fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

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.

I completely agree with this.  I don't think that @Peace would disagree on this point, either.

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

This is a very limiting view of what I have been saying here.

My apologies - that wasn't my intent.  

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I am not here to discuss secondary things.

I will not address those paragraphs above, then, as much as I want to...

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

I will not address those paragraphs above, then, as much as I want to...

If you wish we can open a new topic “Orthodox is here – ask me anything” or “Orthodox and Catholic: an attempt to understand each other” etc. so you could write there and I could comment. I also have something to say here, for example re: the role of a priest, partially because I remember very well its definition by Pope Benedict XVI which is very similar to what I wrote earlier. (I would not be interested in “catching the fleas”, as we say in Russia, like “you did it wrong” – “no, you did it wrong” but in a simple exchange of opinions and views which may be mutually enriching.) However, I refrain from commenting “the ecumenical matters” here because I do not wish this important topic to be sunk by off-tops.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Anastasia

[Ash Wednesday]

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

If you wish we can open a new topic “Orthodox is here – ask me anything” or “Orthodox and Catholic: an attempt to understand each other” etc. so you could write there and I could comment. I also have something to say here, for example re: the role of a priest, partially because I remember very well its definition by Pope Benedict XVI which is very similar to what I wrote earlier. (I would not be interested in “catching the fleas”, as we say in Russia, like “you did it wrong” – “no, you did it wrong” but in a simple exchange of opinions and views which may be mutually enriching.) However, I refrain from commenting “the ecumenical matters” here because I do not wish this important topic to be sunk by off-tops.

I think this would be a great idea. 

Some of the different viewpoints going on have underlying root Church differences so discussing the basics would be very useful elsewhere. I've seen a lot of Catholic/Protestant discussions in my day but Catholic/Orthodox not as much. 

[Peace]

15 hours ago, Anastasia said:

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.

No, it is not true that most Roman Catholics only know one theory of atonement. Most RC know of no theories of atonement.

RC who take their faith seriously are well aware of the various theories of atonement. Perhaps the RC that you have personally run into only know of one theory, but that is not a fair generalization.

Quote

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.

Well for one the modern teaching with respect to satisfaction is not strictly St. Anselm's theory. It is an adaptation of Anselm's theory generally set forth by St. Thomas Aquinas  in the Summa.

Regardless, neither Anselm or Aquinas's version of satisfaction is "legalistic." That is also wrong. Protestant "penal substitution" is "legalistic" but satisfaction is not based on a strict law-court analogy. The idea with satisfaction is that our Lord's sacrifice on the cross appeased God's anger toward man, but not in some strict legalistic sense of "man deserved XYZ punishment, and our Lord died on the cross to pay the punishment that man deserved." That is protestant legalistic thinking, not Catholic.

Quote

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.

Yeah I think you are wrong here too. The official Roman teaching on purgatory is found in the Council of Trent and is to be accepted de fide by all Catholics.

The problem here is that many non-Catholics ascribe many of the various speculative theories with respect to purgatory as the "Official teaching of Rome" when in fact Rome officially teaches no such things (and explicitly indicates that those teachings should not be taught). Then because not all Catholics (such as Eastern Catholics) follow the speculative teachings, people come along and say that Eastern Catholics do not follow the Roman teaching on purgatory. But that is a complete straw-man argument because the Roman teaching on purgatory is not what they claim it to be.

The only dogmatic points that Rome enforces are that 1) there is a state of transition for those en-rout to heaven (which Western-rite Catholics generally refer to as purgatory) and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead in that state of purgatory. Eastern Catholics hold this although they generally don't use the word "purgatory" when speaking of it.

Quote

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.

Yeah I'd rather say that the only reason why EO are not considered Roman Catholics is because they reject the pope. You seem to be driving some huge split between Eastern and Western Catholics but we reject that. The Catholic church has different rites and expressions of the faith and they are all equally valid and part of the same one true church. The problem is that you reject the pope, not that there is a division between Eastern and Western Catholics.

Quote

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 )).

The problem with most of the anti-RC arguments on this site (and why people such as myself do not even take them seriously) is that they are usually just your personal opinions and conclusions and you do not offer any form of logic or evidence supporting your conclusions. If you laid out your arguments in a logical manner and offered proofs and evidence in support of them, I would image that I and many others would be happy to consider them (and refute them). But if you just come on the site and say "RC do this" and "RC do that" and "RC are wrong on this issue and that issue", I do not see anything in the statement that warrants serious consideration. It is the same as an atheist who says to me "there is no God" and offers no proof or logic to support the view. It is to be summarily dismissed as nonsense.

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Anastasia said:

If you wish we can open a new topic “Orthodox is here – ask me anything” or “Orthodox and Catholic: an attempt to understand each other” etc. so you could write there and I could comment. I also have something to say here, for example re: the role of a priest, partially because I remember very well its definition by Pope Benedict XVI which is very similar to what I wrote earlier. (I would not be interested in “catching the fleas”, as we say in Russia, like “you did it wrong” – “no, you did it wrong” but in a simple exchange of opinions and views which may be mutually enriching.) However, I refrain from commenting “the ecumenical matters” here because I do not wish this important topic to be sunk by off-tops.

All of these attempts to keep a thread on topic are in vain. This is Phatmass. We thread hijack and go off-topic here. There hasn't been a thread on this forum that has not gone off-topic in 17 years!

Now - if you want to prove that the RC Church has taken an incorrect position when it comes to the vaccines because the CDF document does not have the spirit of "repentance", you have stated your opinion on that, and it has been responded to. In particular I wrote that the CDF document does not view the action as "sin" that needs to be repented of, and you have not provided any proof here as to why the CDF conclusion in that respect is wrong. So there is nothing lift to discuss on that topic unless you can explain why the CDF conclusion that the action is question is not sin is incorrect. What commandment does taking the vaccine violate? Where is taking the vaccine prohibited in Sacred Scripture? What natural law principle does taking the vaccine violate? What ecumenical teaching is taking the vaccine inconsistent with?

You just seem to assume that taking the vaccine is sinful and expect everyone to blindly accept your opinion on your matter. But that is what you need to prove before your view can be given serious consideration. Nobody is going to accept your conclusion simply because you wrote it on the internet.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Peace

[Anastasia]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

You just seem to assume that taking the vaccine is sinful and expect everyone to blindly accept your opinion on your matter. But that is what you need to prove before your view can be given serious consideration. Nobody is going to accept your conclusion simply because you wrote it on the internet.

You seem to feel very comfortable speaking on behalf of “everyone” and  attributing to me your own grandiosity (it is called “projection”). I do not “expect” you or “everyone” “to blindly accept” what I say. I say what I have to say and this is up to one who hears to accept or not to accept it and that's all there is to it.

6 hours ago, Peace said:

What commandment does taking the vaccine violate? Where is taking the vaccine prohibited in Sacred Scripture? What natural law principle does taking the vaccine violate? What ecumenical teaching is taking the vaccine inconsistent with?

Well, if you do not feel repugnance/fear/confusion about the idea of receiving the abortion-tainted vaccine then no one can convince you that the idea is quite evil. Essentially, it is about empathy and personhood, about a feeling that a foetus has personhood = recognizing in him or her a human being just like you. As I said in the beginning of this thread, to see the evil in the abortion-tainted vaccines does not require one even to be a Christian; all that it requires is empathy and acute sense of personhood another human being processes. One violates personhood via aborting/extracting a tissue from a human body/making a cell line/calling it “HEK” or whatever/creating a vaccine that utilized the preceding steps/giving the vaccine/receiving the vaccine/saying it is OK and arguing with others who say it is not.

If a person feels he violates the personhood of the other/participates in such a violation he naturally feels remorse and remorse brings repentance, in whatever form.

Hypothetically speaking, it is quite easy to justify someone’s usage of the lampshade made with human skin if it is all the person has using cold logic. It is equally easy to justify making a soap with a corpse (why to waste?). I do not recall Scripture or Ecumenical Councils speaking “you shall not make a lampshade with a human skin”. But most people simply feel it should not be done, without the need to refer to a particular canon law or quotes from the holy books. Why? – Because they are able to make a connection “I – another human being”; “he was used for making a lampshade – I also could”. Analogically, many non-Christians do not need quotes from some books to make a connection “an aborted child used for a vaccine – a child like my child”. I suppose it is “the law written in a heart”.

So, the argument about the abortion-tainted vaccines is essentially about recognition or obliteration of the personhood of the foetus. 

[Anastasia]

One does not need the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Pope/Patriarch to feel that the abortion-tainted vaccine is evil. One does need though the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Pope/Patriarch to obliterate that natural feeling and to proceed comfortably. This is, of course, a total reverse of normality.

Whatever else I could say re: the abortion-tainted vaccines can be read here
Communion of abandonment

Edited April 29, 2021 by Anastasia

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

You seem to feel very comfortable speaking on behalf of “everyone” and  attributing to me your own grandiosity (it is called “projection”). I do not “expect” you or “everyone” “to blindly accept” what I say. I say what I have to say and this is up to one who hears to accept or not to accept it and that's all there is to it.

Yes I am very comfortable with that. I was elected as official spokesperson of Phatmass 3 years ago on this very date.

29 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Well, if you do not feel repugnance/fear/confusion about the idea of receiving the abortion-tainted vaccine then no one can convince you that the idea is quite evil. Essentially, it is about empathy and personhood, about a feeling that a foetus has personhood = recognizing in him or her a human being just like you. As I said in the beginning of this thread, to see the evil in the abortion-tainted vaccines does not require one even to be a Christian; all that it requires is empathy and acute sense of personhood another human being processes. One violates personhood via aborting/extracting a tissue from a human body/making a cell line/calling it “HEK” or whatever/creating a vaccine that utilized the preceding steps/giving the vaccine/receiving the vaccine/saying it is OK and arguing with others who say it is not.

If a person feels he violates the personhood of the other/participates in such a violation he naturally feels remorse and remorse brings repentance, in whatever form.

Hypothetically speaking, it is quite easy to justify someone’s usage of the lampshade made with human skin if it is all the person has using cold logic. It is equally easy to justify making a soap with a corpse (why to waste?). I do not recall Scripture or Ecumenical Councils speaking “you shall not make a lampshade with a human skin”. But most people simply feel it should not be done, without the need to refer to a particular canon law or quotes from the holy books. Why? – Because they are able to make a connection “I – another human being”; “he was used for making a lampshade – I also could”. Analogically, many non-Christians do not need quotes from some books to make a connection “an aborted child used for a vaccine – a child like my child”. I suppose it is “the law written in a heart”.

So, the argument about the abortion-tainted vaccines is essentially about recognition or obliteration of the personhood of the foetus. 

What exactly is your understanding of "repentance"? When most Catholics speak of "repentance" or say that an action needs to be "repented of" generally the statement presumes that the the person has performed a sinful action for which he is personally culpable. As in, after taking the vaccine we need to go to confession and say "Forgive me father, for I have committed the sin of taking the vaccine." Is it your opinion that everyone who takes this vaccine has committed a sin that will punished if he does not otherwise make penance and atonement for it?

Is the EO Church teaching that those who take the vaccine must confess the action as a sin, and perform penance for the evil that they personally committed in taking the vaccine? When we say "repent of a sin" this is what we are talking about.

You seem to use the word "repentance" in different and much broader sense. Kind of like a person should feel "I needed to take the vaccine but I should lament the fact that our society did not produce a vaccine that was not tainted by abortion, and that the vaccine that I needed to take for my safety was tainted and I have cooperated in this evil thing that has occurred." Is this the sort of "repentance" that you want or do you want a formal recognition that the person who has taken the vaccine has committed a sin that merits divine punishment?

If you want the former then you need to establish that the person is culpable for a sinful action in the Catholic sense of formal culpability. You haven't done that. You seem to argue that any Christian or any human being on the Earth who recognizes that the fetus is a part of the human community and worthy of the same level of dignity as other every other human must conclude that a person who has taken the vaccine has personally sinned. That's fine if you feel that way but many others are going to disagree. It's not like the people who wrote the CDF document don't recognize the evil of abortion and the dignity and personhood of the fetus. I and every other faithful Catholic recognizes those things but not of al of us come to the conclusion you seem to have reached. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that since you think it is plainly obvious and will not base your arguments on formal logic but instead on generic ideas about how people should feel.

Now, if you wanted the latter - that Catholics recognize that by taking a tainted vaccine there is a cooperation with evil and that it is lamentful that these vaccines exist and that some people may need to take them as a matter of safety - practically everyone in this thread already agrees with this, and I assure you that practically every faithful lay-Catholic, Bishop, etc. already agrees with that too. Everybody here sees the evil in that and wishes that the situation were otherwise, that we did not face these difficult choices and we desire a vaccine that is not tainted at all. That should be obvious to you unless you think that we are just a bunch of folks over here who do not take abortion seriously and do not see the human life in and intrinsic value of the fetus. The evil involved in the creation of those vaccines is plainly obvious to any faithful Catholic as it should be so I'm not sure why you seem to think that we do not recognize it.

You can even see that idea expressed within the CDF document itself. Specifically the document defines the action of taking the vaccine as a remote and passive material cooperation in the evil of abortion. What do think that is exactly? A honky-dory conclusion that the vaccines are perfectly fine and that they do not raise serious moral issues?

 The CDF document also indicates that there is a moral duty to avoid cooperation in that evil unless otherwise justifiable by some grave reason such as prevention of deaths from the virus.

Other various documents on that topic such as those referenced in the CDF document also talk about the moral need for all of us to continue to work towards vaccines and other health solutions that are not tainted in any manner by abortion.

So precisely what is it that you want that Catholics have not done already? What specifically would you like the CDF or other Catholics to state, that we have not stated already?

48 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

One does not need the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Pope/Patriarch to feel that the abortion-tainted vaccine is evil. One does need though the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Pope/Patriarch to obliterate that natural feeling and to proceed comfortably. This is, of course, a total reverse of normality.

Whatever else I could say re: the abortion-tainted vaccines can be read here
Communion of abandonment

Again - no faithful Catholic is proceeding "comfortably" about taking the decision to take or not take these abortion-tainted vaccines. What exactly is it that you think faithful Catholics who take the vaccine feel about them? That we all look at them as these grand super-duper substances that are totally cool? That we don't feel bad and morally conflicted about the means by which they were produced?

[Peace]

I mean - you just want us to feel bad? We all feel bad about the situation. Are you happy now? What else do you want?

[fides' Jack]

22 hours ago, Peace said:

No, it is not true that most Roman Catholics only know one theory of atonement. Most RC know of no theories of atonement.

RC who take their faith seriously are well aware of the various theories of atonement. Perhaps the RC that you have personally run into only know of one theory, but that is not a fair generalization.

I take my faith seriously, and I know of no "theories of atonement".  I have no idea what a "theory of atonement" is.  

Having just googled, I can say that to be a faithful Catholic, a person doesn't need to know this.  A Catholic in good standing only needs to know what the Catholic Church teaches, and not what other religions believe or theorize about.

In moral matters, Catholics don't rely on theories, we rely on truth, as presented to us through the Catholic Church.

22 hours ago, Peace said:

All of these attempts to keep a thread on topic are in vain. This is Phatmass. We thread hijack and go off-topic here. There hasn't been a thread on this forum that has not gone off-topic in 17 years!

I think that's an exaggeration.  Personally I would've liked to see it stay on topic.

[fides' Jack]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Specifically the document defines the action of taking the vaccine as a remote and passive material cooperation in the evil of abortion

More back on topic, now.  The document defines that but also ignores any and all other moral considerations for taking the vaccine.

https://rumble.com/vblh29

 

Fr. Michael Copenhagen (from over a decade ago):

Quote

An assessment of cooperation with evil in terms of distance from the original abortion is necessary, but ultimately insufficient as criterion, because there is another distinct and more immediate category of sin involved. The recipient is an immediate participant in the commission of the continuous theft of human remains obtained through deliberate killing. their desecration through exploitation and trafficking, as well as ultimate omission to respectfully burying them.

 

Fr. Michael Copenhagen (from over a decade ago):

Quote

An assessment of cooperation with evil in terms of distance from the original abortion is necessary, but ultimately insufficient as criterion, because there is another distinct and more immediate category of sin involved. The recipient is an immediate participant in the commission of the continuous theft of human remains obtained through deliberate killing. their desecration through exploitation and trafficking, as well as ultimate omission to respectfully burying them.

While the original killing establishes the illicit character of using the remains, their possession and use becomes a distinct evil in itself. The circumstances of which do not cease as a form of theft, desecration, exploitation and refusal to bury, regardless of the customers distance in time from the abortion, or the number of cell divisions, or the merely sub-cell or fragmentary inclusion of the child’s DNA and protein in the final dose.

 

Argh - I'm unable to edit.  I wish PM wouldn't automatically join posts unless they are within 1-2 minutes of each other.  The 2nd quote above is the full quote, the first is half of it.

[fides' Jack]

I also want to point out that even according to the CDF document, any Catholic who receives the experimental shot but does NOT protest against the moral nature of the shots, commits grave sin.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

I think that's an exaggeration.

It sure was. 16 years my friend. 16 years.

42 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I also want to point out that even according to the CDF document, any Catholic who receives the experimental shot but does NOT protest against the moral nature of the shots, commits grave sin.

Hmm. Where do you see that in the CDF document, and what type of protests suffice in your view?

I think in the various documents we can see the principle that we all have a moral duty to encourage morally produced vaccines.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

More back on topic, now.  The document defines that but also ignores any and all other moral considerations for taking the vaccine.

https://rumble.com/vblh29

 

Fr. Michael Copenhagen (from over a decade ago):

 

Fr. Michael Copenhagen (from over a decade ago):

 

Argh - I'm unable to edit.  I wish PM wouldn't automatically join posts unless they are within 1-2 minutes of each other.  The 2nd quote above is the full quote, the first is half of it.

Hmm. I think I would need to see the full quote for me to follow that. Do you have the link to the site that you got the quotes from?

At least as far as I understood it, Fr. Copenhagen appears to suggest that under virtually all circumstances any vaccine that has any connection (even very remote) with abortion would be immoral to take. But how would that be consistent with dignitas personae, which at least allows for the possibility?

In other words, under Fr. Copenhagen's standard, what is an example of a circumstance in which a tainted vaccine could be received? There does not seem to be any, no?

50 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I also want to point out that even according to the CDF document, any Catholic who receives the experimental shot but does NOT protest against the moral nature of the shots, commits grave sin.

Here I do notice that dignitas does indicate that we have a moral duty to disagree. But I don't see anything that teaches that the failure to do so is grave sin.

[Ash Wednesday]

I'll just pipe in here while I agree with the criticism that was directed towards the USCCB on launching a campaign so late, it's at least a useful resource for writing the companies.

https://www.usccb.org/resources/letters-pharmaceutical-companies

“To pick up a pin for love of God can save souls.”
-St. Therese

 

[fides' Jack]

  

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Hmm. Where do you see that in the CDF document, and what type of protests suffice in your view?

From the document:

Quote

However, it should be emphasized that the morally lawful use of these types of vaccines, due to the particular conditions that make it so, cannot in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirectly, of the practice of abortion, and presupposes the opposition to this practice by part of those who use it. [...]

It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

This is a reference to the same conditions that I already quoted above:

On 4/27/2021 at 5:58 PM, fides' Jack said:

• 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.

I'm not the authority on what type of protests suffice, so, in my view, as long as you make your opposition known to someone in the system supplying or distributing it (such as the nurse who is giving your shot, in the most micro, to sending a letter to the shot manufacturers, in the macro, then it probably suffices).  In my opinion, it does not suffice simply to oppose it on a public internet forum like this one.  For that detail, it might behoove those of you who have taken the shot to reach out to your pastor or bishop to determine the lengths which are expected.

 

2 hours ago, Peace said:

At least as far as I understood it, Fr. Copenhagen appears to suggest that under virtually all circumstances any vaccine that has any connection (even very remote) with abortion would be immoral to take. But how would that be consistent with dignitas personae, which at least allows for the possibility?

In other words, under Fr. Copenhagen's standard, what is an example of a circumstance in which a tainted vaccine could be received? There does not seem to be any, no?

If you watch the Rumble video above, Fr. Ripperger reads the quote in its entirety and explains it.  Fr. Ripperger seems to me to come to the conclusion that if the threat to your health or someone you come in contact with is immediate (as in, if you don't get the shot, you are certain to get it or give it to someone else, AND that there's a high likelihood of long-lasting or irreparable harm) then it's sufficient grave cause.  Fear that you might contract a virus eventually or give it to someone is not sufficient.  Nor is it sufficient given the fact that 99% of people are just fine after a couple weeks with the virus.  

That's my take on the conclusion of this video.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

In other words, under Fr. Copenhagen's standard, what is an example of a circumstance in which a tainted vaccine could be received? There does not seem to be any, no?

I would say, given this standard, if the rabies vaccine was made with aborted fetal cells, that would be one that would be morally-permissible to take.  But the rabies shot, despite being both safe and effective when used properly (and necessary to save lives), is also completely baby-free (from my limited understanding).