Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 10288 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #30 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:01:51 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 07:03:32 AM

Pius XII did lots of things, like install Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, opened the door to evolution, permitted the first Ecuмenical gatherings, and appointed nearly every single Modernist bishop who later brought us the glories of Vatican II. Pius XII actively helped usher in the Vatican II era.

That's a slippery slope argument right there. What they did later is irrelevant to the material in an encyclical or allocution they published years earlier. Just saying.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:05:14 AM »

Just a quick story about my brother's situation. When he got married, he wasn't particularly well off in terms of a career, and lived in an apartment (couldn't afford a home). His Trad father-in-law was all over him about using NFP because they couldn't afford a lot of children. He refused out of principle. Right after his second child was born, he made a small investment in some penny stock that just took off, to where he was able to buy a very nice house outright (completely paid for). Without using NFP, he ended up with 4 children despite marrying young (as his wife had some miscarriages, etc.). Meanwhile, his wife's sister and her husband were "spacing" the children out ... and ended up with 4 children. In the end, God arranges matter as He will, and HE "plans" our families. Both families ended up with 4 children, the one doing it God's way, the other their way.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:08:54 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 05, 2024, 09:01:51 AM

That's a slippery slope argument right there. What they did later is irrelevant to the material in an encyclical they published years earlier. Just saying.

Which Encyclical? Pius XII was merely giving a long-winded (clearly-speculative) speech to a group of midwives. There was no Encyclical, no teaching addressed to the Universal Church, nothing to indicate that he was teaching something with any kind of authority, and everything to suggest that he was merely thinking out loud and speculating (I'll cite the language of his speech here).

But what does it matter if you're R&R? He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game. After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right? If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?

That's my problem. R&R are all "lay popes" in their own way. Then you have SVs on the other side who exaggerate the scope of infallibility where a speech given by Pius XII to a group of midwives might have been a solemn dogmatic definition. These SVs are also lay popes vis-a-vis the pre-V2 theologians, since these same theologians all endorsed Vatican II and the New Mass. So where do they get off rejecting this theological consensus. Don't we see the problem here between the imbalance? Both are wrong and are exaggerations. No, a speech given by Pius XII is not necessarily authoritative, infallible, and irreformable. But then many R&R somehow also act as if it is, whereas at the same time claiming it's OK to reject an entire Ecuмenical Council. If you say that's OK, then what's stopping me from rejecting even papal encyclicals, much less a speech to some midwives?

Yeti · « **Reply #33 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:09:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 07:03:32 AM

Total hogwash. Pius XII was clearly speculating in front of a bunch of midwives, and you can see from his language that he was not teaching or imposing any kind of teaching on anyone.

.

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. :)

Matthew · « **Reply #34 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:10:16 AM »

Ladislaus,

I don't know where to begin, but I have to correct several points right away.

1. I don't have an "agenda" unless you say that God, the cause of Truth, and the good of souls are "agendas".

2. I'm not a fan of Fr. Cekada, today or yesterday.

3. Due to my love of the truth, however, I will "give the devil his due" and admit that Fr. Cekada was completely right every time he opened his mouth (or got out his pen/keyboard) when he spoke on the topic of "Trads pontificating on matters above their pay grade". His statements about normal Catholic life before Vatican II are spot-on. Do you dispute that Catholics used to need an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to publish such tracts before Vatican II? Do you dispute the level of education that men used to have who presumed to teach the Church militant about matters of theology, moral or otherwise? Or the oversight the Church placed over them? Truth is truth, no matter who utters it.

4. Is Fr. Cekada a hypocrite? That's another story. He himself pontificated (without any authority) about "Una cuм" being sinful and other nonsense. But that's beside the point. His point about laymen and under-educated Trad priests becoming little Popes is still spot-on.

Someone else complained that Fr. C didn't jump into the public debate. EXACTLY! That was his point! It's matter for practical application, IN the confessional. Without the specifics for an individual soul, there's nothing to discuss, only the general principles involved (which he actually gave). Those principles could excuse or condemn, depending on the individual.

Soubirous · « **Reply #35 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:13:50 AM »

Quote from: Everlast22 on March 05, 2024, 08:56:26 AM

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #36 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:14:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 09:08:54 AM

But what does it matter if you're R&R? He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game. After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right? If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:17:02 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 09:09:49 AM

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #38 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:18:46 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 09:08:54 AM

But what does it matter if you're R&R? He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game. After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right? If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?

Yes, such "sifting" of the Pope by our subjective notion of "Traditional" it is dangerous. But if we go ahead and decide the Pope isn't the Pope, then all is well.

Like I said -- words like this worry me. Honestly. It's the kind of stuff you hear shortly before a Trad loses it and goes crazy: either becoming a home aloner, Novus Ordo, apostate, etc.

You're taking an axe to the root of Tradition, as it were.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:19:34 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 05, 2024, 09:14:21 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:20:42 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 05, 2024, 09:18:46 AM

But if we go ahead and decide the Pope isn't the Pope, then all is well.

Like I said -- words like this worry me. Honestly. It's the kind of stuff you hear shortly before a Trad loses it and goes crazy: either becoming a home aloner, Novus Ordo, apostate, etc.

You're taking an axe to the root of Tradition, as it were.

No, it's you who are destroying Tradition by claiming that an Ecuмenical/General Council that had the full approbation of a legitimate Catholic pope could gut the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold this, by the way, something lost on most modern R&R. Your authority, Father Cekada, would wholeheartedly agree with me, and you should defer to his seminary training and not play the part of lay pope, right?

Matthew · « **Reply #41 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:22:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 09:19:34 AM

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.

The Old Catholics were wrong. It's simple.

Do you know what we're talking about when we say "Had the protection of the Holy Ghost"? We're not talking about some subjective thing they had, like "the blessing of God". It's a specific invocation to the Holy Ghost that WAS made at the start of an Ecuмenical council, which was SPECIFICALLY shot down or set aside at the outset of Vatican II.

That is a matter of public record, not subjective opinion.

Almost like a signpost for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. A signpost for those looking for the truth. When I was reading my history books about the history of Vatican II, this point struck me hard, and I never forgot it.

Matthew · « **Reply #42 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:23:59 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 09:20:42 AM

No, it's you who are destroying Tradition by claiming that an Ecuмenical/General Council that had the full approbation of a legitimate Catholic pope could gut the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold this, by the way

So... +ABL was sedevacantist? News to me. That's what you're suggesting here. That +ABL was destroying Tradition. Otherwise you're saying he was a sede. Gimme a break.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:27:05 AM »

Could a Pope have erred in an allocution given to a group of midwives where he showed no indication of attempting to authoritatively teach anything to the Universal Church? Yes. (R&R should agree here, so what's the problem with this?)

Could a Pope have gutted Catholic Tradition in an Ecuмenical Council, destroyed the Public Worship of the Church, produced a large body of bogus canonizations? No. (SVs agree with this).

This is the correct balance. Again, everyone should read Msgr. Fenton's essay on the authority of papal encyclicals to find the right balance.

Many/most SVs tend to promote the notion that the Pope is infallible every time that wind passes through his lips and makes a sound, whereas the R&R think that unless we're dealing with a once- or twice- a century solemn definition, it's fair game for Aunt Helen to decide that it's not Traditional and to reject the teaching. This is a mess, due to the warring sides that have led to exaggerations on the two opposite poles.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** March 05, 2024, 09:28:16 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 05, 2024, 09:22:37 AM

The Old Catholics were wrong. It's simple.

Why? It's not that simple if you're R&R.

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 10288 times)

Matthew

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

Yeti

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Matthew

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Soubirous

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Matthew

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Ladislaus

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Matthew

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

Matthew

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Matthew

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