What People Are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Betrayal, Magisterium & Trial Vaccine
‘Vatican II Is the Magisterium of the Church’
What is Tradition in Action’s response to the Pope’s recent statement that Vatican 2 is the magisterium of the Church?
Deacon D.L, MD
______________________
TIA responds:
Deacon D.L.,
Yes, this statement is raising a lot of dust.
Here is what we have to say on it.
- Vatican II was a Council whose teachings were ambiguous. Sometimes it repeated the past doctrine of the Church, sometimes it was tendentiously ambiguous opening
the doors to bad doctrines.
Now then, the past ensemble of the teachings of the Catholic Church, normally referred to as the Magisterium of the Church, was extremely clear.
Therefore, Vatican II with its ambiguity cannot be considered a part of the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church. - Some of those doors that it opened led to the affirmation by the Conciliar Popes that there is salvation in all religions, which is the base for today’s ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue.
Now then, this doctrine was considered heretical by the Magisterium previous to Vatican II.
Therefore, in this point the Conciliar Popes strayed from the continuous and unanimous doctrine of the Catholic Church before Vatican II. To say the least, it is a flagrant contradiction. - These ecumenical and inter-religious principles of the Conciliar Popes have been taught since 1962, that is, for 59 years. Some persons, like Pope Francis, may consider this continuity a “magisterium.”
We believe that the continuity in error does not legitimate it, but makes it more grave and can even characterize a New Church, a Conciliar Church different from the bi-millennial Catholic Church.
So, what needs to be clarified in the statement of Pope Francis affirming that Vatican II is the Magisterium of the Church is to what Church is he referring.
- Is he referring to the perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church? In this case, he would need to explain how doctrines that came from Vatican II – such as the thesis of universal salvation – can harmonize with many previous dogmatic condemnations of Popes and Councils.
- Is he referring to the Conciliar Church? In this case, we believe that he would be making a serious mistake. For when he anathematizes those who follow the perennial Catholic teachings, he shows that the Conciliar Church is not a continuation of the Catholic Church, but her enemy.
Therefore, the ball returns to Francis’ court. He needs to explain to what magisterium he is referring and to what Church he belongs.
If he does not respond to these questions, the only obvious reality is that he is using his authority to irrationally impose Vatican II. Another act of despotism of our Argentine Pope…
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
______________________
On the Experimental ‘Vaccine’
I thought these comments on America’s Frontline Doctors were very insightful. The government is not offering us a vaccine to immunize us against covid-19. It is something else, which alters the body to produce proteins that may or may not help to cure us. It seems to me that the term “vaccine” has been used to fool people.
I suggest you spread their good position among your readers.
P.H.
H.P. Smith
February 3, 2021 - America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) recently published a white paper that is the first objective look at the experimental vaccines that are now being enthusiastically offered to the public on an ever-increasing scale.
They are the group that advocated for the safety of the very well-known, long-studied and widely-used drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 during the summer of 2020, holding a well-publicized press conference in Washington, D.C. They were, of course, immediately attacked and almost entirely silenced for their efforts because hydroxychloroquine had been touted by President Trump as an effective treatment against Covid-19.
A few key highlights from the paper: First, all three vaccine candidates – from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna – are still experimental and investigational. Pfizer, in its own executive summary to the FDA on December 10, 2020 calls it “... an investigational Covid-19 vaccine.”
The experimental vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna utilize mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) which instructs the body’s cells on manufacturing proteins. It is technology that has not “ever been approved for any disease, or even entered final-stage trials until now.” There have been no independently published animal studies on any of the vaccines, and it is not yet known what effects they will have on the elderly, the very young, or women who are pregnant or might become pregnant in the near future. I’d say those are important groups whose safety is critical.
The white paper speaks extensively about Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) as a well-known complication of vaccines that can result in a making the disease worse if contracted. It also goes into somewhat frightening detail about the possibility that the mRNA vaccines “may permanently interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain a pregnancy.”
A curious detail that the AFLDS paper mentions is the National Childhood Vaccine Act, a little-known law passed in 1986 that “provides immunity from liability to all vaccine manufacturing companies.” None of them can be held responsible for rushing an untested, potentially dangerous vaccine to fight a flu virus that has an incredibly low Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR). In this case, it’s a very real possibility that the “cure” may be worse than the disease.
The point of the white paper is not to say that people shouldn’t get the shots; it is merely to inform people of the reality of the situation, such as the possibility that the vaccines may cause worse spread of the virus via asymptomatic carriers. Those vaccinated may think it is safe to be around others when it actually isn’t. People should be given all the facts before making a decision for themselves or their families. At this stage, do people getting a shot even know which shot they are getting?
America’s Frontline Doctors are also circulating a petition against the possible future mandating of the vaccine. Rumors have been spreading that there may come a time when employers, schools, airlines, and even concert venues may require proof of vaccination, which would be illegal on many levels, not the least of which is the access by third parties to people’s private medical data. What happened to “my body, my choice?”
It’s interesting that the same “scientific” and media communities that rebranded HCQ – a drug with decades of history of safe and widespread use – as unsafe during mid-2020 is now aggressively pushing the distribution of vaccines with very little testing data of any kind and, by definition, zero data regarding any possible long-term complications. I ask why?
I don’t know about you, but I am not someone who takes everyone at their word, especially these days. I have a scientific educational background that taught me to involve the scientific method as part of my critical thinking. I am much more likely to listen to a group of respected practicing physicians brave enough to risk their careers in order to advocate caution in taking an experimental “vaccine” than I am to take the word of politicians, media talking heads, or the liability-immune pharmaceutical companies poised to make billions from its distribution.
Original here.
Posted February 4, 2021
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
I was surprised to see that the eight highest military chiefs of our Armed Forces abandoned President Trump and sided with Joe Biden on January 12. They had been chosen by Trump to protect the Constitution and did not care about the evident fraud in the last election. They simply delivered him to the wolves and gave power to Biden.
I wondered whether or not they would go unpunished without anyone complaining about their betrayal. Now, I see that some people are starting to tell the truth, like this writer L. Todd Wood, who looks with disgust at the hypocrisy of U.S. military leadership who have betrayed the Constitution.
I was glad to see a man of courage who does not fear to point his finger to the guilty ones.
G.M.