Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .  (Read 6744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2312
  • Reputation: +867/-144
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2021, 08:28:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position. 

    The crux is Question 6 in Bishop Sanborn's memo. I think his reasoning there certainly defensible, but if there's any basis to question his judgment as in some way disqualifying, it's there. I haven't seen any reasoned objection that his position is in some ways disqualifying as to his position as a leader of the traditional cause of the faith on that ground. 

    Of course, this may simply be an issue of disagreement and objection to his view, which of course is fine and it is always a value in the search of being as close to the truth as we can to discuss these things. But to the extent that there is some suggestion that the Bishop's stance on this should detract from his standing in the trad community or such, that would be wrong in my view. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4717/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #31 on: November 25, 2021, 08:31:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Todd The Trad on November 25, 2021, 08:14:38 AM

    "The masks are them wanting to see how the Reign of the Antichrist will go"

    RIP Fr. Perez. Excellent point, right in line with even Bp. Williamson's thoughts on this all being the "dress rehearsal" for Antichrist.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4717/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #32 on: November 25, 2021, 08:35:35 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on November 25, 2021, 08:28:52 AM
     But to the extent that there is some suggestion that the Bishop's stance on this should detract from his standing in the trad community or such, that would be wrong in my view.
    Here's the thing: Now is the time to either stand up and fight or lay down and submit to these wicked powers and principalities.

    Bp. Sanborn, through his ignorance of the wider issue here (i.e. medical genocide and the kingdom of Antichrist), is showing that he is not equipped to stand up to just what is going on right now. And there are a lot of prelates in his position, like the neo-SSPX leadership, who are simply laying down when they should be fighting for their flock.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #33 on: November 25, 2021, 08:40:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on November 25, 2021, 08:28:52 AM
    Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position.

    Only if they're sedevacantists, and therefore have the luxory of ignoring the Vatican per se.

    For the rest of us (e.g., SSPX, Resistance, Indult), we need to understand why the Vatican's own criteria in the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae are being ignored and disregarded by the SSPX (particularly when it is shown that 3 of the 4 essential criteria are not met in the case of the COVID jab).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #34 on: November 25, 2021, 08:42:10 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 08:35:35 AM
    Here's the thing: Now is the time to either stand up and fight or lay down and submit to these wicked powers and principalities.

    Bp. Sanborn, through his ignorance of the wider issue here (i.e. medical genocide and the kingdom of Antichrist), is showing that he is not equipped to stand up to just what is going on right now. And there are a lot of prelates in his position, like the neo-SSPX leadership, who are simply laying down when they should be fighting for their flock.

    👍
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #35 on: November 25, 2021, 08:44:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 08:35:35 AM
    Here's the thing: Now is the time to either stand up and fight or lay down and submit to these wicked powers and principalities.

    Bp. Sanborn, through his ignorance of the wider issue here (i.e. medical genocide and the kingdom of Antichrist), is showing that he is not equipped to stand up to just what is going on right now. And there are a lot of prelates in his position, like the neo-SSPX leadership, who are simply laying down when they should be fighting for their flock.

    Essentially, your argument is that it is not permitted to separate the morality of the jab in se, from the greater context of the Great Reset.

    With DR, I would disagree with that.

    However, against DR, I would say that even after making that legitimate separation, nevertheless, the circuмstances which would make the jab morally licit have clearly not been met (per Dignitas Personae).

    PS: Even if sedes dismiss anything coming from the Vatican out of hand, nevertheless, they could still accept the principles of DP, without accepting theauthority of it, and come to the same conclusion on those grounds.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2312
    • Reputation: +867/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #36 on: November 25, 2021, 09:21:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 08:44:42 AM
    Essentially, your argument is that it is not permitted to separate the morality of the jab in se, from the greater context of the Great Reset.

    With DR, I would disagree with that.

    However, against DR, I would say that even after making that legitimate separation, nevertheless, the circuмstances which would make the jab morally licit have clearly not been met (per Dignitas Personae).

    PS: Even if sedes dismiss anything coming from the Vatican out of hand, nevertheless, they could still accept the principles of DP, without accepting theauthority of it, and come to the same conclusion on those grounds.

    As I said, the moral issue of question 6 could (should) be joined: does the Bishop's reasoning hold up to that? Putting aside the issue as to the source, I assume the principles expressed in DP are valid. You're right, that should be consider and weighed. I haven't done that, but just on reading Bishop Sanborn's view it seems reasonable. 


    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #37 on: November 25, 2021, 10:35:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 08:40:12 AM
    For the rest of us (e.g., SSPX, Resistance, Indult), we need to understand why the Vatican's own criteria in the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae are being ignored and disregarded by the SSPX (particularly when it is shown that 3 of the 4 essential criteria are not met in the case of the COVID jab).
    I am speculating, but I don't think they believe in what they are saying. I believe people in Rome or the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr or both ordered them or threatened the higher-ups to cave. If Father Kevin Robinson is right, the vast majority of the priests disagree with the official position (but many are afraid to speak out against it) and only three out of however many priests there are in all of the United States have taken the jab.
    Logged
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11347
    • Reputation: +6327/-1095
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #38 on: November 25, 2021, 05:09:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 08:40:12 AM
    Only if they're sedevacantists, and therefore have the luxory of ignoring the Vatican per se.

    For the rest of us (e.g., SSPX, Resistance, Indult), we need to understand why the Vatican's own criteria in the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae are being ignored and disregarded by the SSPX (particularly when it is shown that 3 of the 4 essential criteria are not met in the case of the COVID jab).
    But isn't the larger question: why is the purported pope ignoring it even to the point of encouraging Catholics to take the jab? In the end, who cares what the SSPX decides to do?

    The fact that good and faithful Catholic bishops disagree on an unsettled matter related to theology is not something new. What's new is there isn't a Catholic pope leading them to unity.
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32590
    • Reputation: +28811/-571
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #39 on: November 25, 2021, 05:18:43 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 08:44:42 AM
    Essentially, your argument is that it is not permitted to separate the morality of the jab in se, from the greater context of the Great Reset.

    With DR, I would disagree with that.

    Count me among those who insist on taking this whole "jab" issue within the big-picture context in which it EXISTS out here in the real world. This jab, the forceful measures implemented to get everyone injected with it, is not happening in a vacuum, but in the context of the Great Reset and implementation of global totalitarian control (Communism). 

    It's not like some places are just suffering a legitimate virus, but are not targeted at all for takeover by the Elites via the Great Reset. No. You show me a place with "the COVID pandemic", I'll show you a place being softened up for Communist takeover and total control of the population -- and culling. The two are intrinsically linked, out here in reality.

    I don't see how one can separate the two, except in the most sterile, academic (and therefore near-useless) arguments.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #40 on: November 25, 2021, 07:07:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • There is a legal precedent that should also be considered.

    When you allow the government to put something into your body, where does that end?

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider made that point.

    Your body is the line in the sand.
    Logged
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4717/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #41 on: November 25, 2021, 07:09:56 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Miser Peccator on November 25, 2021, 07:07:07 PM
    Bishop Athanasius Schneider made that point.

    Your body is the line in the sand.
    Ironically, the slogan "my body, my choice" is actually logical here; unlike with abortionists who think their infant's body is also their body.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1513
    • Reputation: +804/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #42 on: November 25, 2021, 07:51:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on November 25, 2021, 05:18:43 PM

    It's not like some places are just suffering a legitimate virus, but are not targeted at all for takeover by the Elites via the Great Reset. No. You show me a place with "the COVID pandemic", I'll show you a place being softened up for Communist takeover and total control of the population -- and culling. The two are intrinsically linked, out here in reality.
    I think he owes his chapel-goers a charitable explanation... 60+ year sedevacante that was caused by Freemasons, Communists, homos etc and now you can take the vaccine "because theology" and it is from those objectively same forces that caused the 60+ year sedevacante. But this isn't a problem at all.
    Logged
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4717/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #43 on: November 25, 2021, 09:35:49 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: bodeens on November 25, 2021, 07:51:15 PM
    I think he owes his chapel-goers a charitable explanation... 60+ year sedevacante that was caused by Freemasons, Communists, homos etc and now you can take the vaccine "because theology" and it is from those objectively same forces that caused the 60+ year sedevacante. But this isn't a problem at all.
    Not to mention the other moral elephant in the room suggested by +Ripperger: support of abortion-tainted products, no matter how remote, promotes fetal organ harvesting which is an offense against the 7th commandment.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11347
    • Reputation: +6327/-1095
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
    « Reply #44 on: December 05, 2021, 05:52:14 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • I haven't read through this yet, but this is Father Stephen McKenna's ...of St Gertrude....response regarding the vaccine:


    http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/JabMcKenna211205.pdf



    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
    « previous next »