Jump to content

fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread


fides' Jack

Recommended Posts

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 by little2add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

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

haha:hehe2: 
  6-DD0-C3-B7-C4-DD-4636-A27-C-606-FD2-EC5
 

C3-F2-CE4-E-25-B6-4-C60-ADC2-95-AB1-ECCE
 

91-D17-C97-ADF4-45-E7-A55-A-519-B47-E89-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Anastasia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • dUSt changed the title to fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...