From: http://sodalitium-pianum.com/new-details-coming-to-light-on-fr-morgons-departure-from-the-sspx/

On August 11, Sodalitium Pianum reported on the departure of Fr. Paul Morgan (former SSPX British District Superior) from the Society.

On August 12, we followed up that initial report with additional details surrounding Fr. Morgan’s resignation.

Today, still more details connected with the circuмstances surrounding Fr. Morgan’s departure from the Society have emerged on the French Resistance forum.
Apparently, Fr. Morgan had written a private letter to Bishop Fellay, expressing his disagreement/opposition to the new SSPX policy subjecting their marriages to conciliar jurisdiction.

Menzingen’s response?

They issued an ultimatum to Fr. Morgan:

Either he submit an apology for his private letter, or, be dismissed from the SSPX!!!

The French forum user “Mikael” observes the irony and contradiction inherent in this ultimatum:

SSPX.org has just published an article in which it laments the dismissal of a conciliar theologian for his public criticism of the Pope, after having expelled one of its better priests for his merely private dissent.

And more to the point: How is the delusional SSPX going give a lesson to Rome, when we see what happens to those who try?

Does Menzingen think it will be exempt from the same tyrannical treatment from Rome, which it meted out to Fr. Morgan?

Meanwhile, we have reliable confirmation that Fr. Morgn has been actively ministering to Resistance faithful in France, where he plans to remain.

Bit like a Dubia...

This resistance label can mean lots of different things. Opposition to Econe/Menzingen is getting to be as wide and diverse as opposition to Rome. Placing a recent SSPX refugee on a measuring scale of dissidence can be a precise art both for the priest suddenly experiencing the fresh air of freedom and the mass of curious observers wondering where this loose prospect will land.

Fr. Morgan opposed the UK rebellion of some years ago although he was not an enthusiastic supporter of the Society's new direction. He considered his options and continued to run his district long after it had changed its position. I think I would say he belongs to no local faction and now merely adds his name to that long list of individual priests wandering the spiritual byways, especially France.    

What does opposition to Econe/Menzingen mean? Nothing substantial I think, and those priests who leave the parent sect and then frequent the other factions are just wandering from one room in the SSPX house to another.  It is more to be hoped that more of them would indeed turn to being independent and itinerant as they woulkd likely be touching those souls who do not have workable access to the establishment chapels. As it is, most of the newly minted chapels are in urban areas and the countryside Catholic has to work much harder for his sacramental bread. It is too bad that loose associations are not a little looser and the factional shepherd's hook was not trying to snatch up every priest that leaves the mother house.

I don't know Sean, there are discernable patterns and events which say that that is precisely what they are trying to do. A different set of clothes perhaps, but the same substance under it all.

I was indeed comfortable with it for a fairly long time but that was a time when I never looked beneath the surface to more fundamental issues. And the new incarnation is identical in almost all things and its orientation. As I said, the same house, different room.

Carrying on the same apostolate is essentially replacing the failed thing with as close an approximation can be made.

What does opposition to Econe/Menzingen mean? Nothing substantial I think, and those priests who leave the parent sect and then frequent the other factions are just wandering from one room in the SSPX house to another.  It is more to be hoped that more of them would indeed turn to being independent and itinerant as they woulkd likely be touching those souls who do not have workable access to the establishment chapels. As it is, most of the newly minted chapels are in urban areas and the countryside Catholic has to work much harder for his sacramental bread. It is too bad that loose associations are not a little looser and the factional shepherd's hook was not trying to snatch up every priest that leaves the mother house.

Well, unhappy priests were disobedient which was at odds with that sense of a divine mission cultivated by ABL. This exercise in self-appointment was difficult to stomach for some and evidence was accruing that proved that the Society was far from being divine when in the hands of some of its various operatives. We can say human weakness visits every organisation however noble the cause but there comes a point when the means do not justify the ends. Each of us decides when that point has been reached it seems. And I suppose a bishop does have to have a minimum number of followers to prop him up to claim a viable vertical structure does exist which does not sit well with the current appeal of the horizontal management approach practised by the resistance. Or is this a way of covering up further fragmentation? 
    

1) By "more fundamental issues," are you referring to issues regarding the "recognize and resist" position generally?

2) Yes, we definitely started in 2011 by trying to ensure the "failed thing" would carry on in a new incarnation (and some like me, or supporters of the SAJM, still do).  Our position is that it is not the "thing" (i.e., religious congregations, hierarchy, and authority per se) that failed, but the people running them that failed.

We believe there is simply no precedent for independence in a Church which is constituted hierarchically.

Even in Benson's "Lord of the World," amidst the final persecution, and a crisis which exceeds ours in magnitude, with the priesthood whittled down to a half dozen cardinals, priests, and Pope, there was still hierarchy.

Perhaps we are wrong, but that is what we believe.

Not trying to argue; just trying to understand your perspective.

1) In part only because the position is not really sound. It has theological gaps which are questionable.


2)Yes, of course it was people who were the weakest link. That is the nature of men, even clerics. However, this fact does not rule out any structural, doctrinal, or canonical weaknesses which are present.
There is no precedent of objective hierarchical independence but again, that does not rule out the possiblilty of independent action which would find its justification within the Tradition and laws of the Church.


Benson's case is predicated upon that remnant of clerics being valid, Catholic, and legitimate. We do not live in such a time, when we can have that level of certainty.


In short, as I see it, certain parts of this R&R theory and theology do defy logic, and the only way that I stayed with it for years, was by force of will and a a refusal to draw the logical conclusion from theose contradictions.  Not trying to argue or convince, only giving you that perspective.


God Bless