullness of priestly power at his consecration
and he retains that fullness of power, even if he aligns himself with enemies
of the Church. He retains the power to ordain priests and consecrate Bishops
and he can use that power effectively by following the prescribed rites of
ordination and consecration, while having the intention to do what the Church
has always done in ordaining priests and consecrating bishops. He can do so
validly even when in a state of mortal sin or while being separated from the
true Church
But Archbishop Thuc did not separate himself
from the true Church. On the contrary, he found himself caught in the midst of
Vatican II confusion and of general apostasy from the true Faith and from the
true Church, and he sought his way out of it by consecrating bishops who would
preserve the true Faith. His initial misdirected zeal for the true Faith did
not prevent him from eventually settling down and consecrating worthy men as
bishops, so that they could perpetuate the true Catholic Faith.
Let the so-called “experts” also realize that when apostasy from the
true Faith hits even the powers {at the top,” there is an obligation for
faithful Catholics to profess the true Faith openly and courageously. And there
is a special obligation for faithful Bishops to assure the continuation of the
True Faith by ordaining true priests and even consecrating faithful bishops
when there is no one “at the top” who can grant the otherwise required papal
mandate.
Father Martin
Dear Traditional Catholic.
You want to know the true status of Archbishop Thuc
within the Church after consecrated Bishops without an Apostolic Mandate, that
is, without the required permission of the Holy See. You want to know whether
he was in reality excommunicated by virtue of the decree that Pope Pius XII had
issued some years before, forbidding any bishop to c0onsecrate other bishops on
his own authority, without first obtaining the required mandate from the Pope.
You want a “second opinion from an observer who is independent of
either Father Jenkins or Father Cekada. At your
request then, I will
make some observations on the Thuc
issue that should help you understand everything clearly.
One important thing that you should also want to know is whether there
might possibly have been some special circumstances that would have fully
justified Archbishop Thuc in consecrating bishops
without a papal man date and which would have therefore excused him from
incurring the censure of excommunication. I will proceed to show you that, yes,
there were very plainly excusing circumstances that fully justified him in
consecrating bishops without a papal mandate and that he therefore did not
incur any excommunication.
You will also be able to see that Father Jenkins, who insists that
Archbishop Thuc was definitely excommunicated, is
doing basically the same thing that the Archbishop himself was doing – that is,
Father Jenkins rejects the Vatican II phoney “renewal” and is doing the work of
the priesthood without subjecting himself either to the Vatican or to anyone
else in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
But I must say, right from the start, that you will not find a better
and more thorough, as well as a more precise and more accurate, treatment of
the Archbishop Thuc issue than that provided by
Father Cekada in his nine-page monograph entitled The
Great Excommunicator, of which you sent me a copy. “The Great Excommunicator”
is, of course, Father Jenkins. Even though you may, understandably, complain
that the arguments presented in that monograph are to intricate for a ordinary
person like yourself to “decipher, the correct arguments, and the correct
proofs are nevertheless there for anyone willing to accept them
In this very serious matter involving as it does the good name of an
Archbishop, it is all-important that we take into consideration all the
circumstances in which Archbishop Thuc consecrated
bishops, and not concentrate solely on the decree of Pope Pius XII all by
itself and wonder to whom it applied.
Father Jenkins’s sense of honour should impel him to take into
consideration honestly all the precise conditions existing after Vatican II
that led Archbishop Thuc to consecrate Bishops
without a papal mandate. So far, he has long insisted that the Archbishop was
definitely excommunicated, while, as you know, Father Cekada
insists, and rightly so, that Father Jenkins is completely wrong on that.
The first thing that we must take not of is the fact that it was after
the Vatican II disaster, that is, after the
Archbishop Thuc saw that, as a result of the
Vatican II apostasy, the Catholic faithful with so many not even realizing it,
were suddenly without the True Faith as it always had been all through the
centuries, and without all that goes along with that True Faith. The Archbishop
saw further, that the authentic Catholic Faith,
unchanged and unmixed with false religions, was no longer being taught in all
its fullness to the faithful. And worst of all for so many, the faithful no
longer ha the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but in its place an alien
rite called the Novus Ordo
Missae was foisted upon the whole Latin Church.
Nor did the faithful any longer have the tru4e Sacraments, untampered with by
the Vatican II revolutionaries. Archbishop Thuc saw,
and with great sorrow, how much had been taken away from the faithful. And Father Jenkins also seen it all, just as well as did the
Archbishop.
A young man, seeing that so much had been taken away from the Catholic
people, recently said to his mother, “You know, we have been robbed.”
Yes, “we have been robbed.” You certainly realize that. And that’s why
you go to a traditional church where the True Faith is maintained and where the
traditional Mass is being offered. You know, too, how Father Jenkins, at his
Immaculate Conception Church in
But doesn’t it seem that the consecration of Bishops according to
Father Jenkins, is an exception and cannot be allowed
in the Catholic Restoration, because the decree of Pius XII stands in the way?
Or is it that Father Jenkins really allows for the consecration of bishops
despite the decree of Pius XII, only he does not allow o\if for Archbishop Thuc? We shall get back to that.
Strangely enough, it has become abundantly clear that Father Jenkins
has a blind spot in regard to Archbishop Thuc. While
knowing that, from amidst the shambles of the Vatican Ii revolution, the
consecration of traditional bishops had to be by all means restored,
Father Jenkins will could not see Archbishop Thuc
doing it lawfully. For some mysterious reason, Father Jenkins can only see
Archbishop Thuc violating the decree of Pius XII and
being excommunicated for consecrating bishops without recourse to
But Father Cekada has no such blind spot in
regard to Archbishop Thuc. He knows, as Father
Jenkins should also know, that the decree of Pius XII could not possibly be
enforced after the Vatican II apostasy, because it would then actually become
an obstacle to the preservation and spread of the true Faith. We cannot imagine
Pius XII wanting to do that.
Archbishop Thuc didn’t have any blind spot
either. He knew that the true Catholic Bishops were urgently needed, and he was
determined to supply that need. His love for the true Faith impelled him to
proceed with the consecration of bishops.
Zeal for the True faith can be an overwhelming driving force, as is so
plainly evident in the vast number of martyrs who willingly suffered
unspeakably cruel torments and death for the Faith. And their supreme model and
inspiration in this was the Divine Savior, the King
of Martyrs.
But unfortunately, zeal for the True Faith can get out of control and
lead to serious mistakes, as for example, when one is misinformed or
uninformed. As you probably know, Archbishop Thuc at
first made some serious mistakes, consecrating two unworthy persons as Bishops.
One was the notorious Clemente of Palmar
de Troya in
Archbishop Thuc quickly realized that he had
been misinformed and misled, and he deeply regretted his mistakes. Whatever may
have been the penalty for such imprudent consecrations, there was no one in the
occupied
Archbishop Thuc sought to make amends for his
mistakes by consecrating priests who were worthy of consecration. So, in May of
1981, he consecrated as Bishop the outstanding French Dominican theologian, Guerard des Lauriers, who had
distinguished himself by his contribution to the famed Ottaviani
Intervention, whereby Cardinal Ottaviani strongly
protested against the novel Novus Ordo
imitation of the Mass of Paul VI.
It was by way of Bishop Gerard that what we can call the eastern branch
of the so-called Thuc line began in this country, and
that was when the Dominican Father
Robert McKenna was consecrated Bishop by Bishop Guerard.
And, just this past summer Bishop McKenna consecrated as Bishop Father Donald
Sanborn, who directs the education of uncompromising priests in his Most Holy
Trinity Seminary in Warren Michigan.
In October of 1981, Archbishop Thuc
consecrated two Mexicans as Bishops, namely, Bishop Carmona
and Bishop Zamora. It was through Bishop Carmona that
the western branch of the American Thuc line began. When Bishop Carmona consecrated the Late
Bishop Musey, who in turn consecrated Bishop Vezelis and Bishop Pivarunas, the
one who consecrated Father Daniel Dolan of St. Gertrude the
To get back to Father Jenkins – he, and Bishop Kelly, got the idea that
the consecrations of Archbishnop Thuc
were, not only illegal, but also doubtfully valid because as they imagined, the
Archbishop was “too senile” to know what he was doing when going through the
consecration ceremonies. As became abundantly clear later on that Archbishop Thuc was fully conscious when consecrating and did all that
was prescribed in the Pontifical for consecrations.
Father Jenkins still adamantly regards Archbishop Thuc,
as well as all Bishop of the Thuc line, to have been
excommunicated. But here is another big eyebrow-lifter for you. Father Clarence
Kelly,
But wait a minute! Bishop Kelly is Father Jenkins’ superior. And, in
fact, Father Jenkins fully approved of the consecration of Bishop Kelly, and
presumably, even took part in the consecration ceremony. So where does that
leave Father Jenkins? Excommunicated?
Almost excommunicated? Deserving to be excommunicated? You figure.
If we may be allowed to be a bit mischievous for a moment, let us ask
the naughty question: Why can’t Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada
refuse communion to anyone associated with the Mendez line, including all who
go to Father Jenkins’ Church? Why can’t they be granted equal time in the
communion-refusal comedy created by Father Jenkins?
You say how distressed you are because Father Jenkins refuses communion
to those associated with Bishop Dolan’s St. Gertrude Church and how you find it
impossible to understand. The fact is that no thinking traditionalist finds it
possible to understand what Father Jenkins is doing in refusing communions so
irresponsibly; it is totally inexcusable and unjustifiable.
Incalculable harm has been done by Father Jenkins to the good name of
Archbishop Thuc, as well as to those to whom he has
refused communion. Thanks to father Jenkins, and to Bishop Kelly, the name Thuc has become for many like a dirty world So many who do not know the true facts about Archbishop Thuc speak of him with disgust and contempt. Who is going
to undo the harm done to the Archbishop’s good name.
Dear Paul:
You have been understandably, bewildered and quite distressed because of the
doings of Archbisop Thuc in
consecrating bishop without the papal mandate that is normally required for
such consecrations to be lawful and acceptable in the eyes of the Church. Some
who are not properly informed would like, because of these “no papal mandate”
consecrations to forget about Archbishop Thuc altogether
and to have nothing to do with what is known as the Thuc
line clergy.
But you surely realize the imprudence of hastily drawing unwarranted
conclusions in regard to the lawfulness and validity of the Thuc
consecrations. You know that wee simply must take into consideration all the
factors involved in Archbishop Thuc’s actions, and
not choose just one or the other select factor, lest we rush to a false
judgment of the man and his actions, as well as an unjust and uncharitable
sweeping condemnation of all the bishops and priests and lay people connected
with the Thuc line.
There is no difficulty in understanding that Archbishop Thuc, like so many other bishops attending the Vatican II
Council, found himself caught in an unexpected and confusing crisis of the
Fa9ith that was brought on by those advocating a supposedly urgently-needed
“renewal” and “updating” of the unchangeable Catholic Church and its
unchangeable beliefs and practices, arguing that the Catholic Church simply
must fall into line with the thinking of so-called “modern man” and of manmade
religions.
You know that there was much opposition to the Vatican II, obviously
un-Catholic “reforms.” But also know, with dismay, that eventually the vast
majority of the Council Fathers simply went along with the proposed changes and
signed the Vatican II documents, apparently indicating thereby that they
approved of them, at least exteriorly, whatever uneasy reservations and doubts
they may have had interiorly, in their minds and hearts.
If, as reported, Archbishop Thuc signed
either all or only some of the Vatican II documents, he soon indicated by his
actions that he could not go long with the “approved” reforms, because he
clearly realized that they were plainly contrary to the Catholic Faith. He became
so convinced of this that he was determined to see to it that the Catholic
Faith would be preserved and upheld among the faithful in whatever way he could
help make that happen. He knew that this could be done only through true and
tr4ustworthy Catholic Bishops and Priests.
His decision, which shocked some so-called traditional Catholics, was
to consecrate bishops, even though he knew he could not secure the otherwise
necessary papal mandate from one who was clearly a public heretic and the
foremost promoter of the Vatican II heretical reforms. The Archbishop saw that
the crisis of Faith spawned by Vatican Ii made the consecration of Bishops for
the sake of the preservation of the true Catholic Faith both urgent and
unquestionably lawful.
But the Archbishop’s prudence did not at first, match his zeal for the
true Faith and for the true Church. He initially made some serious mistakes
when he consecrated, as he eventually realized, unworthy and unqualified men as
Bishops. It is those first mistakes that anti-Thuc
militants, strangely, still hold against Archbishop Thuc
to this day and imagine that those first mistakes have been somehow passed on. As some kind of indelible mark to all the Thuc
clergy that came after the Archbishop.
So that we may keep the mistakes of bishops, and even of Popes, in the
right perspective, let us go right back to the beginning and take note of the
serious mistake made by St. Peter. The first Pope, when he discriminated
against the Gentile Christians, while showing favouritism towards the Jewish
Christians. His mistake wasn’t the same type of mistake that Archbishop Thuc made, but it was actually a more serious type of
mistake, one that deserved the well-known public and vary forceful rebuke
levelled at him by
Someone might say that peter was “not in his right mind” when he made
his mistake. But we must not get the strange idea, as some anti-Thuc elements do in regard to Archbishop Thuc, that the stigma of Peter’s mistake somehow passed on
to his successors that it adversely
affected those whom he consecrated as Bishops.
And no one needs to tell us of the “bad Popes” who have disgraced Papal
history. The Catholic Family News, in one of its fairly recent issues,
ran a long article that told much about the “bad Popes,” but we already know most of the
embarrassing facts publicized anew by the author of the article. What we need
to bear in mind here is that the Bad reputation created for themselves by the
“bad Popes” was not passed on to their successors in the Papacy, nor did it in
any way nullify or vitiate the validity and liccity of
their consecration of bishops, nor their ordination of priests.
You must surely know about
“alcoholic Bishops,” from time immemorial, who have nevertheless validly
ordained priests and consecrated Bishops while in their sober moments. I recall
clearly from long ago, well before the Vatican II disaster, how a master of
ceremonies for priestly ordinations was almost out o his mind because the hour
of ordinations was fast approaching, while the
designate ordaining Bishop was “under the weather,” unfit to conduct any
ordination ceremony. “We just have to get this man sobered up, and fast,” so
the MC moaned. Somehow the Bishop was brought back to sober reality in time,
and so the new priests were validly ordained by the sobered up Bishop. Yet the
new priests did not receive some kind of indelible mark of alcoholism from the alcoholic Bishop, and being
validly ordained priests, their later merits or demerits were their own,
independently of what their ordaining Bishop was.
And now we come to the crucial issue of the consecration of worthy and
properly qualified men as Bishops by Archbishop Thuc.
It is enough that we take up just one case, the case of Guerard
des Lauriers, whom Archbishop Thuc
consecrated as Bishop after he had gotten over his regrettable consecrations of
unworthy men as Bishops. What we will say of the Guarard
consecration will apply, in a similar way, to the consecrations of the two
Mexican Bishops, Carmona and Samora..
Father Guerard Des Lauriers
was a French Dominican theologian of reputedly outstanding talent and zeal for
the true Faith. Hw as said to have contributed greatly to the famed Ottaviani Intervention, which so strongly
criticized the un-Catholic nature of the Novus
Ordo Missae of Paul VI
and exposed its errors. Father Guerard reportedly, if
true, even did the actual writing of the Ottaviani
Intervention.
Some anti-Thuc enthusiasts arbitrarily reject
as invalid the consecration of Father Guerard as
Bishop by Archbishop Thuc, with the imagined reason
that Archbishop Thuc did not possess sufficient
presence of mind to know what he was doing. The Archbishop was supposedly “not
in his right mind” while according to such anti-Thuc
zealots. To them, the Archbishop was supposedly something like a drunken Bishop
trying to consecrate someone, but without success.
But let us view the real situation clearly in regard to the Episcopal
consecration of Father Geuerard ds
lauriers. Father Guerard was the one being consecrated a Bishop by
Archbishop Thuc. He saw at first hand what was going
on during the consecration ceremony. He saw that the Archbishop went through
the consecration ceremonies prescribed in the Pontificale
and he was satisfied that everything was done so as to make the
consecration valid. He knew that the Archbishop’s actions indicated that he was
well aware of what he was doing and that he obviously had the right intention,
that is, the intention of consecrating Father Guerard
a Bishop.The newly-consecrated Bishop Guerard did not complain later that Archbishop Thuc had been “out of his right mind” while doing the
consecrating. He not only accepted his own consecration as a Bishop as having been a valid consecration. But he himself later
did some consecrating of his own.
And now we look at the anti-Thuc side of the
issue. We can take the real example of a faraway know-it-all layman, who gets
the idea into his head that Archbishop Thuc was not
really in his “right mind” while consecrating Bishop Guerard.
This layman can’t get himself to forget Archbishop’s earlier mistakes which,
for him, were supposedly definite “proof” that the Archbishop was not of a
sound enough mind to be able to consecrate anyone validly, not then, nor at any
time later. In addition the anti-Thuc lay “expert”
imagines, triumphantly, that he has “unquestionable” further proof provided for
him by an “interviewer” who at an unspecified later date personally interviews
Archbishop Thuc for five whole hours. This
“interviewer” went away “convinced” that the Archbishop was incapable of
consecrating anyone. Therefore, Archbishop Thuc
“wasn’t all there” when consecration Bishop Guerard!
How’s that for stretching logic to prove what you want to prove!
Which of the two are we to believe – Bishop Guerad
or Mr. Anti-Thuc? Which one of the two was in a
better position to know the state of mind of Archbishop Thuc
during the consecration ceremony for Bishop Guerard –
Bishop Guerard who qaad adtually there and was the one being consecrated, or, the
nowhere-to-be seen anti-Thuc layman? Who knew better
what is required for a valid and licit Episcopal consecration – outstanding
theologian Guerard or no-theologian Mr. Anti-Thuc?
There is no need to go further with this. The answers to the questions
are all too obvious.
In conclusion, we will let Mr Anti-Thuc
condemn himself with his own mouth/ He is the one who wildly declared, and in
writing, that “Everywhere the Thuc clergy go,
division, disintegration, and disillusionment follow.”
That’s the kind of slanderous “division, disintegration, and
disillusionment” that the real live Mr. Anti-Thuc
spreads among the already badly divided and disillusioned traditional
Catholics.
Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
Dear Paul”
Thank you for the neatly-typed copy of my May 6th
handwritten letter to you. You included also a copy of Mr. Anti-Thuc’s May 10th letter of confusion, addressed
to you, but intended as a supposed “reply” to that My
6th letter of mine to you.
It is impossible to get Mr. Anti-Thuc to face
and accept all the facts of the Thuc issue. He simply
passes over what he Doesn’t want to accept and makes
up his own zig-zag line of argument to suit his
mistaken ideas.
To try to justify himself, Mr. Anti-Thuc
appeals to the supposed “right” to hold his on “opinion” on the Thuc issue, while big-heartedly trying to grant me the same
kind of imaginary “right.” The truth is, in my case, that
I in no way appeal to mere “opinion” on the Thuc
issue. I am interest only in facts. We re obliged to seek out the facts in this
matter, as much as we possibly can.
In anxiously bringing up the question of the validity of the Thuc consecrations at the very beginning of his May 10th
letter to you, Mr. Anti-Thuc begins with a fervent
protestation that he has n ever placed a “universal anathema” on the Thuc consecrations. He knows that there is good reason for
someone to accuse him of doing just that.
If he had done any real thinking when making that kind of a protest, he
would have realized that he was indeed placing an “anathema” of invalidity on
the Thuc consecrations, only it supposedly wasn’t
“universal,” or total, “anathema “ on all the Thuc
consecrations. But his protest as it stands, clearly implies that he has placed
his “anathema” on at least some of the Thuc
consecrations. And this leaves him with the uncomfortable obligation of telling
us just which ones of the Thuc consecrations he has anathemitized as invalid and which ones are free of his
“anathema.”
Later on in his letter to you, Mr. Anti-Thuc
suddenly brings up the question of “doubtful” Thuc
sacraments. He leaves you with the impression that he considers all the Thuc sacraments to be “doubtful,” and that they must
therefore be avoided. So he, in effect, places the equivalent of a “universal
anathema” of doubtfulness on all the Thuc sacraments,
thus warning traditional Catholics not to receive the sacraments from the Thuc clergy.
Mr. Anti-Thuc’s big hang-up in regard to the Thuc issue is obviously Archbishop Thuc
himself, and all his early mistakes. He keeps pounding to death the fact of the
Archbishop’s mistakes, when he should have long ago let that matter rest in
peace. To Mr. Anti-Thuc, the Thuc
clergy of today is disreputable because the mistakes of the Archbishop
supposedly hang over them like a heavy pall and leave them all unavoidably
tainted forever.
Mr. Anti-Thuc may as well be fair and
logical, by resurrecting, for example, all the mistakes of the “bad Popes” and
then let him say all the slanderous things about the Bishops consecrated by
these “bad Pope,” and about the priests ordained by them, which he keeps saying
about the Thuc clergy.
It just doesn’t get through to Mr Anti-Thuc
that the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc make
their own reputations, independently of the one who consecrated them. Their
merits and demerits are all of their own making. The mistakes of Archbishop Thuc do not hang on them and follow after them. The same is
true of the priests of the Thuc line. Though they are
called Thuc-line priests that does not mean that they carry along with
themselves the mistakes of Archbishop Thuc. Their
reputations, and their merits and demerits, are of their own making,
independently of Archbishop Thuc.
Yet, for Mr. Anti-Thuc the Thuc-line clerics, both Bishops and priests (and even the
lay people!) are discredited by him, and are disreputable, merely because they
are of the Thuc-line. And Mr. Anti-Thuc does not hold back when he i8rresponsibly and
unintelligibly slanders the Thuc clergy in general without making any
exceptions with that now notorious lie of his: “Everywhere the Thuc clergy go, division, disintegration, and
disillusionment follow.”
As if that weren’t already wicked enough on his part, Mr. Anti-Thuc adds still another big lie: “Everything I’ve heard and
read about the post-Vatican II Thuc line… seems
unsavoury.” He knows all too well that this is a brazen lie. The only way that
kind of statement of his could be true would be, if he
is talking about what he has heard coming out of his own mouth and about what
he himself has written, and then read, about the Thuc
clergy.
And here is
still another big lie of his: “The bizarre track-record of the Thuc-line clergy continues to pile up.” The real truth is
that “Mr. Anti-Thuc’s bizarre track-record of lies
about the Thuc clergy continues to pile up.”
While piling up all those generalized slanderous remarks about the Thuc clergy, Mr. Anti-Thuc makes
no attempt to back up these untruthful assertions of his with supposed proof or
evidence. And he carefully avoids mentioning any Thuc
cleric by name, as being worthy of his wild charges.
So let us put him on the spot and ask him to spell out clearly the
supposedly Bishop Sanborn and Bishop McKenna and Bishop Pivarunas,
as well as of such Thuc-line priests as Father Vaillancourt and Father Kosek and
Father Gregory – to mention some of the better-known ones.
Let Mr. Anti-Thuc provide evidence that, in
the case of the foregoing, it is true that “everywhere those Thuc-line Bishops and Prie3sts go,
Division, Disintegration, and Disillusionment follow.”
And let Mr. Anti-Thuc show us what is
“unsavoury” about the edifying St. Gertrude the Great Newsletter issued
monthly (to all who request it) by Bisahop Dolan; and
about the “Hammer of Heretics” type of monthly general letter to Catholic
People by Bishop Sanborn, as well as his most welcome, newly re-issued Catholic
Restoration anti-modernist review; and about Father Vaillancourt’s
excellent little review entitled Catholic Sense.
The closest Mr. Anti-Thuc comes to pointing out specific supposedly Thuc-line clerics, whom he holds in low repute, is when he starts talking about a “Mass Centre” in Jacksonville, Florida. He doesn’t name anyone, but he claims to know of a supposedly “Thuc-line” cleric “who travels about with a “nun.”
Whoever that supposedly “Thuc-line cleric” might be, I can speak from first-hand knowledge about a Florida-based cleric who traveled about with a questionable “nun.” But that cleric was not of the Thuc-line; he was of the Lefebvre-line. The close relationship between the cleric and the “nun” eventually broke up and the humiliated cleric returned to his native foreign homeland, to live with his Novus Ordo mother.
But before the cleric in question left the Florida Mass Centre where he had been based – as funny as this may seem – the people of the Mass Centre were asked which one they wanted – the cleric or the “nun.” They reportedly chose the “nun.” Are these two the same cleric and “nun” that Mr. Anti-Thuc used so as to make the Thuc clergy in general look disreputable?
Another Florida-based priest that I knew personally was serving the Jacksonville Mass
Centre for a time, but the lay powers-that-be at the Mass Centre made it so difficult for him that he eventually left and returned to his original foreign country – never to be heard from again.
Curiously enough, Mr. Anti-Thuc tells of his own sister living at the
There is no need to say much more about the extremely low opinion that Mr. Anti-Thuc has of the Thuc clergy. And he insists upon his supposed “right” to hold such a low-down opinion of them. He has shown as clearly as could be that the Thuc clergy is, to him, dishonourable and disreputable and contemptible.
So it is most dishonest of him to say untruthfully,” I have merely chosen not to participate at the chapels which employ the Thuc-line clergy, or to invite any of them to offer Mass at St. Jude’s.” And he tries, unsuccessfully, to make himself look fair and honourable in “not presuming” to tell people that they “should not avail themselves of the services of these priests.”
“I have merely chosen…?” “I have not presumed…” Just whom is he trying to kid? He has “merely chosen” to blacken the names of the true clergy, so that people “will not avail themselves of their services.” He has merely “presumed” to make the Thuc consecrations look invalid and the Thuc sacraments doubtful, so that traditional Catholics will then keep their distance from them./
It is time for mr. Anti-Thuc to wake up and realize that he is not competent to handle the Thuc issue. It is time for him to stop confusing and disturbing traditional Catholic people in regard to the Thuc issue. It is time for him to stop causing division, disintegration, and disillusionment among traditional Catholics.
In conclusion, let me say that I am glad that you sent me a copy of Father Cekada’s historic investigative article, entitled “Two Bishops in every Garage, that appeared in the January, 1983 Roman Catholic. I unfortunately no longer have all the issues of that once excellent magazine. Another traditional priest had need of them so I let him take them,
And now I look forward to your sending me copies of father Cekada’s later writing on the Thuc issue. Through scholar and competent theologian that he is, Father Cekada continued studying the Thuc issue after 1983 and eventually came to the inescapable conclusion that, despite the earlier mistakes made by Archbishop Thuc, his consecrations of Bishops were nevertheless valid, and that the Thuc-line Bishops and priests were offering valid Masses and administering valid sacraments, and were doing fruitful work for the salvation of souls.
As you no doubt know, Father Cekada, though not himself of the Thuc line, works closely with Thuc-line
Bishop Dolan at St. Gertrude the
Father Martin Stepanich,
O.F.M., S.T.D.
LETTER TO PAUL KRAMER
Dear Father Paul Kramer:
It was interesting to find out how the Devil’s Final Battle book, compiled and edited by you, states the case in defence of God’s Fatima Message against high-level enemies in the Novus Ordo Church, while also providing much valuable information, especially about Fatima’s Third Secret.
So that you may know where I stand in
regard to
The reading of
One article entitled Do we Have to Believe in
But no one need tell you about our
obligation to accept God’s Message given at
As for battling with enemies of
And now comes the eye-opening,
and disturbing moment of truth…
Your Devil’s Final Battle book, so very informative as it is in may respects, has one
immediately noticeable and very glaring omission. Incredible as it is you
fail to give readers of the book a true picture of John Paul II.
You know that we are obliged to profess the Faith fully, not just part way. With the gift of Faith, God enables us to recognize what is in accord with the Catholic Faith and what is against, and contrary to, the Catholic Faith, and we are obliged to say so, and not remain silent.
Instead of telling readers about the real
disoriented Jon Paul, you make it look as if he were some kind of innocent
victim of his own chosen advisors and assistants, who are very much against
You could not possibly be unaware of what John Paul II really is – that is the Number One Promoter and Defender of what you recognize to be the disastrous Vatican II revolution. The whole world could not help seeing John Paul’s very public and damaging doings and teachings contrary to the Catholic Faith for nearly 25 years now, even though the world at large, as well as countless Novus Ordo so-called Catholics, have not understood just what John Paul was really doing to the Catholic church and to the Catholic faith.
You make the big mistake of citing certain john Paul statements in regard to the Fatima revelations, and especially in regard to the Fatima Third Secret, as if these statements of his showed how much in favour of Fatima, while forgetting all that John Paul has been doing and saying that directly contradicts the Fatima Message and the “Dogma of the Faith.”
You quote John Paul’s words, spoken during a sermon at Fatima on May 13, 1982, telling how Our Lady “sees the very bases of her children’s salvation undermined,” but you fail to point out that this is precisely what John Paul’s Vatican II reformation has been doing all along, that is, undermining the very foundation of the Catholic Faith upon which 0our salvation depends. You also fail to say that this is exactly what John Paul had been doing for nearly four years before May 13, 1982, and it is exactly what we have been seeing him do for another 20 years since that day – that is, undermining the “Dogma of the Faith.”
Weren’t you tempted to ask, “which John Paul is the real John Paul, the one of may 13, 1982, or the one before and after that date?
You surely must have plenty of evidence stored up in your files showing John Paul’s notorious false ecumenism, his mixing of religions, his public violations even of God’s first commandment, “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me!” You know all too painfully well about his numerous ecumenical scandals, culminating in the scandal of scandals, mixed religious jamboree at Assisi in 1986, followed up by his vigorous defence of it before the College of Cardinals at a later date, plus at least one repeat performance at Assisi that your book tells about.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you could
write a whole book about John Paul’s innumerable sins against the “Dogma of the
Faith,” and maybe more than one volume. You could give such a book the title, The
Whole Truth about John Paul II.
You most likely are well acquainted with the very revealing, though misnamed book Previews of the Papacy, set, strangely enough, it is not listed in your “selected bibliography.” That book is {misnamed” because it gives supposed “previews” of what has already happened, and it speaks of a “new papacy,” when there can be no such “new papacy” in God’s true Church. The book should have been entitled Views of a False Papacy.
That Previews book, despite its wrong title, provides, with countless pictures, the overwhelming evidence that proves what John Paul II really is – that is, anything but a genuine Catholic Pope and, in fact, anything but a genuine Catholic. And yet, believe it or not, the authors of the book still address him as “Most Holy Father!” How you should ask, can anyone who does so many “most unholy” things against the Catholic ‘faith be a genuine “Most Holy Father”?
Unhappy thoughts immediately arise about the true Chair of peter being vacant. Sad to say, anti-sedevacantists can’t stand any mention of sedevacantism. I have yet to find an anti-sedevacantist who has a clear idea of just what sedevacantism really is, nor have I found one who knows exactly what the issue is in connection with sedevacantism and John Paul II. I have repeatedly challenged, by way of letters, various anti-sedevacantists, including celebrated editors and writers to correct their wrong notions about sedevacantism, but have gotten nothing but pope silence from them. I would like to think that your are not like that.
Father Kramer, in your book you make one, rather hurried reference to sedevacantists and that’s all. Yet, considering what you know John Paul really is in relation to the ”Dogma of the faith,” there is no way you could possibly have disregarded the issue of John Paul and Sedevantism in a book like yours. With the plentiful talent that God has given you, you are one who surely is able to get things straight about sedevacantism.
In case you don’t know, a Fatima Centre Book Catalogue advertising a book on the “Crisis in the Catholic Church”: speaks of “the error of sedevacantism.” This is typical of anti-sedevacantists who have no clear notion of what sedevacantism really is.
Let’s speak in plain language, such as anyone can readily understand. Sedevacantism is not an “error,” it is a fact. Sedevacantism is an undeniable fact.
It is an undeniable fact that, when a
Pope dies the Chair of Peter becomes vacant. It is an undeniable fact that,
when a Pop falls into public heresy, the Chair of Peter becomes vacant. It is
an undeniable fact that, when a Pope resigns from the Papacy, the Chair of
Peter becomes vacant. This is what sedevacantism
tells you – that is, sedevacantism tells
you facts, nothing but facts.
Obviously, then, the truth of sedevacantism cannot be a controverted issue.
The real issue, that makes fur and
feathers fly when anti-sedevacantists and sedevacantists tangle, is whether or not the truth of sedevacantism applies to John Paul II.
Anti-sedevancantists insist that, no, John Paul II has not left the Chair of Peter, despite knowing clearly about his notorious public departures from the Catholic Faith. Sedevacantists on the contrary, insist that, yes, the true Chair of Peter has definitely become vacant, precisely because of John Paul’s public heretical actions, for heresy and the true Chair of Peter cannot go together. The true Chair of Peter is the Chair of Truth, not the “cathedra pestilentiae” of error.
Anti-sedevanctists would of course, be right in saying
that the chair occupied by John Paul II is not vacant, but the trouble is that his
chair of error is not the true Chair of Peter. It is nothing more than the
chair of John Paul II, heretic and apostate from the True Faith and from the
In regard to the “Great Apostasy” from the Church, you repeatedly quote, already on the front cover of you Final Battle book, the personal Papal theologian of John Paul as saying, according to the Fatima Secret, that the Great Apostasy will begin at the top.” You regularly emphasize “at the top” in italics.
But you fail to state plainly who is “at the top.” You fail to say that it is John Paul II who has been “at the top” for nearly 25 years. And you fail to say that John Paul II has continued the “Great Apostasy” begun by his immediate predecessors “at the top.” You fail to say that John Paul II is the Number One Power now direction the “Great Apostasy” initiated by his immediate predecessors, and that he is the one who has been undermining the “Dogma of the Faith” for years.
Would you want to say that the Vatican Secretary of State, or anyone else in the Vatican, has been directing John Paul II in “the Great Apostasy at he top,” and in his disoriented activities of false ecumenism, and in hi9s mixing with other religions, and in his taking part in inter-religious dialogue and mixed religious services, and in bringing even representatives of false gods to Assisi, as well as the statue of Buddha to put on an altar there, and in his kissing the Koran, and in allowing himself “anointed” on the forehead with an unmentionable substance by a Hindu so-called “priestess…”?
You know well that all such utterly un-Catholic doings were John Paul’s own ideas. You know that no one among his advisors and assistants made him do all that he has done contrary to the Catholic Faith. You know that the “Crisis of Faith,” first engineered by his immediately predecessors, is now primarily his responsibility.
You speak over and over again about what
you call “the new orientation of the Church.” But there can be no such a thing
as a “new orientation” given to God’s Church by man. The most that man could do
is to attempt a “new orientation,” but it would necessarily be contrary
to the Church’s divinely-given orientation” and would, therefore, be outside
of God’s Church, not within it nor of
it.
The leaders of the Vatican Ii Apostasy have set up what is in reality a “new Church,” an “alien Church,” which is outside of the Church founded by Our Lord, even though they have done this inside of the Catholic Church buildings and on Catholic Church Property.
The right word that describes what has been done by Vatican II apostates from the True Catholic Faith is “disorientation.”
If you are worried about treats of “excommunication” coming from John Paul’s “new Orientation” Church, what would be so about such an “excommunication”? It would be nothing more than an “excommunication” from the Church of “Disorientation.” But, by the way, what are you doing within the false “disorientation” Church? If your are wholly of the True Faith, you will know that you don’t belong in that false church to begin with!
While we pray that the conversion of
And it is the conversion of the leaders
of the
Recall what you quoted Our Lord as saying
to Sister Lucy at Rianjo in
That they “will repent” can only
mean giving up entirely the Vatican II “disorientation” and the “great
apostasy,” and returning completely to the True Catholic Faith. What
sense would it make for
I don’t know about you, but I began
praying for the conversion of John Paul II as soon as he was elected in
1978, and have continued doing so all through the years, and to this very day
and hour – nor some unspecified conversion, but for the conversion of John
Paul II to the True Catholic Faith.
Father Martin Stepanich,
O.F.M., S.T.D.
ON ATILA SINKE GUIMARAES
OPEN LETTER [
to Atila Sinke Guimaraes
from Fr. Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
Dear Mr. Guimaraes,
This letter of mine, though addressed to you,
is intended to be for the benefit also of the other three members of your "We Resist"
foursome.
To your credit,
you have long been quite busy exposing the errors of the Vatican II
reformation, while you have also provided overwhelming evidence of the public
defection of John Paul II from the true Catholic Faith, and from the true
Catholic Papacy, in your two books, We
Resist You to
the Face and Previews of the New Papacy.
Every reference to John Paul in this letter is reference to the John Paul that
you describe in your books.
I were in the position to do so, I would
highly recommend those two books - despite their defects - to all who call themselves Catholics, so that,
as you yourself have said, everyone can "see for himself' what John Paul
has been doing openly to the Catholic Faith for over 20 years already.
The
pictures alone, hundreds of them, tell every reader of your books what John
Paul really is. We have been seeing those pictures keep showing up all through
the long John Paul era, but have not succeeded in collecting them all together
as you have done for us. I doubt that the
However, it is
all-important that you have the proper understanding of the devastating
evidence that you have gathered together against John Paul and that you draw
the correct conclusions from it. Any Catholic with a deep Catholic sense of
faith would likely exclaim, on just seeing the pictures alone, "That just
can't be a real Catholic Pope!" How can that man even be a Catholic?"
And, I dare say, even some thinking non-Catholics might react in the same way.
The title of your second book, Previews of the New Papacy, is
misleading. There can be no such thing as a "preview" of events that
have already happened. About the only way you might use the word
"preview", in John Paul's case, is to say that what he has already
done contrary to the Catholic Faith represents a
"preview" of worse things to
come."
Your title for that second book also speaks of a "new
papacy". But a "new papacy," in the Catholic meaning of the word
"papacy", is an impossibility. God is the
Author of the Catholic papacy and no man can change that work of God and replace it with his own creation of a so-called
"new papacy". You can make your title read Views of a False New
Papacy, but not Previews of a New Papacy.
Another publication of
yours, An Urgent Plea: Do Not Change the Papacy, is an act of futility. John
Paul's false "new papacy" has been in the making for over 20 years
now. It is much too late to urge him not to "change the papacy." He
has already done it, even if it is not the real papacy. The "urgent
plea" that you could make to John Paul would be to beg him to put an
immediate stop to all his destructive actions that are contrary to the Catholic
Faith, and to restore the Faith completely, as it always has been and must
remain until the end of time. But, to be realistic, only a divine intervention
can put a stop to what John Paul has been doing with impunity for so long.
Still
another one of your publications is the misnamed pamphlet, Resistance
versus Sedevacantism, that had earlier appeared as a long
article in The Remnant.
There can be no such thing as a legitimate "resistance" against sedevacantism. That makes no sense whatsoever. The principle of sedevacantism cannot be "resisted" nor challenged nor denied.
I wish you would do yourself and your three
"resisting: associates the favor of making clear exactly what it is that you
are really "resisting." Begin by stating clearly and plainly that,
yes, you do believe that the Papal Chair does become vacant when a Pope dies a
bodily death. And then tell us that this is what sedevacantism
means - that is, it mean the vacancy of the Papal
Chair caused by a Pope's death. You know you cannot "resist" nor deny
that fact, and you also know that one who accepts that fact is a sedevacantist.
Tell us, further, that you do believe that the
Papal Chair becomes vacant also when a Pope falls into public and notorious
heresy. You have, on occasion, acknowledged at least the possibility of this,
even though in a feeble sort of way. And, if you do acknowledge such a vacancy,
you again have the fact of sedevacantism before you -
a fact that you cannot "resist" nor deny. You can continue to
"resist" John Paul "to the face", as you profess to be
doing. But "resist" sedevacantism? No way!
What you must clearly understand is that sedevacantism itself is not the issue in John
Paul's case. The real issue is whether or not the principle of sedevacantism qpplied to john
Paul. That's where you "resistance" comes
in. You "resist" the idea that sedevacantism
applies to John Paul.
So then, if you insist, go ahead and tell us that
the principle of sedevacantism does not apply to John
Paul, but do not tell us that the principle itself is not acceptable to you and
must be "resisted". Whether you insist that the Papal Chair is not
vacant at
this time, while others insist that it is indeed
now vacant, the principle of sedevacantism still
remains unchanged in either case.
The title of your pamphlet would have made some
sense at least if you had made it say Resistance versus the Vacant Chair. With that kind of title you
would indicate that you want to deny that the
Papal Chair is now vacant, while maintaining that, to you, John Paul is still a
true "Most Holy Father," but that you find that you must "resist
him to the face" nevertheless, because of all he has been doing contrary
to the Catholic Faith.
Just why you cannot see
that all the very damaging evidence that you have amassed shows John Paul to
have publicly departed from the True Faith, and therefore also from the Papal
Chair, is a mystery. But at least you see that you need to try to justify your
position, which, I suspect, must appear questionable even to yourself in
moments of better judgment.
To try to prove your
dubious contention that John Paul still legitimately occupies the Papal Chair,
despite all the public un-Catholic acts that you attribute to him, you resort
to some very feeble "straw arguments," that is, arguments that have
no substance.
For example, you have already seen, even if
reluctantly, that there is no comparison between St. Peter, whom
Among your various
"straw arguments", you even come up with a new one. You make it look
as though the Apostles thought they still belonged to the synagogue, while
"resisting" the synagogue's false teachings. They supposedly didn't
know that their Divine Master had founded His new Church independently of the
synagogue, and that they were the leaders of that new Church. You imagine that
the Apostles staying within the synagogue, while "resisting" its
false teachings, are an inspiration to you to do the same - that is, stay with
John Paul's Novus Ordo church and "resist" his false
teachings. The Apostles supposedly, according to you, stayed with the synagogue
until they were expelled from it for "resisting" its false leaders.
Do you plan to stay with John Paul as your Pope until you are excommunicated
for "resisting him to the face"?
You show that you are
impressed by the fact that John Paul's Novus Ordo church is apparently well-organized, with a highly
visible hierarchy, such as it is, while you are disedified
and repelled by the disorganization and splintering among those traditionalists
who maintain that John Paul's church is not the true Catholic
Church. You see how those traditionalists are sheep
without a shepherd, while the four of you want to be sheep with a shepherd,
even though you have provided unlimited evidence that your shepherd is a false
shepherd, leading his sheep away from the True Faith. According to the picture
you present of John Paul, it looks more like you have a half-and-half shepherd
- real, when he seems to go by the Catholic Faith, and false, when he goes
against the Faith, causing you to "resist him to the face."
What you fail to point out is that the True
Catholic Faith is missing in the highly visible and well-organized Novus Ordo church. You
know that Protestant churches, such as, for example, the Episcopalians and
Lutherans, are also highly visible and well-organized - but, they do not
have the True Faith. The same can be said of various non-Christian
sects.
You need to realize that the
central factor in the Church founded by Our Lord is the True Catholic Faith.
If the True Faith is missing, then you know that a church without that True
Faith is not the Church founded by Our Lord. And an occupant of the Papal Chair
is not the true Catholic Pope if he does not teach and promote and defend
the Catholic Faith whole and entire, without change, and without mixing-it
with other so-called "faiths".
Where the True Catholic
Faith is, that is where the True Catholic Church is to be found. And that is
where you can expect eventually to find a True Catholic Pope and the True
Catholic Papacy. The Catholic Faith and Catholic Papacy are inseparable
There is no use trying to figure out
where the next true Pope is going to come from or who is going to elect him.
God is the One Who established His Church in the first place, and He alone is
able to restore everything in the Church. He does not look to men for advice.
He knows just how to proceed in His own good time.
Our Lord prepared His
slow-learning Apostles gradually and carefully, over a period of 3 years, to be
the leaders in His new Church, but with St. Paul He did
it with lightning swiftness. Without warning, He knocked Saul off his high
horse and overpowered him in a moment with a flood of His graces. And Saul the
wolf suddenly became Paul the meek lamb. God can do the same to anyone who, at
the moment, does not have the True Faith. Our Lord can do it either way -
gradually or suddenly, with or without the help of men. He can suddenly convert
one or He can convert many at one time.
With God, nothing is
impossible.
Father
Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.