The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Atomic Parakeet 1, Anna777, HeraclitusTheObscu, Charbelknox, Andreas_Iacobus
5,828 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (2 invisible), 83 guests, and 20 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,136
Posts414,726
Members5,828
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
You know, if the German people, especially the Church, had resisted Adoph Hitler in his early days instead of being thrilled with every word he said, there may not have been a WWII. When you cooperate with evil, you give it power to do its evil work. After all the lies have been exposed regarding this so-called "vaccine," and the Covid virus, anyone cooperating with this in any way is giving power to those who want to completely control us in every aspect of our lives. We already saw their opinion of the Church when they ordered the churches closed, the Sacraments banned, and arrested those who resisted this tyranny.

We will wake up one day to an underground church meeting in fear of being arrested because we went along with this garbage instead of resisting it with all our might.

1 member likes this: Apotheoun
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
My statement had nothing to do with jvf’s healthcare choices but his condemnation of the Pope, the Bishops, and presumably everyone vaccinated for coming to the conclusion that to do so is morally permissible. So yes placing his own warped judgement over that of the Church does put him in spiritual danger.
There is nothing "warped" in his viewpoint. Sure I might not express it the way he does, but it is perfectly acceptable for a person to take a more stringent position in avoiding anything to do with abortion. And there is nothing wrong with being critical of the pope or any other Church official, and in fact Catholics would have benefited from that when it comes to the sexual scandals that have destroyed the image of the Church in various Western countries. Finally, no one is bound by the prudential judgments of the pope on moral - or any other - issues, and nor is one required to agree with those judgments or show reverence for them, because the pope can be completely in error on matters of the prudential order. That said, I think your overreacting to this simply because it is a hot button issue. Each person is free to take or not take a vaccine.

Last edited by Apotheoun; 10/03/21 04:55 PM.
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
My statement had nothing to do with jvf’s healthcare choices but his condemnation of the Pope, the Bishops, and presumably everyone vaccinated for coming to the conclusion that to do so is morally permissible. So yes placing his own warped judgement over that of the Church does put him in spiritual danger.
There is nothing "warped" in his viewpoint. Sure I might not express it the way he does, but it is perfectly acceptable for a person to take a more stringent position in avoiding anything to do with abortion. And there is nothing wrong with being critical of the pope or any other Church official, and in fact Catholics would have benefited from that when it comes to the sexual scandals that have destroyed the image of the Church in various Western countries. Finally, no one is bound by the prudential judgments of the pope on moral - or any other - issues, and nor is one required to agree with those judgments or show reverence for them, because the pope can be completely in error on matters of the prudential order. That said, I think your overreacting to this simply because it is a hot button issue. Each person is free to take or not take a vaccine.

Once again, I said nothing about his refusing to take the vaccine. He is of course free to do so. He is not free to proclaim he is right on this moral teaching and the Church is wrong. That is exactly what pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi do. He is also not free to demand the Church provide him a letter of exemption. If he feels so strongly about this he should be happy to lose his job to make his point.

from Lumen Gentium:

‘Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Last edited by Fr. Deacon Lance; 10/03/21 07:04 PM.

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
My statement had nothing to do with jvf’s healthcare choices but his condemnation of the Pope, the Bishops, and presumably everyone vaccinated for coming to the conclusion that to do so is morally permissible. So yes placing his own warped judgement over that of the Church does put him in spiritual danger.
There is nothing "warped" in his viewpoint. Sure I might not express it the way he does, but it is perfectly acceptable for a person to take a more stringent position in avoiding anything to do with abortion. And there is nothing wrong with being critical of the pope or any other Church official, and in fact Catholics would have benefited from that when it comes to the sexual scandals that have destroyed the image of the Church in various Western countries. Finally, no one is bound by the prudential judgments of the pope on moral - or any other - issues, and nor is one required to agree with those judgments or show reverence for them, because the pope can be completely in error on matters of the prudential order. That said, I think your overreacting to this simply because it is a hot button issue. Each person is free to take or not take a vaccine.

Once again, I said nothing about his refusing to take the vaccine. He is of course free to do so. He is not free to proclaim he is right on this moral teaching and the Church is wrong. That is exactly what pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi do. He is also not free to demand the Church provide him a letter of exemption. If he feels so strongly about this he should be happy to lose his job to make his point.

from Lumen Gentium:

‘Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Sorry, he is free to do just what you say he is not free to do, because he is not encouraging evil in rejecting elements of the argument put forward by the pope and the USCCB when they say that one may take a vaccine that involves remote material cooperation in a moral evil because that remote evil is outweighed by the duty to protect the common good.

In fact, the argument put forward by various Church officials (including the pope) is predicated on the idea that one is protecting the common good by taking one of the experimental vaccines, and that that particular action - i.e., taking a vaccine - protects the common good and that action is proportional to the duty to avoid cooperating materially and remotely in the evil of abortion, but that very point itself is open to debate. Now the fact that it is open to debate is why one remains completely free to disagree with Church officials, because it is not a truth of divine revelation or the natural law that the COVID-19 virus is dangerous enough to warrant material and remote cooperation in moral evil. Moreover, one can also disagree with Church authorities as it regards the safety of the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. When one takes the issue of safety into account it is clear that no one can ever be required to do something that he believes in conscience will lead to his own physical harm, even if it is held to somehow protect the common good, nor does he have to accept the arguments of Church authorities when the questions surrounding the virus and the vaccines remain debatable. The bodily integrity of an innocent person cannot be violated by any earthly authority (not even that of the Church), and so one may ignore, and even openly disagree with, the prudential judgments of Church authorities in the present situation.

So, can one disagree with the pope or other Church officials as to whether or not the vaccines constitute a proportional good that mitigates against the material remote cooperation in the evil of abortion? Yes, and one can even speak out against Church authorities who promote such a notion, because those same authorities are not infallible in their prudential judgments.

Last edited by Apotheoun; 10/03/21 09:17 PM.
1 member likes this: Sandi
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
My statement had nothing to do with jvf’s healthcare choices but his condemnation of the Pope, the Bishops, and presumably everyone vaccinated for coming to the conclusion that to do so is morally permissible. So yes placing his own warped judgement over that of the Church does put him in spiritual danger.
There is nothing "warped" in his viewpoint. Sure I might not express it the way he does, but it is perfectly acceptable for a person to take a more stringent position in avoiding anything to do with abortion. And there is nothing wrong with being critical of the pope or any other Church official, and in fact Catholics would have benefited from that when it comes to the sexual scandals that have destroyed the image of the Church in various Western countries. Finally, no one is bound by the prudential judgments of the pope on moral - or any other - issues, and nor is one required to agree with those judgments or show reverence for them, because the pope can be completely in error on matters of the prudential order. That said, I think your overreacting to this simply because it is a hot button issue. Each person is free to take or not take a vaccine.

Once again, I said nothing about his refusing to take the vaccine. He is of course free to do so. He is not free to proclaim he is right on this moral teaching and the Church is wrong. That is exactly what pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi do. He is also not free to demand the Church provide him a letter of exemption. If he feels so strongly about this he should be happy to lose his job to make his point.

from Lumen Gentium:

‘Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Sorry, he is free to do just what you say he is not free to do, because he is not encouraging evil in rejecting elements of the argument put forward by the pope and the USCCB when they say that one may take a vaccine that involves remote material cooperation in a moral evil because that remote evil is outweighed by the duty to protect the common good.

In fact, the argument put forward by various Church officials (including the pope) is predicated on the idea that one is protecting the common good by taking one of the experimental vaccines, and that that particular action - i.e., taking a vaccine - protects the common good and that action is proportional to the duty to avoid cooperating materially and remotely in the evil of abortion, but that very point itself is open to debate. Now the fact that it is open to debate is why one remains completely free to disagree with Church officials, because it is not a truth of divine revelation or the natural law that the COVID-19 virus is dangerous enough to warrant material and remote cooperation in moral evil. Moreover, one can also disagree with Church authorities as it regards the safety of the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. When one takes the issue of safety into account it is clear that no one can ever be required to do something that he believes in conscience will lead to his own physical harm, even if it is held to somehow protect the common good, nor does he have to accept the arguments of Church authorities when the questions surrounding the virus and the vaccines remain debatable. The bodily integrity of an innocent person cannot be violated by any earthly authority (not even that of the Church), and so one may ignore, and even openly disagree with, the prudential judgments of Church authorities in the present situation.

So, can one disagree with the pope or other Church officials as to whether or not the vaccines constitute a proportional good that mitigates against the material remote cooperation in the evil of abortion? Yes, and one can even speak out against Church authorities who promote such a notion, because those same authorities are not infallible in their prudential judgments.

No


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
J
jvf Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
"In fact, the argument put forward by various Church officials (including the pope) is predicated on the idea that one is protecting the common good by taking one of the experimental vaccines, and that that particular action - i.e., taking a vaccine - protects the common good and that action is proportional to the duty to avoid cooperating materially "

STEM cells are taken from a still live baby inside its mothers womb, than the baby is murdered by any means the abortionist uses like
crushing the baby's skull, sliting its throat, severing its spinal cord or perhaps sucking the baby's brains out through its nose,
all done humanly off course.

WHO IS PROTECTING THE COMMON GOOD OF THESE BABIES INSIDE THEIR MOTHERS WOMBS WAITING TO BE MURDERED THROUGH ABORTION?, PF? , the USCCB?
the CINO politicians that continually support pro "choice" abortion murder?

If the Catholic Church does not support its own Catholic Church Doctrine on abortion, particularly in the mRNA shot testing on an aborted STEM cell line and does not
believe that "THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS" they are saying that Catholic Church Doctrine is FALSE!

We the Faithful must do what we have to do if present Catholic Church hierarchy betrays the Catholic Church by supporting the most anti-Catholic and pro abortion presidential administration in history!

We must KEEP AND SUPPORT THE FAITH, if our "shepherds" won't!

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
J
jvf Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
Next we will not be allowed inside a Catholic Church without a covid "passport".
What is happening now is what Venerable ABP Fulton J Sheen prophesied in 1947 when he spoke about a future "ape" catholic Church crisis.
The future "ape" catholic Church he said will try to change Catholic Church Doctrine to suit their own false paradigm's
Read the prophesy.
It fits what's happening right in the Catholic Church to a "T".
SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
J
jvf Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
" He is not free to proclaim he is right on this moral teaching and the Church is wrong. "

I have read Catholic Church Doctrine on abortion, I know what the teaching is, I'm as right as Catholic Church Doctrine is on abortion.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS OF THE USE OF ABORTED STEM CELLS EVEN IN THE TESTING OF THE mRNA COVID-19 SHOT!

PF and the USCCB have massaged Catholic Church Doctrine to suit the party of deaths political agenda on abortion that they are a part of
by their full support of the present democratic administration.

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
J
jvf Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
" He is not free to proclaim he is right on this moral teaching and the Church is wrong. "

I have read Catholic Church Doctrine on abortion, I know what the teaching is, I'm as right as Catholic Church Doctrine is on abortion.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS OF THE USE OF ABORTED STEM CELLS EVEN IN THE TESTING OF THE mRNA COVID-19 SHOT!

PF and the USCCB have massaged Catholic Church Doctrine to suit the party of deaths political agenda on abortion that they are a part of
by their full support of the present democratic administration.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 10
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
So, can one disagree with the pope or other Church officials as to whether or not the vaccines constitute a proportional good that mitigates against the material remote cooperation in the evil of abortion? Yes, and one can even speak out against Church authorities who promote such a notion, because those same authorities are not infallible in their prudential judgments.

Then why bother appealing to the bishop in the first place? The crux of the thread and jvt's issue, as he states it, presuming he accurately characterizes Bishop Kurt, is

Originally Posted by jvf
Bishop Kurt ordered his Priests not to issue any Conscientious Objection support statements to anyone, just like the Latin Rite Bishops like dolan and caggiano of CT already have.
I was told this by a Byzantine Catholic Priest in the Eparchy of Passaic after I asked him to add a statement of support to my Conscientious Objection statement based on
refusing to take the covid-19 shot that was mandated by my employer.
I told my employeer that I am pro life and basing my refusal on Catholic Church Doctrine on abortion ...

Is the refusal by the priest/Bishop to issue the requested "support statements" wrong? Is jvt's "refusal on Catholic Church Doctrine on abortion" correct since that is Catholic Church Doctrine? Who has it right about "Catholic Church Doctrine" as applied in this case? What is incorrect or objectionable in the CDF's guideline as given in Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines [vatican.va]?

Is it that
Originally Posted by jvf
PF and the USCCB have massaged Catholic Church Doctrine to suit the party of deaths political agenda on abortion that they are a part of
by their full support of the present democratic administration.
?

Last edited by ajk; 10/04/21 05:57 PM.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 194
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 194
There are so many things being said in this thread that need to be kept distinct and/or nuanced, in my opinion.

(1) jvf’s description of the testing of the mRNA vaccines quickly glosses over details about the actual state of affairs in ways that could be misleading. For example, jvf says,

Quote
the mRNA shot was tested on aborted STEM cells taken while the baby was alive tand hen murdered by abortion

This at least suggests (and perhaps outright says) that these vaccines were tested on cells taken from a live baby who was then aborted. But that is incorrect in at least two ways:

- The vaccines were tested on cells from cell line HEK 293, which were grown in a laboratory. These cells do descend from cells that were taken from a baby in 1973, but they were not themselves cells taken from a baby.
- The cells that started cell line HEK 293 were not taken "while the baby was alive," but from the baby's remains.

Furthermore, it is apparently not entirely certain whether the original cells that started HEK 293 came from a baby that was actually aborted, or instead came from a miscarriage. It seems likely that the cells came from an abortion, but it isn't known for sure. The source who originally traced the line (Dr. Franklin Graham) says that he does not really know. (See the sources cited in the Wikipedia article on HEK 293 for more on this.)

I do not say that the above facts make a large moral difference (though I think they may); I am saying only that jvf is being fast and loose with the facts, at the risk of sensationalizing.

(2) I also fear that jvf's posts at least risk committing the sin of calumny. For example, he or she says,

Quote
PF and the USCCB have massaged True Catholic Church Doctrine on abortion
to comply with their government paymasters!
And Byzantine Catholic Bishops go right along with them for the same reasons.
MONEY.

This is a grave claim. At the very least, it is one that ought to require substantial support, which has not been given here. So, as it is right now, I think it is probably right to push back against these claims about our bishops and their brother bishops, and to caution jvf.

(3) jvf equates his or her position with "True Catholic Doctrine" without basis. He or she writes, for example, that the vaccine is "morally tainted according to Catholic Church Doctrine." That is either not correct, or at least unsupported so far. It is one thing to say that a Catholic may conscientiously object to the vaccine because he or she believes, in good conscience, that (for example) the good of vaccination against COVID-19 is not proportional to whatever evil(s) may be involved in using a product that was tested against a cell line descended from cells likely procured from an aborted child. (Apparently Tylenol and numerous other things also suffer from that same flaw, I'll note.) It is quite another to claim that endorsement of the vaccines is against Catholic teaching. The bishops, incidentally, seem to agree with the former, but not the latter.

Last edited by Ecce Jason; 10/04/21 06:22 PM.
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Vatican City just gave 3 Swiss Guards their walking papers for refusing to be vaccinated.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/swiss-guards-refused-vaccination-return-switzerland-80380588

Last edited by Fr. Deacon Lance; 10/04/21 08:51 PM.

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
J
jvf Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
"I also fear that jvf's posts at least risk committing the sin of calumny."

The American Catholic Church aka USCCB (Byzantine Catholic Rite included) has already recieved 1.4 billion dollars + in covid-19 "stimulation" money along with the 1 billion + dollars that it receives every year continually. CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF.

"The vaccines were tested on cells from cell line HEK 293, which were grown in a laboratory. These cells do descend from cells that were taken from a baby in 1973, but they were not themselves cells taken from a baby.
- The cells that started cell line HEK 293 were not taken "while the baby was alive," but from the baby's remains."

WRONG!
These STEM cells were taken from NOT JUST ONE BABY, BUT HUNDREDS BECAUSE THIS TESTING PROCEDURE TOOK MANY TRIES BEFORE IT SUCCEEDED.
MANY TRIES = MANY ABORTIONS = MANY DEAD BABIES

According to Catholic Church Moral Doctrine:
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS

BY THE WAY MY SON IS ONE OF THE HEADS OF CLINICAL TRIALS AT A MAJOR PHARMICUTICAL, THATS WHO I GET MY INFORMATION FROM.

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU

Last edited by jvf; 10/04/21 11:42 PM.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 10
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Vatican City just gave 3 Swiss Guards their walking papers for refusing to be vaccinated.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/swiss-guards-refused-vaccination-return-switzerland-80380588

From the link:
Quote
VATICAN CITY -- Three Vatican Swiss Guards who have refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 upon Holy See orders have voluntarily left the storied corps to return to Switzerland, a Swiss Guard official said Sunday.

Lt. Urs Breitenmoser told The Associated Press that all Swiss Guards had been asked to be vaccinated “to protect their health and that of the others they come into contact with as part of their service.”


"Three members of the Guard have chosen not to adhere to that request, voluntarily leaving the corps,'' Breitenmoser said in a statement.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 14
I read that as resign or be discharged.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5