Tradicat

+ JMJ After my discussion with Smith I have been pondering a question:    Were all the measures taken to contain the pandemic worth it? Key factors that come to mind are economic, geopolitical and moral.  This will not be an in depth study, just the documenting a 'stream of consciousness' exercise. Economics This factor seems to divide into two questions:What was the economic cost of the response to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and what would it have been if the civil leaders had taken the "do nothing" option? The COVID-19 recession is an economic recession happening across the world economy in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Global stock markets experienced their worst crash since 1987, and in the first three months of 2020 the G20 economies fell 3.4% year-on-year. Between April and June 2020, the International Labour Organization estimated that an equivalent of 400 million full-time jobs were lost across the world, and income earned by workers globally fell 10 percent

 + JMJ Every since reading Dr. Mattai's article, I've been wondering about the liceity of mandatory vaccinations.   I remember as a kid that vaccinations in public school were required and when I attended St.Mary's Academy it was a condition of acceptance. I found in this article (link) that all 50 US states have mandatory vaccination regulations for school children.  However, the question is one of morality?  Is it morally licit to require a medical treatment for a healthy person? This article link has some insights about the history and reasons for concern. I went digging into my moral theology texts and, sadly, there were [no] references to mandatory vaccinations.  However, in discussing forced sterilizations, I may have found a relevant principle in Casti Casti Connubii (Pius XI): "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects. Therefore where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never

 + JMJ Introduction Christopher Ferrara has written a response to Professor de Mattei's article on  the licety of the Covid-19 vaccines. As I did with Mr. Blackshaw, I intend to write a summary review of his arguments in support of his conclusions. I know that sounds very formal, however I will admit that I was astounded at the length of the three articles when I pulled them into a word processor (34 pages) and concluded that,while important, this will take some time to do properly. I will admit that, I had to revert to an old-school method for assessing Mr. Ferrara's article: I printed it out and used a high-lighter system to zero-out anything that was not central to the thesis. Here are links to my brief commentary, Rorate's original posting and Mr. Ferrara's articles.   Tradicat: Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part K (De Mattei) Rorate-Caeli: Roberto de Mattei - Is the COVID vaccine morally licit for Catholics? Catholic Family News: COVID Vaccines, the Common Good,

 + JMJ  You may have noticed that I have a link "SSPX in the News" under links of interest.  This used to point to a general google search ... but over the years a lot of clutter / spam started to appear in the results.  I took the link down for a while, but recently added a new one that scans the news instead of general. So while I may miss an interesting blog post, what pops up is of more interest. Case in point, on June 16th the CMTV headlines showed up with the "SSPX threatens to sue CM".  I clicked on the article and was more than a little surprised that CMTV would post something that deviates from their narrative. Then I realized that they had cross-linked an article from LifeSite News.  Aha!  The first think I would like to note is that the article is actually titled:   SSPX priest planning defamation lawsuit against Church Militant, lawyer says I guess that wouldn't get as many clicks as the their preferred title. At first read the article provides a pre

 + JMJ Auctorem Fidei Revisited On January 3 "Unknown" posted some comments on a 2013 post about auctorem-fidei here . Unknown: your reasoning is defective; the Popes in the above statements condemn as erroneous that the discipline of the Church could be harmful to souls. Stating that the Popes only meant "the Church discipline of their time" is incorrect, since other Popes post Pius VI and Gregory have cited these documents as evidence of the "negative infallibility" of Church discipline.  I wish Unknown would have provided a reference.  But what is "negative infallibility"?  I covered this in an article on infallibility here . Please read the whole article Fr. Peter Scott addresses the objection. Unknown: Also, per Dr. L. Ott in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 296; stated that the Church "would remain the Institution of Salvation...until the end of the World". If the Church could ever teach harmful error or decree disci

 + JMJ   Tradical's Rambling Thoughts I think this comes down to three questions: Is the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) valid?  Is it licit?  What does Donum Veritatis have to do with it? The first question is easy to answer: With the usual conditions the NOM is valid.  ( See this link ) The second question is a little trickier: Is the NOM licit?  Does it mean that it is a duly promulgated law of the Catholic Church? Short answer - probably in the formal / knowable sense. There's was a lot of arguments about this, focusing on whether or not it was a good law, but none of them really seemed to provide a definitive answer. The definitive answer will probably be given in a hundred years or so.😎 Does it mean that it doesn't contradict Church Teaching? Short answer - as promulgated it doesn't.  Likewise there's been a lot of argument about this as well.  I have yet to see someone identify a passage from the promulgated copy of the NOM that EXPLICITLY contradicts the C

 + JMJ    Murrax brought up an interesting question in a comment here . ... do you have any advice when talking to conservative Catholics who use the document "Donum Veritatis" to say that the liturgical reform is valid and licit because it has been accepted by post-Vatican 2 popes and bishops. The relevant passage is this: "But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission." Tradical's Short Answer If Murrax's opponent believes that the acceptance by post-V2 popes and bishops makes something right,then they should be Arians. During that crisis, the vast majority of bishops were Arian and the pope ... well that's a story for another day.  But in Donum Veritatis they are invoking a degree of infallibility, so in a way the mod

 + JMJ  Edward Pentin has penned an article on the rumoured changes to Summorum Pontificum. P^3   https://www.ncregister.com/blog/extraordinary-form-document Edward Pentin Blogs May 29, 2021

 + JMJ  The anticipation of what Pope Francis will next continues to mount.  I attend the SSPX, so I'm not worried at this time for me, but for the rest of the Church.  I have included some of the key passages of the article. P^3 Courtesy of The Remnant VATICAN CITY, June 1, 2021 — The Remnant has independently confirmed that a Vatican document restricting Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum is backed by at least two Vatican cardinals, is in its third draft, and threatens to thwart the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass and other sacraments particularly among diocesan clergy. ... Multiple sources have also told The Remnant that Pope Francis wishes to soon publish the document, and that it is alleged to be receiving backing in varying degrees from two cardinal consultors to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.