AB Thuc lineage


Well-Known Member
These links worked well for me, including description, diagram, and more details:




This is the hillebrand, martin, adamson line, under AB Thuc:

I am sure it is not completely comprehensive, but it is a good beginning.

(I wish I knew how to embed, in case the information in the links is removed.)

Regarding authority of ordination:

Canons On The Sacrament Of Order
"Canon 7. If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power to confirm and ordain, or that the power which they have is common to them and to priests, or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema."
Last edited:


These links worked well for me, including description, diagram, and more details:




I am sure it is not completely comprehensive, but it is a good beginning.

I wish I knew how to embed, in case the information in the links are removed.

Chapter Eight

Chapter Eight

Perhaps the reader might recall that a few chapters ago, I pointed out the doubtful validity of the "sacraments" of the Novus Ordo religion. In particular, I speak now of the new form now being used for the sacrament of Holy Orders, and most specifically that of the highest rank, which confers the Episcopacy (makes a bishop). Given the unreliability of the new man-made ceremonies, one has to wonder how many (if any) of the "bishops" consecrated to the Episcopacy by the new rite were actually validly consecrated bishops, and how many were not, and who (if anyone) among them the true bishops would happen to be. (One usually says of a priest that he is "ordained," but of a bishop that he is "consecrated.") In the church of the People of God, there is no way one can trust that any particular "bishop" in that establishment is really even a bishop at all, nor that any "priest" is really a priest (unless of course they were consecrated or ordained previous to the changes made to those rites made in 1968). The Church cannot afford to have to worry about such things, but now is obliged to. That is the most dangerous aspect of the conciliar and post-conciliar "reforms."

As long as we can know that we have validly consecrated bishops, all the other problems of the Church can be reasonably put to rights by having the heretics repent or be put out, and by instructing the ignorant. But without validly consecrated bishops, there can be no sacraments except Baptism and Marriage. It takes a priest (or a bishop) to say Mass. It takes a priest (or a bishop) to absolve a penitent from sin in the confessional. It takes a priest (or a bishop) to administer the Last Rites (including Extreme Unction) to a soul in danger of death. It normally takes a bishop (although in some rare cases a "mere" priest will do) to Confirm a soul, or bless the Holy Oils, such as are used for Extreme Unction. It takes a bishop (a priest will not do here) to make a priest or another bishop.

One can easily see from the preceding that if ever the Church should run out of validly consecrated bishops, an essential component of the Church's fourth mark, Apostolicity (the succession of validly consecrated bishops extending from the original twelve Apostles themselves clear to modern times), would be forever lost, utterly irretrievable. With no more bishops, it would only be a matter of time before the last validly ordained priest would die, and then there could be no more Masses, no more absolutions, no more Confirmations, and no more Last Rites. The sacramental priesthood would vanish and could never be recovered. The Church would go from seven sacraments to two. Furthermore, if the pope must be a bishop, indeed the "Bishop of Rome," how can there ever be a pope in that case?

On April 9, 1951, Pope Pius XII had published a bit of legislation formally requiring that the Pope must approve any consecrations of any new bishops. Such an approval is called a "papal mandate," because the pope would be in that case commanding that the person should be consecrated a bishop. Although that was already the customary procedure, only then did it finally get written into law. That was done in response to the Chinese when they were attempting to create a new hierarchy of their own, the "Patriotic Chinese Church." Who back then could have anticipated that within twenty years such "illicit" episcopal consecrations would become absolutely essential to the continuation of the Church, and that scarcely thirty years later the first of such would take place? Clearly, such a law as that cannot apply in such a case as this where even the person who imposed the law would have suspended or revoked it. There is no reason to doubt that Pope Pius XII would count the continuation of the Church as being more important than obedience to this bit of legislation that he himself imposed as an attempt to stop what the Chinese government was trying to do (and ended up doing anyway).

If it hadn't been for the heroic actions of a few faithful bishops, the Novus Ordo religion would have eventually brought about an end of the Apostolic succession! Something had to be done to preserve alive that sacred and irreplaceable treasure of the validly consecrated Episcopate. The entire future of the Roman Catholic Church rests on the actions of the very few bishops who actually did this. So far, there have been four such bishops, two of them archbishops. At this particular juncture of my account of the traditional Catholic movement (June 1987), only one of the four bishops had as yet made any other traditional bishops: Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, of Huế, Việt Nam (Vietnam).

The peculiar and sad figure of Abp. Thục is probably the most enigmatic of the four bishops from whom all reliable episcopal consecrations of the Church in the future are derived. Of course, Abp. Lefebvre could be a somewhat enigmatic figure as well. Could it be that a defining characteristic of archbishops is to be enigmatic characters? In the time when none of the other three bishops were even remotely considering the consecration of any bishops according to the traditional rite, which would therefore have been without the permission of the Vatican leadership, Thục had already run way ahead of the others. It was he who blazed all the trails and made all the mistakes. And, for the most part, they were very big mistakes indeed. On the other hand, the only alternative to making such mistakes would have been to do nothing at all, and that would have been terminally catastrophic.

Abp. Thục, together with other members of his family, also found himself close to the center of another major event of the 1960's which tore up American, European, and Southeast Asian society and which contributed in a major way to the rise of the 1960's counterculture movement: the Vietnam War. It is for this reason that a fairly detailed account of the history of the man and his family up until this point bears telling.

On October 6, 1897, Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục was born to Catholic parents in Huế, Việt Nam. His father, Ngô Đình Khả, was by nationality a Mandarin, and by office the Minister of Rites and Grand Chamberlain to Emperor Thành Thái who had reigned from 1889 to 1907. The family had been among the first to convert to Catholicism back in the seventeenth century, and some of them had even been martyrs for their faith.

Although the French had originally introduced Catholicism to Vietnam, the Ngô family became estranged from the French when the French conspired to depose Emperor Thành Thái in 1907. In the wake of that, their Catholicism became the more solidly traditional faith of the Spanish and Portuguese, both of old as that of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, as well as that which would later rally to the cause of Governor Franco, rather than the relatively easygoing and liberal Gallican Catholicism of certain factions in France which were then operative in Vietnam.

At this point, the family had a mission to establish Roman Catholicism in mostly Buddhist Vietnam, and without the help of the French, thank-you. Most of his brothers pursued politics, but Thục instead pursued the priesthood. In the course of this he went to Rome and obtained doctorate degrees in canon law, theology, and philosophy. He was ordained a priest on December 20, 1925.

His distinguished career as a seminary professor began in Sorbonne in Paris, but in 1927 he returned to Vietnam where he held professorships at both the Major Seminary and the College of Divine Providence. So well had he performed his professor duties that on May 4, 1938, he was consecrated bishop and became the Titular Bishop of Sesina. He organized and set up that diocese in the city of Vĩnh Long and also founded the University of Đà Lạt.

This university had to be built up practically from scratch, but when one of his brothers, Ngô Đình Diệm had risen to power, he gave Thục the right to profit from a forested area which generated the needed funds. Tragedy was already being served up to the Ngô brothers by the communists in that their oldest brother, Ngô Đình Khôi, had been buried alive along with his son by the communists.

In 1955, Ngô Đình Diệm ousted Bảo Đại, the ruling Chief of State over Vietnam at that time (who had previously stepped down from his former post of Emperor in 1945). The United States followed the recommendation of Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Vicar General for the U. S. armed forces and John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, by backing the Diệm regime. The United States had backed him in order to fight the communists, but unfortunately, he seems to have devoted the bulk of his efforts against the Buddhists instead. This was a grave political blunder, and theologically unsound.

I say "Buddhists" here, following the practice of most chroniclers of the Vietnam war, but actually only about 20% of the population was strictly Buddhist, the remainder being a kind of mixture of Buddhism, Confucianism, Animism, and occasionally other less well known Asiatic religions. Diệm failed to recognize the fundamental difference between this Buddhism and Communism as non-Christian forces in Vietnam. On the one hand, Communism was an invading alien intruder, a subtle Red Chinese invasion absolutely no better for Vietnam than the invasion of the Japanese had been. On the other hand, this sort of Buddhist is what Vietnam had been for thousands of years - - longer than Christianity had even existed. It would have been perfectly reasonable, Catholic, and politically sound for him to have used military force to drive (or keep) the Communists out. Practically all of Vietnam, Catholic and Buddhist alike, would have cheerfully backed his efforts in this direction. That is also what the United States wanted him to do and why they backed his regime.

But dealing with Buddhism would have required a great deal of time. Where Communism was merely an idea that some dilettantes found fashionable, Buddhism is what most of the people truly believed. Threat, coercion, and force have never changed anyone's personal belief. The proper thing to do would have been to win the Buddhists to Christ, one soul at a time. That requires a lot of sacrifice, suffering, prayer, and time. Only when the Buddhists can see the superior depth of the Christian Faith would they be able to convert voluntarily; an involuntary conversion is no conversion at all. Diệm thought he could take a short cut around this process, or perhaps he may not have known how he was supposed to respond to the differences between Communism and Buddhism in his country.

In a Catholic nation which is made up mostly of Roman Catholics, one can very easily and properly pass and enforce laws prohibiting the spreading of all false teachings in the public forum, or at least deny them any official recognition. Diệm desired to pass such laws because he imagined that the faith could be easily spread to large numbers if politically mandated. But Vietnam was about 90% Buddhist and scarcely 10% Christian. The Church does not approve of the use of military or political force to overcome the long-established traditions which a society has received from their forefathers. That is something quite different from dealing in such a manner with Catholic members of a Catholic society who depart from the Faith and encourage others to do the same. In Buddhist Vietnam, there was no way for Christianity to be thus enforced. Making such an attempt was further made unsound from a political standpoint because he also opposed the French who were the only other force for Christianity in Vietnam. A truly Catholic and Vietnamese nation was simply not possible in the near term under such conditions.

Seeing this problem and being irrevocably committed to making Vietnam a Catholic nation, the next plan of the Ngô brothers (including Ngô Đình Nhu who was appointed Political Advisor) was to consolidate the Roman Catholics in South Vietnam, even though most of them lived in the north. The rumor was sent forth that Jesus and Mary had gone South. In response to that, nearly a million North Vietnamese Catholics relocated to South Vietnam, placing a very heavy burden on the already overtaxed infrastructure in the South. Hard times were had by all, but this did have the effect of consolidating the Catholics into a smaller area in which they would be a majority, and also of bringing them into the territory which was politically controlled by Diệm's regime and spiritually guided by the Archiepiscopal see of Huế, which Thục was soon to be raised to on November 24, 1960.

Things got particularly ugly in 1963 when Buddhist monks, in protest to the way all Buddhists were being treated, began drenching themselves in gasoline and setting themselves on fire. Mrs. Ngô Đình Nhu (Trần Lệ Xuân) took an extremely dim view of what those Buddhists were doing, and in an attempt to discourage such behavior she responded to it by joking about how they were using imported gasoline to make barbecues of themselves. Her well intentioned attempt totally backfired, resulting in more such suicides and bringing international disgrace on the Diệm regime. With each new problem, Diệm's solution always seems to have been to crack down harder on those who opposed him.

When Roncalli was elected Pope in 1958, the new spirit of ecumenism took over at the Vatican. Cardinal Spellman (who floated his boat down the Tiber river causing some to think that by so doing, he would fulfill the prophecy that the next pope would be a Pastor and Mariner) went from being a likely successor to the papacy to practically a cardinal in exile. Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII, took a very soft stance against the Communists, and an even softer stance against other religions such as Buddhism. This was not a result of Catholic leaders becoming more aware of the difference between Communism and Buddhism in Vietnam, but simply a policy of going soft on everything non-Christian. It was only a matter of time before nominally Catholic President John F. Kennedy sensed the change and began to think about ousting Diệm. When Buddhist monks began burning themselves to death, Kennedy gave Diệm one last chance. Forget the Buddhists and go get the Communists, or else. Diệm responded by merely taking a yet harder line against the Buddhists and so signed his own death warrant. The order was given to the CIA to have Diệm removed, but guaranteeing his safe passage out of Vietnam.

The CIA-directed thugs eagerly agreed to remove Diệm, but took matters into their own hands as to what to do about him. On November 2, 1963, Diệm and his brother Nhu had spent part of the night in Saint Francis Xavier Catholic Church, a Chinese-Vietnamese church in Cholon City, and the remainder of the night in the home of a prominent parishioner, a Chinese businessman, and called for a limousine to take them out of the country. Instead, a military van showed up and they were bundled into the back. While en route to their destination the van stopped at a railroad crossing where the noise of a passing train concealed the sound of the shots by which they were assassinated. Ngô Đình Cẩn, another brother, was captured and had been promised a fair trial by the new government. What he got was only a kangaroo court which found him guilty and had him executed by firing squad on May 10, 1964, after his having spent an entire year in a small cage.

Where was Thục during all of this? In 1962, he had been called to Rome to participate in the Second Vatican Council. During the summer of 1963 between the first and second sessions of the council he saw his homeland for the last time. On June 5, a massive celebration was held in Huế in his honor. A few days later, the Buddhists wanted to hold a public celebration of their own, but were denied permission by the Diệm government. It was at this point that they began dousing themselves with gasoline.

In the fall of 1963, he returned to Rome for the second session, and there he was while his brothers were being killed, and there also he was detained against his will after the Council session was over. One might fairly argue that he had been detained in the interest of his own physical safety, but in 1968, pro-marxist Philippe Nguyễn Kim Điền was appointed to his post in Vietnam while he was made Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regis. His role in Vietnam had ended quite permanently in 1963 when he returned to Rome for the second session of the Council. This was very much in keeping with a tendency which Paul VI displayed on many occasions of attempting to replace faithful bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and even
patriarchs, such as Josyf Slipyi, Josef Mindszenty, or Stefan Wyszyński, with Communist sympathizers. This would typically be done in order to establish "diplomatic relations" with the Communist government, which was a very thin disguise for a total acquiescence to Communist rule and of no spiritual benefit or consolation to the Catholics trapped in that country.

At the Council, Thục took a number of rather strange positions. The extremism with which he expressed certain views, which could almost have seemed reasonable in the context of where the Council was headed but which were clearly out of step with the long-established teaching of the Church, might in part be traced to the Oriental tendency he had to sense the direction being taken and jump at once to the logical conclusion of that direction. He may also have felt that his brothers might still be alive if only the Church had been more soft on diversity and had not provided any excuse for his brothers to fight the Buddhists.

If he could be said to have come to the Council with a pet theory of his own, it would have to have been diversity in worship and belief. Early on in the Council, he had complained quite vehemently that the leaders of many other religions hadn't been invited and ought to have been. He only calmed down when he was informed that they had been invited but had not bothered to come. He also seemed to feel that the Mass should reflect the culture of those who are celebrating the Mass, whether by sitting on their heels, on the ground eating off a banana leaf, or even using chopsticks (how would one have used chopsticks in a Mass?). At another point he is even known to have argued in favor of allowing there to be priestesses. In his mind, anything should be approved, even the tridentine Mass! The strangest aspect of all of this is, what kind of Council it was such that one could argue for such things and be taken seriously? Could these pet theories he had harbored be the reason that John XXIII had made him an archbishop on November 24, 1960? It is possible that his advocacy of such ideas may have been intended only ironically, i. e. "as long as you are doing these crazy things, why not do these other crazy things as well?" Despite the craziness of these pet theories, he is known to have generally voted quite conservatively during the Council. The Council approved none of his pet theories and once it was over he never mentioned any of them again.

Finally, the Council ended, and being old, not allowed to return to his homeland, and obviously in mourning for his brothers, he had been given very few duties to perform and much time to think. What had particularly galled him was the way the new pope and much of the Roman Hierarchy, by changing their policies in favor of Ecumenismand Communism, had (he felt) practically incited the Americans and Vietnamese to betray and kill his brothers. He was also disgusted by the easy way the new Roman establishment seemed to get along with the new communist regime which benefitted from that betrayal. His exile also kept him away from the material assets he had built up from the timber concessions and rubber plantations in Vietnam, forcing him to live in despair as a pauper in a far off strange land, a shell-shocked and broken man.

Other than some doubtful reports of real estate fraud (namely, should he have accepted that forested land assigned to him by Diệm?) and a suspicion of nepotism (namely, what role might he have had, perhaps through Cardinal Spellman, in helping his brothers come to power?), there is no clear evidence that his behavior (apart from his own pet theories heard at the Council) as priest, bishop, archbishop, and council father had been anything other than exemplary. Vietnamese Catholics who had known him thought very highly of him. The spiritual crisis he went through did much to keep him out of sight while as Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regis he served as a substitute Assistant Pastor in various parishes near Rome. After some years, he then moved to France. While still in Rome, other events forced themselves upon him.

A new visionary, Clemente Domínguez y Gómez of Palmar de Troya, Spain was supposedly having visits and visions of Mary. In those visions he had been told to have himself made a bishop by a traditional bishop, so his representatives first went to Ecône where Lefebvre had his seminary. Lefebvre himself was too busy to look into their case so as to give it the attention it demanded and he certainly wasn't about to consecrate any bishops at that point, but he knew Abp. Thục and felt he could trust him to look into the matter and do the right thing, whatever that should turn out to be. For that reason he pointed his visitors to Thục.

These representatives of Clemente, led by a priest who had once taught at Ecône, a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revas, came to Thục's small apartment in the Italian village of Arpino. They told him that they had a car waiting outside ready to take him to Palmar de Troya where the Virgin Mary was expecting him to perform a great service for her. They also lead him to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre had recommended that he go and consecrate Clemente. (Lefebvre had only recommended that he look into it.)

In Palmar de Troya, in the last week of 1975, Thục ordained Clemente Domingues Gomez and four of his friends (Manuel Alonso, Louis Moulins, Francis Fox, and Paul Fox) to the priesthood, and on January 11, 1976, he consecrated Domínguez, Alonso, and three other individuals as bishops (it is not known whether or not these three other persons are Moulins and the Fox's), all without going through the normal channels for approvals, without even a Mass, and with very little if any priestly formation. It was this pivotal action which changed his destiny. Normally a great deal of care goes into the selection of a bishop, hence the role a pope would have in the selection process. Inconsecrating individuals he barely even knew, the die was cast. Before Rome even heard about this consecration, on July 10, 1976, he had already consecrated another man to be bishop, a certain P. E. M. Comte de Labat d'Arnoux by name, an Old Catholic.

Rome promptly excommunicated him and Domínguez, but by September 17, 1976, Thục had repented from consecrating the Palmar de Troya bishops and obtained absolution from Paul VI for his mistake. Apparently, the issue of what had become of the July 1976 bishop never came up. When, upon the death of Paul VI, Bp. Domínguez had himself declared Pope Gregory XVII in a mystic vision, Thục even more came to regret having consecrated him.

For several years, Thục was content to lie low living in poverty in Arpino, and then later with a Buddhist Vietnamese family in Toulon, France. While regretting his decision to consecrate Clemente Domínguez y Gómez and his cronies, he was clearly very angry with the Roman hierarchy for having not even tried to reestablish him in "his" See in Vietnam, nor obtain any reparation for what had been allowed to happen to his brothers. Over the next several years, eight others would approach him for Episcopal Orders, most notably Old Catholics who had doubts about their Orders they had received from other Old Catholics, or else who had some strange notion of combining the lineages of the various bishops by being successively consecrated by bishops of each lineage. For example, the next one of them, Jean Laborie, who had been consecrated as an Old Catholic bishop in 1966, and again in 1968 (in case the first wasn't valid), and at least several other times as well, approached Thục on February 8, 1977, and was conditionally consecrated by him (in case the previous consecrations were invalid). The next month, on March 19, 1977, Thục consecrated another Old Catholic Claude Nanta de Torrini, and the year after that on October 19, 1978, he consecrated Roger Kozik and Michel Fernandez who used their valid consecrations to start their own religion and defraud people of a lot of money.

Up until this point, the bishops he unofficially consecrated were all unmitigated disasters for the Church. Domínguez and his group have since gone on to consecratehundreds of bishops and even appoint many "cardinals" at the service of "Pope" Gregory XVII (of Spain). Some of these "cardinals" are (or were at the time of their selection as "cardinals") teenagers and totally untrained and unqualified. It was one of the bishops from this group that attempted an "ordination" of Sinéad O'Connor. The entire false Church of Palmar de Troya places private revelation above the defined truths of the Church and deviates quite widely from the universal and historical Magisterium of the Church. Roger Kozik and Michel Fernandez were actually prosecuted for fraud in the secular courts, on account of some of their religious claims and even served jail terms, and the others (the Old Catholics) had each set up some little church of their own which was of no real or lasting value or interest. One of the Old Catholics even indulged in devil-worship. And yet, with four more bishops to go, Thục wasn't through making mistakes, although the next (and last, but mildest) mistake would not come until September 24, 1982, when he consecrated his last bishop, Christian Marie Datessen, who had been ordained by the Old Catholics, but at least professed a solid traditional Catholic Faith.

It is only the next three bishops (the first three of the last four) he consecrated who would come to be of much interest to the future of the Church. The first and most important of these three bishops was the one time philosophy professor of Lateran University in Rome, the Dominican priest, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, of Ottaviani Intervention fame, and one time professor at Ecône. During his professorship at the faculty of Ecône, Fr. des Lauriers and several priest friends had spent a great deal of time attempting to come to an understanding as to what had become of the Church and eventually their research centered on the great question of whether or not Paul VI was really even a pope at all.

After all, a pope is supposed to be a source and center of Catholic orthodoxy, and clearly Paul VI had failed in that capacity, and it would soon begin to look as if John Paul II was not about to do much better. Maybe somehow (thought Fr. des Lauriers), they are not really popes. Eventually, he adopted the position called sedevacantism. This term comes from the Latin "sede," seat and "vacant," vacant. The Chair of Peter is vacant, according to this understanding of events. There is nothing unusual about the Chair of Peter being vacant. That occurs upon the death of each pope and lasts until the election of another pope. What set apart the "sedevacantist" position of Fr. des Lauriers was the claim that the elections of certain modern popes (Paul VI and the John Paul's, at least, with some suspicion hovering over John XXIII as well) were either invalid, or else if their elections were valid, then they must have somehow lost their papal office, most likely through heresy.

This was clearly not an attempt to break with "the pope" as much as it was an attempt to continue holding the office of the papacy in the esteem that so great an office is worthy of. Since the teaching and actions of the new Vatican leadership were so seriously out of step with the teaching and practice of the reliable popes, one way to preserve the integrity of the Church is to conclude that the newer "popes" are not popes at all! After the 1976-77 academic year, Lefebvre dismissed Fr. des Lauriers from the faculty of his seminary at Ecône. Whatever validity the theory may have had as an explanation for the crisis in the Church, Lefebvre felt it was too scandalous and that having such a professor on his staff might impede any diplomatic gestures he was making toward the Vatican.

On their own with only their small congregations to support them, Fr. des Lauriers and a few of his closest priest friends began publishing a series of studies which presented the case for the position he had taken on the pope issue, a position known as the Cassiciacum Thesis. As he grew more concerned for the future of the Church he came to believe that he was led to become a bishop with the help of Abp. Thục who had already acquired quite a reputation for his willingness to consecrate bishops. Finally he went to Toulon to visit Thục there and on May 7, 1981, Thục consecrated him to be a bishop. His priest friends abandoned him; his congregation shrank. He had to endure a considerable amount of abuse and public infamy for this heroic act, but in the end it has increasingly become clear that this action was the beginning of the continuation of the Church.

The next two Catholic bishops made so by Abp. Thục had quite another story: In Mexico, two priests, Adolfo Zamora Hernandez of Mexico City and Moises Carmona y Rivera of Acapulco had, on their own, embraced the position of sedevacantism and also came to believe that they should be made bishops in order to help rebuild the Church. Fr. Carmona had been named Irremovable Pastor of the Divine Providence parish in Acapulco by Bp. Raphael Bello Ruiz (the regular diocesan bishop), but on May 5, 1977, Bp. Ruiz attempted to excommunicate Carmona for keeping the faith. Since Mexican Law is somewhat like French Law in this regard, Bp. Ruiz found it just as impossible to remove Fr. Carmona as the apostate French hierarchy had found it to remove the Catholics from St. Nicholas du Chardonnet. Once Frs. Carmona and Zamora learned of Fr. des Lauriers' consecration in France, they decided to receive the episcopal orders from Ngô Đình Thục. So they went to France and on October 17, 1981, Thục consecrated them to be bishops.

These three new unofficial bishops have far more importance than all of the other bishops consecrated by Thục put together. Thục himself has been known to claim that he had no real intention to consecrate the Palmar de Troya and Old Catholic bishops, thus providing room for doubt about the validity of their Orders. He has also expressed sorrow for having done all the unofficial consecrations he had performed. However, Thục has never wavered from his stand that these last three men were truly and validlyconsecrated as bishops, even when he was exhorting the three Catholic bishops he had made and the others following from them to please return to John Paul II.

One important question in all of these "illicit" and (for the most part) ill-advised consecrations (he also ordained a number of questionable priests) is simply, Why? What did he think he was doing? Did he feel that this would be a good way to get even with God, or the Roman hierarchy, for having betrayed him and his brothers, by injuring His Church and creating many opportunities for sacrilegious sacraments? Or do these actions admit to any other explanation? These questions also have some bearing on the question of whether or not the three Catholic bishops he did make were validly consecrated.

One prominent opponent of the bishops consecrated by Thục takes the position that Abp. Thục had to have been either insane or very evil to have done the eleven truly scandalous episcopal consecrations he had done. If he was insane during those years of his life when he consecrated those bishops that would cast doubt over the validly of their consecrations. If he was doing this out of sheer wicked malice against the sacraments it would sully them (despite their validity), perhaps irretrievably, with scandal. Either way (according to that opponent) one ought not have anything to do with any of the Thục bishops.

This writer prefers to take a more balanced view of Abp. Thục and the bishops he consecrated, especially the three Catholic bishops, des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora. Given the overall perspective of the man and also the shock and tragedy through which he had lived, it is easy to see that his attitude or outlook had to have been one of "What's the use? What does anything matter anymore? Want my fortune? Take it! Want my life? Take it! What does it matter?" A valid theory would be that in such a frame of mind, his gullibility might have been to the point that it would not have taken much in the way of persuasion to get him to make someone a bishop. He may also have been the sort of person who, lacking guile himself, may have had difficulty sensing guile in those who approached him. Such is not a state of insanity, or else if it is, it is not one that in would in any way endanger the validity of the consecrations he performed. "So you want to be a bishop? Why don't I make you one?" At one point, he couldn't help asking, "Why does everyone wish to be a bishop?"

The point was that if someone wanted to be a bishop, they could go to Thục and become one, and fourteen men did. The only other objection raised against the validity of the Thục consecrations is the relatively private nature of the ceremonies which took place in his small, rather shabby bedroom chapel, while some number of cats meowed underfoot, and with only two laymen as witnesses to the three Catholic consecrations. Even worse, the two laymen were sufficiently unfamiliar with the ceremonies associated with an episcopal consecration that they didn't even know whether the book containing the ceremonies performed had been the Roman Missal (which it would not have been for an episcopal consecration) or the Roman Pontifical. Their testimony is only useful for verifying that some sort of ceremony had actually taken place on the days concerned, who the participants had been, and that the book (whatever it was) had been scrupulously followed.

Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that these three episcopal consecrations are valid and ought to be recognized as such by the Church. It is the case of Fr. des Lauriers which merits close scrutiny. Fr. des Lauriers, having been the main intellectual force behind the Ottaviani intervention, clearly knew that the validity of Church sacraments was being threatened by the new rites. Eager to preserve a valid succession of bishops for the future of the Church, he approached Abp. Thục, secure in the knowledge that Thục's consecration would be valid. Certainly Thục himself would be able to follow the correct book, and Fr. des Lauriers would have noticed if the wrong book had been used, or if anything else improper had been done.

While he did notice a few small omissions in the ceremony, as one who was sufficiently educated to have been a professor at Lateran University, he knew enough theology to know that those omissions in no way threatened the validity of the consecration he received. As Bishop de Castro Mayer has acknowledged, "If it's valid for Guérard (des Lauriers), it's valid for me." On another occasion, the Papal Nuncio to the United States, Pio Laghi, also acknowledged their validity. As for the case of the two Mexican priests there is no reason to believe that Abp. Thục had done anything different with them than with Fr. des Lauriers. The three Catholic priests can be quite safely regarded as validly consecrated Catholic bishops.

Now, three out of fourteen bishops does not sound like a very good record. Clearly, Abp. Thục was no judge of character. And unfortunately it gets somewhat worse. One wishes that one could truthfully say that the three Catholic bishops Thục made went on to do a great ministry, free from any further spot or scandal, but alas even that is not quite so. However, for the sake of putting all of this into perspective, let us compare his record to the record of those bishops chosen by the Vatican leadership over the same time span (1976-82) during which Thục consecrated his fourteen bishops (ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether the men chosen to be bishops by the Vatican establishment were validly made bishops or not).

Out of hundreds of "bishops" made by the Vatican establishment over that same period, NOT ONE has ever clearly and unambiguously taken a stand for the traditionalCatholic Faith. While some small percentage (ten to fifteen percent if one wants to be optimistic) allow or have allowed traditional Catholic worship on an "Indult" basis and a much smaller number have even shown great sympathy for the traditional Catholic faith, even these have allowed the heretical Novus Ordo religion to be the main thrust of their labors and efforts. Others have positively hijacked "their" dioceses on the claim that they are Corporations Sole, and have demonstrated absolutely no regard for their ostensible pope, John Paul II. If only the Vatican leadership could have chosen their bishops anywhere near so well as Abp. Thục did!

So what is it that added yet further trouble to that line of bishops who trace their orders to Thục besides the non-Catholic eleven? It is only this: The two Mexican priests, unlike Fr. des Lauriers, were relatively uneducated. They were just sincere, humble, simple country priests who saw a need to preserve a valid line of succession, but whose training and formation in no way prepared them for episcopal duties. Many of their earliest choices for men to consecrate as bishops were simple country priests very much like themselves, honest and sincere, but again lacking the necessary training. Bp. Carmona, for example had served for a time as a teacher of Latin, despite his flawed knowledge of that language. Bp. Zamora's knowledge of Latin was even worse, just barely enough to say Mass and administer the sacraments, so no one had ever made him a teacher of Latin.

The first man consecrated by Carmona (with Zamora assisting as a "co-consecrator") was a Texan by the name of George Musey who was also just a simple country priest, on April 1, 1982. Only a couple months later on June 18, 1982, Carmona (this time assisted by Zamora and Musey as co-consecrators) consecrated two more Mexican priests, Benigno Bravo y Valades and Jose de Jesus Roberto Martinez y Gutierrez. While these two Mexicans don't seem to be well known in any particular way (Bp. Bravo passed away in 1985, but Bp. Martinez still serves in Mexico), George Musey together with Carmona and Zamora consecrated Louis Vezelis on August 24, 1982. That co-consecration of Bp. Vezelis marks the last known episcopal consecration on the part of Bp. Zamora. Bp. Zamora became inactive soon thereafter and passed away on May 3, 1987.

The story of Bishops Musey and Vezelis bears some telling since it quite resembles some of the actions taken by some of the other such early Thục bishops from Carmona and Zamora. Unlike George Musey who was just a simple country priest, Louis Vezelis was a somewhat more educated and much more scheming Franciscan who became increasingly upset over the changes being made even to his order as it went over to the Novus Ordo religion, to the point that on April 19, 1978, he left that Franciscan community and became an independent Franciscan. He started his own Franciscan order on the claim that their bishop was the "Bishop of Rome," which was clearly and simply a fraudulent claim (even though it was accidentally true from the standpoint that all traditional Catholics are in union with the Pope, the "Bishop of Rome," even if not necessarily in union with John Paul II). In 1980 be began publishing a small newsletter called The Seraph which came out (and continues to come out) irregularly.

When he learned of the Thục consecrations, and especially the consecrations, and especially the consecration of George Musey, he rapidly abandoned his claim of being under John Paul II, adopted a theological opinion similar to George's, befriended him, and obtained an episcopal consecration from him. Once consecrated, Vezelis together with Musey set themselves up as being the only Catholic hierarchy in the United States, with Vezelis taking everything east of the Mississippi except Florida and Musey taking everything west plus Florida. Having little if any instruction in Canon Law and aware of the power and influence their valid episcopal consecrations brought them, they fondly imagined themselves to have full and regular jurisdiction over the United States, now carved up into only two "dioceses." Not only that, but Bp. Vezelis even set up an Old Catholicpriest as a regular parish priest in one of the churches in "his diocese," in Ohio.

While it was more correct than they knew to claim that as Catholic bishops of that part of the Church subsisting outside the Vatican institution they enjoy a measure of jurisdiction over the Catholic faithful, they made the mistake of claiming that their jurisdiction was fully that of regular diocesan bishops which would have implied their having the authority to rule out all other bishops from functioning in "their" territories (no word on how they would have handled a mere abbot of a religious order, at any rate no other American bishops chose to recognize their "authority") and that all American priests must submit to their authority, either to one or to the other, depending on where the priest was located.

Such a claim, clearly borne of extreme ignorance, was so scandalous that very few other traditional Catholic priests ever had anything to do with them. The other bishops in Mexico had done similar things at various points and in various groupings. However, now that all but one of them has passed away and the position taken by that one survivor, Bp. Martinez, has matured into a more realistic understanding of his true position, all of that foolishness has ceased and Bp. Martinez now serves as a truly respectable bishop. Alas, Bp. Musey carried this false position clear to his death in 1992, and Bp. Vezelis still sees himself as the ordinary bishop of the eastern portion of the United States.

If the actions of some of these early Catholic Thục bishops have to be regarded as "scandalous," it is only so in comparison to the actions of the later Thục bishops and the other traditional bishops who would come to trace their episcopal orders to such "illicit" consecrations. Even the worst of these early Catholic Thục bishops was infinitely preferable to practically the entire set of Novus Ordo bishops who were systematically destroying the faith of hundreds of millions of devout Catholics worldwide!

Other bishops tracing their line to the Mexicans include Ralph Siebert and Conrad Altenbach (both deceased), and Michel Main who serves in France, Mark Pivarunas who serves in Spokane, Washington and Omaha, Nebraska, Daniel Dolan who serves in Ohio, and Martin Davila who serves with the Trento priests in Mexico. There are also a number of other bishops who trace their orders to Fr. des Lauriers, namely Gunther Storck and Joseph Vida Elmer (both deceased), and Robert McKenna who serves in Connecticut, Oliver Oravec who serves in Canada, and John Hesson who serves in New Jersey. Also of interest as bishops tracing their orders to Abp. Thục are Don Franco Munari who was one of the four Italian priests who left the SSPX in late 1985 and is now inactive, Richard Bedingfeld who served in Africa for a season and then decided to follow the false pope Gregory XVII in Canada, Peter Hillebrand who serves in Japan, Thomas Fouhy who serves in New Zealand, and José R. López-Gastón. Bp. des Lauriers passed away on February 25, 1988, due to ill health (he was very old), and Bp. Carmona passed away on November 1, 1991, as a result of an automobile accident.

Commonly heard in traditionalist circles is the expression "Thục-line bishop" which usually means a bishop who traces his episcopal Orders to the three Catholic priests he consecrated. For the time being, the above list pretty much comprises the lot. Since some of the earlier men consecrated by the three Catholic Thục-line bishops were of questionable character and shady morals, an additional shadow of ill-repute fell on the Thục-line bishops. Beyond that, there are some writers who still use the phrase "Thục-line bishop" to refer as well to the Old Catholic and Palmar de Troya bishops which now number in the hundreds, all of whom are thoroughly disreputable. Happily most of the more recent Thục-line bishops from des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora have been quite admirably able to defend their reputations and demonstrate their good character.

On February 25, 1982, Abp. Thục declared that "As a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church I declare the See of Rome being vacant and it is my duty, to do everything to assure the preservation of the Roman Catholic Church for the eternal salvation of souls." A bit later, on May 26, 1983, Thục, together with the Mexican bishops heconsecrated (ignoring the fact that it was John XXIII who made him Archbishop in 1960) enlarged on this point by making the following public statement:

The Roman Catholic Bishops, united with His Excellency Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục, declare:

That we support him in his valiant public declaration made regarding the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the invalidity and illicitness of the New Mass. We hold with him that the Apostolic See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII by virtue of the fact that those who were elected to succeed him did not possess the canonical qualifications necessary to be legitimate candidates for the Papacy.

... Based upon the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of His Holiness Pope Paul IV, we hold that Angelo Roncalli was never a legitimate Pope and that his acts are completely null and void.

We declare that the New "Mass" is invalid. ... We declare that the introduction of this New "Mass" also signals the promulgation of a new humanistic religion in which Almighty God is no longer worshipped as he desires to be worshipped. ... Those who have accepted this New 'Mass' have, in reality and without taking notice of it, apostatized from the true faith; they have separated themselves from the true Church and are in danger of losing their souls, because outside the Church founded by Jesus Christ no one can be saved. For this reason, we invite the faithful to return to their Faith from which they have strayed.

We reject the heretical Decree on Religious Freedom which places the divinely revealed religion on an equality with false religions. This decree is a clear and evident sign of the denial of our holy traditions by the apostate and schismatic hierarchy.

We declare that no one can oblige us to separate ourselves from the true Church, from that Church instituted by Christ Himself and which is destined to last until the consummation of the world just as He instituted it. ... We give thanks to God for the integrity of our Faith and we beseech His grace that we may be able to persevere in it. We pray for those who have lost this Faith by accepting the heretical changes that have given rise to a new Church and to a new religion.

Clearly, the man was doing at each point what he had been led to believe by those around him was what was necessary to help or continue the Church. There is no substantial reason to see in this anything but a very high degree of gullibility coupled with a genuine desire to help the Church. Gullibility is not insanity, and a desire to help or continue the Church by consecrating new bishops cannot be in any way construed as an attempt to injure the Church or profane the sacraments. The problem is simply that many of those who approached him to be consecrated by him were very wicked men who were taking advantage of his gullibility.

The ability of the six men, each of whom were either Old Catholics or crooks, to fool Abp. Thục was demonstrated in that, for a time, even some of the Catholic Thục bishops had been fooled into thinking of them as their compatriots. Even as late as April, 1992 Bp. McKenna listed all of the last nine bishops consecrated by Thục as "providential assurance indeed of the Apostolic Succession," the Palmar de Troya bishops, at least, being properly excluded. Only later did he and many others come to know that six of that last nine were not, and had never been, Catholics, or at best, had knowingly received their previous Holy Orders from schismatically tainted sources.

Shortly thereafter while living in New York with Bp. Vezelis, Thục was taken to Carthage, Missouri and held incommunicado by Vietnamese priests in union with Modernist Rome until his death on December 13, 1984. After his death, the following was published as his last public statement:

I, undersigned, Peter Martin Ngô Đình Thục, Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, and Archbishop Emeritus of Huế, wish to publicly retract all my previous errors concerning my illegitimately ordaining to the Episcopate, in 1981, several priests, namely Revs. M. L. Guérard des Lauriers, O. P., Moses Carmona, and Adolpho Zamora, as well as my denial of the Second Vatican Council, the new 'Ordo Missae', especially the dignity of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, as actually legitimate successor of St. Peter, published in Munich in 1982.

I wish to sincerely ask you all to forgive me, praying for me, and redressing all scandal caused by such regrettable actions and declaration of mine.

I would also like to exhort the above mentioned priests who had illegitimately been ordained to the Episcopate by me in 1981, and all others whom they have in turn ordained bishops and priests, as well as their followers, to retract their error, leaving their actually false status, and reconciling themselves with the Church and the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II.

There is some report that Abp. Thục sent a letter shortly before his death warning against such a letter as this and stating that this "statement" was a forgery and that he was in fact actually remaining faithful to the Catholic Church despite his being deprived of needed medication. If this report is true, then this certainly would be typical of the Novus Ordo to foist such a forgery on the public, and if not, then one would only see here once again the gullibility of Abp. Thục in his ready willingness to agree with those he is around. It is most interesting to note that he has not backed down regarding the validity of his consecrations since he knew what he had done. He was not insane, only easily persuaded. However, the Catholic Thục-line bishops cannot be so easily persuaded. They know why God has allowed them to be bishops, and that is to do their share in preserving a valid apostolic succession on into the future. Also, despite the admittedly shaky start some of them got (especially those consecrated through Carmona and Zamora), nearly all of the Catholic Thục-line bishops now function quite well as responsible and capable leaders of the Church.


Lineage of Mons. Dinh Thuc (1897-1984)

Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin (1897-1984)


He was born in Vietnam. Ordered Priest on October 20, 1925 in Vietnam. Consecrated bishop on May 5, 1938 in Hué, Vietnam by the Apostolic Delegate in Indochina Mons. Antonin Drapier OP , Titular Archbishop of Neocesarea in Pontus, assisted by Bishop Isidore Dumortier, MEP , Titular Bishop of Lipara, and by Msgr. Dominique Ngo Ngoc Can Holder, Titular Bishop of Zenobias. Mons. Dinh Thuc was Titular Bishop of Saesina between 1938-60, Archbishop of Hué, Viet Nam, between 1960-68, and Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, between 1968-1984.

  • Clemente Domínguez Gómez (1946-2005)​

He was born in Spain. Ordained priest with 4 more followers of the Church of Palmar de Troya. Later in December of the same year 1975, bishop was consecrated to these companions. When this gentleman decided to build his own church and say that the Virgin had appointed him Pope, Bishop Thuc regretted having consecrated him and never supported the sect of Palmar de Troya.


Was born in france. He entered the novitiate of the Dominicans of Amiens in 1927 and was ordained a priest on July 29, 1931. He was consecrated bishop on May 7, 1981 in Toulon , France. From 1933 to 1970 he was professor of philosophy at the famous Dominican University for clerics ¨Le Saulchoir¨ in Belgium. During the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) he was also a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. In 1969 he wrote the "Brief critical examination of the Novus Ordo" that will be signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. In 1978 he published the "Cassiciacum Thesis" . On February 27, 1988 he dies in Cosne-sur-Loire, and is buried in the cemetery of Raveau.


Born in Mexico, he was ordained a priest in November 1939 by Bishop Leopoldo Díaz Escudero . He was consecrated bishop on October 17, 1981, in Toulon, France by Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. He resides and served as a Bishop in Acapulco, Mexico, for the Trento Catholic Union.

  • Adolfo Zamora Hernández (1910-1987) .
Natural of Mexico. Ordained Priest for the Order of Mercy on December 23, 1939 by Bishop Pedro Vera y Zuris . Consecrated bishop on October 17, 1981, in Toulon, France by Bishop Thuc. Until his death, he was bishop in Acapulco, Mexico, for the Trento Catholic Union .


Consecrated bishop on September 25, 1982 in Castelsarrasin, France, by Bishop Thuc. He had already been consecrated bishop on September 10, 1981 by André Maurice Alexandre Enos a bishop of the Vetero-Catholic Church [ Of the lineage of Vilatte and Mathew ]. He had also been the bishop-abbot of the Union of Small Catholic Churches , as well as the leader of the Priory of Saint Joseph of the Fraternity of Our Lady of Bethlehem. He lived in Castelsarrasin, France .

We recommend to see the graphic that Agere Contra published on the episcopal lineage of Bishop Thuc. ATTENTION: it is not exhaustive, that is, some bishops are missing in this diagram, for example, all those consecrated by Bishop López-Gastón.

See our post warning about the imposture of the supposed Bishop Charles Roux .





Last edited:


Mons. Datessen (1934-)


He spent 1 year in the Ecône seminary, with the FSSPX. Then he was the superior of the "Fraternite Notre-Dame de Bethlehem". He was ordained abbot on September 8, 1975. From the hands of Mons . André Maurice Alexandre Enos (1913-RIP), a bishop of the Vetero-Catholic Church [ Of the lineage of Vilatte and Mathew ], received the episcopal consecration on September 10, 1981. He had also been the bishop-abbot of the Union of small Catholic Churches , as well as the leader of the Priory of Saint Joseph of the Fraternity of Our Lady of Bethlehem. Those who knew him spoke of the solid traditional Catholic Faith that he professed , and this was the reason why Bishop Thuc agreed to consecrate himsub conditione on September 25, 1982 in Castelsarrasin, France. There he resided.

I. Pierre Sallé (19xx-199x)


Consecrated bishop on June 27, 1983 in France by Bishop Christian Marie Datessen. Then he was consecrated sub conditione as bishop Mons. Maurice Lemage a Roman Catholic Jesuit ex-priest and professor at the Sorbonne University, who had left the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s and later became bishop of the Église Syro-Antiochenne in Europe, using the name of "Patriarch Mar Boris I Timotchenko".

1.1 Peter Hillebrand


Consecrated bishop on July 27, 1984.

1.2 Philippe Miguet


Consecrated bishop on April 5, 1986.

1.3 Guy Jean Tau Johannes de Mamistra Olivares (19xx-)


Consecrated bishop sub conditione on March 28, 1987 in France by Bishop Pierre Salle. He had already been consecrated bishop previously on June 23, 1984 by Bishop Roger Caro (1911-1992) , a bishop of the Universal Church of the New Covenant [ of the lineage of Mons.Duarte-Costa, see this photo ], assisted by Bishops Edmond Gras and Jacques Trielli , both of the same church. He resided in the canton of Le Luc, District of Draguignan France.

1.3.1 Patrick Pedro Broucke of Tralles (19xx-)


Consecrated bishop on November 1, 1988 by Mons. Mamistra Olivares. He later was consecrated sub conditione as bishop for bishop of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Mons. Brouckees the Archbishop of Luzky Rownoy is the exarch (dignity of the Greek Church immediately inferior to that of Patriarch) for Germany and Austria. He serves as an autonomous Metropolitan for Germany and for the German-speaking Orthodox Ukrainians of the dioceses of Western Ukraine. He lived in Bonn, Germany.

1.3.2 Francis Moreau (19xx-)


Consecrated bishop on August 15, 1990.

1.3.3 José Ramón López-Gastón (1928-2009).


He was born on November 14, 1928 in Havana, Cuba. Ordained priest by Msgr. Carmona, after a promise to guard celibacy and renounce his matrimonial rights. Consecrated bishop on June 29, 1992 in Miami, Florida, by Bishop Mamistra Olivares . He passed away on May 5, 2009 in New Mexico, United States. In the photo, they are from left to right: Bishop Urbina Aznar, Bishop Malachi Martin (Jesuit), Father Rama Coomaraswamy and Bishop Lopez - Gastón. Hector de la Cruz Ripoll Puga (... -2013)


Born in Mexico, he was consecrated bishop on August 15, 1992 by Bishop López-Gastón. He lived in Mérida, Yucatán, México. Jules Edouardo Aonzo (19xx-)


Ordained priest in the 1980s by Bishop Lefebvre. Consecrated bishop on December 27, 1992 by Bishop López-Gastón. In 1997 he suspended his duties as priest and bishop due to his doubts about the validity of his priestly ordination, since he maintains that Cardinal Liénart (who was a Mason) did not validly consecrate bishops for the Catholic Church, and therefore Bishop Lefebvre, consecrated for him, he was not a valid bishop, resulting in the fact that Aonzo himself was not supposedly validly ordained as a priest, nor had he received the episcopate. He currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Guido Alarcón ( 1936 - ...)


He was born on November 19, 1936 in Bolivia. Consecrated bishop on August 1, 1993 by Bishop Lopez-Gastón. Resides in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. Gary Alarcón (1940 - ...)


He was born on January 9, 1940 in Bolivia. Consecrated bishop on August 1, 1993 by Bishop Lopez-Gastón. Resides in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. José Franklin Urbina Aznar (1940 - ...)


Natural of Mexico. Consecrated bishop on June 26, 1994 by Bishop López-Gastón. Resides in Mérida, Yucatán, México.


In the photo, from left to right: Bishop Thomas Fuhy, from New Zealand; Mons. Emanuel Korab, of the Czech Republic; Mons. José Ramon Lopez Gaston, Cuba-USA; Bishop José F. Urbina Aznar, Mexico.

  • Merrill WB Adamson (19xx-)

Ordained priest in 1990 in San Francisco, California, by Thaddeus Alioto . Consecrated bishop on September 4, 1999 in Sonoma, California, by Bishop José Urbina.

  • Juan José Squetino Schattenhofer (19xx-)

Born in Argentina, he was consecrated bishop on February 11, 1999 by Bishop José Urbina. He is the superior of the San Vicente Ferrer Foundation. He currently resides in Guadalajara, Mexico.

  • Luis Armando Argueta Rosal (19xx-)

Born in Guatemala, he was consecrated bishop in 2007 by Bishop José Urbina. Currently collaborates with the Fraternity San Luis Rey de Francia. Lives in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

  • Emmanuel Korab (1961 - ...)

Natural of Czech Republic. Consecrated bishop on June 26, 1994 by Bishop López-Gastón. Formerly he had been a priest of the Czech Catholic Veto Church, where he was also consecrated bishop. Following his conversion to Roman Catholicism, he received the Catholic priesthood and episcopate in June 1994 in Assisi, Italy by Bishop José Ramon López-Gastón. He currently lives in the Czech Republic .

II. André Maurice Alexandre Enos (1913-19xx).


Ordained priest on June 29, 1939 by Mons.Gaudron, a Roman Catholic bishop. He left the Roman Catholic Church in 1950. He was consecrated bishop sub conditione on October 14, 1988 in France by Christian Marie Datessen. He had been consecrated bishop on November 4, 1962 by Julien Erni, a bishop of the Ecumenical Ecclesiastical Headquarters of Genoa [ of the Vilatte lineage ], assisted by Marcel Laemmer, also bishop of the Ecumenical League for Christian Unity [ of the lineage of Vilatte ] and by Charles Ignatius Carolus Brearley, a bishop of the Roman Catholic Vetero Church [Lineage of Mathew and also lineage of Bishop Sánchez and Camacho].For many years he was bishop of the Roman Catholic Vetero Church. He lived in Mont St. Amand, Belgium and in Paris, France.

2.1 Alain André Georges Marie Fraysse (19xx-)


Ordained priest on June 15, 1988 by Léon Gauthier, a bishop of the Swiss Catholic Church. Consecrated bishop on March 4, 1989 in France by André Maurice Alexandre Enos.

2.2 Lucien-Cyriel Strumeersch .


Consecrated bishop on May 14, 1991

2.3 Christian Le Noir (19xx-)


Consecrated bishop on October 28, 1991 in France by André Maurice Alexandre Enos. He lived in Sirault, Belgium.

2.4 Jean-Didier Forget (19xx-)


Consecrated bishop for the Order of the Paraclete on July 4, 1993 in France by André Maurice Alexandre Enos.

2.4.1 Frédéric Luz (Albinus / Rodríguez) (1964-)


Ordained priest and consecrated bishop for the Order of the Paraclete on May 15, 1994 in Gaillac, France by Jean-Didier Forget. In 1997 he announced that he would no longer exercise episcopal ministry . On September 21, 1997 in Saint Ouen, France, he was ordained priest sub conditione (taking the name of Irenaeus) by Michel, Archbishop of Lyony Paris for the Patriarchate of Kiev and all of Ukrainian Russia. Residing in Gaillac, France.




For those who have been in Traditional Catholicism, I have some questions:
a) If a Priest from Novus Ordo were to be conditionally ordained by successors of Archbishop Thuc, would it be advisable to go to their masses or not?
b) If a Seminarian were to go to a seminary run by successors of Arcbishop Thuc, would their training be sound? or would it have deficiencies?
c) If a Priest from SSPX or the Resistance concelebrates the mass with successors of Archbishop Thuc, would it be advisable to go to that mass?


Well-Known Member
For those who have been in Traditional Catholicism, I have some questions:
a) If a Priest from Novus Ordo were to be conditionally ordained by successors of Archbishop Thuc, would it be advisable to go to their masses or not?
b) If a Seminarian were to go to a seminary run by successors of Arcbishop Thuc, would their training be sound? or would it have deficiencies?
c) If a Priest from SSPX or the Resistance concelebrates the mass with successors of Archbishop Thuc, would it be advisable to go to that mass?

I may not be the best person to answer you, David, but I will try.

For me, the answer to all your questions is simple: maybe.

For you, that answer is difficult because not everyone from the thuc line is o.k. I would recommend researching a specific line from a specific priest or seminary and ask the opinion of a priest you trust or a knowledgeable traditional Catholic .


Well-Known Member
For those who have been in Traditional Catholicism, I have some questions:
a) If a Priest from Novus Ordo were to be conditionally ordained by successors of Archbishop Thuc, would it be advisable to go to their masses or not?
b) If a Seminarian were to go to a seminary run by successors of Arcbishop Thuc, would their training be sound? or would it have deficiencies?
c) If a Priest from SSPX or the Resistance concelebrates the mass with successors of Archbishop Thuc, would it be advisable to go to that mass?
Item c) When you say concelebration you must mean a Solemn High Mass celebrated with a Priest, Deacon and Subdeacon?
I personally don't think that there is any problem with any of Thuc's ordinations/consecrations. Take a look at this from Tradition in Action. This has been published on other forums:

Bishops Against VC2 in 1965

Dear Friends,

A couple of times in the past I've phoned you with a question that you have answered promptly, both times while I was on the line. So, not to take too much advantage, I thought I would ask a question that has several times in the past (converting to Catholicism 25 years ago) nagged at me and I don't seem to be able to find any statistics on.

During the English Revolution, I believe that out of about 27 Catholic bishops, 26 signed their names to a document attesting to their new-found support of Henry VIII being the head of the Church in England. One who did not was St. John Fisher and so he died as a result for the Catholic Faith and his oath of allegiance to the pope. So if my information is correct, one in 27 refused the Oath of Supremacy.

So, then, I ask myself, I wonder how many bishops throughout the world refused to endorse or sign Vatican II?

Thanks for any information you might provide.


TIA responds:

Dear D.B.,

As far as we know, the only Prelate who left the Council because he was against its progressivist decisions and who did not sign the 16 documents was Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Hue, Vietnam.

Several American Bishops left the Council because they could not follow the discussions, which were conducted in Latin. They returned to their dioceses and, for this reason, they failed to sign the final documents when they were approved. However, after the end of the Council, the Vatican established a commission to visit those Bishops and ask for their signatures. We are not aware that any of those Bishops denied his signature based on doctrinal reasons.


TIA correspondence desk



Item c) When you say concelebration you must mean a Solemn High Mass celebrated with a Priest, Deacon and Subdeacon?
I personally don't think that there is any problem with any of Thuc's ordinations/consecrations. Take a look at this from Tradition in Action. This has been published on other forums:

Bishops Against VC2 in 1965

Dear Friends,

A couple of times in the past I've phoned you with a question that you have answered promptly, both times while I was on the line. So, not to take too much advantage, I thought I would ask a question that has several times in the past (converting to Catholicism 25 years ago) nagged at me and I don't seem to be able to find any statistics on.

During the English Revolution, I believe that out of about 27 Catholic bishops, 26 signed their names to a document attesting to their new-found support of Henry VIII being the head of the Church in England. One who did not was St. John Fisher and so he died as a result for the Catholic Faith and his oath of allegiance to the pope. So if my information is correct, one in 27 refused the Oath of Supremacy.

So, then, I ask myself, I wonder how many bishops throughout the world refused to endorse or sign Vatican II?

Thanks for any information you might provide.


TIA responds:

Dear D.B.,

As far as we know, the only Prelate who left the Council because he was against its progressivist decisions and who did not sign the 16 documents was Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Hue, Vietnam.

Several American Bishops left the Council because they could not follow the discussions, which were conducted in Latin. They returned to their dioceses and, for this reason, they failed to sign the final documents when they were approved. However, after the end of the Council, the Vatican established a commission to visit those Bishops and ask for their signatures. We are not aware that any of those Bishops denied his signature based on doctrinal reasons.


TIA correspondence desk


Thank you Anand for that website link. When I said concelebration, I meant celebration of a mass with a Priest, Deacon, Subdeacon or even a Bishop. I do wonder if concelebrating with those who do not profess the same faith will be a problem? For example, Archbishop Thuc consecrated Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers who was sedeprivationist as well as Clemente Domínguez y Gómez who was Pope Gregory XVII from the Palmarian Catholic Church.




The second person to be honored and enshrined into this year's Tower of Trent Hall of Honor is the greatly misunderstood Apostolic successor Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc. After extensive research, this editor is fully confident that the readers' votes are justified and a public tribute is long overdue to this faithful warrior for the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. The above quote by Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM, as he wrote in The Seraph. is our mission here to honor a man badly maligned and to assert the facts and truth as we have discovered after well over a month of thorough research into the life and labors of this beleaguered Successor of the Apostles who had a special mandate from two pre-Vatican II Pontiffs and many believe, though he took it with him to his grave, that he had been made a Cardinal of the Church in pectore by His Holiness Pope Pius XII. This logically points to why he was ostracized by the conciliarists and finally had to be silenced through betrayal by his own people just as his father and brothers had been. This then is this writer's attempt to provide the tragic, but triumphant story of Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc.

Soldier of Christ

We say he was a "warrior" for, despite his pacifist nature, he was, at all times first and foremost, a soldier of and for Jesus Christ. In fact, those are the very words on his Coat of Arms - Miles Christi which in Vietnamese is Chin si Chúa Kitô. In life he truly represented the Church Militant in remaining ever true to the one, true Church our Lord founded upon the Rock of Peter (cf. St. Matthew 16: 18-19). We have titled his tribute "Soldier of Christ, Prisoner of War, Advocate of Truth" for he was indeed a prisoner of war in many ways, but always the upholder of the infrangible truths.

One must understand his roots and Oriental mindset to better comprehend his determination and the causes and effects of his life, while remembering that always - ALWAYS - he remained faithful to the Catholic Faith he was raised in from birth. The family's roots in Annam were in Dai-phong where his father had migrated from Tonkin.

Pierre Martin was born on the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory on October 6, 1897 in the Village of Phu-Cam in the city of Hué - the "mystic capital of Annam" in central Vietnam not far from the coast of the South China Sea. He was the son of Ngo-Dinh-Kha, who as the Archbishop wrote in his autobiography published by The Seraph in 1983 and which Bishop Giles, OFM has graciously given us permission to employ for this tribute, "No Vietnamese will forget the names of Ngo-Dinh-Kha, my father who suffered a thousand deaths for not having voted with other dignitaries of the court to depose the emperor Than-Thai which was illegally imposed by the representative of France at Annam (Central Vietnam), and of my oldest brother Ngo-Dinh-Khoi, who was buried alive together with his only son for having refused to serve as a minister in the first Communist ministry. He refused because he considered it incompatible with being a Catholic."

If only Catholics today had the courage and conviction of Pierre Martin's father, the Church would not be in the crisis it is. Because western civilization has caved, we do find ourselves compromised. There is much to say about the discipline, loyalty to family and Catholic upbringing of the faithful Orientals as His Excellency's own memoirs attest: "It was impossible to be a Catholic and a Communist functionary." If only the modern church had realized that before John XXIII ordered the total concession to Communism with the disastrous Pact of Metz in August of 1962. But we are getting ahead of ourselves for at the time of young Pierre's upbringing there were holy Popes sitting on the Chair of Peter. He was born in the last years of the pontificate of the valiant opponent of the Red Menace - Pope Leo XIII and came of age during the papacy of the holy Pope Saint Pius X.

Vietnam for over a millennium had been a vassaldom, if you will, of China, and that addresses the Mandarin way of life. Yet, to this day the Vietnamese and Chinese remain enemies. Archbishop Thuc put it succinctly, that the Vietnamese may have been "conquered, but never ceased to resist." For 200 years the Vietnamese were deprived of the Sacraments and yet kept the Faith alive because of the dedication of the families who passed down the Faith to their children and so on. It also helped that the ancient mandarins of each village passed down the necessary education so that when the French colonized Indochina during the Nguyen Dynasty - as the Royal Court in this photo illustrates the customs at the turn of the century and the young emperor below. You'll note the Nguyen Dynasty Dragon and if you'll note in the Archbishop's Coat of Arms he has three dragons, no doubt a tie to the Nguyen Dynasty in Annam.


There were those already knowledgeable in the Faith. One such was Thuc's father who, while owing his allegiance to the young king of his province Thanh-Thai, enthusiastically was one of the pioneers in spreading the education of the French tongue throughout Central Vietnam, which, at that time was called "Annam." It was Ngo-dinh-Kha who founded the national college of his country: Quoc-Hoc. Because of his position, his sons rose in the ranks of mandarin with few problems as His Excellency recorded in his autobiography titled after the first verse of Psalm 88: Misericordias Domini in Aeternum Cantabo translated to "The mercies of the Lord I will sing forever" and published exclusively in The Seraph late in 1982 and throughout 1983. The Archbishop, in the same, wrote:

  • I am a Vietnamese. This explains my character. Just as being French aids in understanding the spirituality of the Little Flower, St. Theresa; just as being Castillian explains the character of the great Teresa of Avila.
That should definitely describe and be the rationale for what the western mindset might term as inferior. In truth, we are the ones inferior for this man so maligned by so many who are ignorant of the truth, have wrongly accused him. It is akin to us living in the times after Christ's Ascension and questioning the authority of the Apostle Paul. How dare a Jew preach to Gentiles. How dare a humble and learned Oriental preach to the proud Occidental. This was most evident first in the attitude of the French toward the Vietnamese for they were not French citizens but vassals to the French.

The Vietnamese have long memories and they naturally resented this considering they had been treated by the Chinese in the same manner. Thus the French had to work at being trusted. This most of the missionary priests did and great fruits were realized, but there also were those whose supposed superiority over these peasants of the rice paddies backfired. In retrospect, it is a clear answer to why France first failed, and then America failed in making Vietnam into a western-type country culturally. They already had their culture and this, even Rome didn't always recognize as His Excellency elaborated on several times in his autobiography. One reason the villagers were able to keep the Faith alive even without a priest or the sacraments over the centuries was because no one could overrule the village. This is important in not only understanding the mindset of the Vietnamese, but in realizing the futility of the French and more catastrophically the Americans in trying to subdue Vietnam and force it to become a democracy. Archbishop Thuc explains in his autobiography:

  • A Vietnamese village is like a little republic and deals with the State like two States. If the State imposed a tax for war of money and men, the elders of the village determined the amount each villager would have to pay and also decided who would be sent to the royal army. There was a Vietnamese proverb which said: "The decrees of the king bow to the customs of the village.'" The mayor, (Ly-truong) was not the head of the village but the representative of the village council before the superior authorities. However, it was on his head that the blows of the rattan-cane fell when the Authorities were not content with the village.
    The Counselors of the village were, first of all the children of the village having the title of mandarin (ancient mandarins). Then, those who were learned and who had taken the triennial examinations for titles of Bachelor licentiate and Doctor. Finally, the citizens who were wealthy completed the membership of the council. It was in this council where intelligence was more important than wealth that allocations of rice fields were made to each citizen in equal parts. The rice fields were common property. These allocations were made every three years based on equal size but not on equal fertility.
    The citizens only had as private property the lands which they themselves had cleared, while the common fields had been cleared at the time of the founding of the village by enterprising man who, after having reclaimed a "no man's land", recruited volunteers to help him found a new village. This is a social fact which shows the spirit of independence of the Vietnamese toward the higher authorities, while maintaining a friendly relationship as between two States.
    Evidently, all this has been swept away by the leveling of modern egalitarianism. Is it for the better or the worse? At least, the ancient system was not inferior to the modern because we had two kinds of property: communal and private. We had the triennial repartitioning without the invasion of a totalitarian State. The independence of the citizen found a place where it could breathe without completely renouncing the advantages of a centralized State. This thirst for independence flows in the veins of the Vietnamese and explains millennial struggle against the Chinese, then against the French, all the while gaining from what was best in the Chinese and French civilization.
Here we get a glimpse of why South Vietnamese villagers did not betray the Vietcong for blood runs thicker than water and the VC were first of all Vietnamese, secondly Communists. In contrast, the Americans, who claimed to be liberators, were destroying the lifework of the villagers with their napalm. In looking back at that terrible war that divided the U.S. so bitterly, it was the politicking of Freemasons who would not allow the generals to conduct the war, just as is going on today in Iraq and elsewhere. The Freemasons of the State and Church call the shots and demand patriotism to Belial. My country, right or wrong is the mantra and it goes against God's Laws. As the Archbishop wrote: "It was impossible to be a Catholic and a Communist functionary," so also it is impossible to be a Catholic and an Americanist (Masonic) functionary." This is borne out in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical condemning Americanism.


But back to Archbishop Thuc. His family above from left to right, as best we can decipher, are the Archbishop's brothers Ngo-dinh-Nhu, Security Advisor; Ngo-dinh-Diem, first President of South Vietnam; Bishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc; his sister Ngo-dinh-Giao; Nhu's wife from 1943. formerly Tran Le Xuan who was originally from Hanoi and who converted from Buddhism to Catholicism and, because Diem was single, was considered the First Lady of South Vietnam as Madame Ngo-dinh-Nhu; older brother Ngo-dinh-Khoi, governor in the French administration of Vietnam for Indochina who after this picture was taken would be martyred by the Communists at the order of Ho Chi Minh for refusing to serve as a minister with the Viet Minh; younger brother Ngo-dinh-Can who would be duped into believing the Americans were giving him safe passage out of the country after the coup and he was killed by firing squad with Rosary in hand; Ngo-dinh-Luyen the youngest brother and Ambassador to Great Britain who took refuge in France along with the widow Madame Nhu and her family after the assassinations of Diem, Nhu and then Can. In the center is the Archbishop's mother whom, after celebrating Holy Mass, he took daily Communion to in her home in Phu-Cam every day at 7 a.m. before being back to his office by 9 a.m. He did this until her death at the age of 90. To the left of the matriarch are the two young Nhu boys and the two Nhu girls with the oldest (tallest) being Ngo-dinh-Nhu-Le Thuy who would be killed in a car accident in Paris in the late 60's. Yes, the young woman of a royal family dying in a car crash on the streets of Paris happened well before the tragedy of Diana. The family picture was most probably taken sometime between 1955 to 1960 and all are in the traditional garb. In his memoirs, the Archbishop wrote: "The circle of environment is the family. My family is Vietnamese as to race, and as to religion: Catholic after the manner of the Vietnamese which consists in fending for oneself without waiting for questionable aid from others. This is how the Church in Vietnam survived when the persecution of the kings deprived Her of foreign priests. A few, hiding in the forests, supported the Christians who considered themselves then very privileged to be able to receive the Sacraments once or twice in their entire lives."

Does this not put every Catholic, especially Traditional Catholic to shame for we have taken our faith for granted too many times and only now in these times are most deprived of regular attendance at the Immemorial Canonized Mass of All Ages - the Traditional Latin Mass. The rest have sold out, whether knowingly or not, to the Masonic-Modernist-Pagan and Protestant manmade rite concocted by the 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini and credited to Giovanni Montini as mandating an illegal rite. Only a few bishops resisted and all wavered at one time or another for the powerful influence of the conciliarists knows no bounds in lies and cover-up. This is something that followed Archbishop Thuc throughout his life and, as Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM wrote in his tribute in 1984 in The Seraph: "Once a lie has done its work, truth must labor hard and long to dislodge it. Lies fly as if on wings; and truth comes slowly limping far behind. Such is the sad fate of mankind."It was these calumnies that Archbishop lived with as his cross for the last 21 years of his life.

While his brothers rose in the ranks of government officials within the village in service to the king, Pierre Martin heard a different calling and entered minor seminary at only twelve years-old.He wrote in his autobiography: "I accepted my priestly vocation without reservation as my battle station in this world. It mattered not where my post would be; it mattered not how I would die." Spoken like a true soldier of Christ.

After eight years of prep and college studies, he graduated to the major seminary in Hué in 1917, the same year Our Lady appeared at Fatima and the year Eugenio Pacelli was made a bishop in the Sistine Chapel on May 13th by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV. On December 20, 1925 at the age of 28, the Apostolic Vicar of Hué Bishop Eugène-Marie-Joseph Allys ordained young Pierre Martin to the priesthood. After his ordination he was assigned to the Sorbonne in Paris where his knowledge of French aided him greatly as well as ministering to the Vietnamese repatriated in the City of Lights. He was named a professor there. After a year's tenure he matriculated to the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome where he obtained doctorates in Theology, Philosophy and Canon Law. As we can see, he was no dummy, but rather a very learned man, but also most practical. At the age of 30 he returned triumphantly to Hue where he was assigned as a professor at both the College of the Vietnamese Brothers and the Major Seminary in Hue. In addition he became dean of the College of Providence.


On January 8, 1938 His Holiness Pope Pius XIcreated the Vicariate Apostolic of Vinh Long in the southwestern tip of Vietnam. He personally chose Pierre Martin to become the new bishop there and sent as his emissary Archbishop Antonio Fernand Drapier, Apostolic Delegate to Indochina, to consecrate Bishop Thuc. His family was in attendance for this glorious event. In the rare photo to the right he is seen as a young bishop.
A few months later the new Bishop returned to Rome where he had a private audience with His Holiness and obtained from the 259th Successor of Peter, and again later from the 260th Successor some years later an apostolic mandate to consecrate bishops in times of dire necessity when communications would be nearly impossible or the flock in danger. He hints of this very thing in the December 1983 issue of The Seraph when, he wrote of his advising the Vietnamese bishops he had consecrated of what to do if ever the Communists took control,

"not to publish the names of newly ordained priests; request from the Holy See the faculty for each Bishop to name one or two successors without having to request authorization from the Holy See in case of breakdown of communication with the Vatican." This rationale would serve him in the time of The Great Apostasy when he realized there was a total breakdown of communication with the Vatican for the men who ran Rome during and after the Council had sold Christ out. Thus he continued his apostolic mandate after his exile, which we will delve into more later in this tribute.


In light of the above, it is important to remember here the collusion of the Communists and Masons with the Church beginning with Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini's own participation in both Freemasonry and Communist circles when both were nuncios. That very same humanism, condemned by previous reliable Popes from Pope Paul IV through Pope Pius XII, was exactly the agenda fostered by the conciliar popes John XXIII and Paul VI, not to mention the Communist's man in Poland - none other than Karol Wojtyla himself, an avowed hater of the Nazis but a sympathizer to the Soviets because of their influence in his native Poland which enabled him to rise in the ranks while the Cardinal Primate of Poland Cardinal Stefan Wyszinski was limited by the Red forces because of his staunch opposition to the devastating consequences of the hammer and sickle. That is why the Archbishop realized the time of Epikeia mandated that he continue the succession of true apostles after he discovered Paul VI had changed the rite of ordination and consecration of bishops, thus making those invalid as another honoree this year Father Anthony Cekada so brilliantly laid out and documented in his work "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" on the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration which, in fact, lays bare the truth that the current conciliar "pope" isn't even an authentic bishop.

In 1960 the French Archbishop Jean-Baptiste Urrutia, who had been the Archbishop of Hue since 1948, submitted his resignation. John XXIII, who had come up through the ranks of the Apostolic nuncios and was virtually clueless about the Orient, chose the most available - Bishop Pierre Martin. His Excellency tells of this in a visit to the Holy See as dean when he brought with him ten of his bishops and Roncalli bluntly asked, "What is this 'Vietnam'?" Truly clueless and the Archbishop wrote in The Seraph: "And John XXIII was the Vicar of Him Who declared 2000 years ago: 'I know My sheep and My sheep know Me.' There should be no surprise, then, that Paul VI had bad feelings toward my family, and especially towards myself going to the extent of even imposing my resignation as archbishop before the fixed age for the age for retirement of bishops. In my stead, he named one of his favorites imbued with the political philosophy of 'opening to the East.'" This was Archbishop Philippe Nguyen-Kim-Dien whom Archbishop Thuc had consecrated as Bishop of Can-Tho hours after Archbishop Drapier had consecrated Thuc, but didn't have the time or energy to consecrate the bishops and so left that up to Thuc. So much for dedication on Drapier's part. It was a known fact that Dien was a saboteur of all Thuc undertook as well as being a sympathizer to the Communists. Paul VI knew this very fact. In fact, the logs say Archbishop Thuc was Archbishop of Hué from 1960 to 1968 when he was forced to resign by Paul VI. The latter inserted Dien on September 30, 1964 as the Coadjutor Archbishop of Hué. Dien was Paul VI's spy for the Reds in accordance with the agonizing aggiornamento of the Pact of Metz, an abominable accord Montini himself was part of in August 1962 with the Modernist and Communist sympathizer Cardinal Tisserant signing over the patrimony of the Church and betraying the Fatima message from Heaven to the Soviets, represented by Nikodim, Metropolitan of the KGB-run Russian Orthodox. This betrayal of Holy Mother Church to the Kremlin was held in the house of the Bishop of Metz Bishop John Schmitt and resulted in millions being martyred for the Faith behind the Iron Curtain including Vietnam. For representation at the Second Vatican Council, Roncalli's blind openness was one-sided in the fact that the conciliar church gave away the store and the Communists gladly took the dupe for all they could. This very same collusion is what betrayed Archbishop Thuc in the most bitterest of ways.

His older brother Ngo-dinh-Khoi had already been martyred - buried alive because he refused to cooperate with the first Communist government of Vietnam. Such treatment was typical of the true Ostpolitik of the Communists. His other three brothers Ngo-dinh-Can, and Ngo-dinh-Nhu and Ngo-dinh-Diem were all devout Catholics. While Thuc was ascending in ecclesial ranks, Diem was ascending in government ranks. When the king was deposed, Diem was elected by the people as the President of South Vietnam - the Father of the Republic of Vietnam.

He, like his brother Thuc had begun in the seminary as well but he could not stomach fish and thus was told he had to leave the novitiate for the allergy would effect his ministry. Despite the propaganda from Masonic-Zionist news sources in the west, Diem was loved by the people and Vietnam flourished under the same system spoke of earlier in cooperating with the villagers. As His Excellency confirmed, when funds to build a seminary or a college were not readily available, thanks to niggardly greed by the Apostolic Vicar of Saigon Bishop Dumortier who, truth be told, did not play fair, giving Thuc only that which Dumortier did not want - the dregs that is. Despite these obstacles, the Holy See in the mid 50's asked nigh unto the impossible: build a university for his Vicariate. Thuc entrusted this mission to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother and through providence founded the University of Dalat on a high plateau where the weather was perpetually spring-like and there were abundant water sources, streams and flat property high above the humid forests. Pine trees could indeed be found here, something unique for this climate.

In time he had masterminded a magnificent college using ingenuity and contacts. Throughout his life no one could ever accuse His Excellency of not being a can-do person. He was most enterprising, which would serve him well when he built a seminary in the center of Saigon on wasteland that became a treasure. Only after it was built did Dumortier want something he had given away and wanted nothing to do with it originally. The matter, which was part and parcel of the ecclesiastical law and tradition in the missions in conjunction with the wishes of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in stating that when an indigenous bishop was appointed the missionary bishop would turn over to him those facilities that were already well-developed. Dumortier thought differently and gave Thuc the dregs of what he had. Thuc took the abuse until Dumortier demanded too much. Then it went all the way to Rome where Thuc was exonerated and this infuriated Dumortier all the more, for he was French and Thuc was Vietnamese. On Dumortier's part this victory by Thuc in the Sacred Rota caused bad feelings that not only found their way back to Rome with rumors and lies, but filtered down to those coming up. Despite these hardships, jealousies, and thievery against Bishop Thuc, he still treated all as friends. This, in a nutshell, also could attribute to why he was used by several - both in his pre-Vatican II days and his post-Vatican II days. He trusted people to be honest.

It was the priests and the parishioners who endeared themselves to their shepherd Bishop Thuc, providing him with an old Citroen when they saw the prehistoric bike he had been given would not do. In the mold of the Cure of Ars Saint John Marie Vianney, Bishop Thuc made sure his priests strove for holiness. He had requested an additional priest from Dumortier and the latter sent him a sexual predator. Yes, even back then the modernists had infiltrated and were harboring these ne'r-do-wells who so scandalize souls. Thuc refused him and sent him back. He, unlike all Modernist bishops today, would not put up with a priest who caused scandal, let alone ravaged parishioners. As the Archbishop wrote in his autobiography, it didn't mean his priests were saints - far from it, but he handled any discrepancies discreetly and mandating monthly retreats for his priests from 7 a.m. to noon helped him keep them on the straight and narrow. It was a wise and prudent practice he continued as Archbishop of Hué. He said Holy Mass every morning and then walked to Phu-Cam where he brought daily Holy Communion to his dear aging mother. His many acts of charity will someday become legend as his story is told to more, and many more details are revealed of his heroic charity to family, friend and foe.

And speaking of foe, they were forming, both within the Vatican after the passing of Pius XII and from the north with the infiltration of the Communists - the Vietcong. Here also the politics intensified for already John XXIII was sensitive to the Communists and this showed in new Rome's fears that Diem was too much of an anti-Communist.

Because of Ostpolitik other religious orders were on the alert to stay clear of Archbishop Thuc for his brother was the President of South Vietnam. Those in the curia transferred these fears and prejudices to Giovanni Montini in the Summer of 1963. Rather than Paul VI meeting or hearing Archbishop Thuc. he chose to get into bed with the avowed Freemason Henry Cabot Lodge the Ambassador who had replaced the pro-Diem Ambassador Fritz Nolting. What basically it was here was a collusion of Freemason, Modernist and Communists collaborating for goals that contradicted the Social Reign of Christ. Ever since then the humanistic agenda has been the main initiative of the conciliar church in the same manner Benedict XVI today calls for peace in syncretic terms that deny the dogma of the Faith.

Despite any shortcomings Diem may have had, he was always there to assist his brother for, his Catholic upbringing placed in perspective the preservation and propagation of the Faith as top priority. Needless to say this was something that did not play well with the Communists or Western Freemason-Zionist press and political machine that was formulating a war to cover both a burgeoning raw opium drug cartel that would play a bitter part in the dumbing and numbing down of America, and the opportunity to capitalize on the spoils of war for the Korean War had fizzled out in 1954 and the U.S. needed to establish itself in the far east as they rebuilt Japan. Because of the fear of China growing stronger and the misconception that democracy has all the answers, they had chosen Vietnam when the French cowardly retreated, washing their hands of the whole mess. Diem was the most stable and, with the recommendation of Cardinal Francis Spellman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the American coalition backed him against Bao-Dai as long as it served their interests. To this day the American mindset does not understand the Oriental mentality and that is where, time and again, the occidental runs into trouble. Thanks to the revolution in Rome and then in the west with mores and morals, the "me" generation surfaced in the 60's. Many say the end of "Camelot" came with the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, but he was no King Arthur, more in the line of the Lothario Sir Lancelot or worse, quite possibly a Mordred. No, in reality the real end of "Camelot", though long decaying, occurred five years earlier with the death of Pius XII on October 9, 1958.


It was not Camelot that Diem was trying to maintain, but the way of life for all Vietnamese. Among one million fleeing from the Communists in the North, over one-hundred-thousand Roman Catholic Vietnamese were included and helped establish a Catholic refuge in Annam and further south. In the exodus from the north came many Buddhists as well for the majority of the citizenry were Buddhist and at times Diem walked a fine line in pleasing all. But he was not a syncretist, and he made no bones of his Catholicity. The precedent had already been set on June 5, 1963 when an impromptu celebration was held for the returning Archbishop Thuc from Rome for the summer after a Corpus Christi Procession with His Excellency officiating. Considering that John XXIII had just died two days earlier, the Vietnamese Catholics were in mourning, and yet needed to express their emotions. Catholic flags were everywhere and His Excellency was a bit embarrassed by it all in this time of interregnum, but acquiesced to the adulation by the people, believing it would unify the Vietnamese. However, previously, fearing a religious war, it was Thuc himself who had persuaded the local officials to forbid the display of Buddhist flags during Buddhist holidays. One of the main reasons for this edict was that some were using the flags as clothes and attending Mass in these makeshift Buddhist flags. The Archbishop in his autobiography told of the lack of clothing and that was one reason some parishioners did not attend Mass. Ingenuity won out for they had used the flags of France for clothes; the boys wearing the red as shorts, the girls the blue as a dress and the white used for veils and other clothing. When necessary the latter were dyed in black. Some adopted the same concept with the Buddhist flag, but it was obvious and, to His Excellency, it was a sacrilege to wear a pagan symbol in the presence of the King of kings. Thus, the most expedient way to make sure there was not a plethora of Buddhist flags to confiscate for clothing, was not to display them. The edict passed and few thought much about it until the Catholic flags, were hoisted to celebrate Thuc's return and give tribute to John XXIII for few among them knew of the betrayal Roncalli had wrought. The celebration in the streets of South Vietnam would be short-lived.



Prisoner of War

Unfortunately this outwardly enthusiastic Catholic spontaneity would backfire for the Diem regime because of Communist infiltration within Buddhist ranks. The Vietcong of Ho Chi Minh knew Diem's defense of the True Faith and sought to paint him into a corner from which he could not escape. Minh had already eliminated the Ngo brother Khoi. The Reds planned the opportunity for a Buddhist holiday and when no Buddhist flags could be flown, a few doused themselves in gasoline, ala suicide bombers today. Rather than be perceived as the nut-jobs they were, the western press saw them as victims and Diem's influence began to crumble. Oh, the power of the press - the Masonic-Zionist fourth estate.


American interests, two-faced as always, plotted behind Diem's back for a coup by his own generals in the ARVN. Picture Judas (Henry Cabot Lodge) going to the Sanhedrin (mutinous generals behind Diem's back) trying to pin down the exact time of the coup when Diem would be captured. In all fairness, JFK had instructed Lodge that Diem and his family should not be harmed but flown out of the country, but this was not the intent of the Vietnamese Sanhedrin nor the CIA and the head of operations at the time Lou Conein, an avowed anti-Catholic. This was carried out despite the cautious objections of CIA senior officers Sherman Kent, William Colby, Far East Division Chief, Huntington Sheldon, R. Jack Smith, and DCI John McCone. They were gravely concerned over the repercussions and the instability that would occur. Wise advice that was not followed. And one wonders today why no one in the CIA or FBI know what the right hand is doing to the left and vice versa? Iraq is proof of the CIA's incompetency. The coup in Saigon is proof of their maliciousness. The picture above left was taken five days before Diem's death on the celebration of the Anniversary of the Republic of Vietnam as the Freemason Lodge smiles sinisterly, knowing Diem's days were numbered. The generals paid in blood money by the CIA were, left to right in the foreground above General Duong Van Minh who commandeered the coup d'tat and took over afterwards, and who then betrayed his own men standing next to him in the picture: General Le Van Kim (center) and General Tran Van Don (far right). The murders were ordered by General Mai Huu Xuan.

Thus, they chose the day of the dead - early on November 2 to corner Diem and his brother Nhu who, seeing the handwriting on the wall, had been alerted at the last moment of the coup and escaped to the sanctuary of St. Francis Xavier Catholic church in Cholon City where they made their peace with God. Assured by a prominent parishioner, a Chinese businessman, that he could get them out of the country, he called for a limo to escort them to the airport. Instead, as Griff Ruby so magnificently detailed in his Eighth Chapter of his excellent book The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church, a military van pulled up and whisked the two brothers away.

Griff confirms what the declassified formerly top-secret Pentagon Papers have also verified that one of Diem's enemies Captain Nhung ordered the van to stop by a railroad trestle and while the train rumbled by, Diem and Nhu were shot to death. Shortly thereafter their other brother Can was promised safe passage out of the country if he gave himself up. He too was betrayed and died in front of a firing squad with a Rosary in his hands and instructing the riflers to "aim high" pointing to his heart. With the Ngo-dinh-Diem regime overthrown, America would rue the day for three weeks later Kennedy would also be dead in Dallas. What America had allowed and encouraged was akin to what happened in Cuba. They got rid of Baptista only to get a Castro. Hardly progress, especially in lieu of the fact thatLyndon Baines Johnson - the perfect seedy counterpart to Giovanni Montini in possessing the lack of integrity and trust - would lead the U.S. into a bloody and, as we can see now, senseless war which America, in effect when the results were finally tallied, lost at the cost of over 60,000 American lives and which, ten years later in 1974 would sell out the Vietnamese to Communism in - where else - Paris where President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, pummeled by dissension, caved. Both America and the Modernists in the Church sold the people out. Ah, yes, all hail aggiornamento and democracy!


Meanwhile in Rome, Archbishop Thuc was still attending the Second Vatican Council, which at the time undoubtedly saved his life. Yet when he discovered what had happened and how he was shunted by those who, you would think, would offer condolences, he realized he was a man without a country. So also was the outspoken Madame Nhu, widow of Ngo-dinh-Nhu. She had been at the forefront of a morality movement in defending and promoting the Catholic culture which many equated to what the Trung sisters - Trung-trac and Trung-schi had inspired in Vietnamese history when they spurred the Vietnamese to resist the Han Dynasty of China from invading Vietnam nearly 2000 years ago. Madame Nhu had done much to foster Catholic Action as the wife of Thuc's brother who was head of Can Lao - the Secret Police and Political Movements. She had worked to outlaw all abortion, contraceptives, and public occasions that would lead to temptation such as the dance halls, animal fighting, beauty pageants, etc. More importantly, and one reason she was a target of character assassination was because she had succeeded in closing down houses of prostitution and the opium dens. Less than a month prior she had publicly stated what we know today: "I don't know why Americans dislike us. Is it because the world is under a spell called liberalism? Your own public, here in America, is not as anti-Communistic as our is in Vietnam." Just as the Zionist-Masonic press had done to another Catholic a decade earlier - Senator Joseph McCarthy when he warned against Communism, they downplayed the red threat and sought to deride and vilify Madame Nhu as the "Dragon Lady." One thing is certain: she was not afraid to speak her mind. After the assassination of her husband and brother-in-law she flew to Rome from Los Angeles where she had been during a public relations tour with the real intent to expose - in a cross country tour - the atrocities Kennedy had been allowing in Vietnam but the U.S. countered with the coup. Upon hearing of the death of her beloved, she stated to the press "Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies." As we can see since then she was right on, including her prediction that things would only grow bleaker in Vietnam and the United States' troubles were just beginning in the Far East. In later years she would echo the futility of the madness of the Modernists when she said, "If one has no courage to denounce, if one bows to madness and stupidity, how can one ever hope to cope with the other wrongs of humanity exploited in the same fashion by Communists?" Evidently she was speaking of both politics and religion. Clueless ones would ask if she had ever heard of "dialog" for that seems to be the answer to the continued debasement of society today and the abandonment of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ, King of all nations. Immediately following the coup, Madame Nhu and her daughter immediately flew to Rome to be with her brother-in-law Archbishop Thuc in attendance at the Council, and where his youngest brother Ngo-din-Luyen, then serving as the Vietnamese diplomat to England, flew in from London as well. Reunited, Archbishop Thuc tried to reassure the remains of his family that things would be okay, but he knew.

Not only the loss of most of his family, but the loss of the sensus Catholicus at the council bothered him greatly. It is interesting to note that at the very time he learned of the fate of his brothers, he was involved in the Conciliar schema of the Blessed Mother's role in the Church as Mother of the Church. This title and honor barely passed with the progressivists losing out by only 40 votes 1114 placet (it pleases) to 1074 against non placet. Intuitively, his heart so humanly aching, Archbishop Thuc could see the handwriting on the conciliar wall. Even our Blessed Mother was not immune from the deconstruction of her divine Son's Church. It was nigh unto spiritual heartbreak as well.

Regarding Thuc's participation, it should be noted here in defense of His Excellency the following. During the earlier part of the Council when Roncalli was still alive ideas had been invited and he had offered some wild ones that to the occidental mind might seem bizarre, but considering it was part of the flow and everyone was offering their two-cents worth, he rationalized that his oriental ideas were something he could suggest as a voice when asked, and the fact that after the council he never broached the subject again, his radical ideas spoken of at the council can be placed in the context of the time. Is there any out there who have said things at some time in their life that, in retrospect, they would take back had they thought more on it? We can imagine him being there and trying to compensate taking all this time away from his flock in Hué. How could he justify that to his people. Therefore he probably felt he should speak up. Another interesting point is that he was an oriental in an occidental world. Confusion and coercion reigned supreme. Add to that fact that few knew Latin, which left many voting on things they really had no idea about and thought of it as more of a game of darts. With such cavalier attitude the conciliar church forged its beginnings, for to these shapers of history nothing was sacred and the Progressivists ruled, headed by Cardinals Suenens and Marty, aided by the Hegelian mindset of men like Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Eduard Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, Yves Congar, and a young progressivist named Joseph Ratzinger.

Thuc felt the betrayal further when he was not only not allowed by Montini to return to his beloved See of Hué, but the man who had sought to undermine him throughout his bishopric in Hué - Bishop Philippe Nguyen-Kim-Dien was named the coadjutor Archbishop of Hué in 1964. Once the Council concluded, Thuc was a man without a country. Left to fend on his own by Montini, he took up residence with the pastor of a church in Luxemburg. Jealousies soon ensued when the pastor realized Thuc was more popular in the confessional and when the Archbishop was sought out during Mass by a penitent to hear her confession, the closest confessional was the pastor's. Thuc, not thinking of protocol but only on absolving a penitent, heard the woman's confession. Afterwards the pastor railed at His Excellency for daring to use the pastor's confessional. Talk about petty. It got worse when on a scorching day in the summer, the Archbishop returned from the convent of the Sisters to take a much needed shower and the pastor would not let him. That was the last straw for the mild-mannered Vietnamese prelate. Such was the treatment Thuc would receive in the west.

Nevertheless, he was offered refuge with the Cistercian monks at the Abbey of Casamari, founded by the holy Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and where, in the late 1960's there was plenty of room since vocations were so few. No wonder! Vatican II had taken care of that. He became the monks favorite confessor as well as popular with the 5,000 souls in the parish attached to the Abbey. He remained there 15 months and things went well until the Abbot had been removed because of a controversial nude painting in the monastery that Thuc was afraid would be associated with him because his name was noted near the painting. Thus in strictest confidence he had written to the Abbot of the Order for fear of scandal and asking that his name be removed or the painting taken down. He was going through all the proper channels and yet, he was sabotaged by the very ones he was appealing to. Rather than observing this confidence, as the conciliar church since has proven they cannot tell the truth, they betrayed Thuc's very confidence and Thuc became unfairly labeled a constant "trouble-maker" in all echelons of the Vatican.

Becoming persona non grata in the Abbey, and in his own country when Dien was named permanent Archbishop of Hué and Thuc was refused a visa to return, engineered by Montini himself, is there any doubt Thuc felt betrayed? Granted nothing but the useless title of the Titular Bishop of Bulla Regia, wherever that is, he felt the sting all the more when there was a great celebration at the University he founded at Dalat and not one mention of his name. As the Archbishop wrote: "The name of the founder of the university was never mentioned, not even once, because his name is displeasing to the present occupants of the Vatican. All is well that ends well. I established the university in
obedience to the Vatican of other days. God had helped me. To Him all honor and all glory forever and ever. Amen." At least the people had gathered Diem and Can's bloody bodies and gave them a proper Catholic burial with a special monument built where they are honored to this day as not the corrupt regime, but one that history - true history, not revisionist history, has exonerated. So also their brother Ngo-dinh-Thuc should be totally exonerated and elevated to the true position he rightly deserves in the history of the Restoration of Holy Mother Church and the annals of Vietnamese history.

But he would never return to his homeland. Left to fend for his own in Italy, Archbishop Thuc sought out the Bishop of Casamari for a place to offer his services and receive housing. Rather than taking him into the Bishop's home, he was pawned off to a poor parish on the hill with few parishioners to stay there for even the pastor didn't live by the church. While the pastor lived well, Thuc was forced to see to his own needs. Here was a noted prelate under a simple country priest. Talk about the humility of Vianney. Yet Thuc accepted this cross and turned it into triumph by gaining the reputation of always being available for confession and the greatest comfort to the sick and the agricultural families of the area. He was a true shepherd even when his flock had been taken away. It was in this church in Arpino in central Italy where the Christmas creche, something first fashioned by St. Francis of Assisi but evidently never reaching Arpino - finally was introduced for the Christmas vigil of 1975. While he was wowing the children with the beautiful figurines of the Christmas story, a knock came on the door.

It was a knock that would forever taint the reputation of this venerable Vietnamese Archbishop. However, in retrospect, one has to look at it all in perspective. The one sent was from Econe - one Father Revaz, who had taught Canon Law at the Society of St. Pius X seminary under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In the same vein as the Life cereal ad conveyed in 1971, when the kids in the commercial gave the bowl of cereal to "Mikey" because "Mikey hates everything" but then finishing the bowl they all exclaimed, "Mikey likes it!", so also Lefebvre pawned off the consecrations on Thuc via his former Canon Revaz in Pilate-like fashion. If not, he would have warned Thuc not to do the consecrations. But Thuc was hit with the authority of Revaz coming from Lefebvre, whom the Archbishop had known from Econe, on Christmas Eve with the message from Revaz: "Excellency, the Holy Virgin sends me to bring you immediately to the heart of Spain to render her a service. My car is waiting at the door of the rectory and we will leave right away in order to be there on Christmas Day." What could His Excellency do? He could have said no and returned to the children, but the very fact it came from Revaz, recommended by Lefebvre, and Our Lady was invoked as the one requesting his presence, he responded: "If this is a service demanded by the Holy Virgin, I am ready to follow you to the ends of the earth." Excusing himself, he left for that fated trip to the region of Palmar de Troya in Spain.


In this village just outside of Seville, the visionary of purported apparitions of the Blessed Mother, Clemente Dominguez y Gomez had supposedly received messages that Our Lady was appearing and wanted more priests ordained. Why Thuc was selected is probably a series of subtraction. Lefebvre wouldn't do it, so Thuc was next. Some, who are not favorable to the "una cum Wojtyla" and now "una cum Benedictis", wonder why Lefebvre did not warn Thuc. They ask if it was so that Thuc might serve as a possible "guinea pig" or "sacrificial lamb," so to speak, to see how Modern Rome would respond and give Lefebvre an inkling how far he could go in the future regarding ordinations and consecrations. The reason for this line of thought is the fact Lefebvre did not warn Thuc beforehand of Palmar de Troya even though he knew that his former "employee" - the Canon of St. Maurice - had joined the Palmar de Troya group, and the founder of the SSPX was apprehensive of the apparitions. That is one reason some think Thuc was set up. Griff Ruby provides another possible scenario, "One thing that is known about Father Revas is that though he had been a professor at Econe, by the time Palmar de Troya was starting up he had already left Econe (perhaps rather amicably, in view of his subsequent ability to approach Archbishop Lefebvre) and became a formal member of the Palmar de Troya sect. There is no evidence that Lefebvre wanted to set Thuc up, but rather something more of a 'brush-off' to make Father Revas go away by giving him a name and an address which Lefebvre hoped would be for Revas a dead end. ('Let Thuc answer these idiots; he's got the time and the patience.') It was Father Revas who pretended to Thuc on his own initiative any authorization from Lefebvre which he simply did not have."

What is a fact is that Thuc, to this point, had not been that visible despite his fame with his brother Diem, whereas Lefebvre had been highly visible to all as "one of the few bishops holding out against the changes." Thuc's lack of knowledge of these apparitions, his simple faith in the possibility it was truly Mary who was appearing, and the fact he was deceived by those seeking his help provides evident proof that Thuc cannot be blamed for these ordinations for the Carmelite Order of the Holy Face and the subsequent consecrations which they sweet-talked him into a few weeks later on January 11, 1976 when he consecrated Clemente Dominguez y Gomez as well as Manuel Alonso Corral, Camilo Estevez, Michael Donnelly, and Francis Sandler O.S.B. (Francis Fox). Little did he realize he had been set up. Yet he knew he would be in trouble with Paul VI who he still acknowledged at the time, only sensing that Paul VI had sold him and his brother and the rest of his family out as noted how Montini tried to buy the Archbishop's silence in 1970 as told to Father Michael Louis Guerard des Lauriers and documented in the Appendix of his In Memoriam for the Archbishop published in the August 1, 2002 issue of "Catholic." Sure enough, the Vatican heard about the consecration and by July of 1976 he was formally excommunicated. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, Thuc, the obedient shepherd repented when he realized he had been duped. Thus he was reinstalled on September 17, 1976. He returned to Arpino until he was invited to take up residence in Toulon, France by a Vietnamese family. Feeling homesick and not being able to return to his beloved homeland, this was the next best thing and he took up the offer.

He publicly disavowed the consecrations of those at Palmar de Troya when Dominguez proclaimed himself Pope Gregory XVI on the death of Paul VI in 1978. But as the years went on his resentment grew for the Modernists who did all they could to cover up truth whether it was doctrine or what had happened to his brothers and why he could not return to his beloved Hue, and that three million Vietnamese had fled his beloved land for America, with hundreds of thousands perishing in the South China Sea in what would be called the "exodus of the 'boat people'." Hung out to dry in Europe, the Archbishop turned all the more to study the changes since Vatican II and realized the conciliar church was not Catholic in any shape or form. It was during this time he reconsecrated several who came to him who had been consecrated in the Old Catholic church but wanted to be part of the Traditional Catholic Movement. Thus he conditionally consecrated men like Claude Nanta de Torrini as well as Roger Kozikand Michel Fernandez, who like Palmar de Troya, had duped him. Would he ever learn?

Advocate of Truth


Remember, he was a trusting soul. By this time he realized he had been used by all who had approached him, and he began saying no to those he now knew were not worthy. It was thus with great discretion that he exercised his apostolic duty for the next three he consecrated - the last ones he would consecrate. Two of those men would go on to serve as the fulcrum for the authentic Apostolic succession in the Traditional Movement today in what is commonly called the "Thuc-line" successors. These consecrations took place in Mary's months of May and October, first on May 7, 1981 when Archbishop Thuc consecrated the very organizer and promoter of the Ottaviani Intervention sought him out: Father Michel Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. Few realize that Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani only wrote the Introduction and it was des Lauriers who, with a team of Traditional Theologians, composed the bulk of the report. Fr. des Lauriers had realized as the years went by that he could no longer abide by the newChurch and its abominable changes. He understood only too well the prophesy of Pope Leo XIII's motu proprio that "the pastor will be struck, the sheep scattered." The "mystery of iniquity"spoken of by Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2: 7 had indeed been made manifest. This highly-regarded Dominican was no slouch for he had taught at the Pontifical University and had been one of Pius XII's confessors. He was a renowned theologian of the Church and a devote teacher of all the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. His dissatisfaction with the conciliarists led to his teaching at Econe until he had to resign there as well because of the vacillating of Archbishop Lefebvre and the nasty games Montini and then Karol Wojtyla were playing. He realized a true Pope could not teach error and these men had, heresies in all their nuances. Thus he realized before God that the chair was vacant. Realizing also the invalidity of Paul VI's new rite of ordination and consecration, he saw the necessity for the true succession of bishops and turned to Archbishop Thuc as a valid successor to keep the true line going. Because of his credentials, Thuc knew he was the ideal candidate and thus on May 7, 1981 the Archbishop happily consecrated Bishop des Lauriers. It was also a cleansing, if you will, by His Excellency to rid from his system the one time he had ever participated in the Novus Ordo which he did on Holy Thursday in 1981 at the bequest of the Bishop of Toulon. Needless to say, it was the only time he had and never again. He felt dirty, violated, and begged forgiveness from his Lord and Savior.

One thing to note here, and it has been documented several times as to the authenticity of des Lauriers' consecration as well as the next two, is a fact totally separate from the consecrations but speaks volumes as to not only the validity of, but recognition of the Church's stance of sedevacantism. If the former confessor of Pope Pius XII, one who was a renowned theologian, and as noted, the most brilliant of those who presented the infrangible truths to Paul VI with the Ottaviani Intervention, believed the chair was vacant for the conciliar popes had abdicated by their public heresy of deviating from the Faith, how can Traditional apologists, so blinded by the evidence that the conciliar popes are not Catholic, justify that it was not heresy then and even more blatant heresy today - heresy that has continued unabated and grown much worse? Never mind that it is accepted today as normal by the general populace who have been dumbed down. Saint Augustine said it so clearly: "Right is right even if no one is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."


Later in 1981, while in Munich, Germany Archbishop Thuc was contacted by two priests of Trento formed by Father Moises Carmona, Joaquin Saenz Arriagaand Adolfo Zamora in Mexico who realized the necessity to pass on the Truths and Traditions of the Faith meant more priests were needed and that entailed authentic, valid, uncompromising Catholic Bishops. Fathers Carmona and Zamora traveled to Munich, where Bishop Carmona documents himself the following:

  • On October 17, Father Zamora and I were consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in a virtual catacomb, with only two distinguished doctors as witnesses. Both of us were conscious of the furious storms of protest that would come, but the words of our Divine Master encouraged us: 'You shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy' (St. John, 16: 20).
    On our return to Mexico, the attacks began. Some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated with the new rite; others, more serious, said that, based on Canons 953 and 2370, the consecrations were valid but illicit, and that consequently we were suspended. [Ed. note: It has been documented that Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration - not the new rite - when he consecrated Bishops Carmona and Zamora.]

    Therefore, in accepting episcopal consecration from Archbishop Thuc, we have relied on these rules, conscious and certain that, given the circumstances in which we live, the consecrations are both valid and licit. We are also conscious and certain that we would have sinned, if by relying on the letter [of the law] we had rejected the consecrations, there being only one Catholic bishop who can now be found to transmit the episcopal succession.​
    As can be seen, our detractors were ignoring the axiom Qui cum regula ambulat, tuto ambulat - "He who walks with the rule, walks safely." They should remember, if they had forgotten, that Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum - "Necessity makes licit what is illicit."
    The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated.
    Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur- "It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit." Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them.
The two witnesses to these consecrations were Dr. Kurt Hiller and Dr. Eberhard Heller have both testified under oath that His Excellency not only used the Traditional Rite, but that he was of sound mind and body for there were many who sought to slander Archbishop Thuc that he "wasn't in his right mind" that "Thuc was a kook" and other libelous accusations. A transcript of his own handwriting of the authenticity of these consecrations are provided at Transcript of Thuc Episcopal Consecration of Bishops Carmona and Zamora. Suffice it to say that Bishop des Laurier, Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM, and several traditional priests have verified as well that the Archbishop was quite aware and any question as to insinuations that he was not in control of his mental faculties are unfounded or that he ever used the new rite of ordination or consecration.
This author, from reading Thuc's words in his autobiography written in The Seraph in 1982 and 1983 while he was guest of Bishop Vezelis and the Franciscan Friars in Rochester, can attest to his lucidity. Those were, quite possibly, the best days of His Excellency's life since the time he left his beloved homeland and flock. At least in Rochester he was respected as a bishop and not as a hired hand or a lesser person because he was an oriental. The picture here shows on the right side of the table from right to left Bishop Vezelis, Archbishop Thuc, and Bishop Robert McKenna,O.P.. On the left side of the table in the center is Bishop Vida Elmer. It was supposedly taken by a "Bishop" Jacobus Maria DeJesus, CMF. DD and posted on the Shrine of Saint Jude site in a publication called "Catholic" (volume 7, Issue 8, August 1, 2002). We must point out here in fairness to Father Louis Campbell and the parishioners of the Traditional Shrine of St. Jude in Stafford, Texas that they have no association with this site of the same name. In fact, when this editor contacted Jacobus a year ago, no answers were forthcoming as to his consecration and he was totally mum on anything regarding himself. Since no documentation can be produced as to a valid consecration or even ordination, we have placed his title in quotes for there is no record whatsoever that Archbishop Thuc or any valid bishop consecrated him. We have since learned that his validation is questionable at best so we include this disclaimer. We have employed the photo merely to provide pictures of the other bishops in attendance and if anyone can identify the other two at the table, we would be most grateful. We thank Peter Reilleyfor identifying Bishops McKenna and Elmer.

It is important to note that many have come out of the woodwork "claiming" to have been consecrated by Archbishop Thuc or his successors, but unless they can show absolute proof as was provided for Bishops des Lauriers, Carmona and Zamora, be highly skeptical.

However, attesting to the validity of the Thuc consecrations in great detail has been one Bishop des Lauriers who wrote a magnificent eulogy which addressed all the problems and solutions with In Memoriam Monsigneur Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc. We linked the preceding questionable site because we could find it nowhere else and, in journalistic integrity, must provide the link, but, again, in no way endorse the site. We do however endorse the following links for we are indebted to Griff Ruby for his insight and research on Archbishop Thuc in his book The Resurrection of The Roman Catholic Church and to the CMRI for documents by Bishop Carmona and the Archbishop's statement.Bishop Daniel Dolan, consecrated by the Carmona-consecrated Bishop Mark Pivarunas provided an excellent thesis with his A Brief Defense, as well as Father Martin Stepanich's documentation at Thuc Issue No Longer Controversial and Father Anthony Cekada's extensive research on The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations as well as his many other articles at www.traditionalmass.org. In short there is enough evidence put forward to lay to rest, once and for all, any doubts as to the validity of Archbishop Thuc's consecrations and subsequent Episcopal Consecrations of those he consecrated in continuing the succession of the Apostles. Father Oswald Baker, enshrined last year in the Tower of Trent Hall of Honor, also believed strongly in Archbishop Thuc's dedication and necessity of continuing the apostolic line for the sake of souls, the sake of salvation. There are so many more things we could say but space does not permit. That is why we strongly recommend going to the linked sites if there are still any doubts as to the Archbishop's sincerity, holiness and validity. If one still doesn't believe, then one is not being honest with oneself for the evidence is clearly there. Those who are Thuc-line Bishops in being consecrated by Bishop Carmona and Bishop des Lauriers (for Bishop Zamora did not consecrate anyone) have carried on the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church as Thuc had instructed as Catholic bishops had up until The Great Apostasy. Having personally observed the total Catholicity, sincerity and good will of several independent priests and especially the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen - CMRI, this editor can affirm the total Catholicity of these priests and their bishops, the true sacraments and, the fruitfulness of their work as the Gospel from this past Sunday confirms in our Lord's words, truly "By their fruits you shall know them" (St. Matthew 7: 15).

The Archbishop was so convinced of the fallacy of conciliarism that he made a public statement on February 25, 1982 where he declared:





How does the Catholic Church appear today as we look at it? In Rome, John Paul II reigns as “Pope,†surrounded by the body of Cardinals and of many bishops and prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church seems to be flourishing, along with its bishops and priests. The number of Catholics is great. Daily the Mass is celebrated in so many churches, and on Sundays the churches are full of many faithful who come to hear the Mass and receive Holy Communion.

But in the sight of God, how does today's Church appear? Are the Masses — both the daily ones and those at which people assist on Sundays — pleasing to God? By no means, because that Mass is the same for Catholics as it is for Protestants — therefore it is displeasing to God and invalid. The only Mass that pleases God is the Mass of St. Pius V, which is offered by few priests and bishops, among whom I count myself.
Therefore, to the extent that I can, I will open seminaries for educating candidates for that priesthood which is pleasing to God.
Besides this “Mass,†which does not please God, there are many other things that God rejects: for example, changes in the ordination of priests, the consecration of bishops, and in the sacraments of Confirmation and of Extreme Unction.
Moreover, the “priests†now hold to:​
  • 1) modernism;
    2) false ecumenism
    3) the adoration [or cult] of man;
    4) the freedom to embrace any religion whatsoever;
    5) the unwillingness to condemn heresies and to expel the heretics.

Therefore, in so far as I am a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Chair of the Roman Catholic Church is vacant; and it behooves me, as bishop, to do all that is needed so that the Roman Catholic Church will endure in its mission for the salvation of souls.
  • February 25, 1982
    +Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-ThucArchbishop

From this point onward the Archbishop would be a marked man as the conciliarists would employ all-out guerilla tactics to subdue this soldier of Christ. He shortly left Munich for America, an ironic twist for it was American blood money that felled his brothers. Now he was on American soil and the final journey to Calvary had begun for this humble son of Ngo-dinh-Kha.

The Calvary of Carthage

Bishop Vezelis was the last to see His Excellency and his account of the last days when he realized they were abducting Archbishop Thuc and drugging him and he was helpless to do anything because of the Novus Ordo Mafia and the Vietnamese Congregation of Mother Co-Redemptrix who were in cahoots with the Modernists is bone-chilling and illustrates to what lengths the conciliarists would go to silence this noble crusader for the infrangible Catholic Faith.

They had to employ a heavy thug and tried to coerce a confession out of him in the office of the known Mason and apostolic nuncio to the U.S. in 1984 - Pio Laghi, a cunning castrator of souls if there ever was one. But Thuc did not crack under the communist-type measures used by these enemies of the Faith and asserted that fact to Bishop Vezelis the very last day he ever saw His Excellency. When Vezelis asked if he had conceded to the conciliarists, Thuc, who on February 25, 1982 had formally declared the Seat of Rome vacant in a statement from Munich, which no doubt caused great consternation in Modernist Rome, so much so that the hit was on, Archbishop Thuc told Vezelis: "He (Laghi) wanted me to disavow what I had done. But, I did not because that would have destroyed all that I had done."


We do not know what transpired after Vezelis did all he could to rescue the Archbishop from the clutches of the thugs - mostly Vietnamese who were more Vietcong-like than friends. Two who betrayed him were Bishop Jacques Huynh Vân Cùa and Thuc's own nephew Bishop Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, who for his betrayal, received the red biretta. Can you say 30 pieces of silver? We do know that Cardinal John O'Connor and Bishop Bernard Law, then ordinary of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Giraudeau, were in on the abduction, no doubt ordered by Karol Wojtyla and his man Joseph Ratzinger with Bishop John Leibrecht most likely well-informed of the proceedings. A prize for both Law and Leibrecht if the prize was delivered. The photo above says it all in John Paul II congratulating O'Connor for delivering Thuc over. Oh, the betrayal and distrust of the conciliar church, but then that's why they're called the conciLIAR church. Truly amazing that so many were employed from the top echelons of the conciliar church down to silence one man, while the vast majority are espousing heresy and scandals that cry to Heaven for vengeance left and right and the conciliar heads do nothing. It says volumes about the Advocate of Truth - Archbishop Thuc. As a final effort, Bishop Vezelis had even enlisted the police to help, but, as one of the officers confided to him, "Who will they believe, you or the Archbishop of New York?" Vezelis realized he could do nothing but pray. In the seedy hotel room where some of the very men Thuc had ordained kept the Archbishop restrained, Vezelis could already see they had heavily drugged His Excellency for when asked if he wanted to return with the Bishop to Rochester, he emoted in zombie fashion what they had programmed him to say: "Je veux rester ici", translated "I wish to remain here." As Vezelis wrote, "All the while he was staring into space like an automaton." Keep in mind also, that the Archbishop had a history of diabetes and being fed sugar would alter his behavior as well to the point of being dependent on those administering drugs.

From New York he was whisked off to Kansas City by air and from there driven down to Carthage, Missouri to the Motherhouse of the Congregation of Mother Co-Redemptrix at the former Our Lady of the Ozarks once operated by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. It was here that he died on the Feast of another martyr of the Church, Saint Lucy, December 13, 1984. Though in July 1984 a circular was spread that the Archbishop had recanted and been "repatriated" to John Paul II, those who knew His Excellency realized this was merely a ruse of a forced "confession" if you will and that it was not the Archbishop's true intent who vowed to Bishop Vezelis and Bishop des Lauriers that he would never go back to the newChurch. The latter, upon hearing of this "retraction" wrote the Archbishop personally for he knew if the Archbishop truly felt that way he would have notified the bishops he consecrated. The fact there was never a reply gives evidence the letter never reached His Excellency. It was sometime after his death that another public statement was released by Modernist Rome with no signature that supposedly was a further retraction by His Excellency of his consecrations of Bishop des Lauriers, Moses Carmona and Adolpho Zamora. It contained all the same gobbledygook bafflegab doublespeak for which Modernist Rome has become famous for and illustrates to those who know that it was all a forgery and that Thuc's last words to Vezelis stood true for he remained loyal to his death. Is it coincidence that the current bishop of Springfield-Gape Girardeau John Leibrecht replaced Law on December 12, 1984 and the next day Thuc died? Coincidence? Who knows but those who were complicit in his death are presently the only ones who know and one is Law who is safely ensconced at St. Mary Major in Rome under the protection of the Modernist Romans. What secrets does he know about this, not to mention the sex scandals that brought his disgrace and for which Wojtyla created a greater scandal by rewarding this wayward Mason. Why? This author believes firmly that Law and quite possibly two others - Leibrecht and Ratzinger hold the key to what happened in Carthage. They may be the only living persons left who know.


The Vietnamese bishop which Bishop Vezelis attested to being part of the abduction was Bishop Jacques Huynh Vân Cùa who had resigned from the See of Phú Cuong on June 8, 1982 after only six years as the Coadjutor bishop there where Montini placed him. Is it coincidence that he ended up at Carthage and it is he who is holding onto the Archbishop in this picture taken at Carthage. The other person could not be recognized and so was cropped out. Both men are holding the Archbishop up, so to speak, for he seems sad and dazed, many believed drugged just as Bishop Vezelis had asserted he had been in the hotel room. The photo above was taken sometime in 1984 after his abduction. The black and white photo to the right of the picture was taken in 1958 where the bell used to be. It is the very same location the photo was shot. There are several secrets in Carthage and what I have learned over the past five years somewhat answers this editor's questions as to why, when in 1990 I revisited my former seminary there, I could not just mosey in and see my old haunts. Here is where I had spent six wonderful years in the minor seminary studying for the priesthood with the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and I knew the entire campus like the back of my hand. But in 1990 - six years after the Archbishop's death - there was still an aura of espionage permeating this place for I could venture nowhere without someone accompanying me and making sure there were certain areas I could not enter. What secrets are contained there? Who knows. What I do know is that I believe a very holy man is buried on the very grounds that I called home for six years from 1957 to 1963: Our Lady of the Ozarks on Grand Avenue.

Someday, God willing, the truth will emerge and Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc will be totally exonerated and elevated to the rightful position he most certainly deserves, a Heaven-sent Soldier who never gave up, never let down the flag of true Catholicism and gave his very life for Christ in the solitude of one forsaken by men, but not our Lord. Can we not hear him in his last days of December, 1984 echoing Christ's words from the cross Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabbacthani?

No doubt Blessed Mary was with him in his last days and as the days wane on, as more traditional priests die off, we can only say Deo gratiasfor what the Archbishop did for without his heroic acts the Traditional Movement would be left with only the Society of St. Pius X, which soon could be a thing of the past if Bishop Bernard Fellay continues to give any kind of recognition to Modernist Rome whose 48-year track record is scurrilous and scandalous, yay most sinful. It is all-out warfare for it's only too obvious conciliarists know what is the only enemy on earth which can destroy their house of cards: Traditional Catholics reinforced with the Sacraments of Traditional priests ordained by Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc, thus, assuring the line of Peter - from Peter thru Pierre Martin.

As the war rages on between the David-like Traditional Movement and the Goliath of Gehenna - the conciliar church, we can take comfort in knowing we may have lost several battles, but thanks to Archbishop Thuc, Soldier of Christ, Prisoner of War, we can still win this war by remaining, like him, Advocates of Truth - true to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church to the end. Thus, we take great joy and pride in presenting posthumously the Tower of Trent Trophy and enshrining His Excellency into the Tower of Trent Hall of Honor and declare this day the Feast of Saint Anne, Mother of the Blessed Mother and comforter of the afflicted, and throughout the week through the Feast of Peter in Chains, (appropriate considering Pierre Martin was "in chains" at Carthage) Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc Week.




Archbishop Lefebvre would not consecrate sedevacantists Bishops. The object of posting this information regarding Bishop Thuc is whether the priests he ordained are true priests. Whether a sedevacantist or no, there seems to be general agreement that priests ordained by him were indeed true priests. There are many similarities between the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Thuc. Admin.

See also:



Since Pope Francis is true pope, to assist at the Mass of a sedevacantist validly ordained priest of the Thuc not united to the Pope would be uncatholic. The period between the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor, when the See of Peter is vacant, is called the Interregnum. This Latin term means between the reign (of one Pope and another). It is a period governed by papal law, which admits of no changes to Church governance, or to the spiritual or material patrimony of St. Peter, save the election of his successor. For a Catholic to hold that the see of Peter is vacant is a private opinion only, resulting in people now acting according to their consciences. Regarding faith and morals a true Catholic is not entitled to private opinions. This definition has no resemblance to the true meaning. Admin