There are many misconceptions regarding Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc and many more malicious attacks upon this solitary heroic Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church. He was a strong man; but his strength did not preclude a certain appropriate humility which his detractors certainly do not possess.
The Archbishop was not very popular in Vatican circles. The last time I saw the Archbishop was in a hotel room in New York City where he was being held against his will. The next time I heard of him was when he died in the solitary confinement of a Modernist seminary near St. Louis, MO.
Etched in my memory are the last words spoken to me by him. There was no way for him to escape his guarded prison in that ugly, seedy hotel run by a neurotic Vietnamese for welfare recipients.
I recall his account of the forced visit to Pio Laghi, Apostolic Delegate of the occupied papacy to the United States. Only the Archbishop knows what took place at this forced private encounter. Now, only Pio Laghi who sports the cardinal's hat in Rome and I, know what took place. And the only way that I know is because Archbishop Ngo related to me the essential elements of that conversation.
Pio Laghi tried to pressure the Archbishop into making a statement whereby he would repudiate the episcopal consecrations performed by him. The Archbishop laughingly said: " If I repudiated what I had done, all my efforts would have been in vain."
He did what had to be done: He consecrated bishops according to the ancient rite of the Church confirmed and reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII. The reason? Very simple: To provide for the valid and legitimate apostolic succession in the face of universal apostasy headed by those usurping the Chair of Peter.
The proof of his wisdom and foresight can be seen in the fact that with "Paul VI's" promulgation of the new rite of ordination and consecration for priests and bishops, respectively, the mutilated ritual does not confer the supernatural power and order of Holy Priesthood.
Therefore, since 1968, those who have used the Montinian Ritual for ordination or consecration have performed rites foreign to the Roman Catholic Church. Consequence: all those who have been `ordained' according to the new rite are not valid priests; likewise, all those who have been `consecrated' according to the new rite are not valid bishops.
There is no transfer of the supernatural powers of Holy Orders.
The only high-ranking prelate of the Roman Catholic Church _ a seemingly obscure one at that _ Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc did what no other genuine Bishop of the Church had the courage to do: He ordained several men to the priesthood and elevated several to the dignity of the fullness of the priesthood, that is to say, to the rank of bishop.
That his trust had been abused is no secret. But this abuse of trust ought to be placed at the feet of the guilty, and not at the feet of the innocent.
What parents bringing a child into this world do not feel deep pain in seeing that child become the sorrow and shame of those who loved and trusted him?
Imagine what the mothers of the thieves hanging on the crosses might have felt. Do you think they were guilty of their children's bad choice in life? Do you think that the Archbishop rejoiced to see how his good will and heroic actions were turned against him? The innocent is scorned; the guilty are praised! What injustice!
My only thought is this: What shameful thoughts did those individuals entertain who were fortunate to receive the trust of this elegant and princely Prelate?
There was no Masonic cloud hovering over the Archbishop's head to place his ordination and consecration in question. His own valiant brother resisted the Masonic ambitions of those governments where they held sway to reduce his country to nothing more than a satellite state for exploitation. For this, his brother, Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam, was assassinated.
I never thought people could be so malicious until I saw how otherwise `respectable' persons tried to undermine the heroic efforts of this single Prelate by suggesting that the death of his brother and other members of his family had somehow `unnerved' him. I can understand why our Lord would hurl such imprecations at those who would call their brother, `fool.'
Not a single individual who has maligned Archbishop Ngo had ever spent any time living with him. All his detractors are pompous, self-centered, ambitious, unprincipled opportunists. The worst of them has even proved his disgusting disloyalty even to his own benefactor, Marcel Lefebvre. These are the `wolves in sheep's clothing' of which our Lord warned us.
Some may wonder why I have chosen to write about Archbishop Ngo. I can't give them an answer. I just started to think of him and the terribly lonely and difficult road he traveled since the Second Vatican Council. I reconstruct in my mind the spiritual conflicts he had to undergo in order to remain true to the faith and his promises as a successor of the Apostles.
He was an outcast among his own Vietnamese Catholics as much as he was among his peers in the Vatican.
It is said that there were six hundred bishops who did not sign the decrees of Vatican II. Of the six hundred, approximately fifty three are still among the living. That number, without a doubt, most certainly has grown smaller with time.
But, there is a haunting, nagging question: If these bishops did not sign the documents of Vatican II, then why did they not stand up and openly defy the innovators at Vatican II and, especially, after the Council? Where did they go? What did they do to preserve the sacredness of their holy office? How is it that one hears _ and this very rarely _ that one or the other had ordained or consecrated someone? And what is that `someone' doing now? I know of at least one individual who had been consecrated secretly. Then, this secret bishop ordained one young man who never functioned as a priest. What is the value of such ordinations and consecrations? There is no value to them because even if they are valid priests, they cannot offer fruitful Masses nor administer fruitful Sacraments unless they are really united to a visible Roman Catholic bishop.
From a natural point of view, the Church is a visible society like any other society. As such, it requires a visible structure, not an invisible one. When we say that one of the marks of the true Church is that it is `apostolic,' we mean by that that it comes down to us from the Apostles and their legitimate successors. Who are these `legitimate' successors? They are the bishops.
Much to the delight, assuredly, of the enemies of the Church, we witness the chaos and anarchy caused by disobedient clergy and equally misguided laity. I recall the words of Archbishop Ngo while he was still living in France. Knowing the penchant to pride and independence of the human spirit, I already foresaw the attitude most clergymen would have towards a bishop consecrated by the Archbishop. It reminded me of the Pharisees who inquired of our Lord when He taught and commanded obedience. The Pharisees challenged Him, saying: "By what authority do you teach?" Indeed, if anyone would genuinely desire the answer to all the apparent confusion and disorder among those who say they are `Catholic,' the answer would be very simple: Because of their lack of obedience!
Even those who gladly support the heresies emanating from the Vatican fancy themselves `obedient' to the dictates of that prophet of indifferentism, John Paul II. I guess they would obey Satan if he dressed himself in white. But, would their conscience not rebuke them? If they lived their faith and their vocation, would you not expect that these educated clergymen and intelligent laymen would not fall into the devil's trap of disobedience?
Faith is the foundation of obedience. This is the reason why, although charity (obedience) is lost through sin, faith still remains. When faith is lost through heresy, the foundation of all virtue is destroyed. Upon what is faith built? Faith is built on humility. And so, humility is the very foundation of faith. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Consequently, where there is no obedience to truth and right order, it is not long before faith becomes dead.
This is the reason why I asked the Archbishop concerning those priests who would not obey _ what of them? His answer was not long in coming: "Too bad for them!" was his answer.
Yes, "too bad for them". Why? Because although they can proudly resist right order, because they can arrogantly dismiss their need for a bishop over them, because they can externally pretend to serve the `salvation of souls' and the `Church,' they will never get past our Lord on Judgment Day. You can be sure that a most severe day of reckoning awaits them. They may have deceived those who willingly follow them; but they cannot deceive either Christ or His appointed ministers.
There is often confusion even among people of good will regarding the priests or bishops that have been ordained or consecrated through the valid and legitimate line of Archbishop Ngo. The confusion comes from the fact that some of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngo himself have not kept their promise of loyalty to the Church. It was not long before the devil got in among those bishops and each went his own way, disregarding the obligations of their office.
For all his supposed intelligence, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. of France imprudently consecrated individuals even when there was opportunity to confer with other bishops. These in turn began to ordain and consecrate individuals with complete disregard to the order of things to which every bishop is obliged. Once this `Pandora's box' was opened, any conscientious man could not forestall the flood of anarchy let loose by those upon whom such men laid their hands lightly. As a tragic consequence, we see the disobedient thieves of Holy Orders roaming the globe and making a mockery of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
There are those who have received Holy Orders from valid bishops. These loudly proclaim their validity from Archbishop Ngo. But, neither Archbishop Ngo nor his representative have ever been involved in the approval of these individuals whose vocation and competency have not been proven. On the contrary, some who today transverse the globe indiscriminately ordaining and fostering further anarchy are precisely the ones who sought consecration but were rejected by even the Archbishop. Such as these went abroad where they were not known and received consecration from the French Dominican, Msgr. Guerard des Lauriers. It is very peculiar that Msgr. des Lauriers rebuked the Mexican bishops to mind their own business in Mexico and not interfere in matters in France. Yet, this same Frenchman lacked the prudence to avoid involvement in American intrigue.
There are many today who make some claim to have validity and legitimacy through Archbishop Ngo. I suppose the same claim can be made regarding the Apostles from whom all valid bishops have come. Yet, I really cannot believe that the Apostles would have approved the ordination or consecration of individuals living outside the obedience and discipline of the Church.
In every time of crisis, there is a greater need for caution and prudence. There is a greater need because the mind and emotions are struggling to maintain a proper balance. It is a sensitive time, something like the sensitive moment of an acrobat walking a tight rope. There are many conflicting distractions vying for the attention of the tight rope walker. There are the distractions on the left and the distractions on the right.
The experienced acrobat knows to refrain from allowing himself to be influenced by either side. The narrow path of the tight rope is the only right way to go. This is the situation in the world of religion today. I prefer not to speak of the Church in this context because I am not convinced that those on the right truly belong to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
They are the voices on the right which are no safer than the voices on the left. The `right' is nothing more than an irrational reaction to the `left.' The true Church is always on the `tight rope' _ the Church is always faithful to Herself. Her members, likewise, can only be faithful to Her when they remain faithful not only to Her doctrine, but also to Her discipline.
This was what Archbishop Ngo desired to achieve while making his headquarters here in Rochester, NY. Even while here, there were inimical elements that were working to divide the bishops. Someone was attempting to insert a wedge of suspicion and distrust between the Archbishop and myself. I refrain from mentioning certain names for the sole reason that their names need not be mentioned. Their works will rise to haunt them.
There is a letter written by the Archbishop which was never sent, perhaps because of oversight. Or, perhaps by an act of Providence. I read the letter after his abduction and death. In it, the Archbishop is saying that he is very disappointed in me because I appear not to share his convictions regarding the state of the Church.
You see, nothing could be further from the truth. I understood his position; I concurred with it; and, I accepted him as my ecclesiastical Superior in view of the Apostolic See being vacant
It was Archbishop Ngo who was the first to have the courage of his convictions in declaring publicly that the See of Peter was vacant, that is, occupied by an imposter.
This position is not the same as declaring one's independence from the Apostolic See. On the contrary, it is just the opposite. It is loyalty to the Apostolic See that has forced the denunciation of the usurpers of the papal throne.
It is obedience to Jesus Christ and to the Church (which is the same thing since the Church is His Mystical Body) that requires the acceptance of all the consequences of this stand.
For this reason, it is a gross departure from truth and honesty on the part of Malachi Martin to state in his web site that we are `independent.' The truth is that Malachi Martin and all those like him are the real `independent' clergy, frocked or defrocked. As a chosen part of the apostate Church, former Jesuit, Malachi Martin hypocritically labels obedient Catholics as `disobedient' while he and his kind pretend to be `obedient' to an authority which, in practice, neither he nor his kind obey.
Our obedience is to the Roman Catholic Church and Her legitimate Popes. We believe that the Holy Ghost guides the true Church and that anyone who rejects the teachings of the Church no matter when these teachings were presented to the faithful is a heretic and schismatic.
Our loyalty and dependence are tested by the circumstances of today. We prefer to be with the true Church, rather than with the apostate Church headed by Karl Wojtyla.
And, because the great sacrifice made by Archbishop Ngo to preserve the Church in Her sacred hierarchy is a prime target of the devil and his followers, it is our determination to remain faithful to his efforts to preserve the apostolic succession within the true Church, without succumbing to the left or to the right.
Judging from the various actions of other bishops, some of whom were truly consecrated by the Archbishop, there is solid reason to believe that those bishops do not follow the ordinances of the Roman Catholic Church. And for this reason, I do not wish to associate with them or be confused with them. We prove our faith and our loyalty to the Church when we not only teach Her doctrine, but when we respect Her discipline.
Archbishop Ngo was an intelligent and honest example of this. May his soul rest in that place where faithful and acceptable warriors reside. He needs no `cult' to exploit him. His works have followed him into eternity. The best way to honor him is with our deeds, not our words.
I would like to repeat here the public statement made by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc in Munich, Germany on February 25, 1982 (sixteen years ago):
" How does the Catholic Church appear in our days? In Rome there rules `Pope' John Paul II, assisted by a college of Cardinals, as well as by a large number of Bishops and Prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church appears to be flourishing with Her Bishops and Priests. Catholics are numerically important. Each day, the Mass is celebrated in many churches, and on the Lord's Day the churches welcome many of the faithful to hear Mass and to receive Holy Communion.
But, in the eyes of God, how does the Church actually appear?
These Masses, daily and Sunday, at which the faithful assist, are they not pleasing to God? In no way, because this Mass is the same for Catholics and Protestants. For this reason, it is not pleasing to God and is INVALID. The only Mass pleasing to God is the Mass of Saint Pius V which is celebrated by a small number of priests and bishops, of which I make up a part.
For this reason, and in the measure possible, I will open a seminary for candidates to a priesthood pleasing to God.
Over and above this "Mass" which offends God, there are a number of elements that constitute an object of reproach to God. For example, in priestly ordination, in episcopal consecration, in the Sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction.
Besides these things, these "priests" mentioned above profess:
2. A false ecumenism
3. The Cult of Man
4. Religious indifference
5. The refusal to condemn and excommunicate heretics.
For these reasons, in my capacity as a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Apostolic See of the Church is vacant, and that it is my duty as a Bishop to do all in my power to assure the continuation of the Roman Catholic Church for the eternal salvation of souls."
Munich, 25 February 1982
+ Peter-Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc
Return to Contents
Return to Homepage.