Apostolic Succession

Among the testimonies, particular prominence belongs to that of Louise Littieri, who declared that she was personally present in Loano on April 18, 1982.

She stated she could swear that Msgr. Boni and Msgr. Roux were consecrated by Msgr. Thục. Her deposition contains furthermore a precise sequence of travels:

Nice: Msgr. Thục arrived in Nice on the Tuesday after Easter. Cannes: He went to abbé Delmasure. Antibes: He subsequently visited a physician. Loano: From Antibes he was accompanied to Loano by W. Ardisson.

Littieri also named P. Riu, W. Ardisson, and A. Faugère. She referenced the Pensione Millone where Msgr. Thục reportedly stayed, as well as the possibility of verifications with the Savona Police Headquarters.

She declared that she knew these facts directly because she was in the service of Msgr. Luigi Boni. Her testimony does not consist of a vague memory, but specifies an itinerary, persons, and determined places.

Father Aereld O.C.S.O. stated that he had known Jean-Gérard Roux since 1970, had been his spiritual father, and attended his 1977 priestly ordination. Speaking of 1982, he explicitly affirmed that Roux had been consecrated by Msgr. Thục in Loano, although stating that this decision had caused him sorrow. The testimony is significant precisely because it distinguishes personal judgment on the act from the reality of the event.

Msgr. Ed Abele, while openly stating that he did not share Msgr. Roux's position, gave unequivocal testimony.

Brother Mathieu recalled the existence of multiple witnesses to the consecrations of Msgr. Roux and Msgr. Boni in Loano in 1982.

Msgr. Luigi Boni is an integral part of the same reconstruction: Msgr. Roux consistently maintained the affirmation that he was consecrated together with Msgr. Boni in Loano on April 18, 1982.

To the testimonies is added the documentation relating to the event. The corpus includes: the certificate of episcopal consecration, the Publication d'ordination épiscopale, the notarial deed of June 10, 1982, photographic evidence, signatures and stamps, and comparisons with contemporary autographs of Msgr. Thục.

Of particular chronological significance is the notarial act of June 10, 1982, in which, less than two months after the events, the Thục-Roux consecration in Loano was already formally declared.

The preserved certificate also bears Msgr. Thục's signature and names as witnesses R.P. Michel Balzano and R.P. Ambroise Ceppi.

In the documentary corpus is also preserved an autograph of Msgr. Thục dated Munich, February 25, 1982, very close chronologically to the Loano certificate and used as a benchmark for comparison of the signature.

Eberhard Heller contended that Msgr. Thục was in Munich, Bavaria, on April 18, 1982. According to his reconstruction, he collected Msgr. Thục in Nice on January 29 and the Archbishop did not return to southern France before May 1.

In the material examined by the Pious Union, however, no independent contemporary evidence—such as a register, a dated and localized letter, an administrative document, an unequivocally dated photograph, or similar act—has been identified that could place Msgr. Thục in Munich specifically on April 18, 1982.

The distinction is substantial: Heller's testimony is one thing; independent documentary proof of Msgr. Thục's presence in Munich on that specific day is quite another.

Many years later, Heller himself acknowledged the limits of his memory in his essay «Mein Zusammentreffen mit S.E. Erzbischof Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc», published in EINSICHT (Year 54, No. 3, March 2024). Heller recalled that the events dated back more than forty-five years, asked for understanding for having forgotten some things, and warned that his account would contain numerous gaps.

This admission does not render all of his recollections false, but it prevents them from being converted into a complete and infallible chronology of all the travels made by Msgr. Thục in 1982.

In another dispute concerning ecclesiastical successions, it was also recognized that an earlier reconstruction had been «partially incomplete» («teilweise lückenhaft») and that the gap had been bridged «by resorting to a supposition» («mit einer Mutmaßung»).

Heller claimed that Msgr. Thục was in Munich on April 18, 1982, and that, consequently, the Loano consecration could not have taken place. Yet he continued to concern himself with the documents produced in support of the consecration. He was informed of two documents relating to the episcopal act and discussed that question in his reconstruction.

Heller also sent his writing to Msgr. Jean-Gérard Roux asking him to take a position. The reply from Msgr. Roux dated November 13, 1993, is preserved: placed directly before Heller's objection, he did not recant. He did not change consecrator, did not change date, did not change place. He continued to maintain: Msgr. Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, Loano, April 18, 1982, together with Msgr. Luigi Boni.

If Heller had possessed an incontrovertible contemporary proof definitively establishing Msgr. Thục's presence in Munich on April 18, 1982, why continue asking explanations from Msgr. Roux and debating the consecration documents? Heller's own conduct shows that the documentary question remained important to him as well.

This argument does not substitute for the positive proofs of Loano, but shows that the dispute cannot be reduced to the simple formula: «Heller said Munich, therefore Loano is impossible».

Over the years, Msgr. Roux maintained the essential facts of his consecration unchanged: Msgr. Thục as consecrator, Loano as place, April 18, 1982, as date, Msgr. Luigi Boni as fellow consecratee. Even during controversies, he did not alter that position.

The consistency of a testimony does not by itself constitute sufficient proof, but acquires value when considered together with documentation and other preserved depositions.

On October 12, 2006, in the midst of disputes, Msgr. Roux responded in a spirit that deserves preservation also for its spiritual value. After recalling Saint Paul's words on persecution, insults, and Christian patience, he wrote:

Msgr. Roux did not accompany his defense with a recantation, but continued expressly to indicate Msgr. Thục as his consecrator. These words also express the criterion with which we wish to address historical controversies: firmness in truth, without hatred toward those who contest.