Author Topic: Is NFP "birth control for Catholics"? CAF seems to say Yes! (Read 5407 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #60 on:** March 03, 2014, 03:27:26 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose
]

No, I do not, and that has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. You are referring to EENS, not Baptism of Desire.

I am glad you do not. But it does have a lot to do with BOD because many people think those who believe in false religions can be saved by BOD without being believing Catholics. Anyway have a good day. :cheers:

Your statement shows that you do not understand Baptism of Desire.

PG · « **Reply #61 on:** March 03, 2014, 03:32:15 PM »

Ambrose - what mass do you attend(1962 or pre-1955)?

Matto · « **Reply #62 on:** March 03, 2014, 03:32:47 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Your statement shows that you do not understand Baptism of Desire.

I have heard of many versions of BOD and the version of it I was talking about is the Bishop Fellay version. He said that a believing Hindu could be in a state of grace because of BOD while still being a hindu and worshiping false Gods.

Ambrose · « **Reply #63 on:** March 03, 2014, 04:05:05 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose

Your statement shows that you do not understand Baptism of Desire.

I have heard of many versions of BOD and the version of it I was talking about is the Bishop Fellay version. He said that a believing Hindu could be in a state of grace because of BOD while still being a hindu and worshiping false Gods.

Baptism of Desire has been explained by the Church's theologians and catechisms over and over again. Bp. Fellay's view is irrelevant as he is not an authorized teacher or commissioned to explain the Faith.

Ambrose · « **Reply #64 on:** March 03, 2014, 04:08:14 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Ambrose - what mass do you attend(1962 or pre-1955)?

I assist at Mass that follows the laws of Pope Pius XII. I do not have a problem with the 62 missal though, as there is nothing in it against the Faith, and the status of John XXIII remains unclear.

PG · « **Reply #65 on:** March 03, 2014, 04:22:55 PM »

Ambrose - I think that you have been listening to too much Fr. Sanborn.

Ambrose · « **Reply #66 on:** March 03, 2014, 04:23:37 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Ambrose - I think that you have been listening to too much Fr. Sanborn.

I disagree.

PG · « **Reply #67 on:** March 03, 2014, 10:25:56 PM »

Matto - I missed your post/question about the 1950 vigil as my date for Pius XII.

Yes, in my opinion that is the only way of defending the use of the pre 1955 liturgy. It would be inconsistent in my opinion to say that 1955 went too far when the same thing happened in 1950 on a smaller scale. However, many don't condemn him at all. How they justify using the pre 1955 over the 1958 missal while claiming obedience I do not know(did you hear that Ambrose?).

I do believe that Pius XII erred concerning morality with his allocution(which is significant, I reject it as not Catholic)(didn't our Lady cite sins against the 6th
commandment? - this could be what she was referring to)(the sacred penitentiary rulings were also in the century prior), however I do not believe that his allocution would make him an anti-pope(it was a fallible speech).

Other than that, I found one other thing in his encyclical about creation/evolution that I believe possibly contradicted what Pius X wrote, but at that time I had bigger fish to fry(perhaps I will look into it in the future).

I would like to quote something Fr. Pfeiffer said to me for all of those who worship Pius XII. He remarked to me after a mass that "people don't want to talk about the errors of Pius XII". And, he was right.

5:20 in is about Pius XII -

Canon Hesse is worth listening to. I do not agree with him about everything(I consider his ordination doubtful)(he questioned it too at one point but was coaxed by Fellay), but there is much food for thought in what he says.