Vaccines: Catholics To Benefit From Murdered Babies On Vatican Say-So? 

Editor writes…

I received the following email last night from a reader in the USA…

Good evening,…

I wanted to share with you the most recent posting that my wife Vickie and I placed on our page concerning what we see as a shift in emphasis by many Catholics away from opposing the COVID-19 vaccine for moral reasons to relying on arguing pragmatically that the vaccine is dangerous (which it truly is). 

If you would like to use our posting, please feel free to do so.  Or you link to it, if you prefer …the priests here in Post Falls are apparently following the SSPX hierarch lead, unfortunately, even to the point of having held a “vaccine presentation” on 4 January.  We have our take on that in an earlier posting that you may find interestingOn Distractions and Staying Focused | Tradidi Quod et Accepi (wordpress.com)

In any event, please let me know what you think, and feel free to use what you wish from our blog. Ends

Coincidentally, I also received an email last night from a reader at home, here in Scotland, who is puzzled that her priest is promoting the vaccine – if the CDF has approved it then surely Catholics may take it?  

Given the continuing confusion surrounding the Catholic position on this (and on just about everything else, under the Francis pontificate), I think it’s time for another thread on the subject of the Covid vaccines.  Below, then, the text of the above linked article from the Tradidi Quod et Accepi blog…

From the Tradidi Quod et Accepi Blog…

On Distractions and Staying Focused

Over the last couple of weeks, the focus of the COVID-19 debate seems to have shifted — amongst Christians in general, and some Catholics in particular — from the moral liceity of abortion-tainted vaccines and pharmaceuticals to the dangers of the shots. It is a distraction that should give us concern; for the logical extension of the argument is that when or if we have a safe COVID-19 vaccine, there will no longer be any basis for objection. When I tried to re-focus a friend of many years on the real issue — the immorality of any vaccine associated with murdered babies — he argued we would never be able to convince our legislators of the evil of the vaccine on moral grounds, so we should shut down the vaccination program through the pragmatic approach of sounding the public health warning.

No doubt, many of those who agree with my pragmatic friend have viewed the interesting video making the rounds on “social media” of Dr. Simone Gold, of Frontline Doctors. In the video, Dr. Gold, who is also an attorney, gives a convincing presentation at what appears to be a Protestant church earlier in January, on the many dangers of what she correctly calls “experimental biological agents” being injected into millions of Americans. Some of you may remember that Dr. Gold and several of her colleagues had gone to Washington, D.C., several months ago and held a press conference there to promote the common sense approach of using hydroxychloroquine and zinc in the treatment of what Frank Walker of Canon 212 humorously calls “the Blessed and Eternal Virus.” You can view the hour-long video here:

Dr. Simone Gold: Experimental Biological Agents [Ed: YouTube removed Dr Gold’s video, but you can view it here ]

Dr. Gold’s sound arguments notwithstanding, most of us are adamant that the focus of the opposition to these vaccines should be on their lack of moral liceity.  We should be even more insistent that the current COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna are morally unacceptable after viewing the recent video of Lifesite’s John-Henry Westen interview of vaccine research expert Pamela Acker. Viewing this video will be an hour well spent:

Lifesite: Pamela Acker; Vaccine expert explains how aborted baby cells taint covid vaccines

Biologist Pamela Acker puts some big lies to rest in this interview, including the fable from “fact-checkers” (and unfortunately from some priests in the SSPX) that specific lines of what is termed “fetal cell lines” were perpetuated from two or three babies killed thirty of forty years ago. In fact, these stem cells/DNA (which Fr. Chad Ripperger correctly insists must be buried with a Christian burial) actually consist of stem cells/DNA from scores of murdered babies. The lie, for example, that HEK-293, which was used in both the development and testing of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, were not just from the one baby we were told was killed in 1973. In fact, in the interview, Pamela Acker specifically mentions HEK-293:

[T]he HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, but 293 stands for . . . the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop a cell line. And that doesn’t mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. And we’re talking probably 100s of abortions. And, this was done with the collaboration of some hospitals. And there was a group in Sweden that was involved in developing the WI-38 cell line, so a different cell line, but they routinely were aborting babies for the use in trying to develop fetal cell lines.

There is far too much info in the interview — some quite gruesome — to allow me to dwell on all the points that this courageous young biologist makes. I am anxiously awaiting her book, which is on back order. I will be reviewing Pamela Acker’s Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, on this site in the near future, God willing. In the meantime, you can order the book from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation at:

Kolbe Center; Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, Pamela Acker

It comes down to this: the tragic fact is that even if a vaccine does not use mRNA, nor contain oncogenic elements, most are either tested with or contain stem cells of brutally murdered babies —  many, many more than we were being told by the Left and sadly, by the SSPX, which bought into the idea years ago that fetal cell line WI-38, for example, was from a single baby aborted forty years ago, as articulated on page 9 of the Dr. Timothy P. Collins, M.D., article in the Angelus “Vaccine” issue of February, 2006. In fact, a 2018 video of a court case in which the ghoulish vaccine researcher and developer, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, was a witness, is eye-opening and nauseating. Parts of the original footage (in which Dr. Plotkin, under oath, reluctantly admits that seventy-six murdered babies were used in the development of the stem cell line WI-38) have been included in another gut-wrenching Lifesite video here:

THE PROOF: Many aborted babies used in vaccine creation

As an aside, Dr. Collins makes this unfortunate statement in the second paragraph of his article in that issue: “I accept the usefulness of mass vaccinations in general.” The fact of the matter is, there is at the very least reasonable doubt that most of the vaccines routinely required for children today were ever really necessary. I will address this in a future posting; but for an excellent analysis of this, take some time to peruse the “Learn the Risk” website, particularly:

Learn the Risk: Did diseases decline because of vaccines? Not according to history

Unfortunately, too many traditional Catholics buy into the disinformation propagated in the infamous Angelus issue of February 2006 regarding the SSPX change of heart on Rubella vaccines.  The issue was prompted, of all things, by the pronouncement the year before by the Pontifical Academy for Life, that itself allowed Catholics the possibility of taking abortion-tainted vaccines like Rubella, if there were no alternative and if one makes his objection known.  The Angelus issue included the entire text of the PAL “decision”.  I have a copy of the February 2006 Angelus issue before me as I write. The article by Dr. Collins is obviously the centerpiece of the issue, and clearly breaks with the statement in 2000, by then-District Superior (and physician) Fr. Peter Scott. At that time, Fr. Scott was disseminating what he described as the teaching of Holy Mother Church regarding the moral theology principle of “cooperation in evil” with respect to abortion-tainted vaccines such as the Rubella shot. But in the February 2006 “Vaccine” issue of the Angelus, Fr. Scott, referred to as the “publisher emeritus,” changes his mind. On page 14 of that issue, he can hardly contain his enthusiasm for the June, 2005, statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life:

It is a surprising relief and unusual joy to find this quandary resolved authoritatively for Catholics. The document . . . is admirable and refreshing to see. (The PAL document) does allow the possibility of using such vaccines in the case of necessity for the health of one’s children when no other alternative exists, such being a very remote and material cooperation in the evil of abortion.

The February, 2006, issue is still available from Angelus Press. It is a sad and even heartbreaking realization — but an undeniable fact — that the SSPX unfortunately opened the door publicly to the possibility of taking abortion-tainted vaccines for “proportionate cause” with that Angelus issue – a break with what had previously been taught to the laity in the pews.  Most recently, the awful article that appeared in December, 2020, on the sspx.org website should give all traditional Catholics pause.  It is absolutely scandalous! All of a sudden, we agree with something out of “Modernist Rome,” as Archbishop Lefebvre so often called the cesspool on the banks of the Tiber. In fact, here is what Archbishop Viganò has to say about the Pontifical Academy for Life:

When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life… we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the New World Order, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy.

If you bring up objections to an SSPX priest, many will give you the three “talking points” reportedly being proffered as responses on at least three continents (though there are many priests who dissent from the official position):

  1. “You are too emotional!”
  2. “It is a very complex matter, and you are simply laymen;”
  3. “Don’t you trust us?”

Well, there is a plethora of responses I could give to each of those, but the bottom line is that sometimes, we lay people have to stand up, with a properly formed conscience and a sensus Catholicus, for what we know is the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church from time immemorial. We were told from the pulpit last week that we have to “discern spirits” and we were given elements of the three arguments above — obviously a thinly veiled slap on the wrist for those faithful at Immaculate Conception Church in Post Falls that have pushed back against what was disseminated in the unfortunate “vaccine talk” of 4 January. We must stand our ground and remind priests that they cannot assume we are stupid.  Furthermore, there are many, many Catholics – both traditional and Novus Ordo – who have discerned correctly that vaccines containing murdered baby stem cells (as described by Pamela Acker) or derived from such testing are morally wrong. Period!

We are on the right side of this issue, and we are in good company. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and countless prelates and priests throughout the world stand with us! Here is Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, one of the few courageous American bishops, who wrote on 22 January, the anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions:

All the political posturing on vaccines is truly disgusting. The fact remains that ANY vaccine available today involves using murdered children before they could even be born. I renew my pledge . . . I will not extend my life by USING murdered children. This is evil. WAKE UP! (Upper case in the original)

Dear readers, don’t be led astray by the distraction of the (very real) medical/scientific/health problems of the vaccines. And do not listen to those who try to rationalize that taking abortion-tainted vaccines is only “remote” cooperation in evil. It is sheer sophistry! These extractions and subsequent murders of babies for the sole purpose of medical “research” continue today. It is why Bishop Athanasius Schneider calls it “concatenation.” It is not only a linkage, it is an interdependence. Worse, by taking such morally unacceptable vaccines, we create a demand for more and more babies to die these horrible deaths, as the pharmaceutical companies perpetuate the lie that this barbarism (Bishop Schneider calls it “cannibalism”) is needed. So do not be distracted. Let’s stay focused on the real issue: the horrendous evil of abortion-tainted vaccines. May Almighty God grant us victory in this combat against the forces of darkness, which seem to have seduced so many of those who should be with us! [Emphasis added]

Note:  I have emailed the link to this discussion to the three SSPX priests at Post Falls – the Prior as well as the Principal and Vice-Principal of the school.

Some time later…  the administrator of the Tradidi Quod et Accepi Blog alerted me to the fact that they link to our original post on the topic of the SSPX support for the Covid vaccines in their original post on the topic, The SSPX Blinks – click here  

There is also a further post on the subject on their blog, enetitled The SSPX Dobles Down on the Vaccine here

Comments invited…   

98 responses

  1. I found that article very informative with great links. I’d seen most of them before, here, but not the one about vaccines not being that important in eradicating diseases. I copied this statement from the top of that page:-

    THE FACTS ARE CLEAR: INFECTIOUS DISEASE DEATHS DECLINED NEARLY 90% BEFORE VACCINES WERE INTRODUCED…

    That’s dynamite information, right there.

    So, since they’re already warning us that the Covid vaccines are not a cure-all and that we’re still going to be open to infection, and getting the vaccine won’t prevent passing it on if we do have it, what’s the argument for getting these immoral vaccinations?

    I’m totally shocked that the Pope has given the go-ahead but nothing he does surprises me any more. I’m more surprised, as well as shocked, that the SSPX (the supposed “lifeboat” to get us through the Church crisis) are pushing it. I know we’ve discussed this before, but I have to say, it does seem that God is going to have to send another lifeboat soon, and one without any holes in it!

    • Lily,

      That’s exactly the question that I keep asking – if the vaccine can’t cure you, and it won’t prevent you getting or transmitting the virus, what’s the point of it? Nobody has yet given me a serious answer. Some say it will make us feel better, more confident about going out and about etc. whereas without the vaccine we’ll be in lockdown forever because people are too nervous to go out, but that’s just plain ridiculous. If the fact that most people who get Covid will not die of it but will actually get better doesn’t make people confident about going back to normal, why would taking a pointless vaccine work?

  2. Dear Editor,

    Thank you for this post. I have been firmly against any vaccines and the experimental Mrna injection (it is not a vaccine) , whether they contain the baby cell lines or were tested on them. A chat about it with our SSPX priest at our chapel also consisted of the three talking points you mentioned above. I have however remained firm in my objections. Imagine my horror then, when I found out that many, many medicines and vitamins on the market have been developed (tested) using HEK293. My own young autistic son’s anti-anxiety medicine was tested on HEK293. Without that medicine we are physically restraining him throughout the day for his own protection and that of his siblings. It is a horrific position to be in and has put me all at sea.

    If you or any of your readers are on any medication, do a search of the active ingredient with HEk293. It may well be ubiquitous.

    I can only hope that I have misunderstood the information I have read!!! Because what are we to do? Refuse all medications?

    • Secretgardenmum

      We know that Hydroxicloroquine & zinc is the safe, cheap and moral answer to COVID-19, yet that medication was suppressed deliberately in order to push these hugely dangerous, expensive and immoral vaccines. Therefore, is it possible that there exists somewhere a moral alternative medication for your son’s condition that is also being suppressed? Just a thought.

      • Athanasius you are wrong in what you say ,and if you don’t believe me then Email Bill Gates at- billygates.co.big.lie.com- and am sure he’ll tell us The Lies The Whole Lies and nothing but Lies . All jesting aside we know that these Vaccines are not just Enethecal but needless also . Since at least September the Good Docs and Scientists ( of which it seems are very few ) have told us of Ivermectin. Zinc and Vitamin D along with Hydroxicloriquine which am sure President Trump used ( correct if am wrong) and he was up and about within a week. Maybe one of the reasons that the drug companies won’t use these medications is that the Words are too long . After all I suppose it’s as good an excuse as any and one couldn’t really see Queen Nicola make a Fool of Herself by mis pronunciation. After all we know how much the S.N.P are set on correct pronouns Etc . I read the above although not the links but I did read on LSN 14 reasons of why not to take this Vaccine and I personally would like to add another. Although to be correct it is in the selfish mode more than anything else . I cannot see how something which has to be kept at – 70degrees Centigrade can be could for any Living Body. Now am no Scientist as my grammar attests to but neither am I dumb which of course is up for debate. The Question at the End of The Day is Easy is this Vaccine Morrally right or wrong and all evidence points to it being very wrong. On the Ghoulish Sense it just gives one a little glimpse into what may go on in these Laboratories when they still have reamains of Children Aborted as far back as 1973 . God Help Us . Of course WE all know that this Vaccine is down to Money. Money. And more money.

    • SecretGardenMum,

      I echo your fears as my severely autistic grandson is also on HEK293 tested medications to stop him from regularly bashing up his siblings and to reduce his anxieties.

      So what to do here? We can lobby pharmaceutical companies but they’re unlikely to take any notice of a mere fraction of the world’s population who protest tainted vaccines as I’ve been trying to do for 20 years. I feel the only way out of this dilemma is that the Church must go back to what it used to be – a moral force for the world.

      But sadly, I can’t see this happening anytime soon.

  3. I haven’t read the full thread introduction yet – so many house duties to perform(!) – but below is the email communication I sent to Fr. Loop on December 31. Fr. Loop is the SSPX priest who gave the vaccine presentation in Post Falls on January 4, under instruction from Fr. Beck.

    I have now sent communications in this grave matter of concern to the SSPX U.S. District Superior, Fr. Fullerton, to Fr. Seligny in Swizerland and to Fr. Loop in Post Falls, Idaho. Not one of the three has granted me the courtesy of an acknowledgement, much less a response. It is very worrying when priests of God demonstrate their contempt for subordinates in this way, especially when the question is one of such moral import. Frankly, it is inexcusable clericalism reminiscent of the pride of the Pharisees, not remotely in the spirit of Our Lord.

    Anyway, I did my duty before Our Lord even if they manifestly failed in theirs:

    December 31, 2020

    Dear Fr. Loop,

    It has come to my attention that Fr. Beck has arranged for you to address the faithful of Post Falls on Monday, January 4 in the matter of the U.S. District’s advice regarding use of Covid vaccines.

    If I understand correctly, it is your task to explain and defend Fr. Sélégny’s proposition that one may licitly receive vaccines derived from or tested with the cell lines of aborted babies in cases where Rubella is cause for concern for pregnant women or life is endangered by this Chinese Flu.

    I am somewhat perplexed as to why Post Falls has been selected for particular treatment in this grave matter given that SSPX faithful all over the world are concerned by Fr. Sélégny’s proposition. For my part, I live in the UK and have been attending Mass at SSPX chapels for 35 years yet my emailed concerns to the U.S. District, citing sound opposition Church teaching, have gone unanswered.

    Thankfully, our Prior in Scotland has confirmed what every properly formed Catholic conscience already knew instinctively, which is that sin does not become less offensive to God with the passing of time and it is never licit to do evil that good may come of it.

    Pope Francis and his Modernist hierarchy, hardly noted for their moral orthodoxy, are predictably more naturalist than supernatural on the question of course, arguing by sophistry that remoteness in time and human urgency not only dispenses Catholics from all responsibility before God but actually places a moral obligation on them to receive vaccines rooted in abortion, the sin that Pope John Paul II called “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”.

    Fr. Sélégny does not go that far yet he goes far enough to scandalise the faithful with the suggestion that reception of these vaccines is “material sin” at worst, as though such sins are no sins at all. He then compounds his error by encouraging Catholics to make known their objection to such vaccines while at the same time benefiting from them, which is hypocrisy in the extreme. In this regard, I recall the words of Archbishop Lefebvre: “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the faith, now they sacrifice the faith”.

    A number of prominent prelates including Cardinal Burke, Archbishops Vigano, Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland have made it perfectly clear that Catholics may not under any circumstances use vaccines that have been produced or tested using the stem cell lines of murdered babies, since doing so would be to participate in a great sin by consent and would aid Lucifer’s scheme to insinuate Church acceptance of abortion by the back door.

    In this respect I ask you to contemplate the final sentence in Fr. Beck’s notice, which reads: “Asking your prayers for wisdom and discernment in these difficult times, I am Yours, in the Infant Savior…”

    How providential that Father speaks of the Infant Savior whose very life was at risk from Herod, the first abortionist and murderer of the Holy Innocents.

    Yes, wisdom and discernment are indeed required at this time when those entrusted with the care of Christ’s flock must be very careful not to fall into a naturalist mindset which places the health of the body above that of the soul.

    I urge you, Father, to defy the sophistry underpinning this novel liberal proposition that Catholic acceptance of abortion-derived or tested vaccines is licit under certain circumstances. It is never licit to compromise with sin, especially so egregious a sin as abortion. Remember that your own priestly soul may be at risk depending on the advice you dispense to the faithful on January 4.

    May Our Lady enlighten your soul and mind to make the right choice this January, choosing the Catholic teaching of the aforementioned orthodox prelates over that of the misguided Fr. Sélégny.

    Sincerely in the Holy Family

    Martin Blackshaw

    Scotland, UK

    • Athanasius,

      I’m quite shocked that you don’t receive replies to the correspondence you send to the SSPX. I know you have posted material here before and said you’ve written but not had any reply. I cannot see how anyone, priest or layperson, can be serious about holiness if they are so rude as to ignore someone who writes to them with an issue. They keep preaching to us about charity but that’s a very clear and basic lack of charity. I see they are getting the link to this thread so I hope they are duly hanging their heads in shame over there in the SSPX chapel in the USA, as they read this – and I make no apology for saying it. I am not one of those people who thinks priests should never be criticised. Sorry, but I just don’t.

      • Margaret Mary

        Yes, it is extremely worrying when our priests appear to lack even basic good manners sufficient to acknowledge written concerns from the faithful. This was, and remains, a serious problem in the Church since Vatican II and it definitely speaks of an absence of divine charity. There is no way Our Lord would behave in so contemptuous a manner towards the lowly. It does smack of the spirit of the Pharisees, though. Just another sign of the rot in the Church in our time.

        • I would tend to render another point as to why they do not answer you . Pride is not the First Deadly named of the 7 Sins for Nothing.

      • Margaret Mary,

        Sorry to butt in, but let’s get some perspective here. Athanasius is neither in the U.S. or Swiss District so why need these priests respond? Next, there are a number of different views, it’s a complex issue and not all traditional prelates agree, if someone can’t accept this then why respond? When trying to discuss this previously I was met with nothing more than logical fallacies (strawman, ad hominem, poisoning the well, virtue/genetic, general rule, extended analogy), a rational discussion with Athanasius doesn’t seem possible, so why respond? Indeed, because I agreed with the SSPX this led Athanasius to assume “you are not a Traditional Catholic”. If insults aren’t his answer to something he doesn’t like then why respond? Today, I pointed out how he misrepresented Bp. Vigano, yet he refuses to accept his error. He simply can’t stand a correction so, again, why respond?

        • Peter,

          I’m not in the USA but I replied right away to the gentleman who sent me the link to his blog, which forms the focus of this discussion. Indeed, I always reply, including to critics, no matter where they live.

          That’s because I wouldn’t dream of ignoring anyone, whether a person in a room who speaks to me, or a correspondent – which is simply person speaking to me in writing. No difference, in essence. Calls for the same good manners. Occasionally, as happened recently, I receive an email which is nothing more than a (vicious) personal attack, with no question, no specific example of what it is I’ve said or done to annoy. Well, actually, the last one was simply a sentence or so telling me that I was a disgrace to the human race. So, that one I didn’t answer because I could hardly disagree – that would make me look proud and I’m very careful about cultivating my “humble” image; however, when the same person wrote back tauntingly to say he’s noticed I hadn’t replied I then clicked on “reply” and prayed a “God bless you.” End of that particular email exchange. If, however, he’d given a specific reason why he thought I am a disgrace to the human race, I’d have done my best to address it, tactfully, not totally agreeing, but admitting to something to spare his feelings and still not make me look too bad.

          Turning to your criticisms of Athanasius.

          If he said you’re “not a traditional Catholic” it would be in the sense that you are deviating from the traditional Catholic teaching on this issue. You are agreeing with the “traditional” (SSPX) clergy who have – amazingly – condoned this scandal and are actively promoting this evil. So, the Miss Marple in me tends to think that you are possibly, if not probably, writing on behalf of the Post Falls priests but, hey, that’s just a hunch on my part. I hope you like my American accent. I don’t live over there, obviously, but I’ve watched enough episodes of Columbo (and more recently, Newsmax TV) to have gotten it down to a fine art, with my “yeah’s” and my “hey’s” popped in at the appropriate (I hope) moment. Hey, feel free to disagree, though – having seen Braveheart, I think I can safely say that this Scot does an American accent better than most Yanks do a Scots accent 😀

          As for “not all traditional prelates agree” [about the use of aborted baby material) – well they sure did at one time. (See my “sure” – Mel Gibson eat your heart out!)

          Athanasius did not make any personal attacks on you – that’s a favourite of people who just cannot say “thank you for that – I seem to have misunderstood”, or “maybe I was mistaken there…”

          I regularly have rational discussions with Athanasius, so that’s not true either. Over the past two days, we’ve discussed the merits of steak and chips over Aberdeen Angus beef and potatoes; we’ve talked very rationally about various brands of chocolate. He doesn’t mind being wrong and I am always fine with that, so our conversations are always rational. If I can’t convince him that, for example, a beef stew is better than steak on any given day, I just let it go and he doesn’t pursue it. I mean, I can’t force him to be right, can I?

          I’m nonplussed that you keep insisting that Archbishop Vigano is Bishop Vigano – he’s “Archbishop Vigano” – and you believe that he is on your side of this argument, when manifestly he is not. The quote you provided relating to the Pontifical Academy for Life is not sourced. There is no context for it, so it’s impossible to know why you posted it. One thing is very clear – you got it wrong about Archbishop Vigano who is on public record condemning Pope Francis’s promotion of the Covid vaccines. And that public record has been provided here by more than one blogger, if my skim is accurate.

          Its’ not a complex issue. Contradicting the Church’s perennial teaching on Faith and Morals ALWAYS leads to confusion which is then dressed up to be presented as a “complex” issue. Gerragrip.

          You are either extremely confused on this issue, or you are here to cause trouble. I’m not sure which, yet. If it is the latter, trust me, you’ll be gone in a heartbeat – and remember, an unborn baby of around 5 weeks has a heartbeat. Reflect on that if you decide to take the Covid vaccines, as I hope the Post Falls priests reading this will similarly reflect on that wonderful, but in this context, tragic truth.

      • Margaret Mary; If one writes to all 75-ish UK and Eire Bishops, one receives about 5 replies which usually consist of around 2 single line acknowledgments, two polite disagreements and one obnoxious disagreement equal to a punch in the gut. Similar outcome emailing all Scottish Parish Priests. My interaction by email with the SSPX in the UK over the last two years was mixed but overall didn’t exactly fill me with joy or trust in the SSPX. Left me pretty gutted actually, probably because I was expecting so much more from them. The vaccine issue finished any hope I had in them.

        • Heloisa,

          My interaction by email with the SSPX in the UK over the last two years was mixed but overall didn’t exactly fill me with joy or trust in the SSPX. Left me pretty gutted actually, probably because I was expecting so much more from them.

          You put your finger on it there. In the proverbial nutshell…

    • “ A number of prominent prelates including Cardinal Burke, Archbishops Vigano, Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland have made it perfectly clear that Catholics may not under any circumstances use vaccines that have been produced or tested using the stem cell lines of murdered babies…”

      This a false statement. Only Bishops Schneider and Strickland have stated this in their letter of 12 Dec 2020 – viz. rejecting the PAF 2005 Moral Reflections. Burke and Vigano have not. A good rebuttal to Schneider et al is given here:
      https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/corrective-to-schneider-statement-on-covid-vaccines/

      • Peter,

        You are wrong. Archbishop Vigano has been very clear on this matter
        https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2021/01/16/archbishop-vigano-reacts-to-pope-francis-saying-all-must-take-the-covid-vaccine/

        Also, Cardinal Burke.
        https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/which-covid-19-vaccines-are-connected-to-abortion

        As for the Jeff Mirus article – I haven’t read Catholic Culture for years because it is so keen to toe the modern line, all the time, and I don’t know if they are open to criticising Pope Francis but when I read them criticising any pope was a mortal sin, LOL! So, I’m not convinced by Mirus’s “rebuttal” which is not a rebuttal but a restatement of the erroneous decision coming out of the Vatican to allow Catholics to take vaccines which contain aborted baby material.

      • Peter

        My suggestion to you is that you do some research before writing further on such matters of grave moral import, otherwise people here will think you lack objectivity and honesty.

        Lily has already corrected you re Archbishop Vigano, now I do so with regard to Cardinal Burke, as follows:

        “…Burke said “it must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.”

        “The thought of the introduction of such a vaccine into one’s body is rightly abhorrent,” he added, echoing statements by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other pro-life leaders, as well as Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas…”

        Here’s the link to the full transcript: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl-burke-forced-vaccines-violate-integrity-of-citizens

        • Athanasius,

          First, Lily hasn’t and I note neither of you have address my quote from Vigano.

          Second, Burke say “ it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine” to which we all agree, it doesn’t contradict PAFL (2005).

          Next…

          • Peter

            If your intention is to detract from the very clear teaching of the Church – expressed by the aforementioned prelates and clearly explained here – then don’t waste your time. We get people like you on the blog all the time, people who make an art of distracting from the truth.

            The moral teaching of the Church is very clear and no cheap document from the Pontifical Academy for life – which is well infiltrated by liberals under Pope Francis – can alter that teaching. So say the aforementioned prelates and so says every properly informed Catholic conscience.

            I will not indulge you with further comment.

            • Athanasius, nice attempt trying to switch, but the issue I raised was specifically about how you’ve misrepresented the words of three prelates.

              I know you won’t want to “indulge” me because I’ve show to everyone how you misrepresented Bp. Vigano and his acceptance of PAFL 2005. I’ve also shown your inability to take a correction. So, I think I have your measure.

              A final note, another, but minor, correction to your previous article. You wield the term “eminent prelates” without understanding its meaning. It refers to those prelates addressed as ‘Your Eminence’ (viz. Cardinals) and bishops (addressed as ‘Your Excellency’) are “excellent prelates”, yet you use the term to refer SSPX theologians (priests) …

              • Peter

                Can’t let you pull that trick, so here it is in a nutshell, no skirting around the truth with a single non-authoritative Vatican document from 2005.

                Archbishop Vigano: “The fact that the vaccine does not give any guarantee of efficacy but rather can induce serious side effects; the fact that in some cases it has been produced starting from cells taken from aborted fetuses, and therefore is absolutely irreconcilable with Catholic morality…” Fairly clear, eh?

                https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-on-francis-push-for-vaccination-the-salvation-of-the-body-is-the-supreme-law

                Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop Tomash Peta, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, Bishop Joseph E. Strickland & Athanasius Schneider: “…In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics.In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics… Again, perfectly clear.

                https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/on-the-moral-illicitness-of-the-use-of-vaccines-made-from-cells-derived-from-aborted-human-fetuses

                As for my use of the word “eminent”, it was not in the ecclesiastical sense that I used it, it was in the general secular sense, for example, to define someone or something that rises above or is distinguished or outstanding. I do know how to address prelates by their various ecclesiastical ranks, so you misunderstood my meaning.

                Now, besides that 2005 document you keep going on about, what can you produce from Church teaching, bearing in mind John Paul II’s lament that abortion is “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”, to convince Catholics that use of these new vaccines are morally licit and not contrary to the infallible moral teaching of the Church.

                I think we’ve all had enough of your quoting that 2005 document, without which you could not have made a single comment here. Time now to debate seriously, assuming you are well intentioned. Give us something authoritative, a papal pronouncement that contradicts what Pope John Paul II declared, for example, or something similar. No more memos from the Pontifical Academy for Life, thank you.

                • Athanasius,

                  Yet another switch. Stop trying to wriggle out of this. This says a lot more about you than me or anyone else here.

                  You misquoted Vigano. He clearly references PAFL 2005 as containing the “stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality”. You (and others) might not like it but, hey, facts don’t care about your feelings.

                  This is what you have to own up to and the fact that you can’t says a lot. It’s that simple, but more than this, it starts to bring into question everything you write. Even if on other matters I agree with you, how can I trust what you write? Yes people make mistakes but refusing to own up to them and make a correction what then? How can you be trusted?

                  I’ve already asked for Editor to adjudicate. I don’t think she would be willing put here credentials on the line and find for you, so you should infer something from her silence. BTW, Vigano’s acceptance of PAFL 2005 would explain why he didn’t add his name to Schneider’s letter (12 Dec).

                  With regards to “eminent”, I knew it could be taken both ways, but either way I have you. Either you would have to admit to not knowing the term or you now have to explain why, say, Burke, is eminent. Someone is usually described eminent by their peers. Was Lefebvre eminent? Aquinas? Augustine? Or do we say exceptional, exemplary? What about if we move down the list to Leo XIII, Pius XII, Fellay, Williamson? What’s your criteria for eminent? Celebrating the New Mass with alter girls and giving communion in the hard as your N.O. prelates have done, or is it because you think they agree with you on this one particular issue? See how this fails?

                  • Archbishop Vigano has written an open letter to priests, in which he states the following:

                    “I agree with you about the assessments of the objective immorality of the so-called vaccine against Covid-19, due to the use of material derived from aborted fetuses. I likewise agree with the absolute inadequacy – scientific, as well as philosophical and doctrinal – of the document promulgated by the CDF, whose Prefect merely supinely executes more-than-questionable orders imparted from on high: the obedience of these reprobates is emblematic, in these situations, because it knows how to casually ignore the authority of God and the Church in the name of a courtly subservience to the authoritarianism of the immediate superior.

                    Nevertheless, I would like to specify that the document of the Holy See is particularly insidious not only for having analyzed only a remote aspect, so to speak, of the composition of the drug (prescinding from the moral liceity of an action that does not lose its gravity with the passing of time), but also for having deliberately ignored that in order to “refresh” the original fetal material it is necessary to periodically add new fetuses, obtained from ad hoc induced third-month abortions, and that the tissues must be taken from creatures that are still alive, with a beating heart…”

                    The full letter can be read here: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5259-open-letter-to-confused-priests-vigano-on-obedience-resistance-francis-and-vaccines

                    As I have been at pains to point out throughout, only Catholics who have exchanged Traditional objective morality for Modernist subjective morality will argue that the COVID vaccines are morally licit.

              • Peter,

                1) the document from which you quote has no binding authority and you don’t even provide the full context so that is dismissed as irrelevant

                2) “eminent” is a word that is not confined to religion or to ecclesiastical titles. Gerragrip.

                • Editor

                  You are so much better at putting the case in a nutshell with a couple of sentences. Well said, though I don’t think it will deter this determined individual who is clearly a moral relativist.

                  • Athanasius,

                    Don’t you start going all humble on me now, not when you have a front page article in The Remnant doing the rounds across the globe this month. There’s only so much a gal can take…

                    Do YOU think my American accent is impressive?

                    Which reminds me, where’s RCA Victor when you need him.

          • Peter,

            Are you having a laugh, as the saying goes? Cardinal Burke has condemned outright Catholics taking these vaccines. Here’s what Athanasius posted, which you have beautifully ignored (it’s a real art form, your system of posting…):

            “…Burke said “it must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.”

            Please confirm that that statement does not contradict PAFL (2005) whatever PAFL (2005) IS… ! *

            * Kidding, I’ve worked out that you mean Pontifical Academy for Life. They don’t call me Editor Einstein for nothing…

  4. That was a long intro, but well worth reading right through.

    The very best bit, the bit I think it not at all widely known, is the heading “Learn the Risk: Did diseases decline because of vaccines? Not according to history” which is linked to a report showing that vaccines have played almost no part at all in eradicating disease. That was an eye-opener to me. I read it over the phone to a friend and he was astounded, never knew that, never heard anything like that before, and he’s over 80. So, we’re really being played for fools and with the clergy helping to push the lies, the government’s onto a winner.

  5. I agree, a great introductory article from a very interesting blog (Tradidi)

    I was amazed to read this:

    Biologist Pamela Acker puts some big lies to rest in this interview, including the fable from “fact-checkers” (and unfortunately from some priests in the SSPX) that specific lines of what is termed “fetal cell lines” were perpetuated from two or three babies killed thirty of forty years ago. In fact, these stem cells/DNA (which Fr. Chad Ripperger correctly insists must be buried with a Christian burial) actually consist of stem cells/DNA from scores of murdered babies.

    Surely, it wouldn’t matter if the fetal cell lines came from baby killed thirty or forty years ago, or this very morning? Is somebody less guilty of murder if he is caught 40 years after the crime, and would anyone who benefited from the crime (e.g. financially) be given a pass, on the basis that the crime was committed decades ago? I don’t think so.

    It seems, sad to say, that the so-called traditional priests are no more reliable than modernists in moral matters like this.

    More and more, we the laity have to make our own enquiries, keep up to speed with the traditional teaching of the Faith and that includes the moral teachings, and just do not rely on the clergy. Something has got into the clergy and I’m in good company saying that, when you think of Pope Paul VI saying that “the smoke of Satan has infiltrated the temple of God.”

  6. This is what Bp. Vigano wrote:

    “When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life (whose presidency has been entrusted to a person who is well-known for having shown the best of himself when he was bishop of Terni), we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the New World Order, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy.[1] In recent days the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales[2] has entered this anomalous wave. On the one hand it recognizes that “The Church is opposed to the production of vaccines using tissue derived from aborted fetuses, and we acknowledge the distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion,” but it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality,[3] that “the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.” This statement lacks any doctrinal authority and instead aligns itself with the dominant ideology promoted by the WHO, its principal sponsor Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies.”

    Notice the reference [3] – “the unchanging principles of Catholic morality” – is to be found here:

    [3] Cf. Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Human Fetuses, 5 June 2005.

    When will people stop misquoting and falsifying what these prelates say…

    • Peter, again, you are misleading. Archbishop Vigano wrote the following words, and I will add the link to the source of my information – I notice you don’t do that. It’s helpful. I always like to check the origins of a quote if I can:-

      “The fact that the vaccine does not give any guarantee of efficacy but rather can induce serious side effects; the fact that in some cases it has been produced starting from cells taken from aborted fetuses, and therefore is absolutely irreconcilable with Catholic morality; the fact that treatment with hyper-immune plasma or with alternative protocols are being boycotted despite the evidence of their efficacy — all of this means little to the new “expert” who, on the basis of absolutely zero medical competency, is now recommending the vaccine to the faithful while using his sovereign authority to require the citizens of the Vatican to submit to questionable treatment in the name of an unspecified “ethical duty.” The bleak Paul VI Audience Hall has been emblematically chosen as the temple in which to celebrate this new sanitary rite, officiated by ministers of the Covid religion in order to assure, certainly not the salvation of souls, but rather the illusory promise of health for the body.”
      https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2021/01/16/archbishop-vigano-reacts-to-pope-francis-saying-all-must-take-the-covid-vaccine/

      • Lily,

        Rather than just ignoring my quote from Vigano try and address it head on, otherwise it just looks like you deliberately ignoring it because i) it’s true, ii) you don’t like it, iii) it conflicts with your preconceived opinion and iv) you’re unwilling to admit to holding an erroneous opinion.

        This is what you need to address:
        1. Vigano wrote “the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality,[3]”
        2. The reference [3] is to Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections, 2005
        3. The PAFL document summary states the following (note c):

        To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

        a) there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;

        b) as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole – especially for pregnant women;

        c) the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);

        d) such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.

        https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm

    • Peter

      It is you who misquote. Your quote from the text of Archbishop Vigano left out the clincher words preceding it: “But it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with…” The reference 3 is merely directing us to read the “grave contradiction” for ourselves, it’s not affirming it!

      Don’t play with sentences to make points – quote the entire sentence or remain silent.

      • Athanasius, my first quote gave the full paragraph, there was no misquote. The “gave contradiction” is with the pronouncement from the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales from which Vigano is quoting.

        All this tells me is that 1) you can’t read and 2) you can’t comprehend. But never mind, I believe Editor is/was an academic, let’s ask for her opinion.

        • Peter,

          I hadn’t realised that Athanasius has pointed out the “grave contradiction” so sure, I’m happy to give my opinion. See below, at 12.06 am.

          You are plain wrong all down the line (literally) and you are also very rude. Either apologise for your personal remarks or blog elsewhere. We’ve enough headcases in Scotland without importing them from the USA. Especially now that we don’t even have Trump to help keep us sane and safe.

          In short, be good or begone.

      • Athanasius,

        And,I should have added, Vigano wrote of the PAFL:

        “The Catholic Church, especially in recent decades, has intervened authoritatively in this debate, thanks also to the Pontifical Academy for Life founded by John Paul II. Its members, up until a few years ago, gave medical-scientific directives that did not conflict with the inviolable moral principles of any Catholic person.”

        Get that? Until a few years ago (before Vincenzo Paglia) the PAFL “gave medical-scientific directives that did not conflict with the inviolable moral principles“. How could he say that if he objected to PAL 2005. Answer: he couldn’t.

        Athanasius, I think some apologies are in order.

    • Peter,

      I think you must be well overdue a visit to your nearest opticians. You have totally misread that statement from Archbishop Vigano…

      Here’s what the Archbishop says in the quote you provide from the PAFL Moral Reflections…

      “…but it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality… [that such vaccines are acceptable]”

      Read it over again and note his linkage with the WHO and Bill Gates. It’s obvious what he is saying, and it ain’t what you think. My American accent is making good progress, isn’t it?

      Get it now? Yes, apologies are in order, all right – from you. Big time.

      • Editor,

        I apologize for keeping you up into the early hours to respond to my posts. You are true to your word in responding to everyone, no matter where or when. I’d rather you ignore me than deprive yourself of sleep, but thank you for taking the time.

        The quote from Abp. Vigano is given in the open letter to mothers in the link below[1]. This will give you the context and the references. The part in question is the paragraph that begins “When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life…” and the reference used [1], [2], [3].

        You will see that the italicized text in that paragraph is taken from reference [2] the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Abp. Vigano agrees with the first part, but not this second part that claims: “the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.” You will see that he interjects that this is contrary to the “unchanging principles of Catholic morality, [3]” and a reference to PAFL 2005. I don’t believe there’s any other way to read this, but over to you.

        I apologize if I came over as rude, I think it was out of frustration, but no excuse.

        [1] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-vigano-moms-must-protect-children-from-the-state

        • Peter

          Pope John Paul II called abortion “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”. As has been made perfectly clear here on several occasions, Archbishop Vigano and other named prelates have made perfectly clear that vaccines produced from the stem cell lines of aborted children are never licit.

          Against this very clear testimony, in harmony with the consistent moral teaching of the Church on the evil of abortion, you keep citing this single (non-authoritative) document from 2005 while at the same time attempting to undermine Archbishop Vigano’s blanket condemnation of these vaccines by suggesting that he makes exceptions for specific cases, the very opposite of what he has said.

          Here again, to refresh your memory, is a sample of the Archbishop’s teaching:

          “The fact that the vaccine does not give any guarantee of efficacy but rather can induce serious side effects; the fact that in some cases it has been produced starting from cells taken from aborted fetuses, and therefore is absolutely irreconcilable with Catholic morality…”

          Did you get that? “absolutely irreconcilable with Catholic morality”, not sometimes irreconcilable with Catholic morality depending on circumstances but “absolutely”, meaning under any circumstances.

          Nothing can be so threatening to our natural life as to warrant throwing away our supernatural life by participating in “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”, just ask the martyrs!

          So, apart from this one PAFL document that you repeatedly quote along with all other moral relativists who are evidently more interested in the life of the body than in the life of the soul, you have not a single sentence of authoritative Church teaching that contradicts what Pope John Paul II declared and the aforementioned prelates are presently upholding. Sophistry will not alter the truth in this grave matter.

        • Peter,

          That is correct – in other words, the Archbishop is correcting/admonishing the Bishops of England and Wales, because they were making an exception, allowing the use of material from aborted babies.

          So, of course you are right – and as both Athanasius and I have been saying – there IS no other way to read the quote you provided from the PAFL..

          Perhaps there has been some kind of misunderstanding on our part. We got the impression that you were arguing that Archbishop Vigano did not oppose the use of such vaccines, and you were using that PAFL quote to support your statement.

          If I have misunderstood, then I apologise for being the one to take us round in circles.

          I’m only too pleased that we are agreed that (a) Archbishop Vigano is definitely opposed to the use of these vaccines and (b) that the PAFL is non-authoritative anyway. It’s akin to parliamentary committees which are largely talking shops but without teeth.

          • Editor,

            That’s is partially correct, I wasn’t arguing that Abp. Vigano was not opposed to the use of these vaccines only that he accepts the PAFL 2005 study and admonishes the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales for breaking away from this study. Abp. Vigano’s specific objection is that the BCEW says that taking such a vaccine can be a first choice rather than, as PAFL 2005 dictates, a last resort after every other avenue has been pursued.

            PAFL 2005 admits an exception in the form of “moral coercion”. Bp. Schneider et al reject this, indeed they now reject the entire study. Abp. Vigano does not, that’s really my point. So, while Athanasius can use Bp. Schneider and the other signatories in support of his position of no exception whatever, he can’t use Abp. Vigano. He can use Abp. Vigano to support the principle that such vaccines can never be developed, manufactured, marketed, and used – which is a principle that I and SSPX agree with – but accepting such a principle doesn’t necessarily mean accepting no exception.

            I don’t see anything controversial in this and it is easy to find laws of the Church that do not hold in all circumstances. For example, take the Ten Commandments, we are told to “honor thy father and thy mother” but if a father orders his son to steal he is not bound to obey. Or “thou shalt not kill” yet we know in times of conflict and self defense it is permissible.

            • Peter,

              I don’t know what study you are referring to but the PAFL had a complete change of members when Pope Francis (elected 2013, so after 2005, obviously) got rid of the entire team and replaced them with their own modernists which is why we now have this terrible scandal allowing Catholics to take the vaccine even though it contains fetal tissue.
              https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-life-academy-parents-must-vaccinate-even-if-vaccines-come-from-aborted-babies

              There is no way in this world that Archbishop Vigano supports the PAFL decision to promote these vaccines. He could not be more clear IMHO.

              I’ve read your quote and it is crystal clear that Archbishop Vigano is telling off the English & Welsh bishops for advocating the use of these vaccines using aborted fetal tissue, I just wish he would also tell off the Scottish bishops because they’re doing the same thing now.

              The analogy you give with the Ten Commandments doesn’t work with this – no matter the circumstances, we cannot do evil, which is why it is right to disobey a father urging his child to steal or kill. That child is not doing evil by disobeying. But it is always evil to benefit from murder. That’s why even the secular courts don’t let criminals inherit money from someone they’ve murdered.

              It is very controversial for the Pope to come out and say it is acceptable for Catholics to benefit from the murder of unborn babies, whether they were murdered years ago or last week.

              I don’t understand why you are keeping this going. It started by you saying Archbishop Vigano had not opposed the vaccine and then you were proven wrong, but you can’t seem to let it go.

            • Peter

              Once again, here’s the most recent statement of Archbishop Vigano demonstrating very clearly that he does not accept the exceptions of the PAFL 2005 document, as you keep insisting:

              “The fact that the vaccine does not give any guarantee of efficacy but rather can induce serious side effects; the fact that in some cases it has been produced starting from cells taken from aborted fetuses, and therefore is absolutely irreconcilable with Catholic morality…”

              “Absolutely irreconcilable” is about as conclusive as it gets, yet you keep arguing that he accepts exceptions. No, he does not.

              The truth is that people within the SSPX clergy, by sophistry, are attempting to align the Society gradually with the subjective moral teaching of Modernist Rome, hence the reason why the SSPX authorities are refusing to respond to genuine concerns from various sources, submitted with evidence, asking for clarification on their bizarre vaccine unity of thought with arguably the most morally destructive Pope in the history of the Church.

              You know something is seriously amiss when such concerns are met with silence. Honest people don’t behave thus, only dishonest ones.

              We witnessed the same silence when some of the faithful wrote in outrage when the Novus Ordo “porn priest” shared a platform at the Angelus Conference with Bishop Fellay. This is the priest who famously Tweeted that when one is tempted with impure thoughts one should invite the Lord into his mind to view them with him. What? That’s completely the opposite to what the Church teaches regarding impure thoughts, yet there he was sharing a podium with no less than Bishop Fellay, giving his talk on porn addiction.

              Same again when Fr. Paul Robinson published that highly dangerous book “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science”, which effectively attempts to reconcile Catholic teaching on the Creation with the atheistic, pseudo-scientific “Big Bang” theory. As with the “porn priest” scandal, concerns were raised and silence was the response. This is not remotely Catholic and it is certainly not in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.

              Something very suspicious is going on within SSPX clerical ranks at the more influential level and the faithful need to be alerted to the fact before it’s too late. There is a definite move towards liberalism, this vaccine business being the clearest and most most egregious example to date.

              As regards the vaccines themselves, the moral teaching of the Church is crystal clear in so grave a matter, calling abortion “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”. Therefore it stands to reason that no amount of time passed can in any way lessen the gravity of that sin, SSPX/Vatican sophistry notwithstanding.

              If we accept their skewed reasoning then it may forthwith be soundly argued that the Sacrament of Baptism is no longer necessary for salvation, given that the Original Sin was committed so long ago and none of us willingly participated in it. You see the danger with their kind of sophistry?

              The two examples you quote in support of your argument, in fact, support the opposition argument.

              “Honor thy father and thy mother”binds all in obedience to superiors only insofar as they are faithful to their duty. In this particular case they are unfaithful and must therefore be disobeyed.

              As for “Thou shalt not kill”, this Commandment refers to murder, particularly abortion, the worst form, not self defence, as in a just war. It is upon this Commandment that no wriggle room must be given to the sin of Herod for personal gain. We are not EVER permitted to benefit from sin, no matter how many years pass since the sin was committed. Catholic moral teaching really is that simple and so discernable by grace in a properly formed conscience.

                • Editor

                  I agree with you that Peter does appear now to be in bad faith. He is acting as an apologist, I suspect, on behalf of someone in the SSPX hierarchy and he’s making a dreadful job of it. Two Traditional Catholic sites affiliated with the SSPX have now corrected him and he still persists in presenting his and Fr. Seligny’s sophistry – that’s not a good sign for the SSPX.

            • Peter,

              Where I was “partially correct” was in thinking that you had come to accept that you had been wrong about Archbishop Vigano but I see that I was totally wrong there.

              I note that both Laura and Athanasius have made another attempt to correct you so I’m going to bow out now. For me, we’ve reached the “shaking the dust off one’s shoes” point.

              I’m curious though – my hunch is that you are an attendee at the Post Falls church or somehow involved with the priests there. Am I – or am I not – correct in that assumption, whether “partially” or “totally”?

              Just being nosey – but you need not feel obliged to sate my curiosity. Honest…

              • Editor,

                Bed time 🙂 I don’t want to keep you up. No, I’m not involved with the priests there, nor have I seen their presentation. I agree with the SSPX position (the sspx.org article) but I think think it could have been written better.

  7. The administrator of the blog, Tradidi Quod et Accepi, has alerted me to the fact that they had linked to our original posting on this topic in their own original coverage, entitled The SSPX Blinks. They mention our notorious Athanasius, who wrote that piece, so if you don’t get enough of him here, visit The SSPX Blinks at the following link (I’ve added this information to the introduction above)… https://aaambrosetti.wordpress.com/tag/covid19/

  8. “…the focus of the COVID-19 debate seems to have shifted — amongst Christians in general, and some Catholics in particular — from the moral liceity of abortion-tainted vaccines and pharmaceuticals to the dangers of the shots. It is a distraction that should give us concern; for the logical extension of the argument is that when or if we have a safe COVID-19 vaccine, there will no longer be any basis for objection. When I tried to re-focus a friend of many years on the real issue — the immorality of any vaccine associated with murdered babies — he argued we would never be able to convince our legislators of the evil of the vaccine on moral grounds, so we should shut down the vaccination program through the pragmatic approach of sounding the public health warning.”

    I’m not so sure about the author’s logical extension of the argument, and I think there is a pragmatic perspective to be taken here as well. The immorality of abortion-derived vaccines is most certainly an immovable object for Catholics – but not so for non-Catholics, as far as I am aware. For non-Catholics who are resisting these “vaccines,” the immovable object is not their origin, but their lethality.

    Does this not boil down to the same moral issue, at both the origin and conclusion of the spectrum? (a) the murder of babies for convenience; (b) the murder of babies for profit (to sell body parts and make vaccines); (c) the murder of adults via vaccine, for profit, and (d) the murder of adults to achieve global de-population. Both are a manifestation of the death cult of occultism, the worship of Moloch, or Lucifer himself.

    It’s not, for Catholics, a very complimentary hypothesis to suppose that once the vaccines are safe (??), Catholics will forget all about their evil origin. It is especially not very complimentary for “traditional” Catholics, who are supposed to be better catechized and more faithful to our Sacred Deposit of Faith, than “modernized” Catholics. Moreover, if the author is speaking from his SSPX experience, then that doesn’t speak very well of the SSPX.

    • RCA Victor,

      I think I agree with you, if you are saying that, yes, for Catholics, it should be enough to say these vaccines are tainted with baby parts from aborted children so no Catholic should take them, while on the other hand, if someone is lapsed or a non-believer, that wouldn’t make any difference to them, better to point out that they are not safe.

      I think you make a fair point. I’ve already decided to send one of my relations the article linked in the intro where it shows that vaccines are not the reason for fewer deaths since the 1940s. That would make him think about it since I’m already driving home the way these vaccines were rushed through without proper testing, whereas if I talked about the use of aborted babies, that wouldn’t matter to him, so fair point.

    • RCA Victor, I agree with you that we can and should provide the argument that will be best received by the audience we are trying to convince. You are correct that many non-Catholics (and fallen away Catholics, for that matter) may be more open to arguments against the safety of the vaccine than by the moral aspects. I just finished my daily check of the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) stats from the actual U.S. government data base. This would certainly make a strong argument for those who do not appear moved by the morality issue:

      https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data

      I just want to clarify that my posting on our blog regarding being distracted and losing focus was written with Catholics in mind, as our page is really intended primarily for Catholic consumption. Others read it for sure; but we are trying to keep it Catholic. When we (my wife and I) went to visit our (SSPX) prior, and later attended the “vaccine talk” at our chapel given by one of that prior’s subordinate SSPX priests, the conclusion of both was clear: “the moral concerns are misplaced as there is only remote material cooperation; but none of us priests are getting the vaccine because it just seems untested and too dangerous.” For priests to say that is, in our opinion, scandalous! They have shifted the debate to the safety of the shot, and discounted — no, ruled out — the moral problems of the testing, development, and production of this and other vaccines.

      So perhaps you can agree with us that when discussing this issue with fellow Catholics, we can focus primarily on the morality of abortion-tainted vaccines, while certainly maintaining that these are dangerous and unnecessary.

      With sincere appreciation of your comments, I remain yours in Christo,
      Tony Ambrosetti

      • Tony,

        Many thanks for your reply; I’d like to clarify my post as well. My underlying point, which I didn’t emphasize enough, is that rejecting these vaccines because of their lethality is also a moral issue. It is murder disguised as genetic experimentation, disguised again as concern for the health of the peasants….you know, those who are over-populating the earth…threatening the goddess Taco-Mamma…

        So we are faced, it seems, with a double moral taboo: no COVID vaccines because they are derived from murdered babies; no vaccines because they themselves kill and maim people.

        As to which crime is more heinous, I couldn’t say. In my opinion they are of equal gravity.

        Pax Christi,
        John

    • RCAVictor,

      This is the best comment yet. You are so right! I worry about the attitude that the safety of the vaccines is more of concern than the ethical/morality issues.

      I became aware of the immorality of the tainted vaccines over 20 years ago and it has taken COVID-19 to finally shock some people into total awareness of them. I didn’t (and still don’t) understand why the idea of murdered babies in the manufacturing of vaccines doesn’t haunt people to the extent that it makes them want to do something. But no, they say, the babies have given their lives for us so everything is hunky dory! My frustration is at the bishops and ethicists even when after alerting them to the injustice to these babies, they remained silent.

      Needless to say, I cringe when I think of the nonchalance of orthodox Catholics (including prominent priests and laity well-versed in Thomism) re the immorality of the vaccines. It’s hard to bear the thought of the screams of the little ones who undergo torture (and without anaesthetic) while the scientists/doctors sacrifice them to Moloch alive because the Church as an institution has not defended them.

      • Warydoom,

        “I worry about the attitude that the safety of the vaccines is more of concern than the ethical/morality issues.”

        I think you misunderstood my original post: see my new reply to Tony.

  9. I mentioned the occult in my previous post (which hasn’t appeared yet) (don’t worry, Editor, I’m very patient, for an Italian…) as the preternatural origin of the heinous practice of killing babies through abortion and killing adults through vaccines.

    This should be an indicator for us that the occult sewer which fed Nazism was not cleaned up after WWII – like the Modernists, it simply went underground, gathered more strength due to the collapse of the Church Militant and the post-WWII apostasy, and has surfaced stronger and more virulent than ever, with different players under different disguises, like The Great Reset, the Green New Deal, etc.

    Which begs the question: what exactly did WWII accomplish? That is, besides reaping immense profits for certain banking houses, providing the justification for establishing the Luciferian UN, and turning the West into an armed camp.

    The Nazis were obsessed with the occult. That is because their leaders, including Hitler, were heavily involved in it, as well as homosexuality. This is actually what explains their depravity, not their cover story of a pure “Aryan race,” which was designed to appeal to German nationalism. Schiklgruber, aka Hitler, was a discipline of an occult group called the Thule Society, through which he acquired his oratory powers.

    Many years ago I read a book about this called “The Spear of Destiny.” I no longer have that book, but its main theme was the Nazi’s obsessive quest to obtain the spear that pierced Jesus’ side, because of its “occult power.” At this point I don’t know if that book is legit, but perhaps other bloggers have also read it. It appears to be still in print.

  10. I have to be honest – I’m astounded and scandalised that the SSPX is pushing this vaccine, and justifying their departure from the moral law. It’s very dispiriting. There’s really nowhere to turn for real solid Catholic leadership any more. It used to be a joke to say “is the Pope Catholic?” Now it’s a real question and the answer nearly always seems to be “no, he’s not.”

    Thank goodness for the few bishops who are warning against taking these immoral vaccines. Just think, by saying this is acceptable, the use of vaccines created with aborted baby material, we could be increasing demand for the vaccines and so causing more abortions to be carried out. It doesn’t bear thinking about. God forgive the SSPX priests for this terrible scandal. We knew there was a crisis in the Church and that we had a bad pope, but we thought the SSPX was there to help us through it, not make it worse.

  11. https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/en

    I think the above link may well have been used on another thread, but, as the topic is about vaccines, the information contained on the above link, might be a reminder of the uses a vaccine can be made to do, to the detriment of everyone on this planet.

    Those who have devised this vaccine to say the least appear to have such evil intentions. Who wants to have a vaccine that leaves a mark on their body that sends information to some central point – and for what reason. Who knows what would be sent back to your body – for good or bad effects.

    God helps us everyone.

    • Re link below, I hope Father’s “vaccine” is not a tainted, dangerous or deadly one, otherwise the poor will be more than poor! Although he does talk of testing on animals…

      https://aleteia.org/2021/02/05/catholic-priest-developing-covid-19-vaccine-for-the-poor/

      IHMO I think Father has the wrong end of the stick here in that he seems to put too much faith in science, but as he is an evolutionist (see Kolbe Center discussions) I think he would.

      • Warydoom,

        “Everyone should get vaccinated to protect themselves and their loved ones,” Fr. Nicanor Robles Austriaco told Aleteia.

        What that report does is underline the fact that priests have (almost to a man) lost their way. They do not have the proverbial clue about why they are priests and what true pastoral concern means. I wonder if this priest is “live-streaming” his Masses? And note – he praises the current crop of vaccines unreservedly without even a mention of the use of aborted babies to create them.

        That was my first thought on reading your report. The second thought was, what an idiot My third was, to wonder what St Dominic would think of priests like him bringing his great Order into disrepute. In Heaven, I mean – the worldlings on the only planet with chocolate will love it. He’ll be given some scientific award or humanitarian award – no doubt about it: watch this space…

        I’d appreciate it if someone would search for this priest’s email address and either send him the link to this thread, pointing him in the direction of this comment. OR post his email here and I’ll do the rest. Lest the import of it should be lost, allow me to repeat …

        WHAT an idiot. To be clear, I’ve said over and over again on this blog that, at this stage in the Covid “crisis”, to continue to believe the propaganda takes a particular kind of stupid, and that applies as much to the clergy as it does to everyone else.

  12. Editor,

    Back from a weekend of making glorious music, happy to be at your service. This priest is on the faculty at Providence College; he doubles as a Professor of Biology:

    naustria@providence.edu

    Apparently he also doubles as a shill for Bill Gates…

    • RCA Victor,

      Not to nit-pick, but I think you mean he triples as a shill for Bill… (it rhymes without the “Gates”… 😀 )

      I’ve now emailed Father to alert him to the fact that we’re not remotely short of medical/scientific “experts” while suffering a dire shortage of priests preaching holiness.

      Oh, and I refuse to close my emails with the statutory “stay safe” – instead I wished him every grace and blessing. What am I like? Strictly Rhetorical…

      • Well said, Patricia! Isn’t it the truth — priests teaching holiness! What a concept! Regarding the “stay safe” mantra, it has morphed into various slogans here in the Inland Northwest of America. The schools, which were evacuated last spring for fear of the virus, all had that ridiculous admonishment on their reader boards for months. Worse, on my commute to work (since I work in the People’s Democratic Republic of Washington), the huge taxpayer-funded Dept. of Transportation reader boards along the interstate highway in Washington state — which are supposed to be for traffic and weather advisories — I see such banal slogans as: “Mask up – Stay Safe” and “Stay Home!”. It evokes images of people making mad dashes out to their mailboxes to check the day’s mail, then scurrying back into the house before some awful fate befalls them. And then there are those gigantic self-aggrandizing posters seen plastered on hospitals and medical centers: “Heroes Work Here!” Thankfully, here in Idaho, few people wear masks, the churches are full, and our restaurants are even open to refugees from nearby Washington state who sneak across the state line to get some good food here, seated at real tables. Just like the old days before the Blessed and Eternal Virus! Only thing is, I have been unable to find haggis and neeps in our restaurants. I’ve never had them, but while waiting for the virus to abate so that we may come to Caledonia, I am now on a quest. . .

  13. Here’s more from Jon Rappoport…

    Vatican Vaccine Hotline, How Can I Help You?

    by Jon Rappoport

    February 8, 2021

    Hello, this is the confidential Vatican Vaccine Hotline for Opus Dei members, I’m Bishop Capone. How can I help you?

    Yes, this is XXXXXX. I want to verify that the Pope is advising his flock to take the COVID vaccine.

    He is.

    And the Pope is infallible, correct?

    Well, yes. In this case, however, he is expressing his personal opinion.

    But that opinion couldn’t contradict God’s wishes.

    True. How can I help you, sir?

    I plan to receive the vaccine. I know all vaccines carry a risk. Suppose, after I get the shot, I die? How should my family interpret my death?

    That’s a complex matter.

    I’m a devout family man. I would like my family to believe my death is part of God’s plan. They would take comfort from that. You see, if the Pope wants me to take the shot, and the Pope always speaks in accordance with God’s point of view, then my death would be a positive detail in God’s overall Design.

    Yes, I see where you’re going with this. However—

    I would be willing to make a sizeable donation to the Church.

    Sir, you’re talking about an Indulgence. That practice has been outlawed for centuries. A person can’t buy his way into Heaven.

    I’m talking about $150,000.

    How much?

    Excuse me, I misspoke. I meant $1,500,000.

    How much?

    Again, I mixed up the numbers. I meant ten million.

    That’s very generous, sir.

    Bishop Capone, I fully understand that money does not buy a man entry into Heaven. I would intend my gift merely as a sign of my loyalty to God’s Church. And to the Pope.

    I understand.

    All I’m asking for is a promise that, if I die from the vaccine, the Pope will write a note to my family, assuring them that my death was part of God’s plan, and they should take comfort in that knowledge.

    I will make an inquiry, sir. Of course, we’ll need a few details from you. Verification of your identity, recent bank statements, tax returns, that sort of thing.

    No problem, Bishop. My secretary can forward all that information to you. While I have you on the line, I wanted to ask you about another matter.

    What other matter?

    I know the Church is major landholder. I assume you’re tracking property values across the planet. In this time of the lockdowns, those values are dropping precipitously. My companies are interested in purchasing what we call distressed assets. Especially, land. It would help us considerably if we had access to a comprehensive list of potential acquisitions. We would appreciate any assistance you could give us.

    How much did you say you’re willing to donate to the Church?

    We can arrange the gift in several ways. For example, suppose from your list of prime distressed assets, we purchase a hundred items. We lay out seven billion dollars in all. I would be prepared to donate 4.56 percent of that to the Church.

    4.56 seems rather low. I’d be thinking more in the area of 12 percent.

    I could go 6.2.

    Ten.

    Eight. Anything more than eight would constitute an unconscionable burden. And for that eight, we would expect the Church to provide assistance. Recommendations to the sellers of distressed land to give us special consideration.

    Let’s call it nine percent.

    All right. Because it’s the Church, nine.

    I’ll kick your proposal upstairs, sir. See how it flies. Meanwhile, I’m going to put you on hold and transfer this call to our Security and Banking Division. They’ll take your information and do a quick preliminary background check. By the way, our construction companies are operating at full strength. It’s possible we can negotiate a deal to build out structures on the properties you purchase.

    Interesting. What sorts of structures?

    We’re very much into warehouses these days. Storage and shipping areas for all sorts of products that can be ordered online. With the lockdowns, more and more people are buying what they need without having to venture outdoors.

    I like it. I’m planning to take the vaccine next week.

    Let me ask—are you in good health?

    Excellent health. I run four miles every day. And I swim. I had a complete physical a couple of months ago. Passed with flying colors.

    Glad to hear it. We would want our partners to remain strong. You might want to check out the official COVID death rates for healthy men in your age group. I have your Opus Dei file in front of me. You’re 46. The death rates are absurdly low. Miniscule.

    Are you suggesting I should forget about taking the vaccine?

    I’m not a doctor. But do you think God set up the world so that, one day, scientists would EXPERIMENTALLY inject a piece of RNA into eight billion people, on the hypothesis that this RNA would force cells of the body to manufacture a protein that RESEMBLED a protein from SARS-CoV-2…and then the immune system would swing into action and produce a response to THAT mimicking protein…thus preparing the body if and when SARS-CoV-2 actually came along? And the one person on the planet who was most passionate about this whole program was someone named Bill Gates? THIS was God’s Design from the Beginning?

    I take your point, Bishop Capone. Thank you.

    I word to the wise, pal. And now I’ll transfer your call.
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/02/08/vatican-vaccine-hotline-how-can-i-help-you/

  14. This information came to me this morning in a round robin email from the USA…

    Dear all,

    I feel I have a duty to ask you to consider the information in the following videos and I feel an urgency due to the number of my friends and relatives who are facing the questions these interviews answer. It has taken me quite a long time because I have cleared the info in #2 with traditional Catholic priests, doctors, and nurses. I am being brief on purpose to let the experts do the talking, so as not to further waste your time with my personal opinion. I leave it to you to share what you will with your families and friends, especially your adult children.

    Mrs. Charlotte Iserbyt (90 years old this year) and closer to home, Mr. John D’A, have been warning about the power given to “educrats” and “health” officials for years. We see how remarkably correct they and many others have been. Please say a prayer for Mrs. Iserbyt as she has had a minor stroke. She is Catholic.

    1. Dr. Michael Yeadon: Known Faults And Dangers Of The PCR Test

    Dr. Yeadon showed very early last year how dangerous it was to use the PCR test to evaluate whether one had the big disease. The high number of false positives is well explained. Please note that the WHO changed the number of cycles on January 20, 2021 within the hour of Biden’s Inauguration. This address has both the video and a transcript.

    An Education in Viruses and Public Health, from Michael Yeadon, Former VP of Pfizer
    https://www.aier.org/article/an-education-in-viruses-and-public-health-from-michael-yeadon-former-vp-of-pfizer/

    2. Pamela Acker: Catholic and MORAL Perspective

    I am impressed by two video interviews that Pamela Acker gave that are very helpful in finding principles by which to “draw the line” morally whether to accept a COVID injection (or any vaccine for that matter). This covers the matter of the Pontifical Academy’s position on cell lines and testing, not to mention the nano particle tracking, genetic modifications, and who knows what other “pig in a poke” ingredients are in these injections. Both videos are very helpful, the second has new (at the time) and timely information.

    A. Here is the first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PDvhKyUu2Y

    B. Since that time John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews has shared another video interview with her where she adds several facts which had not been considered in other articles, even her interview of last month; which means that she would probably have an update to her book soon. This video has a word for word verbatim transcript. Very helpful moral considerations.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/jrAiDZAuPsN5/

    B.1. Official transcript at Lifesitenews:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-hill-worth-dying-on-expert-explains-how-aborted-baby-cells-taint-covid-vaccines

    3. America’s Frontline Doctors Dr. Simone Gold: HEALTH And LEGAL Perspectives
    Here is a 33 page White Paper report from America’s Frontline Doctors with excellent warnings, recommendations, and actionable information about this experimental venture. I printed the paper for easy reading.

    America’s Frontline Doctors White Paper On Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19

    Click to access Vaccine-PP.pdf

    4. Professor Dolores Cahill: Why people will start dying a few months after the first mRNA vaccination

    She explains the disease enhancement (ADE, antibody dependent enhancement) that is a known death risk. You cannot get rid of it. Another expert, Alexandra Henrion Caude, explains a greater risk for the elderly in receiving the injection.

    Why people will start dying a few months after the first mRNA vaccination
    https://www.brighteon.com/5599aab9-5c4e-4682-9a24-ebc40c66b70e

  15. CBR UK
    3tcSi2 mdfpoierdfmnsornsed ·
    This is a MUST READ for everyone who is considering taking the Covid-19 Vaccine. Just how ethical is it? And what is the link to aborted baby fetal cells?
    Awareness and informed consent is key!
    PLEASE SHARE WIDELY! #covid19vaccinerollout #HEK293 #DontForgetJohanna

  16. CBR UK
    4tS ponshorsedrriaemds ·
    All 3 Covid-19 vaccines currently available in the UK, involve the use of fetal cell lines created from body parts of aborted babies. SIGN and SHARE this petition calling for ethical alternatives.
    #Covid19vaccines #HEK293 #DontForgetJohanna
    https://www.cbruk.org/ethicalvaccines

    PLease sign and share widely thank you

  17. I also posted this over on The Great Lockdown Debate thread:

    The government are admitting that over 200 people have died including unborn babies in miscarriages, after receiving the vaccine.
    https://tech2.org/breaking-uk-government-says-more-than-240-people-in-britain-died-shortly-after-receiving-covid-jab-news/

    I also read somewhere that there is a high refusal rate in the USA. People are right to be worried – it’s a rush job and for something so important as a solution you’re putting into your body, we should not be forced to take it. That includes the blackmail of not getting a “vaccine passport” if we choose not to take it.

    • Crofterlady,

      Thanks for that really chilling information – I can’t imagine why anybody would risk taking those vaccines, even to get a “health passport”.

    • Crofterlady,

      I watched the BBC documentary on the vaccine last night, and the doctor they interviewed denied flat outright that there was any animal or fetal material in any of the vaccines.

      They completely rubbished all the arguments that had convinced people they interviewed not to take the vaccine and in the end, most of those people had said they would take the vaccine.

      It’s the BBC so they are biased to start with. I don’t trust them one bit.

  18. A friend in the USA sent the following to me. I would be interested to hear what you think about this, especially the 1 hour long video of Dr. Sherry Tenpenny:

    1. Dr. Sherry Tenpenny

    Very important information about how the vx operates and will operate, not only in people’s bodies, but also in their daily activities. Names genocide. Also describes how the CDC is gaining the leases of those who cannot pay their rents.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/thgHE7VUsDrn/

    2. Dr. Lee Merritt

    Thirty minute video, my notes:

    https://rumble.com/vde8jl-dr.-lee-merritt-important-information-about-covid19-and-vaccines-january-20.html

    Dr. Merritt is an excellent student and teacher. She has been studying the weaponization of health for years, or at least noticing it. Charlotte Iserbyt, author of deliberate dumbing down of america (sic), has been saying this for years. Mrs. Iserbyt also noted the amount of power given to unelected health officials (departments, etc.) throughout the states – warning that it was near dictatorial.

    She is so right that people are not getting true informed consent.

    Good explanation about the mRNA capacity for disaster.

    Interesting about binary poisons. Next year’s flu season is when we’ll see the disease enhanced deaths. I started to suspect this right away when they were going to prioritize our military last spring and summer…. What a great way to disable our armed forces.

    She gives a list of the things to have on hand.

    I know people who are using America’s Frontline Doctors to get Hydroxychloroquine to have on hand. A retired nurse saved her own mother’s life with it just this last week. She said that in Kansas they will not allow doctors to prescribe anything that will cure (at least in this situation like HCQ, Ivermectin, and something called budenezone?). Illegal. Budenezone? Budesonide? Doctors in Kansas cannot even prescribe it if you’ve never had it prescribed. She said it stops a bad breathing reaction and is curative. So sad.

    3. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    Talks about circumstances surrounding Hank Aaron’s death with many other good interviews and showing that their social media were being taken down as this webinar progressed:

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/webinar/the-covid-vaccine-on-trial-if-you-only-knew-watch-now/

  19. I wanted to share with any of you who may be interested:

    I emailed info@aflds.com (American Frontline doctors) to ask how I could get hold of the hydroxychloroquine if I needed it in the future. I was delighted to the the reply below:

    https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/medications/

    info@aflds.com

    Hello!
    To get hydroxychloroquine please sign up and become a member on our site where you can find the answers to most of your questions regarding HCQ, vaccines, and other frequently asked questions regarding COVID-19. Memberships are free and super easy to make!

    https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/membership/sign-up/

    In becoming a member, you can easily schedule a consultation with a telemedicine physician which can help you determine medication, dosage, prices and more which can be found our site through the following link:

    https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/how-do-i-get-covid-19-medication/
    However, becoming a member is not required, and if you would like to go straight to the telemedicine company, use this link:

    https://speakwithanmd.com/americasfrontlinedoctors/

    If you have questions regarding the telemedicine service, please contact them here:

    info@speakwithanmd.com

    If you have any other questions please email us again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s