Introduction

The question can be asked - what interest is an obscure Frenchman to English-speaking people in Great Britain and the United States?

It is simply that Jean-Gérard Roux pretends to be one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc, and this will have the result of making some believe that the Archbishop was truly out of his mind, and was so old and incapable that he did not know what he was doing. He is not the only cleric to have acted in a way as to discredit both the work and memory of Archbishop Thuc. Whilst we are all in a situation of being ecclesiastical outlaws, there is no authority, other than the civil authorities of the countries where we live, to ensure unity and discipline. Civil authorities, with no competence or interest in ecclesiastical matters, are concerned only with the respect of civil law.

A number of the clerics mentioned in the list of Archbishop Thuc's succession are charlatans, motivated by illusions of power and an unquenchable thirst for money and more money. Others have a true vocation to the ecclesiastical ministry, and have, for one reason or another, been unable to exercise it in the mainstream official Churches and denominations. The case of J.G. Roux has been exposed on the Internet and other published sources. Roux is far less insidious than some other crooked ecclesiastics who have done far worse and who have committed graver crimes and offences.

It was from November 1998 to January 1999 that I had met this person, and he seemed to have a flourishing ministry at Montmorillon. He invited another ecclesiastic and myself to help him in his ministry because he had broken his leg in an accident. Perhaps he had been the victim of wicked calumnies, and was in reality a genuine and honest independent Catholic bishop. In reality, he was in the process of harassing an elderly lady for her property, causing her death from a stroke in December 1998. The following month, he was talking of selling the furniture and making vast transformations in the property when the Association Cardinal Pie du Montmorillonnais resolved to clarify all ambiguities, expel Roux from the association and take up the matter with the family of the deceased. It was at that point that we discovered the truth detailed on the anonymous French internet site Episcopi Vagantes.

We have not inherited the property in question, and have never made any claim. In February 1999, I bought a house (with money given by my family) in the same town and founded a new chapel. Roux has caused an immeasurable amount of damage to our prospects of a viable ministry, but he is gradually being forgotten as we continue slowly to gain the confidence and respect of our local civil authorities and population.

Some legal matters to clarify

As it can be seen, J.G. Roux had motives for vengeance, and tried to make an accusation against me for libel on a French internet site. This site in French is by an anonymous French polemicist, whose name is known to Roux. Though Roux knows perfectly that this site is not my work, he took legal action against me with the most flimsy imaginable case. When the matter came up in court in January 2000, the lawyer representing Roux had only a false document to use for an attempt of "proving" my guilt. The Juge d'Instance of the civil court of Montmorillon immediately rejected the false document, and rejected the accusation. Roux thus lost his case and has court costs to pay.

Roux has appealed, and the case is not likely to be heard before an Appeal Judge within at least two years. He may decide to produce this site, but I have nothing to fear, since I am merely collecting and publishing what has already been published on the Internet, in a published book and newspaper articles. All the information I give is public domain. Having seen the new file and motives for appeal, and that nothing new has been produced, my own lawyer is certain that Roux has no possibility of succeeding in an appeal trial where he has lost his case in the first instance court.

Who is Jean-Gérard Roux?

Jean-Gérard Roux is someone who has caused a tremendous amount of harm to the movement of independent traditional Roman Catholicism. Wherever he has been, a trail of destruction has been left: people cheated out of sums of money, but more importantly, he has left scandal and bitterness among Christian believers and clergy alike.

Though I have learned a certain amount concerning his sordid personal life, that information is of no interest to me, and will certainly be of no use to my readers. What is important is that he is going around telling people that he was consecrated a bishop directly by Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc in 1982. If the Archbishop really did consecrate such a person, that would mean that the Vietnamese prelate was worthy of no credibility on the part of honest Catholics, having already made prudential errors, particularly in regard to the Palmar de Troya sect.

Having had some personal acquaintance with Roux, I have been personally an eye-witness to his mytho-mania - habitual lying and inventing facts that had no historical basis. He lived in a dream-world of his own invention and all means were justified to satisfy his sickly ego. Some might call Roux a gentle rogue. Others would see something much more sinister in this person with a charm and seductive approach paralleled by few. He presents himself as a converted Novus Ordo priest, consecrated to the episcopate by Archbishop Thuc, and leading a saintly life.

The reality is different: by all accounts convicted in the courts for offences connected with obtaining money by deceit, lying and producing false documents of his manufacture. He is the son of a modest family in Nice, but yet has pretensions to titles of nobility. He claims ordinations and past ministries in the official Roman Catholic Church - where a simple check with the Chancery Office or other authorities would dismiss his claims in a puff of smoke!

It is from a motive of defending the memory of Archbishop Thuc and the whole of the traditional Catholic movement that Roux has had to be exposed by several persons: Fréderic Luz in his book Le Soufre et l'Encens, the anonymous French author of the Episcopi Vagantes Internet site, and this present article.

What does Jean-Gérard Roux claim?

Pretended titles of nobility apart, in which we have absolutely no interest, Jean-Gérard Roux claims that he was ordained a deacon by Mgr Gilles Barthe, Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon on 30th June 1975 for the Cistercian Abbey of Lerins.

He then claims to have been ordained a priest in the Diocese of Nice by Bishop Mouisset on 20th May 1977.

Finally, he claims to have been consecrated a bishop at Loano (Italy), by Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc on 18th April 1982, together with an Italian priest by the name of Luigi Boni.

What do we find when we dig?

It is easy to refute the fraudulent claims of Roux by finding out what he was really doing during those years

In 1978, we find a declaration to the Sub Prefecture of Grasse, on 13th September, of an Association Notre-Dame d'Espérance Provence-Comté de Nice for the safeguard of the faith and worship of the Gallican Church, based at 46 rue du Haut Castelet in Antibes (in a house belonging to a Mrs Faugères). This mention of Notre Dame de l'Espérance, with the consecration of La Bernardière by Canivet and Yves Contamin proves that Roux was under the jurisdiction of Mgr Contamin, a former priest of Bishop Jean Laborie.

His pretensions to have been ordained in the official Roman Catholic Church having been refuted by simple reference to the dioceses and religious communities cited, we find that his priestly ordination by La Bernardière is obscure, though mentioned by the anonymous French author of Episcopi Vagantes.

What follows seems to be straight out of a psychiatric ward. A document is available of his consecration on 1st April 1979 by the Vilatte-line prelate Hélie Constantin Girard de Bernardière, Metropolitan of Provence (sic), Titular Archbishop of Trébizonde in the Syro Orthodoxe Patriarchate of Antioch, making Roux the Titular Bishop of Ascalon. On the same day, by bull of the Holy Orthodox Synod of the Indies (sic) Roux is promoted Prince Jean (Gérard Charles Laurent) Roux Laurenti Lascaris Vintimiglia Commene Negri Maggi, Grand Prince of Numidie Mauritania and Cyrénaïque, Prince of Melitene, Syro-Orthodox Titular Bishop of Ascalon.

By the end of the same month, Roux was making false documents to attempt to gain a status for himself with the local Roman Catholic hierarchy, who asks Roux for explanations of the forgeries. He pretended to be victim of legal action on the part of the local Bishop, and made a considerable amount of money from benefactors.

In May 1979, his association changed its name to Syro-Jacobite Patriarchate of Antioch and all the Orient, minor patriarchate dedicated to Saints Innocent and Victor. In October of the same year, he changed the name yet again to Patriarchate of Antioch - Syro-Orthodox Mission of Europe. This would seem to link him with his episcopal "grandfather", Patriarch Boris the Humble Le Mage Timotchencko, a bishop of the Vilatte succession and not recognised by any canonical Orthodox Church.

According to indications that remain to be verified Roux would have been in prison in 1981. 4 to 5 convictions are spoken of. This would explain why he chose to attack me through civil law rather than initiate a penal trial. Had he done the latter, the law would have required his past criminal record to be revealed. Civil justice in France does not require this.

We come to 1982, the date of a false consecration document with a forged signature of Archbishop Thuc. The document is "countersigned" by a Father Michel Balzano, Assistant priest of Notre Dame du Port and a Father Amboise Ceppi as well as a policeman. Roux has always shown photocopies, never the original. However, in a letter dated on 9th November 1993, Dr Eberhard Heller, editor of the German traditionalist bulletin Einsicht, affirms that on 18th April 1982 Archbishop Thuc was not at Loano but with him and his family in Germany. Dr Heller, though an extreme sedevacantist, is a man of credibility and integrity.

So much for his pretended consecration by Archbishop Thuc, the following year, January 1983, a bull of the Holy Orthodox Synod of the Indies" promoted Roux Prince Jean (Gérard Charles Laurent) Roux Laurenti Lascaris Vintimiglia Commene Negri Maggi, Grand Prince of Numidie Mauritania and Cyrénaïque, Prince of Melitène, Syro-Orthodox Titular Bishop of Ascalon. Why Ascalon? The reason is simple. This was the see of Bishop Dominique Varlet, who in 1724, consecrated the first dissident bishop of Utrecht. Roux saw himself as leader of a new independent Catholic-Orthodox movement. Little people like to imitate famous figures.

In June 1983, Roux was trying to ingratiate himself with Mgr Duval, Cardinal Archbishop of Alger (Algeria), without success. In October 1983, he declared a new association to the local authority of Villeneuve sur Lot called Association Order of Saint Andrew, Ecumenical Ecclesial Community. All this seems hardly consistant with a consecration by Archbishop Thuc just a year before. At the end of 1983, we find Roux running a pizzaria with a friend in a small southern French town called Fumel, and he went out of business the following year with massive debts. The local newspaper called him a false priest but a real shark.

From November 1985, we have a video recording of his sub conditione priestly ordination by Bishop Jean Laborie, a prelate who had been consecrated several times by episcopi vagantes and finally re-consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in 1977. A bishop consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in 1982 would not get himself ordained a priest by a bishop in the same succession. The idea is ludicrous. Yet we have the proof, in which Roux is clearly identified and named. Bishop Laborie, Fr Yves Lavigne and Fr Dominique Labranque are clearly recognised. We also have the document in Bishop Laborie's handwriting, and that one is genuine. This video tape and authentic document definitively refute the claim of Roux to have been consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in 1982.

Even in 1986, Roux was still styling himself as a Syro-Orthodox bishop, as he wrote an abusive letter to Bishop Philippe Miguet (Thuc succession). Only in December 1990 do we find him changing the name of one of his associations to Priestly Society of Archbishop Pierre-Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc. It is from this time, after eight years, that Roux suddenly remembered that he had been consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in person!

From October 1993, Roux started convincing people of his fraudulent claims, and started rapidly to find "consecration fodder" in the form of a retired Roman Catholic priest from New Zealand, whom he consecrated. Dr Eberhard Heller published a warning about Roux in Einsicht. One may wonder why Dr Heller has never been taken to court.

From the years 1993-94, we find mentions of Roux committing fraud, promising false miracles, selling consecrated Hosts, and many other outrageous practices in order to make easy money. He produced forged letters alleged to be from the Vatican, dated from 1982, and confirming Roux's excommunication. If these letters had been genuine, they would convince people of the historical "fact" of his consecration by Archbishop Thuc. However, one letter is written in Dog-Latin, and the other, written in bad French - full of spelling errors - in no way represents the curial style of Vatican officials. They are clearly of his own composition using photocopied cut-and-pasted letterheads.

Many examples of false documents produced by Roux are beyond belief. On many of them, he did not even bother to ensure that the photocopied letterhead was accurately positioned parallel with the typewritten text. On some, the forgery is given away by feint lines betrayed by the poor quality photocopying.

In March 1994, Bishop Jean Laborie wrote to Roux complaining about the false claims to the episcopate from Archbishop Thuc. It was in May 1994 that a large quantity of documentation was stolen from Roux, photocopied and distributed. The French website makes mention of Bishop Terrasson, a Philip Law and Terence Dowling in connection with this theft of papers. At any rate, Roux wrote a letter in his usual schoolboy French accusing the three mentioned above of unjustly attacking him. He mentioned in this letter his intention to get himself re-consecrated sub conditione by Bishop Bedingfeld, and that his detractors would "bear the consequences of the sacrilege incurred".

Was Roux consecrated by Bishop Bedingfeld?

Whether the consecration by Bedingfeld took place or not is an enigma. The certificate, dated on 8th May 1994, appears genuine, and Bishop Bedingfeld's handwriting is recognisable. However, the consecration could not have taken place because witnesses affirm that Roux was at Chaillac (France) between the 4th to the 10th May. We know that Roux went to South Africa between the end of March and the 15th April, and in his bulletin relating the consecration of Xavier du Rosaire, Roux mentions his return to the Mother House on the 16th April. Curiously, though this bulletin covers the period from the 16th to 22nd May, no mention is made of a re-consecration by Bishop Bedingfeld, or even a second journey to South Africa. Now, we know that he wanted that "consecration" known to put an end to rumours of his being a false bishop. This makes us very suspicious.

How is this suspicious? The silence of the bulletin is explained by the fact that Roux went to Africa, but between the end of March and he would have returned to France the 14th or 15th having been arrested at Pretoria for child trafficking, for he had a small child with him. He would have been forbidden to return to that territory. It is only on the 1st May that Roux had the idea of getting himself re-consecrated, and the ceremony is supposed to have taken place eight days after. He would have had to return to Africa only three weeks after his previous journey. The conjecture of our anonymous French site is that he would have paid cash for the document, and that Bishop Bedingfeld was happy for the money. After all, no simony was committed, because all that was sold was a worthless piece of paper.

Perhaps, Roux could show his plane tickets, since they could not have been stolen during his absence. Curiously, the address of Bishop Bedingfeld is not shown in a brochure of 117 pages produced by Roux, presumably to make it more difficult for suspicious people to check out his claim. Should Bishop Bedingfeld express "regret" of having done this consecration, this would be to cover up the existence of a genuine document. It is on record that Bedingfeld once belonged to the Catholic Alliance an association of American bishops of the Thuc succession, and that his former brethren have expelled him from their midst.

Conclusion

We thus have reason to believe, from reading the French website, that Roux was consecrated neither by Archbishop Thuc nor by Bishop Bedingfeld. At best, he is a bishop of the Vilatte succession. He is certainly a validly ordained priest, having received the sacerdotal Order from Bishop Jean Laborie. We can conclude that if Roux is a bishop, he has no connection with the succession of Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc.