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

Author Topic: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article  (Read 22359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12384
  • Reputation: +7877/-2444
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
« Reply #255 on: December 01, 2020, 08:37:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    I am not a biochemist nor a theologian of course, but do have a very quite advanced physics background - and I hope I can still logically think - and all looks for me that the main difficulty is understanding what that "CLONES/COPIES of the cells" truly means. It is probably worth mentioning that human body replaces all the cells every 7-10 years (source: a stupid google search). So the existence of the same set of cell is not an essence of our being here.

    Personally, I side with an opinion, that there is a direct continuation of an original corpse/cavader of a killed baby, as they share the same DNA, regardless how long the process lasts. The analogy would be, we artificially maintain a body of a dead person or part of it (by e.g. freezing it). Probably a better example would be a frozen embryo. Having said that, it does not matter if the abortion was procured 50 years ago or 5 months ago. Simple as that.

    I've been thinking about the cloning aspect and I'm more inclined to think that cloning the aborted fetal cells is the difference maker.  You can't kill someone more than once, right?  So, you can't commit the act of murder more than once.
    .
    1.  Abortion happens - Intrinsic evil, sin #1
    2.  Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
    3.  Body parts used by scientists to isolate fetal cells for various medicines - Morally a sin, but the purpose is for good.
    4.  Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future.  This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder.  It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.
    5.  Fetal cells mixed with a virus to grow a strain for a vaccine.  This may not be wrong at all.
    6.  Whatever fetal cell molecules still exist (? unknown?) in this new strain, this creates a vaccine.  May not be wrong.
    .
    I've added step 4 to my original timeline.  Cloning of the original fetal cells makes new cells.  These cloned cells weren't from a murdered body, so it's not related to abortion.  These cells being copied IS WRONG, but it's against the natural law just as in-vitro fertilization is; in other words, it's against the principle of conception, but it's not murder.
    .
    Steps 5 and 6 may not even be wrong.  Again, you can only commit murder once.  You can only copy cells once.  Once those evils are done, they're done.  The new, copied cells are (morally speaking) indifferent things.  They're just cells.  Using these copied, aborted fetal cells to create a vaccine is the same as if they came from a non-murdered, placental fetal cell. 
    .

    Quote
    Now, that dramatically shortens number of steps and completely removes time from "the direct line of causality from the abortion to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization".
    I have also an example where a principle of double effect could be safely used. For instance, a scientists kills a person and using this dead body and his wicked genius comes up with a medical procedure to ... let's say a cure for a leprosy. Now the method itself, which developing took some evil measures, in itself does not, in any form or fashion, rely on the evil which took place. In other words, it is possible that another genius discovered it without a convenient murder which made it easier. Then using that method is morally neutral in any case.

    Right.  The murder happens once.  The sin of operating on a dead person (assuming that's wrong) happens once.  The resultant medicine/knowledge is not bad, it's indifferent.

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #256 on: December 01, 2020, 08:40:39 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, certainly people were afraid of the consequences of upholding their Faith.  But...you're just looking at this from the human standpoint.  You're assuming they took the oath "without full consent".  If God puts one in a situation where the decision is Faith vs Death, then He will INFALLIBLY give us the grace to face the (human) fear and grace will make it possible (if we cooperate) to choose Faith.  We cannot say that God gave the graces necessary to the English martyrs but He didn't give the graces to the martyr's next door neighbors (all of whom were catholic, as there was no protestantism in England until after the Oath).  Fear aside, grace will overcome fear....if the person cooperates with grace.
    .

    Obviously, we cannot say that those people who apostasized are in hell, but we also cannot say they didn't commit a mortal sin.  Objectively, they abandoned their Faith.  Objectively, they joined a new religion.  The grace was available for them to hold fast and they didn't.  The Church has never condoned this type of action, nor has She ever made excuses for those who were cowards.  
    .
    God will never test us beyond our strength, so if His Divine Providence, from all eternity, determined that these Catholics were to live through the English Persecution, then He would have ordered/provided for them to have the grace to not be tested (not everyone had to take the Oath, but many did), or to become martyrs for the Faith.
    .
    Thank you, Pax, for writing this.  I'm sorry that I can only be sarcastic, because I cannot believe my eyes that Catholics are now reduced to questioning whether one really has to accept martyrdom rather than just deny the Faith because one is "forced".  Why would anyone accept martyrdom at all, ever?  It almost seems imprudent and foolish to let them kill you, rather than, hey, just commit a venial sin and live?  (can we at least assume it's a venial sin?  and who cares about that?  as long as I don't commit a mortal sin, I can still go to heaven, right?  :facepalm: )  I am grateful for your articulation of the issue.


    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +4156/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #257 on: December 01, 2020, 08:46:18 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you accept that using human cells to make vaccines is morally indifferent?
    The vague and ambiguous posing of  your questions makes me wonder what you are truly trying to prove. These are questions you already know the answer to, but you seem insistent on melding the definitions to somehow "catch" people to prove that it is "morally indifferent'  to use fetal cell lines in vaccines. You have used the cover of stem cells, human cells, placental cells and umbilical cells to diffuse the true object which is fetal (baby) cells which will never be morally indifferent. 
    If moral philosophy involves this type of  trickery, I'm glad I'm no scholar- you are just wrong.

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +4156/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #258 on: December 01, 2020, 09:14:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, thanks for that.  This is very important to this discussion and I am surprised that none of the clerical guidance posted thus far has included it (unless I missed it).

    I posted this on page 9. I think is has some relevance to your point


    Forcing someone at gunpoint is NOT consent, and consent is what  the devil needs. The person taking it by physical force (not coercion) will suffer the temporal consequences of the poisonous injection, and that may include death, but  I doubt if they would be committing a mortal sin as force does not allow choice. It would have to be presented as a choice to effect a mortal sin, IMHO

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12384
    • Reputation: +7877/-2444
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #259 on: December 01, 2020, 09:18:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    I'm sorry that I can only be sarcastic, because I cannot believe my eyes that Catholics are now reduced to questioning whether one really has to accept martyrdom rather than just deny the Faith because one is "forced".

    Yeah, the emotion of fear doesn't get us off the hook for any other sins...why would it only apply to persecution?
    .
    I hear noises outside my front door, (not from the door, just outside the house) and i'm scared of a thief, so I just take my gun and blast away through the door, without checking to see who is there or why.  Maybe that's not murder, but it's certainly gravely imprudent/rash, and legally speaking would be against the law (manslaughter or 3rd degree homicide or something).
    .
    Or, I'm scared of a murderer who is running around the city, so I take 8 shots of vodka and get drunk, so I don't have to be scared anymore.  That would be wrong too.  Fear doesn't give you the right to commit a mortal sin. 


    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4111
    • Reputation: +2421/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #260 on: December 01, 2020, 09:21:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I've been thinking about the cloning aspect and I'm more inclined to think that cloning the aborted fetal cells is the difference maker.  You can't kill someone more than once, right?  So, you can't commit the act of murder more than once.
    .
    1.  Abortion happens - Intrinsic evil, sin #1
    2.  Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
    3.  Body parts used by scientists to isolate fetal cells for various medicines - Morally a sin, but the purpose is for good.
    4.  Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future.  This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder.  It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.
    5.  Fetal cells mixed with a virus to grow a strain for a vaccine.  This may not be wrong at all.
    6.  Whatever fetal cell molecules still exist (? unknown?) in this new strain, this creates a vaccine.  May not be wrong.
    .
    I'm highly doubtful #2 is a sin. Claim #3 and the ones downstream from it are certainly not sins. No one has presented any pre-Vatican 2 source for either claims 2 or 3 that you made, or, heck, practically anything else in this thread. The default assumption is that something is not a sin unless proved to be so, as the Church favors liberty of action.
    .
    And it bears repeating that receiving a flu shot and committing murder are not the same thing.
    .

    Quote
    4.  Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future.  This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder.  It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.

    .
    This is a bizarre assertion.
    .

    Quote
    I've added step 4 to my original timeline.  Cloning of the original fetal cells makes new cells.  These cloned cells weren't from a murdered body, so it's not related to abortion.  These cells being copied IS WRONG, but it's against the natural law just as in-vitro fertilization is; in other words, it's against the principle of conception, but it's not murder.

    .
    Cloning cells is a totally different thing from IVF. In IVF, a human being is produced, with a human soul. Cells of a human body being cloned have no human soul and therefore are not human beings, as the human soul is what makes the human body to be a human body. Oh, and also IVF has been authoritatively condemned as sinful before Vatican 2, if I recall correctly.
    .

    Quote
    Right.  The murder happens once.  The sin of operating on a dead person (assuming that's wrong) happens once.  The resultant medicine/knowledge is not bad, it's indifferent.

    .
    My friend, what I said above is that Catholic moral theology assumes that something is not sinful when there is doubt. It is incorrect to assume something is sinful.
    .
    In any case, your arguments (and the vast majority of the arguments being made in this thread) are arguments about whether it is licit to use cells derived from aborted babies to produce a drug. That is an entirely different question to whether it is sinful to receive a drug made in such a manner. Thus, very little of this thread has any practical relevance to people reading it, or the people contemplating taking the vaccine, or the people who want to know if it is sinful to take the vaccine or not.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12384
    • Reputation: +7877/-2444
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #261 on: December 01, 2020, 09:22:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Forcing someone at gunpoint is NOT consent, and consent is what  the devil needs. The person taking it by physical force (not coercion) will suffer the temporal consequences of the poisonous injection, and that may include death, but  I doubt if they would be committing a mortal sin as force does not allow choice. It would have to be presented as a choice to effect a mortal sin, IMHO

    St Maria Goretti had to chose death vs sin (even in a non-apostasy, non-persecution situation), so your example fails.  Unless you're talking about them holding you down, restraining you, and giving you a vaccine.  But you would have to physically resist, even to the point of running away and getting shot in the back.
    .
    This presumes that taking such a vaccine is as morally grave as the sin of impurity.  I'm still not sure.

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +4156/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #262 on: December 01, 2020, 09:27:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is a "Soilent Green" burger , made from cloned cells of an aborted fetal line a mortal sin to eat? Don't think this will not happen- ((they)) certainly would love to see us cannibalize ourselves. To me this is a more accurate  argument for comparison. 


    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +4156/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #263 on: December 01, 2020, 09:29:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  "Unless you're talking about them holding you down, restraining you, and giving you a vaccine."


    Yes, this is what i explained to Sean in a later post.  Forced vaccines, no choice.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12384
    • Reputation: +7877/-2444
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #264 on: December 01, 2020, 09:33:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I'm highly doubtful #2 is a sin. Claim #3 and the ones downstream from it are certainly not sins. No one has presented any pre-Vatican 2 source for either claims 2 or 3 that you made, or, heck, practically anything else in this thread.

    You might be right.  But even if #2 and #3 are sinful, my point is that AFTER the cloning process (#4), then the medical actions are indifferent, because these are new cells.  Thus, to agree with your conclusions, the vaccine may not be wrong.
    .

    Quote
    Cloning cells is a totally different thing from IVF. In IVF, a human being is produced, with a human soul.

    Totally agree.  I don't even know if cloning cells is wrong, but i'm making the comparison to IVF to say that IF it's wrong, then the sin is related to "scientific excess" and not murder.  A different kind of sin.  And, thus, the conclusion is that the vaccine is not related to murder/abortion.
    .
    Example:  Thieves setup a robbery system at the mexican border and plunder all kinds of goods from travelers/truckers.  Then they sell the stuff for $.  They use this $ to buy drugs and liquor to party.  The first sin is grand theft/selling stolen property.  The second sin is getting drunk/high.  At the point where the items are sold and $ is obtained, the sin of theft is finished.  Getting drunk with $ from stolen things is NOT a continuation of theft; it's a separate sin.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12384
    • Reputation: +7877/-2444
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #265 on: December 01, 2020, 09:37:20 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    "Unless you're talking about them holding you down, restraining you, and giving you a vaccine."
    .
    Yes, this is what i explained to Sean in a later post.  Forced vaccines, no choice.

    Ok, just want to be clear.  Some would define "forced" differently.  Some would be more morally lenient (2Vermont) and say that, you either take a vaccine or you can't eat..."well, we don't have a choice."  Yes, you do.  You don't eat.  Scripture is clear that we can't take the Mark of the Beast and we can't eat if we don't take it.  The Irish Catholics called those who apostacized "soupers" because they chose a bowl of soup over their Faith.


    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #266 on: December 01, 2020, 10:03:58 AM »
  • Thanks!8
  • No Thanks!0
  • I know this is veering off the original topic of the thread, but my mind is still reeling at the thought that Catholics are so trying to find an “out” for taking this vaccine, (for which IMO there are many, many excellent reasons to refuse them, way beyond the question of aborted fetal cells) that the question has even arisen whether it was “mortal sin” or not to take the Oath under Henry VIII.  

    Leaving aside the question of vaccines entirely, and leaving aside whether to take Henry VIII’s Oath was “mortal sin” or not, just a few considerations:

    - I was always taught that it was better that the whole world should be destroyed than that one commit any sin, venial or mortal.  In better days of the SSPX, I remember the example a priest gave where if there was a button, and let’s say some evil villain said, “commit [some] venial sin, or I will press this button and the whole world will be blown to smithereens,” you are not allowed to commit even that venial sin.

    - In hearing stories of martyrs throughout Church history, I’ve seen examples, e.g. in Roman times, where 9/10 accepted martyrdom, while the other 1/10 person accepted the promise of “we won’t kill you if you [commit this sin of apostasy]”, and then the Romans proceeded to kill that 10th person anyway.  I’ve heard similar stories from Communist revolutions such as Spain or Mexico.  The implication in these stories was such that the Communists wanted to kill said Catholic after committing the mortal sin, because they want the soul to go to hell.  Of course, God will judge / has judged where these individual souls went, but the point of the stories from the standpoint of the Church always seemed to me that we must stand firm, as Pax has said so well in his posts.  

    - If we take the example of Henry VIII asking the bishops & others like Thomas More to take the Oath:  Was it posed thusly: “Take this Oath or you will be executed”?  Because even Bp. Fisher and Thomas More were put in the Tower for a while; they had to fabricate an excuse at TM’s trial to finally put him to death.  I don’t know precisely what threat was posed for not taking the Oath initially, but apparently it was not death.  

    - Given how world history changed dramatically, and NOT for the better, after all the bishops except St. John Fisher took the Oath, are we really to sit around thinking, “well, those bishops didn’t commit mortal sin for taking the Oath. After all, they were ‘forced’ to do it.”?  [With some penalty less than death.]  Was it thus okay for them to do it?  How many souls have been lost since then, because those bishops (whatever their subjective level of sin, wherever they ended up in eternity) caved, and did not stand up for what they knew was right?  And even the average layman:  How many souls have been lost since then, because all of their progeny were protestant, because they were “forced” to apostatize?

    - I could also mention that many people were martyred, not because of something ‘forced’ on them, such as “take this Oath or we’ll kill you”, but even just to receive Sacraments.  Given the Covid1984/AD2020 standard of “The Governor mandated that churches should be closed, so you are dispensed of your Sunday obligation, and thus can just livestream Mass or read your missal”, why would anyone have ever risked going into the catacombs or going to St. Edmund Campion’s Mass, or any other such “illegal” activity?  

    In the movie A Man for All Seasons, there's a scene where Meg tries to get TM to take the Oath:

    More: But look now: If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes.
    Margaret: But in reason!  Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
    More: Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.

    Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God?   What does He really will?    

    I do understand why folks want to know where is the cutoff between morally acceptable vs. sin (and I include here venial sin:  better to accept death, loss of livelihood, children taken away, or any other suffering, than to commit one venial sin).  I really do.  And they are important questions.  But I would prefer to see less quibbling to find an excuse to do whatever this antichrist NWO is asking us to do, as long as it is not mortal sin, and more encouragement to resist this antichrist NWO in every way possible, because we love Our Lord and His reign.  I would love to see threads asking 'what can we all do to resist this antichrist tyranny?'  Imagine if every Catholic in Henry VIII’s England had said, “No, I will NOT take the Oath.”  Imagine the difference then, and all the history since then.  Instead of thinking, “how far can I go individually, save my own individual skin, and still avoid the fires of hell?”  …  picture how much easier it is for this antichrist NWO to create the dystopia we’re facing if each of us individually goes along with it as far as we can without mortal sin/going to hell, vs how much harder for them if all Catholics collectively resisted it tooth & nail.  

    Imagine Catholics actually standing up for the rights of Christ the King, because we love Him, instead of asking, “how far can I go before it’s mortal sin?”

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #267 on: December 01, 2020, 10:06:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Unless you're talking about them holding you down, restraining you, and giving you a vaccine."


    Yes, this is what i explained to Sean in a later post.  Forced vaccines, no choice.
    Can you please quote me arguing that those held down/overpowered have a choice???
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #268 on: December 01, 2020, 10:16:20 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • I know this is veering off the original topic of the thread, but my mind is still reeling at the thought that Catholics are so trying to find an “out” for taking this vaccine, (for which IMO there are many, many excellent reasons to refuse them, way beyond the question of aborted fetal cells) that the question has even arisen whether it was “mortal sin” or not to take the Oath under Henry VIII.  

    Leaving aside the question of vaccines entirely, and leaving aside whether to take Henry VIII’s Oath was “mortal sin” or not, just a few considerations:

    - I was always taught that it was better that the whole world should be destroyed than that one commit any sin, venial or mortal.  In better days of the SSPX, I remember the example a priest gave where if there was a button, and let’s say some evil villain said, “commit [some] venial sin, or I will press this button and the whole world will be blown to smithereens,” you are not allowed to commit even that venial sin.

    - In hearing stories of martyrs throughout Church history, I’ve seen examples, e.g. in Roman times, where 9/10 accepted martyrdom, while the other 1/10 person accepted the promise of “we won’t kill you if you [commit this sin of apostasy]”, and then the Romans proceeded to kill that 10th person anyway.  I’ve heard similar stories from Communist revolutions such as Spain or Mexico.  The implication in these stories was such that the Communists wanted to kill said Catholic after committing the mortal sin, because they want the soul to go to hell.  Of course, God will judge / has judged where these individual souls went, but the point of the stories from the standpoint of the Church always seemed to me that we must stand firm, as Pax has said so well in his posts.  

    - If we take the example of Henry VIII asking the bishops & others like Thomas More to take the Oath:  Was it posed thusly: “Take this Oath or you will be executed”?  Because even Bp. Fisher and Thomas More were put in the Tower for a while; they had to fabricate an excuse at TM’s trial to finally put him to death.  I don’t know precisely what threat was posed for not taking the Oath initially, but apparently it was not death.  

    - Given how world history changed dramatically, and NOT for the better, after all the bishops except St. John Fisher took the Oath, are we really to sit around thinking, “well, those bishops didn’t commit mortal sin for taking the Oath. After all, they were ‘forced’ to do it.”?  [With some penalty less than death.]  Was it thus okay for them to do it?  How many souls have been lost since then, because those bishops (whatever their subjective level of sin, wherever they ended up in eternity) caved, and did not stand up for what they knew was right?  And even the average layman:  How many souls have been lost since then, because all of their progeny were protestant, because they were “forced” to apostatize?

    - I could also mention that many people were martyred, not because of something ‘forced’ on them, such as “take this Oath or we’ll kill you”, but even just to receive Sacraments.  Given the Covid1984/AD2020 standard of “The Governor mandated that churches should be closed, so you are dispensed of your Sunday obligation, and thus can just livestream Mass or read your missal”, why would anyone have ever risked going into the catacombs or going to St. Edmund Campion’s Mass, or any other such “illegal” activity?  

    In the movie A Man for All Seasons, there's a scene where Meg tries to get TM to take the Oath:

    More: But look now: If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes.
    Margaret: But in reason!  Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
    More: Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.

    Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God?   What does He really will?    

    I do understand why folks want to know where is the cutoff between morally acceptable vs. sin (and I include here venial sin:  better to accept death, loss of livelihood, children taken away, or any other suffering, than to commit one venial sin).  I really do.  And they are important questions.  But I would prefer to see less quibbling to find an excuse to do whatever this antichrist NWO is asking us to do, as long as it is not mortal sin, and more encouragement to resist this antichrist NWO in every way possible, because we love Our Lord and His reign.  I would love to see threads asking 'what can we all do to resist this antichrist tyranny?'  Imagine if every Catholic in Henry VIII’s England had said, “No, I will NOT take the Oath.”  Imagine the difference then, and all the history since then.  Instead of thinking, “how far can I go individually, save my own individual skin, and still avoid the fires of hell?”  …  picture how much easier it is for this antichrist NWO to create the dystopia we’re facing if each of us individually goes along with it as far as we can without mortal sin/going to hell, vs how much harder for them if all Catholics collectively resisted it tooth & nail.  

    Imagine Catholics actually standing up for the rights of Christ the King, because we love Him, instead of asking, “how far can I go before it’s mortal sin?”

    This might be the most edifying and beautiful post I have ever read on Cathinfo.

    God will bless you for having written it.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2409
    • Reputation: +1580/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #269 on: December 01, 2020, 10:40:46 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God?   What does He really will?    

    I do understand why folks want to know where is the cutoff between morally acceptable vs. sin (and I include here venial sin:  better to accept death, loss of livelihood, children taken away, or any other suffering, than to commit one venial sin).  I really do.  And they are important questions.  But I would prefer to see less quibbling to find an excuse to do whatever this antichrist NWO is asking us to do, as long as it is not mortal sin, and more encouragement to resist this antichrist NWO in every way possible, because we love Our Lord and His reign.  I would love to see threads asking 'what can we all do to resist this antichrist tyranny?'  Imagine if every Catholic in Henry VIII’s England had said, “No, I will NOT take the Oath.”  Imagine the difference then, and all the history since then.  Instead of thinking, “how far can I go individually, save my own individual skin, and still avoid the fires of hell?”  …  picture how much easier it is for this antichrist NWO to create the dystopia we’re facing if each of us individually goes along with it as far as we can without mortal sin/going to hell, vs how much harder for them if all Catholics collectively resisted it tooth & nail.  

    Imagine Catholics actually standing up for the rights of Christ the King, because we love Him, instead of asking, “how far can I go before it’s mortal sin?”
    Yes, very inspiring. Thank you for that!