CathInfo.com

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..

In fairness to the over-35s with no new pregnancies, the female body does go into wind-down mode, so it's best not to infer as to the choices of Mrs. So-and-so's not participating anymore in the local moms' baby gear exchange. Who knows, she might soon turn up again on the receiving end of those hand-me-downs.

At the same time, the odds do increase of a child with Down Syndrome or even some of the more seriously debilitating trisomies that can make life very difficult for the siblings too. There are families who'd think it the worst thing that could happen to them, yet there are families who'd willingly carry that burden should it be given to them. Mindset again, bottom line is that Our Lord knows all of what goes in each person's soul.

It is not Pius XII's words to midwives that we are talking about here, but the words he put in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which happen to be the same words) that are the point. When a pope teaches the entire Church (usually through the Acta) on a question of faith or morals (which this is), Catholics are required to accept it.

Moreover, I am not aware of any Catholic theologian who has ever said that NFP is a form of contraception. If your position were correct, there would be dozens. Maybe you could give us just five or ten quotes for now, though. :)

Not everything in AAS is of the same authority.  You do realize that, right?  You guys treat this speech to midwives, and, yes, that's all it was, not an Encyclical, not addressed as a teaching to the Universal Church ... as if it were in the same category as a solemn dogmatic definition, infallible, irreformable.  Msgr. Fenton addresses that even within Encyclicals, you have to look at the language to determine whether a pope is intending to teach something with his authority.  Not every word is intended to be taught to the faithful.  You could have a Pope go on for 20,000 words in some Encyclical, with various explanations and thoughts, but then there might be one or two points he's actually attempting to teach.  Not all of these obiter dicta are even authoritative, much less infallible.  It's clear that Pius XI was teaching to the Universal Church with his authority in Casti Conubii, and it's clear from the language where he's teaching something and where he's engaging in explanations.  Unfortunately, too many SVs feel that if it's in AAS, then it constitutes something that's being taught to the Church, every word of it, and might as well be a solemn definition.  You should read Msgr. Fenton's essay on the authority of Encyclicals where he goes through all the distinctions.

Vatican II was a robber council. We are required to reject it. It did not have the protection of the Holy Ghost. You should know this.

You sound like a Trad losing his grip on Tradition.

YES, when something isn't traditional, it's common sense that Trads can KNOW this, and act upon it. I feel like I'm talking to a novus ordo Catholic here. It's not rocket science, nor does it mean we're being too picky. When something goes against the Faith, YES that can be known by a layman. It's pretty clear cut.

God's blessing upon the world of Traditional Catholicism is proof that I'm right.

Of course V2 did not have the protection of the Holy Ghost, but it should have ... if Roncalli and Montini were legitimate popes.  There's no reason it wouldn't have been protected by the Holy Ghost if those men were legitimate popes.  And you should know this.  Every Catholic should know this.  But somehow many R&R don't know this.

Old Catholics claimed that Vatican I didn't have the protection of the Holy Ghost.