fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[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

[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.