Author Topic: Fr. Morgan approves the General Chapter Declaration (Read 3978 times)

GertrudetheGreat · « **on:** July 29, 2012, 08:57:43 PM »

QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:

QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.

It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'

On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.

Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2012, 09:48:42 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:

QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.

It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'

On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.

Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.

How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?

Maybe someone should send to Fr. Morgan.

Francisco · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2012, 11:32:12 PM »

It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.

What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.

Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.

trento · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:59:34 AM »

Quote from: Francisco

It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.

What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.

Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.

If SSPX is sedevacantist, then it should be called SSPV, no?

InDominoSperavi · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2012, 06:12:05 AM »

Gertrude the Great, are you sure he wrote that ? Could you tell us, please, where is the original letter ? I couldn't find it on the Internet. Thank you in advance.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2012, 06:34:33 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:

QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.

It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'

On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.

Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.

A lot has happened since June 29th and as AntiFellayism points out: "How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?".

The rumor that the answer was "no" to the deal was a threat to +Fellay because the Spanish district superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal.

Next, the "secret letter" leaks and is in fact not a "no" and even Rome remains very hopeful and confident to the point that +Fellay has to wait for his reply because everyone at the CDF are going on "vacation". The "doctrinal dicussions" continuing is proven by the "secret letter" to be nothing but negotiating.

So, it is pointless bringing up old news and starting a thread on this old statement. We wait for +Fellay to make his next move, which should be shortly because he seems more than eager to be "more fully reintegrated into the church" with little or no regard for Tradition, ABL, his bishops, faithful or in fact The Church.

May I suggest that if you wish to continue this discussion, you transfer it to the topic: 'Did +Fellay lied?'

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2012, 10:02:56 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:

QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.

The problem with this is, under +Fellay, the definition of "Tradition" is changed.
What he is laying down is an evolved "Tradition," more acceptable to Rome, and
therefore one that is possible to "return" to, since it is not the Tradition handed
down to and passed on by +ABL. Listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's 9th Sunday aft. Pent.
sermon, July 29th, 2012.

If you find the target is impossible to hit, then move the target, and say that it's
the same target. So they would lead you to believe...

Quote

Quote
It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'

On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.

Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.

A lot has happened since June 29th and as AntiFellayism points out: "How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?".

The rumor that the answer was "no" to the deal was a threat to +Fellay because the Spanish district superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal.

Next, the "secret letter" leaks and is in fact not a "no" and even Rome remains very hopeful and confident to the point that +Fellay has to wait for his reply because everyone at the CDF are going on "vacation". The "doctrinal dicussions" continuing is proven by the "secret letter" to be nothing but negotiating.

So, it is pointless bringing up old news and starting a thread on this old statement.

It might well seem pointless to you, Marie A, but then you're not a troll.

Quote

We wait for +Fellay to make his next move, which should be shortly because he seems more than eager to be "more fully reintegrated into the church" with little or no regard for Tradition, ABL, his bishops, faithful or in fact The Church.

So what else is new? He's been sandbagging this fort for at least 15 years.
Why would he change now?

Quote

May I suggest that if you wish to continue this discussion, you transfer it to the topic: ['Did +Fellay lie?']

But - but - but - trolls like to have it their way, like at Burger King.

1531 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2012, 01:43:18 PM »

I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish Distric Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:23:15 PM »

Quote from: 1531

I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.

Good question. I second the motion!

KyrieEleison · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:30:39 PM »

Quote

How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?

Maybe someone should send to Fr. Morgan.

Father Morgan lives in the same house as Bp. Williamson. I'm sure he knows what's what.

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:32:16 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: 1531
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.

Good question. I second the motion!

Well I guess someone from the SSPX in Spain had 'prematurely' announced the answer from the SSPX to Rome was "no deal" and they were forced to retrieve such announcement by the evil forces of Menzingen.

I think that's what the post refers to but I have no idea about its details though.

Coming from Menzingen and neo-sspx nothing surprises me anymore.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:47:58 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: 1531
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.

Good question. I second the motion!

When the SSPX General Chapter ended on July 14th, an announcement was made on DICI http://www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/ that "The General Chapter will soon make a common statement to Rome, which will then be made public."

A liberal Spanish publication, Radio Digital, published an article written by Jose Manuel Vidal who claimed he was told by two priests in the Spanish disctrict of the SSPX that "there was no deal". Implying that the answer was No. Then Church Militant on reported that the SSPX was demanding a retraction for the "no deal statement". This was confirmed and the announcement was posted somewhere on CathInfo and IA.

Next, DICI released the Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement which was supposed to be the answer to Rome (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19735&min=0&num=10) and said nothing but the "secret letter" was soon leaked and showed that in fact it was not a "no deal" reply. You can follow the rest at this link: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/FrThouvenots-leaked-letter-Condition-described-on-Chapter-July-18th.
Let me know if this answers your question, if not let me know or someone else may explain better.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:56:38 PM »

Quote from: KyrieEleison

Quote

How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?

Maybe someone should send to Fr. Morgan.

Father Morgan lives in the same house as Bp. Williamson. I'm sure he knows what's what.

Sounds right to me.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2012, 03:02:51 PM »

I found an English translation of the retraction here at this link:http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/sspx-general-chapter-and-its.html I'm not familiar with this website but I saw the Spanish announcement.

Monday, July 16, 2012
SSPX demands retraction from Spanish journalist

In the meantime, the District Superior of Spain and Portugal, Father de Montagut denies Vidal's report and demands a correction. One more example of obviously harassing fire, constantly targeted, which inflame matters. This includes the media mood music in the German speaking area around Bishop Richard Williamson is one with which the SSPX indirectly to be moved into the area of anti-Semitism and h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. It is not difficult to recognize behind this intention the desire that the talks between Rome and to Econe should collapse . But it is still not gone that far. The General House itself has n now announced that each member of the General Chapter, was bound by an oath on the Bible to secrecy about the content and course of the Chapter Assembly. Any published information from journalists and on the internet regarding the General Chapter will therefore flatly denied, combined with a call not to place any self-created rumors into the wider world. This is a translation of the emboldened part of the article. The whole article translated here.

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2012, 04:46:37 PM »

Quote from: KyrieEleison

Quote

How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?

Maybe someone should send to Fr. Morgan.

Father Morgan lives in the same house as Bp. Williamson. I'm sure he knows what's what.

I really hope you're right.

I'm just afraid then those wasn't Fr. Morgan's words because if so +W would most definitely disagree in saying that calling the Chapter (as is) prior to a deal would be really significant after all.

There's a saying that goes on to say that the enemies might live by our side, but I hope and pray this is NOT the case.