fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[little2add]

You know what is really sad about the pandemic is the loss of socialization.  Wedding’s, funeral’s, attending weekly mass, virtual classrooms in stead of classroom, missed sports / concerts events, Etc. or just going out for dinner at a nice restaurant. 
A lot of important things, have been lost...
 The idea of human fetal tissue use for medical research is abhorrent and at the very least unethical.   If the Covid vaccine is or was formulated with such then it is truly immoral to take it.

I have faith that it is not and our Church leaders are correct in approving its use.

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by little2add

[Ash Wednesday]

Ultimately I've noticed that primary differences in opinion on the application of the CDF is how grave one views covid and the pandemic to justify it. I've been too mentally and emotionally exhausted to engage in the covid debate online myself, though I make a point reading viewpoints from different sides. Sometimes I read about past pandemics and hardships from history to obtain some kind of perspective. 

[fides' Jack]

On 4/24/2021 at 8:33 AM, hakutaku said:

Lol, your "priest" had to write his article anonymously because if he put his name out there, he would have been censored by the Church.  But somehow this is taken as evidence you can validly believe what the priest said and still be in good standing with the church.

You have no ground to stand on for saying what can be validly believed by a Catholic.

Most people in the Church right now are heretics.  Bishops included.  Just because the majority of bishops say something doesn't mean it has to be believed by the faithful.  That's not how faith/morality works.

On 4/25/2021 at 5:44 AM, little2add said:

You know what is really sad about the pandemic is the loss of socialization.  Wedding’s, funeral’s, attending weekly mass, virtual classrooms in stead of classroom, missed sports / concerts events, Etc. or just going out for dinner at a nice restaurant. 
A lot of important things, have been lost...
 The idea of human fetal tissue use for medical research is abhorrent and at the very least unethical.   If the Covid vaccine is or was formulated with such then it is truly immoral to take it.

I have faith that it is not and some of our Church leaders are correct in approving its use.

 

Corrected.  

You realize that the bishops who have approved their use are putting their faith in science.  I'm not willing to put my faith in science, anymore.  I did when I was younger, but now I realize the folly in that.  Science itself is not what it used to be.  It's not scientific, anymore, it's political.  It's not concerned with discovering truth in God's universe, but in man's sinful nature.

[fides' Jack]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:43 AM, Peace said:

And that's nothing against you personally - I just don't care what any non-Catholics have to say concerning moral issues because I view my own Church as having the fullness of the truth and being the best moral authority, established by Christ himself when he personally walked the Earth.

If my own bishop told me it was immoral to take the vaccine then I think I would have a problem on my hands and I would need to figure out if I should be following my bishop or the Vatican, but as my bishop and the Vatican and most other Catholic clergy I have run into seem to take the position that it is not sin to take the vaccine, the issue is pretty much resolved for me with respect to that. If I disagreed with them I'd just be saying "I know better than you" when it comes down to it.

Emphasis added.  Sacred Scripture itself tells us there will come a time when that will no longer be the case.  When bishop will be against bishop and priest against priest.  A time when a false Church would take the place of the real Church.

And a number of saints have commented on the "road to hell".  I think the most commonly used is from St. John Chysostom, who posited:

Quote

The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path.

A Catholic cannot any longer depend on a bishop to know the Church's teachings, any longer.  Certainly not the pope, sad as it is to say.

Consider this: the same bishops who are against these vaccines are the ones most strongly against abortion, and who have called out "Catholic" politicians for their support of abortion.

I don't know how else to convey it. 

God please allow Catholics to understand the gravity of what's going on!  Send their guardian angels to wake them up!  

On 4/24/2021 at 7:26 AM, Peace said:

I think that the first reaction of any Catholic lay-person should be oriented towards obedience. If he has issues with the teaching, then there is a process whereby he can make his concerns known, but ultimately its up to the bishops to decide. The reason I am comfortable with this I suppose is that I have faith that the Church cannot teach error and that the She will ultimately work out and teach the correct doctrine, even though it may take some time for the point in question to be properly analyzed for the correct answer. There may be times along the path where bishops are wrong and laypeople are correct, but over the long course of time bishops are pretty much destined to get it right, since the Church cannot err.

I'm working backwards, here.  Forgive the ordering of my comments...

I agree this is best, during normal times.  The Church cannot err in teachings of faith or morals.  But it's clear that bishops can, and have since St. Peter.  None of the bishops are free from error.  And the pope is only free to a very limited extent.  To my knowledge he's only exercised that power in declaring saints.

So it's incorrect to say, "bishops are pretty much destined to get it right."  We're not dealing with a long course of time, right now.  We're dealing with the day-to-day changes and decisions imposed by the medical regime in the government.

On 4/24/2021 at 7:26 AM, Peace said:

With all of these other issues they are a lot more complex and I think its pretty brazen for individual laypersons to basically say "I know better than you" to their bishops and replace their bishops judgment with their own. When we do that we basically say that Holy Orders have no meaning in my opinion.

I would never say that or imply it.  All corrections of the bishops must be done with as much humility and charity as is possible to muster.  And I've endeavored to do that.

On 4/24/2021 at 3:00 PM, Peace said:

So she would look at our "annulment" as substantively the same as EO "divorce and remarriage" except that they call the activity "sin" and we do not call it sin.

In many cases annulments are invalid, because they don't follow Church teaching on when it's OK to get an annulment.  Some dioceses are more strict with regards the letter of the law.  

However, I don't have the authority to say when that's the case, and I don't have the details in any of the cases, save for possibly one.  But even the Church recognizes this and has a process to follow when annulments are declared incorrectly.  In those cases there is certainly sin involved.

I do agree with you, though, in that the Roman Catholic Church (all those rites under the authority of the Pope), contain the fullness of truth.  However, one cannot just live one's life and expect to encounter the fullness of truth, especially not from the pulpit.  You really have to search hard to find it, in these times.

[fides' Jack]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:38 AM, Ash Wednesday said:

Ultimately I've noticed that primary differences in opinion on the application of the CDF is how grave one views covid and the pandemic to justify it. I've been too mentally and emotionally exhausted to engage in the covid debate online myself, though I make a point reading viewpoints from different sides. Sometimes I read about past pandemics and hardships from history to obtain some kind of perspective. 

That's absolutely true. 

One of the chief problems with taking this vaccine is that even the government scientists agree that most people aren't really affected by COVID-19.  So, just based on that alone, if it's moral for anyone to take it, it would most likely be limited to those who are very elderly or very ill.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Emphasis added.  Sacred Scripture itself tells us there will come a time when that will no longer be the case.  When bishop will be against bishop and priest against priest.  A time when a false Church would take the place of the real Church.

And a number of saints have commented on the "road to hell".  I think the most commonly used is from St. John Chysostom, who posited:

A Catholic cannot any longer depend on a bishop to know the Church's teachings, any longer.  Certainly not the pope, sad as it is to say.

Consider this: the same bishops who are against these vaccines are the ones most strongly against abortion, and who have called out "Catholic" politicians for their support of abortion.

I don't know how else to convey it. 

God please allow Catholics to understand the gravity of what's going on!  Send their guardian angels to wake them up!  

I'm working backwards, here.  Forgive the ordering of my comments...

I agree this is best, during normal times.  The Church cannot err in teachings of faith or morals.  But it's clear that bishops can, and have since St. Peter.  None of the bishops are free from error.  And the pope is only free to a very limited extent.  To my knowledge he's only exercised that power in declaring saints.

So it's incorrect to say, "bishops are pretty much destined to get it right."  We're not dealing with a long course of time, right now.  We're dealing with the day-to-day changes and decisions imposed by the medical regime in the government.

I would never say that or imply it.  All corrections of the bishops must be done with as much humility and charity as is possible to muster.  And I've endeavored to do that.

In many cases annulments are invalid, because they don't follow Church teaching on when it's OK to get an annulment.  Some dioceses are more strict with regards the letter of the law.  

However, I don't have the authority to say when that's the case, and I don't have the details in any of the cases, save for possibly one.  But even the Church recognizes this and has a process to follow when annulments are declared incorrectly.  In those cases there is certainly sin involved.

I do agree with you, though, in that the Roman Catholic Church (all those rites under the authority of the Pope), contain the fullness of truth.  However, one cannot just live one's life and expect to encounter the fullness of truth, especially not from the pulpit.  You really have to search hard to find it, in these times.

Yeah I know you think this is the end of the world and our Lord Jesus shall return to the Earth within the next two months and all of that but folks have been saying that is gonna happen every day for the past 2000 years. Society appears to be headed in the right direction in some areas and in the wrong direction in other areas. It ain't like 500 or 1000 years ago was some era of moral sanctity you know.

Now when you write that "All corrections of the bishops must be done with as much humility and charity as is possible to muster. And I've endeavored to do that" - it is hard for me to take that seriously when in the very same post you issue a blanket dismissal of them outright by writing "A Catholic cannot any longer depend on a bishop to know the Church's teachings, any longer.  Certainly not the pope, sad as it is to say." That is not what I would call humility or charity but perhaps you have your own unique definition of it. I haven't seem much humility and charity at all in your direct repudiations of our clergy on this website, which is fine. It's your world baby do whatever you like. Just don't sell me salt and pretend that its sugar. I ain't gonna buy that.

But yeah I think we've had this debate before. I think you know my view is that essentially you act as your own pope and your own bishop. You only follow them to the extent that they agree with what you have already concluded. You only recognize them as authority to the extent that they agree with you, which in effect makes you your own authority. But that's just my opinion of course.

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Most people in the Church right now are heretics.  Bishops included.  Just because the majority of bishops say something doesn't mean it has to be believed by the faithful.  That's not how faith/morality works.

Yeah this is not what anyone would call humility and charity.

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah I know you think this is the end of the world and our Lord Jesus shall return to the Earth within the next two months and all of that but folks have been saying that is gonna happen every day for the past 2000 years.

That's not what I think.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Now when you write that "All corrections of the bishops must be done with as much humility and charity as is possible to muster. And I've endeavored to do that" - it is hard for me to take that seriously when in the very same post you issue a blanket dismissal of them outright by writing "A Catholic cannot any longer depend on a bishop to know the Church's teachings, any longer.  Certainly not the pope, sad as it is to say."

I meant personal, fraternal corrections that I've done, on my own.

Here, truth needs to be proclaimed, and if the bishops aren't on board with the truth, they should be called out for it.  And if there are some bishops who refuse to follow Church teaching, such as what they're doing in Germany, for example, they should be dismissed - and that is the charitable position.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You only follow them to the extent that they agree with what the church has already concluded.

Corrected.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You only recognize them as authority to the extent that they agree with you, which in effect makes you your own authority.

Reiterated, see correction above.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

But that's just my opinion of course.

Taken as such.  And, of course, that's the expected opinion of many.  I hold no malice against your opinions.

 

I completely understand why you feel I've taken too much authority to myself in these matters.  I have a decent enough understanding of authentic Church teaching on basic morality to have some idea of where that line is.  Ultimately, you will agree with me, our conscience comes before the will of our bishop.  If he tells us to do something contrary to what our conscience is telling us is right, we have the obligation to disobey.  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. 

(Overly dramatic?  I'm not sure, anymore...)

[Peace]

On 4/24/2021 at 6:05 PM, Ash Wednesday said:

Catholics are still given allowance to decide for themselves whether or not to take the vaccine, they are not morally obligated and indeed, some Catholics, bishops and theologians don't think the CDF guidelines of moral liceity are met and they are allowed to hold this belief.

You seem to take the view that the CDF document indicates a "general framework" or "criteria to consider" but that the document still leaves it up to each person to decide whether it is moral to take the vaccine. I don't see how you reach that conclusion, if that is your stance. What language in the text leads you to that conclusion?

At least to me the document appears to clearly indicate that it is licit to take the vaccine. I don't think anyone needs to go through any specific analysis of the factual circumstances to reach his own personal conclusion concerning the matter.

For example:

The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]--in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive.

I read that as the CDF saying that the current pandemic is a grave danger that justifies remote material cooperation in the evil, and thus the vaccine can be taken in good conscience. Do you read that statement differently? The document does not suggest to me that the individual layperson need to undergo some additional analysis of the facts to determine whether it is licit for him to take the vaccine.

The way I read the document was that there is a question for each person as to whether there is a moral obligation to take the vaccine in order to protect other people, but as to the question of whether it is morally licit to take the vaccine - I don't really see much room for debate there as far as what the CDF meant.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Science itself is not what it used to be.  It's not scientific, anymore, it's political. 

haha 
  
 

 

[Ash Wednesday]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

You seem to take the view that the CDF document indicates a "general framework" or "criteria to consider" but that the document still leaves it up to each person to decide whether it is moral to take the vaccine. I don't see how you reach that conclusion, if that is your stance. What language in the text leads you to that conclusion?

There is definitely a misunderstanding here.

The specific bit you quoted, I was discussing more in generalities related to principles consistently outlined since 2005 and the broader debate Catholics have about how those apply to the current pandemic, so it was not in any specific reference to, or interpretation of, the document from 2020.

It was related to Anastasia's assertion that the Church was pushing the vaccine on everyone as a moral obligation, and that the Church decides for us whether we should take one (the phrase she used was "we who know better have decided it for you"), when Catholics do have these debates in good faith and are allowed to refuse vaccines that use fetal cell lines for reasons of conscience, as long as they make the effort to not spread disease.

Here below, specifically is from CDF 2020:

Quote

Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

My overall point I was trying to make was it's very unfair and inaccurate for her to describe the Church as brainwashing us with no respect for one's conscience.

[Peace]

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You only follow them to the extent that they agree with what the church has already concluded.

Well here is the thing about that. Who has authority to decide "what the church has already concluded"? Each individual Catholic according to his own intellect and conscience, or ordained clergy?

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

[Anastasia]

I will address a fundamental mistake which was made here

On 4/24/2021 at 11:26 PM, Peace said:

Why have clergy though if they have no real teaching authority?

A primary purpose of a priest is to act as an icon of Christ during the Liturgy and to pray, on behalf of all faithful gathered, the Eucharistic prayers which call down the Holy Spirit for the transformation (as the EO say), transubstantiation (as the RC say) of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Everything else is secondary. The Liturgy itself is called “Common Business” conducted by all assembled and all acting together playing their part. This is why in Orthodoxy there can be no “private Mass” (Missa Privata) celebrated by a priest alone.

Even the laity in some circumstances can baptize (and if necessary, this can be done with dirt or sand – please see 'Didache').

Giving authoritative teaching is an important role of a priest (although anyone can teach so this is not exclusive to, let alone defining of, the role of a priest; only a priest can teach from the pulpit though, thank God) but this does not mean that a priest (or Bishop or Patriarch) can never be wrong.

It is a matter of a fact that every priest, Catholic or Orthodox, presents Church teaching through the lens of their own personal understanding. Unfortunately, mistaken and erroneous interpretations arise (and do so constantly; the freshest and quite stunning, to the Orthodox, example are German Bishops who give communion to Protestants).

The authoritative clarification of doctrine is established (since the Schism) only by a Pan Orthodox Council. Ultimately a doctrine or teaching is ratified only by the acceptance of the doctrine in the long term by the Body of the Church. Hence, it is the duty of every member of the Church to be alert to incorrect teaching and interpretation based on Church Tradition and to speak out (in all due humility and subject to correction of their own mistaken understanding) when they believe this may be occurring.

Fides’ Jack referred to the words of the Church Father St John Chrysostom, about woeful failure of the clergy to stick to the truth of the faith. I will give another historical example, of another Church Father, St Maximus the Confessor. At the time on his death only St Maximus and a small cycle of his disciples help the doctrine of the unity of two wills of Christ, one human and one divine against ALL of the Church hierarchy including the Patriarch of Constantinople who (motivated by earthly politics) ordered his tongue be cut out and his hand cut off (leading to his death soon after that the age of 82). This doctrine was later endorsed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and St Maximus was vindicated. There are numerous related precedents in the history of the undivided Church and post schism Orthodoxy. I expect there are similar examples to be found in post schism Roman Catholic church history also.

In a case it escapes the reader’s attention: it is the example from the history of the undivided Church i.e. Roman Catholic Church as well. Unfortunately, most Roman Catholic (in my experience at least) often appear to be quite ignorant of their own heritage. If they were not, much of unnecessary arguments could be easily avoided allowing to concentrated on the real issues.

I would like to repeat: this topic is not about Eastern Orthodox Church and how it is different from the Roman Catholic Church, it is about the abortion-tainted vaccine. Both EO and RC Churches have one fundamental belief, that during the Eucharist we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. This fundamental commonality is more than enough to figure out the right attitude to the vaccine.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Anastasia

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I will address a fundamental mistake which was made here

A primary purpose of a priest is to act as an icon of Christ during the Liturgy and to pray, on behalf of all faithful gathered, the Eucharistic prayers which call down the Holy Spirit for the transformation (as the EO say), transubstantiation (as the RC say) of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Everything else is secondary. The Liturgy itself is called “Common Business” conducted by all assembled and all acting together playing their part. This is why in Orthodoxy there can be no “private Mass” (Missa Privata) celebrated by a priest alone.

Yeah if you are saying that having a private Mass as Roman Catholic priests do is a fundamental mistake (or any of the theology that underpins that) - then obviously I am not going to even take you seriously when you write that. If I believed otherwise I would be EO and not Catholic. It would be the same as if an atheist came up to me and said "there is no God." I just can't take it seriously. Sorry.

Now as for what the "primary purpose" of a priest is, I don't think we can really limit it to this or that purpose. All of the roles of the priest are "primary" in my view.

But yeah if your point was that the priest has important roles other than teaching - I would agree with you there (of course when we think of priests what first comes to mind is that they celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments). My question wasn't meant to relate to these other aspects of being a priest - only the priest in his role as "teacher".

8 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Even the laity in some circumstances can baptize (and if necessary, this can be done with dirt or sand – please see 'Didache').

Giving authoritative teaching is an important role of a priest (although anyone can teach so this is not exclusive to, let alone defining of, the role of a priest; only a priest can teach from the pulpit though, thank God) but this does not mean that a priest (or Bishop or Patriarch) can never be wrong.

It is a matter of a fact that every priest, Catholic or Orthodox, presents Church teaching through the lens of their own personal understanding. Unfortunately, mistaken and erroneous interpretations arise (and do so constantly; the freshest and quite stunning, to the Orthodox, example are German Bishops who give communion to Protestants).

The authoritative clarification of doctrine is established (since the Schism) only by a Pan Orthodox Council. Ultimately a doctrine or teaching is ratified only by the acceptance of the doctrine in the long term by the Body of the Church. Hence, it is the duty of every member of the Church to be alert to incorrect teaching and interpretation based on Church Tradition and to speak out (in all due humility and subject to correction of their own mistaken understanding) when they believe this may be occurring.

Fides’ Jack referred to the words of the Church Father St John Chrysostom, about woeful failure of the clergy to stick to the truth of the faith. I will give another historical example, of another Church Father, St Maximus the Confessor. At the time on his death only St Maximus and a small cycle of his disciples help the doctrine of the unity of two wills of Christ, one human and one divine against ALL of the Church hierarchy including the Patriarch of Constantinople who (motivated by earthly politics) ordered his tongue be cut out and his hand cut off (leading to his death soon after that the age of 82). This doctrine was later endorsed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and St Maximus was vindicated. There are numerous related precedents in the history of the undivided Church and post schism Orthodoxy. I expect there are similar examples to be found in post schism Roman Catholic church history also.

In a case it escapes the reader’s attention: it is the example from the history of the undivided Church i.e. Roman Catholic Church as well. Unfortunately, most Roman Catholic (in my experience at least) often appear to be quite ignorant of their own heritage. If they were not, much of unnecessary arguments could be easily avoided allowing to concentrated on the real issues.

I would like to repeat: this topic is not about Eastern Orthodox Church and how it is different from the Roman Catholic Church, it is about the abortion-tainted vaccine. Both EO and RC Churches have one fundamental belief, that during the Eucharist we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. This fundamental commonality is more than enough to figure out the right attitude to the vaccine.

Thanks. This was a thoughtful response.

I don't think the EO and RC are that far off based on what you wrote, but maybe they have different emphases. I think you can find the idea that it is the entire church body (both the clergy and the laity) that upholds the proper teaching of the faith in RC documents as well, but my sense is that the RC is a bit more hierarchical in this respect when it comes to the chain of command or the process of resolving disputes, or determining "what is correct doctrine." Ultimately I think the difference is that Catholics believe in the notion of papal infallibility and EO do not. I would guess that EO hold that the body of bishops and clergy acting as a whole (the church) are infalliable as to doctrines that have been universally accepted over time, but not any particular bishop at any particular point in time per-se, which is why your decision-making tends to be a bit more decentralized I think.

Now of course we rarely see infalliable proclamations being issued by the pope nowadays, but the possibility of it sets the overall structure for our decision-making I think. The fact that he can speak infallibility means that ultimately that is where the buck stops.

As for your example above with the two will - is that the same incident as the case where Honorius was declared a heretic? I notice that everybody around this forum seems to love to refer to that incident when they want to disagree with the pope or the bishops at large. It's like the go-to argument that everybody pulls out whenever it is time to disagree with a pope or a bishop.

The point is taken that the pope and the bishops can err (obviously) but I think a lot of folks essentially have the attitude of "Look the pope was wrong in this incident so as a general principle I don't have to follow the pope and I get to decide for myself all the time what the correct teaching is." Now nobody will come out and admit that but in practice I think that is what a lot of people are doing. I mean we have had 2000 years of popes and in those 2000 years everybody keeps referring back to the 1 or 2 few instances where the pope was proven to be a heretic as a license to disregard the living clergy whenever they want? Come on.

Yeah its true that popes and bishops can err, and there have been instances where the laity is right and most of the bishops were wrong, but that has happened about 1 or 2 times in 2000 years, and you have all these lay-people walking around as though they know more about the faith than people who are ordained bishops, went through 5 or 6 years of formal theological education to become priest, and have been reading scripture and studying the faith for decades after that before they became bishops. I think its ridiculous myself and reeks of pride.  If you were a betting man the house odds would be that the bishops are right on the issue about 99.999% of the time while random self-educated lay-Catholics on the internet like my good friend @fides' Jack are wrong, when he disagrees. The fact that the pope was a heretic once or twice in 2000 years does not change that.

9 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Even the laity in some circumstances can baptize (and if necessary, this can be done with dirt or sand – please see 'Didache').

Yeah I don't know about baptizing with dirt or sand though. I'd need to see something in an officially promulgated modern RC document before I held that that was acceptable (whatever the Didache has to teach about that notwithstanding). Could be the case but I would need to see it.

We have the so-called "baptism of desire" so I don't even think it would be necessary to baptize with dirt, from my perspective.

Where do you even sprinkle the dirt? It's gonna get in the baby's eyes. Come on now.

[fides' Jack]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Well here is the thing about that. Who has authority to decide "what the church has already concluded"? Each individual Catholic according to his own intellect and conscience, or ordained clergy?

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

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

4 hours ago, Peace said:

If you were a betting man the house odds would be that the bishops are right on the issue about 99.999% of the time while random self-educated lay-Catholics on the internet like my good friend @fides' Jack are wrong, when he disagrees. The fact that the pope was a heretic once or twice in 2000 years does not change that.

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'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.

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.

Please don't accuse me of something I'm not doing.

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah I don't know about baptizing with dirt or sand though. I'd need to see something in an officially promulgated modern RC document before I held that that was acceptable (whatever the Didache has to teach about that notwithstanding). Could be the case but I would need to see it.

We have the so-called "baptism of desire" so I don't even think it would be necessary to baptize with dirt, from my perspective.

Where do you even sprinkle the dirt? It's gonna get in the baby's eyes. Come on now.

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.

I've read the Didache before, but that was a long time ago.

4 hours ago, Peace said:

The point is taken that the pope and the bishops can err (obviously) but I think a lot of folks essentially have the attitude of "Look the pope was wrong in this incident so as a general principle I don't have to follow the pope and I get to decide for myself all the time what the correct teaching is."

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.

13 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Unfortunately, most Roman Catholic (in my experience at least) often appear to be quite ignorant of their own heritage. If they were not, much of unnecessary arguments could be easily avoided allowing to concentrated on the real issues.

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

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. 

That being said, you are correct in your assessment of where we should all be standing together against abortion.  Sadly, most of the RC bishops remain virtually silent, or worse.  One way or another, they will answer for not doing their jobs.

God's Kingdom is coming, the Kingdom we all pray for in the Our Father.  It's going to happen much sooner than most people think.

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Now as for what the "primary purpose" of a priest is, I don't think we can really limit it to this or that purpose. All of the roles of the priest are "primary" in my view.

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. 

This is so crucial, in fact, that a priest has the obligation to disobey his bishop IF the bishop tells him not to give the last rites.  That has happened a lot in the last year, and that much is very clear.  I'm a little less certain about the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Eucharist, but multiple priests that I listen to say a priest has the moral obligation to disobey his bishop regarding those, as well.  Like I said, I don't know if that's 100% true, and it probably depends a lot on circumstances.  At the very least a priest would have to "walk the line" on those matters...

[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?