CathInfo.com

Wow, we have a high number of lay popes in this thread. It would appear many people feel strongly about this issue, for various personal reasons. I clicked on Yeti's link -- the only contribution from an actual priest in this thread -- to see what he had to say about the issue. He made many good points, and I found his arguments convincing. And I'm not normally a fan of Fr. Cekada.

Thanks, Mr. Lay Pope denoucing lay popes.

Yes, you're no fan of Father Cekada ... except when he serves your agenda.  Now that you've touted his bogus claims to having some kind of authority, you do know that Father Cekada would hold your R&R position to be objectively heretical and your attendance at una cuм Masses to be objectively grave sin.  But, you, as "lay pope", have decided to ignore those teachings of this individual who's "far more qualified" than you are to discern such things.

Father Cekada refers to "our people".  No, Father Cekada, you have no "people".  No Trad cleric has any authority or jurisdiction over anyone.  Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.

For all Father Cekada touts the "authority" of pre-V2 theologians, these same theologians nearly universally have endorsed the teaching of Vatican II as Catholic and the New Mass as Catholic ... with only a SINGLE exception that I know of (then-Father Guerard des Laurier).  But Cekada claims that the theological consensus is definitive and for all intents and purposes infallible ... while ignoring it.  Of course, these "pre-Vatican II" theologians were authoritative and definitive 2 days before Vatican II and then somehow all defected "en masse" 2 days after, where suddenly all their highly touted degrees and qualifications meant nothing.

It's all utter hypocrisy.  Since Vatican II, we're all "lay popes" ... except of course that no one pretends they have any right or authority to impose their opinions on the consciences of others ... well, except, most notably, people like the SSPV who refuse Sacraments to the faithful based on their own theological opinions.  They're hands down the most notorious for imposing themselves on the consciences of others and using the Sacraments as weapons for this enforcement.

Not to mention the obvious fact that the Trad clergy disagree among themselves on just about every issue, so which Trad cleric suddenly has this authority to act as a "clerical pope" (without a lick of jurisdiction)?

We have only one Magisterial teaching regarding the subject, from Pius XI in Casti Conubii (but, hey, R&R, what does it matter, since it wasn't an infallible docuмent, so you're free to disregard, eh).  I love the temerity of R&R complaining about lay popes when they claim that any papal teaching that doesn't meet the notes of infallibility can be ignored and disregarded.  In any case, Pius XI taught that it's sinful to subordinate the primary ends of marriage to the secondary, and if seeking the secondary ends while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary doesn't constitue such a subordination, then there's no such thing.  Pius XII, on the other hand, was teaching nothing.  He did not address the entire Church but was merely speculating in front of a group of midwives.  You can see in his language that he was merely thinking out loud and was not teaching or imposing anything at all on the Church.

But I love it here when R&R and the dogmatic SVs hold hands and sing kumbaya, when ironically the former hold that anything short of solemn papal teaching can be disregarded and the latter absurdly claiming (overreacting to the former) that a Pope is teaching solemnly every time he passes wind through his lips.  But suddenly you are a "fan of Father Cekada" when the two groups couldn't possibly be more polar opposities in terms of your principles.

So if you're entitled to reject the teaching of an ecuмenical Council backed by nearly all the bishops of the world, and endorsed by the man you claim is the Pope, Mr. Lay Pope, then I'm entitled to question an obvious speculation of a Pope before a group of midwives.  It's shocking to me that the utter absurdity of this contradictions doesn't even leave an impression on your mind.  You guys exist in a bizarre schizophrenic state where in principle it's permitted for Catholics to question any Magisterial teaching that doesn't have all the notes of infallibility, but then it's not permitted to question the opinions of the some theologians who were clearly all infected with Modernism in the years leading up to Vatican II.  That's from the R&R side.  On the Cekadist side, did all these theologians that were practically infallible in their consensus in 1957, suddenly lose this mysterious "charism" in 1962, when they all defected "en masse" from the faith?  ... since the overwhelming consensus of these theologians endorsed and approved of Vatican II?

We keep seeing these two absurd extremes between R&R who minimize the authority of Papal teaching (except when it suits their agenda) and the dogmatic SV overraction where Pius XII's long-winded speculative speech in front of some midwives might as well have been a solemn dogmatic pronouncement or even an Encyclical addressed to the Universal Church.

So, by your standards, every Trad is playing "lay pope".

Advocates of NFP, do you even acknowledge what NFP actually is? The biology and the very practice of it?

It requires purposeful daily actions by the wife including precise temperature charting and monitoring of other personal physical changes that need not be detailed here (hence it was that female nurses and female midwives were the audience for Pope Pius XII).

It requires literacy, numeracy, and the time and inclination for the woman to follow these steps diligently and correctly. Miss or mess up one critical day, and the whole system falls apart for the current cycle. (Easier for mothers who aren't constantly tending to the needs of numerous little ones.) Sounds modernist enough. Not something our grandparents would have done. The only thing "natural" about NFP is that it doesn't entail chemical or barrier methods.

It requires a state of mind and sustained forethought to prioritize these daily tasks. It requires the husband to follow his wife's lead as to when the conjugal act is permissible. "Not tonight, dear, I have an elevated basal temperature." Feminism much?

As to grave reasons, there's utterly life-threatening circuмstances (and there I'd agree with others here who've said that this is a cross that requires complete abstinence), and then there's the mindset of "oh no, then we'd need a bigger house and a minivan."

In contrast, toward the opposite ends of promoting conception when there has been difficulty with infertility, it can be a form of God-given knowledge about the human body that couples can rely on piously and fruitfully, no different from any other truly life-promoting knowledge that the gifts of inquiry and reason allow.

It's the "state of mind" you mentioned that urks me. These so called trad hypocrites "JOKINGLY" laughing about not having kids after 35 because I don't wanna get "fat" (had a sede mom tell me this) while living on a huge estate in a super nice house. But.. ya know they wear dresses and don't watch regular TV so they are faithful trads. Give me a break. There are very few families that I know that have children after 33-35... Now,  they may have 6-7 kids, but then stop just like a secular woman would and say: "See God, I had more kids than average, I can stop now." All this fuss about childbirth with modern medicine making childbirth more safe than it ever was..


I want to also give a disclaimer that I understand how fertility and age work, and that it's more difficult to get pregnant especially after 33 or so.