Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 8569 times)

Yeti · « **Reply #60 on:** March 05, 2024, 10:56:59 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on March 05, 2024, 10:43:21 AM

You're a liar. You know the speech to midwives isn't infallible yet you're treating it like it is.

The fact that none of you can give a plausible explanation of Casti Connubii is a as good as an admission that it contradicts your position.

The truth is the you worship man, putting fallible men's opinions over the voice of God speaking through the Magisterium.

The issue is crystal-clear. Pius XII was wrong and ill-informed, just like when he said the Earth could be (or is, I forget) billions of years old. Both times he contradicted Tradition and the Magisterium, but NOT pertinaciously and NOT as supreme Pastor of all Christians.

What would you have believed after CC and before Pius XII's speech?

Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end or ADMIT that it does, because that's THE WHOLE POINT OF NFP.

.

I didn't say the speech to midwives was infallible. I said you had to believe it because it was a teaching of the pope to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals (or at least it became a teaching to the whole Church after he published it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis).

It is a condemned error to say that people are only obliged to accept papal teachings that are infallible. I believe that error is condemned even in Casti Connubii itself.

The "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" is addressed to the whole Church. What the pope publishes in there is binding on all Catholics.

"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican." -- Jesus Christ.

Yeti · « **Reply #61 on:** March 05, 2024, 11:02:39 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on March 05, 2024, 10:53:44 AM

NFP believers do you also follow Pope Pius XII's "infallible proclamation" that the Earth is billions of years old:

Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "... the work of the omnipotent Creator, Whose power, aroused by the mighty ‘fiat’ pronounced billions of years ago by the Creative Spirit, unfolded itself in the universe and, with a gesture of generous love, called into existence matter, fraught with energy."

Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "Thus this energy, in the course of billions of years, is slowly but irreparably transformed into radiation."

Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "In the course of billions of years, even the quantity of atomic nuclei, which is apparently inexhaustible, loses its utilisable energy and matter approaches, to speak figuratively, the state of a spent and wasted volcano." (https://inters.org/pius-xii-speech-1952-proofs-god)

Or are you hypocrites?

.

I explained the "infallible" issue already. I didn't say that what Pope Pius XII said was infallible. You are claiming that Catholics are only obliged to accept universal papal teaching in matters of faith and morals when they are proclaimed infallibly, and that since Pope Pius XII's teaching on NFP was not proclaimed infallibly, that therefore you are free to reject it. This is an error that has been condemned many times by the popes.

As far as the age of the earth goes, that is not a matter of faith or morals, so Catholics are not bound to accept a statement from a pope on the age of the earth. Neither does it contradict the faith to say the earth is billions of years old, either.

I don't think I can really discuss this with you if you don't understand such basic distinctions, and especially if you think you do not have to accept papal teaching on faith and morals.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** March 05, 2024, 11:11:21 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 10:56:59 AM

I didn't say the speech to midwives was infallible. I said you had to believe it because it was a teaching of the pope to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals (or at least it became a teaching to the whole Church after he published it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis).

It is a condemned error to say that people are only obliged to accept papal teachings that are infallible. I believe that error is condemned even in Casti Connubii itself.

The "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" is addressed to the whole Church. What the pope publishes in there is binding on all Catholics.

"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican." -- Jesus Christ.

Same old un-nuanced nonsense you get from most of the SVs. So what, in the practical order, is the difference between "acceptance" of the Dogma of the Assumption, and then accepting every word of a 10,000-word speech given to a group of midwives? Without any nuance (and you apply none), they're practicaly speaking the same thing.

You use the term "accept" equivocally, making no distinctions whatsoever.

Msgr. Fenton points out the distinctions. Please read them again. There's no absolute philosophical assent expected of the non-infallible teaching of a Pope (much less some long expositions that do not claim to be authoritatively teaching anything), but a conditional assent, which can be withheld if some proposition is proven to be erroneous. Otherwise, you'd have to just power-dump every single word of AAS into the Enchiridion Symbolorum.

When a Pope is going on for 10,000 words about a "new problem" and multiple times referring to "two hypotheses", before a group of midwives, this doesn't even rise to the leve of an Encyclical Letter, and even about those Msgr. Fenton explains, you have to read the language to determine the intention of the Pope to engage his authority to teach the Universal Church. It's not uncommon for these Encyclicals to go on for hundreds of pages of expository prose where there's explanation of various concepts but no actual teaching taking place.

Please explain the difference between "accepting" a dogmatic definition, and "accepting" every word of an speech given to midwives. This lack of nuance among SVs does as much damage to papal infallibility as the R&R position where anything short of solemn definitions is fair game. There's a nuanced balance between these two extremes that is lost by both sides.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** March 05, 2024, 11:18:58 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 11:02:39 AM

I explained the "infallible" issue already. I didn't say that what Pope Pius XII said was infallible.

No, but you're saying that the infallible and fallible pronouncements fall into to same category of needing to be "accepted", without making the distinctions, thereby leading these becoming effectively the same thing for all practical intents and purposes.

There's also no allowance made for the nature of the content, whether it's even teaching, or there's any intent to teach. Here's a concrete example. Pius XII said that it was OK for Catholics to consider "theistic evolution". He didn't teach either for or against evolution. In fact, he taught nothing there. He was making a prudential judgment about whether to allow something ... and that prudential judgment (at the very least in hindsight) was tragically flawed and did a lot of damage. This judgment was not "infallible" but clearly mistaken.

In Mediator Dei, for instance, he praised the notion of "Dialogue Masses". There too he wasn't teaching anything, and his judgment was clearly wrong on the matter. Do you "accept" the fact that "Dialogue Masses" are a good thing now?

Crayolcold · « **Reply #64 on:** March 05, 2024, 11:26:38 AM »

To go down another avenue with the same subject... I want to pose a question related to the main reason I started this thread.

Assuming if NFP is, in fact, a Catholic version of Birth Control and is objectively, in all circuмstances, morally repugnant to adopt in order to avoid pregnancy -- if this is the case, is Paul VI's explicit approval of it in Humanae Vitae enough to prove, without a doubt, that he could not have been a Pope?

I have heard SSPX priests say that Humanae Vitae is without a doubt and "as a matter of fact" infallible. But, as has been sufficiently proven (in my opinion) up to this point in the thread, NFP is undoubtably a non-Catholic practice and the adoption of it in the marital life has likely led souls astray.

It is my belief that defenders of NFP hold their positions because they would answer "yes" to the above question. And they are not ready to become SV's. Perhaps this is biasing their opinions on the subject: they acknowledge that IF NFP is in fact a mortal sin to use when avoiding pregnancy, then Paul VI's approval of it in his "matter of fact" infallible encyclical would prove that he is not the Pope and subsequently vindicate the sedevacantists.

Yeti · « **Reply #65 on:** March 05, 2024, 11:39:54 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 11:11:21 AM

Msgr. Fenton points out the distinctions. Please read them again. There's no absolute philosophical assent expected of the non-infallible teaching of a Pope (much less some long expositions that do not claim to be authoritatively teaching anything), but a conditional assent, which can be withheld if some proposition is proven to be erroneous. Otherwise, you'd have to just power-dump every single word of AAS into the Enchiridion Symbolorum.

.

Fair enough, let's see this again. Before we do, can we agree that the word "assent" means to accept something as true?:

Quote

Ultimately, however, this assent [wait, what assent? Ladislaus says we don't have to assent to non-infallible papal teaching if we think it is not true] is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith [Of course it's not. When one believes something by faith, such as something defined ex cathedra, he is believing not only that it is true, but that is divinely revealed and part of revelation]. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. [Not for Ladislaus, apparently] It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be [Ladislaus definitely doesn't accept this last]. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.

Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements [wait, I thought there was no assent due to such pronouncements? Ladislaus just told us this.] cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, [the assent Ladislaus is giving to this pronouncement is called nihil non-existens] including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” [You mean unless Ladislaus discovers something to be erroneous? That would negate everything that has been said so far.] Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. [But Ladislaus is not required to give assent to the Church's non-infallible teachings if he thinks they are wrong, so Lyons and Philips are wrong here.]

Matthew · « **Reply #66 on:** March 05, 2024, 11:44:18 AM »

Crayolcold,

You're about as interested in a boring academic answer to your disinterested intellectual curiosity, as two street brawlers are interested in exploring the physics of potential and kinetic energy as they try to bash each other's brains in.

You're continuing the fight, slugging for "your side", hoping for a win against "the other side". Like 2 street brawlers fighting with pipes and chains. You're not a scientist, calmly, dispassionately experimenting with potential and kinetic energy.

So let's not pretend.

I can tell your mindframe by how you refer to me as "the other side" even though I haven't argued for or against NFP.

I've only posted that it's not a layman's place to "settle" or make any broad pronouncements, anathemas, or define any new dogmas on this moral theology issue, especially for the Catholic Faithful at large. I posted that Fr. Cekada made some very good points about this. Before Vatican II, you didn't have armchair lay theologians posting their useless opinions before millions of eyeballs with little-to-no theological training and NO Ecclesiastical oversight. The Crisis in the Church does NOT justify *everything*. Fr. Cekada was 100% right about that point.

Arriving at any true position on NFP would involve respecting all the principles and known truths/facts involved, and properly applying them in each case. Fr. Cekada did list some of these principles, and frankly I'd like to know how you would dispute any of those points he listed. They sounded like plain facts to me. Easily proved or disproved.

Anyhow, I made the mistake of posting in this thread, so now that I've been swept into the whirlpool against my will, my only option is to lock the thread.

I repeat AGAIN: talk to a good Traditional Catholic priest, one with a Traditional formation. Forget about getting spiritual direction, or confessional advice, from a bunch of laymen on CathInfo.

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 8569 times)

Yeti

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Yeti

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Ladislaus

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Ladislaus

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Crayolcold

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Yeti

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Matthew

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI