Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI  (Read 10289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Everlast22

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 890
  • Reputation: +772/-209
  • Gender: Male
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2024, 09:29:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • If Castii Canubi is a magisterial teaching, (which I believe it to be) then NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.

    Now if Castii Canubi is NOT a magisterial teaching, I would still say NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement. 

    With this very serious issue, I will bank on the option that forces me to cultivate virtue. I truly believe it's as simple as that. I am not smart as you guys with the theology, I'm simply just not, so I will yield to what the Church fathers and natural law taught/teaches. 
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32885
    • Reputation: +29158/-594
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #46 on: March 05, 2024, 09:37:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I still think the Crisis in the Church is BEST dealt with by Traditional Catholicism -- non-Sedevacantist variety.
    I'm still convinced that Sedevacantism is as useless as tits on a bull. Especially due to what Fr. Cekada and other dogmatic types have turned it into. Just another point of division, "Rah rah my team".

    How about leave the Pope question as a point of personal opinion and speculation -- WHERE IT BELONGS?

    We have to trust in God; He will see us through this great Crisis in the Church. There are many mysteries in the meantime. Mysteries I will respect and not attempt to plumb.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Online Crayolcold

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +89/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #47 on: March 05, 2024, 09:47:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: Matthew on March 05, 2024, 09:14:21 AM
    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.

    You just put the nail in the coffin for NFP. It doesn’t take seven years of moral theology to see that NFP isn’t Catholic. All it takes is being honest with your conscience and reading two lines of Casti Connubii. So by your own logic you contradict Fr. Cekada.

    MODERATOR RESPONSE (thread is locked):
    Subjective judgment that this-or-that is not Traditional and I must disobey -- that's a matter of PRUDENCE which affects only me, and maybe my children. You're talking about one's private judgment or understanding being enough to condemn others like a literal Pope making a pronouncement. You can't bind or compel others because you UNDERSTAND this or that to be true, or you FEEL this goes against Tradition.

    SO, when talking about our fallible perception or knowledge...

    Good enough to exercise the virtue of Prudence, to decide a personal course of action? Yes.
    Good enough to bind others' consciences or condemn others? No.



    Also, let’s not pretend that going through seminary automatically makes you a genius on moral theology. Ladislaus is probably more well studied on questions and controversies in the Faith than 95% of trad priests, so to act like his (correct) position on NFP can be written off because he didn’t get a sticker from his SSPX theology professor is silly. Your argument from authority just doesn’t stand. There could be one lone voice crying out in wilderness that NFP is wrong, against all V2 “theologians”, and he would still be correct. Nobody cares about Fr. Cekada’s “lay pope.” Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end.
    Logged
    Pray for me

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12505
    • Reputation: +8285/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #48 on: March 05, 2024, 09:48:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4105
    • Reputation: +2419/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #49 on: March 05, 2024, 09:49:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Everlast22 on March 05, 2024, 09:29:49 AM
    If Castii Canubi is a magisterial teaching, (which I believe it to be) then NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.

    Now if Castii Canubi is NOT a magisterial teaching, I would still say NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.

    With this very serious issue, I will bank on the option that forces me to cultivate virtue. I truly believe it's as simple as that. I am not smart as you guys with the theology, I'm simply just not, so I will yield to what the Church fathers and natural law taught/teaches.
    .

    There's a third possibility, which is that you misunderstand Casti Connubii.

    And consider this -- if Pope Pius XII contradicted Pope Pius XI on a matter of faith and morals in a public teaching to the whole Church, then the Church has failed.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27672/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #50 on: March 05, 2024, 09:51:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Among the more dogmatic SVs, one of the most commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted notions is that of "internal religious assent", where it's conflated with the assent of faith.

    Again, here's Msgr. Fenton:
    Quote
    Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. 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. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. 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 cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, 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.” 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.

    For most SVs, they conflate the internal assent with the strict philosophical meaning of the term assent.  It's internal because it cannot be mere lip-service, but what it amounts to is giving it every benefit of the doubt, assuming it's correct/true ... unless it be discovered to be erroneous.  It's not an absolute assent in the "strictest philosophical meaning of the term".
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32885
    • Reputation: +29158/-594
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #51 on: March 05, 2024, 09:58:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Crayolcold on March 05, 2024, 09:47:30 AM
    Nobody cares about Fr. Cekada’s “lay pope.” Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end.

    1. I won't be drawn into a debate with you on the subject. I'm simply not interested.

    2. You completely miss the point. My point is that every "lay pope" thinks it's so simple, reduced to one angle, reduced to one aspect or point, that their mind sees as "100% crystal clear" and they proceed to push it on others as if it were dogma. And consequently, their opponents who go against this "dogma" are heretics, bad-willed, evil, etc.

    That is why such debates by uneducated laymen is so problematic. Each side has a single argument they think is a slam-dunk, mic-drop, "case closed" -- but nevertheless, BOTH SIDES can earnestly and honestly argue about it forever, each convinced that he's right.

    For Ladislaus, the "mic drop" argument for Sedevacantism is "A pope can't promulgate a noxious doctrine/Mass". But his opponents are usually focusing on ANOTHER point, which totally DIS-favors sedevacantism.

    If you need guidance on this moral issue, see a Traditional Catholic priest. Don't waste your time with Joe Sixpack arguing on some forum from his armchair.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 890
    • Reputation: +772/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #52 on: March 05, 2024, 10:04:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 09:49:30 AM
    .

    There's a third possibility, which is that you misunderstand Casti Connubii.

    And consider this -- if Pope Pius XII contradicted Pope Pius XI on a matter of faith and morals in a public teaching to the whole Church, then the Church has failed.
    Explain Casti Connubii for me, then. And the hierarchy has definitely failed. At least with this issue.
    Logged

    Offline Univocity

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +40/-32
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #53 on: March 05, 2024, 10:13:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 09:51:13 AM
    Among the more dogmatic SVs, one of the most commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted notions is that of "internal religious assent", where it's conflated with the assent of faith.

    Again, here's Msgr. Fenton:
    For most SVs, they conflate the internal assent with the strict philosophical meaning of the term assent.  It's internal because it cannot be mere lip-service, but what it amounts to is giving it every benefit of the doubt, assuming it's correct/true ... unless it be discovered to be erroneous.  It's not an absolute assent in the "strictest philosophical meaning of the term".
    Msgr Fenton indeed shows what "internal assent" means and shows that teachings subject to such assent can nonetheless prove incorrect.   I don't know of any sedevacantist clergy (laymen can be confused quite often) who would allege that one must give an assent of faith to these things.  Also no one that I know of is saying all teachings in the acta are infallible. The point is that while they can contain factually incorrect statements when not strictly falling within the category of infallible teaching, they nonetheless can never teach something sinful or dangerous.  Is it not your contention that applying Pope Pius XII's teaching on this matter would be sinful?  I leave aside here the point of whether he was addressing the Universal Church when seaking to the midwives.  It's inclusion in the acta, AFAIK, should render it "infallibly safe."
    Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4105
    • Reputation: +2419/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #54 on: March 05, 2024, 10:25:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Everlast22 on March 05, 2024, 10:04:04 AM
    Explain Casti Connubii for me, then. And the hierarchy has definitely failed. At least with this issue.
    .

    Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.

    If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
    Logged

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 890
    • Reputation: +772/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #55 on: March 05, 2024, 10:31:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 10:25:16 AM
    .

    Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.

    If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
    k.
    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #56 on: March 05, 2024, 10:43:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 10:25:16 AM
    .

    Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.

    If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 890
    • Reputation: +772/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #57 on: March 05, 2024, 10:50:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Okay in charity I only responded to him with "k." I hope I'm not the only one (looks like I'm not) who thinks that response was a tad low IQ. 
    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #58 on: March 05, 2024, 10:53:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #59 on: March 05, 2024, 10:55:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Everlast22 on March 05, 2024, 10:50:59 AM
    Okay in charity I only responded to him with "k." I hope I'm not the only one (looks like I'm not) who thinks that response was a tad low IQ.
    Caritas in veritatis. He is excusing grave sin even though faced with clear magisterial teaching against it.

    The greatest charity is to do whatever necessary to convince him to reject this grave error.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
    « previous next »