Luke - I just quoted you because you had a nice quote I liked for responding to ladislaus, who replied to my comment that when one looks up marriage in the index of denzinger, there is no mention of two ends of marriage.  It is only one end of marriage.  And, when indexing basically what is referred to as the end of marriage without using the word end, the two sources cited for it did not mention a secondary end.  It was simply the primary end.  I find this interesting, because ever since a secondary end was introduced, not less than 40 years went by before the church decided the secondary end is actually the primary end.  And all bets are off.  I mentioned that this is worth noting, that there was only one end of marriage not too long ago(better days), and ladislaus presumed that means I all out reject the secondary, and am ready to burn it and the pope who first taught up in flames.  

Unless one has a reason for why knowledge of rythm is not good for the church or mankind, it will not go away.  I am simply throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks.  I think much of it sticks.  Perhaps it is a case of a little here and a little there.  I simply care about the end result.  And, the end result is doing away with knowledge of rythm.  And, certainly doing away with church approval of it for the gratifying of the flesh.  

Luke - I just quoted you because you had a nice quote I liked for responding to ladislaus, who replied to my comment that when one looks up marriage in the index of denzinger, there is no mention of two ends of marriage.  It is only one end of marriage.  And, when indexing basically what is referred to as the end of marriage without using the word end, the two sources cited for it did not mention a secondary end.  It was simply the primary end.  I find this interesting, because ever since a secondary end was introduced, not less than 40 years went by before the church decided the secondary end is actually the primary end.  And all bets are off.  I mentioned that this is worth noting, that there was only one end of marriage not too long ago(better days), and ladislaus presumed that means I all out reject the secondary, and am ready to burn it and the pope who first taught up in flames.  

Unless one has a reason for why knowledge of rythm is not good for the church or mankind, it will not go away.  I am simply throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks.  I think much of it sticks.  Perhaps it is a case of a little here and a little there.  I simply care about the end result.  And, the end result is doing away with knowledge of rythm.  And, certainly doing away with church approval of it for the gratifying of the flesh.  

Honestly, I don't think that it was a case of the secondary end being introduced out of no way, I think errors were cropping up again just like in the time of Tobias, perverting the one end of the marriage act, whereby Pope Pius XI had to further define the one end.  The primary and the secondary are one and the same.  This error is not new.  

Ecclesiastes 1:10 Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.

The true Catholic church does not approve of NFP.

The true Catholic church does not approve of NFP.

And the teaching of Pius XI regarding the secondary ends actually leads to a rejection of NFP.  That's the CHIEF theological reason for rejecting NFP.