Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Capt McQuigg on February 28, 2014, 03:18:36 PM
-
Reading this thread from Catholic Answers and the posters are all speaking of avoiding pregnancy. Is that what NFP is? Then, if so, NFP is "birth control for Catholics" without actually calling it birth control. The purpose, accordEither way it is avoiding pregnancy.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=863480
I have often thought that any large family in the novus ordo world would be due to a worldly, we're so in love with each other physically, that the couple can't keep their hands off each other as opposed to viewing the family in a Catholic manner where children are viewed as a gift from God and also with marriage as the means of supplying the world with Catholic souls to continue blessing Our Lord.
The OP in the thread attached already is aware of her cycles and is thinking of abstaining during the honeymoon. Are they already getting it on?
Did Pope Pius XII intend this when he gave the thumb's up to NFP?
I know Catholic Answers isn't exactly a place to understand Catholicism, but this is the fruits of Vatican II and also the fruits of NFP. CAF has it's fingers on the pulse of conciliarism in the U.S.
-
Pope Pius XII said it was okay to use the rythm method with grave reason whatever that means. Most people who use NFP do not have a grave reason so when they use NFP they commit mortal sin. And then there are those who say that using NFP to avoid children is always a sin.
-
Most people who use NFP do not have a grave reason so when they use NFP they commit mortal sin.
And then there are those who say that using NFP to avoid children is always a sin.
You are correct in the first quote. But in the second, "they" (whoever they are)have no right to contradict Pope Piu XII.
Pope Pius XII said it was okay to use the rythm method with grave reason whatever that means.
There are grave reasons to use NFP (I have seen some spelled out here on other threads) but they are rare.
Certainly not "Our main motivation for avoiding was we wanted a year of time to get adjusted to marital life and save money". If you're not ready to have children you are not ready for marriage.
Some of the posts on this thread on the CA forum make a mockery of Church teaching and of the sacrament of Marriage.
-
Pope Pius XII said it was okay to use the rythm method with grave reason whatever that means. Most people who use NFP do not have a grave reason so when they use NFP they commit mortal sin. And then there are those who say that using NFP to avoid children is always a sin.
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
-
Randy Engel writes about how the planned parenthood newspeak is used.
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
I believe it is a mortal sin if it is used without grave reason, as Pope Pius XII has expressed it.
If it used "with grave reason" then it is not a sin at all.
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
I believe it is a mortal sin if it is used without grave reason, as Pope Pius XII has expressed it.
If it used "with grave reason" then it is not a sin at all.
Very sound reasoning Matto and Nadir.
Let me add that if there is truly a grave reason, like risk of death, why would the couple even think of engaging in the marital privilege? For that reason, I believe that in using NFP as you two interpret it (correctly so), the couple should consider that the 100% virtuous, sane, Godly way to "handle" NFP, is to totally abstain, to live a celibate marriage, and "in case of fire break glass" during a sterile period. In other words only use NFP in emergencies, not as a monthly life system.
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
I believe it is a mortal sin if it is used without grave reason, as Pope Pius XII has expressed it.
If it used "with grave reason" then it is not a sin at all.
Very sound reasoning Matto and Nadir.
Let me add that if there is truly a grave reason, like risk of death, why would the couple even think of engaging in the marital privilege? For that reason, I believe that in using NFP as you two interpret it (correctly so), the couple should consider that the 100% virtuous, sane, Godly way to "handle" NFP, is to totally abstain, to live a celibate marriage, and "in case of fire break glass" during a sterile period. In other words only use NFP in emergencies, not as a monthly life system.
Matto's reasoning is off. Self abuse is unnatural. Having normal relations with a spouse during a type when conception is not likely is not an unnatural act and it's not a mortal sin.
Bowler one of the many twisted things in NFP teaching is they have "rules" that get more conservative for more serious reasons but at the end they do say if it's that serious totally abstain.
-
Matto's reasoning is off. Self abuse is unnatural. Having normal relations with a spouse during a type when conception is not likely is not an unnatural act and it's not a mortal sin.
As much as I don't always agree with the standard, "go ask a Traditional priest," answer, this time I must agree that such is the way to go. There's often at least some circuмstances involved in one's decision to use NFP which might mitigate the gravity of the sin.
But, I will say that according to Fr. Alphonsus (a Redemptorist who works with the SSPX doing parish missions), sins against the 6th and 9th commandments are mortal by their nature.
-
Using NFP without grave reason is turning your wife into a whore.
-
Reading this thread from Catholic Answers and the posters are all speaking of avoiding pregnancy. Is that what NFP is? Then, if so, NFP is "birth control for Catholics" without actually calling it birth control. The purpose, accordEither way it is avoiding pregnancy.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=863480
I have often thought that any large family in the novus ordo world would be due to a worldly, we're so in love with each other physically, that the couple can't keep their hands off each other as opposed to viewing the family in a Catholic manner where children are viewed as a gift from God and also with marriage as the means of supplying the world with Catholic souls to continue blessing Our Lord.
The OP in the thread attached already is aware of her cycles and is thinking of abstaining during the honeymoon. Are they already getting it on?
Did Pope Pius XII intend this when he gave the thumb's up to NFP?
I know Catholic Answers isn't exactly a place to understand Catholicism, but this is the fruits of Vatican II and also the fruits of NFP. CAF has it's fingers on the pulse of conciliarism in the U.S.
Pope Pius XII never "gave the thumbs up" to NFP. He never taught this perverse practice.
-
Ambrose,
Can you link to the docuмent where Pius XII approved NFP?
-
Now don't grief me on this but feel free to comment.
The NO quietly taught NFP as a means to so called natural birth control. Now while this isn't likely official it isn't corrected in their practices.
I understood NFP to be allowed in grave situations meaning poverty that would crush your family, mental depression and other issues, illnesses and incapacitates. But consulting your priest prior to this practice is the way to go. Now if that is the basic meaning of grave situations would the priest outright suggest celibacy vs NFP?
-
Ambrose,
Can you link to the docuмent where Pius XII approved NFP?
That was my point, he did not teach it. There is no docuмent.
-
Knowledge of rythm is like pandoras box.
Pius XII gave a fallibly speech in 1952("to midwives") basically approving of NFP for "grave reasons", and the sacred penitentiary(also cited to defend NFP) is fallible with a prior history of flip flopping(usury).
Stay tuned, the devil is in the details, and I am going to dig up the question(s) that were presented to the SP for a ruling. In my opinion, the "QUESTIONS AND ANSWER" show that the SP did not actually approve of NFP as the NFP'ers claim. NFP was seemingly approved in the ruling because it was not condemned when addressed(guilty of approval by the sin of omission). Give me a day to get all of this together.
-
Based on my experience, NFP is almost always used as a means to prevent pregnancy. It can also be used to find the best time to get pregnant, though. The key is in the name of the practice. P = planning. I choose; God does not. That is the problem. Again, something good (a natural means of avoiding pregnancy) is perverted. "Grave reasons" are normally not that grave.
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
This is false.
Sterile relations, as you call them, are licit. If they were mortally sinful, the Church's law would not allow sterile persons to marry. Such as it is, the Church's law allows sterile persons to marry and to enjoy the rights and privileges which come from marriage. Ergo.
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
This is false.
Sterile relations, as you call them, are licit. If they were mortally sinful, the Church's law would not allow sterile persons to marry. Such as it is, the Church's law allows sterile persons to marry and to enjoy the rights and privileges which come from marriage. Ergo.
You are right. When a couple are sterile, relations are licit. I should have worded my point differently.
-
Knowledge of rythm is like pandoras box.
Pius XII gave a fallibly speech in 1952("to midwives") basically approving of NFP for "grave reasons", and the sacred penitentiary(also cited to defend NFP) is fallible with a prior history of flip flopping(usury).
Stay tuned, the devil is in the details, and I am going to dig up the question(s) that were presented to the SP for a ruling. In my opinion, the "QUESTIONS AND ANSWER" show that the SP did not actually approve of NFP as the NFP'ers claim. NFP was seemingly approved in the ruling because it was not condemned when addressed(guilty of approval by the sin of omission). Give me a day to get all of this together.
Pope Pius XII never taught NFP. :fryingpan:
-
Pope Pius XII never taught NFP. :fryingpan:
Then, what did he teach?
-
I don't think it's a mortal sin.
I think it is. If masturbation is a mortal sin, then having sterile relations should also be a mortal sin for the same reasons. You could ask a traditional priest if you like.
This is false.
Sterile relations, as you call them, are licit. If they were mortally sinful, the Church's law would not allow sterile persons to marry. Such as it is, the Church's law allows sterile persons to marry and to enjoy the rights and privileges which come from marriage. Ergo.
It is about intention. A sterile couple, not knowing they were sterile, could practice NFP (or use the pill) throughout their entire married life to avoid having children. They would still be committing a mortal sin, even though they never could have had children anyway.
-
Pope Pius XII never taught NFP. :fryingpan:
Then, what did he teach?
He taught that the use of the sterile times was lawful for specific grave reasons.
-
He taught that the use of the sterile times was lawful for specific grave reasons.
I thought that the use of only the sterile times was no different from using NFP even though Pope Pius XII never used those words.
-
He taught that the use of the sterile times was lawful for specific grave reasons.
I thought that the use of only the sterile times was no different from using NFP even though Pope Pius XII never used those words.
Pope Pius XII never taught Catholics to plan families, naturally or artificially. He taught that the use of the sterile times may be used for specific grave situations.
-
He taught that the use of the sterile times was lawful for specific grave reasons.
I thought that the use of only the sterile times was no different from using NFP even though Pope Pius XII never used those words.
Pope Pius XII never taught Catholics to plan families, naturally or artificially. He taught that the use of the sterile times may be used for specific grave situations.
Can you tell us more? Cite any docuмents?
-
Aren't you guys talking about Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae? He lays out pretty straight, the rules governing this. Here is it, with quotes i though answered your questions:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm
From part 11: ...Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
From part 16… If, then, there are serious motives (emphasis added) to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
"serious motives" is the key phrase. Now, as with many things, "serious" is open to interpretation but God knows one's conscience and will judge accordingly.
-
He taught that the use of the sterile times was lawful for specific grave reasons.
I thought that the use of only the sterile times was no different from using NFP even though Pope Pius XII never used those words.
Pope Pius XII never taught Catholics to plan families, naturally or artificially. He taught that the use of the sterile times may be used for specific grave situations.
Can you tell us more? Cite any docuмents?
Pope Pius XII taught this in his Address to the Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951, found HERE (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/Address-To-Midwives-Pius-XII.htm)
The specific part of the Address dealing with this issue states:
38. The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, establishes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the particular value of their state, the 'bonum prolis' [the good of offspring]. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, on the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
39. Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic [i.e. concerns related to the health of the offspring], economic, and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt for a long period, or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint -- and is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons, either personal or deriving from exterior circuмstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
-
Ambrose - You are wrong. And, do not twist my words. I said that Pius XII "BASICALLY" approved of NFP. Read what Fr. Girourd has to say about this(I disagree with the him that this is Catholic and binding), and do the math(being "continent" during periods of fertility due to the knowledge there-of is called NFP!) This was responded to me in an email I sent to him. At the end of the first paragraph you will see what Pius XII approved of, and at the very end of the entire treatise you will see its citing from the papal teachings on matrimony #622. Here is the damning sentence pulled from his writing -
"SOME COUPLES MAY, GIVEN GRAVE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED BY PIUS XII, USE THAT KNOWLEDGE TO BE CONTINENT DURING THESE PERIODS OF FERTILITY(WHICH LAST ABOUT 7 DAYS A MONTH), AND TO HAVE RELATIONS OUTSIDE THAT PERIOD."
Here is his email uncut -
Concerning Natural Family Planning (NFP): The doctrine of PIUS XII, which IS NOT called NFP, is Catholic Doctrine, plain and simple. It is not a matter of choice, whether you accept this doctrine or not. What you have to reject is not the doctrine of Pius XII, but the interpretation of it by Novus Ordo people, who think they can follow this method all the time and without conditions. Pius XII had given four conditions for the catholic use of that method. That method is somewhat an echo of St. Paul doctrine on marriage: If both spouses agree to live in continence, for a period of time, they are free to do so, and should use that period to devote more time to spirituality. The name NFP is therefore wrong, and is not the name Pius XII gave to his doctrine. He only specified on which conditions a catholic couple could, or could not, make use of the "rythm" method, which determines the fertile periods of the woman in which procreation has more chances to succeed. Some couples may, given grave conditions enumerated by Pius XII, use that knowledge to be continent during these periods of fertility (which last about 7 days a month), and to have relations outside that period. They could still conceive a child, though, because nothing is scientific or certain about these things. If they conceive, they have to accept the child willingly.
The "indications" that would allow couples to use the "rythm" method are four: 1-Medical (physical or mental serious problems of the mother); 2-Eugenics (if the couple can only have "handicapped" children because of genetic conditions); 3-Economic (the family would really have no means to support the child); 4- Social (for instance, your country has been invaded and is at war). This is a far cry from the Novus Ordo misconception that couples can use the "rythm" method anytime they want and without grave conditions. Pius XII was very adamant that without one of these four indications, the use of the "rythm" method was going against the first end of marriage, and would be a grave sin.
My reference to this is from Pius XII allocution of October 29, 1951, "To All Midwives", giving them the laws of conjugal relations, and asking them to help instruct the couples on that regard. The four "indications" are listed at number 622 of the book of Papal Teachings on Matrimony, by the Monks of Solemnes, St. Paul Edition, 1963. The exemples between brackets are from me.
-
"What you have to reject is not the doctrine of Pius XII, but the interpretation of it by Novus Ordo people, who think they can follow this method all the time and without conditions. "
I don't mean to bash Fr. Girourd, but this sentence sets off my alarm too.
-
Ambrose - the specific part of Pius XII address to midwives is in section 38 at the end -
"to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life".
That means that you can avoid its primary duty if you have a grave reason. :fryingpan:
-
PG,
The Pope has spoken, the matter is closed. You must believe Pope Pius XII's teaching on this matter under pain of serious sin.
The Church is not a free for all that we pick and choose for ourself our doctrine and morals. The priest who wrote you, summed it up the same way I would.
-
Ambrose - Pius XII was a schismatic pope. Follow him into the pit if you will.
-
Ambrose - Pius XII was a schismatic pope. Follow him into the pit if you will.
Now the truth comes out. You are denying the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. You are the schismatic, and have by this act cut yourself off from the Catholic Church.
You are at least consistent, unlike the others who pretend that they are free to ignore Pius XII's teaching, while accepting his Pontificate.
Consistency, however, will not save your soul, most heretics have consistently rejected the Pope's teaching and went their own way from the Church. It is sad that you have chosen this route. I will pray for you that you will come back to the Church in the time God has given you.
-
Now the truth comes out. You are denying the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. You are the schismatic, and have by this act cut yourself off from the Catholic Church.
That's great. You deny six Popes, and when someone denies a seventh you call him schismatic as if only your Pope rejection is dogmatic. Be honest and quit calling others schismatic for doing the same thing you do.
-
Now the truth comes out. You are denying the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. You are the schismatic, and have by this act cut yourself off from the Catholic Church.
That's great. You deny six Popes, and when someone denies a seventh you call him schismatic as if only your Pope rejection is dogmatic. Be honest and quit calling others schismatic for doing the same thing you do.
Matto,
You are in over your head, can't you see that?
I find it amazing that you take me to task on this while giving this public schismatic a pass.
Pope Pius XII was most certainly a Pope. Anyone who denies this is a schismatic, and outside the Church. He peacefully ruled over the Church and his orthodoxy was beyond question.
John XXIII is a grey area. The same for John Paul I.
Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are public heretics.
-
Pope Pius XII was most certainly a Pope. Anyone who denies this is a schismatic, and outside the Church. He peacefully ruled over the Church and his orthodoxy was beyond question.
Can't you see that your opinion of him for rejecting Pope Pius XII is identical to Laramie Hirsch's opinion of you for rejecting the last six popes? Once you start rejecting Popes for you own reasons, you can't get upset at other people because they do the same thing. All without the Church to guide you and declare which ones to accept or reject.
-
Pope Pius XII was most certainly a Pope. Anyone who denies this is a schismatic, and outside the Church. He peacefully ruled over the Church and his orthodoxy was beyond question.
Can't you see that your opinion of him for rejecting Pope Pius XII is identical to Laramie Hirsch's opinion of you for rejecting the last six popes?
No, you are comparing apples and oranges. As I said, you are in over your head.
-
As I said, you are in over your head.
"In over my head". Says the man who rejects six popes because he disagrees with them but condemns a man for rejecting a seventh because he thinks his own opinion is dogma and everyone else is wrong. "In over their heads" indeed. This isn't a difficult question at all. It should be obvious to everyone that you are being hypocritical when you call a man "schismatic" for doing the exact same thing you do. Deposing popes and declaring them anti-popes.
-
Ambrose - I have been very forward always on this forum about my privationism(I am not a vacantist, and certainly not a plenist). And, :judge: You cannot do this :kick-can: forever
-
As I said, you are in over your head.
"In over my head". Says the man who rejects six popes because he disagrees with them but condemns a man for rejecting a seventh because he thinks his own opinion is dogma and everyone else is wrong. "In over their heads" indeed. This isn't a difficult question at all. It should be obvious to everyone that you are being hypocritical when you call a man "schismatic" for doing the exact same thing you do. Deposing popes and declaring them anti-popes.
Matto,
You cannot even understand my last posts, and you think you are ready to engage in a discussion that requires complex distinctions?
You state that I reject six popes, but I say you are wrong. Can you quote me on your assumption about what I believe, or do you make things up as you go along?
-
Ambrose - I have been very forward always on this forum about my privationism(I am not a vacantist, and certainly not a plenist). And, :judge: You cannot do this :kick-can: forever
The rejection of Pope Pius XII's Pontificate is an act of schism. You are not a Catholic.
-
You are just saying "I am smarter than you and you cannot understand me" as if you have any idea how smart I am and what I understand. You say you do not reject 6 popes. OK. Do you accept the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis? Maybe you will say you are not rejecting popes because you (NOT THE CHURCH) declared them antipopes, exactly the same as someone who for similar reasons declares Pius XII antipope.
-
Ambrose - I believe that Pius XII carried the keys until the experimental easter vigil of 1950-51. After that, there was, and there continues to be(as far as I can tell), a privation of the papacy.
-
Ambrose - I believe that Pius XII carried the keys until the experimental easter vigil of 1950-51. After that, there was, and there continues to be(as far as I can tell), a privation of the papacy.
Interesting. So you think he became an anti-pope because he changed the liturgy. This is the first time I have heard of your position.
-
You are just saying "I am smarter than you and you cannot understand me" as if you have any idea how smart I am and what I understand. You say you do not reject 6 popes. OK. Do you accept the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis? Maybe you will say you are not rejecting popes because you (NOT THE CHURCH) declared them antipopes, exactly the same as someone who for similar reasons declares Pius XII antipope.
It have read your posts on here for some years, and I know that you are not good at making complex distinctions. Go back and read your posts dealing with the heresy of those who deny Baptism of Desire, and maybe you will see my point.
I am not an authority, and it does not matter if I am smarter than you, maybe I am, maybe not. I trust those who commissioned and authorized by the Church to teach and explain the Faith. I do not listen to schismatics and heretics, and their clever or sometimes not so clever sophistries.
I told you that the cases of John XXIII and John Paul I were grey areas, and I do not have enough certainty to form a judgment about them. Yet, you then continue on to say that I reject six popes!
Secondly, I have not rejected any Pope, I have a moral certainty that the four in question, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were never Popes to begin with. A doubtful pope is no pope. There has never been a peaceful acceptance of these men.
I have been very clear on this in my postings but you misrepresent me. I do not think you are bad willed, so the only conclusion I have about you is that these matters are over your head.
I also find it strange that you jump onto a discussion to point out my alleged inconsistencies for rejecting the claims of public heretics, and give a pass to a public schismatic who rejects Pope Pius XII.
-
Ambrose - I believe that Pius XII carried the keys until the experimental easter vigil of 1950-51. After that, there was, and there continues to be(as far as I can tell), a privation of the papacy.
The Pope has the power to change the liturgy, to deny that is heresy.
-
I told you that the cases of John XXIII and John Paul I were grey areas, and I do not have enough certainty to form a judgment about them. Yet, you then continue on to say that I reject six popes!]
This is the first time I have heard you say that about John XXIII and John Paul I. I am sorry for saying you reject six Popes when you only reject four. And I would like to add that I understood your distinctions in the BOD debates we had a few months ago, but I just did not agree with them and hold a position similar to Ladislaus who is smarter than me and also understands your distinctions but disagrees with them.
-
Ambrose - Pius XII did not change a liturgy, he invented a liturgy.
-
I told you that the cases of John XXIII and John Paul I were grey areas, and I do not have enough certainty to form a judgment about them. Yet, you then continue on to say that I reject six popes!]
This is the first time I have heard you say that about John XXIII and John Paul I. I am sorry for saying you reject six Popes when you only reject four. And I would like to add that I understood your distinctions in the BOD debates we had a few months ago, but I just did not agree with them and hold a position similar to Ladislaus who is smarter than me and also understands your distinctions but disagrees with them.
You should pray about your belief in the heresy that denies Baptism of Desire. If you do understand, as you say you do, then you are culpable.
I reject the claims of public heretics that they are Popes, I do not reject Popes. You apparently accept their claims to the Papal office. That is the difference between us.
-
Ambrose - Pius XII did not change a liturgy, he invented a liturgy.
According to you.
-
I reject the claims of public heretics that they are Popes, I do not reject Popes. You apparently accept their claims to the Papal office. That is the difference between us.
No. You are wrong again. I do not accept the last six Papal claimants. I do not reject them either. So sometimes I will call them Popes and sometimes I might even call them "antipopes." I do not know if they are popes or not. My position is one of doubt. I do not accept or reject them, I do not know. That has been my position for a long time. I guess you just didn't read my posts where I gave my position.
-
Ambrose - Don't forget about how "in over your head" you were concerning Pius XII allocution to midwives(talk about not grasping complexities).
-
I reject the claims of public heretics that they are Popes, I do not reject Popes. You apparently accept their claims to the Papal office. That is the difference between us.
No. You are wrong again. I do not accept the last six Papal claimants. I do not reject them either. So sometimes I will call them Popes and sometimes I might even call them "antipopes." I do not know if they are popes or not. My position is one of doubt. I do not accept or reject them, I do not know. That has been my position for a long time. I guess you just didn't read my posts where I gave my position.
Fair enough. It is good that you have doubts about them, as a doubtful Pope is no Pope. I jut hope that you come around on the other issue, your denial of the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire.
-
Fair enough. It is good that you have doubts about them, as a doubtful Pope is no Pope. I jut hope that you come around on the other issue, your denial of the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire.
And I hope, because I don't know, that you don't believe souls can be saved who believe in other religions.
-
Ambrose - Don't forget about how "in over your head" you were concerning Pius XII allocution to midwives(talk about not grasping complexities).
It is for the Pope to answer moral questions, not you. Since you reject his pontificate, I can see your logic, but your position is schismatic.
Catholics must believe Pope Pius XII's teaching, and are not free to disagree on this point, under pain of sin. If any reject Pius XII, they reject the Church, and by that act lose their membership in it.
-
Fair enough. It is good that you have doubts about them, as a doubtful Pope is no Pope. I jut hope that you come around on the other issue, your denial of the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire.
And I hope, because I don't know, that you don't believe souls can be saved who believe in other religions.
No, I do not, and that has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. You are referring to EENS, not Baptism of Desire.
-
Ambrose - I would normally go through a video or reference I post to make it easy on the other, but you are a real bone head. I don't think you will even do the math of what these things mean. I won't be wasting my time with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGnstoua3hY
Canon Gregory Hesse also discusses schism and rites(he pins the date on 1950 as well).
And lastly, read quo primum!
-
]
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:
-
Ambrose - I would normally go through a video or reference I post to make it easy on the other, but you are a real bone head. I don't think you will even do the math of what these things mean. I won't be wasting my time with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGnstoua3hY
Canon Gregory Hesse also discusses schism and rites(he pins the date on 1950 as well).
And lastly, read quo primum!
Canon Hesse would not agree with your rejection of Pius XII. I am not sure of your point regarding him, but if he or anyone has said that Pius XII or any Pope lacks the authority to make changes to the liturgy then such a statement is heretical. It is a direct denial of Scripture and Tradition.
You don't have to "waste your time with me," but I will not remain silent as you bait Catholics to follow you out of the Church.
-
]
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.
-
Ambrose - what mass do you attend(1962 or pre-1955)?
-
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.
-
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 - 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.
-
Ambrose - I think that you have been listening to too much Fr. Sanborn.
-
Ambrose - I think that you have been listening to too much Fr. Sanborn.
I disagree.
-
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 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1-G7HVbERk
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.