SSPX: Priest Resigns – Is Former UK Superior Plotting Trouble Ahead?

Translation of text of the above interview follows…

Introduction

I am Father Paul Morgan, ordained by Bishop Lefebvre at Ecône in 1988. After that, I was 4 years in the district house in London as an assistant. Following this, I was the 1st Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in the Philippines for 4 years, until 1996. Then 2 years as a school principal at St Mary’s School in England and then 5 years as a prior at Post Falls in Idaho, USA. And then 12 years as district superior of Great Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia, until 2015. Then sabbatical year at Montgardin, which I had asked for. And then 2016-2017, Prior in Vancouver, Canada.

Current situation…

Right now, I am outside the Society, since I resigned on August 9 of this year [2017] because of the marriage affair.

The Marriage Affair…

It seemed to me, it always seems to me, that it is an essential compromise to accept the principle that priests representing modern dioceses come to us, in the bastions of Tradition, to receive the promises of the bride and groom. Even if in practice we are a little restricted in such things, we have accepted the principle. And that’s why, in concrete terms, I wrote my letter of resignation.

Timing of resignation…

I think there were many of us, quite a few priests and superiors themselves, who had reacted against the new way of doing things, even before the 2012 chapter. There were many of us in Albano in 2011 to say to Bishop Fellay, very respectfully, that these steps should not be continued in order to reach an agreement with modernist Rome. So, we have already done a great deal in the Society, among ourselves, with the superiors to denounce and oppose these approaches. For example, in 2012, the district of Great Britain was ready, in its entirety, to break away if they made a false agreement with modernist Rome. So it is not just this year that we have begun to react, but we have already for years.

Why no public reaction…

I think the manifesto, the statement of the 7 deans and superiors of friendly communities in France, was very, very well put. So publicly, that was already explained. And I can also say that I have done things in order and according to the rules, by sending a manifesto signed by several priests from Canada to Bishop Fellay and to Menzingen, explaining quite simply, the serious problems with these new directives for receiving marriage vows. So right away we talked about it on the Internet, so it became public, etc.. So, I chose to do things that way. Now, I speak more publicly, since I’ve had a little time to organize myself – and we left Canada with a suitcase in our hands, not knowing where to go because we never thought of being alone, on the outside like that.

What prospects for the 2018 General Chapter?

Unfortunately, I do not have much hope in the general chapter next year. It seems to me that with the change of minds that has been taking place for several years now – so that we think that Rome is now kind, Rome loves us, we can make an agreement or do more good saying inside the Church, as if we were outside the Church until now, it’s unbelievable, isn’t it – so I don’t have much hope. And we can see that good priests like the 7 deans, for example, who have made a very good document – and a special hello to Father de la Rocque in exile in the Philippines, a country that I like very much but which is still in exile – we see what happens to priests who denounce problems respectfully and rightly: we punish them! So I think the superiors in the chapter will simply do what Menzingen tells them to do.

What about your apostolate?

At the moment, I have no official apostolate. I am in contact with a lot of priests, in France and abroad, as well as with the faithful, encouraging and supporting them. Aslo with priests who have left [the SSPX] already a few months or a few years ago, for reasons that are in the end quite similar.

It is very encouraging to see the strong religious communities in France, religious men and women. I am in contact with them but I understand that this is a difficult situation for these communities, which may be at risk of sanctions if they show themselves too publicly in agreement with priests like myself.

Nevertheless, we celebrate Mass, we pray, we visit confreres, we have been able to preach a retreat already, we have made visits on the right and on the left. I get a lot of invitations from other countries to come and help. But at the moment, for rather practical matters we have to organise ourselves before embarking on any future activities. But I think, it seems to me that in June-July 2018, we are going to shoot into action. I think there will be more positive reactions in the coming year.

In connection with the bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson?

Yes, if need be, of course, since we need bishops for Sacred orders and confirmations. Consecrating bishops in this emergency, as Archishop Lefebvre himself had said, can be repeated. This is not something reserved exclusively for Archbishop Lefebvre. And yes, we are quite willing to collaborate with the faithful, with faithful Catholics.

In conclusion…

I conclude by saying that we always have hope in the Good Lord. I think of Archbishop Lefebvre who was alone. He resigned some the Holy Ghost Fathers so as not to have any part in the destruction of his congregation. So priests like him and certainly many others, did this for important reasons. Let us try to make contacts, to gather together in order to help other priests who, for the moment, remain within the Society, hoping to organize something to help them as also [to help] the sound faithful. There’s a lot of work to be done. We have hope.

And then, finally, Our Lady of Fatima spoke about diabolic disorientations. It seems to me that what is happening here is an example, right here in 2017, [an example] of this confusion of mind. So, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, we must remain faithfully, we must keep the principles of the fight for the faith, the good fight and then, if we have to suffer by doing this, God’s Holy will must be done.   Source

Statement from Canada on Fr Morgan’s departure from the SSPX here 

Comment: 

What on earth does “shoot into action” [in June-July, 2018] mean?  Is Fr Morgan intent on acting to divide, further, the SSPX faithful? 

This is very disappointing coming from a former Superior of the SSPX GB district.  Very disappointing indeed. 

I could write a book about Fr Morgan and it would be less than flattering but I would ask all bloggers who choose to comment on this subject to be restrained and stick to the issues.  Please avoid any temptation to personal criticism of Father Morgan, or citing examples of what we considered to be lack of pastoral care affecting the Scottish faithful during his years as Superior in the UK;  instead, stick to the facts relating to his decision to resign from the Society, apparently unaware that he is now part and parcel of the very diabolical disorientation to which he refers in the above interview. 

Might his reference to “shooting into action” next summer be interpreted as a “plans afoot” to further divide the Society or is there another more innocent explanation? 

115 responses

  1. Editor,

    I find it very concerning that there seems to be plans afoot. Based on what Fr Morgan said in that video, I would say there is something in the offing. It’s important that no one is led astray by any nonsense coming from the Resistance camp. They largely failed last time and I had assumed they had drifted away, fragmenting into schism after schism. However, it appears that there is at least one group of them getting ready for a comeback!

    • Petrus,

      I am thinking that the “plans afoot” are to set up another organisation in competition with the SSPX, with a “Bishop Morgan” at the helm! What Archbishop Lefebvre did was limited but this continuing to consecrate new bishops, not by Bishop Fellay but by Bishop Williamson, means real schism for them. So any group set up next summer, will be a schismatic group. I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

      • Lily,

        I wonder if there will be some sort of
        Infiltration. Some of the rebels who left the churches and chapels back in 2012 might return and try to recruit. I don’t know. I think we need to be very careful. Offer a cautious welcome if anyone does return, but always be aware that there could be an ulterior motive.

        • Petrus,

          I’d be very surprised if there is anyone in the Glasgow chapel (don’t know enough folk in the Edinburgh chapel although that Vianney one is a suspicious character, if you ask me) who are cut from the “resistance to nothing” cloth. Hope not. More likely, I imagine, to recruit from among friends – those who read this blog will know better than to contact us, so we may never know!

          What is of more concern is the remark made by Fr Morgan that there was a moment when it was possible that the entire cohort of UK priests would have gone with the “resistance to nothing” bunch. Quote: …in 2012, the district of Great Britain was ready, in its entirety, to break away.

          That’s when we ran a blog thread, if you recall, and had a hard time from certain quarters, due to someone naming Fr Morgan as being involved with the “resistance to nothing” bunch, albeit behind the scenes, and it became so hot in “the kitchen” that I deleted the entire thread in the end. Pity. It would make very interesting reading right now.

          Anyway, I sincerely hope that the current crop of UK Society priests are not of one mind and heart with Fr Morgan. That would be very VERY disappointing.

          • Editor,

            I didn’t mean that anyone currently attending Glasgow would be involved in the “Resistance”. I agree with you, that’s unlikely.

            What I mean (and said) was that there could be a covert infiltration and some of the rebels who disappeared and, most likely, have now lapsed, might return to cause trouble.

            • Editor,

              I have now reread your post and I see that you were referring to those who would be “cut from the same cloth” ie likely to give any rebels the time of day. I see what you mean and agree with you entirely.

          • Editor, I can assure you there are no resistance to nothing folk in Edinburgh. The resistance is regarded as a joke here.

        • I agree with you both,Lilly and Pertus. My parents used to know Fr. Morgan. He used to be one of our parish priests. I was devastated to hear of his resignation.

          • Marcellina

            Maybe your parents had a different experience with Fr. Morgan to mine. I was relieved when he left. He should have been put out of the SSPX 6 years ago when he first displayed disobedience to the Superior General. God alone knows what damage he has done in those 6 years by whispering into the ears of other priests. I hope my suspicions are wrong but his own words seem to suggest he has used his time well!

            I have absolutely no time whatever for clericalist priests. They are so contrary to the spirit of Our Lord that they do enormous damage to the souls of the faithful. The SSPX needs to come down hard on clericalist superiors and priors before any further scandals ensue.

  2. We entered I chartered waters on 8 April 2016 – the date of Amoris Laetitia
    So I think all opinions are valid.
    None of us know what’s going on. Can’t possibly judge this priest.

    Frankly I don’t think Francis is pope and as a result I no longer receive HC.

    Sorry but uncharted waters we are in

    • DominieMary,

      No we are not in uncharted waters. We’ve had plenty of bad popes before. Not as bad as this one, but close enough at times.

      In any event, neither you, nor I, nor Father Morgan nor anyone else, has the right or the authority to pronounce on the status of Pope Francis – the Church operates via public signs and when he was elected in a properly convened conclave in 2013, the entire Church accepted him as the legitimately elected pope. That he happens to be a bad pope, undoubtedly the worst ever, (so far) makes no difference. We resist his errors while recognising his office, until, at some future date, the legitimate authorities in the Church say otherwise. I’m certainly not going to arrogantly and impatiently do that for them – I’ll wait until the completion of due process and if that is the decision reached (that Francis was not a true pope) I’ll accept it. I’m NOT taking it upon myself to do so nor am I going to permit any Tom, Dick or DominieMary, to do so either on this blog. Hope you understand. If not, that’s a pity, but I can live with it.

      So, please note; this thread is not about Pope Francis, it’s about the latest member of the “resistance to nothing” movement.

      If you have an opinion on HIS decision to jump ship, let’s hear it. But we’re not interested in anyone’s personal sedevacantism, not least because it’s noteworthy that the majority, in my experience, had no problem recognising the pontificates of the previous heretics; Pope John Paul II’s Assisi scandals, with Pope Benedict following his dreadful example (and then some) – but those scandalous pontificates seem to have passed them all by.

      Feel free to comment on the departure of Fr Morgan from the SSPX and we’ll be interested in your opinion. Not interested in providing a platform for anyone pushing sedevacantism. That utterly Protestant mentality is not to be promoted on this blog. Please and thank you. Any and all future comments in that vein will be deleted by me the minute I see them, so don’t waste your time and your keyboard…

      • Editor,

        I guess it’s the same vice behind Fr Morgan’s decision to “branch out” and that of the sedevacantist position, namely, pride.

        Fr Morgan, and all those who hold the “Resistance” position, refuse to submit. They refuse to acknowledge that the Superior General knows best and only he has full knowledge of the relations with Rome. I’ve often suspected that Bishop Williamson resented Bishop Fellay’s position and there was a bit of jealousy involved.

        So, the key to understanding this nonsense, is to realise that, like Satan’s rebellion in Heaven, it is motivated by pride.

        • Petrus,

          I completely agree with you. It’s definitely pride at the root of this. It’s too difficult for some people to just settle down and offer up the suffering we are going through, pray for this pope and support the Society. No, they have to cause mischief. I’ve no time for them. They’ve set a standard for a pope to be the pope and it means that the next pope will have to pass their test before they accept him or any other pope. They are Protestants in their thinking – they want to be their own pope.

          I don’t know the answer to the question about next summer but my best guess is that Fr Morgan is trying to recruit more people from the SSPX to his lost cause. It’s diabolical.

  3. The SSPX resistance/Fr Morgan et al will never have full communion with Rome. There will always be an issue to rebel on. They are looking for a perfect Church yet the Church has never been perfect as it is under assault from the enemy.
    Much better for the SSPX to be fighting from within rather than outside the Church. Get rid of these David Icke types who are always negative, conspiracy theorists and wish to build their own church.

    • William,

      I agree with you that these “resistance to nothing” people will never be satisfied – they will always find fault.

      I would simply clarify (as I’m sure you know this) that the Church herself IS a perfect society, but her members, including the pope(s) are not. Thus, these rebels will not rest until they consider that we have the perfect pope, which, of course, has never happened in history and will not happen now or in the future.

      The guarantee from Our Lord is a very narrow window of infallibility under certain strict conditions and although we’ve had pope-saints in the past and hopefully will in the future, even the saints were not universally admired, or even liked, during their lifetime.

      Unless they come to understand that, then they will, as you intimate, have to build their own church. Just as Luther did!

    • I am not part of ‘ the resistance to nothing’ crew, but I’m happy with the status quo and do not feel the SSPX can change this Rome from within. Rather it would be voluntarily relinquishing everything the Archbishop achieved. Have your read Mr Wayne Nichols article completly destroying Fr Morgan’s justifications?

      • Pat Kafel,

        I think that with a personal prelature and going along as they are at the moment, the Society would at least be free of the charge of being outside the diocese and really outside the Church. Jesus told us to be “wise as serpents” which means we use the enemy’s means when we have to, LOL!

      • I really don’t like the way “Rome” is used these days, as if it’s something optional and we don’t need to be part of it if we don’t want to. I especially detest “Modernist Rome”. It’s just so schismatic.

        We must be united with Rome. We cannot be Catholic otherwise. This doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything individuals in Rome. Neither does it mean that we cannot correct the errors of people in Rome.

        Archbishop Lefebvre never, ever saw himself as splitting with Rome. He kept the Faith and corrected errors but he never had this schismatic attitude to Rome.

        • Don Bosco,

          I completely agree with you. I haven’t put it into words, but that’s really been irritating me about Society people for a long time, talking as if they are in a different Church instead of the Church in a crisis. You’ve put it really clearly, so I thank you for that.

        • Don Bosco,

          I forgot to say that why your comment is so important, is that language is very important (as we know from the LGBT “community” – as I’ve read o here before, who would have voted for “sodomite marriage”?)

          So, when people keep speaking about “Rome” and “Modernist Rome” it makes it seem that Jesus has not kept his promise to be with his Church to the end of time.

          I just had to add that!

      • Pat Kafel

        I disagree that a personal prelature would require a relinquishing of anything achieved by the Archbishop. Indeed, it would be the greatest of his achievements if Rome were to offer a no-strings arrangement to the SSPX. It was the Archbishop’s desire that such an accommodation with Rome be found, provided no compromise with the Mass or doctrine be demanded in return. His real concern was not reaching such an accord with Rome, but rather that the longer his Society is separated from Rome the more likely the possibility that some within will develop a schismatic mindset. I think his expressed fear in this regard has proven true with the advent of the “Resistance”.

      • I think it’s wrong to think solely of a canonical recognition in terms of the SSPX “changing Rome”. I think it’s more of an issue of justice. It’s preposterous to claim that the SSPX ever left the Church, so it is essential that the irregular canonical situation is rectified. It’s vital that we remember that Archbishop Lefebvre sought, and was granted, canonical recognition for the SSPX back in the 1970s.

        I also think that having the canonical situation resolved will remove a large red herring from the debate. Too often the SSPX are dismissed as being “irregular” and the real issues of doctrine are swept aside. There will be no place for the liberal theologians to hide once this obstacle is removed. I believe that many good Catholics, lay and ordained, have been reluctant to engage with the SSPX because of this red herring and I’m sure that, once it is resolved, we will see fruits at local and national level.

        The Church, “Rome”, will, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, one day return to Tradition. If it’s not the SSPX that will facilitate this return, who else is going to do so? We cannot be content to hide out in our little Mass centres and congratulate ourselves on keeping the Faith, waiting for the rest of the Church to magically return to Tradition by themselves! That’s not apostolic, it’s not Catholic and it’s not what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.

  4. There seems to be a not inconsiderable number of Society priests (and quite a few faithful) who have succumbed to a schismatic mentality – which, defined as simply as possible, is this: (pardon the caps, but in this case caps suits the strident attitude) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERNIST ROME!!

    This is certainly not Bishop Fellay’s attitude, so one wonders where it is coming from. The seminaries? And what is the attitude behind this destructive mentality? I submit it is that the SSPX is now the true Church, because Rome is lost. If so, these rebellious people are nothing more than Protestants, since they think that the gates of hell have prevailed.

    And if you think about it, it really is not much of a jump, for those with this mentality, from the SSPX to the “resistance.” It is just a hop and a skip from one schismatic mentality to a more virulent one.

    As Editor reminded me not long ago, Abp. Lefebvre warned that if this irregular situation went on too long, this mentality would develop. My suggestion to Bishop Fellay (speaking of the 2018 General Chapter) would be to make sure that his seminaries are teaching what he and the Archbishop hold/held, not what Bishop Williamson holds. Otherwise the lifeboat will become as leaky as the Barque.

  5. I find it incredibly frustrating that these self proclaimed humble priests forget what the SSPX is there for: the formation of solid priests in liturgical and theological tradition.

    The ifs and buts and will they or won’t they contortions of the resistance minded are always grounded in pride. The ‘We know better” brigade.

    But until the SSPX fail in their apostolate as mentioned above, I’m afraid they have nothing to complain about.

    Pride.

    • Summa,

      I notice that Fr Morgans says “At the moment, I have no official apostolate.”

      Nice work if you can get it!

  6. I am sure I must be missing something here, but what exactly does he mean by his reference to “The Marriage Affair”? The whole piece is somewhat incoherent to my mind!

    • Elizabeth,

      This statement from the SSPX website, Dici, will explain it:

      Communiqué of the General House about the letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commission concerning marriages of the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X (April 4, 2017)

      As with the measures taken by Pope Francis granting to the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X the faculty to hear confessions during the Holy Year (September 1, 2015), and extending this faculty beyond the Holy Year (November 20, 2015), the General House has learned that the Holy Father decided “to authorize Local Ordinaries to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society.” (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017, published on April 4)

      This decision by the Supreme Pontiff foresees that: “Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), so that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.”

      But it also provides that: “Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents [attesting to the celebration of the sacrament] to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.”

      The Society of Saint Pius X conveys its deep gratitude to the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude as expressed in the letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, for the purpose of alleviating “any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage.” Pope Francis clearly wishes that, as in the matter of confessions, all the faithful who want to marry in the presence of a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X can do so without any worries about the validity of the sacrament. It is to be hoped that all the bishops share this same pastoral solicitude.

      The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will strive faithfully, as they have done since their ordination, to prepare future spouses for marriage according to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ about the unity and indissolubility of this union (cf. Mt 19:6), before receiving the parties’ consent in the traditional rite of the Holy Church. [Source: FSSPX/MG – DICI dated April 4, 2017 http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-statement-about-holy-see-letter-concerning-marriages-28843 ]

      Elizabeth, Fr Morgan & Company have taken exception to the idea that the local bishop would have any say at all in the matter of SSPX marriages. As I think the above statement makes clear, there really is no threat.

  7. Just to highlight this clever and dishonest distortion by Fr. Morgan:

    It seems to me that with the change of minds that has been taking place for several years now – so that we think that Rome is now kind, Rome loves us…

    This glib, idiotic remark is even more dishonest than Luther’s lies. Exactly when and where has Bishop Fellay every claimed that “Rome is now kind, Rome loves us”? On the contrary, Bp. Fellay is fully cognizant of the treacherous waters of Rome, and has been for many years.

    If this is how certain Society clergy justify their rebellion, then good riddance to the mealy-mouthed. And, I might add, good riddance to the badly formed and oh-so-easily seduced.

    • RCA Victor,

      Exactly. Bishop Fellay has never said or intimated any such thing.

      That’s why I refer to the daft movement as the “resistance to nothing” – Bishop Fellay has not given an inch in his dealings with Rome. If you read the statement on the marriage proposal (excuse the pun! More accurately, “decision”) nothing, as a certain famous English lady said not so long ago, has changed! Nothing has changed! Bishop Fellay merely very politely acknowledges the Pope’s decision and makes clear the fact that the Society priests will continue to conduct the marriages in their chapels: “The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will strive faithfully, as they have done since their ordination, to prepare future spouses for marriage according to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ about the unity and indissolubility of this union (cf. Mt 19:6), before receiving the parties’ consent in the traditional rite of the Holy Church.” Where’s the betrayal in that statement? Or in the paragraph immediately preceding it? (see my previous comment above, posted at 10.02pm)

      Note, too, that while these resistance types, including Fr Morgan, make frequent references to Archbishop Lefebvre to justify their attacks on Bishop Fellay and their schismatic attitudes and actions, they never mention two key points made by the Archbishop.

      Firstly, his statement that “when Rome calls, we go” and his other key rule, that it will be for the Superior General to decide when to enter talks with the Vatican authorities. NOT, in other words, for jumped up rebels who think they know better, but for the Superior General.

      It’s highly irresponsible for Fr Morgan to indulge his imaginary problems at this crucial time, when the SSPX is crucially important. Asked what I would do if – as Fr Morgan indicated almost happened a few years ago – all of the Society priests jumped ship – my reply is clear. I would NOT be attending any resistance to nothing Masses. I would find a Summorum Pontificum parish and attend Mass there, no question about it.

      It would NOT, however, be the Sacred Heart Bridgeton. Never. Not in a million years. I refer readers to our January, 2017 newsletter, available to read in the archive section of our website, Newsletter page.

  8. I’m very saddened at yet another defector-cum-schismatic departure from the SSPX lifeboat, but not really surprised. I had my doubts about Fr. Morgan when he was District Superior here in the UK.

    I have come across this schismatic mentality even within solid SSPX circles and it is to be deplored. A person actually told me that they wouldn’t attend a TLM offered by a non Society priest because “they have compromised with the conciliar Church”. And this even if no other Mass was available!

    Archbishop Lefebvre was correct when he said that, too long away from the barque of Peter, will breed this mentality. Or words to that effect!

    • Olaf,

      I have come across this schismatic mentality even within solid SSPX circles and it is to be deplored. A person actually told me that they wouldn’t attend a TLM offered by a non Society priest because “they have compromised with the conciliar Church”. And this even if no other Mass was available!

      I’m afraid that (schismatic) attitude is rather common, in my experience with the SSPX, among priests as well as faithful. It is not only deplorable but full of conceit! Just like the prayer of the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not like other men. In fact, it is the attitude that leads directly to the Father Morgans and Bishop Williamsons of the world.

      Since when should we treat our fellow Catholics, who are also trying to preserve Tradition, as lepers?

      I also remind these schismatic-minded people that either all or almost all of the 17 priests whose stories are related in the book Priest Where is Thy Mass? (published by Angelus Press, no less!) were once Novus Ordo priests. Does that make them somehow contaminated, and their Masses inferior to SSPX Masses?

      Hogwash. In-bred, xenophobic, conceited, ignorant hogwash. Bishop Fellay needs to weed out these clergy, if they refuse to be corrected, and faithful SSPX clergy need to weed out parishioners who think like this – with fire and brimstone, if necessary. It is a very ugly strain and it has been allowed to go on much too long.

      • RCA Victor

        I think the more popular Tradition-leaning prelates like Cardinal Burke encourage potential rebels within the SSPX when they make unfounded and uncharitable declarations to the effect that the SSPX is schismatic. But I agree that Archbishop Lefebvre did worry that too long a separation from Rome could lead some down the road of real schism. The so-called “Resistance” is a manifestation of this worry come true.

  9. The first falsehood I would like to pick out from Fr. Morgan’s rebel speech is that Bishop Williamson is acting correctly by consecrating bishops “in this emergency”. What emergency?

    When Archbishop Lefebvre took the decision to consecrate bishops in 1988 there truly was a state of emergency in the Church, for there were literally no seminaries left in the world for the formation of priests in the Traditional way to offer the Traditional Mass. Outside of the SSPX at that time there was practically no provision at diocesan level for the Traditional Catholic faithful to attend the Mass of the saints and martyrs, and things were set to get even worse. His Grace was forced to act in accordance with Canon Law in what was truly a state of emergency. Had he not acted, the ancient Latin Mass would have been all but eradicated after his death.

    We are by no means in the same desperate situation today. Thanks to the brave decision Archbishop Lefebvre took back in 1988, there are now Traditional Catholic seminaries all over the world, seminaries run by the Institute of Christ the King, The FSSP, Good Shepherd Institute, etc., all producing priests formed to celebrate the old Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Traditional way.

    Whatever reservations we may have about these institutions in relation to the defence of doctrine – they do not take the same unyielding stance as the SSPX – it cannot be denied that they are producing Traditional priests by the thousands, as well as Traditional religious. This single observable fact absolutely negates any claim that the Church remains in a state of emergency as per 1988. Hence, Bishop Williamson and those he has consecrated, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops of 1988, are true schismatics driven by their passions rather than by grace.

    Fr. Morgan’s father was, for decades, a leading voice of sedevacantism in the Western world, so it is not difficult to understand how his son came to adopt a schismatic mindset. I don’t agree with editor that we should leave personalities out of this debate, I think it is pivotal to understanding what drives these lost priestly souls.

    I have watched them closely for many years and I can state frankly that, from Bishop Williamson right down through the ranks of this so-called “Resistance” core of priests, a common spirit of anger and arrogance motivates them. I have come into personal contact with a number of them in my time and I can state that they never left me feeling as if I had been in conversation with another Christ, as Archbishop Lefebvre and many SSPX clergy have. On the contrary, the overwhelming feeling I had in their presence was that they were full of their own importance and were never slow to impose that perceived superiority on subordinates. The comparison I would draw is with the Pharisees of Our Lord’s day. For many of us it was something of a relief when these troubled and troublesome priests finally left the SSPX, as was inevitable given their bitter spirit and disposition.

    Fr. Morgan will fool no one with his claim to fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre, for those who knew both men will know that there is such a spiritual gulf between them, as indeed between the Archbishop and Fr. Morgan’s fellow schismatic conspirators, that we are talking the difference between St. Pius X and Martin Luther. Like Luther, they use words and twist reality in order to excite emotions to win others over to their disobedience, a tactic that worked well for Luther and has sadly worked reasonably well for these new schismatics also. It’s a tragic turn of events but one that will not see the “Resistance” blossom. It will fail as all anger-induced rebellions against Church authority have throughout history.

    • Athanasius,

      By “personal criticism” I meant nasty personal remarks – objective data, such the fact that Fr Morgan’s father was “a leading voice of sedevacantism in the Western world” is not “personal criticism” but, in fact, perhaps helps to explain his thinking, words and actions on the matter under discussion.

      Personally, where you write “… [his] bitter spirit and disposition”, I would have written: “… [his] apparent bitter spirit and disposition”, because I’ve been wrong so often in my personal observations about others, that I try to err on the side of caution.

      That said, your post does not, it seems to me, offend against charity, since it is an academic analysis of the position taken by Fr Morgan, absent any personal nastiness.

      I hope that clarifies things.

      • Editor

        Yes, I take the point, thank you for the clarification. As regards the spirit that drives Fr. Morgan and his rebel confreres, it is more than just apparently bitter. Their own words and actions, past and present, betray a real slide into bitter zeal. These priests are so unlike Our Lord in the behaviour, they are harsh, condemnatory and occasionally, as I once witnessed, violent.

        • Athanasius,

          “Apparently” simply means “as far as one can know or see” – and thus satisfies the command not to make definitive judgments on anyone, that is not condemning anyone to Hell.

          The story of the bad-tempered monk who died (apparently!) in a fit of temper, after a disagreement with a brother, is a fair illustration of what is meant by “apparently”.

          Consternation as the abbot pronounced him not worthy of a Christian burial, having apparently died in a state of grave sin, his face red with fury, and other external signs associated with bad temper. The abbot asked the monks to pray as he deliberated and a final decision would be made next day.

          Next day, the abbot told the monks that overnight, an angel had appeared to him and revealed that the apparently bad-tempered monk had not died as a result of giving vent to his temper, but of the effort to control it.

          So, “apparently” is an important adverb, signalling as it does that, while, to all appearances, as far as we can know or see”, Father Morgan is possessed of “a bitter spirit and disposition”, in the end, we cannot possibly know that for certain.

          Which reminds me that, angry as we all are, and rightfully so, at this further attack on the SSPX from the (apparent!) enemies within, we really ought to pray for them all, and especially for the priests who will be held to particular account at their judgment.

          • Editor,

            He “apparently” died? Did a fully trained medic give him the once over to check for heart beat and respiration? If not, you could be accused of a lack of charity for claiming the poor monk had died when he was merely unconscious!

          • Editor

            It is a bitter zeal that drives these “Resistance” priests, no apparently about it. They are men of anger and division, not apparently but in actual fact by their fruits. I already pray for them, did so today before the Blessed Sacrament, but I have to call it as I see it. Even as District Superior in the UK Fr. Morgan was a source of unhappiness and division. I will not rake up old wounds by cataloguing examples, but it is a fact attested to by many. I have no personal memories of priestly graciousness on the part of Fr. Morgan during his lengthy term as Superior in the UK, not one. I only remember clericalism and division during that tenure. I cannot imagine Our Lord like any of these “Resistance” loudmouths.

  10. I once asked Fr. Morgan, who I always liked,that, If the Society did not accept an official recognition if offered or worked towards finding an acceptable common ground with Rome, could they possibly end up like the Old Catholics and disappear into obscurity. He replied, possibly.
    It is clear to me that Bishop Fellay will never accept the 1988 profession of faith. He will never accept a compromise that ultimately damages, Traditional Catholicism. I hope and pray that Rome, in time, will offer the Society a personal prelature, based upon the 1962 profession of faith. I am certain that Bishop Fellay and his faithful priests also hope for this. I am certain that the influence of Bishop Williamson, who lived in the Society House, alongside Fr. Morgan and other breakaway priests, in Wimbledon, is the dreadful influence behind this tragic decision by Fr. Morgan. Even with the horrendous behaviour emanating from Rome and around the world by modernist and perverted Churchmen, we should always avoid a schismatic mentality.
    Our Lady of Sorrows, Pray for us.

  11. I forgot to highlight this other falsehood from Fr. Morgan: “…For example, in 2012, the district of Great Britain was ready, in its entirety, to break away if they made a false agreement with modernist Rome. So it is not just this year that we have begun to react, but we have already for years.”

    There was never any chance that the SSPX UK District was ready in its entirety to break away from Menzingen. The majority of priests remained faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Fraternity, outnumbering those who betrayed their priestly promise of fidelity. Besides, the SSPX owns the properties in the UK so the rebels were never likely to end up as anything other than a rag-tag band of vagrant clergy that a majority of objective Catholics would shun as troublesome.

    • Athanasius,

      I agree with you entirely. I think Father Morgan is, at best, exaggerating. I remember asking one of the UK priests about it at the time and he said the vast majority of UK priests were very happy and had no concerns regarding Bishop Fellay.

      • Petrus

        I also asked a priest about it and he said he was dumbfounded by what these priests were doing, said they took the same promise of fidelity to the SSPX as he and other priests and then broke that promise on the basis of imagined betrayals. They’ve been talking about betrayal on the part of Bishop Fellay since 2011 and yet here we are 6 years down the line and still no sign of any betrayal in practice. They are now just blind guides leading unwary souls into schism.

    • Athanasius, sounds like wishful thinking on Fr Morgan’s behalf. To say the District “in its entirety” was ready to break away suggests faithful as well as priests and I don’t remember him conducting a ballot among the faithful to find out our thoughts on the matter. Another example of the resistance being economical with the truth if you ask me.

  12. For those who are new to Tradition and weren’t around the last time the “Resistance” caused bother, this thread should expose the dirty dealings of the Resistance crew.

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/letter-to-bishop-fellay-from-sspx-british-district-faithful/

    A letter, claiming to represent 20% of the faithful attending SSPX Masses in the UK was sent to Bishop Fellay. However, the letter was exposed as a fraud, with many names being added without consent. It was all a bit of a disaster for the Resistance as it blew up in their faces. If you read down, a few familiar names get a bit of a pelting!

    Forewarned is forearmed!

    • Petrus, talking about names being added without peoples permission. The name of a gentleman in the Edinburgh congregation appeared on the letter and he was very angry about it. He asked me to contact them and tell them to remove his name which I did. I got a reply from one of the ringleaders telling me that he had contacted the gentleman concerned and received an email back saying he was perfectly happy to have his name on the letter. I sent a reply back saying “is that a fact? well can you explain how you can get an email from a man who doesn’t have an email address and doesn’t posses a computer?” I didn’t get a reply but it shows the down right lies that some of them were prepared to stoop to.

      • Vianney,

        I think that’s “R” who sometimes attends Edinburgh but also is a regular in Glasgow. I did the same thing, because he was livid when I expressed amazement that he had signed the letter and he replied “what letter?” He was completely livid when he discovered that his name had been added without his permission, without his even knowing about the letter. To this day, he mentions it from time to time, incredulous at the deceit which such behaviour indicates.

        We’ve worked out that – more likely than not – a couple later identifying as sedevacantists took it upon themselves to add his name. I had the same treatment as your good self when I protested on his behalf, that the complainer was fictional, did not exist, I’d fabricated the whole thing, blah blah. To this day, said gentleman, identified here as “R”, is entirely computer free and thus, retains a reasonable grip on reality 😀

        • Editor,

          The gentleman I’m talking about has been an attender in Edinburgh for many years. I think there were many names that appeared on the letter and the people had no idea that they had “signed” it.

          • Vianney,

            That’s very interesting. I can’t remember all that much about the letter, but I think I was under the impression that only R had been falsely added. You’re some detective.

            I only hope you’re as successful in applying your sleuthing skills to the research task entrusted to you some time ago and for which Catholic Truth is paying you big pennies… three in total 😀

            • Editor,

              My last post should have read “I think there were MANY names that appeared.” I know of someone in the North of England who’s name also appeared but she hadn’t signed it.

              As for the investigation, never fear, I have my Hercule Poriot Poirot hat on.

              • Yes, Vianney, I noticed that it should read “many” at the time and meant to change it but got distracted by something and it went out of my pretty little head. Amended now.

                I’ll just go now and change “Poriot” to Poirot in your latest offering! 😀

                • Thank you Editor, I’m stuffed with the cold just now and my head is a bit fuzzy. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.

                  • Vianney,

                    I thought you looked a bit under the weather, so to speak…

                    But, if you can hold on for another couple of weeks, the colds and flu medicines will be on sale, reduced prices … 😀

  13. It would appear that Fr. Morgan and many of these “resistor” priests have great concern about allowing conciliar priests into the traditional chapels. After these provisions were granted by Pope Francis, the Society prepared essentially a thesis(http://fsspx.news/en/marriages-clarifications/30476) as to how they would be implemented. This excerpt responds to Fr. Morgan’s stated concern:

    “The Society of St. Pius X should therefore set aside this solution, except for derogation that would logically be granted only by the District Superior. Therefore, if in some rare cases the Society of St. Pius X foresaw the possibility that an “official” priest might come to receive the vows, this could occur only if drastic conditions were fulfilled concerning this priest, his personality, his individual career, so that his coming would be in no way a source of uneasiness or confusion for the future spouses, for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, or for the parish community. A priori, only some priests who are particularly friendly toward the Society of St. Pius X, or at least who have always remained perfectly fair and respectful towards it, could perhaps be admitted.”

    I personally don’t think there are any problems with the Society’s seminaries, which continue to produce excellent fruits. 29 priests were ordained this year, which is tied for the most ordinands since 2000. None of the seminary rectors even remotely support the ‘resistance’. I rather think that Bp. Williamson had a very large influence in the Society and not for insignificant reasons. Once he started to rebel against the Society, it made many re-consider their positions. After all, who would want the Novus Ordo to happen all over again on their watch? It’s ironic that Bp. Williamson himself was one of the most vocal defenders of the Archbishop when the sedevacantists viciously attacked him in the 1980’s. In his seminary letters of the 1980’s, he would defend the talks with Rome assuming there was no compromise.

    About these little groups becoming ‘united’ for the General Chapter, I don’t believe we should necessarily be worried about this, but simply pray and have Trust. As someone who occasionally “checks out” the few official outlets of the resistance, I can assure you they are anything but united. The biggest example is Fr. J. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, and others entirely splitting from the original dissenters, calling their behavior “Freemasonic” and conciliar. Even many resistors still loyal to Bp. Williamson sometimes express reservations over a few of his actions. Some of the discussion topics on the official message board are nothing short of insane, ranging from the Flat Earth conspiracy to extreme sedevacantism and Feeneyism. It seems that the “man of reason” for these loose cells is none other than the cleric who started them.

    I was quite sorry to see Fr. Morgan go, as he has done much work for Tradition, including in the U.S. several years ago. From what I know of his work in my country, he did accomplish extraordinary work, which would never have been the case if he did not possess many fine qualities. Many of you will remember that he defended the Society against the resistance in 2013, despite what he now seems to affirm. .

    At any rate, I know you all have a very good Superior in Fr. Brucciani, so I hope everyone contributes to making his labours light and the fruits plentiful. 🙂

    • Steven C.,

      You seem to have a wider experience with the SSPX than I do, and I’m glad that their seminaries appear healthy to you (and I agree with you about Fr. Brucciani, I’ve read most of his excellent newsletters).

      However, I think this Fr. Morgan affair is a very good opportunity for the Society leadership to have a good long look in the mirror, starting with the 2018 General Chapter, about this chronic long-term trickle of defections – a trickle which seems to be getting more substantial, unless that was just Fr. Morgan blowing smoke.

      These defections are not appearing in a vacuum, nor are they the result of some sort of spontaneous generation. They are, in my opinion, the direct result of a very unhealthy strain of thought within clerical circles of the Society, a conceit to which I have already alluded earlier in this thread.

      I hasten to add that I have never either heard or sensed this conceit from Bishop Fellay or any of his assistants, all of whom struck me as thoroughly humble and models of excellent formation and radiant faith. So the question is, where is this mentality coming from? Is it really from Bishop Williamson, who has been on the outs now for a number of years? Or from somewhere else?

      To give you an example, a Society retreat center I have attended, which has an adjoining parish, was not long ago infested with “Resistance” sympathizers. In 2015, the new prior cleared them out unceremoniously, and God bless him. However, in 2017, I noticed a subtle version of this same conceit in my conversations with him. Obviously the source of it was not Bishop Williamson, since this prior took a dramatic stand against the “Resistance.” So…where is it coming from?

      • RCA Victor,

        Your post is very interesting, indeed, on a number of levels.

        Firstly, I’m interested, for example, in the fulsome praise from across “The Pond” for our new Superior here in the UK. As I used to say, often, but haven’t for quite some time…. Hmmmm…

        Another part of your comment which is of much interest is the question of the source of a particular type of “conceit”, within the Society.

        For what it’s worth, my own view is that what you are identifying as “conceit” is a certain clericalism which is rife within the SSPX, and that, in turn, I think, is rooted in a false idea of what life was like in the Church prior to Vatican II.

        As far as I know, none of the Society clergy were around before the Council, yet can give the impression they were around before Trent! There can be a certain excessive strictness which is unattractive, which is perhaps born of a desire to restore the Church to what they imagine it to have been like before Modernism took root. I’ve said this on occasion to certain Society priests and not been contradicted, but that could be because I terrorise them, as I’m alleged to terrorise the moderns!

        In any event, having grown up in a pre-Vatican II parish, I think it’s a pity to portray the Church in that way, as a frowning, hard-to-please parent. I prefer G.K. Chesterton’s vision (although I don’t drink or smoke – honest!)…

        I could, of course, be misjudging the situation and I am open to correction, as ever. There are those who think that I can’t possibly be wrong, since I’m a woman, of course… Well, it’s a point of view…

        PS – added some time later: I think I’ve misunderstood what you meant by “conceit”. On reflection, I think you refer to a certain mentality which believes the heresy that “outside the SSPX there is no salvation.” As to what causes it, probably an undue fear of the possibility of being contaminated with Modernism through contact with “the outside world”! Having to engage quite a bit with diocesan Catholics who attend both novus ordo and TLM, I consider that there definitely is a danger of imbibing un-Catholic ideas, but the priests, through their preaching, should be attentive to teach us to guard against that. Hope I’ve got it right at the second interpretation!

        • Editor

          I agree with you on clericalism in the SSPX and I most definitely share your “Hmmmm” in response to our across the pond friends who think Fr. Brucciani is a boon for the UK.

          I’m sure Fr. Brucciani is a good and well meaning priest, but he is not superior material. Too young to have the pastoral wisdom and sensitivity of the old pre-Council parish priests.

          I think this is where the SSPX has made so many mistakes, placing young inexperienced priests in positions of authority and then wondering why they have a reputation for clericalism.

        • Editor,

          Worry not, both your interpretations are correct. (correct in that those are the attitudes I was getting at) – and thank you for the excellent elaboration. If I were in charge of the CT Treasury I would definitely add a few zeros to your paycheck! (After I added a few to mine, that is…..)

          Here is an example of that “fear of contamination”: a traditional priest friend of mine, who is a marvelous priest, found himself on pilgrimage earlier this year in Quito with an SSPX group, complete with SSPX priest. Being a very friendly and engaging sort, he immediately attempted to strike up some conversations with members of this group. Not one of them would speak to him! Not only that, most of them even refused to look at him – or, if they did, they would look right through him as if he wasn’t even there. Needless to say, he found this most disturbing.

          This is one reason why I earlier referred to the “in-bred, xenophobic” strain in the Society. And I repeat and re-iterate, unless the Society’s leadership comes to grip with this, the defections will continue, because as sure as I’m sitting here typing, that is the breeding ground for the “Resistance” mentality. To put another spin on this, I’d say there are quite a few priests, and even more faithful, who have forgotten that the SSPX is a lifeboat, not the Barque. And since the Barque is guaranteed not to sink, the lifeboat must remain tied to her, and not sail off under her own steam.

          (…said Barnacle Bill the sailor….)

          As for Fr. Brucciani, I can’t speak to his stewardship of your district, but I do admire his newsletters. Come to think of it, that follows another pattern I’ve noticed: the SSPX has excellent printed resources which far outshine the shepherding of their priests.

          • RCA Victor

            I’m not questioning your integrity (don’t get paid enough!) but I find it very difficult to believe that your priest/friend was so badly treated by a brother priest and every one of the pilgrims that were with him on that Quito trip. Are you absolutely certain that your priest/friend is relating the truth to you and not trying to cast the SSPX in a bad light.

            If he is telling the truth then I am appalled that anyone who calls himself a Catholic would ever treat a priest of God in the degrading way, all the more so because another priest is involved. I have never met SSPX priests or people in 30 years at the SSPX who are remotely like this. It just doesn’t ring true to me (…said Quasimodo, who promptly took the hump…)

            • Athanasius,

              Sadly, this incident is true and I can vouch for this priest personally. He has, in fact, absolutely nothing against the SSPX, though he has noticed this kind of xenophobia before (but never to that degree!). One can only hope there is some other explanation for it.

              • RCA Victor

                Maybe they were a “Resistance” group calling themselves SSPX. You never know!

                Anyway, it was disgraceful behaviour.

                • Athanasius,

                  Could well be! Don’t they call themselves the “SSPX Marian Corps” or something?

                  BTW, Happy New Year!

                  • RCA Victor

                    They all have different groups with different names. I was told that one or two even have their own popes now!

                    A very happy New Year to you and all our bloggers, may God bless all of you and your loved ones.

                    Yes Editor, I know it’s the wrong thread. But one tends to lose the thread more often as one ages!

          • I was on that Quito trip, so I would have met your priest friend – in fact, if he’s the priest I’m thinking of, then we exchanged contact information.

    • Steven C,

      I think I can safely claim to be making Fr Brucciani’s labours light, since – in those far off days when I occasionally emailed him – I did not insist upon a reply 😀

      In any case, he’s not the only one to ignore my emails. I could win an Olympic Medal in being ignored, always by priests and bishops. Makes me wonder if I should identify as a male, at least when I’m writing emails 😀

  14. You all might appreciate this sermon. Fr. Raymond Taouk in Australia was experiencing the threat of the resistance coming to influence his chapel in 2013. In this sermon, he totally refutes the resistance, and even gives some points that I had never heard considered. Highly recommended!

  15. Well one thing that I’m absolutely certain of is that the former clergy and laity of the sspx who decide to attack the sspx, end up attacking themselves.

    I have been attending an sspx chapel for almost 4 yrs now and have seen the resistance and sedevacantists come and go. Always sowing discontent amongst the faithful, they nurse a permanently schismatic and anti-authoritarian mindset, working towards the breakdown of parishes and communities.

    Someone once said… All the nuts are in the society, but not all in the society are nuts…

    How true. They are constantly at Civil War with their friends and themselves.

    • Summa,

      I think you are right. What I noticed from the unpleasant time back in 2012/2013 was the (apparent) bitterness of the rebels. There was a real lack of charity. Those of us here at Catholic Truth who fought them fought with the armour and weapons of Our Lord and Our Lady and weren’t distracted, our discouraged, by this bitterness. I received vulgar and aggressive emails from a former friend, who was so enraged that I challenged him and his underhand tactics.

      I think there’s a real lesson for us all in this. Yes, we fight fire with fire, but our “fire” comes from the Holy Ghost. St Dominic had a vision of a dog with a torch in its mouth. He interpreted this vision as the Word of God, the preaching of the Word, being like a God’s bark and setting the world ablaze. If others choose to descend into the spiritual gutter then we can be sure that they have lost the argument.

      • Petrus,

        I agree. The kind of (apparent!) bitterness which comes through in these rebels is unedifying and represents a lack of charity. I well recall your patience with the former friend to whom you refer; his bitterness was evident (and presumably remains so to this day) while you, it almost kills me to admit, remained charitable in your dealings with him throughout.

        You are absolutely correct about the need for the rest of us to rise above such bitterness and not prove the psychologists right who say that the faults we complain about in others, are often the very faults we have ourselves!

        • Dear Madame Editor,

          There’s a few questions which imo need to be addressed.

          1) What are the underlying *doctrinal* concerns of “Resistance” priests? There has to be more than the “marriage declaration”.

          2) What can be done to help these priests with their doctrinal concerns? It can’t just be “trust Bishop Fellay”; it has to be doctrinal solutions to doctrinal problems.

          Since His Grace is Superior General, obviously he has a better grasp of the situation vis-a-vis Rome. However, that should make the faithful who attend the SSPX even more ardent in their prayers for +Fellay and his confreres. His Grace needs much prayers so he can avoid the Scylla of Sedevacantism and the Charybdis of servile obedience a la “My country, right or wrong.”

          3) Has there been any outreach to Bishop Williamson? 2018 will be the 30th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations of +Fellay, +Williamson, +de Galaretta and +de Mallerais. It would be nice if everyone could get together in Econe for their anniversary.

          Yes, he’s said and done things that weren’t right, but haven’t we all (save Our Lord and Our Lady)? I’m not perfect; I’m trying, though. Maybe +Fellay could extend an olive branch to him?

          I know what it’s like to have people avoid me, and quite frankly I feel sorry for him.

          Wishing you and the entire CT family a blessed New Year.

          Yours in the Infant King,

          Margaret 🇺🇸

          • Margaret USA

            Your questions would be perfectly vaild ones if there were actual doctrinal differences to discuss. The problem with the “Resistance” people, however, is that they don’t pose individual doctrinal concerns in any distinctive way that can be addressed. Rather, they simply object to any contact between Rome and Menzingen while the former is under Modernist leadership. Any movement towards discussions with Rome on Bishop Fellay’s part is simply taken as a betrayal of the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and publicly declared to be so. How can anyone discuss anything with people like that?

            As for Bishop Williamson, believe me when I tell you that his departure from the SSPX was not down to just a single disagreement. Bishop Williamson was troublesome to the SSPX even when Archbishop Lefebvre was alive. He was once expelled from Canada by the Canadian government, for example, for references to Jews and Freemasons and was told by Archbishop Lefebvre never again to discuss such matters in public. It didn’t stop him, as the now infamous TV interview, in which he denied the existence of the gas chambers, amply demonstrates. I still believe he timed that public statement to coincide with Pope Benedict’s declaration lifting the (supposed) excommunications on the SSPX bishops. In other words, I think he was trying to throw a spanner in the works at a time when Pope Benedict seemed to be closing in on a personal prelature for the SSPX.

            There are other instances of Bishop Williamson’s interference and disobedience, not to mention other oddities.

            Besides that, are you forgetting that Bishop Williamson is now in formal schism with the Church, having created bishops without authority and without just cause? The SSPX could never receive him back in that state unless he repented of this and many other rebellious acts. In Bishop Williamson’s case, that would require a real miracle. Maybe we should all remember to pray for his conversion back to sanity and sanctity, affording him the benefit of the doubt that he is not acting from outright malice.

            • Christ is Born!

              Dear Athanasius,

              Thank you very much for your reply. This is just a hunch, but I think one of the main differences between the SSPX and the “Resistance” is the legacy of +Archbishop Lefebvre. Each group says that they’re being faithful to what the Archbishop taught and did, when the fact is that +Archbishop Lefebvre himself solely intended to be faithful to Our Lord and what He handed down through the Church over the centuries.

              I can understand being wary given everything that’s been going on in Rome. However, as the first Pope said:

              “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6: 68)

              Also, thank you for mentioning the warning of the Archbishop. I never knew that until you posted it.

              Wishing you and yours a blessed New Year.

              Yours in the Infant King,

              Margaret 🇺🇸

              • Simplistic as this may be, I believe the main difference between the SSPX and the Resistance is simply down to understanding the apostolate.
                The former holds to the traditions of the Church. The latter wishes to start it’s own Church.
                It’s Lutheran ad nauseum.

              • Margaret USA,

                Thank you for your very charitable response to my comments.

                As regards Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy, you are of course correct in saying that His Grace only ever intended to be faithful to what Our Lord handed down through His Church. Bishop Fellay has been perfectly faithful to this legacy and has guided the SSPX accordingly. The “Resistance” people, however, have not been faithful. They have taken comments of the Archbishop from decades ago, different circumstances, and tried to twist them to fit with their agenda, which is schismatic. That’s why the majority of priests and faithful of the SSPX refuse to have anything to do with them.

                I wish you and yours a very blessed New Year in the love of the Holy Family.

  16. This is new to me but the SSPX did not go into schism and what is proposed here sounds very like schism. Some of the complaints of Luther etc were OK at first but Protestantism now has thousands of different denominations most of which accept divorce and remarriage, homosexuality etc. Unity to the church Christ founded is important.

    • Charlesmcewan

      You’re right, the “Resistance” is made up of disenfranchised groups of schismatics and sedevacantists. They drift into whichever group suits their particular inclinations. The SSPX has never been, nor is it now, schismatic.

  17. Will someone enlighten this gal as to what this “marriage” dispute is all about? I did read what looked like a very good summary up above but I still can’t get my head around it? So, an explanation for a dumb blonde please!

    • Helen,

      My understanding is that the Pope had given the local bishops the authority to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of Catholics who attend the Society chapels, just as he granted faculties for them to hear Confessions in the year of mercy, and then made it a permanent thing.

      If possible, though, there should be a priest of the diocese present to take the couple’s vows, but that is not an essential. If no priest is available, the SSPX priests can do that, as they have always done.

      The Resistance see this as a threat, I presume. IMHO, it is just a piece of red tape. There are very few priests saying the old Mass so they are unlikely to want to be present at an SSPX marriage just to preside over the vows. Also, there is such a shortage of priests in Scotland right now, that the bishops are hardly going to be able to spare priests to do this. I think it’s just a symbolic thing but it looks like the Society is keeping it all low profile and will probably ignore it. That’s why it puzzles me that Fr Morgan is making a fuss about it and making it a resignation issue.

      I hope I’ve interpreted the marriage issue correctly for you. If not, someone will correct me.

      • Thank you, Lily, for the explanation. I now understand although I think it’s a daft idea.

        Deacon Augustine, what exactly was Cardinal Burke’s reaction to the announcement?

        Editor, no smart alec comments about not reading previous blog comments etc., as I am a very busy mother of a very young, and growing, family!

  18. Vis a vis Rome’s move on Marriage this year. There are only two possible reasons I can see why Bergoglio made this move towards the SSPX:

    1) It was an act of genuine concern and charity towards the Society and the faithful who adhere to its ministry. As with the sacraments of Confession and Confirmation, Marriage requires jurisdiction to be valid not just licit. The attempt to alleviate any doubt about the efficacy of supplied jurisdiction would be a genuinely charitable motivation which could onl,y be good for the consciences of the faithful.

    That said, as with Confessions, the only Canonical bases for these acts of the Pope appear to be pure, naked, unsupported acts of the Papal will. As the supreme legislator he has the power to act in this way, but equally he has the power to reverse such acts on a whim. There is no binding Canonical agreement here to which any plaintiff could appeal in the future.

    If these are genuinely charitable acts, then they are the acts of a known dictator and despot, nevertheless, it would be churlish to throw them back in his face if he does not require any compromise or unacceptable conditions for their just exercise.

    2) Bergoglio has been a skillful political manipulator from the early days of his ecclesiastical career and has clawed his way to the top by sowing dissension and division wherever he goes. In the words of his former Superior General, “..he always manges to establish pro-Bergoglio and anti-Bergoglio factions..” – it is always about him. “Divide et impera” has been his constant modus operandi and it has been prevalent in this papacy.

    No doubt being fully aware of the strength of feeling in some parts of the Society with respect to any agreement with an unconverted Rome, he could well have taken this initiative on marriage with the precise objective of causing division within it. Additionally it would have the consequences of causing division between traditional forces more generally – vide the reaction of the Canonist Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke to this announcement.

    I suspect that some combination of the above two motives played a part in his strategy. But the likes of Morgan have done nothing more than play into his hands – they have been well and truly played. And once again, the faithful have been betrayed by the egos, conceits and ambitions of the clergy who were meant to serve them.

    With regards to some of the comments above about the problem of clericalism within the Society, I don’t have enough knowledge of the personalities to comment with any accuracy, but with my experience of clergy generally, I would say that clericalism is still a huge problem wherever you are in the Church of God. In my experience it tends to be worse amongst modernists, but I have certainly come across it in “conservative” and traditionalist circles too. Nothing makes me vomit more than hearing a “liberal” priest prate on about how “cleriicalist” the church used to be when I know full well that he can’t give a rat’s @ss about the legitimate aspirations of his own parishioners to be fed by the same faith and liturgy which they are guaranteed by right in Canon Law.

    • Christ is Born!

      Excellent analysis, Father Deacon. I’d suspect that most TCs and “Resistance” priests would be inclined toward option #2 even though their hearts would prefer option #1. If Benedict XVI was still pope, then I’d think the balance would tip towards option #1.

      That’s just my .02.

      Btw, I never saw your recipe!

      Yours in the Infant King,

      Margaret 🇺🇸

      • Margaret, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!!!!

        I did have it ready for you when the “diakonissa” informed me that it would need converting into US measures first! That’s when my mind went wandering. Will see if I can sort it out for you, but it may need to be UK measures. 😉

          • OK Margaret, here goes, a recipe for Yorkshire pud from a genuine Yorkshireman:

            25g Beef dripping or lard (approx 1/8th of a cup?)
            100 g flour (4/5th of a cup?)
            1.25 ml salt (1/4 teaspoon)
            2 eggs beaten
            300 ml milk (1 and 1/4 cups?)
            1 x 5ml spoon of dried mixed herbs
            Freshly ground black pepper.

            Put lard/dripping in oven-proof dish and bake in hot oven for 5 to 10 mins at 220 centigrade/425 fahrenheit.
            Meanwhile make batter: sift flour and salt into mixing bowl. Make well in centre and put in beaten eggs and half of the milk.. Mix flour into eggs and milk gradually drawing flour in from sides. Stir in remaining milk and beat vigorously with wooden spoon to make the batter smooth. Stir in herbs, and pepper to taste.
            Pour batter into dish and continue to bake in hot oven for 40-45 minutes or until batter has risen and is brown and crispy. Eat hot with lashings of gravy.

            First resolution for New Year sorted!! Good luck.

            • Christ is Born!

              Dear Father Deacon,

              Thank you VERY MUCH for the recipe! I can do conversions to U.S. measures. (I can’t believe the UK actually abandoned its own system to follow the metric/Continental system though. 😢)

              One question:

              What’s in the “dried mixed herbs”? Or is that a family secret? 😉

              And please thank Pani Augustine for me too. (Pani – pronounced “Pah-nee” – is the Ukrainian/Slavonic term for the wife of a priest or deacon. It means “Lady”.)

              Wishing you, Pani and all the family a blessed New Year!

              Yours in Christ the King,

              Margaret

              • Margaret, if there is a secret formula to the dried mixed herbs, I believe it is closely guarded by one Mr J. Sainsbury.

                Happy New Year.

            • Deacon Augustine,

              “Dried mixed herbs,” eh? Is this perchance a recipe for Alice B. Toklas Yorkshire pudding? 🙂

              PS: Happy New Year!

              • RCAVictor, I have no idea from where SWMBO gets her recipes. I merely copied it out of her handwritten notebook of simple instructions for husbands, progeny and assorted simpletons. 😉

                Happy New year to you too.

  19. Deacon Augustine – maybe you’ve heard that yarn about the man who got caught in the rain…

    Q. Was his name Bell, because he was wringing?

    A. No, it was Lard, because he was dripping….

    Happy New Year, one and all!

  20. Editor:

    On the US side of the Atlantic, I have composed three papers up to now regarding the “resistance.” I have called them throughout “Against the Rebellious.” Now in response to Father Morgan, I have composed the following which I have also posted to my Facebook group by the same name, as well as to another Catholic list I belong to.

    GandalfOlorin

    Against the Rebellious IV

    Regarding the Public Statement of
    Fr. Paul Morgan
    Former District Superior of Great Britain

    As it has been published on the Catholic Truth blog (https://catholictruthblog.com/2017/12/29/sspx-priest-resigns-is-former-uk-superior-plotting-trouble-ahead/), Fr. Paul Morgan has resigned from the Society of St. Pius X. Father Morgan has made the following public statement which I transcribe here from the Catholic Truth blog. Following Father Morgan’s points (which I number for convenience), I have inserted my responses.

    1. Introduction
    I am Father Paul Morgan, ordained by Bishop Lefebvre at Ecône in 1988. After that, I was 4 years in the district house in London as an assistant. Following this, I was the 1st Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in the Philippines for 4 years, until 1996. Then 2 years as a school principal at St Mary’s School in England and then 5 years as a prior at Post Falls in Idaho, USA. And then 12 years as district superior of Great Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia, until 2015. Then sabbatical year at Montgardin, which I had asked for. And then 2016-2017, Prior in Vancouver, Canada.

    Response:

    Father Morgan may be merely explaining who he is by itemizing his resume for us. On the other hand, we may be justified in suspecting that he is setting the stage for what he says hereafter by listing his accomplishments within the SSPX as if these indicate that he continues to be trustworthy upon leaving the SSPX. This is not a logical conclusion. Just because he did things that bore fruit when he was a Society priest does not mean that he can continue to do such things outside the Society. He was ordained to be a Society priest, not an “independent” priest. There is no canonical status for “independent” priests in the Church, which was one big reason His Grace the Archbishop founded the SSPX.

    2. Current situation…

    Right now, I am outside the Society, since I resigned on August 9 of this year [2017] because of the marriage affair.

    The Marriage Affair…

    It seemed to me, it always seems to me, that it is an essential compromise to accept the principle that priests representing modern dioceses come to us, in the bastions of Tradition, to receive the promises of the bride and groom. Even if in practice we are a little restricted in such things, we have accepted the principle. And that’s why, in concrete terms, I wrote my letter of resignation.

    Response:

    Father Morgan here refers to the grant by Pope Francis to the Society that marriages conducted by Society priests can be witnessed by diocesan clergy. When diocesan clergy are not available, the Society priests are given permission to witness the vows of the couple using ordinary jurisdiction. In other words, the marriages can be regularized not only according to the spirit of the law, which the Society has always done, but now according to the letter of the law. There was no compromise in doctrine asked in exchange for this permission. It can have a good effect in putting at ease those hesitant about the use of extraordinary jurisdiction. Without any evidence, Father Morgan, like the other rebellious before him, sees in the very presence of a diocesan priest a compromise with modernism. This is nothing but a rubbish conclusion. In reality, what diocese is going to have a priest available to do this on a regular basis? You can probably count them on one hand. (What is the average age of parish priests in France? Eighty-five?) So labeling this permission of the pope as a compromise, Father Morgan uses this as his excuse for leaving the Society he was ordained for.

    3. Timing of resignation…

    I think there were many of us, quite a few priests and superiors themselves, who had reacted against the new way of doing things, even before the 2012 chapter. There were many of us in Albano in 2011 to say to Bishop Fellay, very respectfully, that these steps should not be continued in order to reach an agreement with modernist Rome. So, we have already done a great deal in the Society, among ourselves, with the superiors to denounce and oppose these approaches. For example, in 2012, the district of Great Britain was ready, in its entirety, to break away if they made a false agreement with modernist Rome. So it is not just this year that we have begun to react, but we have already for years.

    Response:

    We remember, of course, the rebellious clerics were causing trouble in various parts of the SSPX till they resigned or were expelled. It is an exaggeration, to put it kindly, to believe, as Father Morgan states, that these priests and superiors were ever that many. They were not. Consider that the Society has over 600 priests now—well over 500 at the time of the Bp. Williamson fiasco and the rebellion of those who joined him. There were, in reality, some few adherents of Bp. Williamson, some in one country, some in another; some on one continent, some on another. Remember, Bp. Williamson had a wide influence in having been rector of the American seminary for many years, in having published newsletters with a wide readership from that seminary, in having been assigned afterward to the seminary of Argentina, in having contacts in Britain even before he was “confined” to the district house in London, in having contacts in France and elsewhere. “We have already done a great deal in the Society, with the superiors to denounce and oppose these approaches.” So in other words, he and his like-minded friends had already caused trouble by dissenting over something that was not real even before they openly rebelled. Such was the influence of Bp. Williamson.

    As for the entire district of Great Britain being ready to leave the Society in 2012, there are others more knowledgeable than I who say otherwise. (See the comments at the link above.) Even on the face of it, it seems a large exaggeration of fact to say that all the SSPX clergy and religious in Great Britain agreed with Father Morgan and had decided to leave in the event of a “false agreement.” So we are to believe that all the British Society priests believed in this fairytale of a “false agreement”?

    4. Why no public reaction…

    I think the manifesto, the statement of the 7 deans and superiors of friendly communities in France, was very, very well put. So publicly, that was already explained. And I can also say that I have done things in order and according to the rules, by sending a manifesto signed by several priests from Canada to Bishop Fellay and to Menzingen, explaining quite simply, the serious problems with these new directives for receiving marriage vows. So right away we talked about it on the Internet, so it became public, etc.. So, I chose to do things that way. Now, I speak more publicly, since I’ve had a little time to organize myself – and we left Canada with a suitcase in our hands, not knowing where to go because we never thought of being alone, on the outside like that.

    Response:

    Are we supposed to shed a sympathetic tear that Father Morgan decided on his own to leave the Society he was engaged to remain in and to obey by an engagement he had made before his superior and before God in the Blessed Sacrament? No, there can be no sympathy for this nonsense. Father put himself in this situation by believing in fairytales, and he alone can pull himself out of that delusion and return to reality—something his superiors consistently encouraged him to do. Father’s having, like the equally bemused French religious communities, sent a “manifesto” to Menzingen is supposed to assure us he had taken the necessary canonical steps before removing himself from a bad situation. Not so. When has it ever been the proper canonical step to send any sort of “manifesto” to one’s superior? It was, in effect, an ultimatum: ie. “Either you stop, or I’m leaving.” What is the superior to respond to that kind of prattle? He can charitably reiterate the long-standing reasons why the fairytale fears are not real. But someone in that state of delusion is not likely to listen to logical arguments, and Father Morgan was no exception.

    5. What prospects for the 2018 General Chapter?

    Unfortunately, I do not have much hope in the general chapter next year. It seems to me that with the change of minds that has been taking place for several years now – so that we think that Rome is now kind, Rome loves us, we can make an agreement or do more good saying inside the Church, as if we were outside the Church until now, it’s unbelievable, isn’t it – so I don’t have much hope. And we can see that good priests like the 7 deans, for example, who have made a very good document – and a special hello to Father de la Rocque in exile in the Philippines, a country that I like very much but which is still in exile – we see what happens to priests who denounce problems respectfully and rightly: we punish them! So I think the superiors in the chapter will simply do what Menzingen tells them to do.

    Response:

    “We think that Rome is now kind, Rome loves us, we can make an agreement or do more good staying inside the Church, as if we were outside the Church until now…” So like all the rest of the rebellious clerics, Father Morgan now uses a straw man argument and beats that to death, as others have since Bp. Williamson first mouthed these pieces of offal. There is no such attitude by the Society’s hierarchy as Father characterizes here. And so he is distrusting the General Chapter, as he does the Society itself, based on a lying fable exploited by those who have left the SSPX before him. Like the communists always said, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth. But this is not quite so. In reality, if a lie is repeated often enough it is believed by those who know no better as well as by those who should know better. As I have said in my previous papers on this subject, this is the same lying trash that was used by the Nine when they left the Society in 1983. I well remember, since I was in Saint Mary’s at that time, when the Archbishop came to explain to us what had happened. Unfortunately, many today are either too new to Tradition or too young to remember, and do not recognize this same scenario being played out again.

    6. What about your apostolate?

    At the moment, I have no official apostolate. I am in contact with a lot of priests, in France and abroad, as well as with the faithful, encouraging and supporting them. Aslo with priests who have left [the SSPX] already a few months or a few years ago, for reasons that are in the end quite similar.

    It is very encouraging to see the strong religious communities in France, religious men and women. I am in contact with them but I understand that this is a difficult situation for these communities, which may be at risk of sanctions if they show themselves too publicly in agreement with priests like myself.

    Nevertheless, we celebrate Mass, we pray, we visit confreres, we have been able to preach a retreat already, we have made visits on the right and on the left. I get a lot of invitations from other countries to come and help. But at the moment, for rather practical matters we have to organise ourselves before embarking on any future activities. But I think, it seems to me that in June-July 2018, we are going to shoot into action. I think there will be more positive reactions in the coming year.

    Response:

    Father Morgan has “no official apostolate.” Well of course he doesn’t. He is now a “vagus”—a priest without a mandate or a permission to offer the sacraments. Canon Law does not allow for this kind of priest, and we can note that Archbishop Lefebvre did not want this for his Society even though he knew his priests would have to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. In other words, Father Morgan has taken himself out of the correct situation in which he was with the Society and made himself irregular in fact, not merely in theory. This is true of all the rebellious clerics.

    “I am in contact with a lot of priests…as well as with the faithful, encouraging and supporting them. Also with priests who have left [the SSPX] already a few months or a few years ago, for reasons that are in the end quite similar.” So in other words, Father is joining with the ranks of the rebellious and stirring up trouble with the faithful so that he “helps” them into the same errors he has embraced.

    “But I think, it seems to me that in June-July 2018, we are going to shoot into action. I think there will be more positive reactions in the coming year.” Well this is rather ominous. To those who are unfamiliar with the rebellious, this would seem an innocuous announcement of future work. To those of us who have been watching these people, however, it would seem much more threatening. Particularly “shoot into action” seems to predict some kind of specific acts against the interests of the SSPX occurring next summer.

    7. In connection with the bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson?

    Yes, if need be, of course, since we need bishops for Sacred orders and confirmations. Consecrating bishops in this emergency, as Archishop Lefebvre himself had said, can be repeated. This is not something reserved exclusively for Archbishop Lefebvre. And yes, we are quite willing to collaborate with the faithful, with faithful Catholics.

    Response:

    “Consecrating bishops in this emergency…” But there is no urgent necessity such as that which existed in 1988 when His Grace and Bishop De Castro-Mayer found it necessary to save the priesthood and the sacraments. Now there are still three bishops within the Society who have proven capable, even though the apostolate is far-flung, to fulfill the mandate given them by the Archbishop: to be auxiliaries to the Superior General and to confer the sacraments, especially Holy Orders. If one of them should die or become incapable of performing his duties, then it would be a case of necessity and there would be a legitimate reason to consecrate another bishop for the Society.

    Besides acting only in a genuine necessity, the one who consecrates must apply first to the Holy See for permission, even if it can be expected that the pope would refuse for spurious reasons. But this must be done for the simple reason that we must always act as Catholics, especially when others within the Church do not. This is what every Catholic bishop has always done, and this is what Archbishop Lefebvre did as well, even though he knew the pope was a rabid liberal. It was only when the Holy See tried to stymie the choice of bishop candidates that the Archbishop went ahead with the ceremony without the actual permission. To act in any other way is to behave as a schismatic, since to consecrate without seeking the pope’s permission is to act as if there were no pope to ask. If this is how Bp. Williamson acted, and that is the definite impression one has from everything that has been said by him, then he has become the sedevacantist that he formerly denounced.

    8. In conclusion…

    I conclude by saying that we always have hope in the Good Lord. I think of Archbishop Lefebvre who was alone. He resigned some the Holy Ghost Fathers so as not to have any part in the destruction of his congregation. So priests like him and certainly many others, did this for important reasons. Let us try to make contacts, to gather together in order to help other priests who, for the moment, remain within the Society, hoping to organize something to help them as also [to help] the sound faithful. There’s a lot of work to be done. We have hope.

    And then, finally, Our Lady of Fatima spoke about diabolic disorientations. It seems to me that what is happening here is an example, right here in 2017, [an example] of this confusion of mind. So, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, we must remain faithfully, we must keep the principles of the fight for the faith, the good fight and then, if we have to suffer by doing this, God’s Holy will must be done.

    Response:

    Those who leave the SSPX in this manner are often wont to claim they are behaving just as the Archbishop did, and following exactly what the Archbishop taught. So Luther claimed that he was following Christ Our Lord and Rome was not. But the proof, as the saying has it, is in the pudding. Where are the horrible agreements with Rome that were prophesied several years ago? Where are the liberal innovations and accommodations to the Novus Ordo? Where is there cooperation in sacris between the SSPX and the local ordinary? The answer is now as it has always been: Nowhere. All of these so-called predictions have proved to be empty hot air and so much pixilated ink.

    And yes, Our Lady at Fatima foretold of a diabolic disorientation. But very plainly that prophecy referred to the entire Church, not to one part of the Church like the Society. Since the Third Part of the Secret was never truly revealed, we know only what has been explained publicly up to now. We know that the secret involved Rome and the persecution of the Church, and probably a betrayal of the faith by the highest ranks of the hierarchy (since Sr. Lucia admitted as much). We also know that nothing the Society has done remotely resembles such a diabolic disorientation. Rather, the Society has maintained what has been handed down.

    We also know, harking back to the 1500s, Our Lady at Quito foretold that a prelate would arise in the latter 20th century to save the Mass and the priesthood. Since that century is behind us, we can see with historical eyes that this prophecy can have referred only to our dear Monsignor Lefebvre and to no one else. It is therefore the work that he left to carry on that mission, i.e., the Society of St. Pius X, which must carry on that work. Those who leave their appointed places to carry out their own will in preference to the Society’s mission are indeed both outside the mission of the Society as well as (in the case of Bp. Williamson) in at least material schism and therefore outside the Church.

    Enough of this endless tripe from the rebellious clerics! If we want better popes, we must pray and sacrifice for that end. And if we are prelates of the Church, we must continue to go to Rome when Divine Providence indicates in order to remind the Vicar of Christ of his duty. Meantime, let Catholics adhere to the Society of St. Pius X and they will find the unchanged and unchanging faith faithfully handed down. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!

    • Gandalf,

      I’d love to see all four of your papers. Could you please email them to our beloved Editor and she can email them to me?

      Thank you! Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year.

      Regards,

      Margaret 🇺🇸

  21. Margaret,

    Thank you for the kind words. I have my papers posted to a Facebook group which you are free to join if you wish. I certainly can email the papers to the editor also.

    Gandalf

    • Gandalf,

      I’m not on Facebook or Twitter. That’s why I suggested sending them to Madame Editor and she can forward them to me.

      Hope you had a Happy New Year!

      Regards,

      Margaret 🇺🇸

      • Margaret,

        Gandalf has now kindly emailed his papers to me, and I have forwarded them to you this morning – if anyone else would like to read them, let me know and I will send them on to you.

    • Gandalf

      A man after my own heart, I agree with every word you’ve written. Thank you for posting your response here on this blog and for your fidelity to the SSPX. God bless you.

      • Athanasius,

        Thank you for your kind words. I pray that my papers will help a few souls find the truth. Too many souls are lost nowadays because no one will take the time to explain it to them. I hope my poor work will do some good. Keep this intention in your prayers.

        Gandalf

        • Gandalf

          You may be assured of my prayers for the success of your efforts. You do your duty as a Catholic, and that is to tell people the truth. More power to your pen!

  22. This is so, so sad.

    The resistance people talk of the problems in the SSPX that are about to happen or are going to happen or that are just over the horizon, and then the bad events never come to pass.

    • WurdeSmythe

      I completely agree with you. They have been predicting the big “sell out” of the SSPX since 2011, yet here we are in 2018 and everything is as it always has been. Poor deluded people!

  23. Speaking of the resistance-to-nothing, several years ago (2012) they published a document called “Primary Sources for Studying the Crisis in the SSPX.” This PDF was sent to me by a friend who, at that point, was sympathetic to them. I read it through carefully, made highlights and comments, and pointed out to him that this document actually proved the complete opposite of their claim that Bishop Fellay was “selling out”!

    No further proof of twisted minds and cold hearts is needed, IMHO.

    • I had an email from a (non-Catholic) friend the other day in which she included a statement from one of these “poor deluded people”, writing about the “crisis in the SSPX”. I replied to let her know that there IS no crisis in the SSPX.

      This nonsensical claim needs to be called out every time it is trotted out, if you get my drift, as the TV weatherman said when he announced there was going to be a snowstorm… (get it? “did you get my drift…”? Oh, never mind then… 😀 )

  24. in 2012, the district of Great Britain was ready, in its entirety, to break away

    What rot this statement is.

    We can clearly see it is erroneous from the fact Fr Morgan has made his video in the French language: there is no English-speaking constituency for him (+Williamson has already hoovered up the handful of UK resistance types and “cornered the market”).

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Quite possibly, Fr Morgan is here reflecting the possible truth that he was working behind the scenes to recruit for the resistance-to-nothing movement in its beginnings, and perhaps – in all the confusion at the time – making a little headway. I remember hearing some statements that caused me concern at the time, in sermons, but, thankfully, calm was restored and the danger passed. So, just as every heresy has a grain of truth therein, so, here, Fr Morgan may be revealing something of the machinations going on in London way back then.

%d bloggers like this: