Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc  (Read 282590 times)

0 Members and 82 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #680 on: August 05, 2026, 07:30:34 AM »
http://www.christorchaos.com/FatherStepanichontheThucLineConsecrations.htm
The Campaign Against Abp. Thuc
Fr. Martin Stepanich, July 25, 2003

Dear Traditional Catholic,

"It should be very revealing, as well as understandably quite shocking, for many traditional Catholics to realize that they have been deceived and misled regarding the true facts of the Thuc issue by certain highly-placed anti-Thuc agitators... the legitimate status of Thuc-line bishops and priests would never have happened if the whole dispute had not been created by anti-Thuc agitators among the clergy, who then spread their false story among their parishioners by way of their anti-Thuc writings and actions.
  
There is no sound reason why the anti-Thuc controversy should continue. The Thuc issue ceased to be objectively controversial when all the facts became known and understood and then accepted by those of good will.
 
The first fact that we need to recognize and understand clearly in regard to the Thuc issue is the power of consecrating bishops, as well as of ordaining priests, which Archbishop Thuc possessed as a Catholic bishop, a power which he never lost, nor could lose, neither on account of signing the questionable Vatican II docuмents, nor for at first consecrating unworthy men as bishops. No bishop can lose his power of consecrating bishops for any kind of reason, such as, for example, losing the faith or joining the freemasons or other anti-Catholic subversives.
  
In dealing with the Catholic priesthood, we are dealing with something divinely established, not with something established by man. The everlasting power given to priests is given to them by God, not by man. The indelible mark, or character, of the priesthood, received at ordination, belongs to the Catholic priest by the will of God, not by the will of man, and it belongs to the priest forever. Just as the indelible mark received at Baptism belongs to the Baptized Catholic forever.  We are speaking here of matters clearly pertaining to the Catholic Faith and which cannot be doubted, nor questioned, nor denied without the risk of incurring the guilt of heresy.
 
When a priest becomes a bishop, he retains the indelible mark of the priesthood as well as the powers that go with the priesthood. But, as a bishop, he now has additional powers, the powers that go with the fullness of the priesthood. With these additional powers, he can no consecrate bishops and ordain priests, as well as confer the Sacrament of Confirmation.
 
... (In) Deharbe’s Catechism, the question is asked: “Can a Priest be deprived of his ordination?” The correct answer given is this: “No, he can as little be deprived of Ordination as of Baptism, because it imprints an indelible character upon the soul.”  Father Deharbe continues: “A Priest therefore, or a Bishop, cannot be deprived of the powers which he received in his Ordination or Consecration, to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and to offer up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to administer Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders.”
 
Knowing the everlasting nature and power of the Priesthood, no genuine Catholic of good will could honestly persist in holding that Archbishop Thuc’s Consecrations of Bishops were doubtful, or even outright invalid. Because the power of the fullness of the Priesthood is everlasting, there can be no argument, no questioning, no controversy about the undoubted validity of the Thuc consecrations of Bishops.
 
You would think that the anti-Thuc militants saw that they had no other choice but to go silent and stop their anti-Thuc campaign. Yet, believe it or not, they did not stop trying to discredit Archbishop Thuc and the Thuc-line Bishops and Priests. Being the “geniuses” that they are, they had a dream. They dreamt that they could finish off the Archbishop by spreading around the made-up story that he was feeble-minded and therefore incapable of using his power of Consecrating Bishops validly.
 
But that didn’t work. Thinking Catholics could at once object that neither Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, nor Bishop Carmona, nor Bishop Zamora complained that Archbishop Thuc was feeble-minded when he consecrated them. They saw that the Archbishop what the Pontifical Ritual required as to matter and form and intention. When the Consecration ceremonies were completed, these three men knew that they were validly consecrated Catholic Bishops. So in due time they proceeded to do what Catholic Bishops are empowered to do. That is, they consecrated other Bishops, and it was from them that the American line of Thuc Bishops developed.
While anti-Thuc agitators are unable honestly to deny the validity of the Thuc consecrations of Bishops, they imagine they have a legitimate argument against the Archbishop when they declare that his consecrations were unlawful, or illicit, since he had no papal mandate or permit to consecrate Bishops.
 
But the anti-Thucs made a big mistake, in regard to the supposed unlawfulness of the Thuc consecrations, in failing to stress the fact that Archbishop Thuc did not do his consecrations before the Vatican II disaster, when things were still in proper order at the Vatican and the Church in general. He, on the contrary, did the consecrations without a papal mandate after the Vatican II apostasy from the traditional Catholic faith and practice had set in and after disorder and confusion prevailed everywhere, having had its beginning at the very top of the Church hierarchy.
 
What the anti-Thuc need to realize is that when a human law, or decree, like the papal mandate for the consecration of Bishops, can no longer be enforced and the one who would normally issue the papal mandate has himself deserted the True Faith, the Divine Law nevertheless still remains in force and always will remain in force.
 
The Divine Law about which we are speaking is the law that demands that the work of saving souls must by all means continue, despite the Vatican II apostasy. For that, Bishops and Priests are needed to make available the means of grace for the faithful. That is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, which are the principal means of grace, must be made available to the faithful, while at the same time the True Catholic Faith must by all means be taught whole and entire, and kept alive among the faithful.
 
As the anti-Thucs can plainly see, it was because of the Vatican II apostasy from the True Catholic Faith that Archbishop Thuc saw that he could not go by the human law demanding a papal mandate for consecrating Bishops. But he could, and he did, obey the Divine Law demanding the continued work of saving souls. He was fully justified before God in obeying His Law, and he had he necessary  jurisdiction to do so by virtue of Divine Law.
 
Traditional Bishops and Priests who have proceeded from Archbishop Thuc are likewise fully justified before God in preserving the True Faith among traditional Catholics, and providing for them the necessary means of grace. The traditional “emergency jurisdiction” long granted by the Church in cases of urgent need is based upon the Divine Law that demands that the necessary care of souls continue.
 
For all anti-Thuc agitators who have kept stirring up the storm of controversy over the Thuc consecrations, and against the Thuc Bishops and Priests, the message has long been loud and clear: 'Peace! Be still!' "
 
Pax et Bonum!
Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

Viva Cristo Rey!



Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #681 on: August 05, 2026, 07:38:01 AM »
https://thecatholicwire.org/the-crisis-in-the-catholic-church/70-years-a-priest-of-god-father-martin-stepanich-o-f-m-s-t-d/

70 Years a Priest of God: Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
"Known as Frank Stepanich in his pre-Franciscan days, the future Father Martin was born on a farm near the small town of Neodesha in southeast Kansas on November 12, 1915.  Answering the call of God, he enrolled at the preparatory minor seminary (called St. Joseph College at that time) of the Franciscan Fathers of the St. Louis-Chicago Sacred Heart Province near Westmont, Illinois, in the fall of 1930.

Four years later, Frank entered the Franciscan Order, receiving the Franciscan habit on September 2, 1934, at St. Mary’s Seminary and Monastery of the Slovene Franciscan Fathers, east of Lemont, Illinois. He chose the name Martin as his religious name in honor of St. Therese Martin, the Little Flower. The one-year novitiate was followed by temporary simple vows on September 3, 1935, and then he gave himself to God totally and forever with final solemn vows on September 3, 1938.  After the required courses of philosophy and theology, Friar Martin was ordained a priest of God by Chicago’s Bishop Sheil at the old Quigley Seminary in north Chicago on May 18, 1941. He offered his first solemn Mass in St. Ignatius Church in Neodesha, Kansas, where he had been baptized, received First Holy Communion, and confirmed.



After one more year of theology, Father Martin was sent to the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., for advanced studies in Sacred Theology. He received his degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) from the Catholic University in 1948. His first writing was his doctoral dissertation, entitled “The Christology of Zeno of Verona.” Later on, in 1960, he began writing many articles for such Catholic publications as The Marylike Crusader, The Wanderer (in its better days), The Remnant (in its earlier years), and others. In the post-Vatican II years, he has written much on such topics as the error of Feeneyism, the correct understanding of sedevacantism, and the validity of the Thuc episcopal consecrations.

All during his early priestly years, Father Martin was regularly sent to various parish churches for both weekday and Sunday Mass, as were also the other Fathers of St. Mary’s, as well as for preaching and hearing confessions. But he never served as a parish priest for any extended length of time. It is well to note that Father Martin was librarian for the comparatively small St. Mary’s Library for over thirty years. But when the Vatican II un-Catholic revolution got underway, he was “relieved” of his library position because he failed to purchase for St. Mary’s Library those supposedly “wonderful” new modernist books that began flooding the Catholic world. For refusing to purchase such books, he was accused of “disobeying the bishops and the Council and the Pope.”



The Council years of the 1960’s were bewildering and frustrating years for Father Martin, just as they were for so many other genuinely traditional Catholic priests and religious and lay people. He could plainly see that there was a drastic departure from the traditional Catholic Faith, discipline and practice in the making, and he could not in conscience go along with it.  The crucial and decisive issue that kept Father Martin firm in the traditional and unchangeable Catholic Faith, and true to the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, turned out to be the traditional Latin Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as restored by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, on orders of the holy Council of Trent.
The year of decision for Father Martin was 1967, two years after the close of the modernist Vatican II Council. Father was in Ireland in October of 1967, taking part in a never-to-be forgotten inspiring pilgrimage to some of Europe’s holiest shrines. A Dublin paper reported that the American bishops planned to “jump the gun” and introduce the all-English Canon of the Mass well before the time assigned by Rome.  On his return to the U.S., Father Martin was sent to St. Patrick’s Church in Lemont for a weekday Mass, in which he was expected to use the all-English canon, and out loud at that. But Father used only the traditional all-Latin Canon, and he was bold enough even to sing the Latin Pater noster.
The Dominican superioress of St. Patrick’s Convent reported Father Martin to his religious superior (called “Father Guardian”), and, sure enough, Father was “called on the carpet.” “Why don’t you go along with the changes?” he heard Father Guardian cry out menacingly at him. Father Martin could in no way be persuaded to give up the traditional and unchanged Catholic Latin Mass.
From then on, Father Martin was allowed to offer Mass only privately, and that was either in the privacy of the monastery chapel or in a vacant classroom upstairs. This went on for about two years or so. Father Martin never touched what he calls the Novus Ordo “performance” — that is, the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul 6 — when it showed up in 1969.

Then, one not-so-fine day, Father Martin was suddenly commanded by his superior, “Find your own place for Mass! And we will not provide transportation for you!”



Not knowing exactly where to go for his daily Mass, Father Martin was directed by an acquaintance to St. Nicholas Convent on Chicago’s far south State Street. There he met the two Rowley sisters, Sister Yvonne and Sister Olive, members of the School Sisters of St. Francis of Milwaukee (at one time the top-rated Sisters’ congregation in the U.S.). The two Sisters eagerly accepted Father’s offer to have the traditional Latin Mass in their chapel every day. At the time, the Sisters were wearing the so-called “modified,” or abbreviated habit and veil, but they definitely returned to the traditional full-length habit and veil of the order on March 29, 1970."

Sister M. Olive, O.S.F., and Sister M. Yvonne, O.S.F., (seated) in November of 2001

"Father Martin had no car of his own, so the Sisters came some 20 miles to St. Mary’s, Lemont, in their not-the-best convent car every evening to bring Father to St. Nicholas, then take him back to Lemont the next morning after Mass and breakfast. And, for the monthly all-night vigils in Joliet, the Sisters would come and pick up Father at St. Mary’s and then the three would go on another 15-20 miles to Joliet for the vigils. Eventually the Sisters managed somehow, with the help of benefactors, to get Father a car for him to use for all his travels. From then on, thanks to God, Father has always had a car at his disposal.

After a couple of years or so, the disturbing news came around that Cardinal Cody was going to close and sell St. Nicholas Church, together with the convent. And now began a long series of “flights” of Father Martin and the Sisters from one “catacomb” place to another, where the true Catholic Mass could be offered. The exact length of time at each “catacomb” cannot be given accurately, but the “flights” of Father and the Sisters went on for about 12 years or so. And none of this could have gone on without God inspiring benefactors to provide generous financial help, as well as plenty of other kinds of favors.

And then — Deo gratias! The final move came for Father Martin and the Sisters. After visiting very many available houses in different places with real estate agent Edie Baker, the Sisters came upon a house in Bolingbrook that seemed to them suitable. Father saw it and said it was satisfactory. A noble-hearted benefactor agreed to buy the house, with his main intention being to provide Father Martin with a permanent place in which he could offer the traditional Latin Mass — the Tridentine Mass, as it is called. Father and the Sisters moved into that Bolingbrook house on December 15, 1983. It was in that house that Father Martin offered his 65th anniversary Mass on May 18, 2006, with a small group of friends and relatives present. The benefactor mentioned remains the owner of the Bolingbrook house.  All through the more than 35 years of keeping the traditional Latin Mass alive in so many different places, the assistance of benefactors, by way of financial gifts and other favors, was — and still is — indispensable.


The two Sisters, from their St. Nicholas days and all through the years, hoped and prayed that some Sister or other would join them in living the true religious life, but none ever came. It was heartbreaking for them.  Because of the Sisters’ singing talents, Father Martin was able to sing a Gregorian chant Mass almost every day of the year. But when Sister Yvonne’s health began to fail, he had to discontinue doing so, as well as to curtail a busy religious schedule. After several years of much suffering, Sister Yvonne was called into eternity by the Most High on December 15, 2002.  Sister Olive, no longer in the best of health at 86, continues courageously, but she has — Deo gratias! — the very able help of Samantha, an excellent young Michigan farm woman.


Father Martin, realizing that “the night shades of life may soon be falling,” dreams of the day when God will mercifully allow him to help St. Therese, the Little Flower, with her heavenly “shower of roses.”  Father Martin Stepanich, 97, passed away Nov. 18, 2012, at 9:30 p.m."


–Taken from the Reign of Mary Quarterly Magazine, Issue 124




Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #682 on: August 05, 2026, 05:29:46 PM »

What a great story of Catholic perseverance on Father Stepanich and the Rowley Sisters. 

Well done! 
Good and faithful servants of Christ.

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #683 on: August 06, 2026, 07:10:15 AM »
https://jamesfday.medium.com/the-wandering-bishop-who-was-archbishop-thuc-1c16349447ab

Dean Rusk, US Sec. of State 1961-1969

US Secretary of State Dean Rusk: Initiates Plan to Remove Abp. Thuc from Vietnam
"Members of the National Security Council met on Aug. 31, a ‘where do we go from here?’ meeting — “the sense of an administration adrift.” That same day, Dean Rusk sent a telegram to Ambassador Lodge. While Rusk advised Lodge to stress “common interest in defeating Viet Cong,”... Rather than take drastic measures against the generals, Rusk pushed Madame Nhu “leave country on extended holiday.”

Rusk had another suggestion: “[W]ould you think it useful if we tried to get Vatican to summon Archbishop Thuc to Rome for lengthy consultations?”


And so it came to pass that not only was Madame Nhu and her oldest child ushered out of Vietnam — to the United States on September 9, for an extended speaking tour where she openly criticized the administration — but Archbishop Thuc was duly summoned to Rome…for the second session of Vatican II, convened from September 29-December 4.

The official records of the Holy See state Pope Paul announced the date of September 29 a few days after his June election. Edward Miller, author of Misalliance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the United States, and the Fate of South Vietnam, reports Thuc left for Rome on September 7, a week after Rusk’s cable. Miller also notes that it was Nhu who ushered these family members, including his wife and children, out of the country. But once in Rome, Thuc wasted no time speaking his mind. Giornale D’Italia quoted Thuc upon his arrival saying “the United States spent $20 million in an effort to replace [Diem].” A papal audience between Thuc and Paul VI was inexplicably canceled days later; a day later, Thuc was on a plane for New York. There, he told reporters the Vatican ordered him to stop talking about the political situation in South Vietnam.

Within a year, this proud Viet was forbidden by the Vietnamese, the Americans, and evidently even the Holy See from returning to his diocese, or from entering Vietnam at all."


Abp. Thuc refused to be silent about what was going on in Vietnam


Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #684 on: August 06, 2026, 10:18:50 AM »
Yes, the coup in Vietnam was another Jew Coup (via the Commies).  Jew David Halbersteim (New York Times) was instrumental in the media smear job against the Ngo family, and Archbishop Thuc was yet another victim of the Montinian Commie regime along with Mindszenty, Wyszyński, Beran, Stepinac, Gojdič, Slipyj, Kung.

Montini removed several of them to appease Commies ... Mindszenty, Beran, Thuc, and threw the rest overboard.  Gojdič (Byzantine) died a martyr (IMO) in Commie prisons after being imprisoned for life for refusing to merge his diocese with an Orthodox one.  Montini got the last laugh on him when in Vatican II they encouraged precisely what he died over,  unifying with the Orthodox and having Sacraments in common.

There's little doubt but that Montini was under Commie-Jews control.  Whether he was an intentional / malicious bad actor or just blackmailed / controlled, it's very difficult to know, but ...

That reminds me ... I've found credible information that Montini was present at Black Masses and involved with some high-level Crowley associates.  I want to write that up in Substack.  There's a lot of evidence suggesting that Montini was a Satanist, including his introduction of the stang-like papal "ferula", etc. ... but there's much more detail there.  Of course, people have long pointed out that if you invert Montini's signature there's a clear 666 on it, and then there were the Masonic images on his mother's tombstone, which evidently +Fellay sent someone to go visit and verify, and it was confirmed (+Fellay mentioned this in some talk).  It's becoming clear that Montini was not just some confused sodomite who got swept up in a blackmail operation (Hugh Montgomery circle honey trap).