Sedevacantist bishops & Fr. (Bp.?) Malachi Martin
The famous novellist, Vatican insider, former long year assistant of Augustin Cardinal Bea since 1950, Fr. Malachi Martin (+ 2002), was he a sedevacantist Thuc-line bishop at the end of his life?
Does anyone know more?
1. Fr. Malachi Martin SJ assisted ecumenist, modernist and progressist Cardinal Bea under the last years of Pope Pius XII and afterwards until he was dispensed of his duties and his obedience vows by Paul VI and the Jesuit Superior-General at the beginning of the 1970s. (He then went to the United States and lived in New York; he did continue private celebration of the Tridentine Mass however.)
2. Fr. Malachi Martin is known world-wide for his famous novels about Vatican-inside processes. He also featured regularly about the Fatima Third Secret in radio shows etc.
3. He is now referenced to as a Bishop who embraced the sedevacantist thesis at the end of his life. This is done by Malachi's famous friend Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. Dr. Rama for a substantial part of his live worked as a doctor closely together with Mother Teresa in India. He wrote with her about the ecclesial crisis and said to Mother Teresa she should not engage in ecumenism, which she unfortunately did, though lacking the arguments for it.
It is now supposed Dr. Rama was (conditionally) re-ordained a sedevacantist priest by Bishop Malachi Martin.



Rama Coomaraswamy, MD



                                 I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas… Is Christ divided?

                                                                                                                                      I Cor. 1, 12.

                                 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders

                                                                                                                                      Matt. 23, 4
  Under normal circumstances the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are the most powerful and effective manner in which one can receive Sanctifying Grace – hence the common term “Sacramental Grace.” It is a given that for valid Sacraments one requires a properly ordained priest. With the demise of older priests – those ordained prior to 1968, the number of validly ordained priests must of necessity decline.


This is because the post-conciliar ordinations are dubious if not completely invalid. (See the article on Orders on this web page.) It makes little difference whether one considers them dubious or invalid because the Church has always taught us not to accept dubious sacraments. In fact, all the Novus Ordo Sacraments are at least dubious. This is especially true of the consecration of Bishops by the new rites. A non-Bishop cannot ordain a priest even if he uses the correct rite. For example, Cardinals Ratzinger and Myer who are ordaining priests in the Society of St.Peter, do not themselves have the Apostolic Succession.


Now traditional priests come in all sorts of varieties. Some are saying the Indult Mass with the understanding that everything in Vatican II is acceptable and the new sacraments are valid. Others are saying the Tridentine Mass and have been ordained by bishops who were themselves consecrated by the new and almost certainly false rites. And still others have been ordained by traditional bishops, and it is among these that we unfortunately have so much bickering.


We indeed live in confusing times and we know who is the author of confusion. One of the issues that increases this confusion is the matter of ordination. Individual priests or groups – often consisting of little more than four or five individuals - proclaim their ordination as valid and refuse to recognize the orders of others.


For example, the members of the Society of Pius V claim that only they are properly ordained – but there are those who question this because of the mental status and secrecy surrounding Bishop Mendez through whom their orders derive. On the other hand the Society of Pius V denies the validity of any ordinations or consecrations that derive from Archbishop Thuc. There are those who like Bishop Thomas Fouhy cast suspicion on all the ordinations deriving from Archbishop Lefebvre because of the high Freemasonic connections of Lienart who ordained Lefebvre. And then there are those who cast doubt on Bishops and priests that derive from the so-called Brazilian line which was at one time schismatic, but which reconciled to Rome. Currently the most significant individual in this line is Bishop Patrick Taylor. And then there is Bishop Vezelis who holds that any bishop (or priest) who does not accept his primacy and what he calls his “universal jurisdiction” has any right to distribute the Sacraments.


And to make matters still more confusing, there are those who reject any priest who is married, whether or not he is celibate and whether or not he was ordained after his marriage. There are some who will not accept any priest who has not gone through formal seminary training. And there are even those who condemn traditional priests who have had to take secular employment (as did St. Paul) to support themselves.


Other examples of this aberrant behaviour are provided by the city of Cincinnati where two rival traditional groups refuse even to speak to one another and refuse intercommunion to each other’s congregations. Again, I have come across situations where traditional priests have gone to communities and publicly denounced a traditional priest whose orders they do not respect.


Take the Society of Pius X. Despite their own theological confusions, they hold that only they are the true Church – While they do not explicitly say so, one senses that they embrace the dictum that “Outside of the Society of Pius X there is no salvation.” They are well known for denouncing priests and bishops that are not affiliated with them while they are willing to accept Novus Ordo priests without further conditional ordination and foster them on the laity. They of course hold that all the post-Conciliar sacraments are valid.


Or the case of one group in Michigan who will not give communion to someone who goes to a CRMI service even if it be to a family funeral. Again, Bishop Sanborn who once stated that he would refuse communion to anyone who went to Bishop McKenna’s Mass,  subsequently accepted consecration from this Bishop.


Add to this the number of laymen who consider themselves theologians and canon lawyers. Some claim that traditional priests who lack formal jurisdiction have no right to function. They refuse to accept the principle of Epikeia which they claim can only be used in an emergency – as if today is not such an emergency. They do not understand that jurisdiction from Rome (whether old or new) means obedience to Rome which has forbidden the use of the Tridentine Mass, and has become, for all practical purposes, “the seat of Antichrist” (to use the words of Our Lady of LaSalette).


How can these issues be resolved? For myself, as a result of my close association with Malachi Martin who had access to Roman documents regarding the validity of Bishops, there was no problem. I recognize that many will not accept his authority, or even that of Roman documentation, but that is, from my point of view, their problem. However those who reject his authority must either turn to some other individual as an authority, or else have recourse to the paper trail which every Bishop and priest is obliged to provide. Paper trails can of course be forged, and I know of at least one example where false paper trails can be taken of the internet.


Malachi Martin, who made inquiries on my behalf in Rome about the validity of various traditional Bishops – Rome up to recent times having maintained strict records about such matters – assures me that the ordinations and consecrations of Archbishop Thuc are beyond any question valid. The same is true of the ordinations of Bishop Patrick Taylor. (Bishop Taylor comes from a Brazilian line – a group that was initially schismatic but which reconciled to Rome before Vatican II. (I have in my possession and hand written letter from Malachi Martin affirming the validity of Bishop Patrick Taylor.) I never discussed with him the issue of the Lefebvre ordinations, but I assume from other comments that he considered them valid. Again, I never discussed with him the position of Bishop Vizelis, but since he derives his Orders from Archbishop Thuc, one must assume them to be valid. The other Bishop about which I asked him to make inquiries was Bishop Thaddeus Alioto in Mexico which again he assured me was valid. (Bishop Alioto was a Dominican who was ordained in 1950 by Pius XII and was consecrated by a Bishop Maxi before the changes.)


It should be clear that a Bishop does not have to be a saint, or even wise, for his powers are not dependent upon these qualities. One might accuse Archbishop Thuc of a lack of prudence, but under the circumstances in which he operated this almost becomes a calumny. He may have consecrated individuals that were poor candidates, but functioning in an emergency situation, with his lack of linguistic ability, and dependent upon the advise of others, it is understandable that he may have consecrated some individuals who were less than appropriate. (It was at the request of Archbishop Lafebvre and with the assistance of a Canon Lawyer from Econe that he consecrated Palma de Troya.) It should be kept in mind that every Bishop who ordains innumerable individuals to the priesthood, will inevitably confer orders on some who are unworthy or who become unworthy with the passage of time.


Before declaring that a given priest lacks proper orders, one must be certain of the facts, for such an accusation involves stating that said individual is a false priest and almost certainly will damn his soul by impersonating a priest. The risk of calumny is high.

Of course, a paper trail can be faked, just as Rome can lie. However my limited experience is such that individual priests are ready to provide such information on request. I know of one Bishop who has simply posted his derivation in the back of his Church and refuses to further engage in any further discussion.


Given the above behaviour, is it any wonder that laymen are disgusted and that some of them have become “home aloners”? That individuals who are presumably dedicated to the saving of souls should forget the admonition of the Apostle John to “love one another” is to say the least, rather extraordinary. How is it possible for priests to believe they are saving souls when they behave in such a manner.


A further problem arises. When one brings a soul to accept the teaching of the Church, one has to immediately warn him that should he go to a traditional Mass in one parish, he better not attempt to do so in a neighbouring parish lest he be refused communion. Where he asks is that unity of which Our Lord spoke so often. For me at least, this has always been a somewhat difficult matter to explain. Traditional Catholics are used to this, but converts become bewildered.


If a priest accuses another priest of lacking proper orders, charity demands, or so it seems to me, that the accuser offer to arrange for the individual involved to be conditionally re-ordained (consecrated). That is, unless in the judgment of the accusing priest, the individual is not worthy of his calling. It has been argued that to accept re-ordination or re-consecration is to admit that one’s Masses and other priestly functions were defective. This is by no means the case. Given the times we live in, such actions can be seen as based on charity as they are aimed at reducing confusion, increasing the confidence of the laity, and above all at reducing the internecine warfare that plagues the traditional movement. 


Recently just such a move has been made by a group of Bishops and priests (including Bishop Taylor) who have joined with each other. Meeting together, they all conditionally consecrated each other. By conditionally consecrating each other – it only requiring that one of them be validly consecrated, they all become valid. In the near future others plan to join in this activity. Of course the exclusivists will not accept this and will consider such action sacrilegious. There are some who are so committed to their exclusivity that nothing will change their mind.


What above all needs to be remembered is that none of us are here to save the Church – that is God’s task. We are here to fulfill the function of priests – however poorly – and the primary function of the priests is to save souls.


Thou didst sit down and speak against thy brother, and against thine own mother’s son didst thou lay a stumbling-block; these things thou didst, and I kept silent.


                                                                               Psalm 49

R. Coomaraswamy +


Rama Coomaraswamy, MD 2004




While Fr. Cekada’s paper entitled Untrained and Un-Tridentine Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit demonstrates a strong desire to return to the Church of the 50’s rather than a return to sound Catholic principles, and as such demonstrates a certain lack of understanding of the problems that many Catholics face at the present time, I shall only address myself to that part of the paper which in a thinly disguised manner almost certainly pertains to, and aims at devaluating my ordination.


Despite his failure to use names several friends have pointed to possible similarities. The following comments are made with the intention of avoiding further confusion.


On the assumption that Fr. Cekada is referring to myself, let me say that if he had any doubts about the facts surrounding my ordination, he might have given me the courtesy of asking for the facts. I am reminded of verses 14 and 15 of Psalm 55. Again, on the assumption that his comments refer to myself, let me say that he has almost all the facts wrong. In fact the only thing he got right was that Bishop Jose Lopez-Gaston used a photocopy of the Pontifical.


First of all, Bishop-Lopez Gaston is extraordinarily well educated and qualified for his function of ordaining Bishop. He studied with the Marists in Cuba with the intention of entering the priesthood from 1944 to 1960. With the advent of Castro, he left for Spain. He subsequently completed studies in Philosophy, and Theology and received certificates of competence from Cardinal Manuel Aertaga (also exiled from Havana) in Theology and catechesis as well as a degree in theology. In the interim the changes in the Church occurred and he met his wife and married.


He has two separate doctorates, one in Romance Languages and one in Humanities, Philosophy and History obtained from universities in this country as well as degrees from the University of Havana in Philosophy and History. He is fluid in Latin, Greek and Spanish and indeed was head of the Department of Humanities at the University of New Mexico where he taught, among things, Latin.


When he was older, and after Bishop Carmona was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc (he incidentally in turn consecrated Bishop Pivarunas and Bishop Pivarunas consecrated Bishop Dolan), Bishop Carmona who knew Lopez-Gaston suggested to him that he should now be ordained. Both Bishop Gaston Lopez and his wife took public vows of celibacy and Bishop Carmona ordained him. He was subsequently consecrated as a bishop in the Thuc line.


It is virtually impossible for Bishop Gaston Lopez to have skipped a page at the time of my ordination – especially as there were several bishops and priests present. Every detail of the ordination rite was in fact followed correctly, and there are photographs that bear witness to this.


One problem arose. One of the people present thought Bishop Lopez-Gaston didn’t actually touch my head during the critical part of the rite. I of course cannot bear witness to this as I was too much too involved in the process of ordination to check on such a detail. I however recently looked at the photographs which were taken and offer two as evidence to the contrary.


However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source.


Father Cekada seems to have a particular antipathy against married clergy – indeed this would seem to be the basis of his views on “canonicity.” Now eleven of the apostles were married; several of the canonized saints were married; some 29 popes were married, and some of them had their wives live in the Vatican; The Eastern “uniate” Churches allow for marriage and the Church has never denied the validity of their Sacramental functions,  finally the New Testament  speaks of the duties of married bishops. While under normal circumstances a married clergy in the Western Church is unusual from the 12th century onwards, cases of dispensation from Ecclesiastical canons have continually been allowed. For example, Pope Pius XII allowed married Episcopal and Anglican clergy who converted and wished to be priests to retain their wives. Just for the record marriage in no way invalidates the Sacrament. Of course there is a difference between a married person being ordained, and a priest who has already taken vows of celibacy getting married. Under the present circumstances it would seem that there is room for a carefully selected married clergy.[1] (This should not be misconstrued as to my advocating an across the board married clergy, but is offered to show that the canons involved are “ecclesiastical” and subject to dispensation.)


I cannot resist one final comment. It is clear that Fr. Cekada, despite his vaunted seminary training, never understood the sin of calumny. In his article he refers to Malachi Martin (again, not by name) as an “Apostate priest.”


For the record, Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J. former Vicar General of the Jesuits has publicly admitted that Fr. Malachi Brendin Martin was granted a full and legal dispensation from his Jesuit vows except for chastity and given a perpetual celebate to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  (cf. Michael Cain, Editor of the Daily Catholic, Easter Wednesday, April 14, 2004)


Perhaps a few words from Father Fiori, O.P. who know Malachi Martin for over 20 years, and who recently passed away may be of interest.


“Malachi Martin never left the Catholic priesthood, but was personally dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience by Paul VI on leaving the Jesuits in 1964. I have seen and authenticated his dispensation papers. He did not seek release from his vow of chastity. When he came to New York, Cardinal Cooke gave him priestly faculties and advised him to find lodging with a family rather than live alone as he initially did.”


I might add that Malachi, like many of us, changed his views over the course of time, but that Cuono bears witness in his rather puerile book An American Exorcist, that Father Malachi never said the Novus Ordo Missae.


Finally, let me make it clear that I am not interested in a debate on these issues. I initially intended to ignore Fr. Cekada’s diatribe, but as I do hear confessions, do write on theological issues, and at times impart spiritual advice, I think it important to defend the validity of my orders.


Picture #1


Picture #2

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., F.A.C.S. +



[Image: RC1b.jpg]


Fr. Malachi Martin to the lower left (picture of his back during Dr. Rama's ordination).


[Image: RC2b.jpg]


Ordination of Fr. Rama Coowaraswamy. Fr. Malachi Martin assisting.

From the picture it is clear that Martin is not the ordaining bishop, nor even dressed like a bishop who is assisting. There is also no reason to believe Martin was a sede (I am not an authority, but I know some pretty well-traveled and learned men in the sede camp).
BTW, a man is ordained (or conditionally re-ordained) a priest, not a sedevacantist priest. There is no such thing, although there are priests who are sedevacantist. I am sure you know this already, but I mention it for those who might not know.
But Fr. Malachi Martin seems to be assisting actively in this ordination rite, knowing that Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy is a sedevacantist and so was the consecrator Bishop Lopez-Gastón.
By the way both Rama C. and Lope-Gastón are married and thus their ordinations were canonically criminal. I think they were both wrong in having themselves consecrated and Lopez-Gaston and especially Fr (Bishop) Martin to have assisted at this ordination ceremony.
I do not say, as does the SSPV (Fr. Jenkins, Bp. Kelly), that the Thuc consecrations are "probably invalid, or at least doubtful" (this is without reason), but I do think incidents like these prove the Thuc lineage is neither alright nor totally orthodox. But the validity of the Thuc-bishops seems to be out of question, as the Vatican regularizes former Thuc bishops without conditional consecration (re-consecration) nowadays (e.g. Bishop Seiwert-Fleige, even from the El Palmar de Troya line!!!!!!!).
As Fr. Martin checked the validity of episcopal consecrations in the Vatican archives, he might also have come to the conclusion that Thuc bishops are valid, and after adopting sedevacantism having himself consecrated a Thuc-bishop.
It is definitely Fr. Malachi Martin in the picture. Certainly if you combine it with Dr. Rama's writings about his close friend Fr. (Bishop?) Malachi Martin.
But I might be wrong. Maybe inside sedes have more knowledge. I am neither a convinced sede nor an insider in the USA, so excuse me, if you find I am wrong. I just found it weird, this message.
Could you clean up the HTML in your OP so it is easier to read? I am really interested in reading it, but not the effort it takes to do so! Smile
I'd just like to clarify that Archbishop Lefebvre did not "Ask Abp. Thuc to consecrate the Palmar de Troyans" as the article above alleges.
Archbishop Lefebvre heard of the visions at Palmar de Troya, and some emissaries from there asked him to consecrate Bishops. (You must remember that the situation is infinitely more clear now, in the "aftershocks" of the revolution, than it was back in the 70s when this was all happening.) The visions would have seemed plausible. They asked the Archbishop to consecrate bishops for them "in accordance with Our Lady's wishes." Naturally, he did not want to do this rashly, if at all, but understandably thought there just might be something to it. Therefore, as he was quite busy with the Society and dealings with the Vatican, he asked a "friendly old bishop known to be sympathetic to tradition," Archbishop Thuc, if he would be so good as to look into it. Thuc agreed, and then took them on their word and consecrated bishops with little, if any, caution.
Indeed, it is a lie to say Archbishop Lefebvre "wanted" Thuc to consecrate bishops.
This is all calumny abused by secular media since and way before the Abp.'s death in 1991.
The only link between Archbishop Lefebvre and the El Palmar de Troya false apparitions to anti-pope "Gregory XVII" (a.k.a. Clemente Dominguez y Gomez), is and was Canon Maurice Revaz, who was a Canon Law professor at Ecône's SSPX Saint Pie X seminary and who came to believe in the false apparitions of "Our Lady" in Palmar de Troya (near Seville, Spain). He wanted Lefebvre to consecrate, but Lefebvre always opposed false apparitions and did not give credence to El Palmar de Troya.
Abp. Thuc by the way distanced himself from the Palmarian Cultish Sect too, after the consecrations and finally after CLemente had himself crowned the "Palmarian and Apostolic Pope Gregory XVII".
I must say that the El Palmar de Troya consecrations have greatly helped to give credibility to the claims of anti-Thuc clerics, who dispute the validity of Thuc's orders.
To be a Thuc bishop now is not an honor, while the consecration of Abp. Lefebvre are done solemnly.
But nothing can undo the validity of the Thuc consecrations from 1981 to 1985, as famous Roman professors like Prof. Dr. Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers (a close collaborator and adviser to H.H. Pope Pius XII during the preparation of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950) were consecrated by Abp. Thuc.
I know the SSPV is particularly fierce in disputing the validity of Thucites to be "doubtful". Most SSPV clergy claim only Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Mendez consecration(s) were valid, along with the few other bishops consecrated in the pre-1968 rite of Consecrations still alive today (excluding Pope Benedict XVI).
(Then again Dr. Eberhard Heller and his magazine 'Einsicht' "doubt" the validity of the Consecration of Abp. Lefebvre as his main consecrator Cardinal Liénart is considered to be "a Mason participating in black masses", as if the latter accusation could ever be determined objectively......)
Despite the abuses, the heretical and pertinacious individuals Thuc consecrated, his ordinations are valid.
I don't know, however, what to make of Father Malachi Martin's Consecration to the episcopate, which is alleged by Fr. Rama Coomawaraswamy.
That's why there were always three consecrators for a Bishop, so that even if Lienart was a devil-worshipping freemason who had no intention to consecrate, there were still two other consecrators who would pass on the succession. That is why it is so wonderful that Bp. Castro de Mayer assisted at the 1988 consecrations, so that if Lefebvre, for whatever reason, was lacking in intention, Castro de Mayer would consecrate, and if Castro de Mayer was lacking, Lefebvre could consecrate. It's a beautiful system. Of course, I'm sure you know this already, I'm just musing...
Consecrations with three or two or one co-consecrator(s) were not done to "secure" the validity of the Consecration to the Episcopate, but merely for ceremonial solemnity. All consecration done by only one bishops are valid too.
These arguments against "Lefebvre's" invalidity were forwarded by some around Abp. Thuc and that Dr. E. Heller. They are even convinced, that even if the Consecration in 1947 (of Abp. Lefebvre) were valid by well intentioned bishops, there could not take place a Consecration, because the ordination of Lefebvre was not valid "probably" (also done by Liénart). Nonsense of course, because even if I, a mere layman, were consecrated in a episcopal consecration rite of the Catholic Church, I would at once become a bishop, says St. Thomas Aquinas.
Of course Cardinal Liénart consecrated validly, even though probably a Freemason, which is not saying he attended "black masses" etc, which is just calumny and speculation! Cardinal Rampolla (Freemason and almost Pope in 1903) consecrated Cardinal Mery del Val: a great cardinal.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)