.
After all this time, John Grace, I am pleased to see that you are now
willing to divulge the issue over which Fr. Morgan was so ungentlemanly
like so as to bully an elderly Irish lady. The Irish have been too long
subject to such condescension, and this raised it to a new level. A
priest mistreating a lady should never be countenanced! She should
be to him as the image of Our Blessed Mother, and would he treat
her so? One must pause to wonder! But now we see it was over
her use of "negotiations" -- what a poor excuse. But telling,
nonetheless. This touched a sore spot. Let's have a look at it!!!!
I was always of the understanding the SSPX were in discussions with Rome.Fr Morgan, who showed himself to be a bully towards an elderly lady uses the word "negotiations"
After his conduct it was the last time I will defend Fr Morgan.
http://www.sspx.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=441:statement-by-fr-paul-morgan-district-superior-concerning-qthe-recusantq
"The Recusant"
"The Recusant" presents itself ‘as an unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerrilla war for the soul of Tradition.’ This ‘guerrilla war’ is now coming out into the open in that a signed ‘Letter of Entreaty’ has appeared on its website which attacks the Society in no uncertain terms. Addressed to ‘Fr Morgan and the Clergy of the British District,’ the open letter, dated 21st May 2013, accuses the Society of having deviated from its essential mission of fidelity to Catholic Tradition and opposition to Modernism due to the betrayal of its liberal leadership!
Ignoring the fact that there has not been a false deal with modernist Rome, and in spite of Bishop Fellay's public withdrawal in Ireland of the questionable April 2012 ‘Doctrinal Declaration,’ the dialectical letter pretends there is no option for us now but to show true leadership and to follow its proponents in seceding from the Society!
In recent months, such as in his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors and his recent conferences in Ireland, Bishop Fellay has clarified that he does not accept the legitimacy of the New Mass nor the errors of Vatican II nor the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ which pretends to reconcile them with Tradition.
With regard to the ‘Letter of Entreaty,’ Bishop Fellay has stated that "the paragraph which claims to prove everything, that is of 'my April (2012) declaration,' is wrong and false from the beginning to end; there is not one phrase which presents correctly what I have written…Poor people who are so misled by their mistrust." Hence, rather than boycotting the Superior General’s forthcoming visit, I would urge the concerned individuals in particular to attend Bishop Fellay’s conferences and to consider carefully what he has to say.
Whilst acknowledging the serious issues surrounding the Society’s negotiations with the Roman authorities, it is excessive and indeed offensive to claim ‘that the SSPX is now a sinking ship’ which is beyond repair. Far from abandoning the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre, we need staunch clergy and faithful to help keep the Society faithful to its providential mission, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the Clergy, pray for us!
Saint Pius X, pray for us!
Father Paul Morgan
District Superior
Saint Augustine of Canterbury, 28th
No mention of this Letter of the District Superior of the British
District (pg. 10 of
TheRecusant Issue 8) would be complete
without a copy of the
Letter of Entreaty to which it refers
(found on pp. 7-9 of #8) and also the response from the subject
entity,
TheRecusant (page 11 of #8), which the Editor (Ed.)
leaves up to Fr. Pfeiffer:
(Page 11 of
TheRecusant issue #8):
Fr. Pfeiffer responds to the response!During Questions and Answers at the ‘Crisis in the SSPX’ Conference,
a question was asked about Fr. Morgan’s statement in response to
the Letter of Entreaty and in particular the claim that Bishop Fellay
has “publicly withdrawn” his April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. Below
is a transcript of Fr. Pfeiffer’s response.
Fr. Pfeiffer:
OK, very simple. A written, clear, signed, sealed and delivered, official
docuмent is not retracted unless there is another written, signed,
sealed retracting docuмent which explains what it retracts.
For instance: Do we reject every element in that Doctrinal Declaration
of April [15th] 2012? The answer is no! Part 1 says that we accept
the Pope as head of the body of Bishops. We fully accept that, there’s
nothing wrong with that. However, it has heresies in it. So when you
retract it, you can’t just retract the whole thing because then you
retract the parts that are true as well as the errors.
And, since it is an official docuмent, it is not retracted until it is
officially retracted, you see. So when you have
a private conversation*
with people in Ireland, and we don’t have access to whatever he
said there easily, and it’s not an official communication of the Society
anyway - that’s not a retraction. ‘Retraction’ means that he will speak
to the Pope and he will withdraw the Doctrinal Declaration. Now
remember, it’s not a “deal”, it’s a ‘doctrinal declaration,’ therefore the
doctrine has to be retracted, and he has to retract it in his own
language, just like he gave it in his own language, with the utmost
clarity.
And furthermore, since
it is the most serious crime which can be
committed by a Catholic priest which is to express heresy, he has
to show his repentance by doing two things. Number 1, he has to
resign. He must resign. There is no other option. Number 2, he
must undergo a trial. And in this trial he must demonstrate that he
has retracted, and he must prove that he has retracted in his heart
the opinions he has expressed to Rome. That has to be done, or
else it doesn’t count. I mean I could understand how someone
who’s never been in the world or never worked in business or has
never dealt with other human beings in the real world could accept
that kind of ‘retraction’. You have to have a real retraction, a true
retraction, and ‘withdrawal’ does not mean retraction anyway.
Furthermore, Fr. Morgan says there that it is a “questionable”
docuмent. You’ve read the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
It’s
not questionable, it’s heretical! It’s not questionable. “Questionable”
would mean that it could lend itself to two different interpretations,
one Catholic the other heretical. It’s not a “questionable docuмent”.
And why are the priests like Fr. Morgan and the other priests trying
to hold things together the best they can? They have to say “it’s
questionable” even though they know it’s not questionable, because
otherwise they’re in trouble, do you see what I mean?
That’s why I asked my own brother [Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer], “Is the
new Mass legitimately promulgated?” He said: “It’s a bad
docuмent.” I said to him, “I didn’t ask you whether it’s a good
docuмent or a bad docuмent. I asked you: ‘Is the New Mass
legitimately promulgated, yes or no?’ ”
He said: “It’s a bad docuмent.” He would not answer the question,
because if he did, he would be disagreeing with Bishop Fellay, and
that’s the trouble.
*"...a private conversation with people in Ireland" refers to a mini-
conference that +Fellay allegedly gave in Ireland some months ago,
in which he claims to have "retracted" his abominable AFD. But no
one has ever produced any recording of that mini-conference in some
remote and unannounced private location in Ireland, nor has there
ever been any written transcript of what +Fellay claims to have said
then. It is in FACT, no more than an INTERNET RUMOUR, a thing
that +Fellay himself has vehemently urged everyone to IGNORE.
Okay, then we should be making him happy if we ignore it.
And don't forget, every single time you hear some Accordista refer
to it as if it's important, confront him immediately with the accusation
that he is transgressing against The Great One's own command for
he is believing and REPEATING an Internet rumour! He won't have
a single complaint or ELSE you can then use this opportunity to go
through the list of things that could be Internet rumours but you
can't be sure, because +Fellay has never once exemplified any of
his ambiguous accusations of so-called Internet rumour with anything
specific! This fact Ed of TheRecusant furthermore mentions in Issue
9 on page 5, thusly:
...Given that he sent the docuмent [his AFD] on our behalf, has he
ever said why he tried to keep its contents secret [Ed. had already
proved that case on page 4]? Has anyone else noticed that whenever
he complains of having been misrepresented or misunderstood, The
Leader always forgets to go into detail or to give examples? Is that
not a little odd?
In the next paragraph, Ed. assures the reader that he has no ax to
grind against +F and that when the SSPX goes down, it won't be due
to +F alone, but rather to the compliance of SSPX clergy and Faithful
who have facilitated his agenda of subversion of the Society. Without
their help he could never have done it alone.
This is what the Resistance is for, to properly and justly oppose the
subversive agenda of the Menzingen-denizens.
And here, to top it off, Fr. Morgan ABUSES an Irish lady when she has
the courage to ask a question -- she is strong-armed into submission!
Fr. Morgan thereby facilitates that demise of the Society with his unjust
repression of the Faithful.
Most alarming, and most unforgivable!
Topic: Discussions or Negotiations? (Read 2887 times)