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

“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)”
― Fr. Lawrence Smith, Distributism for Dorothy

“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)”
― Fr. Lawrence Smith, Distributism for Dorothy

“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).”
― Fr. Lawrence Smith, Distributism for Dorothy

“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.”
― Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

“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.”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“The final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don't be afraid, because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family, will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. However, Our Lady has already crushed its head.”
― Lúcia of Fátima

“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)”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“I will never compromise. I will accept that which comes from proper authority which is in keeping with the Truths, Doctrines, and the Traditions of Holy Mother Church, and I will reject what does not conform to that criteria.”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“How can one call "rebels" those who follow the rules which have been forged by centuries? And how can one call "faithful" those who find it right to reject those rules and even the laws, or who tolerate - through weakness, if not by demagoguery - such shameful dismantling?”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“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).”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“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!”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“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.”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“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.”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“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