THE TRAUMATIC TRAJECTORY OF MONS. Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. (First of several articles)

 

Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc.

a very controversial bishop

Note. When it concerns us to speak of an exemplary saint or prelate such as Monsignor Rafael Merry del val, we do so to our great delight and with a certain satisfaction because they served as a great example for our souls, but when we have the thankless task of speaking of certain prelates whose lives and works are completely diametrically opposed to those mentioned above, so we are overwhelmed by a certain ascidia because we see that we are going to go against the current of those who, with bad intentions, blatantly distort the truth, becoming accomplices in the lies and cover-up of these characters reprehensible life. (As are sedevacantists and "bishops" consecrated by this prelate)

So what am I going to do today if I speak clearly? I will be unpleasant for you. But if I don't speak up, I'm going to be nasty to God. I prefer, in the eyes of the world, to be the former than to fall for the latter. Here I will deal with a very controversial case such as that of Bishop Thuc as impartially as possible, following as far as possible the words of Saint Paul to Saint Timothy: “Preach the divine word, insist on occasion and without it; rebuke, beg, exhort, with patience and doctrine. Because times will come when men will not be able to suffer the sound doctrine”, since I did not know him personally, not in the case of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, whom I knew well.

THE CASE OF MOSEÑOR THUC

Can the priestly and episcopal line from Bishop Thuc be considered valid?

Were the consecrations performed by Archbishop Thuc valid? (That is the dilemma discussed so long by scholars and non-scholars in the matter, who have proclaimed themselves as theologians and authorities of the Church without being called to such an office by the Church.  And, in their obsession, they have dogmatized about such a function It will only correspond to the Pontiff that God puts when this great tribulation, I say great tribulation because the truth is no longer objective but subjective since anyone takes their personal opinion, whether modernists, protestants, sedevacantists and a long etc, here is the great spiritual tribulation of our times. God have mercy on our souls and impose his order and reaffirm his TRUTH, the only one that will save our souls.)(These last words are from the editor not the author, if you see a repetition later it is not by mistake but my adherence to the author of this article)

This article tries to inform about the reality that surrounds the person of Bishop Thuc, counteracting the innumerable tendentious information with the intention of whitewashing the figure of a very controversial bishop in his way of thinking and acting. One of these priests who praises the work of Msgr. Thuc is Fr. Antony Sekada, seriously lacking the truth along with some YouTubers who follow the example of Fr. Antony Sekada.

Much of what I present below is an attempt to counter the biased misinformation that seems to be prevalent everywhere regarding Bishop Thuc. On the part of some, there has been a considerable amount of "whitewashing" of Bishop Thuc's not-so-uplifting story, with the result that many people have formed opinions about him based on unforgivable errors and omissions.

Victims of all this, in addition to the truth itself, are all those well-intentioned Catholics who have put their trust in the validity of the episcopal consecrations that have been made by him. It is an obligation in conscience to tell the truth about this subject, if we do not do so, we become accomplices of those whose purpose is to force the arguments in favor of what does not reflect the reality about this character, thus seriously lacking the Only truth that is Ours. Lord Jesus Christ.

1. BRIEF HISTORY OF BISHOP THUC

There is no reason to doubt the personal validity of Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc's consecration. He was a valid bishop with the power to validly consecrate other bishops. Born in 1897 in Vietnam, Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc was consecrated a bishop in South Vietnam in 1938 and promoted to the dignity of archbishop in 1960 by  John XXIII.

Bishop Thuc was an active participant in the Second Vatican Council and reportedly signed all the documents of that cabal. After the closure of the Second Vatican Council,  Paul VI  did not allow him to return to Vietnam,  (At that time Vietnam had fallen under communism, it was a reason  why he did not return to his homeland or to occupy his episcopal seat.) that Bishop Thuc began his life as an exile in Rome. In 1968, Paul VI appointed Bishop Thuc as Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia (a now vacant former see in Tunisia).

The massive “Consecrations” begin

While living in Rome, Bishop Thuc met Fr. Ravaz, who at the time was teaching at Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's seminary in Switzerland, but later left Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre. In the mid-1970s, Fr. Ravaz became involved with a group of  "visionaries" in Palmar de Troya,  Spain, led by an insurance broker,  Clemente Domínguez Gómez,  who believed that the "real" Paul VI was a prisoner of the Vatican and that the visible Paul VI was a double of the one who was imprisoned. (After Paul VI's death in 1978, Dominguez claimed that Christ had mystically crowned him Pope and he took the name Gregory XVII. He subsequently founded his own church and declared Paul VI a holy martyr.)

One day Fr. Ravaz told Bishop Thuc that  "Our Lady" had work for him in Palmar de Troya, Mons Thuc "obeyed" immediately, prudence or naivety? Judge for yourself. On December 31, 1975, Bishop Thuc ordained Clemente and four other laymen to the priesthood, and just 12 days later he consecrated two of the five newly ordained men and three others to the episcopate of  the Palmar de Troya group . (As an aside, in less than 2 years Clement "consecrated" to the episcopate no less than 70 men.) Already in this act there are two very serious faults that are:  without authorization from Rome and against the faith since those consecrations went against the faith. 

Because Bishop Thuc did this without a mandate (permission) from Rome, on September 17, 1976, Paul VI  “excommunicated” him.  Then Mons. Thuc immediately  “repented”  and renounced what he had done in Spain, and Paul VI lifted his “excommunication” from him. The excommunication was not for a fundamental reason of faith, but for disobeying a modernist and heretical Pope.

On July 10, 1977, just six months after the  Palmarian consecrations,  we find Thuc consecrating his first bishop for  the Old Catholic Church,  Labat d'Arnoux  (they are schismatics since the 19th century when they left the Catholic Church after refusing to recognize Vatican Council I and not recognize pontifical infallibility).  On February 2, 1977, Bishop Thuc conditionally consecrated another schismatic Old Catholic named Jean Laborie  (who, incidentally, had previously been consecrated four other times).  Over the next several years, Bishop Thuc will consecrate at least three more bishops for the Old Catholic Church. (1)

In 1978, Bishop Thuc moved to Toulon, France and settled with a Vietnamese Buddhist family. While there, he regularly assisted the conciliar bishop Barthe de Frejus at his cathedral in Toulon.

On April 16, 1981, Holy Thursday,  Bishop Thuc was caught concelebrating the New Mass with Barthe de Frejus.  Yet just three weeks after this event, Bishop Thuc had his first flirtation with sedevacantist “traditional” Catholicism and consecrated  Guerard des Lauriers  on May 7, 1981.  (Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre before his death, brought to his attention to Gerar des Lauriers at the time, interesting fact

Then, on October 17, 1981, Bishop Thuc consecrated two Mexican sedevacantist priests,  Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora.  (Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora had a somewhat close relationship with the Autonomous University of Guadalajara)

On April 18, 1982, and then again on September 25, 1982, Bishop Thuc consecrated two more bishops,  Luigi Boni and Christian Datessen  respectively.

Later, in 1982, Bishop Thuc moved to New York to live with a “bishop” from his priestly line: Louis Véselis.

On March 12, 1983,  John Paul II excommunicated  Bishop Thuc for once again consecrating without a mandate from Rome. (From this time until before his death he did not recant before Rome.)

On January 8, 1984, Bishop Thuc moved to Carthage Missouri to live in a Vietnamese council seminary, and it is there that he died on December 13, 1984.

Over the course of six years, Monsignor Thuc consecrated 15 men: 5 for the Palmarian Church, 5 for the schismatic Old Catholic Church and  5 for various sedevacantist groups  headed mainly by the Trento group dependent on the controversial Autonomous University of Guadalajara.  Was all of this done in an effort by Bishop Thuc to preserve traditional Catholicism, as some claim? The answer to this question can be clarified by examining Bishop Thuc's own conduct, mindful of the fact that a man's actions really do speak louder than his words.

2. Mgr. THUC – THE “TRADITIONALIST”

The fact that Bishop Thuc, at least at certain points in his life, adopted some traditional practices is indisputable, but he never declared sedevacantisa. There is plenty of evidence of it. But it should be noted that the “autobiography” that Monsignor Thuc is said to have “written”, where his traditionalism is manifested, has not been authenticated to date.

3. Bishop THUC – WAS HE REALLY TRADITIONALIST?

It seems evident that Mons. Thuc did not have just one face, but many that cast doubt on his capacity and mental lucidity:  – Vatican Council II – 1962-65

If Bishop Thuc had been a true traditional Catholic bishop, he would have been faithful to the great responsibility that God had placed on his shoulders as successor of the Apostles, that is, to recognize that all his  “efforts must be aimed at preserving the faith of the truth .”  (Catechism. Enc., Bishops, Obligations).