Just listened to the first third.You have quite a stomach. Someone has to watch it and confirm what everyone was expecting. Thanks.
Pagliarani is a sophist. Far from supporting his lame argument, the example of food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8-11) provides the moral framework for REJECTING the vaccines because, by providing a market for pharmaceuticals tested on aborted fetal tissue, we encourage the development of additional aborted fetal cell lines. And it is precisely the SCANDAL of Catholics publicly consuming items generated by sacrilege to extend their own lives that St. Paul warned against.
The Resistance is correct. The Society is rotten at the top (including the Districts). However, I still believe that there are many good Society priests. Ours has directly contradicted the Society position on the vaccines, because of the abortion issue, in multiple homilies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So now he begins to ramble around material remote cooperation, though he never uses the actual phrase, saying instead that it's possible to "take advantage of the evil done by others".I think the problem is the general lumping of all the vax available out there to be using or tested with fetal cells. This is where individual prudence is needed. On scenario #2, what if the recipient of the cornea does not know the source or was told it was taken from a morally acceptable source?
"Take advantage"? That is NOT the right expression here.
He uses the example of taking a cornea from a person who was "killed" (presumably he means "murdered").
Ridiculous example because --
1) you can only take the cornea if the person indicated a willingness to donate it (vs. the theft of the remains of the aborted baby)
2) you can't do that if they're killing people in order to supply corneas
We're in scenario #2 here and not just a person who happened to be killed.
Then he babbles about he it's OK to take a mosque and convert it into a Catholic Church or eat meat sacrified to idols. Has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
If there were an operation where people were going around murdering individuals to provide a supply of corneas, yes indeed it would be formal cooperation in the evil for you to go in and receive that procedure. This is actually one of the clearest example yet (ironically incorrectly applied to support his position) of why it's evil to get the jab.
Great post, Miser!
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/
I think the problem is the general lumping of all the vax available out there to be using or tested with fetal cells. This is where individual prudence is needed. On scenario #2, what if the recipient of the cornea does not know the source or was told it was taken from a morally acceptable source?
This doesn't seem to be "neoSSPX sellout" issue but on the Thomistic application of material vs formal, passive vs active cooperation in the act of abortion. Didn't the sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn also enunciated on this topic a couple of months ago?
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.
*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.The problem with this line of thinking is...it's from 2020...a year ago, (at least in America), everything was in lockdown and there was no way to fight back. Fast forward to today and there are all kinds of lawsuits, and back-pedaling by the govt. The law is on the anti-jab side; we are winning. Most states aren't locked down and most companies (outside of the medical industry) a) allow religious exemptions and b) you can get weekly tested instead of the jab.
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.Thx, Lad, for the summary. I can't stomach listening to it. He's either trying to dupe these people or he has the IQ of a newt.
1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober.
As I said above, I think Pagliarani is using sophistic techniques to "soothe" the "itching ears" of his audience. Here is what St. Paul said on the subject (2 Timothy 4):This is a great point because scandal is a relatively light weight sin compared to eating meat sacrificed to idols because one is a sin against man and the other is a sin against God.
Listen at 32:50 where Pagliarani uses St. Paul (1 Corinthians 8) to JUSTIFY the vaccines. That discussion of St. Paul uses the example of "eating meat sacrificed to idols," which is what Pagliarani focuses on. But the main point that St. Paul was making was that a Christian cannot do something that will "scandalize" the weaker members of the Body of Christ. Again, "eating meat sacrificed to idols" was just the specific example he used to illustrate the general moral teaching "to avoid scandal."
Pagliarani turns St. Paul's words upside down. With a hand wave, Pagliarani says "scandalizing others is another matter," which he does not bring up again. He focuses only on St. Paul setting up the moral issue by using the example of "eating meat sacrificed to idols." Far from saying that a Christian SHOULD eat, St. Paul says the Christian may eat IF AND ONLY IF it would not cause a scandal for the weaker members.
So to apply St. Paul's reasoning to our situation, using the example of the Covid vaccine, even if the vaccine did not actually contain aborted baby parts (which it does), but some Catholics thought that it did, and we Catholics consumed those vaccines, we would scandalize the consciences of those who thought the vaccines were made with aborted babies. In that case, we must avoid the vaccine to avoid the scandal.
See St. John Chrysostom's commentary on the issue if you are having trouble understanding St. Paul. You can find it here:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220120.htm
The main point is made in the explanations of verses 8:9-8:13 at the bottom of the St. John's commentary.
I wish Catholics wouldn't focus so much on the abortion tainted injection question. (((They))) can so easily overcome this by bringing out a new shot with no connection to aborted babies and then Catholics will have no excuse not to take it.I concur 100%. It is all there.
The reason not to take it, is that the covidian circus is a lie and to take the injection is a public acknowledgement of that lie. That, should be enough for any Catholic or reasonable person to refuse the shot, even if it were just a saline solution and even if the government was giving out fake vaccination certificates.
I suspect that the reason Sweden was spared from the covidian circus, is that the swedes are pretty much OK with a being chipped and marked for the upcoming cashless slave regime.
I wish Catholics wouldn't focus so much on the abortion tainted injection question. (((They))) can so easily overcome this by bringing out a new shot with no connection to aborted babies and then Catholics will have no excuse not to take it.
The reason not to take it, is that the covidian circus is a lie and to take the injection is a public acknowledgement of that lie. That, should be enough for any Catholic or reasonable person to refuse the shot, even if it were just a saline solution and even if the government was giving out fake vaccination certificates.
I suspect that the reason Sweden was spared from the covidian circus, is that the swedes are pretty much OK with a being chipped and marked for the upcoming cashless slave regime.
I wish Catholics wouldn't focus so much on the abortion tainted injection question. (((They))) can so easily overcome this by bringing out a new shot with no connection to aborted babies and then Catholics will have no excuse not to take it.
The reason not to take it, is that the covidian circus is a lie and to take the injection is a public acknowledgement of that lie. That, should be enough for any Catholic or reasonable person to refuse the shot, even if it were just a saline solution and even if the government was giving out fake vaccination certificates.
I suspect that the reason Sweden was spared from the covidian circus, is that the swedes are pretty much OK with a being chipped and marked for the upcoming cashless slave regime.
For me, the reasons not to take the jab rank thusly:These are good but I'd rank them differently:
1) Abortion-tainted;
2) Scandal wounds the credibility of the Church;
3) Violation of natural law;
4) Danger to health;
5) Prepares the terrain for the Antichrist;
6) Complicity in a lie for personal advantage/convenience is dishonorable.
1) abortion -- part of a Satanic sacrament (attempting to get everyone to participate in their child sacrifice industry)
2) NWO program to assert control with the ultimate end of destroying the Church and increasing the hold of Satan over the world, paving the way for Antichrist
3) intentional program of genocide and population reduction
These all go hand in hand.
Concerns about health stem from #3.
Here’s what Fr.Pagliarini needs.:fryingpan:Yes, I agree. Sspx hierarchy is lukewarm. We do have Brave SSPX priests who been fighting jabs mandated jabs before covid and during. Were they invited to speak??? They won in court too. Good priests like them need our prayers. Prayers also for brave Baptist ministers and Jєωιѕн rabbis who fight against the demonic jab.
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 Jєωs! Yes
Thanks Gentlemen for your patience in answering my posts (in no particular order), Sean, Pax, Lad. Any other fellows I missed. Mark? (I think that was the other threads). Most appreciated and Happy Epiphany!Yes, today is the Epiphany which is Feast of the Three Kings.
Sean--your article was basically what I was looking for. Pax--Thanks, but I am in Canada and things are quite a bit different for a number of reasons, but I am glad your lawsuits are working, etc. Lad--The one response about clarifying prudence over justice goes along with Sean's post/article.
Yeah, definitely not into the whole Priest-bashing bit at all from anyone, male or female. There seems to be an awful lot of that that happens on this forum, and there is another thread that is just reeking of it as well. I can only imagine how many others that are like that. :-( :'(
That is definitely a danger to my spiritual life, and so I will be taking better care not to post to threads where it happens. Lord, have mercy on me!
In my half-slumber this morning, I clicked on a bad link from here and it messed up my computer. So I will not be checking out anymore YTube links, etc. (Thanks anyway, ladies.-Yeah, not really into clicking on links where the people ask for money either. LOL. Scammers. Grifters. Con-men.)
That's pretty much it for this thread. Lost interest in reading anything else here today except a couple of lighter and happier posts about music, the Twelve Days of Christmas, etc. Oh, I really liked the post from the person about Father John Hardon--his picture caught my eye. He reminds me and looks similar to Saint Andre--a wonderful Canadian Saint and one of our favourites.
Happy Epiphany all! If anyone wants to come and play in the snow, it might do you a world of good. ;) Fantastic exercise, lots of fun, and super productive to dig out the driveway, clear off the vehicles, and snow blower out everything. Hubster and I had a ball, and a lot of the neighbours were out doing the same. We were all chatting and bellyaching good-naturedly, and laughing. One big snow shoveling party. FUN!
There's a whack of snowbanks everywhere about 15' high! Came in, had some soup, chalked the door for Epiphany, and had some Pannetone. God is good! His creation is amazing! You can't enjoy it if you are online all the time, just sayin.' But whatever floats your boat. It would be really boring in life if we were all the same. ;)
Later Y'all! Off to listen to some beautiful Christmas music. Without peace in my soul, nothing else matters. I sadly don't seem to find that uplifting joy to help maintain it too often reading these boards. I am grateful for my amazing and patient husband, all of my crosses, and all of my blessings, and a few wonderful real-life friends, even if they are hours away.
God bless, Anne
P.S. Be assured of my prayers. :-) Sorry I screwed up the font again, lol.
(https://i.imgur.com/g7R3weV.jpg)
Yes, I agree. Sspx hierarchy is lukewarm. We do have Brave SSPX priests who been fighting jabs mandated jabs before covid and during. Were they invited to speak??? They won in court too. Good priests like them need our prayers. Prayers also for brave Baptist ministers and Jєωιѕн rabbis who fight against the demonic jab.I think you conveniently forgot that the the priests who won the court cases fought on the basis of the US Constitution on religious freedom.
(https://i.imgur.com/g7R3weV.jpg)At the bottom it says the source is from 2006, which is impossible. what is the source?
At the bottom it says the source is from 2006, which is impossible. what is the source?
I think you conveniently forgot that the the priests who won the court cases fought on the basis of the US Constitution on religious freedomThe priests reject religious liberty but they were using the constitution to argue against closing the churches. They were not accepting religious liberty in principle.
The source regards the myocarditis stats, not the jab mortality timetable.What is the link where you got it?
I think you conveniently forgot that the the priests who won the court cases fought on the basis of the US Constitution on religious freedom.
The priests reject religious liberty but they were using the constitution to argue against closing the churches. They were not accepting religious liberty in principle.
Italy Mandates Vax for All 50+I wonder what the SSPX is going to do and say now in those countries? The solution to this chastisement is spiritual. Until a certain number of Catholics return to God (God knows how many?) and LIVE the Faith, all this NWO enslavement and population culling will not be abated. The SSPX has the power to lead this fight, but as of today, they are impotent.
Austria is making vaccines obligatory for the over-14s from February, while Germany is planning to introduce a vaccine mandate for adults.
But those Catholic who resist the jab can't also appeal to principles of "rights" and "freedom" in order to assert their freedom from coercion to receive the jab? Father Pagliarani is completely off-base here. People do in fact have certain rights under natural law. Governments don't have the right to genocide people and force them to take a potentially-lethal jab.I agree.
(https://i.imgur.com/70T5Mb5.jpg)Why is Our Lady's little foot on his head ?
Why is Our Lady's little foot on his head ?