Catholic Tradition Quotes

“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.”
― Dr. Taylor Reed Marshall

“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.”
― H.J.A. Sire, Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition

“[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.”
― H.J.A. Sire, Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 2

“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)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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.”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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.”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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.”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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.”
― Marcel Lefebvre, A bishop speaks

“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 . . .”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“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.”
― David Allen White, The Mouth of the Lion: Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer & the Last Catholic Diocese

“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.”
― David Allen White, The Mouth of the Lion: Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer & the Last Catholic Diocese

“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) . . .”
― David Allen White, The Mouth of the Lion: Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer & the Last Catholic Diocese

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“Either we choose what the Popes have taught and we therefore choose the Church; or we choose what was said by the Council. But we can not choose both simultaneously, since they are contradictory.”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 1

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 3

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 3

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 3

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 3

“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.”
― Paul Daher, Saint Charbel

“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)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“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)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“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)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“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)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“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.”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle: Book Two

“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)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle: Book Two