Search This Blog

Friday, February 10, 2023

St. Cyril of Alexandria Shared Something in Common with Archbishop Lefebvre!

St. Cyril of Alexandria
I usually begin my prayer time in the morning by reading about the saints of the days in Butler's Lives. Yesterday, reflecting on St. Cyril of Alexandria I read:

St. Cyril has been called the Doctor of the Incarnation, as St. Augustine was styled the Doctor of Divine Grace: in the great intercession of the Syrian and Maronite Mass he is commemorated as "a tower of truth and interpreter of the Word of God made flesh." Throughout his life he made it a rule never to advance any doctrine which he had not learnt from the ancient fathers."

This reminded me of Archbishop Lefebvre's determination to pass on what he had received, the faith as taught by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church. Would the Fathers of the Church even recognize the faith as presented in Amoris Laetititia, Traditionis Custodes, and the synodal process? 

If they wandered into the Vatican garden when Pachamama was processed in with chants and rattles and venerated by kneeling participants would they believe it was a Catholic ceremony? 

Would St. Boniface, who cut down the pagan Thunder Oak, not have cheered when Alexander Tschugguel threw the idol into the Tiber? Who is faithful to the Church and to the faith passed on by the Holy Fathers of the Church? Those who participate in smudging ceremonies and other pagan rituals or members of the SSPX?

In 1988 after Archbishop Lefebvre signed the Protocol of Accord, Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI)) handed him a letter once again refusing to give a date for the episcopal consecration which had been agreed upon. The next day the archbishop, after a night in prayer, removed his signature sending this message to Cardinal Ratzinger:

Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature to the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself witnessed my deep disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me, bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations. Practically, I am asked to postpone the episcopal consecrations to an unspecified later date. This would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of June 30th was clearly indicated in one of my previous letters as the final possible date. I have already given you a folder concerning the candidates. There are still two months to draw up the mandate. Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June. In the event of a negative answer, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecration, relying upon the authorisation given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society.

Was Archbishop Lefebvre rejecting the papacy by that act? Did he intend to cut his society off from the Church? 

There is little evidence of that. 

The SSPX continues to pray for the pope and to teach the faith as it has been taught for millennia, taught, in fact, as the Apostles and Fathers of the Church taught it. If you had a question about doctrine or Sacred Tradition who would give you the truth? Cardinal Arthur Roche, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship who says those adhering to the Traditional Latin Mass are acting like Protestants or Archbishop Lefebvre who deplored the fact that the Mass had, in fact, been altered to make it more acceptable to Protestants? 

The Novus Ordo as created by Bugnini and his Consilium removed and minimized the essence of the sacrament as a "propitiatory" offering in atonement for sin. They also minimized the ministerial vocation of the priest turning him into a "presider." That, in turn, filled the sanctuary with hordes of laity effectively clericalized as lectors and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist who are as ordinary as feathers on a chicken.

Despite a constant mantra to the contrary, the Council Fathers did not make or mandate the Novus Ordo (NO). It was created out of whole cloth several years later by Bugnini and his Consilium which included Protestants to make sure nothing in the new Mass would bother them. Bugnini and his Mass wreckers ignored many of the precepts in the liturgical document, for example that Gregorian Chant was to have pride of place and Latin was to be  preserved throughout the Mass. But more than that, they gutted the sacramental form that protected the validity of the Mass which now primarily depends on the intent of the priest. (Presumably most priests intend to do what the Church intends, so I'm not questioning the validity of most NO Masses.) Many of the bishops who attended the early experimental new Masses objected without effect. To say that the Council Fathers gave us the Novus Ordo does not, in fact, square with the facts.

At any rate, I have no doubt that St. Cyril would be on the side of the SSPX in this on-going attempt to crush the TLM. May he and all the saints pray for us as we continue to struggle through a crisis which is probably the worst in the history of the Church.

And by the way: THE SSPX IS NOT IN SCHISM!

Come, O Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of the faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Our Lady, Queen of the Clergy, pray for us.

St. Joseph, Patron and Protector of the Universal Church and Terror of Demons, pray for us.


AMalek said...


Anonymous said...

Did three popes say that the SSPX is in schism? Do you have links/doc. to refute this claim by CMilitant?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

In view of the seriousness of the accusation, the burden of proof lies with the accusers.

Anonymous said...

I agree!!!!!