Quotessence
Home / Topics / Catholic Tradition Quotes

Catholic Tradition Quotes

Browse 108 quotes about Catholic Tradition.

Catholic Tradition Quotes

“That is why, to come to our question, for leaders and for people, the real purpose of the Clinton acquittal, as of the release of Barabbas, is to get rid of Jesus. The Clinton acquittal is a battle not only in a culture war but in a religious war. The people want to sin. They want money, materialism, and all the pleasures money can buy. They want no restraints upon their sinful ways. This is why they want power to the moneymen and to corrupt politicians. That is why Barabbas was released and Clinton was acquitted. (letter #183 March 1999)”

“J.R.R. Tolkien was also opposed to the Novus Ordo Mass. Simon Tolkien recalls his grandfather’s protest to the Novus Ordo: "I vividly remember going to church with him in Bour-nemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn’t agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious. He simply had to do what he believed to be right.”

“Was Archbishop Lefebvre justified in contemplating illicit consecrations? ... At the time I believed he was wrong. Twenty years after his death, I believe he was right. Without his action, the traditionalists would now be an ineffective handful of priests at the mercy of the Modernist Church.”

“[Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication] may be compared with the excommunications that popes in former times pronounced on their political enemies, sentences which were formally valid but which nobody today would regard as having moral force. In fact its weight is less, for the excommunication came not from a merely secular policy but from one aimed at excluding tradition from the Church or obliging it to compromise with false principles.”

“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.”

“Here too we see the disparity of treatment as between traditional Catholics who in any way present an obstacle to the new orientation, and those who embrace the new orientation wholly and entirely. In contrast with the Vatican's pandering to the CPA, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was publicly pronounced both excommunicated and schismatic in a motu proprio prepared for the Pope's signature within 48 hours of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops without a papal mandate - an action the Archbishop took in an effort (however misguided some may think it to be) to maintain Catholic tradition in a Church that appears to have gone mad. The Red Chinese procure (through former Catholic bishops) the consecration of 100 bishops without a papal mandate for their pro-abortion "church" and the Vatican takes no punitive action. Quite the contrary, it sends a Cardinal (no less) as a representative to hobnob with some of the illicit bishops! Yet, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrates four bishops to serve Catholic Tradition, he is immediately cast into outer darkness by the same Vatican apparatus, even though Archbishop Lefebvre and the four newly consecrated bishops consistently professed their loyalty to the Pope whom they were attempting to serve by preserving traditional Catholic practice and belief. Why this striking disparity of treatment? The answer, once again, is that Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the Adaptation; the Red Chinese bishops, on the other hand, exemplify it. (page 124)”

“While it is true that in normal circumstances a bishop without explicit permission or authorization from the Pope, nevertheless it is foreseen both in law and in practice over the centuries in Church history that a bishop can and sometimes must consecrate - that is, make - another bishop without explicit permission and even to go against a specific direct order of the Pope. Canon Law recognizes the right of a subject to go against an explicit order of a higher authority - even that of a Pope - in a specific instance, after due reflection and prayer, to go directly contrary if his conscience, informed by Catholic doctrine, persuades him that he must do so. (See Canon 1323, especially Section 4; and Canon 1324, especially Section 1 subsection 8, and Sections 3.) Furthermore, in law it is not ipso facto an act of schism for one to disobey in a specific instance while being subject to the authority of the Pope in general - but at most it is an act of disobediance.”

“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.”

“I have seen articles written by the bishops' conference of Holland about means of salvation in non-Christian religions. It is insanity to make that kind of statement. There are no means of salvation outside the Catholic religion and outside our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no salvation outside the Church. It is a dogma of our faith. Why? Because there are no supernatural graces except those that come through the Church.”

“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 . . .”

“In the spring of 1969, the sword struck from Rome. Pope Paul VI decreed a new Mass would be instituted. The letter carrying the news pierced the bishop's heart. This was not just a scandal; the preface to the description of the novus ordo missae gave a new definition of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that bordered on an unthinkable lapse into heresy. The Great Sacrifice of the Mass became a simple supper. The change in the nature of the sacrament can be understood quickly by simply counting the number of references to "sacrifice" in the Tridentine rite and comparing that number with the number of references in the new Mass. This was not only new; this was the smashing of the ancient ritual of sacrifice and the replacement with a new version.”

“Here, in miniature, is a paradigm of the basic misunderstanding in the post-Vatican II Church. To many of the members of the hierarchy and indeed to the pope himself, the problem is a problem of obedience: "We say you will now do this, now do it. We say will not do this, so don't. Obey!" To thousands of priests and hundred of thousands of faithful around the world, the problem is a problem of dogma and doctrine: "You now say X when the Church has always said Y. How is this possible? Explain!" The fundamental stand of the traditionalists consists in a belief that the changes in the Church represent a clear and distinct break with twenty centuries of teaching and practice. In all sincerity, they ask for clarification and explanation before they will consider abandoning what they have always believed and what they have always done. The 1974 letter from Dom Antonio to Pope Paul VI stated explicitly his doubts concerning the new Mass and certain new ideas from Vatican II and quite humbly requested enlightenment from the pontiff. The response in this case was typical - silence. The only other response such sincere requests receive is the thunderclap "Obey!" Such responses suggest that the authorities are completely unwilling or unable to debate questions of doctrine and dogma, either out of fear or out of the painful recognition that there has indeed been a significant change in the traditional teachings and practices of the Church that cannot be discussed or explained to anyone's satisfaction.”

“The consecration ceremony usually begins with the "mandate", the commission from Rome approving the event. Msgr. Fischer explained that in the absence of a mandate from Pope John Paul II, whose vision of the Church is a vision of the "new Church" under which the faithful have suffered at the hands of Bishops Navarro and Corso, a mandate clearly exists from the popes of Tradition, the Rome of All Time, to insure the salvation of souls. In this clear wish of the Eternal Church, the mandate is given. Next came the interrogation or the examination of the bishop-elect by the consecrator (and two co-consecrators, who always speak all the words of the ceremony simultaneously with the consecrator). The bishop-elect was asked if he would teach the Scriptures to the people, if he would "receive, keep and teach with reverence the traditions of the orthodox fathers," if he would submit to the authority of the Holy Father (a conundrum - it is no longer possible to answer "yes" unreservedly to both the second and third questions; a "yes" answer to question three regarding the current pope requires a "no" answer to question two, since there exists a clear break between the "orthodox Fathers" and the present pope; a "yes" answer to question two requires a qualified "yes" to question three, "yes" insofar as the pope upholds the tradition spoken of in question two, but "no" insofar as he breaks with the "traditions of the orthodox Fathers" - only muddled modernist thought could produce such confusion) . . .”

“We cleave with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic Faith and to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the new-Protestant trend clearly manifested throughout Vatican II Council and, later, in all the reforms born out of it. (Doctrinal Declaration of 1974)”

“Now it was during the Council that the enemies of the Church infiltrated her, and their first objective was to demolish and destroy the Mass insofar as they could. you can read the books of Michael Davies, an English Catholic, who has written magnificent works which demonstrate how the liturgical reform of Vatican II closely resemble that produced under Cranmer at the birth of English Protestantism. If one reads the history of that liturgical transformation, made also by Luther, one sees that now it is exactly the same procedure which is being slowly followed and to all appearances, still apparently good and Catholic. But is just that character of the Mass which is sacrificial and redemptive of sim, through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which they have removed. They have made of the Mass a simple assembly, one among others, merely presided over by the priest. That is not the Mass! (Jubilee Sermon of September 1979)”

“My dear children, my dear brethren, today is the Feast of the Holy Pope, St. Pius V. We must thank God because he has given this Holy Pope for the Church. You know that it is by this Holy Pope that we now have the Sacrifice of the Mass as the Church, given in the name of Jesus Christ, has given us. And it is very important for the Church to maintain this Rite of the Sacrifice of the Mass as the Holy Pope, Pius V, has given us; to maintain this canonized, true Mass. The Mass is the heart of the Church; it is the heart of your school; it is the heart of the seminary. We thank God today to have this true Rite of the true Catholic Mass, because by this Mass we receive many, many blessings from God and many graces. (Sermon at St. Mary's College, Kansas, May 5, 1982)”

“Why does the Church exist on this earth, if not to propagate the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to bring by means of this Kingship Christian civilization, the only visible civilization? There is nothing outside of Our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Peter said it: "Non est in alio aliquo salus. There is no other name on earth given for our salvation but that of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Consequently, if a State is Catholic, if the head of a government is Catholic, if 98% of a population is Catholic, it is the duty of the head of State to refuse the other religions, to allow them merely a certain tolerance, if he cannot do otherwise, but to guard the Faith, the Faith that is the source of the salvation of every soul and, as a result, to contribute to the work of the Church in keeping souls united to Our Lord and of saving them for eternity. That is the role of every Catholic head of a Catholic state; that is what the Church has always taught. (Conference at Barcelona, Spain, December 29, 1975)”

“What was the orientation of the Church for twenty centuries if not that Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is our King? Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the way to heaven and the road to salvation. As Our Lord Himself said: "I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life. Nobody can enter the sheepfold unless they enter through Me, the door. Ego sum ostium. I am the door to the sheepfold." That means, "I am the door of heaven. Nobody can enter heaven without going through Me." This is what the Church has always taught. And that is why the Church sent missionaries everywhere, into the whole world to say to the Moslems, the Protestants, the pagans, and all those who do not know Our Lord or who fight against Jesus Christ; there is only one way that you can be saved, that you can save your souls: Our Lord Jesus Christ. And so evidently those who directed these religions seized those missionaries and massacred them; they spilled the blood of the missionaries, the Apostles. All the Apostles were martyrs. Why? Because they heralded Our Lord Jesus Christ, they wished to destroy these religions which were enslaving souls and leading them to hell. So the Apostles said: "No, you must no longer believe in all these false divinities, come to Our Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. He alone is Savior, He alone is salvation. Tu solus altissimus, Tu solus Dominus, Jesu Christe:Thou alone art Most High, Thou alone art Lord, Jesus Christ." We sing this in the Gloria. This is the true orientation of the Church. (sermon given August 25, 1985 Flueli, Switzerland)”

“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)”

“The essence of holiness makes us live in the atmosphere of a never ending miracle. The saint requires the world in which he lives to present to a transparent face so that God's presence may pass through. This is Sharbel's miracle which perpetuates itself every day. It is untrue to say that the hermit runs away from mankind. It is more exact to say that he alone penetrates the world rather than gliding superficially over it and because of this, he has been permitted to view the foundation of all the world, the spirit. He has become God's contenance.”

“However, it will be found that more often than not the abuses committed in the name of Vatican II have no specific justification in an official document. The Constitution on the Liturgy contains much sound doctrine, some important doctrinal points which could have received much clearer emphasis - why was the word "transubstantiation" not used? - and some guidelines for reform which, in certain respects, have proved a blueprint for revolution. It does not contain one word to indicate that by 1973 it would be possible , in some countries, for standing communicants to receive the host in their hands from a girl in a mini-skirt, not as an aberration but in accordance with regulations laid down by the Vatican. But the fact that they have the approval of the Vatican does not in any way affect the fact that they are abuses. The atmosphere the Council generated (the "spirit of Vatican II") and the documents it promulgated set in motion a process of self-destruction, as the statistics cited in Appendix IX prove beyond any possible doubt. (pages 227-8)”

“In many respects, the documents were a dead letter from the day they were promulgated, and there is no longer a great deal to gain from insisting that they mean one thing rather than another. What is needed is a clear restatement of authentic doctrine, and a reinstatement of traditional practices (particularly the Mass of St. Pius V), which could bring an end to the present chaos - even if it meant the departure of large numbers of those whose adherence to the Church is no more than nominal. (page 228)”

“We must make it clear that we will not allow any interpretation of the Council to be used to browbeat us into changing a single article of our traditional Catholic faith, and that far from regarding it as some sort of super-council, we regard it as the least of all the councils; that when seeking clear and definite guidance we will look back to its predecessors. (page 229)”

“When a Protestant praises some aspect of a Vatican II document as a step towards Protestantism, it can be argued that he is in error as this cannot be the case - but prior to the Council, Catholic teaching had been stated so clearly and so explicitly that no such impression could have been given. Only one interpretation, the orthodox Catholic interpretation, was possible. (page 84)”

“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.”

“It is clear that God had chosen one people to prepare for the coming of the Messiah and the time having come, the Messiah, prepared for by the prophets, was rejected by His own people, who even crucified Him. It is clear that we, the Christians, are heirs to what the prophets announced and to what our Lord Jesus Christ has brought. We have the faith of Abraham. He is really our father, We have the same faith: Abraham believed in the future Redeemer, we believe in the same Redeemer who has come: the same Redeemer, the same faith.”

“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".”

“If one notices the carefully crafted ambiguates in Council documents that served as footholds for a surprising variety of novelties. It becomes apparent that each ambiguity tends to dissolve a doctrine unique to Catholicism by favoring an interpretive designed either to attract or flatter non-believers. This recurring feature makes Vatican II unique among all Ecumenical Councils in the 2,000 year history of the Church. Consequently, Vatican II may properly be called an "occult" Council, in the sense that the documents contained "secret knowledge" implanted by initiates, that would be exploited after the Council. It is even possible that the un-Catholic conciliar novelties are part of the apostasy in the Church that almost certainly is mentioned in the Third Secret.”

“Perhaps there could be further discussion on how pathetic it is that the highest office in the Church, the one charged with safeguarding our faith, dares to issue a document like The Message of Fatima with a straight face. It is a measure of their desperate plight, and the importance of Lucy. They have silenced her, and it is her silence that now condemns them. We know she has corresponded with the present Holy Father, and had several face-to-face meetings with John Paul. Yet after all the letters and meetings, John Paul has never been able to claim that Lucy told him Russia had been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart. The most logical reason for the Pope's silence is that Lucy has dared to tell him that he in fact has not consecrated Russia according to the wishes of Heaven.”

“As for Paul's famous remark about "the smoke of Satan", no less a journalist than Vittorio Missori has suggested that Paul lifted these words from the Third Secret of Fatima. Whether this is true or not, it cannot credibly be denied that demonic forces had not only infiltrated the Church, but were doing much of the lever pulling. What else could account for the thorough divergence from orthodoxy that seized the entire Church from 1960 and particularly after the Second Vatican Council? Something that looked a lot like apostacy was winnowing the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“Religious Liberty as spoken of by the Popes was liberty of religion, not religions; these two concepts are not at all the same. The Popes have always affirmed that there must be liberty of religion, but not of all religions without distinction. There was tolerance of error and thus of other religions, but not at all the same rights for both truth and error. Pius VII treated this question very clearly. he protested to King Louis XVIII over the establishment in France of liberty of cults or religions, which had not existed before. "Insofar even as on decrees the liberty of every cult without distinction, one confounds truth and error and places at the same level with sects and faithless Judaism the holy and immaculate Bride of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation." So spoke Pius VII, and so have spoken all the Popes. One cannot put all religions on the same footing.”

“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!”

“The Church has been accused of claiming religious freedom when se is in the minority and refusing it when she is in the majority. The reply is easy. Truth is the source of virtue and justice, and of peace. Where Truth is, these benefits are visible in society. The Church asks that it should be recognized that she brings these precious gifts to States and that she should therefore be allowed freedom to dispense them. Wise statesmen, concerned for the welfare of their fellow-citizens, willingly admit the value of the cultural and social benefits brought by the Catholic Church and freely grant her a liberty sometimes refused to others. The Church has the right to claim this liberty of existence and action because it brings with it the precious gifts which flow from the Truth of which in its fullness, she is the sole custodian.”

“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.”

“One of the most horrifying practical applications of these liberal principles is the laying of the Church open to all errors, particularly the most monstrous error ever thought up by Satan - communism. Communism now has official access to the Vatican and its world revolution is made markedly easier by the official non-resistance of the Church, nay, by her regular support of the revolution, despite the despairing warnings of cardinals who have been through communist jails. The refusal by this pastoral Council to issue any official condemnation of communism alone suffices to disgrace it for all time, when one remembers the tens of millions of martyrs, of people having their personalities scientifically destroyed in psychiatric hospitals, serving as guinea pigs for all sorts of experiments. And the pastoral Council which brought together 2,350 Bishops said not a word, in spite of the 450 signatures of Fathers demanding a condemnation, which I myself took to Mgr. Felici, secretary of the Council, together with Mgr. Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina.”

“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)”

“Man must worship or go mad. There is a peril in this part of our nature in that false worship leads to madness as well. Man without the divine falls lower than the beasts. His heart will be of stone. His mind will become a desert. His world will increasingly be a place filled with despair at the prospect that there is nothing but the world, nothing beyond the world, nothing better than the world, nothing for which the world was made, nothing but nothing. Men who believe in nothing, that is, men who place their trust in anything other than the true God, will countenance consuming other men (for instance, in the medicines derived from fetal tissues), killing their own children (in the name of mercy, convenience, or scientific "progress") or enslaving men in the industry of manufacturing death (birth control pills, nuclear weapons, and hospitals with euthanasia policies come to mind). Civilization depends on the true Faith in the true God. Absent that truth, barbarianism will rain terror on the weak, the enemy, the friend, the family, the self. (page 400)”

“Outside the Church of Christ there is no salvation. Vatican II, for all its legion flaws, did not deny this. Nothing in the 1962-1965 Council condemns the Catholic who adheres to the teachings of Pope Leo III and the 1215 statement of the Fourth Lateran Council, "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." At the end of the twentieth century, the Church did not forbid belief in what she believed at the beginning of the fourteenth century, when she infallibly taught through Pope Boniface VII's Bull, Unam Sanctam, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety, and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." No more did Vatican II warn the faithful against those earlier Vicars of Christ in this dogmatic teaching than they themselves departed from the very first Vicar of Christ, Pope St. Peter, who insisted that Jesus Christ is "the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner; neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other Name under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (page 408).”

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety, and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

“Let us point out, in concluding this brief outline, that Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience." This special insight elucidates why the coming battle between Rome and this one Archbishop became inevitable. His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre had been granted the divine sagacity to see through the demonic shell game being played by the modern Church officials - he saw that the game was fixed and discerned how it was fixed, and therefore he refused to enter the contest. Obedience is certainly a virtue, but no one can compel you to obey an unjust command. Besides, as St. Thomas Aquinas makes clear, faith is a higher virtue than obedience. No one can compel you to be obedient to a command to give up or destroy your faith, much less the faith of others if you are a churchman who has taken a vow to pass on that faith complete, whole and undefiled.”