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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24

Author Topic: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article  (Read 22341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline josefamenendez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5509
  • Reputation: +4156/-289
  • Gender: Female
Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
« Reply #315 on: December 02, 2020, 09:25:07 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 02, 2020, 08:50:07 PM

    25 minutes in, and Fr R keeps referring to "taking from the fetus" as a moral wrong, but the fetus is already dead.  Isn't the taking of life the ultimate wrong?  I don't understand how you can kill someone AND take something else from them too?  This doesn't make sense to me.
    The 'taking" I'm assuming he's referring to is the continued duplicating of the live cells illicitly taken  from the live body of the murdered fetus . The only way to provide justice for the child and what was done to it (which continues with the live cell lines) is to bury the body and the cells/ DNA remains as they are still part of the body of the deceased.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12369
    • Reputation: +7858/-2433
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #316 on: December 02, 2020, 09:45:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

    • Quote
    illicitly taken  from the live body of the murdered fetus 
    That’s a contradiction.  A body can’t be living and murdered at the same time.  If the cells are taken after the murder, then, sure that’s immoral...but it’s not a continuation of murder.  You can only murder someone once.  You can murder them, and then cut them up in pieces (which would be a sin) but the cutting or dishonoring their dead body is not the same as murder.  
    Logged

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #317 on: December 02, 2020, 10:26:54 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • The fact that cells taken from aborted babies & organs taken from organ donors both need to be alive at the time of harvest has been mentioned many times on these threads.  They take the baby from the mother in an "abortion" - the mother has agreed to murder her baby, but the abortion is done in a manner where the baby stays alive long enough to harvest whatever cells are needed, just as organs from an organ donor need to be from a live body (hence "brain death" - this has been explained before too).  In either case, once the vital organ is taken from the organ donor, or whatever baby parts/cells are taken from the baby, then the person is dead after the harvest.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  In both cases, the murder is done for the purpose of harvesting human organs/cells etc.    

    Some of this was explained on this video which was posted more than a few times.  It is irritating to see people questioning things which have already been explained in previous posts long ago, if they would just take the time to read carefully or watch a short video.  

    https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY?t=199

    walvax2

    9 abortions went into dev. of that fetal cell line

    delivered by water bag method - ensures that the baby is delivered intact 

    At this point in the video: 

    https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY?t=541

    she describes how 
    “the tissue has to be alive in order for the virus to be cultured on that tissue
    dead tissue is no use to vaccine makers”

    Logged

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7292/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #318 on: December 02, 2020, 10:36:32 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 02, 2020, 09:17:36 PM
    Ok, then those fetal cells are from a living child, not from an aborted child.  You can’t have it both ways - either you take cells from an aborted/dead child (which is not abortion) or you take cells from a living child (not yet aborted).  
    You misunderstand and seem not to have viewed the video that has being posted already twice on this thread.

    The cells (or at least some cells) are taken from a live aborted baby. Some babies survive abortion and are walking around today. Then others are aborted using such methods that they will survive the abortion in order to get living cells.

    Here is that video. It is not the only souce of this information but it is the most accesible for posters here.
    Marcella Piper-Terry over (levend) geaborteerde foetussen voor vaccin-weefsels - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=175&v=uaMjO2gXaUo

    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7292/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #319 on: December 02, 2020, 10:45:25 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PAT317 on December 02, 2020, 10:26:54 PM
    The fact that cells taken from aborted babies & organs taken from organ donors both need to be alive at the time of harvest has been mentioned many times on these threads.  They take the baby from the mother in an "abortion" - the mother has agreed to murder her baby, but the abortion is done in a manner where the baby stays alive long enough to harvest whatever cells are needed, just as organs from an organ donor need to be from a live body (hence "brain death" - this has been explained before too).  In either case, once the vital organ is taken from the organ donor, or whatever baby parts/cells are taken from the baby, then the person is dead after the harvest.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  In both cases, the murder is done for the purpose of harvesting human organs/cells etc.    

    Some of this was explained on this video which was posted more than a few times.  It is irritating to see people questioning things which have already been explained in previous posts long ago, if they would just take the time to read carefully or watch a short video.  

    https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY?t=199

    walvax2

    9 abortions went into dev. of that fetal cell line

    delivered by water bag method - ensures that the baby is delivered intact

    At this point in the video:

    https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY?t=541

    she describes how
    “the tissue has to be alive in order for the virus to be cultured on that tissue
    dead tissue is no use to vaccine makers”
    YES. YES, YES.
    Thank you, both!
    You and Josefa were posting while I was posting so now we have the video posted 4 times.
    Let’s hope that it gets more airplay.
    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline andy

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 354
    • Reputation: +95/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #320 on: December 02, 2020, 11:10:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 02, 2020, 07:20:06 PM
    The sɛҳuąƖ act is only holy in matrimony.  Outside of marriage, it is unholy, sinful, against the natural law and evil.  The same anti-natural law evil as murder/abortion.  Both are against the natural law.  Both are evil.  There may be degrees of evil, when comparing the 2, but morally speaking, they are both equally wrong, in the same class.
    .
    A fornication is against the natural law; it is anti-nature.  It is a corruption of life.
    .
    An abortion is against the natural law; it is anti-nature.  It is a corruption of life.
    .
    Murder (i.e abortion) is worse than abandonment (i.e. fornication) but both sins are of the same kind.
    I noticed that you have changed the comment ....
    The point was, that the sɛҳuąƖ act does not have to be holy in the matrimony if there is no right intention. And of course the right intention is always formally missing outside of a mariage. The essence of fornication is not a sɛҳuąƖ act but perverted abuse of of it. Hence entire analogy with fetal cell line and abortion is flawed.
    Logged

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #321 on: December 02, 2020, 11:15:22 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • Another video, if the previous one is not enough:


    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2522
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #322 on: December 03, 2020, 10:48:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Taking the vaccine is in no way participating in murder. The foetal cells which were used to produce the cells in the vaccine were gotten by way of murder, yes, but for your receipt of those cells to be participating in murder, it'd have to mean that you receiving anything that was originally gotten by murder is somehow participating in it. If some guy murders his brother for the inheritance, then a few generations later the murderer's great-grandson buys a watch with some of the money passed down to him, does the watchmaker participate in the man's murder by coming into possession of money that came from money that came from a murder that happened before he was even born? Obviously not.

    There's a strong argument to be made that you participate in the desecration of the fetus' corpse by participating in the continuation of that line, or that you encourage future abortions by making abortive vaccines profitable. And that's not even getting into the fact that you're likely aiding tyrants in their efforts at population control, at the detriment of your own health. But the participation in murder argument is just nonsensical.

    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #323 on: December 03, 2020, 11:48:34 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on December 03, 2020, 10:48:26 AM
    Taking the vaccine is in no way participating in murder. 
    Even those arguing in favor of the permissibility of using abortive vaccines concede that it is remote material cooperation in evil (murder).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2522
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #324 on: December 03, 2020, 12:38:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 03, 2020, 11:48:34 AM
    Even those arguing in favor of the permissibility of using abortive vaccines concede that it is remote material cooperation in evil (murder).
    There are evils beside murder. It's just fundamentally impossible to participate in a sin that happened decades before you were born. You can cooperate in the sense that it's an ongoing thing, i.e accepting the vaccine may encourage them to abort more babies to create new fetal lines, but you can't retroactively participate in something that you were never around for. That's nuts.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #325 on: December 03, 2020, 12:52:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on December 03, 2020, 12:38:30 PM
    There are evils beside murder. It's just fundamentally impossible to participate in a sin that happened decades before you were born. You can cooperate in the sense that it's an ongoing thing, i.e accepting the vaccine may encourage them to abort more babies to create new fetal lines, but you can't retroactively participate in something that you were never around for. That's nuts.

    False-

    Everyone would agree that knowingly receiving stolen property would be sinful.

    Yet it is retroactive (i.e., the theft happened before I accepted the stolen property).

    But my desire/consent to receive it after the fact unites me morally to the original theft:

    By accepting the stolen property, I am implicitly expressing my consent to the original theft.

    Same thing here.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2522
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #326 on: December 03, 2020, 02:53:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 03, 2020, 12:52:56 PM
    False-

    Everyone would agree that knowingly receiving stolen property would be sinful.

    Yet it is retroactive (i.e., the theft happened before I accepted the stolen property).

    But my desire/consent to receive it after the fact unites me morally to the original theft:

    By accepting the stolen property, I am implicitly expressing my consent to the original theft.

    Same thing here.
    That's a sin of withholding someone's rightful property from them, separate from the sin of theft. There's no sin in receiving stolen property and then restoring it to the rightful owner, for example. So receiving stolen property is not participating in theft. 
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #327 on: December 03, 2020, 03:01:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on December 03, 2020, 02:53:35 PM
    That's a sin of withholding someone's rightful property from them, separate from the sin of theft. There's no sin in receiving stolen property and then restoring it to the rightful owner, for example. So receiving stolen property is not participating in theft.
    Who said anything about returning stolen property to its rightful owner?
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline ElAusente

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 91
    • Reputation: +17/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #328 on: December 03, 2020, 03:19:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 03, 2020, 12:52:56 PM
    False-

    Everyone would agree that knowingly receiving stolen property would be sinful.

    Yet it is retroactive (i.e., the theft happened before I accepted the stolen property).

    But my desire/consent to receive it after the fact unites me morally to the original theft:

    By accepting the stolen property, I am implicitly expressing my consent to the original theft.

    Same thing here.
    How far does this obligation go? If land was stolen from the Khoi-Khoi by the Afrikaners in 1652, are the inhabitants there today obliged to compensate the Khoi-Khoi descendants?
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #329 on: December 03, 2020, 05:29:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ElAusente on December 03, 2020, 03:19:30 PM
    How far does this obligation go? If land was stolen from the Khoi-Khoi by the Afrikaners in 1652, are the inhabitants there today obliged to compensate the Khoi-Khoi descendants?
    Of course.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
    Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24
    « previous next »