FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pettition against the SSPX
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Quote:"For the full recognition of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council"http://www.petition-vaticanum2.org/pageID_7327623.html

The papal cancellation of the excommunication of bishops from The Society of St. Pius X signifies the reception into full communion with the See of Rome  those who have consistently opposed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Regarding the anti-Semitic remarks and the denial of the German national-socialist persecution of the Jews by Bishop Richard Williamson and his followers, we share the indignation of our Jewish sisters and brothers. Moreover, we state that the SSPX’s attitude towards Judaism does not correspond to the Council’s understanding of and commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue. We support the recent statements of Bishops’ Conferences, and others, all over the world,  on this issue. We also welcome the recent statements made on these matters by Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican’s Secretariate of State.


Calumny against the SSPX. How does the SSPX not correspond to Church teaching on Judaism?


Quote:We believe that the close correlation between the excommunication’s cancellation and the 50th anniversary of the calling of a General Council of the Church by Blessed Pope John XXIII gives a clear indication of the direction which the present Papacy wishes to take.  We sense a desire to return to a pre Vatican II Church with its fear of openness to the breath of the Holy Spirit, a positive appreciation of ‘the signs of the times’,  and the values of democratic institutions.

Touchy-feely language.

Quote:We are very concerned that this act of rehabilitation heralds a turn-around on important documents of Vatican II, for example, the decree on ecumenism “Unitatis Redintegratio”, the declaration on non-Christian religions “Nostra Aetate”, the declaration on religious liberty “Dignitatis Humanae” and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, “Gaudium et Spes”. Such an act will have a disastrous effect on the credibility of the Roman-Catholic Church.  For Catholics who love their Church, the price is too high!

The price for rehabilitating the SSPX is too high for these liberals? The Church belongs to Christ and He requires orthodoxy.


Quote:The Pope hopes this act will help unify the Church.  However we think it is particularly outrageous that the Vatican’s renewed overtures to a schismatic traditionalist movement have been undertaken without the imposition of any conditions whatsoever. In June 2008, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Levebvre’s excommunication, the SSPX rejected the invitation of the Holy See towards theological reconciliation. Likewise, the fraternity rejected the invitation to sign a five-topic declaration containing conditions for its re-integration in the Roman Church.

A return to full communion with the Catholic Church can only be made possible if the documents and teachings of the Second Vatican Council are fully accepted without any reservations, as requested by the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” on the topic of the Tridentine rite. It is also imperative that the papal ministries of Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are recognised and accepted.


Petition signers are not recognizing the papal ministry of the Pope.


Quote:The Church of Rome, perceived as the Barque of St Peter, lists heavily as long as the Vatican:
  • only rehabilitates the “lost sheep” at the traditionalist edge of the Church, and makes no similar offer to other excommunicated or marginalised Catholics
  • persists in preventing progressive theologians from teaching
  • refuses dialogue with all movements in the Church
The petition statements are clumsy and juvenile. It is hard to believe that so-called scholars would go on record to support a document like this. Perhaps it is just a bad translation but Bishop Mueller of Regensburg stated that signers of document have shown themselves "not qualified to teach Catholic theology."
(http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3308921)

Based on the Bishop's statement, students who paid to attend classed taught by the petition signers should qualify for a refund. Here are some of the names:
http://www.petition-vaticanum2.org/pageID_7315769.html
What a load of...

Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.

oh these bastards know all right. they know full well what they do


devotedknuckles Wrote:oh these bastards know all right. they know full well what they do

+1 They know what they are doing. The say they see, and they have remained blind.
ONeill Wrote:+1 They know what they are doing. The say they see, and they have remained blind.
Bishops, department heads, alumnus, parents, students, etc. who pay for keeping those "not qualified to teach Catholic theology" in place have a good list now for cleaning house. Nobody can say they are blind any more.
That has got to be one of the most pathetic things that these lib freaks have tried to think of in the past 30 years.  What amazes me is the fact that they actually believe in what their saying. 

Austin Powers, "There's nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster".

did anyone else find the phrase "Papal ministries of..."

I thought the Popes had a mandate? (I'm asking here).

Are they, by the use of that phrase, further blurring the line between the laity and the Priesthood, especially that of the Pope?

Is this a silly question?
Quote:The Church of Rome, perceived as the Barque of St Peter, lists heavily as long as the Vatican:
  • only rehabilitates the “lost sheep” at the traditionalist edge of the Church, and makes no similar offer to other excommunicated or marginalised Catholics
  • persists in preventing progressive theologians from teaching
  • refuses dialogue with all movements in the Church
And which marginalized Catholics would that be? The feminist would-be wymynprysts? They are totally different, even though both have to a certain extent marginalized themselves.

What a pain in the butt all of this is.
maurin Wrote:did anyone else find the phrase "Papal ministries of..."

I thought the Popes had a mandate? (I'm asking here).

Are they, by the use of that phrase, further blurring the line between the laity and the Priesthood, especially that of the Pope?

Is this a silly question?
That is another odd language usage that disrespectfully implies "Papal ministries" could be comparable to lower ministries like a catechism teaching or coffee and donuts preparation. It is another example of why any signer is not qualified to teach Catholic theology. The short petition is densely packed with abject nonsense.
If it weren't for the Williamson affair, the SSPX would most likely have gotten a strucure by 2 Feb. and been in the middle of doctrinal talks right now before the libs could have organized this nonsense. Now the Vatican is going to be forced to take a hardline stand on VCII where they might not have before.
Pages: 1 2 3