Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Lourdes Fatima on May 28, 2013, 11:41:04 AM
-
"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 his 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
http://www.sspx.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 28 May 2013 11:27 )
-
Somebody has obviously had a word in the ear to Fr Morgan. Whilst certainly Fr Morgan is not the same man since the General Chapter, we all know what Bishop Fellay is going to say or won't say. The Irish recently got a dose of Fr N Pfluger, who introduced Dr Krah into the SSPX.
Whilst a couple folk, pro-deal types were beguiled by Fr Pfluger, there was little interest in him.
Many could equally be offended that both Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger have betrayed the Archbishop.
My question for Fr Pfluger would be as to why he introduced Dr Krah into the SSPX?
-
‘Fr Morgan and the Clergy of the British District,’ the open letter,
I recall Fr Clifton penning a letter to Bishop Fellay. What was that all about?
-
With Fr N Pfluger, folk in Ireland got the "beware of the internet rumour" line in the sermon. Basically, the Menzingen propaganda machine.
-
.
Thank you, LourdesFatima for posting the link to the source, for it was not
entirely looking like the words of Fr. Morgan to me. And as John Grace, above,
points out, "certainly Fr Morgan is not the same man since the General Chapter."
To begin with, is this the way any educated person addresses a letter to
someone or something, with "quotation marks" around their name?
"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!
Perhaps "Fr. Morgan" could use a dictionary to look up the meaning of the
word "entreaty" -- it is not an "attack" at all, but the pronouncement of an
option to face reality, "Fr. Morgan," or, do you persist in your error of denial?
Ignoring the fact that there has not been a false deal with modernist Rome, and in spite of his 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!
The pot calls the kettle 'black' - the dialectical retort says the Letter of
Entreaty is dialectical! You can't make this stuff up! HAHAHAHAHAHA
And who, pray tell, is this "his" to whom you refer? Another attempt at
being vague? Did you even bother to read the Letter of Entreaty? -OR,
(which is more likely) are you merely regurgitating that which you have
been required to "swallow?"
Because if you HAD read it, you might then be capable of recognizing the
fact that 'WITHDRAWAL' of an announcement of what one believes - some
FOUR MONTHS LATER (AFD on 4-15 to di Noia secret conversation of 8-28)
does not make any sense to a THINKING person. How does one retract that
which he believes?
If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.
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.
Oh, Exuuuuse mmmeeee! I got it all wrong! How silly of me! Here "he" is,
parading around "his" excuse-generator, saying that "he has clarified" everything
by saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "he" wrote in an OFFICIAL DOcuмENT
that "he" was ever-so-diligent in HIDING FROM THE WORLD for an ENTIRE
YEAR.
I'm so sorry. How could I be so myopic? Why would I just not be willing to
abandon all common sense and lap-dog swallow the nonsense that this
inveterate liar has most recently dished out?
Gee - if I can answer that one, I'll be sure to get right back to you.
Hint: "Don't hold your breath!"
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.
This is the language of a GANG BANGER in Los Angeles. This is not an abjuration
of error. "HE" is not coming clean. "HE" is not acknowledging that "he" was
wrong. "HE" is not admitting to have been in error.
IT'S ALL SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT. IT'S THE FAULT OF WHAT THEY SAY
ABOUT MY AFD! YEAH. THAT'S THE TICKET!! I DIDN'T DO IT --- THE
LOUSY TYPEWRITER DID IT!
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.
These are the same guys whose ancestors announced on the Titanic,
"Everyone remain calm! There is no problem! Everything is under control."
Only they left out one important word: DAMAGE. They should have said,
"Everything is under damage control."
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.
Uuuuhh.. no.. what we need is staunch clergy and a Superior General who will
STOP LYING and REPENT, so as to keep the Society directed 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!
Sancte Pie Decime, Glorioso Patrone
O-ra, o-o-ra pro no-o-bis!
Father Paul Morgan
District Superior
Saint Augustine of Canterbury, 28th
http://www.sspx.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 28 May 2013 11:27 )
-
Dr Krah would only be delighted to see Fr Morgan expelled from the SSPX. Fr Morgan is around much longer than Dr Krah.
I don't expect Dr Krah to agree but it is Fr N Pfluger, who has betrayed the Archbishop and not Fr Morgan. Fr Morgan like Bishop Williamson has remained faithful to the heritage of the Archbishop.
-
I was speaking to a few people today at a demonstration for turf-cutters and people were speaking well of Fr Morgan. Whilst not a popularity contest they prefer him to Fr Angles. Sorry Fr Angles!!!
I still believe Fr Morgan is one of the better SSPX priests.
-
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.
Yes, yes, yes Fr.....
......but, this "staunch clergy" is within the Resistance no?.....out on the streets....
-
Fr. Morgan suggests that the grounds for sticking with the Society seem to be the 'non-agreement with Rome' and not in any great confidence in its leadership. Staunch and faithful (to what?) priests would need more than this and would not thrive in a church of ambiguity and muddle. And the legacy of ABL is not necessarily to be found in a Society of the future. Father is therefore doing his bit to stifle the alternative SSPX whose reply must now be to oppose Father.
-
Fr. Morgan suggests that the grounds for sticking with the Society seem to be the 'non-agreement with Rome' and not in any great confidence in its leadership. Staunch and faithful (to what?) priests would need more than this and would not thrive in a church of ambiguity and muddle. And the legacy of ABL is not necessarily to be found in a Society of the future. Father is therefore doing his bit to stifle the alternative SSPX whose reply must now be to oppose Father.
"Where are the Maccabees ?"
+ABL's reflection and comment after having some time to contemplate
the Church crisis during an illness.
-
The concessions of the doctrinal preamble are confirmed by the other things Bishop Fellay said.
For example, in the CNS interview in which he speaks of "limited liberty" in the Council, and that things that were condemned in the Council were not of the Council but of an interpretation.
The denials are pitiful.
-
The concessions of the doctrinal preamble are confirmed by the other things Bishop Fellay said.
For example, in the CNS interview in which he speaks of "limited liberty" in the Council, and that things that were condemned in the Council were not of the Council but of an interpretation.
The denials are pitiful
.
Yep.
Fr. Morgan has fallen victim to Bishop Williamson's observation that "Those who do not act the way they think, end up thinking the way they act."
Enough time spent in the same environment will eliminate even the silent resistance of others who would otherwise follow Bishop WIlliamson if he would start another order.
First anonymity, then silence, and finally complicity.
We might get 1-2 more priests (and no seminarians), but then it is all done.
With no seminarians to ordain, it will not be necessary for Bishop Williamson to offer to ordain any.
-
The concessions of the doctrinal preamble are confirmed by the other things Bishop Fellay said.
For example, in the CNS interview in which he speaks of "limited liberty" in the Council, and that things that were condemned in the Council were not of the Council but of an interpretation.
The denials are pitiful
.
Yep.
Fr. Morgan has fallen victim to Bishop Williamson's observation that "Those who do not act the way they think, end up thinking the way they act."
Enough time spent in the same environment will eliminate even the silent resistance of others who would otherwise follow Bishop WIlliamson if he would start another order.
First anonymity, then silence, and finally complicity.
We might get 1-2 more priests (and no seminarians), but then it is all done.
With no seminarians to ordain, it will not be necessary for Bishop Williamson to offer to ordain any.
This is a very depressing projection for the future of the resistance, Sean. Have you thrown in the towel? :sad:
-
The concessions of the doctrinal preamble are confirmed by the other things Bishop Fellay said.
For example, in the CNS interview in which he speaks of "limited liberty" in the Council, and that things that were condemned in the Council were not of the Council but of an interpretation.
The denials are pitiful
.
Yep.
Fr. Morgan has fallen victim to Bishop Williamson's observation that "Those who do not act the way they think, end up thinking the way they act."
Enough time spent in the same environment will eliminate even the silent resistance of others who would otherwise follow Bishop WIlliamson if he would start another order.
First anonymity, then silence, and finally complicity.
We might get 1-2 more priests (and no seminarians), but then it is all done.
With no seminarians to ordain, it will not be necessary for Bishop Williamson to offer to ordain any.
This is a very depressing projection for the future of the resistance, Sean. Have you thrown in the towel? :sad:
That will be the day!
I just talk to a lot of people and priests (see other thread).
On the one hand, the time of grace is passing.
On the other, they will not leave to become independents without hierarchy and community.
Such was not their vocation.
But neither was the religious life.
Therefore, they will simply do the best they can with the hand they are dealt, if there is no religious order offering an alternative with a bishop.
Fr. Morgan is a good example of this mindset, I suspect.
-
Might I ask --
What priest DOES have a vocation to be an "independent"?
It is intrinsic to the priesthood itself to be a "helper to a bishop".
A "helper to a bishop" without a bishop to report to is a "monster" of sorts -- something severely unnatural.
I appreciate these priests' deep consideration of the matter, and personal reluctance to do anything rash, but they should recall that:
A) they already are doing something abnormal -- operating outside the normal Diocesan/Roman Church structures by working as Traditional priests.
B) Sometimes in a emergency, you do what you have to do -- regardless of how you "feel" about it, or how great it sounds.
-
I thought I priest is only able to function as a delegate of his bishop, who gives him his faculties. If a bishop relinquishes this, the priest is unable to function. If a priest cannot tell you who his bishop is, he is no priest.
-
At the moment, Bp. W is spending his time serving scattered trad groups and has speaking engagements of a political nature that are not strictly Catholic/Christian. He is seeing how the SSPX dissidence works out before greater involvement and could be using ABL's approach as a guide. I am sure he will respond to requests from priests and potential seminarians if it is substantial. If not, he may conclude that we are in the final days of the priesthood and that any new structure is pointless.
-
At the moment, Bp. W is spending his time serving scattered trad groups and has speaking engagements of a political nature that are not strictly Catholic/Christian. He is seeing how the SSPX dissidence works out before greater involvement and could be using ABL's approach as a guide. I am sure he will respond to requests from priests and potential seminarians if it is substantial. If not, he may conclude that we are in the final days of the priesthood and that any new structure is pointless.
His position is the latter, but based on the conversation in the other thread, it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy:
If priests and seminarians who would otherwise join the resistance stay within the compromised SSPX because they have nowhere to go, knowing Bishop Williamson will not found an alternative structure, then it stands to reason there will be very limited demand on him by same;
In which case he will feel justified concluding we are in the end times of the priesthood, and there is no point trying to found a new order;
In which case the situation will have become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which could have been avoided with a bit of initiative from His Lordship.
"If you build it, they will come."
Or at least, there is a chance.
But if you don't, they won't/can't.
And this much is certain: Without such a new structure to attempt to attract and form seminarians, the resistance is on a slow trajectory of petering out, being unable to reproduce clergy. As things stand presently, there is not one single seminarian candidate in the pipeline.
Something needs to change.
The definition of insanity: To do the same thing over and over and expect different results.
-
At the moment, Bp. W is spending his time serving scattered trad groups and has speaking engagements of a political nature that are not strictly Catholic/Christian. He is seeing how the SSPX dissidence works out before greater involvement and could be using ABL's approach as a guide. I am sure he will respond to requests from priests and potential seminarians if it is substantial. If not, he may conclude that we are in the final days of the priesthood and that any new structure is pointless.
His position is the latter, but based on the conversation in the other thread, it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy:
If priests and seminarians who would otherwise join the resistance stay within the compromised SSPX because they have nowhere to go, knowing Bishop Williamson will not found an alternative structure, then it stands to reason there will be very limited demand on him by same;
In which case he will feel justified concluding we are in the end times of the priesthood, and there is no point trying to found a new order;
In which case the situation will have become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which could have been avoided with a bit of initiative from His Lordship.
"If you build it, they will come."
Or at least, there is a chance.
But if you don't, they won't/can't.
And this much is certain: Without such a new structure to attempt to attract and form seminarians, the resistance is on a slow trajectory of petering out, being unable to reproduce clergy. As things stand presently, there is not one single seminarian candidate in the pipeline.
Something needs to change.
The definition of insanity: To do the same thing over and over and expect different results.
Bp Williamson, to me at least, never wanted to leave the SSPX which must be the love of his life. Bp Fellay expelled him. If past reports in TRADITIO are to be believed, there is a whole list of Resistance priests. Hopefully they will form at least an informal alliance and arrange for " epsicopal care ", which is hardly impossible as there are many Trad bishops around. This group of Resistance priests must think of the future.
-
Bp. W is not the problem. He's not keeping anyone from speaking his mind. His recommendation that those who do speak out, who do see something wrong, take 3 months and "pray about it" is good advice: Fr. Hewko did it and anyone who knows him can testify to his resolve. I expect Fr. G will be the same when his 3 months are up.
The fact is a lot of priests in the SSPX and a lot of "trads" think Bp. W is crazy with too many wrong "opinions." What do you want him to do? Whatever following the "Resistance" has isn't going to get any bigger just because Bp. W decides to head a new org. Even among the quote unquote Resistance, I find a lot of "trads" with "opinions"--unstable men and women who want to be reassured that their faith is not failing them. One day they're ready to "fight" to the death, the next they're frustrated that the priest isn't coming to their town to bless them.
The "Resistance" is not and cannot become another "structure"--not now anyway. I don't even know why it calls itself "Resistance." This isn't some Galactic Empire that Luke and Han can bring down with one good, clean shot. It's this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pp-kFNnbs). You're not "resisting" anything. You're getting to high ground, holding on tight, and praying you don't get swept away. You can shout for all it's worth and should--it lets people know you're still alive--but you ain't gonna be doing much else.
Fr. P is good enough to offer shelter to those priests in the US who need one. Be happy for that.
The other alternative, the way I see it, is to let go and join the ranks of the walking dead. I "support" Bp. W and the quote unquote Resistance because I'm alive and have a free hand to do so.
-
Bp. W is not the problem. He's not keeping anyone from speaking his mind. His recommendation that those who do speak out, who do see something wrong, take 3 months and "pray about it" is good advice: Fr. Hewko did it and anyone who knows him can testify to his resolve. I expect Fr. G will be the same when his 3 months are up.
The fact is a lot of priests in the SSPX and a lot of "trads" think Bp. W is crazy with too many wrong "opinions." What do you want him to do? Whatever following the "Resistance" has isn't going to get any bigger just because Bp. W decides to head a new org. Even among the quote unquote Resistance, I find a lot of "trads" with "opinions"--unstable men and women who want to be reassured that their faith is not failing them. One day they're ready to "fight" to the death, the next they're frustrated that the priest isn't coming to their town to bless them.
The "Resistance" is not and cannot become another "structure"--not now anyway. I don't even know why it calls itself "Resistance." This isn't some Galactic Empire that Luke and Han can bring down with one good, clean shot. It's this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pp-kFNnbs). You're not "resisting" anything. You're getting to high ground, holding on tight, and praying you don't get swept away. You can shout for all it's worth and should--it lets people know you're still alive--but you ain't gonna be doing much else.
Fr. P is good enough to offer shelter to those priests in the US who need one. Be happy for that.
The other alternative, the way I see it, is to let go and join the ranks of the walking dead. I "support" Bp. W and the quote unquote Resistance because I'm alive and have a free hand to do so.
Zzz-
This was an interesting post.
I wish you would post more often.
Perhaps the difference in strategy between Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson is derived from their contradictory temperments:
The cholerics and sanguines (like Fr. Pfeiffer) prefer taking the offensive.
The melancholics and phlegmatics (like Bishop Williamson) prefer taking a defensive posture.
What do you think?
-
Bp. W is not the problem. He's not keeping anyone from speaking his mind. His recommendation that those who do speak out, who do see something wrong, take 3 months and "pray about it" is good advice: Fr. Hewko did it and anyone who knows him can testify to his resolve. I expect Fr. G will be the same when his 3 months are up.
The fact is a lot of priests in the SSPX and a lot of "trads" think Bp. W is crazy with too many wrong "opinions." What do you want him to do? Whatever following the "Resistance" has isn't going to get any bigger just because Bp. W decides to head a new org. Even among the quote unquote Resistance, I find a lot of "trads" with "opinions"--unstable men and women who want to be reassured that their faith is not failing them. One day they're ready to "fight" to the death, the next they're frustrated that the priest isn't coming to their town to bless them.
The "Resistance" is not and cannot become another "structure"--not now anyway. I don't even know why it calls itself "Resistance." This isn't some Galactic Empire that Luke and Han can bring down with one good, clean shot. It's this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pp-kFNnbs). You're not "resisting" anything. You're getting to high ground, holding on tight, and praying you don't get swept away. You can shout for all it's worth and should--it lets people know you're still alive--but you ain't gonna be doing much else.
Fr. P is good enough to offer shelter to those priests in the US who need one. Be happy for that.
The other alternative, the way I see it, is to let go and join the ranks of the walking dead. I "support" Bp. W and the quote unquote Resistance because I'm alive and have a free hand to do so.
An interesting post. The problem is that Bp Fellay wants to join the Conciliar Church but is playing a game of bluff at the moment which seems to be working with priests and laity alike who dont want to accept reality.
-
The other alternative, the way I see it, is to let go and join the ranks of the walking dead.
(http://hardcorefansonly.com/thewalkingdead/files/2012/11/how-to-be-on-the-walking-dead.jpg)
I "support" Bp. W and the quote unquote Resistance because I'm alive and have a free hand to do so.
-
We've learned that Bishop Fellay is already in "too deep" with the Zionist, conciliarists and possibly the conciliar-freemason's club.
It seems we're in a waiting game with his neoSSPX and as planned, they have the resources to wait out any Resistance.
However, if providence be with us, another scandal will surface, or as we can surmise, Bishop Fellay's other shoe will drop.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSn_qgmgMW08wkFkzddxgcJ8jG_CzlUi7N8lQRzMGA5FL6VedrtKA)
In the meantime, we have to pray and work to keep a Traditional Holy Roman Catholic Resistance going. It is our duty to do so.
-
Incredulous, what would I do without you to cheer up my day...We should be paying you a salary just to continue posting!
-
Incredulous, what would I do without you to cheer up my day...We should be paying you a salary just to continue posting!
Thank you for your kind comments Elsa!
But, somehow, I don't think Matthew agrees?
:wink:
-
A couple of years ago this brave and honest priest visited Scandinavia. I took the time to have a talk with him, it was one of the best talks I have had. We walked through a green valley and had a good soul to soul talk, well at least for me. I asked him about everything between heaven and earth, about the faith, ethical dilemmas and questions in general about the faith and how a traditionalist should act in this godforsaken modern world. I was aware that Father Morgan had time to keep and their was a lot of people that wanted his attention but I felt so honored that he took his time with me. I was a newly fresh convert then, but also a little bit uncertain convert, and I still consider myself a novice and I will be that for a long time. The traditional faith has such a deep dimension and there is still so much to know. Father Morgan was such an gentleman. I only felt honesty and chivalry from his side. His manners and personality was so manly and selfcontrolled a man with no doubt and just real uncompromising faith. I felt like a roman legionaire in ancient times that got teaching and support from a Centurion or something.
He is the best priest I have ever met ( I have not met that many SSPX priest though). And I feel true happiness for those that can attend the masses his holds on regular basis. The hateful media and the brainwashed herd consider him αnтι-ѕємιтє, a leader of a rightwing-extremist cult and other yidi yada humbug but that is only because a stoic unscared catholic priest scares them.
I do not pray to God that I will meet him again, because that is up to me and I will visit him once more. Maybe he do no remember me or maybe he does, but it is not important. It made a great impact on me. Pride is a sin, I know, but I felt a combination of pride and humility that I had this soul to soul talk with him.
Some people have met Elvis or Madonna, so what? I had a walk and talk with Father Morgan!
:boxer:
-
I see Gimli. But why that clickable? Doesn't go along very well with your nice humble post. How about this one :incense:
-
.
I find this recurring theme of +W "starting a new order" most interesting.
What manner of order would you expect him to start these days? Is he going
to be setting himself up as Pope first, and then start a new order?
Or, will he start one under a patriarch of a schismatic sect?
Or, would he just come out and proclaim himself patriarch first, and then
set up the "new order" under his new patriarchate?
It's got to be one of those, for the alternative of appealing to Rome for
approval of his "new order" would never pan out, in case you didn't think
that far ahead, that is.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24844&min=10#p3)
The concessions of the doctrinal preamble..
Doctrinal Declaration, Tele, or AFD, but not "preamble" - we don't need
more confusion than we already have.
..are confirmed by the other things Bishop Fellay said.
For example, in the CNS interview in which he speaks of "limited liberty" in the Council, and that things that were condemned in the Council were not of the Council but of an interpretation.
The denials are pitiful.
..or, that 95% of the Council is acceptable, or, that there IS such a thing as
a "previous Magisterium" distinct from the "living Magisterium" of the Church,
or, that the Newmass and the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the
Sacramentary Rituals were "legitimately" promulgated, or, that the "new
formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a
charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989," and the Society's promise
of adherence to and recognition of the New Code of Canon Law (which admits
reception of Communion by non-Catholics and changes the order of priority
in Marriage to an inversion of Catholic principles, among other heretical things)
apply to this DECLARATION of the Society. etc., etc., etc.
Yep.
Fr. Morgan has fallen victim to [the truth of*] Bishop Williamson's observation that "Those who do not act the way they think, end up thinking the way they act."
Enough time spent in the same environment will eliminate even the silent resistance of others who would otherwise follow Bishop [Williamson] if he would start another order.
There you go again - "start another order" -- do you have any idea what
you're talking about or do you just enjoy hearing yourself talk?
When has +W said anything about "starting another order?"
Or is this merely your latest attempt at starting another "Internet rumour?"
*(If Fr. Morgan fell victim to +W's observation it would mean that +W was
watching him, and being watched, Fr. Morgan was thereby victimized.)
First anonymity, then silence, and finally complicity.
We might get 1-2 more priests (and no seminarians), but then it is all done.
With no seminarians to ordain, it will not be necessary for Bishop Williamson to offer to ordain any.
This is a very depressing projection for the future of the resistance, Sean. Have you thrown in the towel? :sad:
That will be the day!
I just talk to a lot of people and priests (see other thread).
And which "other thread" would that be, or which forum, or which sub-forum?
On the one hand, the time of grace is passing. On the other, they will not leave to become independents without hierarchy and community. Such was not their vocation. But neither was the religious life. Therefore, they will simply do the best they can with the hand they are dealt, if there is no religious order offering an alternative with a bishop. Fr. Morgan is a good example of this mindset, I suspect.
Please pass the aspirin -- and a beer.
Might I ask --
What priest DOES have a vocation to be an "independent"?
It is intrinsic to the priesthood itself to be a "helper to a bishop".
A "helper to a bishop" without a bishop to report to is a "monster" of sorts -- something severely unnatural.
I appreciate these priests' deep consideration of the matter, and personal reluctance to do anything rash, but they should recall that:
A) they already are doing something abnormal -- operating outside the normal Diocesan/Roman Church structures by working as Traditional priests.
B) Sometimes in a emergency, you do what you have to do -- regardless of how you "feel" about it, or how great it sounds.
Thanks, Matthew, that is, for the beer! :cheers:
-
.
I find this recurring theme of +W "starting a new order" most interesting.
What manner of order would you expect him to start these days? Is he going
to be setting himself up as Pope first, and then start a new order?
Or, will he start one under a patriarch of a schismatic sect?
Or, would he just come out and proclaim himself patriarch first, and then
set up the "new order" under his new patriarchate?
It's got to be one of those, for the alternative of appealing to Rome for
approval of his "new order" would never pan out, in case you didn't think
that far ahead, that is.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24844&min=10#p3)
The concessions of the doctrinal preamble..
Doctrinal Declaration, Tele, or AFD, but not "preamble" - we don't need
more confusion than we already have.
..are confirmed by the other things Bishop Fellay said.
For example, in the CNS interview in which he speaks of "limited liberty" in the Council, and that things that were condemned in the Council were not of the Council but of an interpretation.
The denials are pitiful.
..or, that 95% of the Council is acceptable, or, that there IS such a thing as
a "previous Magisterium" distinct from the "living Magisterium" of the Church,
or, that the Newmass and the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the
Sacramentary Rituals were "legitimately" promulgated, or, that the "new
formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a
charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989," and the Society's promise
of adherence to and recognition of the New Code of Canon Law (which admits
reception of Communion by non-Catholics and changes the order of priority
in Marriage to an inversion of Catholic principles, among other heretical things)
apply to this DECLARATION of the Society. etc., etc., etc.
Yep.
Fr. Morgan has fallen victim to [the truth of*] Bishop Williamson's observation that "Those who do not act the way they think, end up thinking the way they act."
Enough time spent in the same environment will eliminate even the silent resistance of others who would otherwise follow Bishop [Williamson] if he would start another order.
There you go again - "start another order" -- do you have any idea what
you're talking about or do you just enjoy hearing yourself talk?
When has +W said anything about "starting another order?"
Or is this merely your latest attempt at starting another "Internet rumour?"
*(If Fr. Morgan fell victim to +W's observation it would mean that +W was
watching him, and being watched, Fr. Morgan was thereby victimized.)
First anonymity, then silence, and finally complicity.
We might get 1-2 more priests (and no seminarians), but then it is all done.
With no seminarians to ordain, it will not be necessary for Bishop Williamson to offer to ordain any.
This is a very depressing projection for the future of the resistance, Sean. Have you thrown in the towel? :sad:
That will be the day!
I just talk to a lot of people and priests (see other thread).
And which "other thread" would that be, or which forum, or which sub-forum?
On the one hand, the time of grace is passing. On the other, they will not leave to become independents without hierarchy and community. Such was not their vocation. But neither was the religious life. Therefore, they will simply do the best they can with the hand they are dealt, if there is no religious order offering an alternative with a bishop. Fr. Morgan is a good example of this mindset, I suspect.
Please pass the aspirin -- and a beer.
Might I ask --
What priest DOES have a vocation to be an "independent"?
It is intrinsic to the priesthood itself to be a "helper to a bishop".
A "helper to a bishop" without a bishop to report to is a "monster" of sorts -- something severely unnatural.
I appreciate these priests' deep consideration of the matter, and personal reluctance to do anything rash, but they should recall that:
A) they already are doing something abnormal -- operating outside the normal Diocesan/Roman Church structures by working as Traditional priests.
B) Sometimes in a emergency, you do what you have to do -- regardless of how you "feel" about it, or how great it sounds.
Thanks, Matthew, that is, for the beer! :cheers:
Hey Neil-
He should start a new order.
-
The end result of Bishop Williamson's defeatism will be the petering out of the resistance (already underway), and a worldwide home-alone movement.
Neil: You are an idiot.
Was ABL a schismatic for starting a new order?
I think I need some time away from this forum again; too many dumb-asses who don't realize they are dumb-asses.
-
Apparently you do need some time away to calm down, Sean. That post was unnecessary.
-
Apparently you do need some time away to calm down, Sean. That post was unnecessary.
Sure felt good!
Catch you in a couple months.
-
The end result of Bishop Williamson's defeatism will be the petering out of the resistance (already underway), and a worldwide home-alone movement.
Neil: You are an idiot.
Was ABL a schismatic for starting a new order?
I think I need some time away from this forum again; too many dumb-asses who don't realize they are dumb-asses.
S-J your insults and unCatholic calumny don't deserve any reply.
You seem to be entirely unaware of the difference between ABL, the
time of his action, the reality of his situation and how he got done
what he did, compared to +W, this time, the reality of +W's situation,
and what he would have to do, respectively.
So, seeing how you're not only ignorant but proud of it, go ahead
and squirm - on your own time.
Pathetic.
-
The end result of Bishop Williamson's defeatism will be the petering out of the resistance (already underway), and a worldwide home-alone movement.
Neil: You are an idiot.
Was ABL a schismatic for starting a new order?
I think I need some time away from this forum again; too many dumb-asses who don't realize they are dumb-asses.
S-J your insults and unCatholic calumny don't deserve any reply.
You seem to be entirely unaware of the difference between ABL, the
time of his action, the reality of his situation and how he got done
what he did, compared to +W, this time, the reality of +W's situation,
and what he would have to do, respectively.
So, seeing how you're not only ignorant but proud of it, go ahead
and squirm - on your own time.
Pathetic.
That was your shortest post ever!
-
The end result of Bishop Williamson's defeatism will be the petering out of the resistance (already underway), and a worldwide home-alone movement.
Neil: You are an idiot.
Was ABL a schismatic for starting a new order?
I think I need some time away from this forum again; too many dumb-asses who don't realize they are dumb-asses.
S-J your insults and unCatholic calumny don't deserve any reply.
You seem to be entirely unaware of the difference between ABL, the
time of his action, the reality of his situation and how he got done
what he did, compared to +W, this time, the reality of +W's situation,
and what he would have to do, respectively.
So, seeing how you're not only ignorant but proud of it, go ahead
and squirm - on your own time.
Pathetic.
That was your shortest post ever!
Wrong, again. :judge:
-
Relieved to see your posts here Neil Obstat because it seems to me it is the reality for Monseñor Williamson, whom I never met, BTW.
This might also need a clarification ??: "3) And "He wants us to leave, but he gives us nowhere to go." (It is in the thread "Damage to the SSPX Continues:, Conversation With A Priest"). Seems unfair to me for the priest to have said such a thing, IMIgnorantOpinion. But rather may be, just may be, priests left on their own decissions (having had each one of them their own circunstances) knowing that they will always have him as a kind of "father"?
-
The Society is like their home, Elsa. When things go awry in a household, a family member will usually either stay and hope or try to make things better, or he will leave and seek out or form a new household. It's rare that a person will choose to become solitary. It can be pretty lonely out there in this crazy world without support. Pray for our priests and bishops.
-
I see Gimli. But why that clickable? Doesn't go along very well with your nice humble post. How about this one :incense:
Dear kindred spirit!
Because the faith is also about courage and strength!
I’m also a former boxer and I like that clickable, but thanks for the tip though, but my faith is full of passion and action.
This is what I mean! The rest is details :boxer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMhhCsNN6w0
-
Some (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24800&min=43) should talk more often with ELIZA ...
Ask me:
(Input) > Dumb-Ass
Reply:
(Output) > Please watch your language
---
http://www.med-ai.com/models/eliza.html
Eliza mimics a Rogerian psychotherapist. She passed a restricted Turing test for machine intelligence. Eliza [Weizenbaum, 1966] was one of the first AI programs and impressed many people who talked to her. The name is derived from the cockney speaking Eliza of G.B. Shaws "Pygmalion", who learned to talk increasingly well.
:-)
-
All right Gimli. Understood! Thank you.