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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15

Author Topic: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question  (Read 18470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2022, 10:01:14 PM »
Quote
I'm wondering if Sanborn and the SSPX are getting their talking points or marching orders from the same source. They both see globalism in a vacuum and not as a force interacting with current events and moral issues. They even similarly articulate the vaccine issue under this lens.
This whole commie scheme has done 1 thing for humanity - separate out those who believe in a global conspiracy from those who don't (or who are controlled opposition).  Those who can't see what's really going on, must feel the pain of being stupid/willfully blind.  At least it's clearer who I can trust and who I can't.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2022, 10:12:07 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2022, 08:01:24 PM
Summary:

Fr. Pagliarani's opening speech lasted 24 minutes.  He spent the first ten minutes building up to the notion that the SSPX has chosen to "step aside" because this is a "medical issue".  Ridiculous.  Medical issues often have moral aspects, take sterilization, or in vitro fertilization, etc.  He implies that this is solely a medical issue.

He talks around the notion of "globalism" but refuses to say that they have an obligation to oppose the Satanic globalist agenda.  He feigns being "above it" by appealing to the "supernatural aspect," namely, that it's a punishment for our sins.  EVERY EVIL is allowed by God as a punishment.  That does not absolve anyone of the obligation to fight and resist it.

He says the SSPX refuse to takes sides because he says that both the anti-jab and the pro-jab sides appear to the false principles of "freedom" and "human rights".  So it's OK for a government to butcher its citizens and wrong to insist that they have a right to live?  Communism can take away the human "right" to private property?  He thereby throws out the entire social teaching of the Popes and dethrones Christ the king, deferring to the Globalists.

And his ONLY mention of abortion in the keynote speech was to actually associate the ANTI-JAB movement with abortion, claiming that they're appealing to "my body my choice" thinking.  NOT ONE WORD in his keynote speech about the abortion tainting of the jab.

In the panel discussion later, he tries to pretend that St. Thomas Aquinas backs his position, rambling around the "remote material cooperation" and wrongly referring to it as "taking advantage" of evils done by others.  Sure, let me go to a car lot selling stolen vehicles to "take advantage" of that.  Is he out of his mind or asleep in seminary or a Satanic infiltrator?  This was so bad that I have come to the conclusion that Pagliarani is a Masonic infiltrator of the SSPX.  He had the gall to tie the anti-jab movement to abortion and ignore the abortion link to the jab in his main / keynote speech.

Finally, he uses the "taking cornea from a person who had been killed example" that actually is a deliberately false metaphor.  And the gaps in his metaphor actually prove more clearly the reasons (1 and 2) above why it's really formal cooperation and a grave sin.

This is so bad that it's of the devil, and I accuse Pagliarani of being a Masonic infiltrator.

If by necessity I ever have to set foot in an SSPX chapel again, they're never getting another dime of collection money out of me.

Hi Lad-

Thanks for the summary.  Your severe judgment is rather breathtaking.  I’m going to withhold comment until tomorrow afternoon, when I’ll have had a chance to listen to it.

Ultimately, I was hoping Fr. Pagliarani would address the 2008 CDF doc  Dignitas Personae (as well as it’s 2020 Note, reaffirming it), but it sounds like that didn’t happen.
Logged

Offline Anne Evergreen

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2022, 10:42:03 PM »
Quote from: DustyActual on January 05, 2022, 07:57:31 PM
Fr. Pagliarani said that it's a question of prudence; Okay but wouldn't it be a mortal sin against the virtue of prudence if a father of a family takes the vaccine knowing that it is dangerous? The father is risking leaving his family without a father.
Bear with me, because I am going on gut instinct here alone and am totally open to feedback on this. I am going to wade into the swamp here, because a lot of this stuff goes over my head, and I have made no bones about it since I got here. But I don't get embarrassed easily by any stretch, so enjoy getting my feet wet and trying to figure out complex ethical issues, etc. 

The way I see it, is that the virtue of Justice would trump prudence. *In this case, I would say that a father may in fact have a duty to take it if it means he can continue to provide for his family, even if that time ends up as short. In other words, nobody knows when they will die, so that father may have died at age 36 anyway, regardless of what he took or not. (NOW, side point: if the person is given a known lethal injection of potassium chloride in sufficient quantity to stop his heart, well, that is different. And yes, it would be stupid for the father to take it, because for sure, 100%, he would know it would stop his heart quickly right then.) 

Carrying on with my first point of the situation, *If he did not take it, and the family starves, then I would say that would be a mortal sin.

It would be another way of saying the father has to be willing to sacrifice his life for his family. I think we are both in the same ballpark, but struggling to grasp it from two different sides of the plate. 

It's kind of like what I was trying to explain to Sean on his other thread. He is a father, and he first owes Justice to HIS family, to provide and protect them in an SHTF scenario, but then additionally, as a Catholic, he owes in justice to help others in that scenario next.

Logged

Offline Seraphina

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2022, 11:01:33 PM »
Here’s what Fr.Pagliarini needs.:fryingpan:
IOW, don’t look to the SSPX for moral guidance or for support in upholding Catholic morals.

Quite honestly, I know a Baptist minister who is crystal clear in opposing the vaccines and explains it in two concise paragraphs.  He’s given his congregation letters for employers and school authorities.
I also know of an Orthodox rabbi who has taken the same stand. He also provides letters for his congregants.  
Fr. Pagliarini, the SSPX bishops, and a good number of the priests should be ashamed of themselves.  They’ve been shown up by Baptists and Jews!  
Logged

Offline Miser Peccator

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2022, 11:10:58 PM »
Quote from: Anne Evergreen on January 05, 2022, 10:42:03 PM
Bear with me, because I am going on gut instinct here alone and am totally open to feedback on this. I am going to wade into the swamp here, because a lot of this stuff goes over my head, and I have made no bones about it since I got here. But I don't get embarrassed easily by any stretch, so enjoy getting my feet wet and trying to figure out complex ethical issues, etc.

The way I see it, is that the virtue of Justice would trump prudence. *In this case, I would say that a father may in fact have a duty to take it if it means he can continue to provide for his family, even if that time ends up as short. In other words, nobody knows when they will die, so that father may have died at age 36 anyway, regardless of what he took or not. (NOW, side point: if the person is given a known lethal injection of potassium chloride in sufficient quantity to stop his heart, well, that is different. And yes, it would be stupid for the father to take it, because for sure, 100%, he would know it would stop his heart quickly right then.)

Carrying on with my first point of the situation, *If he did not take it, and the family starves, then I would say that would be a mortal sin.

It would be another way of saying the father has to be willing to sacrifice his life for his family. I think we are both in the same ballpark, but struggling to grasp it from two different sides of the plate.

It's kind of like what I was trying to explain to Sean on his other thread. He is a father, and he first owes Justice to HIS family, to provide and protect them in an SHTF scenario, but then additionally, as a Catholic, he owes in justice to help others in that scenario next.


What if they wanted to sodomize you?

Just this once of course.

Okay twice, but that's it...

Promise.

Well, maybe more if needed but it's for the greater good...






We just want to alter your DNA.  Just a little tiny bit.

We just want to perform scientific experiments on your body.

So you and your children can eat.

Join the regime.

2 plus 2 is five.

Say it and your children eat.

Step on the image of Christ.

Just once.

And your children eat.



Don't play games with the Devil.


Even when they tell you it's for the greater good:


1min 52sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YHWPuWXqP1A0/






Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15
« previous next »