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 Rome.


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.                   11-30-02



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 November 8, 2002. Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”


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 Vatican I declaration something which just isn’t there. They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the death of Popes. But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I. It is the mistaken “teaching” of “Doubting Thomases.”


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 Vatican I. You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be. You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long, an no longer.


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.            3-25-03





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 Winona, Minnesota. That is a seminary that poses as a “Traditional” seminary, yet professes to be, at the same time, a seminary within the anything-but-traditional Novus Ordo apparatus presided over by John Paul II, who it acknowledges to be a so–called “material heretic.”


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.


March 6, 2003-06-10                                      Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.






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                                           4-12-03


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 Vatican  II apostasy from the true Faith, that Archbishop Thuc did his supposedly illegal consecrating of bishops.


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 Cincinnati, has done much to preserve and promote the True Faith. In that regard he is doing exactly what Archbishop Thuc was doing, that is, hold on to the True Faith and to all that goes with it.


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 Rome.


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 Spain, who has long posed as the non-existent “Pope Gregory XVII.” The other one was a reportedly non-Catholic man in France, who could not have even been a valid candidate for consecration, unless he had first given up his non-Catholic religion and embraced the True faith.


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 Vatican that could absolve him, for the Vatican apostates from the true Faith were themselves under censure. As for Father Jenkins, he still holds Archbishop Thuc guilty and has not forgiven him.


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 Great Church in Cincinnati.


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, Superior of the Society of St. Pius V, was consecrated by a Bishop by one mysterious Bishop Mendez, and without a Papal mandate! Why doesn’t Father Jenkins tell everyone that both Bishop Mendez and Bishop Kelly were excommunicated? Shouldn’t he logically refuse communion to anyone associated with the excommunicated Bishop Kelly and with the, so far, abbreviated Mendez line?


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.


November 22, 2002                                              Traditional Father.


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 St. Paul. The Apostle Peter was in reality dangerously close to creating a schism, while also showing that he briefly seemed to have a heretical notion of the Church. That’s how bad his mistake was.


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.                             5-6-03



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 Jacksonville Florida Mass Center. But, maybe with tears in his eyes, he reveals that she is pro-Thuc, not anti-Thuc, like her faraway brother. It isn’t difficult to see which one of the two has the better Catholic sense of judgment, and I’ll that you can easily guess which one of the two urgently needs to be advised to make a good confession, to do penance and to make reparation, before presuming to receive communion again.


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 Great Church in Cincinnati, as well as with Thuc-line Bishop Sanborn at Most Holy trinity Seminary in Warren Michigan.


Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.                                  6-9-03






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 Fatima, let me tell you briefly that my interest in the Fatima apparitions and revelation goes back some 60 years when I first learned about them. The first book on Fatima that I read was Our Lady of Light by Canon Barthas, whom I met in Fatima’s Blue Army House many years later. Other Fatima books came along for me to read in the years that followed the first one, such as those by De Marchi, Pelletier, Walsh, McGlynn, Ryan, and others. The climax of all Fatima books showed up in more recent years in the 3-volume (as yet unfinished) masterpiece by Friar Michel, The Whole Truth About Fatima.


The reading of Fatima books and articles prompted sermons on Fatima, as well as articles on Fatima that appeared in various Catholic publications. The titles of some of these articles were: God’s Fatima Message,  Fatima Has not Failed-Men have Failed, Devotion to Mary’sImmaculate Heart, People Must Amend Their Lives (as being the principal message of Fatima), The Plunging Sun at Fatima, and various other ones.


One article entitled Do we Have to Believe in Fatima? Came out also in a small pamphlet form. In 1968, while at Fatima’s Blue Army House, I gave a copy of this pamphlet to Father Joquin Alonso, who read it and told me, the next day, that it was “very good.”


But no one need tell you about our obligation to accept God’s Message given at Fatima with all its admonitions and warnings, because  you understand this very well, and you also understand clearly that God’s plainly public actions and revelations at Fatima are obviously not mere “private” revelations that we may ignore and disregard.


As for battling with enemies of Fatima, only last year I unsuccessfully tried to enlighten and straighten out an anti-Fatima editor of a small paler, who kept referring to the Fatima apparitions as the “alleged” Fatima apparitions.


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 Fatima, while John Paul is supposedly all for Fatima.


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 True Church.


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 Russia may soon come about, through the rightly-done consecration to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, we must finally begin to realize that Russia’s conversion to the Catholic Faith cannot happen until another conversion to the Catholic Faith becomes a reality.


And it is the conversion of the leaders of the Vatican II “disorientation” to the True Catholic Faith.


Recall what you quoted Our Lord as saying to Sister Lucy at Rianjo in Spain, in August of 1931. Speaking of the eventual consecration of Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, Our Lord said of those whom He called “my ministers” (meaning, no doubt the Pope and the Bishops of the world), “They will repent, and will do it, but it will be late.”


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 Russia to convert to a “disoriented” Vatican II Church, with its still unconverted leaders?


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.   January 21, 2003.





OPEN LETTER [21 Jan 2002]

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 Los Angeles publisher of- your books, Tradition in Action, Inc. [P.O. Box 23135, Los Angeles CA 90023], would mind being snowed under with orders for the books.

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 St Paul "resisted to the face," and John Paul, whom you say you are "resisting to the face." You know that there is no comparison between Peter's mistake in discriminating against the non-Jewish converts, which deserved Paul's public reprimand, and John Paul's plainly heretical public acts and words for which you "resist him to the face."


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.