RadTrad Thomist Mentioned in St. Athanasius Church, Vienna, Virginia Controversy on account of Archbishop Lefebvre video and Fr. Chazal's Comments.

Vienna Catholic Report

Dr. Chojnowski posted a video recently of Archbishop Lefebvre stating unequivocally the position that sedevacantists hold with precision and clarity.  This video dates from 1976 and it expounds the Church’s teaching and clearly justifies the sedevacantist position.

The Recognize and Resist (R&R) faction, particularly manifested in the SSPX and the spin-off “Resistance” group has condemned and pulverized publicly and calumniously, the sedevacantist positions as twisted, schismatic and contrary to Catholic teaching when in reality Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words (in this video) present and align precisely with the Catholic doctrines which demand and justify the SV position.  Owing to his caution of the days of the 1980’s he attempted desperately to assign the pronouncements of the Novus Ordo Church to confusion, ambiguity and papal malfeasance or confusion in hopes of avoiding the harsh and thorny conclusion. By 1988 he wrote to his future Bishops: “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists...”   (http://fsspx.org/en/letter-future-bishops). With the benefit of thirty later and Bergoglio, the gift that keeps on giving, the conclusion is inescapable.  Dogma is clear that if the Novus Ordo Popes have imposed heresy, then they certainly cannot be Popes.

In a recent Eleison Comment #560 Bishop Williamson endeavors to refute a nominal anti-Lefebvrist writer who points out the heresy of R&R but therein he proves himself as to be the real “anti-Lefebvrist” and more importantly anti-Catholic Dogma as he argues blatantly that the Magisterium has contradicted itself. A statement contrary to the teachings of the Church.  His comments are not random and they follow some dramatic events.

One of the biggest hosts of the Resistance priests and R&R position have been the priests at St. Athanasius church which has been referred to by some as a Resistance church.  Recently it has emphatically condemned R&R, publicly dropped the name Francis from the Mass and removed from the Sunday announcements the prayer request for the Pope and finally removed the name of Francis from the Church’s missalettes.  In addition a three-part series promoting sedeprivationism and DOGMATICALLY condemning R&R was published over three consecutive Sundays in January 2018.

Independently and concomitantly Fr. Chazal published a book with his version of sedeprivationism albeit with a different name.  This was reported on Chojnowski’s radtradthomist website in March 2018.  It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy:  that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.

Three other R&R priests (Pinaud, Rinoult and Roy) have dropped the name of Francis from the Masses over the last few years but similar to Father Ringrose they reject the totalist version of the sedevacantist position for a third option, akin to Sedeprivationism.  Hence these priests are shamefully treated and shunned from their Resistance brother clergy.

Quietly Father Ortiz continues his support and assistance for the Pastor of St Athanasius Father Ringrose.  It is significant because less than a year ago he asserted that one could not attend sedevacantist masses wherein the name of Francis is publicly excluded.  He has always considered them schismatic. Previously Father Ortiz participated in the expulsion of Father Pinaud while now giving his silent cooperation to Fr Ringrose. Silence gives consent. If he has in truth retracted his past position let him do so publicly and offer his apologies to Fr Pinaud. If not, why does he stay in hypocrisy?

The years of SSPX R&R harangue has taken a toll on the minds of their people in that many are left in a rabid like state in rejection of this jewel of Catholic doctrine and this masterpiece of the Holy Ghost’s work: the Indefectibility and Infallibility of the Church. Their ignorance of the Church’s teaching on these matters is deplorable but their fanaticism is frightening.

These events should be brought to light as the Resistance clergy seek to bury these matters.  Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comment #560 is likely intended for those who adhere to the courageous stance of Father Ringrose, Roy, Rinoult, and Pinaud for exposing the heresy of R&R.  Yet he is very careful to avoid this news.

If you would like to help END the tyranny that has held the minds of Catholics for decades publish this dramatic turn of the conversion of these priests from R&R and their courageous stance.

Dr. Chojnowski: Here is the video being referred to (from a speech of Archbishop Lefebvre 1976)


  1. There is nothing in this video that declares that +Lefebvre held the sedevacantist position, he did not. He was completely R+R. When Pope Paul VI died, the entire Society mourned and the chapel was draped in black. We in St. Mary's always had a photo of the pope, whichever, hung in our vestibule. The Archbishop removed sedevacantists from his seminaries and his Society. This speech he gave in '76 but he did not die until '91 and he had still not declared himself sedevacantist. I am continually shocked to see how people, many who were not even around at the time, describe things as they wished they had been, rather than how they were.

    1. Is your last sentence describing yourself? Why don't you read on what he said after the consecrations in 1988 until his death?

    2. Doctor C, can't these men graduate from seventh grade and work together? They are going to let this Argentinian ...sorry...clown divide them?

      By the way, if any of the brave ones need parishes, we have a couple of chapels which need priests. I know it is the tradition of the SSPX and even the Resistance to just kick guys to the curb when they don't groupthink properly.

    3. While there is no doubt that Abh Lebebvre had sympathies with Sedevacantism, he was never himself a Sedevacantist nor did he ever lead the SSPX in that direction. A reading of Lefebvre's biography confirms his sympathies with sedevacantism but his rejection of it. This is also confirmed by one or more of the priests (still living) trained by the SSPX, who knew Lefebvre, and were expelled from the SSPX by Lefebvre for holding sedevacantist positions. Abh Lefebvre's position was consistently and always one of recognize and resist.

      Nonetheless I am not (as a sedevacantist) anti-Lefebvre since I have a great admiration for the course of his life and service to the Church. Sedevacantists are, instead, anti-Conciliar Church and anti-R&R because they are both anti-Catholic positions. It was sad for me (in hindsight) to see Lefebvre play right into the hands of the Conciliar hierarchy by aiding in the destruction of the Papacy with the R&R tactic.

      In any event I believe that Lefebvre's intentions were good, in that he hoped that his public resistance might shock the pope back into orthodoxy. In hindsight I think this hope was misguided given his witnessing of the extent of the modernist disease during the Vatican II Council. As much as I respect his service to the Church Lefebvre's method of R&R is almost as great a pox on the Church as is the Conciliar Church. It is his R&R that is decried not the man.

  2. This video does not have the beginning nor the end of the sermon/speech so we do not know what else the Archbishop said, plus the Archbishop never publicly claimed to be a sedevacantsits, so the Archbishop's actions disagree that his 1976 sermon "clearly justifies the sedevacantist position". At most, we can say that he held the sedevacantist position as a possibility, one that will be decided by a future Pope.

    1. Father Ortiz has answered this, Mark. Can't find it right now, but later in the talk he clearly refuted the SedeVacante position.

  3. No amount of information penetrates the skulls...

  4. If you don't mind information, fast forward through this until 20 minutes, and read quotes from ABL himself. https://youtu.be/DqgcCujfQF0

  5. In his latest work A Spiritual Journey the good Archbishop says “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity, through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family” (ix)." He did not say "The current Anti-Pope...." He knew that he didn't have the authority to claim such a thing. He would wait for the Church to make that judgment. This video shows nothing that we already don't know and that is that basically it is a possibility that some future Pope may Judge these VII Popes as Anti-Popes. This article seems like it has a mission just to divide further. If in fact Fr. Ortiz and Company do hold to this position then let them shout it from the rooftop and be on their way. Let them go join one of the many different factions of Sedevacantist Bishops. God speed...

    1. Even my FSSP priest told me it was preferable to go to one of the many valid Sede masses instead of attending the horrific sterile happy meal masses of my devastated diocese.

      You claim that the Great Archbishop didn't "have the authority to claim such a thing."

      Where did you get that? Please show me church teaching on that. Oh, I don't mean a talking point from the pulpit. I mean CHURCH TEACHING. Now, if you have been paying attention, CHURCH TEACHING on this matter is spelled out abundantly well in Dr. Chojnowski's articles and postings from above.

      I submit to you that YOU do not have the AUTHORITY to tell ME or anyone else that we need "authority" to do what we were ordered to do TWICE by Saint Paul in Galatians 1:8.

      It is in fact infallibly condemned by the church to "appeal to a future council" for church doctrine.

      The church teaches that a pertinacious public heretic has been severed by GOD from the church. The only question remains is whether you cling to a headless zombie church, or recognize reality and act accordingly. The fruits of the zombie church are evident enough. I need no "authority" to follow the words of Christ regarding false shepherds, and you have no authority to tell me that I cannot follow church teaching on the matter.

  6. SSPX told me it is OK to belong to the Sed Church in Clevleand Ohio with Fr. Jenkins. This is an absolute fact. The Regina Coeli Priest said this to me, June 2014!!!!!

  7. I repeat. The church teaches us what to do when any cleric fades away into heresy. The church teaches us that if it is public and pertinacious, his office is lost WITHOUT ANY KIND OF DECLARATION. It's automatic. Even "conservative" Cardinal Burke acknowledges this. There is no "authority" needed to follow church teaching on this. There is no need to "wait" until some "future pope" tells you what you already can observe with common sense and your sensus fide.

    If you are going to state otherwise, please prove it with something besides a talking point invented by the church of capitulation. Good luck.

  8. Fr. Gruner & Fr. Kramer and others believe that BXVI is still the Pope and I agree with them. The diabolical disorientation is everywhere today. Good grief! All I do is remain faithful to the traditions always taught before the Novus Bogus and VII. Why make it so complicated?

    1. Isn't saying that BXVI is still pope making it very, very complicated. BXVI- one of the worst public heretics the Church has ever seen.

  9. It is incredibly mysterious to me why bergoglio cannot be Pope because he is a heretic but ratzinger can even though he was a champion of heresy and has never retracted his heresies. That is mysterious to me. It seems like the most bizarre form of denial.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Amazon Facial Recognition Technology Determines that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are not the Same Person. Not One Match Amidst Thousands of Comparisons.

Sister Lucy Truth Update: Michigan State Facial Recognition Lab Finds that Sister Lucy II (post-1967) was NOT Sister Lucy I (pre-1967). How Much Do We Need to Put Out Until the Crickets Stop Chirping?

More Than Metaphor: Our Lady at La Salette seems to have told us not only THAT the Church would be in "Eclipse," but WHEN IT WOULD GO INTO ECLIPSE, October 27th, 1958.

Long-Standing Fatima "Consecration of Russia" Narrative Implodes as Handwriting Expert Demonstrates 1980 Letter from "Sister Lucy" to Fr. Umberto Pasquale is Definitely a Forgery. Whatever the Real Sister Lucy Knew about the Requested Consecration of Russia DOES NOT Appear in this Letter. Fatima Center, Are You Listening? Report from Bart Baggett to be Posted Imminently.

ALERT: World-Class Handwriting Analyst Demonstrates that the Writings of "Sister Lucy" from after 1957 Were Forgeries. Analysis of "Third Secret" Released by Vatican in 2000, Forged 1969 Letter Urging Obedience and Submission to Paul VI, Signatures on Letters from 1967 and 1969, Letter about Consecration of Russia From 1980, and Manuscript Released by Carmelites of Coimbra and Used as the Basis for Sister Lucy's Official Biography Published by the Blue Army WERE ALL FORGERIES. Follow the Links to the Sworn Testimony Below.

...una cum famulo tuo Michahel Matt et Christophorus Ferrara....Isn't it Strange How Francis Could Watch Athanasius Schneider Participate in the Matt/FSSP Catholic Identity Crisis Conference, without Censure or Disciplinary Action, Even Though Matt has Said that the "Remnant" "No longer accepts the Vatican of Pope Francis as a moral authority in ANYTHING." Strange. Just Sayin'

Revised and Updated Edition of Handwriting Analyst Declaration in which 1969 Letter of "Sister Lucy" Advocating Submission to Paul VI is Proven to be a Forgery. Soon to be Released on SisterLucyimposter.org. Includes Analysis of the Purported Third Secret Released in 2000. Socci's "4th Secret" Looking More Plausible. Folks, if Sister Lucy was around in 1969, she would have been able to write her own letters.