Return to Index of Articles

The Episcopal Consecrations Conferred by His Excellency
Archbishop Peter-Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc

by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara

Originally published in The Reign of Mary, No. 134 (Spring 2009)

The following is taken from an article written by the well-known traditional French priest, Fr. Noel Barbara, in 1992. Although written so many years ago, we believe our readers, who likely had never read the article before, will benefit from the insight offered by Fr. Barbara to the life and character of Archbishop Ngô dinh Thuc.

An ancient proverb tells us that “the only people who never make a mistake are those who never do anything.” Engaged in the Catholic resistance as I have been since the very beginning, and before any of us were prepared for this task, mistakes were inevitable and, in fact, occurred. As Scripture advises, let those readers who have never sinned cast the first stone in my direction.

“Errare humanum est” says another proverb, but we should remember what quickly follows: “perseverare tantum diabolicum.”1 Thanks to God’s grace, I have never been committed to error. Whenever I have found I was wrong, I have quickly escaped, despite the humiliation that making reparation entails. And so it is that I came to the question of the consecrations performed by Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc. Consequently, I would like to examine three facets of these consecrations: the consecrator, the rite used, and the individuals consecrated.

The Consecrator

In every problem, and above all in the present situation, there is no reason to fear the truth. Matters relating to the faith have nothing to fear from the truth. At the time of the consecrations I only knew one thing about Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc: that he had consecrated the visionaries of Palmar de Troya in Spain.

The adventure of Palmar de Troya Archbishop Lefebvre knew Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc quite well from the Second Vatican Council. He considered him to be a bishop with good doctrinal views. Like himself, this bishop belonged to the conservative group. It was because he considered him to be a Catholic bishop, committed to the faith, devoted to Mary, and having nothing to do, that he encouraged him to work with the emissaries of Palmar de Troya who had come to Econe in order to solicit his episcopal services. I heard these facts directly from Archbishop Lefebvre.

One day a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revas arrived at the seminary in Econe. He was accompanied by a priest who spoke English. A lover of the extraordinary, both had come from the location of the apparitions. They came straight from Palmar to beg Archbishop Lefebvre to come to this location immediately because the Blessed Virgin was waiting for him. She was insisting that a Catholic bishop come in order to confer the episcopacy on those she planned to designate.

The Archbishop excused himself and advised them to “approach Archbishop Thuc. He is orthodox and he is not at present occupied. Go and seek him out. He will most certainly agree with your request.” The two messengers immediately left and had no difficulty in convincing the elderly Vietnamese Archbishop to respond to the Virgin’s request.

As I explained, I have these explanations directly from the mouth of Archbishop Lefebvre. He informed us of these facts on the occasion of a visit I made to Econe when someone brought up the name of Archbishop Thuc at the dinner table.

I personally never knew the Vietnamese Archbishop before the time of my two visits to his residence at 22 rue Garibaldi, Toulon, in the district of Var, in France. The first time was in March of 1981 when I went to ask him about a Father Garcia who wished to work with me and claimed to have been ordained by Archbishop Ngô.

The second time was on January 7, 1982, at which time I was accompanied by Father Barthe, an elderly priest connected with the association Union pour la Fidélité. We had asked for a meeting because a Mexican priest friend had come and told us about the episcopal consecration of R. P. Guérard des Lauriers and Fathers Carmona and Zamora. We were desirous of having some information about their consecrations.

What follows is the summary of what happened at this visit, such as is available from notes in the archives of the Union pour la Fidélité.

“We arranged a meeting by telephone for Monday, the 5th of January. Arriving at Toulon, we presented ourselves at his home at 8 o’clock in the morning. The Archbishop lived in a very poor and dirty apartment on the first floor of an old tenement building. In appearance, it was a simple flat that was longer than wide, with a small side kitchen. On the right was a modest bed. In the corner was a table on which he celebrated the traditional rite as codified by Saint Pius V every morning. There were many pious images, a pile of ‘pocket books,’ two chairs and five cats that appeared to be everywhere. As he only had two chairs, the Archbishop sat on his bed and Father Barbara sat opposite him. The room was so small that Father Barthe had to place his chair behind the Archbishop.

“Archbishop Thuc informed us that he celebrated Mass in his apartment early every morning, and always in the traditional rite. Afterwards he would go to the Cathedral where the archpriest had provided him with a confessional. Father Barbara asked him what his relations with the Novus Ordo bishop of the cathedral were. He responded that the [Novus Ordo] Bishop of Toulon had given him the task of providing the Vietnamese with confession, and also the powers of confession for anyone who came to him.

“Father Barbara reminded him that he had visited him during the previous year to ask for information about a certain Garcia of Marseille whom the Archbishop had ordained. Archbishop Thuc informed us that he regretted having done so, because he had come to know that the Father in question was mentally unbalanced. ‘He wished me to consecrate him a bishop. I refused. But,’ he added, ‘why does everyone wish to be a bishop?’

“Father then explained to him the reason for our visit. A Mexican friend, Father Marquette, had informed us that he had consecrated the curé of Acapulco, Father Moises Carmona, and another Mexican, Father Zamora. The Archbishop admitted that such was the case. ‘There were two Germans, Heller and Hiller, who brought them to me and asked that I consecrate them. I had confidence in these two gentlemen because I knew Mr. Heller. He is a very fine person. I knew him because he asked me to confirm his little daughter and I had confirmed her. These Germans are very generous. The two Mexican priests were consecrated here. I was able to speak with them in Latin. Father Carmona spoke much better Latin than did Father Zamora. The two Germans assisted. They had brought along everything that was necessary for the consecration. During the ceremony, they held the candles.’

“Father Barbara then explained that we had also learned from Mexico that he had consecrated Father R.P. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.

— “The Dominican?”
— “Yes.”
— “It is true. I did indeed consecrate him. He is very knowledgeable.” He then went on to explain that it was Father des Lauriers who had himself come and asked to be consecrated. The Germans supported his request.
— “Did these gentlemen assist in his consecration?” asked Father Barbara. We do not remember what he replied. On the other hand the Archbishop told us that once the ceremony was finished Father Guérard left without saying anything; but that later he wrote a letter which he had great difficulty in reading “because his writing is very small.” Archbishop Ngô gave him an attestation such as he did every time he consecrated a person to be a bishop.
— “Have you consecrated other bishops?”
— “No!”
— “How about Arbinet?”

“The Archbishop took a moment to remember. He regretted having ordained this person as a priest, but he denied that he had consecrated him as a bishop. Since then he had learned that this individual had been disowned by his own family.

“Father Barbara then respectfully, but firmly, admonished the elderly bishop to completely sever himself from the Novus Ordo hierarchy. He reminded the archbishop of the need to be prepared for death — this at any age, but ‘how much more at yours!’ He invited him to come to Forges in order to follow a course of Spiritual Exercises during a retreat. He advised him to make a general confession in order to prepare himself for the judgment of God.

“Father Barbara told the Archbishop that he presumed to make this warning, not to place burdens on him, but in charity, for the love of God, the Church and himself. ‘Your Excellence,’ he said, ‘if I could, I would say all this on my knees.’

“Finally, Father Barbara warned him that he risked having difficulties with the official Church. His consecrations were becoming public knowledge. But there is nothing for you to be upset about. They have no authority since they do not belong to the true Church. On the other hand, you should be worried about the judgment of God.

“The Archbishop appeared very moved. He spontaneously thanked Father Barbara, telling him that he understood that his behavior was based on a good will and a great charity. He asked for Father Barbara’s address and told him he would get in touch with him if he decided to do the Spiritual Exercises. The Archbishop accompanied us to the front stairs of his house.

The Real Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc

The summary given above was written the day after our visit of January 7, 1982. Since then, I have given further thought to the matter and have discovered a different Archbishop Thuc, one that I had not previously known.

First of all, one should read his autobiography. This is important for those who only know the Archbishop because of his connection with Palmar de Troya, the essential details of which I have reported.

Archbishop Peter-Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc was born at Hué, on October 6, 1897, of profoundly Christian parents. His father had wished to be a priest, and had undertaken studies with this end in view. His mother, born of a petite bourgeoisie family in Quang-ngâi (south Vietnam) was considered to be a saint by her confessor. During a very prolonged illness from which she died, she inspired the admiration of all who knew her.

His father, Ngô Dinh Khâ, was an excellent Latinist and worked very hard to introduce French into Central Vietnam. After having been the preceptor to the young king Thant Thâi, and then Minister of the Imperial household, he fell into disgrace because he refused to vote against his sovereign. His elder brother, Ngô Dinh Khôi, was an excellent Christian. Because of his refusal to become a minister in the first communist government, he, along with his son, was buried alive.

The three other children of Ngô Dinh Khâ are Diem, the father of the Vietnamese Republic, Nhu and Cân, his close collaborators. They were assassinated by the C.I.A. Ngô Dinh Cân was not with his older brothers at the time they were murdered. He was successful in hiding himself in a shelter provided by the Redemptorist Fathers in Hué. He was betrayed and delivered into the hands of rebellious generals by a shady scheme inaugurated by the American consul. Before executing him, the communists imprisoned him in a cage for over a year. He was, despite this, able to receive Holy Communion every day, thanks to the devotion of a Vietnamese Redemptorist Father. He died very courageously with the rosary in his hand.

Of all the children of Ngô Dinh Khâ, only two were able to escape annihilation: Ngô Dinh Luyén and Ngô Dinh Thuc. The first who had graduated from the Central School for Engineers in Paris was at the time ambassador in London. The other was in Rome where he was involved in the Second Vatican Council. As a young man Thuc had entered the junior seminary in Anninh at the age of 12. He spent 8 years there before going on to study philosophy at the major seminary in Hué. He was then selected to study theology in Rome and returned to his country in 1927 after being awarded three doctorates, one in philosophy, one in theology, and the third in canon law. In addition, he received a license to teach from the Sorbonne.

His bishop successively nominated him to the rank of professor at the College of Vietnamese Brothers in Hué, a professor at the Major Seminary in Hué, and Dean of the College of Providence.

In 1938, at the age of 41, he was chosen by Rome to direct the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinhlong. He was appointed titular bishop of Sesina on January 8, and was consecrated on May 4, 1938. He took as his episcopal motto “Miles Christi — Soldier of Christ.” He was the third Vietnamese priest raised to the episcopate.

The new pastor immediately dedicated himself to the organization of his Vicariate.

Given the reverses that Christianity was sustaining in this part of the world, Pope Pius XI, understood the urgency of opening a Catholic university in South Vietnam for the formation of Christians of the former French protectorate. The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith informed the local bishops of the Pontiff’s heartfelt desire and further informed them that the Holy Father wished that one of the official languages of this University should be French in order that the ancient proteges of France, the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians could all go there for their formation. The local bishops designated Bishop Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc as the person who could best accomplish the wishes of the Holy Father.

Where could the necessary funds for such an enterprise be found in a country engaged in a subversive war? Apart from the blessing of the Pope and the bishop of Vinhlong, all he had was a good will. This is hardly enough to establish a University, even in a mission country. Without being discouraged, the good bishop set to work. Thanks to the support he was able to count on, he was granted by the government of Diem, the authority to harvest the timber of an ancient forest. Thus, it was by his own industry, his efforts and his tenacity, that Bishop Ngô rapidly accumulated all the necessary funds to bring the task he had undertaken to completion, thus fulfilling the desire of the Pope and providing his country with a Catholic university. One last detail worthy of being underlined: by means of his industry, disinterest and foresight he provided this university with sufficient income to guarantee its ability to persist as an independent enterprise.

On November 24, 1960, John XXIII who succeeded Pope Pius XII, transferred the Apostolic Vicarage of Vinhlong to the head of the Metropolitan See at Hué, the city where Bishop Ngô was born.

In 1962 the Second Vatican Council began. In October Bishop Ngô Dinh Thuc was in Rome. This absence so far away from his native land at the moment when his brothers were assassinated, saved his life.

After the Council was finished, like bishops from every country, those from South Vietnam returned to their own dioceses. However the Archbishop of Hué was unable to obtain permission to return to his See. In his autobiography Archbishop Ngô informs us that “the Americans forced the government of South Vietnam to refuse me permission to return.”

He then approached Paul VI, thinking that he would in this way obtain the necessary authorization. Did Montini intervene? Once again, the Archbishop tells us in his autobiography: “Paul VI used my inability to return to my See to force me to resign and to name as my replacement one of his favorites, Bishop Dien.” From that time forward he led an uprooted life.

I who have written these lines and who am myself a “black sheep” well know what it means to a priest not belonging to a diocese and having to support himself. Consider the absence of eagerness with which new priests are welcomed by those who are supposed to welcome them. For him, there appeared to be no place in the vineyard of the Lord. Did the Master make a mistake when he stated that the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few?

The Archbishop was not the kind of person who could remain idle, and before concerning himself with his own needs, this man who spoke fluent Italian looked in Italy for some ministry. He wished to be useful and to support himself in a decent manner. But he who no longer belonged to any diocese was also a stranger in the House of his Mother.

Thanks to a prelate who had been apostolic delegate in Vietnam, Archbishop Ngô was able to find food and lodging in a reception center in Rome, but he had to pay a fee for this. In order to obtain the funds to do this, he offered his services to a curé in the parish. This priest was only too happy to accept his offer… and to exploit him.

Despite his priestly efforts he was unable to earn enough to pay his bill at the reception center. Archbishop Ngô asked the curé to provide him with an empty room at the vicarage, but the curé refused. He was jealous of the bishop who, because of his kindness and availability, ended up seeing his confessional besieged by all the penitents that formerly went to the curé. Despite everything he did, he could not help but antagonize the head of the parish who became increasingly unpleasant, and this to such a degree that the Archbishop finally had to leave.

As he had previously known Dom Nivardo Buttarazzi, the Reverend Abbot of the Monastery of Casamari in the center of Italy, the elderly Archbishop went and knocked at his door. He was received as a brother and given a room in the guest house. For about one-and-a-half years the Archbishop stayed there contentedly. He made himself useful by confessing the faithful of the parish which was dependent on the Abbey and the monks who came to him.

Unfortunately, one day, these religious decided to organize an exhibition of nudes in the library of the monastery. The bishop showed his disapproval with the greatest of discretion. But this was more than they could accept and they asked him to leave the place as soon as he could make other arrangements. Where could he go? The local bishop who had made his sympathies known to the Archbishop on several occasions, asked him to preside over certain ceremonies and to share his meals. The Archbishop then went to the bishop’s house. He begged his confrere to give him a small church that had no priest where he could serve, provided that it had a sacristy where he could place a bed and stay.

The Bishop was agreeable and appointed him to the village of Arpino which consisted of a dozen families. The titular priest was happy to accept the assistance which Providence had provided him through the bishop. “I was happy to stay there with the small flock over which I was the secondary shepherd,” he tells us in his biography, “and I thought that Arpino would be my last resting place in this world… At that time a priest came to me who I had formerly known in Econe, Switzerland. He said to me point-blank: ‘Your Excellency, the Holy Virgin has sent me to bring you at once to Spain in order to render her a service. My car is waiting for you at the door of the presbytery and we will leave immediately so as to reach there by Christmas.’ Thrilled by this invitation, I said to him: ‘If it is a service demanded by the Holy Virgin, I am ready to follow you to the end of the world.’”

And this is how the adventure of Palmar de Troya came about, an event which attracted the attention of all those who asked him for episcopal consecrations.

I have taken the trouble to describe the life of Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc in order to make it possible for my readers to know him better. It follows that he appears to us to have been a truly Catholic bishop, devoted to the Holy See and to the care of souls, a worthy successor to the Apostles in the mission lands, having well merited the designation which this title confers, from both the Roman Church and from his own nation.

In order not to be misled with regard to this important issue we should recall the teaching of the Church on the manner in which sacramental grace is produced. The person who confers the sacrament is only a minister, an instrument endowed with liberty. The state of his soul is only of concern to himself. He will be rewarded if he is in a state of grace, or chastised if he is not. But his personal condition has no influence on the sacramental grace conferred. St. Augustine summarized this teaching with what has become a classic statement: “Peter performs the act of Baptism, but it is Christ who baptizes. Judas performs the act of Baptism, but it is Christ who baptizes.” The grace of the Baptism conferred by Peter is no greater and no better than the grace of the Baptism conferred by Judas. If we replace the word Baptism with that of episcopal consecration, we can see that even under the circumstances of the most unfavorable scenario outlined above with regard to Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc, the bishops consecrated by him are no less consecrated bishops than if the rite had been performed by St. Pius X.

To finish up our discussion of this issue, one last point should be made. Before asking Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc for consecration, Father R.P. Guérard des Lauriers explained the Thesis of Cassiciacum to him. It was only after the Archbishop gave him the assurance that he held the Holy See to be vacant from the time of Paul VI, that the consecration of the Dominican Father was decided on. I obtained this information directly from Father Lucien, who in turn obtained it directly from Father Guérard des Lauriers.

Nor was Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc only willing to declare this vacancy of the Holy See privately. As much as he could he made his position clear in the public forum. And God, Who directs all things wished this fact to be as it were, juridically registered. In effect, in the official letter (Prot. N. 7/76) from Rome dated February 1, 1983, and addressed to His Excellency Archbishop Pierre-Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc, the titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is explicitly mentioned that: “A public declaration published in Munich on February 25, 1982, under your own signature affirms that according to you, ‘the See of the Roman Catholic Church is at this time vacant,’ and that it is necessary for you as a bishop to do everything you can in order that the Roman Catholic Church can continue to guide souls to their eternal salvation” (Review Einsicht, March 1982, p. 8).

This Declaration is of the greatest possible importance with regard to what we are discussing. It manifests the primary condition which would allow Archbishop Ngô to presume an Apostolic Mandate, a condition without which he could not use the principal of epikeia. The consecrations performed under such circumstances are not only perfectly valid, but also perfectly licit.

The Rite Utilized

The rite used was that which existed before the reforms of Paul VI. As the rubrics require, the consecrations were conferred during a Mass celebrated according to the traditional form as codified by St. Pius V. The witnesses are very clear with regard to this matter. But apart from their witness, it suffices to know the interested parties to understand that none of the parties involved would have been agreeable to the consecration using any other than the traditional Catholic rite.3

The Individuals Consecrated

It is here that we must be most prudent.

1. Catholic priests that have asked for the episcopacy or have been willing to be consecrated in order to serve the Church and to preserve the Catholic priesthood which is the source of the sacramental life.

Those who were Catholic priests before their consecration have become Catholic bishops after their consecration to the same degree as have those bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

2. Subsequent to the affair of Palmar de Troya, the only Catholic priests to my knowledge that were consecrated by Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc were R.P. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., and Fathers Carmona and Adolfo Zamora. Unfortunately the three have passed away, but they have passed on the episcopate:

— Bishop Guérard des Lauriers to Fathers Gunther Storck (now deceased) and Robert McKenna, O.P.
— Bishop Moises Carmona to Fathers George Musey (now deceased), Benigno Bravo (now deceased), Roberto Martinez (now deceased) and Mark Pivarunas.

General Conclusion

I would like to conclude this brief study about the orthodoxy of some of the consecrations conferred by Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc with one last point. Both of the two lines of Catholic bishops — those which derive from the founder of Econe and those which derive from the Vietnamese prelate — are valid. Can it be said that there is no difference between them?

No. In point of fact, there are several differences.

— The First point of difference is minor and favors the line of consecrations initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

While the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc were conferred in a secret manner, great publicity surrounded the consecrations at Econe. But I should also point out and we should not forget that after the consecrations of Guérard des Lauriers and the Mexican priests, the attacks on Archbishop Thuc because of them led to their losing their secret character. They became public and so rapidly so that Rome was immediately aware of them and intervened. This intervention on the part of Rome provided these consecrations with the notoriety which they formerly lacked.

— The Second difference favors the line established by Archbishop Thuc.

The consecrations at Econe were conferred after John Paul II refused permission, and despite the formal prohibition against them. And this while both consecrator and those consecrated recognized John Paul II as a legitimate pope. To act in this strange manner can only be described as schismatic behavior.

On the other hand, those performed by Archbishop Thuc were performed by someone who had recog nized and publicly declared that the Holy See lacked a formaliter pope. Two fortunate things followed from this recognition of the absence of any authority. It allowed both consecrator and those consecrated to invoke the principle of epikeia in presuming an apostolic mandate and as a result rendered the consecrations conferred, not only valid, but also licit.
— The Third difference is the most important.
While not believing the bishops in the Lefebvre line to be formal heretics or schismatics, it is clear that they are behaving in a schismatic manner. Up to the last minute they persist in publicly ridiculing the authority of the individual who they continue to recognize as a true pope of the Catholic Church and the individual invested with the powers of Saint Peter. Such behavior is gravely scandalous. It is a scandal against the faith.

The bishops who derive their consecration from Archbishop Thuc have behaved in an openly Catholic manner. Believing John Paul II to be an antichrist, the principal destroyer of the Catholic Faith, they refuse to pay any attention to his decisions. They know very well that he cannot be the Vicar of Christ, that he possesses absolutely no authority, and they declare this openly so as to avoid giving scandal.

Footnotes

1 ”To err is human. What is diabolical is to persist in error once one is aware of it.” As for the reward of paying the price, Our Lord has told us “Veritas liberabit vos: the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).
2 This Patriarchate, while declaring itself to be in submission to the Pope, refused to obey him. In the encyclical Quae in Patriarchate (January 9, 1876), Pius IX addressed the clergy and the faithful of the Chaldean rite. The Pope explained, “What good does it do to proudly recognize the supremacy of Peter and his Successors? What benefit is it to frequently repeat declarations of the Catholic faith and obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine words are contradicted by one’s actions?” (Cf. Solesmes, L’Egise, T. 1, No. 433-434).
3 Father R.P. Guérard des Lauriers was the principal editor of the Brief Critical Examination, otherwise incorrectly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. He was the first to establish that “the new rite [the Novus Ordo] deviates in an impressive manner, both in its entirety and in its details, from the Catholic Theology of the Mass such as was defined in the XXIIth session of the Council of Trent.”
Father Moises Carmona, the curé of Acapulco in Mexico, belonged to the P.E.R.C. (Cf. Open Letter to the Society of Pius X, note 37 p. 83). He had struggled along with us and Father R.P. Saenz y Arriaga from the beginning of the Catholic resistance, above all to preserve the rite of the Mass as codified by St. Pius V. Both of them had been excommunicated by the new Church for having translated and distributed in Spanish my study on The Heresy, Schism and Apostasy of Paul VI.