Best 88 quotes in «pope quotes» category

I really want the pope to come into the pulpit and tell Filipinos to their faces what's wrong with them, because we refuse to listen to ourselves.

It seems from Pope Francis, immigrants, anybody who doesn't live here in America, has an automatic right to come here just because there's no other place like it on earth. And what is never discussed is how it got so special. How did it happen? Why is it so prosperous? Why is it so free?

It is fascinating to see how much Pope Francis relies on the work of the bishops in the Synods.

It is necessary to salvation that all Christians be subject to the pope.

I toast the Pope, but I toast conscience first.

[Pope Francis] has felt the mercy of God in his own life and wants to share that experience with others.

I would like to see the Pope wearing my T-shirt.

I would like to sing for the Pope. And the Queen, and at Simon Cowell's wedding.

Martha Pope herself is a legend within the institution, and he was enormously supportive. And me and the women candidates.

Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.

Pope John Paul didn't die - he pre-boarded.

Pope John Paul II's press secretary, who said, See, if only the Pope were Italian, he woulda shot back! Never got a dinner!

I see the work the pope has to do. It is a huge responsibility. Nobody campaigns for it.

I was in a state of shock, because I have never seen the pope talk about something as unimportant as Donald Trump. OK? And I was like, the pope is talking about me? This can't be happening. And then I said, is it good or bad? They said it's bad.

Jesuits make a vow of obedience to the Pope. But if the Pope is a Jesuit, perhaps he has to make a vow of obedience to the General of the Jesuits! I don’t know how to resolve this … I feel a Jesuit in my spirituality; in the spirituality of the Exercises, the spirituality deep in my heart.

Liberals can always be trusted to see God in Mumia Abu-Jamal and the devil in the Pope.

Mr. Churchill, Mr. Prime Minister, how many divisions did you say that the pope had?

Pope actually said that maybe I'm not a good Christian or something. It's unbelievable. Which is really not a nice thing to say.

[Pope Francis] lashed out against what he called malevolent resistance to his reforms.

Pope is questioning my faith. I was very surprised to see it. But I am a Christian, and I'm proud of it.

The Church of Rome, the Pope has always said, 'Seek peace.'

Queen Victoria was loyal and true to the Pope; that is what I was told, and so is Edward the Seventh loyal and true, but he has got something contrary in his body.

Should we cry when the pope dies, my request we should cry if they cried when we buried Malcom X

The appointing power of the Pope is treated as a public trust, and not as a personal perquisite.

The Catholic priest, from the moment he becomes a priest, is a sworn officer of the pope.

The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibility of the popes.

The Pope is only concerned with the spiritual welfare of his flock.

The Pope also said that while he's in town he would like to go see 'The Book of Mormon.'

The Pope is guarded by the Swiss guard who stand proudly in pajamas and silly hats.

There are only three great powers in the universe: God in heaven, the pope in the Vatican and Dadá in the great box.

The ultimate binding element in the medieval order was subordination to the divine will and its earthly representatives, notably the pope.

The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.

There's more likelihood of Ian Paisley being the next pope, than of me agreeing to a fix or a stitch-up.

We elected a President, not a Pope.

This requires a level of delusion/egomania usually reserved for popes and drag queens

Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.

We had a picture of the pope and President [J.F.] Kennedy on top of the television.

Well beloved subjects, wee thought that the clergie of our realme had been our subjectes wholy, but now we have well perceived that they bee but halfe our subjectes, yea, and scarce our subjectes: for all the prelates at their consecration make an othe to the pope, clene contrary to the the that they make to us, so that they seme to be his subjectes, and not ours.

A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German police spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact. I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be in itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Specter of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

Woe to him who doesn't know how to wear his mask, be he king or pope!

A Pope usually worked fourteen-hour days, seven days a week, and died of exhaustion in an average of 6.3 years. The inside joke was that accepting the papacy was a cardinal's 'fastest route to heaven.

As one would expect, the Pope’s schedule is quite disciplined—he wakes up at four o’clock each morning and runs on the treadmill for an hour. I’m totally kidding. Nobody’s knees have time for that.

Cuba, la grande île sur la mer, ses océans magnifiques, ses populations laborieuses, ses grands ciels d'émeraude...

Become who you are.

Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all 'faith' is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: 'By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.' It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. 'Faith' is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. 'Faith' is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence. But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s holy scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence. And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence. Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe? Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?

Do you wish to speak in Provençal, French, or Latin? They are all I can manage, I'm afraid." "Any will do," the rabbi replied in Provençal. "Splendid. Latin it is," said Pope Clement.

Do not be afraid, then, when love makes demands. Do not be afraid when love requires sacrifice.

I’m of the camp that if an angel tells you one thing, and a man in ruby slippers tells you another, you go with the angel.

For centuries after Christ, the church and other religions that use cruciform symbols have misrepresented the physical nature of Christ's death with a satanic symbol (cross), and a pagan idol (corpus). This secret has been concealed by the church for centuries after Christ.

If the saints fails to declare the truth, the Holy Spirit shall teach true words of God.