Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ambrose on November 11, 2013, 12:17:59 AM
-
Director,
I am moving this to its own thread, as you have now exponentially increased the importance of correcting this grave error by bringing forth a docuмent that puts into question the orthodoxy of Pope Pius XII.
I would like to ask you: do you actually believe this junk theology as put forth in the diatribe by Richard Ibranyi or are you just confused about this and want help to see where he is wrong?
Director wrote quoting Richard Ibranyi:
From RJMI...
The evidence against Pius XII
On October 29, 1951, Pius XII taught that in certain cases spouses could practice contraception. This exception came to be known as Natural Family Planning.
Pius XII, Address given October 29, 1951 to the ―Italian Catholic Union of Midwives‖: 36. It is possible to be exempt, for a lengthy period, and even for the entire duration of the marriage, if there are grave reasons, such as those which not infrequently occur in the so-called ―indications‖ of a medical, eugenic, economic, or social nature. For this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful from the moral point of view. Under the conditions mentioned it really is so.
The underlined portion is where he has allowed excuses to be put forward (grave reasons) that would allow for the practice of the contraception method of NFP. These same reasons, along with all reasons, have been infallibly condemned by Pope Pius XI as intrinsically evil and against the natural law. Pope Pius XI condemned every reason (excuse) that Pius XII allows.
Pope Pius XI teaches that no reason (excuse), no matter how grave it may be, can be brought forward to violate a moral law. ―No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.‖ Pius XII says, ―There are grave reasons‖ that allow for the ―observing of the non-fertile periods alone‖ and that this ―can be lawful from the moral point of view.‖
Pius XII, contradicts, word-for-word, the infallible teachings of Pope Pius XI. He says there are certain grave reasons that allow spouses to deliberately plan to prevent (frustrate) conception when they engage in the marital act, and he declares this practice as not immoral or even a fault, but that it is moral. In this he has contradicted and thus denied a dogma of morals.
Pope Pius XI specifically condemns the common excuses brought forward by those who practice contraception.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties, whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circuмstances.
These are the very excuses ―grave reasons‖ that Pius XII now allows modern man to bring forward in order to break God‘s moral law.
The condemned reason (excuse) of ―difficulties… on the part of family circuмstances‖ by Pope Pius XI is now allowed by Pius XII that he refers to as the ―economic‖ and ―social‖ reasons. The condemned reason (excuse) of ―difficulties… on the part of the mother‖ by Pope Pius XI is now allowed by Pius XII that he refers to as the ―medical‖ reason.
There was much controversy over Pius XII‘s immoral teaching on October 29. Instead of repudiating it he re-confirmed it the following month, so that there would be no misunderstanding that he was allowing spouses to practice the contraception of Natural Family Planning.
Pius XII, Address to the ―National Congress of the ‗Family Front‘ and the Association of Large Families,‖ November 26, 1951: Regulation of Offspring:
21. The Church knows how to consider with sympathy and understanding the real difficulties of the married state in our day. Therefore, in Our last allocution on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy and, at the same time, the limits—in truth very wide—of a regulation of offspring, which, unlike so-called ‗birth control is compatible with the law of God. One may even hope (but in this matter the Church naturally leaves the judgment to medical science) that science will succeed in providing this licit method with a sufficiently secure basis, and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope.
Pius XII refers back to his last allocution on October 29 when he taught the heresy of Natural Family Planning. He affirms that this may be practiced and then lies when he says it is not ―birth control‖ and is moral. He also concedes to science what belongs to the Church. No science can make moral what is immoral. He teaches that the regulation of offspring is accomplished by the new scientific technique called Natural Family Planning, and hopes that this technique can be perfected so as to guarantee 100% efficiency so that it would be absolutely impossible for spouses to conceive a child while engaging in the marital act.
Pius XII is also guilty of modernism by teaching what was condemned as immoral is now moral due to different circuмstances for the ―married state in our day.‖
First of all, even if the circuмstances were different, no excuse can be brought forward to deny a dogma of faith or morals, even at the cost of a Catholic‘s life. The passing of time and changing circuмstances never allow for the denial of one dogma of faith or morals, and those who teach otherwise are guilty of the heresy of modernism
“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mt. 5:18) Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.” (Heb. 13:8-9
)
Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907: Condemned propositions: ―53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.‖ ―59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. 64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.‖
Second, what is different about families in the 20th century than from the past? Have not past centuries had their share of plagues, famines, wars, and other catastrophes? In reality modern men have fewer burdens than men of the past, due to scientific advances in medicine, agriculture, and the ability to make the necessities of life available by faster and more efficient means of transportation and communication. So what is this fabricated family dilemma that Pius XII puts forward as a unique problem of ―our day‖?
The true dilemma is that modern men are greedier, more covetous, more gluttonous, and more selfish than ever before. In order to maintain their sinful materialistic lifestyle they must limit families because children get in the way of them fulfilling their evil lusts, and evil and inordinate passions. Pius XII is listening to the sinful groan of evil people who want to be liberated from the sweet yoke of Christ in order that they can sin and sin mightily. Pius XII sympathizes with them in their quest to be liberated from God‘s commandments and sin mightily. Not only does he sympathize with them, he aids-and-abets them by giving them a way to break God‘s commandments while quelling their guilty consciences by pretending that Natural Family Planning is not birth control.
-
The Remaining portion of the charge by Ibranyi quoted by Director:
Pope Pius XI teaches, ―no reason, however grave,
may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature,
‖ which means not even the death of the mother can be prevented at the cost of killing the child or visa-versa (See: Medical Condition, danger to the mother or child, does not excuse p.12).
One of the grave reasons brought forward by NFP defenders to justify its use is extreme poverty. Yet, Pope Pius XI specifically condemns this along with all reasons.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error.
No difficulty can arise that justifies putting aside the law of God which prohibits all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circuмstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the Grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.
This truth of Christian faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent: ―Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe.
God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you.‖
-
Director,
I am moving this to its own thread, as you have now exponentially increased the importance of correcting this grave error by bringing forth a docuмent that puts into question the orthodoxy of Pope Pius XII.
I would like to ask you: do you actually believe this junk theology as put forth in the diatribe by Richard Ibranyi or are you just confused about this and want help to see where he is wrong?
Crazy as Ibranyi is on some things, he seems right on this. NFP is camouflaged birth control plain and simple. The end result is to avoid children while enjoying the marital act. The Novus Ordo sect even offers it as an "alternative" instead of artificial birth control.
But you believe opposing this birth control method in disguise is a "grave error". Woe to you.
The "catholics" at fisheaters prove how wicked this is. It is all about lust and engaging in the marital act for pleasure only. I've read posts of them saying how they just "can't wait" for the 3 weeks of "abstinence" to be over or things to that effect.
But why are you speaking about questioning the orthodoxy of Pius XII when you believe these abominable antichrist apostate vatican 2 antipopoes are still valid popes? Ridiculous.
-
Director wrote:
On October 29, 1951, Pius XII taught that in certain cases spouses could practice contraception. This exception came to be known as Natural Family Planning.
In this first sentence, the reader can easily see the intent of the writer. Pope Pius XII never used the term contraception. The common meaning of the word contraception is an artificial method of blocking conception. This type of wording is not only inaccurate, it is misleading.
Secondly, Pope Pius XII cannot be faulted for the change in terms that happened after his death. The new term, NFP does not signify what Pius XII taught, and he never used the term, so it is unjust to attribute that term with his teaching in any way.
Natural Family Planning as it is commonly understood today, is more than just an exception, it is an overall plan that organizes when the children will come, how many children, and the spacing between children.
To connect Pope Pius XII with this perversion of his teaching that became known as NFP is a grave injustice to him personally, and to his teaching.
-
Director,
I am moving this to its own thread, as you have now exponentially increased the importance of correcting this grave error by bringing forth a docuмent that puts into question the orthodoxy of Pope Pius XII.
I would like to ask you: do you actually believe this junk theology as put forth in the diatribe by Richard Ibranyi or are you just confused about this and want help to see where he is wrong?
Crazy as Ibranyi is on some things, he seems right on this. NFP is camouflaged birth control plain and simple. The end result is to avoid children while enjoying the marital act. The Novus Ordo sect even offers it as an "alternative" instead of artificial birth control.
But you believe opposing this birth control method in disguise is a "grave error". Woe to you.
The "catholics" at fisheaters prove how wicked this is. It is all about lust and engaging in the marital act for pleasure only. I've read posts of them saying how they just "can't wait" for the 3 weeks of "abstinence" to be over or things to that effect.
But why are you speaking about questioning the orthodoxy of Pius XII when you believe these abominable antichrist apostate vatican 2 antipopoes are still valid popes? Ridiculous.
Have the Dimonds and Ibranyi really spread their errors this far? It seems like their followers are multiplying everywhere. I will pray for you Pelele and I am sorry if they have caused you to doubt the binding teaching of Pope Pius XII on this matter.
-
Have the Dimonds and Ibranyi really spread their errors this far? It seems like their followers are multiplying everywhere. I will pray for you Pelele and I am sorry if they have caused you to doubt the binding teaching of Pope Pius XII on this matter.
How about you actually raise up some arguments? Isn't this why you made this thread to begin with?
Address in particular the fact that you seem eager to defend the orthdoxy of Pope Pius XII when you believe these antichrists from the Vatican 2 are still valid Popes.
If you believe those are real popes, what are you doing with this thread since anything goes?
Even the neocatechumenal heretics from the novus ordo oppose NFP.
Imagine that!
And note: i do not regard neither the Dimonds nor Ibranyi as real Catholics.
-
Have the Dimonds and Ibranyi really spread their errors this far? It seems like their followers are multiplying everywhere. I will pray for you Pelele and I am sorry if they have caused you to doubt the binding teaching of Pope Pius XII on this matter.
How about you actually raise up some arguments? Isn't this why you made this thread to begin with?
Address in particular the fact that you seem eager to defend the orthdoxy of Pope Pius XII when you believe these antichrists from the Vatican 2 are still valid Popes.
If you believe those are real popes, what are you doing with this thread since anything goes?
Even the neocatechumenal heretics from the novus ordo oppose NFP.
Imagine that!
And note: i do not regard neither the Dimonds nor Ibranyi as real Catholics.
How about you actually raise up some arguments? Isn't this why you made this thread to begin with?
I am getting to it, be patient. I just started this thread only minutes ago, and I intend to finish it, whether it takes days or weeks.
Address in particular the fact that you seem eager to defend the orthdoxy of Pope Pius XII when you believe these antichrists from the Vatican 2 are still valid Popes.
Obviously you have not read much by me or you would not have made that assumption.
-
Obviously you have not read much by me or you would not have made that assumption.
Maybe i confused you with someone else. Are you a sede?
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
So I guess Pius XI taught error too.
No sex for old people!
This conversation has gotten ridiculous. I will never understand the need for some to question everything pre-Vatican II as well. Once we start doing that there is no line drawn and anything goes.
-
To be honest,
As a traditional Catholic, I am confused in regarding the Catholic Church's stance on natural family planning.
I am even unsure about the orthodoxy of Paul VI's encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae?
After perusing an article on the BBC, it said that Pope Paul VI allowed natural forms of birth control (where one may engage in intercourse during the woman's infertile periods), however artificial birth control was strictly prohibited.
I wish someone can explain the traditional Catholic teachings on these issues.
-
To be honest,
As a traditional Catholic, I am confused in regarding the Catholic Church's stance on natural family planning.
I am even unsure about the orthodoxy of Paul VI's encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae?
After perusing an article on the BBC, it said that Pope Paul VI allowed natural forms of birth control (where one may engage in intercourse during the woman's infertile periods), however artificial birth control was strictly prohibited.
I wish someone can explain the traditional Catholic teachings on these issues.
RonCal,
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties.
The second problem came about when certain writers, not content with correcting modernist abuse of the teaching on the lawful use of the rhythm, actually attacked the orthodox teaching of Pope Pius XII.
The truth can be found if you read Casti Connubii Pius XI, and in the Address to the midwives by Pius XII, October 29, 1951, AAS 43 (1951). Do not let anyone confuse on this point, Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it.
-
Bowler wrote:
What is called NFP today is advertised as being as effective at birth avoidance as the pill, that is 99.99%. THAT method was unknown at the time of Pius XII allocution to the midwives. One can't use Pius XII allocution to justify the use of NFP of today for any reason. Modern NFP changes everything, and requires fallible speculation by conciliarists "theologians"
What I wrote above is NOW moot, it is wrong. I stand corrected based on the following posting where Pius XII said that he hopes it'll be a secure method in the future:
"One may even hope (but in this matter the Church naturally leaves the judgment to medical science) that science will succeed in providing this licit method with a sufficiently secure basis, and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope".
21. The Church knows how to consider with sympathy and understanding the real difficulties of the married state in our day. Therefore, in Our last allocution on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy and, at the same time, the limits—in truth very wide—of a regulation of offspring, which, unlike so-called ‗birth control is compatible with the law of God. One may even hope (but in this matter the Church naturally leaves the judgment to medical science) that science will succeed in providing this licit method with a sufficiently secure basis, and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope.
Pius XII refers back to his last allocution on October 29 when he taught the heresy of Natural Family Planning. He affirms that this may be practiced and then lies when he says it is not ―birth control‖ and is moral. He also concedes to science what belongs to the Church. No science can make moral what is immoral. He teaches that the regulation of offspring is accomplished by the new scientific technique called Natural Family Planning, and hopes that this technique can be perfected so as to guarantee 100% efficiency so that it would be absolutely impossible for spouses to conceive a child while engaging in the marital act.
-
My observations in red:
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties. (giving Pius XII's teaching the name "planning" does not change anything. You have not explained anything)
The second problem came about when certain writers, not content with correcting modernist abuse of the teaching on the lawful use of the rhythm, actually attacked the orthodox teaching of Pope Pius XII. (I thought you opened this thread to gett off the "Pius XII errors issue", and explain his rhythm method?)
The truth can be found if you read Casti Connubii Pius XI, and in the Address to the midwives by Pius XII, October 29, 1951, AAS 43 (1951). Do not let anyone confuse on this point, Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it. (What is his teaching that Ibranji has not expalined? You have to address Ibranji's point, and not just say "Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it". Here's the two sides: Ibranji says the couple can only abstain or else engage in the marital act without "consulting charts". You say that it is OK to "consult the charts", and not have children for financial reasons, among other reasons. The Novus Ordo says the same.)
-
Have the Dimonds and Ibranyi really spread their errors this far? It seems like their followers are multiplying everywhere.
They have "spread" because they make common sense, while you have not made a good case. I have no dog in this debate, I'm just telling you what I see so far. You are not making a good case.
I don't see the difference between Pius XII's "rhythm method" which he said basically that he hopes will be 100% safe in the future, and the modern NFP.
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
So I guess Pius XI taught error too.
No sex for old people!
This conversation has gotten ridiculous. I will never understand the need for some to question everything pre-Vatican II as well. Once we start doing that there is no line drawn and anything goes.
Where exactly did I say that Pius XI was wrong? Just because some Church Fathers teach something doesn't mean that it supersedes Church teaching. I brought it up by way of contrast with Pius XII.
-
More... from RMJI..
Natural Family Planning is Contraception
―Natural Family Planning‖ is also known as ―The Rhythm Method.‖ Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Casti Connubii, condemns all forms of contraception as immoral, as an ―offense against the law of God and of nature and is a grave (mortal) sin.‖
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: And now, Venerable Brethren, We shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due the offspring, which many have the audacity to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. …No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God.
A key word is ―deliberate‖ [b]attempt to prevent [[/b]b]conception[/b]. Pope Pius XI teaches all forms of deliberately frustrating the martial act by depriving it of its natural power and purpose (conception) is a ―sin against nature‖ (the natural law) and is ―intrinsically vicious‖ (intrinsically evil).
He does not qualify deliberate frustration by saying, only if physical devices are used during the act, or by withdrawal during the act. Birth control pills are taken before not during the act to frustrate the fertile cycle of the woman by making it infertile. Natural Family Planning (hereafter referred to as NFP), which is absolutely unnatural and immoral, uses the same prevention technique as birth control pills. The difference being that birth control pills are replaced with modern scientific techniques that chart the fertile and infertile period. In every case the goal is the exact same, to prevent conception from taking place while engaging in the marital act. Spouses that practice NFP chart the woman‘s fertile and infertile period in order that they can prevent conception by only having marital relations during the infertile period. Deliberate frustration of conception occurs either by obstructing the fertile cycle by NFP or birth control pills, or by using a physical device, or withdrawal during the marital act.
In every case a deliberate plan is made before the act
Married couples that attempt to frustrate conception while engaging in the martial act must formulate a deliberate plan in order to do so. In every case they deliberately formulate a plan to prevent conception before the marital act. They either plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the act, or plan to withdraw during the act, or plan to take birth control pills that prevents ovulation before the act, or plan to only have relations during the infertile period. In every case the goal of the plan is the same, to 10 prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. Whether they plan by buying the physical contraceptive devices or pills ahead of time, or the husband plans to withdraw at the appropriate time, or they plan by charting fertile and infertile periods, it is exactly the same plan. In every case they plan to prevent conception when engaging in the marital act. In a sense it could be said about NFP that a contraceptive is placed over the fertile period while engaging in the act during the infertile period, or, the husband withdraws from the act during the fertile period while engaging in it during the infertile period, or, instead of preventing ovulation with a pill it is prevented by charting cycles. Dear reader, open your eyes and ears, can you not see that the intention is the same in every case! Can you not see that NFP is contraception!
It is intrinsically evil when spouses plan to have sɛҳuąƖ relations while also having planned to make conception impossible. It does not matter in what way the spouses plan to prevent conception. The principle is the same in all cases—the deliberate prevention of conception (child bearing) by the spouses while engaging in the marital act. The goal of contraception is to eliminate the possibility of conception while engaging in the marital act. Whether the contraception takes place during the act by physical obstruction, or before the act by obstructing the fertile period by planning to only commit the act during the infertile period. In both cases the goal of the plan is to perform the sɛҳuąƖ act without the possibility of conception. Guilt of mortal sin occurs when these two conditions are met, either in the mind or in the act. Our Lord teaches us that all sin proceeds from the heart, and manifests itself in men‘s actions. “The things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.” (Mt. 15:11, 18-19)
What is a plan? A plan is the words of a man that proceed from his mouth that come forth from his heart that he seeks to put into action. The root of every plan is in the heart. What is in the heart of spouses who plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the marital act, or plan to withdraw so as to make conception improbably, or plan to have marital relations only during the infertile period? In the heart of these spouses is the desire to have marital relations while having deliberately planned to prevent conception. Pope Pius XI describes what is in their heart, he says, ―Offspring… they say is to be carefully avoided by married people… by frustrating the marriage act… [They] deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose.‖
Sin originates from what is in the heart. I ask spouses who practice NFP, ―What is in your heart when you practice NFP?‖ While engaging in the martial act, after having planned to do so only during the infertile period, ask yourself in the heat of your lust, ―Am I not committing this very act with the explicit, deliberate, premeditated planned intention of preventing conception while fulfilling my lust?‖ If your wish or prayer is to have relations and that conception does not occur, then you committed the mortal sin of contraception.
St. Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]: ―I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility …Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that 11 either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.‖
Even if the spouses have relations for mutual love, which is a precarious concept I will deal with later, and have deliberately planned to prevent conception, then they commit the mortal sin or contraception, which is always intrinsically evil. It is contraception—contrary to conception. Whether conception is prevented by the use of a physical device or withdrawal during the marital act or by planned obstruction of the fertile period while only engaging in the act during the unfertile period, it is all contraception; the planning of man to prevent conception while engaging in the martial act. Man thus takes the place of God in determining if conception should take place during the marital act.
-
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties.
Pius XII was the one who opened the floodgates.
-
I'll repeat this from the other thread.
Pius XI taught that TWO principles applied in ascertaining the moral qualities of the marital act:
1) that the "natural power" or "inherent force" of the action cannot be violated (artificial birth control, Onanism, etc.)
AND
2) that the primary end or purpose of marriage cannot be subordinated to the secondary ends.
Pius XII in the Allocution DROPPED the second condition or consideration enitrely. I'll go fetch my juxtaposition of Pius XI and Pius XII's paraphrase of Pius XI.
NFP is different from ABC in that it avoids violating principle #1. In other words, it's not INTRINSICALLY immoral, whereas ABC IS because by its very nature it inherently violates the first principle.
But just because something isn't intrinisically immoral doesn't mean it can't be immoral for other reasons, i.e. because it's FORMALLY immoral, i.e. due to the intent.
Pius XII argued that since one may abstain from marital relations, it's OK to abstain from marital relations ONLY during fertile times. His reasoning is just plain wrong. That does not necessarily follow. In abstaining altogether, the couple actually tacitly respects the primary ends of marriage.
HOWEVER ... when a couple abstains from the marital act only during fertile periods, they are clearly trying to exercise the marital act for the secondary ends while DELIBERATELY ATTEMPTING TO EXCLUDE REALIZATION OF THE PRIMARY END.
If that isn't subordinating the primary end to the secondary ends (which Pius XI condemned), then I don't know what is. Ambrose has not yet come close to explaining how one can engage in selective abstinence during fertile periods and NOT be doing exactly what Pius XI condemned. I'm all ears.
And just because Pius XII put a condition of "serious reasons" on NFP doesn't mean that his principles didn't open the floodgates on NFP. Because we're just talking about various interpretations of "serious". When Pius XII lists among "serious" reasons things like "eugenic" and "social" and "economic" considerations, that clearly opens the floodgates. Serious doesn't have to mean "grave" or "dire"; it only serves as a contrast to "light" or "trivial". So, based on Pius XII, if I'm having some trouble paying my bills or I'm psychologically worn down by having lots of loud children, or I'm older and have increased risk for having a child with Down syndrome ... all that could easily qualify me for NFP. Or we're having relationship problems, so it would be unhealthy for a child to be in this environment. There's no clear, hard, solid line here from the Pius XII teaching.
I'll dig up my contrasting Pius XI vs. Pius XII quotes.
PS -- Ibranyi got it wrong for the same reasons I'm citing here, his failure to distinguish betwen #1 and #2 as listed above. Ibranyi conflated the two considerations.
-
I dug this up from a post I made 3 days ago on the previous thread:
Let's now have a look at Casti Conubii from Pius XI.
Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers AND PURPOSE sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. ... For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END AND so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Pius XI taught that not only must the instrinisic nature of the act and "natural powers" be preserved (i.e. against artificial birth control, Onanism, etc.) but ALSO that the "purpose" cannot be frustrated, that the secondary ENDS must be subordinated to the PRIMARY.
Piux XII ignored the second part about the purpose and ends and simply said that it's OK to subordinate the primary purpose to the secondary and to frustrated the "purpose" of the marital ACT so long as its "natural powers" are preserved. He picks up on the Pius XII "natural powers" part but then conveniently drops that part about the purpose and ends.
Pius XII, in the aforementioned allocution, cites Casti Conubii, citing the part about the "inherent force" but ignoring the part about the ends and purpose.
Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical <Casti Connubii>, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.
-
0
-
My observations in red:
The second problem came about when certain writers, not content with correcting modernist abuse of the teaching on the lawful use of the rhythm, actually attacked the orthodox teaching of Pope Pius XII. (I thought you opened this thread to gett off the "Pius XII errors issue", and explain his rhythm method?)
[/quote
My mistake. The title of the thread says it all "A Defense of Pope Pius XII Against a False Allegation That He Taught Error, In a Certain Moral Teaching".
Anyhow, you can't separate the two, for you have to prove that Pius XII did not teach error in his allocution.
Me thinks that your fight is caused by the "attack on Pius XII" more than the issue of NFP. The reason being that it throws a wrench in your theories of popes teaching non-infallible errors not popes. Your defense of Pus XII's teaching on NFP looks just like the defense of the Novus Ordo of the "non infallible" errors of Vatican II. It is almost impossible to prove any heresy or error in Vatican II to them. There is always a place for them to wiggle out.
All of this does not surprise me, since everyone wiggles out of the clearest infallible DOGMAS on baptism and EENS.
-
My observations in red:
The second problem came about when certain writers, not content with correcting modernist abuse of the teaching on the lawful use of the rhythm, actually attacked the orthodox teaching of Pope Pius XII. (I thought you opened this thread to gett off the "Pius XII errors issue", and explain his rhythm method?)
My mistake. The title of the thread says it all "A Defense of Pope Pius XII Against a False Allegation That He Taught Error, In a Certain Moral Teaching".
Anyhow, you can't separate the two, for you have to prove that Pius XII did not teach error in his allocution.
Me thinks that your fight is caused by the "attack on Pius XII" more than the issue of NFP. The reason being that it throws a wrench in your theories of popes teaching non-infallible errors not popes. Your defense of Pus XII's teaching on NFP looks just like the defense of the Novus Ordo of the "non infallible" errors of Vatican II. It is almost impossible to prove any heresy or error in Vatican II to them. There is always a place for them to wiggle out.
All of this does not surprise me, since everyone today wiggles out of the clearest infallible DOGMAS on baptism and EENS to teach and believe that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Christ of the Trinity. Since they currently can do that, everything is up for grabs.
-
Correction:
Me thinks that your fight is caused by the "attack on Pius XII" more than the details of the issue of NFP. The reason being that you feel that it throws a wrench in your theories that if popes teach even non-infallible errors, they are not popes.
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
So I guess Pius XI taught error too.
No sex for old people!
This conversation has gotten ridiculous. I will never understand the need for some to question everything pre-Vatican II as well. Once we start doing that there is no line drawn and anything goes.
Where exactly did I say that Pius XI was wrong? Just because some Church Fathers teach something doesn't mean that it supersedes Church teaching. I brought it up by way of contrast with Pius XII.
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile, then Pius XI shouldn't have taught that it's okay for old people to have sex.
Or are you suggesting that he taught that old people shouldn't have sex because they are infertile?
-
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
-
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile...
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Whoever wants to discuss it further can take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
-
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile...
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Whoever wants to discuss it further can take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Really? Then perhaps you should redirect your sarcastic, uppity comments to Ladislaus since he was the first one to bring up the topic.
Edit after the thumb down: It stinks when you're wrong, huh? LOL
-
Director,
I am moving this to its own thread, as you have now exponentially increased the importance of correcting this grave error by bringing forth a docuмent that puts into question the orthodoxy of Pope Pius XII.
I would like to ask you: do you actually believe this junk theology as put forth in the diatribe by Richard Ibranyi or are you just confused about this and want help to see where he is wrong?
Director wrote quoting Richard Ibranyi:
From RJMI...
The evidence against Pius XII
On October 29, 1951, Pius XII taught that in certain cases spouses could practice contraception. This exception came to be known as Natural Family Planning.
Pius XII, Address given October 29, 1951 to the ―Italian Catholic Union of Midwives‖: 36. It is possible to be exempt, for a lengthy period, and even for the entire duration of the marriage, if there are grave reasons, such as those which not infrequently occur in the so-called ―indications‖ of a medical, eugenic, economic, or social nature. For this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful from the moral point of view. Under the conditions mentioned it really is so.
The underlined portion is where he has allowed excuses to be put forward (grave reasons) that would allow for the practice of the contraception method of NFP. These same reasons, along with all reasons, have been infallibly condemned by Pope Pius XI as intrinsically evil and against the natural law. Pope Pius XI condemned every reason (excuse) that Pius XII allows.
Pope Pius XI teaches that no reason (excuse), no matter how grave it may be, can be brought forward to violate a moral law. ―No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.‖ Pius XII says, ―There are grave reasons‖ that allow for the ―observing of the non-fertile periods alone‖ and that this ―can be lawful from the moral point of view.‖
Pius XII, contradicts, word-for-word, the infallible teachings of Pope Pius XI. He says there are certain grave reasons that allow spouses to deliberately plan to prevent (frustrate) conception when they engage in the marital act, and he declares this practice as not immoral or even a fault, but that it is moral. In this he has contradicted and thus denied a dogma of morals.
Pope Pius XI specifically condemns the common excuses brought forward by those who practice contraception.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties, whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circuмstances.
These are the very excuses ―grave reasons‖ that Pius XII now allows modern man to bring forward in order to break God‘s moral law.
The condemned reason (excuse) of ―difficulties… on the part of family circuмstances‖ by Pope Pius XI is now allowed by Pius XII that he refers to as the ―economic‖ and ―social‖ reasons. The condemned reason (excuse) of ―difficulties… on the part of the mother‖ by Pope Pius XI is now allowed by Pius XII that he refers to as the ―medical‖ reason.
There was much controversy over Pius XII‘s immoral teaching on October 29. Instead of repudiating it he re-confirmed it the following month, so that there would be no misunderstanding that he was allowing spouses to practice the contraception of Natural Family Planning.
Pius XII, Address to the ―National Congress of the ‗Family Front‘ and the Association of Large Families,‖ November 26, 1951: Regulation of Offspring:
21. The Church knows how to consider with sympathy and understanding the real difficulties of the married state in our day. Therefore, in Our last allocution on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy and, at the same time, the limits—in truth very wide—of a regulation of offspring, which, unlike so-called ‗birth control is compatible with the law of God. One may even hope (but in this matter the Church naturally leaves the judgment to medical science) that science will succeed in providing this licit method with a sufficiently secure basis, and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope.
Pius XII refers back to his last allocution on October 29 when he taught the heresy of Natural Family Planning. He affirms that this may be practiced and then lies when he says it is not ―birth control‖ and is moral. He also concedes to science what belongs to the Church. No science can make moral what is immoral. He teaches that the regulation of offspring is accomplished by the new scientific technique called Natural Family Planning, and hopes that this technique can be perfected so as to guarantee 100% efficiency so that it would be absolutely impossible for spouses to conceive a child while engaging in the marital act.
Pius XII is also guilty of modernism by teaching what was condemned as immoral is now moral due to different circuмstances for the ―married state in our day.‖
First of all, even if the circuмstances were different, no excuse can be brought forward to deny a dogma of faith or morals, even at the cost of a Catholic‘s life. The passing of time and changing circuмstances never allow for the denial of one dogma of faith or morals, and those who teach otherwise are guilty of the heresy of modernism
“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mt. 5:18) Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.” (Heb. 13:8-9
)
Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907: Condemned propositions: ―53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.‖ ―59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. 64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.‖
Second, what is different about families in the 20th century than from the past? Have not past centuries had their share of plagues, famines, wars, and other catastrophes? In reality modern men have fewer burdens than men of the past, due to scientific advances in medicine, agriculture, and the ability to make the necessities of life available by faster and more efficient means of transportation and communication. So what is this fabricated family dilemma that Pius XII puts forward as a unique problem of ―our day‖?
The true dilemma is that modern men are greedier, more covetous, more gluttonous, and more selfish than ever before. In order to maintain their sinful materialistic lifestyle they must limit families because children get in the way of them fulfilling their evil lusts, and evil and inordinate passions. Pius XII is listening to the sinful groan of evil people who want to be liberated from the sweet yoke of Christ in order that they can sin and sin mightily. Pius XII sympathizes with them in their quest to be liberated from God‘s commandments and sin mightily. Not only does he sympathize with them, he aids-and-abets them by giving them a way to break God‘s commandments while quelling their guilty consciences by pretending that Natural Family Planning is not birth control.
RJMI should not be considered a legitimate source of any Catholic theology. He gives the "brothers" a run for their money on being the worst possible representative of authentic Catholicism.
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
On the prev page there is a remark by Ambrose that the term NFP was not in use until after the death of Pius XII. If this is correct then there is no way that Pius XII can be said to have departed from Pius XI on 'NFP' because it didn't exist. :confused1:
-
I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.
In the newchurch, they teach it as a form of birth control. My wife an I were subjected to this by the diocese, being "required" to go to the home of our married deacon so he and his wife could explain to us how wonderful NFP was. They even asked how many children we planned to have. They were a little surprised by the answer.
Anyways, that's how newchurch uses it. Make no mistake. They treat it as Catholic birth control. At our "retreat for engaged couples" (sponsored by this very same diocese) we learned there are three things that make a succesful marriage: God, NFP, and something else. By the very fact that they require it to be taught they are not teaching it correctly, since it's something that is only to be used in very extraordinary instances.
NFP is sinful when a couple uses it to avoid having children without a grave reason. When used in order to conceive, or when used with a grave reason (which is a decision that is always made after much prayer and discussion with a priest) to not conceive, it is licit and moral.
Couples engage in marital relations with virtually no chance to conceive all the time. Conception only occurs when a woman ovulates. At any other time, conception will not occur (medical anomalies and miracles aside). The only difference between a couple (licitly) using NFP who have marital relations between periods of ovulation and a couple not using NFP who have marital relations between periods of ovulation is that the couple using NFP (presumably) knows that the woman is not ovulating, or at least the woman knows this.
The reason that NFP is permitted is that marital relations have more than one end. They only have one primary end (procreation) but there is a secondary end, which is the satisfaction of concupiscence. This is a licit end of the marital act. Now, the primary end cannot be frustrated in order to bring about the secondary end but the secondary end does not become illegitimate just because the primary end is not or cannot be realized through no fault of the couple. Catholic couples are not obliged to only have relations when they can conceive-- in fact, if they were, they would be required to use NFP because that's the only way to find out if they're ovulating!
-
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.
-
I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.
Why would you even want to know when the ovulations start and stop , if it wasn t for the fact that you want to know when you can do the marital act, supposedly so you can escape having Children. (NFP).
If you follow the teaching of he Church and PPXI, it wouldn t matter when they fall. Every desire to copulate by both should be to that God will give you another member to your family. If that is not your desire , then contenience is the only way to go. That s what the Church teaches.
It all starts with what is in the Plan. Whats in your mind before the action.
-
Mithrandylan: Thank You for your post. I agree with what you say. Rhythm was guess work til Mucus was understood. NFP was a named dubbed what God had designed. The federal gov't couldn't wait to get their noses in and to make it a money making project and with reading material and teaching with secular/modernism in mind. God will judge the hearts of us married couples. Serious Reason needs to be understood. The Church has always used "reason" besides traditional, scriptual, apostolic and etc.
-
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.
That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.
The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.
-
I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.
Why would you even want to know when the ovulations start and stop , if it wasn t for the fact that you want to know when you can do the marital act, supposedly so you can escape having Children. (NFP).
If you follow the teaching of he Church and PPXI, it wouldn t matter when they fall. Every desire to copulate by both should be to that God will give you another member to your family. If that is not your desire , then contenience is the only way to go. That s what the Church teaches.
It all starts with what is in the Plan. Whats in your mind before the action.
If you had read my whole post, you would have read where some couples use NFP so that they know when to have relations, rather than when to avoid them.
As to the bolded, it should be the desire, yes. But the Church does not teach that married couples must be motivated by an explicit intellectual assent to conceive in order to have licit marital relations. Their motivation for relations does not need to be driven by a front-most desire to have children.
This is why St. Paul says it is better to be married than burnt. Yes, it is better to be a virgin (and not to marry at all) but for those who cannot abstain, better they be married where they can exercise their passions licitly and to a good end, rather than to carry on in fornication. He describes marriage as a way to exercise concupiscence without any reference to procreation.
Furthermore, St. Augustine teaches the same:
"...what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh— and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I ch. 16)."
So, the Church does not teach that marital relations must always be motivated by a desire to conceive. Of course, willfully frustrating conception is a grave sin against the natural order, but there is a difference between willfully frustrating conception and simply not thinking of it, or even being afraid of it.
-
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.
That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.
The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.
Frustrate: "to prevent (efforts, plans, etc.) from succeeding : to keep (someone) from doing something (Merriam-Webster)."
Nothing is being prevented from happening when a couple has relations between ovulation because nothing can happen in the first place.
If a couple uses NFP habitually because they don't want to conceive and don't have a grave reason, that is a sin against marriage, and IMO usually a mortal sin because they are abusing marriage.
But that is NOT what Pius XII taught. That is what the NewChurch teaches. Pius XII taught that for a grave reason, couples may practice NFP. He did not say they must, or that they ought to, but that they may. And that is because even without a reasonable chance to conceive, sɛҳuąƖ relations have a secondary end in satisfying concupiscence. See my previous post in response to Director for more on this.
-
my reply in read:
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.
That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.
The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.
Frustrate: "to prevent (efforts, plans, etc.) from succeeding : to keep (someone) from doing something (Merriam-Webster)."
Nothing is being prevented from happening when a couple has relations between ovulation because nothing can happen in the first place. (you are in denial. They ARE deliberately avoiding the fertile periods!!!)
If a couple uses NFP habitually because they don't want to conceive and don't have a grave reason, that is a sin against marriage, and IMO usually a mortal sin because they are abusing marriage.
But that is NOT what Pius XII taught. That is what the NewChurch teaches. Pius XII taught that for a grave reason, couples may practice NFP. He did not say they must, or that they ought to, but that they may. And that is because even without a reasonable chance to conceive, sɛҳuąƖ relations have a secondary end in satisfying concupiscence. See my previous post in response to Director for more on this. (Pius XI's teaching is infallible and it is clear. Pius XII's teaching is a fallible opinion expressed to some midwives convention and is opposed to Pius XI's infallible teaching. This is a matter of reading clear language on both sides.)
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
Pius XII did not depart from the teaching of Pius XI, he just explained it in more depth.
Do you have a source which supports your assertion that "a majority of Church Fathers taught it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times."
-
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties.
Pius XII was the one who opened the floodgates.
I just prayed for you that God will forgive you for this arrogant and unjust statement against Pope Pius XII.
There used to be a day when Catholics stood up in unison and defended the pope, past and present from Protestant sectarians, now it is fellow Catholics who fill in for the Protestants in their attack against the popes.
-
My observations in red:
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties. (giving Pius XII's teaching the name "planning" does not change anything. You have not explained anything)
The second problem came about when certain writers, not content with correcting modernist abuse of the teaching on the lawful use of the rhythm, actually attacked the orthodox teaching of Pope Pius XII. (I thought you opened this thread to gett off the "Pius XII errors issue", and explain his rhythm method?)
The truth can be found if you read Casti Connubii Pius XI, and in the Address to the midwives by Pius XII, October 29, 1951, AAS 43 (1951). Do not let anyone confuse on this point, Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it. (What is his teaching that Ibranji has not expalined? You have to address Ibranji's point, and not just say "Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it". Here's the two sides: Ibranji says the couple can only abstain or else engage in the marital act without "consulting charts". You say that it is OK to "consult the charts", and not have children for financial reasons, among other reasons. The Novus Ordo says the same.)
1. Yes, the term, "plan" does change the meaning of what Pope Pius XII taught. One does not plan something that is only allowed for grave reasons, and it's licitness may change at any time based on the presence or ack of the grace reasons.
2. I started this second thread on the issue, because Director posted an attack on the orthodoxy of Pope Pius XII. It was not his writing, but he posted it, and he has not yet answered me about whether he agrees with Ibranyi or is asking for help to see why Ibranyi is wrong.
Any attack against Pope Pius XII should be resisted by all Catholics, as we have a duty to defend our beloved and saintly deceased Holy Father, who served God and the Church magnificently and admirably his time as Christ's Vicar on Earth.
3. Ibranyi is wrong and is leading Catholics to sin. It is a mortal sin to reject Pope Pius XII's teaching.
-
Mithrandylan,
Great posts!
-
Bowlers wrote:
That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.
The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting Pope Pius XI's teaching or have you just not read it, and relying on Ibranyi's explanation? Pope Pius XI taught exactly the opposite of what you are saying he taught.
Pius XI taught:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Casti Connubii #59.
-
I'll repeat this from the other thread.
Pius XI taught that TWO principles applied in ascertaining the moral qualities of the marital act:
1) that the "natural power" or "inherent force" of the action cannot be violated (artificial birth control, Onanism, etc.)
AND
2) that the primary end or purpose of marriage cannot be subordinated to the secondary ends.
Pius XII in the Allocution DROPPED the second condition or consideration enitrely. I'll go fetch my juxtaposition of Pius XI and Pius XII's paraphrase of Pius XI.
NFP is different from ABC in that it avoids violating principle #1. In other words, it's not INTRINSICALLY immoral, whereas ABC IS because by its very nature it inherently violates the first principle.
But just because something isn't intrinisically immoral doesn't mean it can't be immoral for other reasons, i.e. because it's FORMALLY immoral, i.e. due to the intent.
Pius XII argued that since one may abstain from marital relations, it's OK to abstain from marital relations ONLY during fertile times. His reasoning is just plain wrong. That does not necessarily follow. In abstaining altogether, the couple actually tacitly respects the primary ends of marriage.
HOWEVER ... when a couple abstains from the marital act only during fertile periods, they are clearly trying to exercise the marital act for the secondary ends while DELIBERATELY ATTEMPTING TO EXCLUDE REALIZATION OF THE PRIMARY END.
If that isn't subordinating the primary end to the secondary ends (which Pius XI condemned), then I don't know what is. Ambrose has not yet come close to explaining how one can engage in selective abstinence during fertile periods and NOT be doing exactly what Pius XI condemned. I'm all ears.
And just because Pius XII put a condition of "serious reasons" on NFP doesn't mean that his principles didn't open the floodgates on NFP. Because we're just talking about various interpretations of "serious". When Pius XII lists among "serious" reasons things like "eugenic" and "social" and "economic" considerations, that clearly opens the floodgates. Serious doesn't have to mean "grave" or "dire"; it only serves as a contrast to "light" or "trivial". So, based on Pius XII, if I'm having some trouble paying my bills or I'm psychologically worn down by having lots of loud children, or I'm older and have increased risk for having a child with Down syndrome ... all that could easily qualify me for NFP. Or we're having relationship problems, so it would be unhealthy for a child to be in this environment. There's no clear, hard, solid line here from the Pius XII teaching.
I'll dig up my contrasting Pius XI vs. Pius XII quotes.
PS -- Ibranyi got it wrong for the same reasons I'm citing here, his failure to distinguish betwen #1 and #2 as listed above. Ibranyi conflated the two considerations.
Ladislaus,
You do not understand this. Pius XII did not drop anything, his teaching is identical to that of Pius XI, with the exception that he gave a more detailed explanation of the lawful use of the sterile times in marriage.
He expanded the explanation, but he did not contradict or drop anything as taught in Casti Connubii.
-
Ambrose, you're clearly not honest. I juxtaposed the texts and showed the differences. You explain how they're not different and explain how NFP does not cause the primary end to become subordinated to the secondary ends.
Since you're not even intellectually honest, I'm not going to waste my time posting in response to you anymore.
Carry on planning your family, Ambrose.
-
I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.
Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.
You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."
On the prev page there is a remark by Ambrose that the term NFP was not in use until after the death of Pius XII. If this is correct then there is no way that Pius XII can be said to have departed from Pius XI on 'NFP' because it didn't exist. :confused1:
You guys are just playing word games and semantics, thus turning this thread into a joke. Everyone knows that we're using NFP as shorthand for allowing abstinence deliberately during fertile-only period, OK? I'd prefer to type NFP than to describe it long-hand in ever single post. Paul VI actually referred to this method as birth control in Humanae Vitae -- I believe that the phrase was a "method for controlling birth."
I don't like the term either, it's just a euphemis for "Natural Birth Control". So if I post on this matter in the future (I'm bailing out of this thread due to the fact that Ambrose is just wasting everyone's time with intellectual dishonesty.), I'm going to use NBC instead of NFP, since that's precisely what this is.
It's just like when I asked Ambrose whether he was a Traditional Catholic, and he just kept writing "I'm a Catholic." when he knows full well that I'm using the term Traditional not as the designation for a separate sect or denomination but just to distinguish from a mainstream Novus Ordo Catholic. This is utterly pointless.
As I said, you may now carry on planning your families with your consciences undisturbed.
-
Ambrose, you started this thread as a "defense" of Pius XII, but at no point have you offered anything even resembling a rational defense of that position. You simply spout, ad nauseam, that it cannot depart from previous papal teaching because all papal teaching is infallible. You have not addressed the obvious differences between the two teachings which I demonstrated by juxtaposing the relevant quotes from the two docuмents under consideration here.
-
If you had read my whole post, you would have read where some couples use NFP so that they know when to have relations, rather than when to avoid them.
Nobody's even talking about THAT use of NFP.
-
Ladislaus wrote:
It's just like when I asked Ambrose whether he was a Traditional Catholic, and he just kept writing "I'm a Catholic." when he knows full well that I'm using the term Traditional not as the designation for a separate sect or denomination but just to distinguish from a mainstream Novus Ordo Catholic. This is utterly pointless.
I explained my reason why I call myself a Catholic and not a Traditional Catholic.
The Pope taught us not to use qualifiers as part of our Catholic identity. The Pope taught us to only identify ourselves as Catholic, and prohibited the use of additional qualifiers.
You trivialize obedience to Papal teaching and cast bad motives to me, even after I explained myself, and showed you the Church teaching on this point.
-
Ambrose, you started this thread as a "defense" of Pius XII, but at no point have you offered anything even resembling a rational defense of that position. You simply spout, ad nauseam, that it cannot depart from previous papal teaching because all papal teaching is infallible. You have not addressed the obvious differences between the two teachings which I demonstrated by juxtaposing the relevant quotes from the two docuмents under consideration here.
Again, you lack an understanding of this. I never said all papal teaching is infallible, most of it is not. I said you are bound to believe the pope's non-infallible teaching on matters of Faith and morals given to the universal Church.
Did you read the excerpt I just quoted to Bowler from Casti Connubii?
-
Ladislaus wrote:
You guys are just playing word games and semantics, thus turning this thread into a joke. Everyone knows that we're using NFP as shorthand for allowing abstinence deliberately during fertile-only period, OK? I'd prefer to type NFP than to describe it long-hand in ever single post. Paul VI actually referred to this method as birth control in Humanae Vitae -- I believe that the phrase was a "method for controlling birth."
Words matter! A word signifies a meaning and if a new word is used in place of another, it may not signify the same thing.
Pope Pius XII was clear and specific with his wording. Vatican II junk theology is vague and unspecific. While NFP for some may mean the same thing as Pius XII taught, for others it has a different meaning.
The term should be thrown in the dustbin of history, and it should never be attributed to Pope Pius XII who never used it.
-
Ambrose, you're clearly not honest. I juxtaposed the texts and showed the differences. You explain how they're not different and explain how NFP does not cause the primary end to become subordinated to the secondary ends.
Since you're not even intellectually honest, I'm not going to waste my time posting in response to you anymore.
Carry on planning your family, Ambrose.
But your analysis of Pope Pius XII as compared to Pope Pius XI on this point is wrong. You do not understand it, and from what you have written, it appears to me that you have not even read both docuмents in their entirety.
You can call me dishonest if you wish, but I assure you that your false accusation against myself is untrue. The only thing I care about is the truth. I will pray for you in my Rosary today.
-
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties.
Pius XII was the one who opened the floodgates.
I just prayed for you that God will forgive you for this arrogant and unjust statement against Pope Pius XII.
There used to be a day when Catholics stood up in unison and defended the pope, past and present from Protestant sectarians, now it is fellow Catholics who fill in for the Protestants in their attack against the popes.
This all stems from Vatican II. As a result of that mess, Catholics now think they can judge those popes just prior to it as well. I would bet that if one went even further back in time the same Catholics could find contradictions in other things that various popes have said. If they go back far enough maybe they can begin to agree with some of the Protestant claims about the Catholic Faith.
Another thing that these types of debates remind me of is when you hear people (not here, but elsewhere) point to various Bible verses and judge them as contradictory. On the surface that may appear to be the case, but the response is always that it is the inerrant Word of God and that they can not contradict. If we believe that the (true) popes speak the truth in matters of faith and morals, why doesn't a similar overall explanation apply?
-
There is certainly a difference between an "heretical" Pope or is it an heretical "Pope" and a valid Pope that lacked intelligence, courage or common sense or was a private heretic. In the list of Popes since the begging, some would be ranked in the top 50 in regards to their personal sanctity, what they did for the Church and regarding how their actions and or inaction's may have harmed the Church. The martyred Popes might make enlarge the top list to a top 75 or 100. The top Popes vs. the least great Popes could be in regards to going to war or not going to war, punishing sinners or not punishing them, telling Catholics to lay down their arms when they would have won a victory for the Catholic Church or telling them to pick them up when it would result in a big blow for the Church. Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary the right way? There would also be a top 50 list of great popes with the combination of holiness, courage and common sense that bettered the Church in every way with in and without. Then there would be the vast majority in-between who were neither outstanding nor terrible.
But in a whole different category are the none-Popes who claim to be Popes.
Claiming Pius XII was not perfect though still a decent, intelligent and courageous Pope is not the same as lumping him in with anti-Pope Paul 6. Some people seem to miss that key distinction. Truly apples and oranges.
Pius XII did not teach error regarding marital relations while Paul 6 constantly talked about "responsible parenthood" and down-graded the primary ends of marriage. In his encyclical on the topic he only had one Catholic statement in the entire docuмent and everyone says "See, he's Pope." They don't seem to realize that anyone can make a Catholic statement. But that was the least of Paul 6 problems which are well-docuмented as he did things Popes cannot do while Pius XII did not do things a valid Pope cannot do.
So in reality there are no blurred lines.
There have been
1. Great Popes
2. Good Popes
3. Average Popes
4. Bad Popes
5. Terrible Popes [in regards to being sinners, placing their relations in high places etc.]
6. Non-Popes (John 23 [or certainly Paul 6 - Franky]
Some Popes have been strong in some areas and weak in others. Some may not be good speakers. Others may be diplomatic in either a good or not so good way. Some may not have been diplomatic in a good way such as Pope Saint Pius X.
Pius XII may have been a good Pope that allowed bad things but he was Pope. He was not in the category of Pope Saint Pius V who was a great Pope, but that does not somehow mean that those who claim he was not perfect put him in the same category as Paul 6.
An objective historical look at the Papacy will prove my point.
I just thought that should be clarified though it will no doubt be misinterpreted as unCatholic. Catholics are realists even in objectively describing the history of the Church and those who ruled it. It is okay to do so for the right reasons such as showing those who believe the Catholic Church is not the One, True Church that we do not hide our blemishes or pretend the human element of the Church is perfect. We do not make the Church more than it is or deny unfortunate realities. But neither do we deny her Divine Foundation and the fact that she cannot err and has not erred in her official capacity nor has she bound the unbindable on the Faithful. There is a large number of things that have been bound that are found within the range of good and prudent to allowable but perhaps imprudent. My point has always been that a valid Pope does not always do the best possible thing. He sometimes does things he shouldn't or does not do things he should, he sometimes allows things that are not the best choice or prevents the best choice from happening. This is far different than saying a valid Pope can
1. Approve a heretical council
2. Doubtful and invalid sacraments
3. An incentive to impiety Mass
4. Heretical Canon Law
5. Teach heresy
6. Repeatedly engage in heretical acts.
If people accuse Pius XII of any of the above we have a problem. But the fact that a valid Pope can do something imprudent that falls short of that is a reality that should be accepted and rather obvious if these were not such confusing times.
-
Bowlers wrote:
That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.
The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting Pope Pius XI's teaching or have you just not read it, and relying on Ibranyi's explanation? Pope Pius XI taught exactly the opposite of what you are saying he taught.
Pius XI taught:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Casti Connubii #59.
What is there for me to deliberately misrepresent? All I'm doing is repeating a clear decree.
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
Now I will read your Pius XI quote as it is written:
"Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth".
That quote is saying one is not acting against nature if one engages in marital relations during periods of infertility, or if they have certain defects that prevent conception.
Two different things!
My quote: "those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature".
Your quote: "use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth"
A couple who deliberately only have relations during times of infertility, "natural birth control", which is now 99.99% accurate, is
deliberately frustrating[/u] its natural power and purpose, sin against nature"
It is undeniable that NBC is deliberate. It is undeniable that it is 99.99% effective at frustrating conception!
I am just reading clear dogmatic infallible decree as it is clearly and precisely written.
-
0
-
I have a burning question: Why is it that bowler has so many "0" posts? He's the only one that I see with this in their posts.
-
my reply in read:
Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,
No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.
Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.
That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".
The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.
The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.
Frustrate: "to prevent (efforts, plans, etc.) from succeeding : to keep (someone) from doing something (Merriam-Webster)."
Nothing is being prevented from happening when a couple has relations between ovulation because nothing can happen in the first place. (you are in denial. They ARE deliberately avoiding the fertile periods!!!)
If a couple uses NFP habitually because they don't want to conceive and don't have a grave reason, that is a sin against marriage, and IMO usually a mortal sin because they are abusing marriage.
But that is NOT what Pius XII taught. That is what the NewChurch teaches. Pius XII taught that for a grave reason, couples may practice NFP. He did not say they must, or that they ought to, but that they may. And that is because even without a reasonable chance to conceive, sɛҳuąƖ relations have a secondary end in satisfying concupiscence. See my previous post in response to Director for more on this. (Pius XI's teaching is infallible and it is clear. Pius XII's teaching is a fallible opinion expressed to some midwives convention and is opposed to Pius XI's infallible teaching. This is a matter of reading clear language on both sides.)
OK, so are they avoiding or frustrating? Pius XI teaches that it is a grave sin against the natural order to deliberately frustrate it's natural power or purpose. He does not say it is a grave sin against nature to deliberately avoid it's natural power or purpose. Obviously you can see the error in contending this. If it was a grave sin (against nature, no less) then not only would clergy be bound to engage in the marital act, it would contradict scripture and the fathers, which teach that the virgin state is a higher calling than the married state.
Marrying and then never having sex during fertile times indefinitely to avoid having children without grave reason is a sin against marriage, because the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and rearing of children. To enter into that state without an intention of having children actually invalidates the marriage (which means that the couple are fornicating); and to marry and indefinitely and deliberately and "put off" having children (without grave reason) is a mortal sin against marriage because it is a failure to fulfill your duty of state as well as a breach of the contract, a contract that has the primary end of generating and rearing children.
But it is not a sin against nature. It is key for you to understand this. It may be contraceptive, but it is not the act of contraception. Whether done in a sinful or licit manner, having sɛҳuąƖ relations when a woman is not ovulating does not frustrate the natural power to conceive, because the natural power to conceive does not exist at that time. There is nothing to frustrate.
Pius XII actually says all of this in his address to the midwives:
If the application of that theory [NFP] implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.
Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.
However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.
...
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, 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 it 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.
Pius XII teaches:
1) Birth control is wrong (not quote in this passage, but occurs earlier in the letter)
2) By itself, sɛҳuąƖ relations during natural sterility are not wrong
2.1) The morality of such relations is determined by the intentions of the couple
2.2) Even if determined to have immoral intentions, it is not the same sin as b/c.
3) Delegating relations to sterile periods may be lawful if the requisite conditions are met.
What more do you want? He clearly doesn't teach what you are saying he does, or if he does, you are wrong and shamefully prideful for rejecting it, as it does not at all conflict with Pius XI.
-
I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.
Why would you even want to know when the ovulations start and stop , if it wasn t for the fact that you want to know when you can do the marital act, supposedly so you can escape having Children. (NFP).
If you follow the teaching of he Church and PPXI, it wouldn t matter when they fall. Every desire to copulate by both should be to that God will give you another member to your family. If that is not your desire , then contenience is the only way to go. That s what the Church teaches.
It all starts with what is in the Plan. Whats in your mind before the action.
If you had read my whole post, you would have read where some couples use NFP so that they know when to have relations, rather than when to avoid them.
As to the bolded, it should be the desire, yes. But the Church does not teach that married couples must be motivated by an explicit intellectual assent to conceive in order to have licit marital relations. Their motivation for relations does not need to be driven by a front-most desire to have children.
This is why St. Paul says it is better to be married than burnt. Yes, it is better to be a virgin (and not to marry at all) but for those who cannot abstain, better they be married where they can exercise their passions licitly and to a good end, rather than to carry on in fornication. He describes marriage as a way to exercise concupiscence without any reference to procreation.
Furthermore, St. Augustine teaches the same:
"...what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh— and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I ch. 16)."
So, the Church does not teach that marital relations must always be motivated by a desire to conceive. Of course, willfully frustrating conception is a grave sin against the natural order, but there is a difference between willfully frustrating conception and simply not thinking of it, or even being afraid of it.
That is not true, what you are saying is a complete falsehood. The Catholic Church, through its infalliable bulls and councils, has never condoned a couple coming together without a procreative intent. You butchered St. Augustine's quote. He is NOT saying a couple who comes together to strictly satisfy carnal desires should be defended or praised, only that they MAY not be guilty of mortal sin- BIG DIFFERENCE.
And yes, it may shock you, but according to Catholic teaching a married couple can commit mortal sin if they come together without a procreative intent and they experience too much pleasure. David in the psalms says "I was conceived in sin" a few saints believed original sin was passed through the pleasure experienced during intercourse.
We are discussing the liceity of the marital act under certain conditions. Show me where in "infallible bulls and councils" it has been taught that:
A) Performance of the marital act must be motivated by an explicit desire to procreate. Also, when you find this infallible teaching, please also include the duration for which this explicit thought must exist, as well as when it is permitted to end. If a person begins the act thinking about it, but is no longer thinking about it at the completion of the act, is this use of the marital rite licit?
B) performance of the marital act motivated by some other desire is an unlawful use of the marital rite
Keep in mind that a couple can be primarily motivated by concupiscence, while still wishing to conceive. In fact, they could explicitly desire to conceive while being primarily motivated to engage in the act by concupiscence.
We are discussing the lawfulness of the marital act, not whether or not a couple can sin (to whatever degree) in performing it.
A true and legitimate function of the married state and the marital act is the calming of concupiscence. It may not be the most noble function of the married life, but it is a true function nonetheless.
-
C101,
I agree it is a mortal sin.
If you have been following this thread, you would know that whether or not it is a mortal sin isn't the issue. The issue is:
Did Pius XII teach that a couple can deliberately avoid having relations during fertile periods with a grave reason? (To which I answer, no he did not).
Is doing so a sin against nature, and the same sin that Pius XI described in Casti Conubii? (to which I answer it isn't).
-
C101,
I agree it is a mortal sin.
If you have been following this thread, you would know that whether or not it is a mortal sin isn't the issue. The issue is:
Did Pius XII teach that a couple can deliberately avoid having relations during fertile periods with a grave reason? (To which I answer, no he did not).
Is doing so a sin against nature, and the same sin that Pius XI described in Casti Conubii? (to which I answer it isn't).
I need you to clarify because in an earlier post it seemed you accepted rhythmn.
1. Do you believe a couple commits mortal sin by using rhythm to decrease their chances of conception?
2. The sspx as an organization has said that in certain situations, a couple can in fact use rhythm to decrease their chances of conception. What do you think about that?
As Pius XII taught:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, 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 it 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.
And that is what I believe.
I have heard that the grave reason was typically given by dispensation (I have only heard this but not found it in any canon law commentaries). Given the crisis, and the unlikelihood of a dispensation (if it were necessary), I am willing to concede that such if were such a grave instance were to occur, under the guidance of a good priest and prayer, a couple could licitly "use NFP" according to the principle of epikeia.
-
C101,
I agree it is a mortal sin.
If you have been following this thread, you would know that whether or not it is a mortal sin isn't the issue. The issue is:
Did Pius XII teach that a couple can deliberately avoid having relations during fertile periods with a grave reason? (To which I answer, no he did not).
Is doing so a sin against nature, and the same sin that Pius XI described in Casti Conubii? (to which I answer it isn't).
There was an error in this post and it's too late to edit. It should read:
"Did Pius XII teach that a couple can deliberately avoid having relations during fertile periods without a grave reason? (To which I answer, no he did not)."
-
Mithrandylan: Good posts! I am still in agreement to all you have posted.
It does not take charts, and thermometers and such to know if a wife is fertile. And this might be be of interest: Did you know that there are 1-2 days of a wife's cycle that could result in miscarriage?
-
I have a burning question: Why is it that bowler has so many "0" posts? He's the only one that I see with this in their posts.
When the posts with quotes turn out not showing as they should, there is no way to fix them, but to substitute with something else while I have time to edit. That something else is for me is 0. I did another today and put in "edit".
-
So Bowler has started another thread. Apparently discussing Casti Conubii is somehow off-topic in this thread? The other thread is a diversion, a distraction.
I just saw this.
Why are you creating a new thread? We have one going already. Keep it in the thread we already have. Creating a new one when the topic is the same is needlessly confusing.
This thread is specifically about Pius XI's Casti Connubi, the other thread is about Pius XII's and whether he was a heretic for teaching error. That is why I started this thread.
They are integrally knit. I notice that you are replying to this thread now and not replying to the other thread. This thread is just a distraction. Be a man. The other thread is suitable for discussing both. I have responded to your queries and am awaiting a reply.
Just like with BOD, when bowler's arguments are defeated, he starts a new thread so he can regurgitate them.
-
Mithra,
This tread is about Pius XII, read the title. It's your choice if you want to remain here writing your own opinions and examples on Pius XII.
My thread is on Pius XI's Casti Connubii, and I just posted quotes from a book that I have from 1944 which addresses the infallible encyclical. This is material that people will not find by Googling on the internet. I had no inclination to have it diluted by a thread on the legitimacy of Pius XII.
If you don't see that, its your option, just like it is for everyone else.
If threads on CI rely on Bowler responding or Mithras posts , then CI is a waste of time. I hope there are more learned opinions reading than just you and I. I have better things to do than educate a non-existent audience. Obviously there is nothing I can say to you, since you believe that deliberately avoiding having intercourse during fertile periods is not deliberately frustrating nature. You are in denial my friend, and not even bringing a man back from the dead will convince you.
-
Mithra,
This tread is about Pius XII, read the title. It's your choice if you want to remain here writing your own opinions and examples on Pius XII.
My thread is on Pius XI's Casti Connubii, and I just posted quotes from a book that I have from 1944 which addresses the infallible encyclical. This is material that people will not find by Googling on the internet. I had no inclination to have it diluted by a thread on the legitimacy of Pius XII.
If you don't see that, its your option, just like it is for everyone else.
If threads on CI rely on Bowler responding or Mithras posts , then CI is a waste of time. I hope there are more learned opinions reading than just you and I. I have better things to do than educate a non-existent audience. Obviously there is nothing I can say to you, since you believe that deliberately avoiding having intercourse during fertile periods is not deliberately frustrating nature. You are in denial my friend, and not even bringing a man back from the dead will convince you.
Huh. All of a sudden bowler, who tends to typographically get very emotional by employing varying typefaces, incorporating red bold,
1. Making bullet points
2. and underlining when everything else fails
(and has behaved in such a way this entire thread while he accuses Pius XII of contradicting Pius XI)
Doesn't want to participate in the thread anymore, because what he wants to say will be diluted by Pius XII. Right. If anyone is in denial, it is you, bowler. In denial about being a practical protestant in this regard, and following the likes of Ibranyi and MHFM.
Anyways, I hope your other thread falls on it's face. You are being dishonest and doing a disservice to others by starting a new thread about the same topic without ever finishing your other discussion about it. Like it a little girl who hears the wrong thing from dad and then goes to mom to get the answer she wants. Are you going to keep posting from scratch until one of these threads goes the way you want it to?
-
Contrary to some. Pius XII's "grave reasons" are heretical (although Pius XII may be excused from heresy). We know this is the case since Pius IX infallibly condemned all excuses and said that nothing justifies subordinating the primary end to the secondary (since the secondary always must be subordinated to the primary--which is not the case in NFP). This should be enough for an honest person to hear. But since they are faithless, or perhaps wants to practice NFP or excuse others who practise it, and since reject dogma, nothing is sufficient for them.
Below is the pertinent excerpt from Casti Connubii:
53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circuмstances .
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]
56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
This does not say what you think it says (no surprise here).
-
Pope Pius XII may have been excused from the charge of formal heresy for his teaching, but certainly he could not and would not have been excused if, after correction, he persisted in his erroneous, heretical teaching.
Is this not what he did , after speaking to the Midwives again in Nov of the same year ? . The question becomes , Who is there who could or would have corrected him ? Mmm..
-
Pope Pius XII may have been excused from the charge of formal heresy for his teaching, but certainly he could not and would not have been excused if, after correction, he persisted in his erroneous, heretical teaching.
Is this not what he did , after speaking to the Midwives again in Nov of the same year ? . The question becomes , Who is there who could or would have corrected him ? Mmm..
No one needed to correct him, nor should have. His teaching on this matter is infallibly safe, and does not contradict previous teaching as some pretend through a warped logical reasoning.
This teaching has explicitly existed since the 19th century through the Sacred Penitentiary, and taught by Pius XI in Casti Connubii, then by Pope Pius XII with a very detailed and explicit explanation.
Do not allow yourself to be deceived by sophistries which will lead you to refuse to give your assent to authoritative and binding papal teaching. Do not throw away your soul. Trust Pope Pius XII, be as a child ready and willing to believe his father.
-
I trust Pius XII before i trust the prev poster.
-
I trust Pius XII before i trust the prev poster.
Exactly. True pope or random internet stranger?
-
I trust Pius XII before i trust the prev poster.
Exactly. True pope or random internet stranger?
I don't think some of these people are so random, but they are definitely stranger.
-
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.
-
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.
Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:
Give me a break gregorianchant.
No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.
-
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.
Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:
Give me a break gregorianchant.
No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.
I would argue that they are of bad-will. :devil2:
-
I began to suspect that Catholicism101 and Allmonks were the same person. I'm not convince that they aren't, but they both joined CI just to chime in on this debate. I'm not sure what their angle is, but they're clearly Ibranyites or Dimondites (or possibly even the Dimonds themselves?!).
First of all, if what Pius XII taught in his address to the midwives is "heresy" then he doesn't get let off the hook for it. He loses his office because of it. So let's get that clear. He doesn't get to be a public heretic and the pope, the Church has NEVER, EVER recognized non-Catholics as being able to hold office. Ever.
Furthermore, they seem to be completely ignoring, as SJB said in another thread (the one bowler started as a distraction when he lost in this thread), the difference between a singular act which may be sinful and a continued course of actions which may be sinful.
I really have nothing else to say on this issue that I haven't already said. In Pius XII's address to the Midwives he taught:
1) He re-affirmed that artificial birth control was wrong; i.e., deliberate frustration of the marital act is intrinsically evil and a sin against nature (exactly what PXI taught in Casti Connubi).
2) Relations during periods of natural sterility are not sinful in this respect (again reaffirming Castii Connubi)
3) Since couples may lawfully forego the marital rite (i.e., abstain from relations) for a grave reason, it follows that they may also observe the marital rite during periods of natural sterility for a grave reason
3.1) This is understood to be a decision made after prayer, spiritual counsel and possibly even dispensation; also it is not something one is compelled to do, rather it can merely be licit if certain conditions are met, and if certain conditions aren't met, it is gravefully sinful (though it is not the same sin described in castii connubi as there is no frustration of the act)
Here's a question for bowler, C101 or Allmonks: why is sterility not a diriment impediment to marriage? The Church does not forbid persons who cannot generate children from marriage, they only forbid those who cannot perform the act suitable for generation from marriage.
So, for C101 and Allmonks, perhaps the sede vacante began in 1917?
-
First of all, if what Pius XII taught in his address to the midwives is "heresy" then he doesn't get let off the hook for it. He loses his office because of it. So let's get that clear. He doesn't get to be a public heretic and the pope, the Church has NEVER, EVER recognized non-Catholics as being able to hold office. Ever.
How is it that a true pope can teach heresy then lose his office when, according to sedevacantism, the Holy Ghost protects the true pope from teaching heresy?
-
First of all, if what Pius XII taught in his address to the midwives is "heresy" then he doesn't get let off the hook for it. He loses his office because of it. So let's get that clear. He doesn't get to be a public heretic and the pope, the Church has NEVER, EVER recognized non-Catholics as being able to hold office. Ever.
How is it that a true pope can teach heresy then lose his office when, according to sedevacantism, the Holy Ghost protects the true pope from teaching heresy?
I don't understand what you're asking, and I don't see what sedevacantism has to do with the Holy Ghost protecting a true pope from teaching heresy, the Catholic faith tells us this.
-
Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.
Allmonks needs to recognize this.
However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.
Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.
No kidding, in fact, according to you, he's an anti-pope. Anyways, you'll need to go back a little further. If marital relations during periods of sterility are mortal sins and if to allow them is to teach heresy, then each pope since May of 1917 has been an anti-pope, because Canon Law allows sterile people to be married. This includes Pius XI, who, at this point, we might as well call a devious infiltrator while condemning birth control in one breath and allowing it in the next by allowing people who can't have children to become married and enjoy the marital rite. I'm not sure what the code taught prior to the Pio Benedictine (or should we say anti-pio Benedictine?) code, but you may have to even go further back. There's a nice little commune in New Mexico that might take you in, though, so don't worry.
-
Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.
Allmonks needs to recognize this.
However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.
Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.
So, which is it? Did he lose his office or was he just not a "great pope"?
-
I began to suspect that Catholicism101 and Allmonks were the same person. I'm not convince that they aren't, but they both joined CI just to chime in on this debate. I'm not sure what their angle is, but they're clearly Ibranyites or Dimondites (or possibly even the Dimonds themselves?!).
This could be very entertaining....lol.
-
Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.
Allmonks needs to recognize this.
However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.
Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.
So, which is it? Did he lose his office or was he just not a "great pope"?
He lost the office in 1951. When he actually held the office (1939-1951), he was not a great pope for the reasons I just mentioned. Its really not that complicated.
Be more specific next time. It's really not that difficult to do.
-
Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.
Allmonks needs to recognize this.
However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.
Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.
So, which is it? Did he lose his office or was he just not a "great pope"?
He lost the office in 1951. When he actually held the office (1939-1951), he was not a great pope for the reasons I just mentioned. Its really not that complicated.
Be more specific next time. It's really not that difficult to do.
In my post I clearly state he lost the office in 1951. Its common knowledge, for people familiar with church history, that Pius XII was not elected in 1951 but decades earlier in 1939.
So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?
-
He wasn't a public manifest heretic in 1939. He later became one in 1951. When a Catholic, even the pope, is a public heretic he automatically looses membership in the church. If he held any office, its gone. Thats divine law. Ecclesiastical law only exists to support divine law.
Nestorius initially had an office in the church when he was ordained but lost it automatically when he became a public heretic by teaching the blessed mother wasn't God.
????
Anyways, we're getting off topic. What of the Code of Canon Law, accepted by every pope since 1917? It teaches that sterile couples may marry and exercise the marital rite. Your anti-papacy began a long time before Pius XII.
-
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.
Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:
Give me a break gregorianchant.
No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.
I believe he can be excused from heresy. But his teaching was still a heresy though.
One doesn't know from nature how children is made. One has to learn this from experience or being told or taught. So this is not a natural law in the same sense that: you shall not kill.
Anyway, if you accept his heresy just because you don't want to reject him, then don't reject him, but reject his heresy.
I am very confused about Pius XII and wonder how he could teach such an outstanding error while being a pope.
Or... accept what he taught because it is cogent with Catholic moral teaching on marital relations.
-
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.
Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:
Give me a break gregorianchant.
No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.
I believe he can be excused from heresy. But his teaching was still a heresy though.
One doesn't know from nature how children is made. One has to learn this from experience or being told or taught. So this is not a natural law in the same sense that: you shall not kill.
Anyway, if you accept his heresy just because you don't want to reject him, then don't reject him, but reject his heresy.
I am very confused about Pius XII and wonder how he could teach such an outstanding error while being a pope.
Or... accept what he taught because it is cogent with Catholic moral teaching on marital relations.
Because rejecting what Pius XII taught leads to rejecting the 1917 code of canon law (which teaches that sterile couples may marry) which naturally leads to a rejection of every pope who accepted that law... including Pius XI, who is supposed to be the big hero who "refutes" Pius XII!
How can Pius XI be condemning what Pius XII taught (which is merely that couples may conditionally exercise the marital rite during periods of natural sterility while abstaining during periods of fertility) when the code of canon law which he enforced allows couples who are sterile (i.e., couples who, naturally speaking, are somehow incapable of having children perpetually or indefinitely) to marry and enjoy the same privileges as couples who are not sterile?
I don't know if those who reject Pius XII's teaching on this are just not paying attention, or have their own agenda, or what, but they need to stop and consider what he actually teaches, then consider the nature and properties of marriage according to the natural and supernatural law. There is no conflict or contradiction between Pius XII and Pius XI or any other pope or Father of the Church.
-
2Vermont wrote:
So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?
You are right. If a Pope publicly teaches heresy, guilt is presumed, as a Pope knows better, and by this he would fall from his office.
If Pope Pius XII or any Pope publicly professed heresy on a certain point of doctrine then it would automatically lead to a loss of membership in the Church and a loss of office.
But, the simple truth of the matter is this: Pope Pius XII's teaching was already being taught by the Scared Penitentiary going back to the 19th century for the use of confessors in guiding penitents. Secondly, it was taught on Casti Connubii, regardless of what these men are saying. The Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI two years after Casti Connubii was published explicitly taught the lawful use of the sterile times for those with an upright motive.
The position of these men is classic junk theology that preys on the simpleminded. Is it any wonder that the same people who are unable to make proper distinctions on this matter also are sloppy and simplistic in their thinking on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?
Do you see the pattern?
-
2Vermont wrote:
So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?
You are right. If a Pope publicly teaches heresy, guilt is presumed, as a Pope knows better, and by this he would fall from his office.
If Pope Pius XII or any Pope publicly professed heresy on a certain point of doctrine then it would automatically lead to a loss of membership in the Church and a loss of office.
This does not address the question 2V asked.
The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?
So for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.
OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.
There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.
Do you see the pattern?
That is the point 2V was wanting addressed.
-
2Vermont wrote:
So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?
You are right. If a Pope publicly teaches heresy, guilt is presumed, as a Pope knows better, and by this he would fall from his office.
If Pope Pius XII or any Pope publicly professed heresy on a certain point of doctrine then it would automatically lead to a loss of membership in the Church and a loss of office.
This does not address the question 2V asked.
The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?
So for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.
OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.
There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.
Do you see the pattern?
That is the point 2V was wanting addressed.
Yes, unless there is some other explanation. Or possibly I am misunderstanding SV thought (which may absolutely be the case here).
-
Is it any wonder that the same people who are unable to make proper distinctions on this matter also are sloppy and simplistic in their thinking on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?
Do you see the pattern?
I have. It is interesting that these are the same folks.
-
He wasn't a public manifest heretic in 1939. He later became one in 1951. When a Catholic, even the pope, is a public heretic he automatically looses membership in the church. If he held any office, its gone. Thats divine law. Ecclesiastical law only exists to support divine law.
Nestorius initially had an office in the church when he was ordained but lost it automatically when he became a public heretic by teaching the blessed mother wasn't God.
????
Anyways, we're getting off topic. What of the Code of Canon Law, accepted by every pope since 1917? It teaches that sterile couples may marry and exercise the marital rite. Your anti-papacy began a long time before Pius XII.
Could you quote the cannon(s) in the 1917 Code of Cannon Law that you claim allow sterile individuals to enter marriage?
All of them, in particular 1037 thru 1050 or so. Sterility is not among the species of impediments (prohibitive or diriment). I'm not sure how much detail Augustine goes into but you may view his commentary if you like https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n2027/mode/2up/search/diriment+impediment
It's very clear that sterility is not considered an impediment.
Bouscaren and Ellis say the same thing, and I believe they go a little greater into detail than Augustine. I don't remember.
Canon law lists quite a few impediments, and even categorizes them. Sterility is not one of them.
-
Stubborn wrote:
The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?
In order to lose one's membership in the Church, the heresy must be both public and pertinacious.
If the public heresy of a Pope was professed to a private audience, in a sermon, etc., then it would not conflict with the indefectibility of the Church. If the Pope attempted to bind Catholics to a heresy or a grave error against the Faith by authoritatively or especially infallibly teaching it to the universal Church, then we could have certainty that he was not a Pope. This act of the "Pope" would conflict with the indefectibility of the Church.
o for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.
The term, "blindly," is not an accurate term, but otherwise, I agree with your point. Catholics are duty bound to give their assent to the Pope's universal non-infallible teaching on matters of Faith and morals taught to the universal Church. To refuse to give assent is the matter for mortal sin.
The Pope's teaching on the lawful use of the sterile times was not an ex Cathedra pronouncement, therefore it is not infallibly true, but it is infallibly safe.
As I have said before of this forum, and will keep saying, Pope Pius XII never used the term, "natural family planning," or "NFP," so this term should not be attributed to him or used for a description of what he taught. The term is vague, and it means different things to different people.
OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.
Those who refuse to accept Pope Pius XII's teaching on the lawful use of the sterile times, in marriage, for certain grave reasons, are absolutely wrong, and have no ground to stand on.
They look through the Fathers in support of their attack against Pius XII's teaching but among the Fathers, there is no specific teaching directly and explicitly stating that the use of the sterile times is a form of blocking procreation.
Our Lord gave us this divinely created and protected office to give us a constant voice of authority for situations just like this. When Pope Pius XII taught, and therefore bound, the universal Church to this teaching, he used the power Our Lord gave him when He said "he who hears you, hears me." (Luke 10:16). To refuse to assent and believe Christ's Vicar, Pope Pius XII, is to refuse to hear Christ.
This teaching given by pope Pius XII cannot be used as a demonstration that Pius XII taught heresy to the universal Church. Those that make such allegations are fomenting schism, they, through their grave ignorance are further dividing the Church.
There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.
This is a disputed point. St. Robert Bellarmine thought as a pious opinion that a Pope would never become a heretic, and thereby fall from office. But, the matter is not certain.
It seems likely that St. Robert was right on this, and that a Pope who is a manifest public heretic was never Pope to begin with. I believe this is the case with Paul VI.
-
Although I don't agree entirely, thanks for the clear reply.
-
Although I don't agree entirely, thanks for the clear reply.
Thanks for giving him credit where it is due. There is new doubt that the Allocution to Midwives is an authoritative docuмent. Some people may not completely understand what it says and what it does not say and how it applies or does not apply and this can be true regarding other papal docuмents on the topic from other Popes.
So long as we accept what Pius XII has authoritatively taught on the topic even if we do not fully understand what it is we are good. If we don't accept it we are in trouble.
-
To clarify the SV thing. If a purported Pope taught heresy in a public format which includes a private audience and refused to admit it was heresy when called on it and such a thing happened a second time I believe it would be safe to say he was never Pope in the first place (or, perhaps, that he lost his office when he taught it, if he was not known for teaching heresy before he was "elected"). The public heretic must be avoided. And giving him a second time is being generous on my part. Who was the bishop who taught heresy on the BVM and was immediately rejected by the lay-people? That is the proper response to a "Pope" as well, and more especially the "Pope" as the universality of the Church depends on Him avoiding teaching that which contradicts Catholic teaching which means he cannot err publicly in regards to infallible Catholic teaching and hold fast to that error after being corrected. The real Popes were very guarded in their public comments and for good reason. The people see them as Popes and when they speak they see them speaking as Popes for that is what they are.
It is quite novel to figure out how many heresies a guy can teach in public or publicly as a private theologian and still be pope. People were not trying to figure such things before the '60's.
On "NFP" which both Ambrose and I showed was not terminology before Paul 6, even Saint Paul says the married couple can refrain from relations for reasons of prayer. That is avoiding pregnancy isn't it? I know we can quibble about purposely avoiding only the fertile times or not but he does set a precedent that can't be legitimately called into question i.e. you cannot disagree with Saint Paul on the topic.
If your only choices are "evils" you can and should chose the lesser of those evils. There are four categories where pregnancy can be avoided and within those categories you can make a choice either way that will not be sinful so long as the motives are pure.
I have given the example of when a mother with 12 young children would likely die (this does not include exaggerations by anti-life doctors) and the result would be that those children would have less of a chance to save their souls as they would then be forced to be raised by the state while daddy goes to work. They need their mommy. She is not avoiding pregnancy to spite God or mock His commands but to fulfill His command to educate and raise Godly children who will know, love and serve Him in this life so as to be happy with Him in eternity.
That being said she could make the "heroic" decision based upon her informed conscience and "trust in the Lord" not to let her die or allow her children to be damned due to her death.
Another example which is not NFP but related is the pregnant women who is diagnosed with a cancerous uterus. She is allowed to have that uterus removed with the unintended and undesired result being the death of her unborn child. Or she can be heroic and keep cancerous uterus and die with her child, hoping perhaps, that the child can somehow be baptized before she dies while taking into consideration other children she already has and how badly they need her spiritually and physically.
Sometimes we are left with only bad choices.
-
Allmonks and C101
The reason I brought up sterility is that a couple who are sterile will be using the marital act the same way that couples who are "using NFP" are using it. At a time when, naturally speaking, we do not expect conception to occur. And a sterile couple (or an older couple, for that matter) by marrying give an exclusive and perpetual right to their spouse over their body. In other words, when the Church approves of their marriage, the Church says "you may lawfully engage in relations for your entire life, even though you will never realize the primary end of it." The Church allows this couple to perform the marital act perpetually even they will never realize the primary end of it.
You have already said that no reason justifies observing sterile periods only, because your contention is that such observance subordinates the primary end to the secondary end (I'll get to this shortly). You cannot now say that there are reasons which can justify the observance of sterile periods only without undermining your rejection of what Pius XII taught completely, which is that no reason at all can justify observance of sterile periods only.
Couples, by marrying, give their bodies to each other perpetually and exclusively. We call this the marriage debt, which St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 7, where he says
"Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency."
And of course, this is only the chief example. Any canon law commentary will tell you that the marriage contract holds this right as it's essential object.
Also, as St Paul (and St. Augustine, as I've quoted) teaches, the marital debt serves to allay concupiscence. "Better to marry than to burn." Do you agree that it is lawful for married couples to engage in the marital act when their doing so is motivated by concupiscence? I am not asking if this is sinful or if it is the most virtuous, I am only asking if you agree that having relations motivated by concupiscence is proper to marriage.
Hopefully you agree, because if you don't, you're disagreeing with scripture. I'll assume that you agree. In which case, you should easily be able to see that while the act may be chiefly motivated by something other than an explicit intellectual assent and desire to procreate at that very moment, the act is in no way actually subordinated to this end, so long as nothing is done to frustrate this end.
When you sit down to a meal and are motivated to eat chiefly by the deliciousness of the food, do you sin against nature (or at all?) by having your mind focusing foremost on the pleasure of the food rather than the sustenance (primary end) which you derive from it?
You should be able to see by now that there is no subordination of the primary end owed to the mind's focus or motivation by the secondary end if the primary end is left unhindered, which it is both by marital relations during sterile periods and by eating.
Also, it is observable from the natural order that the pleasure found in marital relations exists in order to encourage the commandment "go forth and multiply." Being motivated to perform the only act suitable for generation by the pleasures which the act supplies is perfectly in accord with nature.
So, do you agree both that the marital debt must be rendered to the spouse when the spouse asks for it and that the motivation for requiring or reciprocating the debt does not need to be an explicit and predominant wish to procreate in order for the relations to be licit?
If then, the marital debt is to be rendered when the spouse asks for it, and if it may be rendered or asked for without a predominant desire to procreate so long as procreation is not positively excluded by their own act (i.e., "frustrated") then relations during sterile periods, for whatever reason are licit.
Do you also agree that the couple may, with mutual consent, refrain from marital relations for a time? Do you further agree that what times they choose to abstain, as well as what times they choose to return, are their prerogative? I.e., that there is no Church law that obliges them to have relations or abstain from relations at any particular time whatsoever?
If there is no Church law which requires them to have relations or to abstain from relations during any given time, I do not see how you can possibly contend that it is sinful for them to come together at a particular time for any reason.
Anyways, I'm going to wrap it up, but I'll end by re-iterating what SJB said before. You are failing to differentiate a particular single action and a course of ongoing actions. With respect to the "use of NFP" (as taught by Pius XII) an ongoing and indefinite observance of only sterile periods without a grave reason is a sin, and IMO a mortal one at that, but it is a separate sin from the one that Pius XI described in Castii Connubi. The relations themselves are still lawful, because one spouse requires the debt from another for the allaying of concupiscence. It is assumed that they want children by the very fact that they are engaging in the act, just as it is assumed that a man is hungry if he eats a meal. If they "do the deed" and do not frustrate the end of it then it is reasonable to assume that they desire the outcome of it, at least implicitly or habitually.
(Hope you don't feel dejected, Allmonks. C101's post was much easier to reply to with the twenty minutes I had before work this morning).
-
I don't know if NFP is a sin, but the people who use it remind me of pagans who lust after each other and then procure abortions after they become pregnant. They both have the same desire for sex without children. Only those who use NFP fool themselves and pretend that by using NFP they are being virtuous. Very much in line with the modern world.
-
I used to commit sɛҳuąƖ sins when I was a virtual pagan before I converted, but now, if I marry, I would never dare to touch my wife without the desire for children, let alone take active steps to avoid procreation. In my mind, to do so would be no better than my past life of fornication.
-
I used to commit sɛҳuąƖ sins when I was a virtual pagan before I converted, but now, if I marry, I would never dare to touch my wife without the desire for children, let alone take active steps to avoid procreation. In my mind, to do so would be no better than my past life of fornication.
Fornication is having marital relations when you're not married. By definition, you cannot fornicate with your wife. You can commit other sins which may be lesser or worse than fornication, but that term has a very specific meaning.
-
If then, the marital debt is to be rendered when the spouse asks for it, and if it may be rendered or asked for without a predominant desire to procreate so long as procreation is not positively excluded by their own act (i.e., "frustrated") then relations during sterile periods, for whatever reason are licit.
I read it this way...
It is not illicit for one of the couple to ask for the debt, as long as both agree implicitly or explicity that is for increasing the family. In other words another child will result, Gods will.
There is however a Sin involved if one of the partners doesn t really want another Child , but is willing to accept it if that should occur. The debt is fulfilled (by less say the women), and no sin on her part , as long as she lets the man know that he is committing a sin, because it is against her will.
The Man goes thru with the act and he sins because it wasn t a mutual agreement for procreation.
That is what I take from PPXI, content...
-
BTW, Allmonks & C101... do you guys run or are you at all involved in this site: http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/papal-heresy-jansenists.htm ?
-
I have made a mistake in continuing to discuss this. I should have stopped pages ago. At the end of the day, if you think it's OK to reject the teaching of Pius XII, then you will. Your walls of quotes aren't impressive, not a single one of them proves what you are trying to prove. You are interpreting in light of your position, but we should allow the Church to interpret things for us. Moral theologians and popes teach NFP. I'm sure you'll understand that their opinion is far weightier than yours. I will not reply again, because I have made my case. After reading your last reply, it would appear that you have made yours. I am not going to repeat myself any longer, and I don't think you will either.
-
No mistake--- i would like to thank U for taking on the puritanical perverts who can't find anything better to do than stick there busy noses into the sex lives of married Catholics. :fryingpan:
-
Ad hominem attacks ALWAYS win debates.
-
Stubborn wrote:
The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?
In order to lose one's membership in the Church, the heresy must be both public and pertinacious.
If the public heresy of a Pope was professed to a private audience, in a sermon, etc., then it would not conflict with the indefectibility of the Church. If the Pope attempted to bind Catholics to a heresy or a grave error against the Faith by authoritatively or especially infallibly teaching it to the universal Church, then we could have certainty that he was not a Pope. This act of the "Pope" would conflict with the indefectibility of the Church.
o for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.
The term, "blindly," is not an accurate term, but otherwise, I agree with your point. Catholics are duty bound to give their assent to the Pope's universal non-infallible teaching on matters of Faith and morals taught to the universal Church. To refuse to give assent is the matter for mortal sin.
The Pope's teaching on the lawful use of the sterile times was not an ex Cathedra pronouncement, therefore it is not infallibly true, but it is infallibly safe.
As I have said before of this forum, and will keep saying, Pope Pius XII never used the term, "natural family planning," or "NFP," so this term should not be attributed to him or used for a description of what he taught. The term is vague, and it means different things to different people.
OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.
Those who refuse to accept Pope Pius XII's teaching on the lawful use of the sterile times, in marriage, for certain grave reasons, are absolutely wrong, and have no ground to stand on.
They look through the Fathers in support of their attack against Pius XII's teaching but among the Fathers, there is no specific teaching directly and explicitly stating that the use of the sterile times is a form of blocking procreation.
Our Lord gave us this divinely created and protected office to give us a constant voice of authority for situations just like this. When Pope Pius XII taught, and therefore bound, the universal Church to this teaching, he used the power Our Lord gave him when He said "he who hears you, hears me." (Luke 10:16). To refuse to assent and believe Christ's Vicar, Pope Pius XII, is to refuse to hear Christ.
This teaching given by pope Pius XII cannot be used as a demonstration that Pius XII taught heresy to the universal Church. Those that make such allegations are fomenting schism, they, through their grave ignorance are further dividing the Church.
There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.
This is a disputed point. St. Robert Bellarmine thought as a pious opinion that a Pope would never become a heretic, and thereby fall from office. But, the matter is not certain.
It seems likely that St. Robert was right on this, and that a Pope who is a manifest public heretic was never Pope to begin with. I believe this is the case with Paul VI.
So, what I was trying to get at was if the posters here want to claim that PPXII taught heresy then they must accept the fact that they are then, in effect, calling him an anti-pope.
-
So, what I was trying to get at was if the posters here want to claim that PPXII taught heresy then they must accept the fact that they are then, in effect, calling him an anti-pope.
This is not true. A true Pope can teach heresy, as long as he does it out of ignorance and of course non-infallibly. He may teach heresy that he does not know is heresy. It is only after he is shown the truth and then rejects the truth that he becomes a formal heretic and loses his office (according to the sedevacantists).
-
So, what I was trying to get at was if the posters here want to claim that PPXII taught heresy then they must accept the fact that they are then, in effect, calling him an anti-pope.
This is not true. A true Pope can teach heresy, as long as he does it out of ignorance and of course non-infallibly. He may teach heresy that he does not know is heresy. It is only after he is shown the truth and then rejects the truth that he becomes a formal heretic and loses his office (according to the sedevacantists).
OK, thank you. I didn't think I was clear on this.
-
.
Most sedes today uphold the Papacy of Pius XII as if it's some kind
of shining city on a hill: untouchable, immaculate, pure, irreproachable,
and then the stark contrast with John XXIII who began from the first
moment with a NAME that had been moth-balled since over 500 years,
not for lack of interest, but because the last pope to use the name
was a huge embarrassment -- you know, like Francis is.
Pius XII was fortunate to live in a time when being an embarrassment
was something to be AVOIDED, and he managed to pull that off okay.
Unlike Francis.
Now, one might think that a pontifical embarrassment is some kind of
achievement to be desired or whatever.
So it's hard to see the shortcomings of Pius XII in context of the bad
examples that followed him. While he did have some stellar moments,
and one shining example for all time, the definition of the Assumption of
Our Lady body and soul into heaven, and a lot of other good points and
works such as the protection of refugee Jews who were fleeing nαzι
Germany, and the general protection of the Traditions of the Church in
a time when they were under severe attack, not all was so great in
his reign. There were several key negatives, which should not be
forgotten.
The first and most deleterious act was his reform of Holy Week, which
had NO PURPOSE. It was the most ancient of all the liturgy in the
year and it therefore survived for 1,900 + years only to be treated
with utter contempt during the pontificate of this same Pius XII. And
there was utterly NO REASON to change it, that is, unless you consider
what was going to happen over the next 18 years.
But was the Pope PLANNING those changes? We don't think so. And
so why were they made? Was he unaware of them being made? I've
never heard that he was, and I'm under the impression that he was
the celebrant using the changed Holy Week liturgy the year it was
first used. Is that not correct?
Other than Holy Week, Pius XII was the pope who brought in Annibale
Bugnini and posted him in the office of the Reform of the Liturgy. That
was an office that had not existed before. It was a NEW OFFICE that
Pius XII had started, with Bugnini as the head official, and the rest is
history. There was NO REASON to change the liturgy. The proof of this
is in the fact that hundreds of chapels all over the world are using the
same liturgy that had been changed, and it's JUST FINE. That's not a
small problem.
And there were other things. He trucked in a new Psalter. Why do
that? Once again: NO REASON. The first edition of the new Psalter
was a flop, though, and they had to re-do it with another new edition.
But there was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE OLD EDITION.
And so on. So the papacy of Pius XII was not spotless. But neither
was it heretical. He did not teach heresy. But the fact that he did
not teach heresy does not mean that his papacy was therefore
irreproachable.
The problem sedes have with this is they want Pius XII to be the
squeaky-clean role model and benchmark standard of greatness, and
any question or spotlight on a folly, however small (and some were not
small, as we have seen above) is an act of heresy in itself. Well, no,
it's not. And if it were not for this Pollyanna attitude, we would not
have to mention the problems. It's the attitude that IS the problem.
Pius XII was a good pope. He did not teach heresy; but he did bring
some long-lasting problems into the Church, most of which we are
still living with today.
.
-
My comments in red:
I have made a mistake in continuing to discuss this. I should have stopped pages ago. At the end of the day, if you think it's OK to reject the teaching of Pius XII, then you will. Your walls of quotes aren't impressive, not a single one of them proves what you are trying to prove. (Then absolutely nothing about the faith could ever be proved to you, since I've never seen a more one sided case where all the quotes from Fathers, saints, and doctors are posted by Allmonks side, and you have not posted one. )You are interpreting in light of your position, but we should allow the Church to interpret things for us (the Church is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, it is infallible, and so is Pius XI's Casti Conubi. So what church do you belong to?) . Moral theologians and popes teach NFP. I'm sure you'll understand that their opinion is far weightier than yours (Prior to 1950's, some modern moral theologians taught NFP, so what? You are just one of those seeking teachers according to your own desires) I will not reply again, because I have made my case. After reading your last reply, it would appear that you have made yours. I am not going to repeat myself any longer, and I don't think you will either.(
-
So, what I was trying to get at was if the posters here want to claim that PPXII taught heresy then they must accept the fact that they are then, in effect, calling him an anti-pope.
This is not true. A true Pope can teach heresy, as long as he does it out of ignorance and of course non-infallibly. He may teach heresy that he does not know is heresy. It is only after he is shown the truth and then rejects the truth that he becomes a formal heretic and loses his office (according to the sedevacantists).
I'm now reading this again and I'm still not sure I agree. Shouldn't a pope "know" what is heresy and what is not? How does one get to be pope and be ignorant of the Catholic Faith? This is the Pope not Joe Scmoe in the pews.
-
The head of the Church can't claim ignorance, especially when he has been made aware of his error.
If he could then anyone could be "Pope" no matter how ignorant. Again no purpose to the papacy. He can err all the time because he does not know better. "The Devil is God"? Oh he just doesn't know better. He is still Pope.
Get out of here.
The anti-SV have to come up with things that eliminate any purpose to anything. Whether be the Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, Councils, Doctrine oh he just didn't know better.
Oh nothing means anything its all relative. Who needs a pope for anything since he doesn't have to know anything and it does matter whether he errs or not?