https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vort-disobedience
https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/
© 2023 Fr George David Byers
Tradition’s parrhesia
Sacred Scripture - Sacred Tradition - The Magisterium - The Natural Law - Unity with the Bishop of Rome
-
-
Recent Comments
Father George David… on Revising my coat of arms for… Arkanabar T'verrick… on Revising my coat of arms for… Aussie Mum on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… Gina Nakagawa on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… Gina Nakagawa on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… Father George David… on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… Gina Nakagawa on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… Father George David… on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… Father George David… on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… sanfelipe007 on Pope Francis, +Arthur Roche: E… sanfelipe007 on Synodality Express: Inviting C… Father George David… on Synodality Express: Inviting C… sanfelipe007 on Synodality Express: Inviting C… catherine on Quo primum like you’ve n… Eve on Quo primum like you’ve n…
ARISE! LET US BE GOING! 
John 6:68.
Thanks be to God.
Father Z’s post:
“It was obviously, manifestly, NOT Archbp. Lefevbre’s intention to set up a separate or rival Church, or to make himself or someone else an anti-Pope, or to create other aspects of a true schism. The SSPX priests quite openly have used the names of the Popes in the Roman Canon during Mass. They have recourse to diocesan tribunals in marriage and other matters. They follow the decrees of the Sacra Paenitentieria Apostolica in the matter of indulgences. They accept faculties for marriages etc. from local bishops. Recently, they communicated to their followers the dispensations and provisions given by local bishops in this time of Coronavirus lockdown. These are not the acts of schismatics.”
I recall in Scripture Mark 9:38-41, which I always thought to refer to Christians in general, but now I think of the SSPX.
Then:
“odiosa restringi et favores convenit ampliari, or else odiosa sunt restringenda et favoribilia amplianda/ampliantur. That is to say, laws that place burdens or restrictions on people must be interpreted strictly so that they don’t put onto people what the laws don’t say. On the other hand, laws which grant favors or freedoms to people should be interpreted as generously as possible so that people can enjoy favors and freedoms. Be narrow and picky with laws that restrict and wide and generous with laws that grant things.”
Which seems to ask Michael Voris to moderate his stance on where and how deep the line in the sand should be drawn between valid and illicit. But I am open to correction, because Jesus did not bring up such a fine distinction with his disciples.
But, as always, what do I know? Nothing.