fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[Peace]

40 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Yes, I knew you would point this out, which is why I addressed it before you did.  And I already gave a reasonable answer.

What answer did you give to it?

40 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Again, you've put forth a false position for me.  The only difference is that I have chosen which bishops to listen to.  The only "ideas" that I've come up with myself have been regarding specifics about the end times, and I was sure to say they were my own opinions and could very well be wrong.

 What false position did I state about you in the passage that you quoted?

The point I tried to make in that paragraph is that when a random layperson on the internet (such as you) disagrees with the vast majority of bishops - the random layperson is very likely to be wrong and the bishops correct.

40 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

What's actually going on here is that, as Christ said would happen, bishop is against bishop, and priest is against priest.  Right now, YOU are not submitting to the teaching authority of some bishops.  Maybe you're submitting to the teaching authority of your own bishop, I don't know.  I'm not judging you on your position.  I'm just warning you about what I believe it will lead to.

Priests and bishops have had disagreements with each other from about 2 weeks after our Lord formed the church an consistently over the past 2000 year history of the church, so what you say would have always been true I think. There is always gonna be some bishop somewhere in the world who has a contrary view to the established majority but why does it matter exactly?

My bishop is Michael Burbide in the Diocese of Arlington. If I have taken any position contrary to him please feel to inform me of what it is. To what diocese do you belong?

I don't even think it works that way you suggest anyway. The layperson starts under the authority of the pastor of his church in the location where he resides. If he has a disagreement with his pastor, then he contacts the bishop in the diocese where he resides. If he has an issue with his bishop, then he takes it up to the pope. Isn't that the way it works?

What he does not do is say "I have decided that XYZ is the correct teaching and I am going to go on an exhaustive search to find the 1 bishop out of 1000 who agrees with me, in a diocese 2000 miles away from where I reside". You don't get to go shopping for a bishop who agrees with you and declare yourself as having submitted to the authority of the Church. Doesn't work that way.

Now whether or not that is what you did - I don't know, but I don't hear very many bishops at all saying that it is immoral to take the COVID vaccine so odds are I think you had to go hunting (perhaps on a site like Lifesite news) to find the few number of bishops who seem to be taking that position.

40 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

To reiterate a different way: it is not me vs the bishops.  It is some bishops vs the rest of the bishops.  To me it's clear which bishops are correct, and so those are the ones that I listen to.

 If Pope Francis installs a new bishop in my diocese and tomorrow the new bishop says that "I consider it immoral to take the vaccine and laypersons in my diocese are prohibited from taking the vaccine" then I am not taking the vaccine. Period. I don't get to say "Oh well my previous bishop said it was licit to take, or the bishop in the diocese of Washington says that it is licit to take, and I have done my own analysis based to determine what the Church "really" teaches and I am sure that they are correct and you are wrong, therefore I am going to take the vaccine and ignore your judgment." This is shopping for a bishop who agrees with you. It is not submitting to authority. But how is this different than what you are doing?

That seems to me to be what you are in-fact doing, but if you are doing something else, please feel to correct me on it. But you seem to basically have just admitted that you follow bishops that you have concluded to be correct, rather than following the bishop whose authority you are formally under. You seem to admit exactly what I wrote so I'm not sure what your problem is.

If a new bishop was installed in your diocese and he said that Catholics may licitly take the vaccine or even that Catholics have a moral obligation to the vaccine, would you take it, or would you say "Yeah well I have already concluded that the bishops who say it is immoral are correct therefore I will not abide by your judgment"? From everything we have seen here I would conclude that you would say that the new bishop installed in your diocese is wrong and not follow him, so I don't think you are submitting to authority. How else can it be?

40 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

To be acceptable, I'm fairly certain the "dirt" would actually have to be "mud" - that is, wet.  And that's only acceptable due to the water content.  In the same understanding, if there are no other options, I've heard that one can use soda if it has enough water in it (some are mostly carbonated water).  I could be wrong, and that's really neither here nor there.

Anything official on that? I'm looking at page 352 of Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma right now and it states: "The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water . (De Fide) . . . "The Council of Trent declared against Luther who held that any fluid suitable for ablution was permissible in case of emergency".  Seems to rule out all of that Jazz but would need to study the issue further.

40 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's certainly not my attitude, though it might seem to be given the current state of affairs in the world.  Like I said, I understand why you think I'm doing this, but that is not my position at all.

OK that's fair.

 

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

This would actually be contrary to established Church teaching.  There really is a primary role of the priest, and that is to provide Sacraments to the faithful.  All other roles are secondary to that one.

I could be wrong on that. It would not surprise me if there were some "ranking" of the roles of a priest within Catholic teaching, but I do not think I have seen anything that says "this role" is "primary" and "that role is subordinate." If you you have anything like that please provide it and I will correct myself if shown to be wrong. Otherwise I'll just say that you are blowing smoke.

[ReasonableFaith]

Many of the roles and functions of priests are important to the lives of the faithful and the priests themselves. 
 

The church seems to suggest the primary duty of a priest, which can take many different forms, is to preach the Word to all. Additionally, the primary (most important) role of the priesthood is celebrating the eucharist. 
 

Any priest’s duty or obligation to provide sacramental ministry directly to the faithful is informed by the priest’s station or particular situation. 
 

For those interested, many of these points are examined in Presbyterorum ordinis. 

[Peace]

@fides' JackBut yeah generally when I think of the priest I do tend to think of his role in administering sacraments first, but I would not go so far as to declare any particular roles as primary and subordinate, if they are all roles that are established by Christ himself.

2 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Many of the roles and functions of priests are important to the lives of the faithful and the priests themselves. 
 

The church seems to suggest the primary duty of a priest, which can take many different forms, is to preach the Word to all. Additionally, the primary (most important) role of the priesthood is celebrating the eucharist. 
 

Any priest’s duty or obligation to provide sacramental ministry directly to the faithful is informed by the priest’s station or particular situation. 
 

For those interested, many of these points are examined in Presbyterorum ordinis. 

Thank you I will check that out.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Peace

[Peace]

@fides' Jack Yeah I think this pretty much proves you wrong pal.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html

SECTION I
Priests' Functions

4. The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God.(1) And rightfully they expect this from their priests.(2) Since no one can be saved who does not first believe,(3) priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all.(4) In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: "Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk 16:15),(5) and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

To all men, therefore, priests are debtors that the truth of the Gospel(6) which they have may be given to others. And so, whether by entering into profitable dialogue they bring people to the worship of God,(7) whether by openly preaching they proclaim the mystery of Christ, or whether in the light of Christ they treat contemporary problems, they are relying not on their own wisdom for it is the word of Christ they teach, and it is to conversion and holiness that they exhort all men.(8) But priestly preaching is often very difficult in the circumstances of the modern world. In order that it might more effectively move men's minds, the word of God ought not to be explained in a general and abstract way, but rather by applying the lasting truth of the Gospel to the particular circumstances of life.

The ministry of the word is carried out in many ways, according to the various needs of those who hear and the special gifts of those who preach. In areas or communities of non-Christians, the proclaiming of the Gospel draws men to faith and to the sacraments of salvation.(9) In the Christian community, especially among those who seem to understand and believe little of what they practice, the preaching of the word is needed for the very ministering of the sacraments. They are precisely sacraments of faith, a faith which is born of and nourished by the word.(10) This is especially true of the Liturgy of the Word in the celebration of Mass, in which the proclaiming of the death and resurrection of Christ is inseparably joined to the response of the people who hear, and to the very offering whereby Christ ratified the New Testament in his blood. In this offering the faithful are united both by their dispositions and by their discernment of the sacrament.(11)

5. God, who alone is holy and who alone bestows holiness, willed to take as his companions and helpers men who would humbly dedicate themselves to the work of sanctification. Hence, through the ministry of the bishop, God consecrates priests, that being made sharers by special title in the priesthood of Christ, they might act as his ministers in performing sacred functions. In the liturgy they continue to carry on his priestly office by the action of his Spirit.(12) By Baptism men are truly brought into the People of God; by the sacrament of Penance sinners are reconciled to God and his Church; by the Anointing of the Sick, the ill are given solace; and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer sacramentally the Sacrifice of Christ. In administering all sacraments, as St. Ignatius Martyr(13) has borne witness from the early days of the Church, priests by various titles are bound together hierarchically with the bishop. And so in a certain way they make him present in every congregation.(14)

The other sacraments, as well as with every ministry of the Church and every work of the apostolate, are tied together with the Eucharist and are directed toward it.(15) The Most Blessed Eucharist contains the entire spiritual boon of the Church,(16) that is, Christ himself, our Pasch and Living Bread, by the action of the Holy Spirit through his very flesh vital and vitalizing, giving life to men who are thus invited and encouraged to offer themselves, their labors and all created things, together with him. In this light, the Eucharist shows itself as the source and the apex of the whole work of preaching the Gospel. Those under instruction are introduced by stages to a sharing in the Eucharist, and the faithful, already marked with the seal of Baptism and Confirmation, are through the reception of the Eucharist fully joined to the Body of Christ.

[fides' Jack]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

What answer did you give to it?

 

23 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Now, you'll also remind me that it should be our pastors, including our bishops, who inform our consciences, and that it's a mark of pride to casually dismiss them.  And you'd be right.

But I'm not casually dismissing them.  

I firmly believe in the authority of the Church.  I believe the pope is the pope.  I believe the bishops are the bishops.  If they tell me to do something that is not against my conscience, I will obey, even if it means my death. 

 

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

What false position did I state about you in the passage that you quoted?

Am I limited to the passage that I quoted?    My point is that I'm not going against "the bishops".  I'm going against "some bishops".  I'm not doing it on my own or coming up with my own ideas or my own authority (at least, not outside the authority given to me by my Creator).

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

Priests and bishops have had disagreements with each other from about 2 weeks after our Lord formed the church an consistently over the past 2000 year history of the church, so what you say would have always been true I think. There is always gonna be some bishop somewhere in the world who has a contrary view to the established majority but why does it matter exactly?

Yes, I believe this is true.  The Church ended up deciding those things by means of exercising Her authority.  

Very often the Church decides in favor against the established majority.  The fact that there's a majority in anything means absolutely nothing.  And that's what matters here.

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

My bishop is Michael Burbide in the Diocese of Arlington. If I have taken any position contrary to him please feel to inform me of what it is. To what diocese do you belong?

I'm not willing to provide that information.  As is clear, I've taken a position contrary to the majority.  In today's culture, that can actually be dangerous.  

I don't know anything about your bishop.  Nor was it my intention to try to discover who your bishop is.  Nor do I really care.

53 minutes ago, Peace said:

Now whether or not that is what you did - I don't know, but I don't hear very many bishops at all saying that it is immoral to take the COVID vaccine so odds are I think you had to go hunting (perhaps on a site like Lifesite news) to find the few number of bishops who seem to be taking that position.

Well, I'm a regular reader of LifeSiteNews, so I didn't have to look very far at all.   Disclaimer: I don't support everything that LifeSiteNews puts out.  In fact, for a long time I really didn't like them.  I thought, like Michael Voris, they were a little too critical of bishops, unnecessarily.  I think the state of the world has changed now, though, to the point that the world itself moved into a position where that's largely no longer the case.  Also, I've seen a few articles there advocating for the SSPX, and I DO NOT support the SSPX.

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

If Pope Francis installs a new bishop in my diocese and tomorrow the new bishop says that "I consider it immoral to take the vaccine and laypersons in my diocese are prohibited from taking the vaccine" then I am not taking the vaccine. Period.

That's exactly my problem, here.  That's a heresy.  That's moral relativism.  

If something is immoral in one diocese, it's immoral in all of them (notwithstanding other circumstances that could potentially arise).  These bishops are not saying, "It's moral in my diocese".  They are saying, "It's moral for laypeople."  

If your current bishop tells you something is moral, and then you get a new bishop who tells you that same thing is immoral, one of them is wrong, and you would have the obligation to pick sides, in that case.  The authority of the previous bishop is not overridden by the new one.  If that were the case, the Catholic Church could not possibly be the True Church.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this argument - please clarify.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Anything official on that?

Sorry, no, nothing official.  As I said, I last looked at the issue a long time ago.  I'd need to study up, as well.  I just don't think the idea is completely unfounded.  I could be wrong.

34 minutes ago, Peace said:

@fides' Jack Yeah I think this pretty much proves you wrong pal.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html

I'm not above admitting I was wrong.  Thanks for looking it up (honestly - I really appreciate it - I'm going to forward that to a friend whom I had a similar discussion with recently).  Seems you proved both of us wrong.  There IS a primary, but it's spreading the Gospel, not providing Sacraments.

One last thought - it's true that I disagree with some bishops, but what I disagree with is NOT regarding the Church's teaching on morality.  I've seen the same Church documents used by both sides of the issue.  What I disagree with is the application of the Church's moral teachings to the issue of Wuhan Virus vaccines (and face masks, and shutdowns).  Really, mostly what I'm disagreeing with is the science (at least in this very specific case).  That's a matter of opinion, and as such I'm free to disagree with my bishop to my heart's content.  And that is specifically why the Church teaches that one is NOT morally obligated to take any vaccine, because it is a personal decision.  

That being said, I'm not even sure that I am disagreeing with my bishop.  My bishop is one who has endeavored to keep mostly quiet on the issue.  In that case, even if it were a matter of Church teaching, wouldn't I have the responsibility of looking to see what other bishops are saying? 

[fides' Jack]

On the issue of water baptism: https://angelusnews.com/faith/emergencies-and-baptism-will-soda-water-do/

I'm taking this to mean, then, that soda (pop, coke, etc...) is not valid, even if the majority of the drink is water.  I know I've heard arguments against this, but I think Pope Gregory IX supersedes those arguments.

But I also don't see any reason why wet sand could not be used.  In that case, I think the sand itself is more like the medium being used to carry the water, than the material of the sacrament, itself.

This explanation is sufficient for me.

Back to the discussion at hand...

24 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's a matter of opinion, and as such I'm free to disagree with my bishop to my heart's content. 

Hmm...  Rereading my own post, I think this statement isn't exactly correct.  I should have said, "with sufficient reason, I'm free to disagree [...]".

[Peace]

36 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Very often the Church decides in favor against the established majority.  The fact that there's a majority in anything means absolutely nothing.  And that's what matters here.

Sure, but we get back to the same question. What is the process for deciding which set of bishops is correct? Ultimately your answer is that YOU get to decide who is correct, among bishops who disagree. When there are bishops who disagree you will rely on your own knowledge of the faith, analyze the situation for yourself, and decide who is right and who is wrong, and follow those bishops accordingly, correct?

But that's not how it works. You are under the authority of a specific bishop. You are supposed to follow him. If you disagree with him, you are supposed to it up with the pope. That is how it works. Otherwise just become a Protestant or an EO and do it their way and follow whomever you think is correct - which is essentially what you seem to be advocating for.

You are supposed to follow your bishop and your pope. If they are wrong the issue will eventually be worked out and they will eventually get it right, as the church always does. But working out issues of doctrine are for the bishops and the pope to work out (sometimes with the assistance of faithful laypeople and theologians) because they have ultimate teaching authority. The lay-person is to follow the teaching of his pastor, bishop, and pope. It's not up to him to go around making determinations of what bishop is right and what bishop is wrong (theological cherry-picking).

If you can find me anything that indicates that bishop cherry-picking is an acceptable practice in the church I'd be happy to consider it, however. I doubt you are gonna find many Catholic documents that say "A layperson is free not to follow the bishop who presides over him with respect to moral issues because he thinks the bishop is wrong." If you look at what the church has to say about that I think you are gonna see a pretty strongly enunciated hierarchy that indicates that you are to follow the bishop over you instead of choosing the bishop that you think is correct.

Quote

That's exactly my problem, here.  That's a heresy.  That's moral relativism.  

If something is immoral in one diocese, it's immoral in all of them (notwithstanding other circumstances that could potentially arise).  These bishops are not saying, "It's moral in my diocese".  They are saying, "It's moral for laypeople."  

If your current bishop tells you something is moral, and then you get a new bishop who tells you that same thing is immoral, one of them is wrong, and you would have the obligation to pick sides, in that case.  The authority of the previous bishop is not overridden by the new one.  If that were the case, the Catholic Church could not possibly be the True Church.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this argument - please clarify.

Well obviously if two bishops take mutually exclusive positions on an issue one of them is right and one of them is wrong. But the fact that bishops disagree on a point does not give you license to choose whichever bishop you think is correct. You don't get to "pick sides" when bishops are in disagreement? That is what the Protestants do when their pastors disagree on some issue! They just go to the church down the road that teaches something that they like. If we had that type of license then there would be absolutely no obligation whatsoever to follow a bishop who presides over you ever at any point in time, because there has been at least a few bishops out of agreement with each other throughout the long-history of the church.

What I think it comes down to is this - you actually don't think that an individual lay-Catholic has an obligation to follow his bishop. You think that the individual lay-Catholic only has an obligation to follow his bishop insofar as the lay-Catholic has a personal belief that the bishop is teaching correct doctrine. In other words, feel free to ignore the bishop if you think he is wrong. Dude, this is exactly your view. Heck, maybe your view is even correct. I don't think so, but it could be correct. Can you admit that this is your view though?

Quote

Sorry, no, nothing official.  As I said, I last looked at the issue a long time ago.  I'd need to study up, as well.  I just don't think the idea is completely unfounded.  I could be wrong.

I'm not above admitting I was wrong.  Thanks for looking it up (honestly - I really appreciate it - I'm going to forward that to a friend whom I had a similar discussion with recently).  Seems you proved both of us wrong.  There IS a primary, but it's spreading the Gospel, not providing Sacraments.

Fair enough.

Quote

One last thought - it's true that I disagree with some bishops, but what I disagree with is NOT regarding the Church's teaching on morality.  I've seen the same Church documents used by both sides of the issue.  What I disagree with is the application of the Church's moral teachings to the issue of Wuhan Virus vaccines (and face masks, and shutdowns).  Really, mostly what I'm disagreeing with is the science (at least in this very specific case).  That's a matter of opinion, and as such I'm free to disagree with my bishop to my heart's content.  And that is specifically why the Church teaches that one is NOT morally obligated to take any vaccine, because it is a personal decision.  

Do you agree that it is licit to take the current COVID-19 vaccines? Before you seemed to suggest that it is clearly immoral to take the vaccines, and I don't see how you see anything in the CDF document that remotely supports that view. But perhaps you can explain that to me.

Quote

That being said, I'm not even sure that I am disagreeing with my bishop.  My bishop is one who has endeavored to keep mostly quiet on the issue.  In that case, even if it were a matter of Church teaching, wouldn't I have the responsibility of looking to see what other bishops are saying? 

Have you really tried to find out what your bishops position is on that issue? Heck if you tell us who he is I bet I can find out the info for you.

But it does not ultimately matter to you what his position on it is, right?  Because if he says "it is moral to take the vaccine" you would still hold the belief that it is immoral to take the vaccine, no?

So how are you under his authority if you are gonna believe what you are gonna believe regardless even if his view opposes yours?

33 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

On the issue of water baptism: https://angelusnews.com/faith/emergencies-and-baptism-will-soda-water-do/

I'm taking this to mean, then, that soda (pop, coke, etc...) is not valid, even if the majority of the drink is water.  I know I've heard arguments against this, but I think Pope Gregory IX supersedes those arguments.

But I also don't see any reason why wet sand could not be used.  In that case, I think the sand itself is more like the medium being used to carry the water, than the material of the sacrament, itself.

This explanation is sufficient for me.

Well for one thing Sacraments have a purpose of reflecting a changed reality. With baptism you have the washing with the water that symbolizes the true inward cleansing of the person's soul. Now if you are taking mud and putting it on someone's head the symbolic aspect of the Sacrament is totally trashed I think. You don't make an outward symbol of a man's soul being cleaned by putting dirty mud on him. Makes no sense at all to me.

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Do you agree that it is licit to take the current COVID-19 vaccines? Before you seemed to suggest that it is clearly immoral to take the vaccines, and I don't see how you see anything in the CDF document that remotely supports that view. But perhaps you can explain that to me.

This seems to be our biggest disconnect.  I've already started a thread on this, with a link to a LifeSiteNews article wherein a priest discusses exactly why the CDF document, correctly applied, would prohibit taking the experimental shots (I'm done calling them vaccines - they are not - technically speaking).

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You don't make an outward symbol of a man's soul being cleaned by putting dirty mud on him.

Eh, I don't know.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but it seems to me like that's based on feelings.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

What I think it comes down to is this - you actually don't think that an individual lay-Catholic has an obligation to follow his bishop.

If it's not a matter of faith or morals, and you have sufficient reason, you are not under an obligation to follow your bishop.

If it is a matter of faith or morals, and you think your bishop is not following Church teaching, there are a number of factors that come into play to determine what an appropriate course of action would be.

 

You have me on the defensive here, since you have been pressing for what actions I've taken.  So I will say this, if it helps to get the topic back to the subject matter and OFF of needing to defend my own, personal actions:

• I HAVE contacted my bishop.  
• I HAVE spoken with my pastor.
• I HAVE spoken with my spiritual director (not the same priest).
• I've done sufficient research for my own personal life, and that of my family.

Even though I believe this is ultimately not a disagreement in faith or morals, I still believe that disagreeing with any bishop is a serious matter.  It's not something I take lightly.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

This seems to be our biggest disconnect.  I've already started a thread on this, with a link to a LifeSiteNews article wherein a priest discusses exactly why the CDF document, correctly applied, would prohibit taking the experimental shots (I'm done calling them vaccines - they are not - technically speaking).

A person cannot expect anyone to take that article seriously unless he is under the influence of a controlled substance. It is an opinion of a purported "priest" under a fictitious name. It could be the opinion of a Wiccan for all I know.

You will follow the opinion of an unknown person going under a fictitious name and not follow the teaching of your own bishop?

It is completely ridiculous to conclude that the CDF document prohibits explicitly what it states is licit. It is like the Protestants who say that "A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" means "A man is justified by faith alone, and not by works."

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You don't make an outward symbol of a man's soul being cleaned by putting dirty mud on him. Makes no sense at all to me.

Random thought: Jesus used mud to cure blindness.  There may be some relevance, maybe not.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

A person cannot expect anyone to take that article seriously unless he is under the influence of a controlled substance. It is an opinion of a purported "priest" under a fictitious name. It could be the opinion of a Wiccan for all I know.

Ok, hakutaku.  Let's stick to logic on this, and drop the ad hominem...  

1 minute ago, Peace said:

You will follow the opinion of an unknown person going under a fictitious name and not follow the teaching of your own bishop?

This isn't the only relevant source.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

It is like the Protestants who say that "A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" means "A man is justified by faith alone, and not by works."

False analogy.

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

It is completely ridiculous to conclude that the CDF document prohibits explicitly what it states is licit.

Unless the logic used to state why it is licit is improperly applied.

 

Again, it comes down to the science.  You can't apply bad science to the moral teachings of the Church and expect a good outcome.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Eh, I don't know.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but it seems to me like that's based on feelings.

What do you mean based on feelings? I'm pretty sure you can find plenty of Church documents that discuss the symbolic aspect of Baptism. It's in the Bible itself no?

You'll find that a whole heck of a lot faster than you will find a document that states throw some mud on somebody and call it a valid baptism.

Quote

If it's not a matter of faith or morals, and you have sufficient reason, you are not under an obligation to follow your bishop.

If it is a matter of faith or morals, and you think your bishop is not following Church teaching, there are a number of factors that come into play to determine what an appropriate course of action would be.

Whatever those factors are I am pretty sure "shop for a new bishop who agrees with you" ain't one of them.

Quote

You have me on the defensive here, since you have been pressing for what actions I've taken.  So I will say this, if it helps to get the topic back to the subject matter and OFF of needing to defend my own, personal actions:

• I HAVE contacted my bishop.  
• I HAVE spoken with my pastor.
• I HAVE spoken with my spiritual director (not the same priest).
• I've done sufficient research for my own personal life, and that of my family.

Well, what did your pastor and bishop say? Do they agree or disagree with your view concerning the vaccine?

Quote

Even though I believe this is ultimately not a disagreement in faith or morals, I still believe that disagreeing with any bishop is a serious matter.  It's not something I take lightly.

That's cool. I don't see how it's not a disagreement in faith though. If you read that CDF document it clearly indicates that taking the vaccine is licit. You are going on the internet and stating the exact opposite, that it is immoral to take the vaccine. How in the world are you not directly contradicting the CDF when it comes to the moral question of whether it is licit to take the vaccine?

9 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Random thought: Jesus used mud to cure blindness.  There may be some relevance, maybe not.

Ok, hakutaku.  Let's stick to logic on this, and drop the ad hominem...  

This isn't the only relevant source.

False analogy.

Unless the logic used to state why it is licit is improperly applied.

 

Again, it comes down to the science.  You can't apply bad science to the moral teachings of the Church and expect a good outcome.

Alright well explain to me where the CDF document teaches that it is immoral to take the vaccine. You can find a link to the text on the Vatican website. I asked you from the get-go to get down to the nuts and bolts of your position, then you respond by referring to an internet article discussing an opinion of only God-knows-who. Please show me exactly where in the CDF document it teaches or leads to a conclusion that taking the vaccine is immoral. Please quote the exact text in the document that teaches that.

I have already quoted the EXACT text in this thread where the document states that taking the vaccine is licit.

So who is really blowing smoke here?

Edited April 27, 2021 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

47 minutes ago, Peace said:

So who is really blowing smoke here?

I don't think either of us is blowing smoke.  I think we're both circling around our own opinions.

47 minutes ago, Peace said:

Please show me exactly where in the CDF document it teaches or leads to a conclusion that taking the vaccine is immoral.  Please quote the exact text in the document that teaches that.

Quote

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has issued documents affirming the position that based on the principle of remote material cooperation with evil, one can morally accept the use of abortion-tainted therapeutic interventions, such as vaccines, to neutralize a health threat, if all of the following necessary conditions are met:

• There is no available morally untainted therapeutic intervention that neutralizes the proposed health threat.
• There must exist a proportionate cause for using an abortion tainted therapeutic intervention based on the risks involved.
• There must exist an actual grave threat to your health or that of others if you were to refrain from taking the proposed abortion tainted therapeutic intervention.
• One must oppose the abortion taintedness of the therapeutic intervention.

All four of these conditions must be met in order for the use of an abortion-tainted product such as a vaccine to be considered morally licit. And thus, all that is necessary for one to prove the grave moral sinfulness of the use of vaccines that are tainted by the grave evil of abortion, is to show that just one of the necessary conditions listed by the Vatican is absent. And yet, the first three conditions for moral liceity have not been met.

If you need to see the specific words from the CDF, "This is immoral", then we both know you won't find it.  Clearly, the CDF came to the opposite conclusion.  Here is the document in question :

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

Whatever those factors are I am pretty sure "shop for a new bishop who agrees with you" ain't one of them.

Nobody is advocating for that.

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well, what did your pastor and bishop say? Do they agree or disagree with your view concerning the vaccine?

I hesitate discussing this, because it's really noneya, and certainly if, for whatever reason, this became more public, I wouldn't want any details like that to surface.

Suffice it to say that none of them will give me a definitive answer.  The best I can get is that it's a very political matter, currently, and that that, in itself, lends to doubt in all directions. 

If it helps ease your constant worry over my contrary positions, I was told I have legitimate concerns.  But I do appreciate your concern.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Alright well explain to me where the CDF document teaches that it is immoral to take the vaccine.

See quote above.

[Anastasia]

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I think this is very true.  I'm certainly guilty of this.  History is not my strong suit, at all.

I did not mean history as "a mere knowledge about historical events". I deliberately used the word "heritage" meaning, if you like, a tradition one absorbs so it affects his thinking/spirituality. For example, most Roman Catholics know only one theory of Atonement, "satisfaction", of St. Anselm while being unaware about other theories which have been far more prominent and developed in the undivided Church, in the East. Naturally, the thinking of a RC who knows only the legalistic theory will be very different from the thinking of a RC who knows other theories and understands them and sees their truth. Consequentially, the mind of the former will be closed to the eastern Orthodox argument while the latter will be open for such because he understand the Eastern way of thinking of such matters.

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

But to defend @Peace's position, there are reasons the schism occurred.  Roman Catholics cannot support a number of the beliefs held by the EO.

The reasons the Schism occurred were overwhelmingly political in a nature. The fact that the Schism has not been really practiced for centuries (and even not known) and never been complete (with all "doors" locked supports it).

As for the inability of the Roman Catholic Church to accept a number of beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church actually does officially accept them. Catholic Church consists not just of the Roman Catholic Church but of many others, like Byzantine or Eastern Catholic Churches. They did not drop their theology and laws and Saints which are identical to the Eastern Orthodox. For example, Eastern Catholics do not believe in purgatory as the Rome teaches - and, strangely enough, that does not make then non-Catholics. Also, Eastern Catholics retain all their Saints including St Gregory Palama, St Mark of Ephesus and many others fervently anti-Latin Saints. Of course they have married clergy and other customs which are "not acceptable" for the Latin Church. And yet they are considered to be fully Catholics.

The only reason those who hold the Eastern Orthodox faith are considered by Rome to be Catholics is their acceptance of the Pope, his role being defined by one of the latest Councils of the Roman Catholic Church. The only difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholics is that EO do not accept the role of the Pope as it was defined later and the EC do. Otherwise our beliefs are identical.

This is actually the whole point of my argument here: when a RC agues with an EO about something on the grounds that "we do not accept your belief" he only says "I do not know anything about a huge part of my own Church, the Eastern and I see no reason to know".

I understand of course that the argument "you are RC so we will not listen to you" is simply a primitive psychological defense of one who desperately does not want to give up own comfortable position. However, we know from the Scripture that even the donkey can prophesy if God wills )).

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

That being said, you are correct in your assessment of where we should all be standing together against abortion. 

This is a very limiting view of what I have been saying here. EO and RC Churches do not need each other "to stand against abortion", we both have our well-formed views on it. I was saying the following: the time came when things are getting very murky, when in both Churches we see apostasia dressed in "nice" clothes like "partake the evil for the sake of your neighbour" (that comes from forgetting about the first commandment "you shall love your God" and only then "you shall love your neighbour") - and that evil can be recognized only by those who make Christ the Person their all. No matter what the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox Churches think of each other they are, by the virtue of the apostolic succession, shared dogmas and Christ in the Cup are One Body of Christ (and whether they want it or not), the Church which should not spend its time for the secondary debates about mutual differences but for the recognition of the evil dressed in good and warning others about that evil. In fact, precisely the differences in two Churches should enable them to compliment each other in this eschatological task (both Churches have their peculiar blind spots).

I am not here to discuss secondary things.

[Anastasia]

PS A correction:

  

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

I understand of course that the argument "you are not RC so we will not listen to you" is simply a primitive psychological defense of one who desperately does not want to give up own comfortable position.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Anastasia