Quotessence
Home / Topics / Catholic Tradition Quotes

Catholic Tradition Quotes

Browse 108 quotes about Catholic Tradition.

Catholic Tradition Quotes

“The Sacrifice of Cavalry cannot be transformed, the Sacrifice of the Last Supper cannot be transformed - for there was a Sacrifice at the Last Supper - we cannot transform this Sacrifice into a simple, commemorative meal, a simple repast, at which a memory is recalled, this is not possible. To do such a thing would be to destroy the whole of our Religion, to destroy the most precious thing which Our Lord has given us here on earth, the immaculate and divine treasure which He put into the hands of His Church, which He made a priestly Church . . . (sermon of May 25, 1975)”

“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.”

“Catholics are bound to submit to the Church's established teaching on faith and morals; they are not bound to submit to new attitudes and orientations of liberalized churchmen who are now saying and doing things unheard-of in the Church's entire history. Thus, Catholics have the right, even the duty, to resist this new orientation arising from the ambiguities of the Council and the opinions of the "new theology", which conflict with the perennial and infallible Magisterium. For years, Catholics have labored under the misconception that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case. The Council Fathers repeatedly referred to Vatican II as a pastoral Council. That is, it was a Council that dealt not with defining the Faith, but with measures in the realm of practical and prudential judgment . . . Thus, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of faith. The Council's verbose and ambiguous documents are not on a par with the doctrinal pronouncements of past councils. Vatican II's novelties are not unconditionally binding on the faithful, nor did the Council itself ever say that they were. (pages 74-75)”

“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)”

“In considering the evidence we about to present, we ask you to keep one overarching principle in mind: As Saint Thomas teaches, there is no argument against a fact - contra factum non argumentum est. If a statement is contrary to fact, then no authority on earth can expect us to believe it. Thus, for example, if a high-ranking prelate in the Vatican were to issue a decree that Catholics must believe that the Eiffel Tower is located in Saint Peter's Square, that would not make it so and we would be obligated to reject the decree. For the fact is that the Eiffel Tower is located in Paris, and there is no argument against that fact. Therefore, no man, no matter what his authority, can demand that we believe something that is manifestly contrary to fact. (page xxiii)”

“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.”

“We can never show enough reverence, nor ever worship the Eucharist with adequately heartfelt veneration. That is why throughout the ages it has been the custom in the Church to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling. We should receive the Holy Eucharist prostrate and not standing. Are we the equals of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it not He who will come upon the clouds of heaven to be our Judge? When we see Our Lord Jesus Christ, shall we not do as did the Apostles on Thabor when they prostrated themselves on the ground in terror and wonder at the greatness and splendor of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Let us keep in our hearts and souls that spirit of worship, that spirit of profound reverence for Him who created us, for Him who redeemed us, for Him who died on the Cross for our sins.”

“Finally, what the history of this period proves is that, during a time of general apostacy, Christians who remain faithful to their traditional faith may have to worship outside the official churches, the churches of priests in communion with their lawfully appointed diocesan bishop, in order not to compromise that traditional Faith; and that such Christians may have to look for truly Catholic teaching, leadership, and inspiration not to their diocesan bishop, not to the bishops of their country as a body, not to the bishops of the world, not even to the Roman Pontiff, but to one heroic confessor when the other bishops and the Roman Pontiff might have repudiated or even excommunicated. And how would they recognize that this solitary confessor was right and the Roman Pontiff and body of the episcopate (not teaching infallibly) were wrong? The answer is that they would recognize in the teaching of the confessor what the faithful of the fourth century recognized in the teaching of Athanasius: the one true Faith into which they had been baptized, in which they had been catechized, and which their Confirmation gave them the obligation of upholding. In no sense whatsoever can such fidelity to tradition be compared to the Protestant practice of private judgment. The fourth century Catholic traditionalists upheld Athanasius in his defense of the Faith that had been handed down, the Protestant uses his private judgment to justify a breach with the traditional Faith.”

“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.”

“We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastical authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outside the Church, there is no salvation, no eternal life. Whoever is saved attains to everlasting life by his adhesion to the Mystical Body of Christ. Another consequence: all of the societies Our Lord created must necessarily work together, in accordance with their entire purpose, to make souls Catholic and to keep them Catholic, in order to procure their eternal salvation, which is the end of all Creation, of the Incarnation, and of the Redemption.”

“The Bishop rightly understood that the Church's doctrines were inviolable. They were not something to be tampered with by each new generation. Rather, the duty of every generation was to preserve the faith just as it had been received. Jesus Christ had entrusted the Gospel to His disciples. Their calling was to preserve and pass it on to other faithful men who also would do likewise. The truths of the Church could be defined and expounded upon, but not changed.”

“It is fashionable today to praise the Church of the first four centuries, to extol primative practice. How would the Church of the first four centuries have regarded Archbishop Whealon? Anyone who is remotely acquainted with Church history can give one answer and one answer only. Archbishop Whealon would have been regarded as an apostate; he would have been anathemized, and every true Catholic bishop would have broken off communion with him. I believe that the Church of the first four centuries was right. I believe that Archbishop Whealon is at least a de facto apostate. It seems a harsh thing to say. It may make me appear harsh and intolerant - but nonetheless it is the truth. Cardinal Newman has a magnificent sermon upon this very point, "Tolerance of Religious Error". He castigates those who concern us not to uphold truth but to avoid the appearance of being intolerant. Once again I must repeat, those who possess the truth, those who love the truth, cannot tolerate error . . . Furthermore, I submit that Archbishop Whealon's conduct would have been considered incompatible with Catholicism not only by the Church of the first four centuries - it would have resulted in his immediate excommunication by every Roman Pontiff up to and including Pope John XXIII. I accept that what I am saying will make me appear singular, intemperate, and extreme in the ecumenical climate of the Conciliar Church but the viewpoint I am putting forward would have been accepted by 99% of Catholics up to Vatican II. Read the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, read the relevant encyclicals of Pope Pius XII. If Archbishop Whealon is right, the the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years. (chapter 8)”

“Now this is exactly the same battle we are presently fighting. Why are we being persecuted? Why am I being persecuted today? And why are you, and all of us who are in Tradition, being persecuted? Because we affirm the truth and condemn error; we condemn liberalism; we condemn modernism. This is inadmissible for the Conciliar Church. The Council has changed all this; now we are supposed to be on good terms with the liberals, with the modernists, with the Freemasons, with the Communists, with everyone; we are supposed to be ecumenical with everyone. We are opposed to this; therefore we are against the Council, we are against the Pope, and so we are condemned! Yes, it is true, condemned! The reasons are the same; the combat is the same.”

“As the Old Testament also insisted on the handing down of a message which was the coming of the Messiah, so they awaited this Messiah. Since that time it is no longer a promise which we have to transmit - it is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and we have to hand down this admirable treasure - a treasure so extraordinary that it transcends our capabilities. It is our duty to hand down this message faithfully, in imitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Pius X, our patrons. If there is anyone who has handed down Our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully in this world, it is the Blessed Virgin Mary. She received Him by the grace of the Holy Ghost; she who was immaculate in her conception, which great privilege we celebrate today. Our Lord Jesus Christ was truly handed down to humanity by the Blessed Virgin Mary, until His last breath on the Cross, when she too was present; she fulfilled her role perfectly. And that is why she can truly be called Virgo Fidelis - Virgin Most Faithful. She was faithful to all the details of her duties as mother, of her duty to hand down Jesus to us for our redemption. In the midst of the upheavals of history, in the midst of the errors which appeared right at the beginning of this century, and which had their roots in the century which came before, a Pope also arose. God gave us an admirable Pope i the person of St. Pius X, the last Pope to be canonized. St. Pius, too, was faithful; he, too, wanted to transmit the message which Our Lord entrusted to him. And he expressed it in a wonderful manner in these words: "Instaurare omnia in Christo - Restore all things in Christ." This is the message handed down to us by Pope St. Pius X and with these examples before you - the Blessed Virgin Mary and Pope St. Pius X - you, too, will be faithful. (Sermon of December 8, 1979)”

“It is only when men live their lives within the correct perspective of the Creator-creature relationship that social and political harmony and order prevail. "The peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ." When men repudiate this relationship, disharmony and disorder introduced for the first time by Lucifer, once the most magnificent of all God's creatures, who overcome with pride, boasted: Non serviam - "I will not serve." The Catechism teaches us that our purpose in life is to know, love, and serve God in this world so that we can be happy with Him forever in the next. We cannot claim to love God if we do not serve Him, and we cannot claim to serve God if we do not subject ourselves to the law of Christ the King. "If you love me," He warned, "keep my commandments." (John 14:15)”

“You will recall from the Catechism that the Sacrifice of the alter is truly a Sacrifice, and that it differs from that of the cross only insofar as the Sacrifice of the Cross is a bloody Sacrifice, while the Sacrifice of the alter is an unbloody one. That is the only difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Altar, and it is for this reason that as Catholics we venerate the Sacrifice of the alter. It is the essence, the heart of our Faith. Because there is a Sacrifice, the presence of a victim is necessary. There is no sacrifice without a victim. Thus our Lord is present, since He offers Himself as a Sacrifice. To deny this sacrificial presence and to claim the Sacrifice of the Mass is simply a memorial meal, a mere recalling of what our Lord accomplished at the Last Supper is nothing less than a blasphemy against the doctrine of the Church, against all that Our Lord Jesus Christ performed and wished to be continued.”

“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.”

“This, of course, is very simple for us who are Catholics. This is our Faith, the Faith we have always been taught, and yet, in our own time, how many Catholics still accept this truth, that salvation comes to all men through Jesus Christ, that outside of Christ there is no salvation? I find it extraordinary that Catholics should question the age old adage, "no salvation outside the Church". This is precisely the most important question facing mankind today, just as it has been in every age. Indeed there is nothing more vital to man than for him to know how he is to be saved, by whom he is to be saved, and in what manner he is to be saved. Can there possibly be a question of greater moment for those who inhabit the earth? Now it is quite certain that when we proclaim today that there is "no salvation outside the Church", many Catholics rise up incredulously and affirm that this is nonsense, that otherwise those not in the Church must be condemned to Hell. The fact is, however, that this remains a crucial tenant to all mankind. As Catholics we are bound to affirm what the Church has always affirmed, because the Church is the repository of all truth; the Sone of God was made man to be crucified for the salvation of all men. Can there possibly be any other source of salvation outside of the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ? Can we as Catholics accept that Luther, Buddha, or Mohammed are also means of eternal salvation? Are they also in Heaven seated at the right hand of God? Yet today, despite the absurdity, many Catholics no longer accept that there is "no salvation outside the Church".”

“During a sinister interchange between one of the little princes and his wicked uncle, Richard III, the prince wonders how truth is passed down the ages - whether through the written or the spoken word (3.1.75-83). The prince believes, he says innocently, that the history of the Tower of London - a choice of subject never far from the minds of English Catholics - would survive simply by word of mouth, even if it were never written down. The little prince has stepped into dangerous territory. He is not only defending the role of tradition against scripture - a central Catholic Reformation stance - but he also suggests that the grisly truth about England's persecutions will survive irrespective of what appears in history books.”

“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?”

“Firstly however, if a man really and truly envies the certainty of Catholic believers, he should apply his mind to studying how reasonable are Catholic beliefs. They may be above human reason, but they are not against it. How could they be? How could God both be the creator of our human reason and then impose on it to believe truths flouting that reason? He would be contradicting Himself. St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologiae" is constantly showing how faith and reason are quite distinct, but in perfect harmony with one another. (letter #174)”

“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).”

“I want to be and to stay Catholic. So why am I required to suppress our seminary? Why am I required to suppress our Sacerdotal Fraternity of Saint Pius X? Why am I required not to perform these ordinations? There is only one reason: to bring me into line with this policy. They want me to lend a hand in this destruction of the Church, to join in this communion which, for the Church, is adultery. I will not be an adulterer. I will Keep my Catholic Faith! That is why I refuse. I refuse to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. I refuse to collaborate in loss of faith, in the general apostasy. I know perfectly well that if I do not perform these ordinations, if I stop, I shall be given nothing. Ordination sermon of June 29, 1977”

“To understand our faith -- to theologize in the Catholic tradition -- we need philosophy. We must use the philosophical language of God, person, creation, relationship, identity, natural law, virtues, conscience, moral norms if we are to think about religion and defend it. Theology has some terms and methods of its own, but its fundamental tools are borrowed from philosophy. The growth of religious fundamentalism and the collapse of religious education mean theology is more urgently needed in universities -- especially Catholic ones -- than ever before.”

“Not only is a person bound to accept all parts of the Deposit of Faith and all of the irreformable doctrines declared by the councils and popes, but one is also bound to accept the teaching contained in and the legitimacy of all monuments and teachings of the Church which do not contain novelty or contradict the teachings of the Church. This means that if one were to reject the Ancient Rite as evil or heretical, he would be subject to this anathema.”

“I will limit my enumeration of the errors to these: I do not say that everything is bad in this Council, that there are not some fine texts to meditate on. Contrarily, I assert, with the evidence in my hands, that there are some documents that are dangerous and even erroneous, which show liberal tendencies, and modernist tendencies, which afterwards inspired the reforms which are now bringing the Church down to the ground.”