Quotessence
Home / Topics / Catholic Church Today Quotes

Catholic Church Today Quotes

Browse 60 quotes about Catholic Church Today.

Catholic Church Today Quotes

“These, then, are the reasons why we cannot accept compromises concerning Econe. Whatever may be said to us, we shall not agree to abandon the Tradition of the Church. We shall not agree to separate ourselves from all the Popes who have spoken since the Council of Trent or from the Council of Trent. We prefer to be with the Popes of four centuries than be with the present Roman Curia, which wants and institutes all kinds of novelties and thus tends to make us Protestants and Modernists. We do not want that and we are persuaded that, in so acting with the Pope. For the Pope cannot be against Tradition. It is impossible. (lecture given September 9, 1975 in Vienna, Austria)”

“In his remarks about Father Gruner at the end of the June 26 press conference, Cardinal Ratzinger had also noted that Father Gruner was no doubt suffering from angoscia - the Italian word for extreme mental anguish. Cardinal Ratzinger obviously knew of the threat of excommunication, which would indeed cause angoscia in any faithful priest who loves the Church. But Father Gruner's plight is only emblematic of the plight of the Church as a whole in the post-conciliar epoch: a priest who has committed no offense against faith and morals is personally threatened with excommunication by the very head of the Congregation for the Clergy, while throughout the Church predators in Roman collars molest alter boys or spread heresy as their bishops move them from place to place or conceal their activities and protect them from punishment; and the Congregation for the Clergy does nothing. What is to explain this outrageous disparity of justice? There seems to us only one sensible explanation, based on what we have shown thus far: In the Catholic Church of the post-conciliar Adaption, the one unforgiveable offense, just as in Stalinist Russia, is to buck the Party Line. And Father Gruner had bucked the Party Line on Fatima.”

“Stranger still Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has made the same admission. In the aforementioned interview in 30 Days he said: "The emergency of our time is to show people that the Church of today is the same as the Church has always been." But why is there such an "emergency" in the first place? When in the entire history of the Catholic Church did it ever have to be demonstrated that the Church was still the same as before? Why would such a demonstration even be necessary if there were not a very good reason to suspect that the Church has been changed? There is indeed good reason to suspect this, as we have shown: Since Vatican II the Catholic Church has undergone and Adaptation precisely along the lines predicted, plotted, and carried out by Her worst enemies. And those in charge of the Catholic Church today refuse to recognize what has happened, even if they are not conscious agents of destruction themselves . . . They blindly and stubbornly defend the Adaptation of the Catholic Church as if it were a dogma of the Faith, while the real dogmas of the Faith are being undermined throughout the Church before their very eyes, while they do nothing.”

“The Message of Fatima had, quite simply, been written out of existence, transformed into slogans of the Adaptation. And in line with this Stalinist Adaptation of the Church there would be censorship of anyone who hearkened to the former understanding of the old terms. In the same letter of February 16, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had demanded that Father Gruner "publicly retract" certain opinions in his apostolate's magazine that the Cardinal deemed objectionable. In a Church teeming with heretical literature which has undermined the faith of millions and engendered their souls, Carinal Castrillon Hoyos wished to censor the Fatima Crusader magazine! And why? Because the magazine had dared to criticize, not Catholic teaching on faith and morals, but the prudential decisions of Carinal Sodano and his collaborators - including their press conferences and dinners with the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev, their cozy relations with the schismatic CPA and their attempt to bury the Message of Fatima under of mountain of false interpretation. The treatment of Father Gruner, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X, and other perceived obstacles to the new orientation of Vatican II illustrates that the post-conciliar epoch presents a situation very much that lamented by St. Basil at the height of the Arian heresy: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished: an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions . . ." Only one offense is now vigorously punished today: an accurate observance of the Church's constant pre-conciliar traditions . . .”

“We may no longer speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we may speak of God, of the rights of man, of a certain philanthropy, but we may no longer speak of the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But that is why we are Christians. It is to extend the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, no only in heaven but on earth. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven - the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This then is what makes me afraid. I am afraid that they will continue in the same orientation which is destroying the Church, destroying her from top to bottom because it is our faith which is at stake. We cannot keep silent about the fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ is our King, that He is our God, that He is the only way to salvation. We cannot be silent about this, even if it means that we may be persecuted, even if we have to shed our blood to affirm our faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. We must then pray that at Rome they will come back to the true orientation of the Church, that they do not change the orientation of the Church, the path which was followed by the Apostles, by the Popes, by the councils, by the saints, by the good faithful for twenty centuries, but rather that we continue on the road. (sermon of August 25, 1985 Flueli, Switzerland)”

“And yet, as the world moves ever closer to a final apocalyptic event, certain elements in the Vatican seem more determined than ever to consign the Message of Fatima to the past, while persecuting those who continue to proclaim it. Only one day after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 claimed more than 3,000 lives and stunned the entire world - only one day! - the Vatican press office released a statement condemning Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatima apostolate and declaring that none should attend the apostolate's conference (scheduled for October 7-13, 2001) on world peace through the Fatima's Message! Are these Vatican officials more afraid of Fatima than world terrorism? Are they more concerned about a conference on Fatima in Rome than they are about the heresy and scandal which are wounding the Church throughout the world - on their watch? Clearly, these Vatican officials have lost all sense of proportion about the state of the world, and the state of the Church over which they preside.”

“On February 16, 2001, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos sent Father Gruner another letter, renewing the threat of "excommunication" and demanding that he "publicly retract" criticism of Cardinal Sadano, and other matters of free opinion in the Church, found certain articles in The Fatima Crusader - an unprecedented demand, and one that is quite ludicrous considering the profusion of heretical literature, promoted by unfaithful priests and even bishops during his tenure about which Cardinal Hoyos did nothing. (page 215)”

“In a Church beset by widespread clerical corruption that he general tolerated during his tenure, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos attempted to destroy the good name and life's work of a lone faithful priest, Father Nicholas Gruner, simply and only because he would not accept a counterfeit of the Message of Fatima dictated by the Vatican Secretary of State. (page 215)”

“And yet, while there has been no "direct action" by the Vatican against priests who sexually abuse nuns, Father Nicholas Gruner was declared "suspended" in the Congregation for the Clergy's only public announcement concerning the "discipline" of any of the Church's 260,000 diocesan priests in 2001 - "suspended" for an offense that has never been specified, for none exists. "Suspended", in fact, for no other reason than that he has not desisted from promoting the authentic Message of Fatima. Such are the Vatican's priorities under the "new orientation" of the Catholic Church and the Secretary of State's Party Line on Fatima. (page 202)”

“I had spoken about the dogma of Faith being under attack even from within the Church, and I had made reference to some examples of Church teachings which were losing acceptance among many "Protestantized" Catholics. One of the seminarians of this group brought that point up again and told me that he, for one, did not believe in what I had said was the Church's teaching. It was enough for him to know that a certain Cardinal had said the opposite. "I follow the living magisterium," this seminarian told me! I could hardly believe my own eyes and ears. This was a seminarian who was preparing to become a priest to say only the traditional Latin Mass, and who had supposedly had a traditional seminary formation. As best I could tell from the discussion that followed, the superior of the group shared this seminarian's understanding of the Church's Magisterium - basically, that a "magisterial teaching" is whatever happens to be the latest word from Vatican officials, no matter how contradictory this might be to the prior constant and defined teachings of the Church!”

“As I have said before, the bishops talked about sharing with the poor, but they fail to set an example by their own actions. They meet in the best hotels in Washington and enjoy the best meals. They even hold one of their meetings in Chicago's luxurious Palmer House. How can they justify that? Why don't they meet at a seminary and dine on a seminary menu? Why don't' they give up the luxury of private baths, king-sized beds, expensive liquor, and suites with the best air conditioning? Their actions are so inconsistent with their words that they have lost a tremendous amount of prestige.”

“Less mysterious was the obituary of Cardinal Siri, delivered shortly after John's death: "It will take forty years to repair the damage this Pope inflicted in four years." Siri was one of those "prophets of doom" Pope John shook his head over. In hindsight, however, Siri sounds like a raving optimist, for as of this writing the damage caused by his Council continues to metastasize, and fragments of restoration are as chimerical as John's "new Pentecost".”

“Certainly, I am taken as a reactionary, as an "ultra-traditionalist", as someone who impedes reform - and it is true! I am hindering reform. Yes, indeed, for I do not accept it! I consider this reform a reform to destroy the Church. I think that I have showed you this. It is, therefore, clear that it is for this that I am attacked by Rome, by this power of subversion that is found there. I have been asked to close my seminary; I have been asked to send away all my seminarians. In conscience, however, I think that I must say that I will not collaborate in the destruction of the Church; I cannot collaborate in the destruction of the Church!”

“We do not wish to offend non-Catholics of good will. Yet at the same time we do not wish to offend Christ; and, therefore, we must acknowledge that as Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life, likewise His Church is one! There are not many Christs; and there are not many churches. There is but One True Christ and His only Church, the Catholic Church.”

“We should like to reply to the objection that will certainly be leveed against it on the matter of obedience, and of the jurisdiction by those who seek to impose their liberalization on us. Our reply is - In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the Faith, the chief end of the Church. There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith. We accept this jurisdiction and this law when they are at the service of the Faith. But who can be the judge of that? The Tradition, the Faith taught for 2,000 years. Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, "disobedience" becomes a grave duty. It is because we believe that our whole faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to "disobey", and to maintain Tradition. The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the successor of Peter, the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say no to the reformed liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made man, who is neither liberal nor reformable.”

“There are explicit statements from various quarters of the magisterium, up to and including Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, asserting the rights of the secular to remain secular, of the Jews to remain Jews, of the protestants to remain protestants, and the schismatics eastern churches to remain in schism. How is it, then, that a Catholic faithful to immemorial Catholic tradition is to be taken to task for remaining Catholic? Talmudic Judaism, masonic secularism, and heterodox Christianity need not change at all, but Catholics must change all?!? This is not merely unfair, this is absurd! Beyond its absurdity lies an utter unnecessity: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and so is His Body, the Catholic Church! None who clings to Christ needs to repent his beliefs, to apologize for his beliefs, or to change his beliefs. The obedience demanded of the Catholic is permanent, therefore, the Church to which he offers his obedience must be permanent in her teaching, in her practices, and in her rituals! (page 366)”

“There is no obligation for the faithful of the Church or citizens of a state to obey anything that is not consonant with the traditions handed down by the will of God. Subjects need not justify disobeying novelties, rather it is the innovators who must demonstrate that they are not introducing contradictions to tradition, either secular or ecclesial. It is not necessary for something to be innovation to be foreign to tradition and alien to the revealed Word and will of God. One would have an extraordinarily difficult time explaining how anything describable as an "innovation", "novelty", or "change" can be consonant with immemorial, unchanging, divine Truth. Obedience binds only to tradition in scripture, doctrine, and practice. If the faithful are presented with teachings, examples, or documents that do not reflect fidelity to God through the unchanging patrimony of the Church then they are free to ignore the innovations. This holds whether the context of the innovations is in man's secular relations or within the workings of Holy Mother Church. Those who are so gifted may be obligated to present questions for clarification to those in authority. Any who are confused should not suffer any qualms about doing what the Church has always done, in all places, by all the faithful, of all times. What has always saved, will always save. Doubts arise only when deviations are offered in the place of definitions. When the shifting sands of time encroach, the faithful are always safe in planting their feet firmly on the solid rock of the timeless Faith. (page 398)”

“The statement clearly shows the refusal of the Vatican II papacy to use its authority; things happen "automatically", and those who act bring judgement on themselves (but only on the side of tradition; modernist and progressive churchmen just go on their crazy way with an occasional "tut-tut" from Rome; they are moving in the right direction, only running too fast).”

“Bishop Mamie made clear the reason for his action: ". . . we shall continue to demand that the faithful as well as the clergy accept and apply all the orientation and decisions of the Second Vatican Council, all the teachings of John XXIII and of Paul VI, all the directives of the secretariats instituted by the Council, including the new liturgy." What of the "orientations and teachings" of earlier Councils? What of all the "teachings" of earlier popes and the "directives" of previous secretariats? What of the tradition liturgy, the prayer of the Church for many centuries? Into the dust bin of history with them and do not look back. No Marxist committed to historical inevitability and the utopia future could be more exacting. The new belief was rooted in progress, the only truth was the necessity of change. Onward! Out with the Old Church, in with the New!”

“The consecration ceremony usually begins with the "mandate", the commission from Rome approving the event. No such mandate came from Pope John Paul II, a pope with no interest in continuing the traditional Roman Catholic Church, apart from his strong stance against certain modern social violations - birth control, abortion, divorce, homosexuality - his opposition to these practices centered more on his view of the innate dignity of man than the traditional teachings of the Church. The mandate for these consecrations could only come from those earlier popes of tradition, from Eternal Rome, who would have gladly approved the Archbishop's actions to insure the continuity of tradition and the salvation of souls.”

“The question weighed on him and continued to weigh more heavily on him: Should he consecrate bishops? The Archbishop prayed for a sign. Admittedly, Our Lord had spoken clearly that a corrupt generation asks for a sign, but this request was out of necessity and of a different kind. The sign would have to be this - the corruption has become so widespread, the Church is in such a perilous state, the episcopacy is so cowardly and inert that no one else is willing to act. Should action be taken? Then the sign came, clear to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The Sovereign Pontiff's modernist brain percolated with thoughts of a panreligious peace hootenanny prayer jamboree, a staged event with such media appeal that the Holy Father's thespian heart must have beat wildly against his rib cage in anticipation. Over 130 religious leaders, Christian and non-Christian, would gather at the Basilica in Assisi on October 27, 1986, to pray, each to his own god, for world peace. For such an ecumenical extravaganza, the First Commandment could easily be overlooked. For such a display of earthly brotherhood, the solemn decrees and specific teachings of Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XI, all of whom had condemned such gatherings and forbidden Catholic participation in such gatherings, all of their words could easily be disregarded. Besides, that was way back then and this is NOW! Mother Church herself, in the person of an ecumaniac pope, would organize the event and send out the invitations, in defiance of God, in defiance of His holy Popes.”

“The facts related in this book will convince many open-minded non-Catholics that the authenticity of Fatima is at least possible. If this can be said of outsiders, how much more convincing should the story be for Catholics? And yet, even as the story moves unbelievers towards belief, it seems to have the opposite effect on certain Vatican officials. Ironically, some of the people now least likely to believe in Fatima are among those who should be the most likely. Beliefs once central to the Catholic faith are now being abandoned not by the faithful who remain in the pews, but by some of the highest authorities in the Church. (page ix)”

“It was intended that Catholics and Protestants draw closer together, but it is evident that Catholics have become Protestants, rather than the reverse. The New Mass itself was a Protestant conception and leads to Protestantism, and it is for that reason that we cannot conceive the possibility of using it in our seminaries. The definition of the Mass as given in the Introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae is clearly a Protestant one, and this, in itself, is inadmissible and inconceivable! Henceforth, the emphasis will be on the Supper, the Meal, and no longer on the Sacrifice. This shift of emphasis must of necessity lead - and is already leading - to the destruction of Catholic Doctrine which rests upon the Sacrifice of the Cross continued on the altar. It will lead to loss of faith in the Real Presence, and to the ruin of the Catholic priesthood. This alone would suffice to justify our emphatic rejection of the Reform. This means that no compromise whatever can be consented to in this regard. It means also that those who have taken the Mass along that road bear a heavy burden of responsibility.”

“I can hear them say: "You exaggerate! There are many good bishops who pray, who have the Faith, who are edifying . . ." They may have been saints, but as soon as they accept the false religious liberty, hence the secular State; false ecumenism, and hence the admission of many ways of salvation; liturgical reform, and hence the practical negation of the Sacrifice of the Mass; the catechism with all their errors and heresies - they are officially contributing to the revolution within the Church and to its destruction! 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.”

“It is obvious that if many bishops had acted like Msgr. de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos in Brazil, the ideological revolution within the Church could have been limited, because we must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival. These conciliar Roman authorities cannot but oppose savagely and violently any reaffirmation of the traditional Magisterium. The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official standard consecrated by the Profession of Faith of Cardinal Ratzinger in March 1989.”

“I am asked how it is that I can refuse orders which come from Rome. Indeed, these orders do come from Rome, but which Rome? I believe in the Eternal Rome, the Rome of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Rome which dispenses the very life of the Church, the Rome which transmits the true Tradition of the Church. I am considered disobedient, but I am moved to ask, why have those who are issuing orders which in themselves are blameworthy been given their authority? The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests have been given their authority for the purpose of transmitting life, the spiritual life, the supernatural life, eternal life, just as parents and society as a whole have been given their authority to transmit and protect life. The word "authority" itself is from the Latin, "auctoritas', and "auctor" which means "author", author of life. We have authority insofar as we transmit and sustain life. We are not authorized to transmit death, society is not permitted to pass laws which authorize abortion, because abortion is death. In like manner, the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, and the priests exist as such to transmit and sustain spiritual life. Unfortunately, it is apparent that many of them today no longer transmit or sustain life, but rather authorize spiritual abortion.”

“What is most astonishing, most alarming is the fact that although these deficiencies were obvious to a layman like myself, with no specialized theological knowledge, almost every Catholic hierarchy in the world pronounced in favour of the ARCIC Statements. The gravity of this fact cannot possibly be exaggerated. Can there have been such a virtually universal failure of the Teaching Church (Rome excepted) since the Arian heresy?”

“Yet still they cling to the anti-Catholic ideas of Vatican II. Alongside the "Motu Proprio" apparently favoring the Mass of the true Faith, Benedict XVI organizes and presides over ecumenical meetings which, by placing the Catholic religion on a more or less equal footing with all other religions, officially represented and all necessarily more or less false, are a grave offense to God. So any apparent benevolence shown by Benedict XVI towards the true Faith or the true Mass can only mean that he wishes them to be reconciled with the Conciliar religion and all other religions! Therefore if he is not a conscience agent of truth-dissolving Freemasonry, at any rate he has no understanding of the true Faith, and so he cannot grasp how absolutely opposed it is to the man-centered religion of Vatican II. (Eleison Comments letter #36)”

“A priestly colleague of the Society of St. Pius X has just written (or maybe adopted) a parable whereby the Society is the last cartridge of a hunter who must shoot to kill the monster of Neo-modernism entrenched within the structures of the Catholic Church. Since it is the last cartridge, the hunter cannot afford to miss! Well, the "hunter" may be burdened, but let me attempt to assure him that he is not burdened that much! (Eleison Comments letter #47)”

“Archbishop Lefebvre's detractors frequently accuse him of rejecting or defying a General Council of the Church. Such a claim requires a great deal of clarification before it can be proved true or false. Is it claimed, for example, that Mgr. Lefebvre has denied that Vatican II really was a general council; that its documents were not approved by a majority of the Council Fathers and confirmed and promulgated by the Pope? What Archbishop Lefebvre has claimed in fact is that the reforms imposed in the name of the Council constitute an inexcusable breach with Tradition and are destroying the Church. He insists further that the seeds of this process of self-destruction can be found within the Council itself. If what he claims is true, then he is right to reject the post-conciliar reforms and to urge the Faithful to do so; indeed, it would be his duty in conscience to take this step even if it meant, as it has done, that he should decline to accept the clearly expressed wishes of the Pope.”

“What I do argue is that a prelate, like Mgr. Lefebvre, who has rendered the Church outstanding service, is, at the very least, entitled to have his case presented fairly and considered seriously. Mgr. Leonard, I am afraid, has failed conspicuously to do this in the pamphlet under review. This provides yet another instance of a most interesting fact: viz, that Archbishop Lefebvre's critics appear never to dare to present his case factually and fairly or to refute it with reasoned and documented arguments and evidence.”

“Then there are two Churches? No way. There is only one immaculate Bride of Christ. Then does the expression "Conciliar Church" have no real meaning? Alas, it names an all too real reality. It names all those members and structures of the one true Church as caught up in the toils of the subtle errors of Vatican II, and as tending all the time to be taken out of the true Church by these errors. This is the "Conciliar Church" from which Archbishop Lefebvre did not mind being "excommunicated", because, as he said, he never belonged to it in the first place. (Eleison Comments letter #105)”

“But both of these good intentions can become crooked. If on the one hand "Traditionalists" seek to please the world by using ambiguity, the classic start of abandoning Truth, they may please men (especially journalists) but they will certainly not please God, who "hates a double tongue" (Proverbs VIII, 13). On the other hand if Benedict XVI is seeking to re-incorporate the Society of St. Pius X in the mainstream Church as though Tradition were merely one option amongst many, then he too will be displeasing God by his refusal to see how absolute the demands of Catholic Truth. (Eleison Comments letter #110)”

“We will not extricate ourselves from this dead-end unless we return to the Faith pure and integral. The Faith is one and undiluted; it allows of no compromise with error. The Faith cannot be updated. We cannot change the teaching of the Church such as it has been taught for twenty centuries . . . What is Tradition if not the teaching of the Church for twenty centuries?”

“Therefore if by their past and future Assisi events, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have encouraged souls to think that Catholicism is not the one and only way to a happy eternity but merely one amongst many other promoters (even if it is the best) of mankind's "peace and unity" in this life, it follows that both Popes have facilitated the dreadful damnation of countless souls in the next life. Rather than have any part in such a betrayal, Archbishop Lefebvre preferred to be scorned, rejected, despised, marginalized, silenced, "excommunicated", you name it.”

“It is such a pathetic illusion for priests to think that they will preserve anything by staying under the radar in not learning, defending and promoting the Message of Fatima in all its fullness to the extent that they are able. If we don't stand up and act on the truth of the Fatima Message very quickly, we are all going to lose our necks, beyond our positions and salaries and insurance policies!”

“This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: "What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?" I do not want to hear from his lips the terrible words "You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them." (p. 163)”

“St. Thomas explains that for a law to be just, it must conform to the demands of reason and have an effect which is both good and for the benefit of those for whom it is intended. A law can cease to bind without revocation on the part of the legislator when it is clearly harmful, impossible, or irrational. It would certainly constitute an abuse of authenticity for a pope to forbid the celebration of so hallowed, venerable and Catholic a rite as the Tridentine Mass. Should it be done, there is a sound case to justify the faithful in resisting him, based upon accepted norms within Catholic theology. (p. 25).”

“The Archbishop of Cincinnati said that, in Rome itself during the Synod: "It is clear that the priest has lost his identity." What does that mean? The priest no longer knows what he is. So then, we want to form priests who know what they are, who know that they are made for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to carry the Gospel and proclaim the Gospel, that is to say, to proclaim the catechism which we all learned, which our parents learned, and our grandparents and our ancestors; that is, Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and in His reign. (ordination sermon of June 29, 1977)”

“Now, celebrations become tiring because they unfold in noisy chattering. The liturgy is sick. The most striking symptom of this sickness is perhaps the omnipresence of the microphone. It has become so indispensable that one wonders how priests were able to celebrate before it was invented.”