Author Topic: The Council of Trent NFP (Read 2739 times)

Jehanne · « **on:** November 17, 2013, 07:11:43 PM »

Quote

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

Jehanne · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2013, 08:29:45 PM »

You're claiming that not only one Pope, but a century of Popes erred in permitting married couples to abstain at certain times. If "People are not forced to have marital relations in marriage" as you say, then it stands to reason that they are free to choose when, if at all, to have relations or when not to have relations. Such a choice cannot be imposed upon them; it's their choice.

Jehanne · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2013, 09:00:09 PM »

Quote from: AllMonks

This teaching is the deathblow to NFP, as NFP itself is the subordination of the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children) to other things (lust). So, in summary, the passage above does not teach NFP, but merely enunciates the principle that married couples may use their conjugal rights at any time.

http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html

Quote

Well before Vatican II, moral theologians consistently reiterated the teaching of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XII on the morality of rhythm. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can claim that the pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, and moral theologians have been in error on this issue for some 150 years and that laity have now figured it out.

Jehanne · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2013, 06:18:09 AM »

You forgot to address this:

Quote

"Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period

"Qu. Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.

"Resp. Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880."9

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2013, 03:32:36 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

You forgot to address this:

Quote
"Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period

"Qu. Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.

"Resp. Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880."9

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

Jehanne, where would you be today if your parents practiced "rhythm method" instead of allowing God to decide whether to create you or not?

Would you have left it to your parents to choose to take away your chance of praising the Triune God face to face for all eternity because you were not part of their plan at the time, or would you rather have the chance you now enjoy regardless of what they wanted at the time?

You say it was a teaching of popes for 150 years - some say the Fathers all taught an NFP - if that is so then what did the Fathers teach about all the innumerable Fathers, Popes, Theologians, and saints which are missing and never even existed because their parents successfully practiced the rhythm method knowing that it would or in order to thwart conception?

Do you ever even consider the ramifications of your belief? Do you believe that God is pleased about parents who purposely strive to negate the possibility of His creating of more souls to praise Him in eternity?

Jehanne · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:15:07 PM »

My parents were not Christian. My mother had my sister and I when she was, respectively, 17 and 18 years of age. No other kids after that, although, I am convinced that she had at least one abortion at some time during the 1970s, after Roe v. Wade became "the law". I was born in 1967.

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:36:50 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

My parents were not Christian. My mother had my sister and I when she was, respectively, 17 and 18 years of age. No other kids after that, although, I am convinced that she had at least one abortion at some time during the 1970s, after Roe v. Wade became "the law". I was born in 1967.

The point is that God is the creator of life and He with a singular and a specific purpose. Namely, to fill heaven with as many souls as will accept and die in His graces.

It is not something we, by virtue of our free will, are permitted to deny Him by trying to procreate for the fun of it then expect Him to not really care one way or the other - - or worse yet, to believe the Church teaches and allows (read: encourages) it.

Certainly NFP proponents will agree that if in fact NFP actually is a teaching of Holy Mother the Church, then they should be able to produce the teachings about those who never made it to creation because of NFP.
What was / is the fate of those who never made it to creation thanks to the parent's choice over the providence of God?

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2013, 05:44:09 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

From Trent's Catechism you will find what the Council was talking about in Canon VIII has absolutely nothing to do with NFP.

The Use Of Marriage

Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of. others. The words of the Lord are chaste words; and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterised by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.

The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not, and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.

But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.

Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not, of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2013, 06:26:19 AM »

Quote from: AllMonks

And you never answered question nr. 1. Why?

Because I do not wish to see this thread get derailed. Yes, all the Fathers, unanimously, taught at least Baptism of Blood. I agree with that; always have. Even you agree that long-term abstinence between husband and wife is moral. What you find problematic is periodic abstinence, where you equate lust with the "quieting of concupiscence." What you fail to realize is that lust is a state which is largely ongoing, whereas, concupiscence is a state which is episodic. You claim, at least implicitly, that the Sacred Penitentiary erred, or at least was "not infallible," and yet, you have no problem appealing to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia on giving an authentic reading to the Canon of Trent which I cited in my OP, and yet, you think that all of the moral theologians erred in their interpretation of what Pope Pius XI taught and that he even erred, at least implicitly, in not correcting such a widespread misinterpretation of his own teaching in all of the approved theological manuals. And yet, you cannot point to a single theologian, bishop, or even, a single priest or layperson, who, having lived during the lifetime of Pius XI, dissented from his teaching. So, we are to believe you over them, and with it, believe that Pope Pius XII taught formal error from the Chair, that, for "grave reasons," periodic abstinence may somethings be used by couples in a state of matrimony?! You agree that periodic abstinence may be used morally for some reasons (prayer, fasting, reception of the Holy Eucharist), but never, apparently, to quiet concupiscence, or even to spare the life of the mother from the certain death which would result from an additional pregnancy. I must admit that you make some very strong arguments, however, no one else who lived during the lifetime of Pope Pius XI's seemed to make the same arguments which you are making, Pius XI included.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:08:55 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: AllMonks
And you never answered question nr. 1. Why?

Because I do not wish to see this thread get derailed. Yes, all the Fathers, unanimously, taught at least Baptism of Blood. I agree with that; always have. Even you agree that long-term abstinence between husband and wife is moral. What you find problematic is periodic abstinence, where you equate lust with the "quieting of concupiscence." What you fail to realize is that lust is a state which is largely ongoing, whereas, concupiscence is a state which is episodic. You claim, at least implicitly, that the Sacred Penitentiary erred, or at least was "not infallible," and yet, you have no problem appealing to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia on giving an authentic reading to the Canon of Trent which I cited in my OP, and yet, you think that all of the moral theologians erred in their interpretation of what Pope Pius XI taught and that he even erred, at least implicitly, in not correcting such a widespread misinterpretation of his own teaching in all of the approved theological manuals. And yet, you cannot point to a single theologian, bishop, or even, a single priest or layperson, who, having lived during the lifetime of Pius XI, dissented from his teaching. So, we are to believe you over them, and with it, believe that Pope Pius XII taught formal error from the Chair, that, for "grave reasons," periodic abstinence may somethings be used by couples in a state of matrimony?! You agree that periodic abstinence may be used morally for some reasons (prayer, fasting, reception of the Holy Eucharist), but never, apparently, to quiet concupiscence, or even to spare the life of the mother from the certain death which would result from an additional pregnancy. I must admit that you make some very strong arguments, however, no one else who lived during the lifetime of Pope Pius XI's seemed to make the same arguments which you are making, Pius XI included.

Jehanne,

I just want to say I admire your debating skills. :applause: It helps when you have the truth on your side doesn't it. :dancing-banana:

May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John

Dolores · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:42:30 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Jehanne
My parents were not Christian. My mother had my sister and I when she was, respectively, 17 and 18 years of age. No other kids after that, although, I am convinced that she had at least one abortion at some time during the 1970s, after Roe v. Wade became "the law". I was born in 1967.

The point is that God is the creator of life and He with a singular and a specific purpose. Namely, to fill heaven with as many souls as will accept and die in His graces.

It is not something we, by virtue of our free will, are permitted to deny Him by trying to procreate for the fun of it then expect Him to not really care one way or the other - - or worse yet, to believe the Church teaches and allows (read: encourages) it.

Certainly NFP proponents will agree that if in fact NFP actually is a teaching of Holy Mother the Church, then they should be able to produce the teachings about those who never made it to creation because of NFP.
What was / is the fate of those who never made it to creation thanks to the parent's choice over the providence of God?

Your argument fails, however, when it is taken to its natural extension: If this is God's true motivation, then humans should have as many children as they physically can. Of course we know Catholics are not obliged, nor have they ever been obliged, to do this.

The Church doesn't obligate married couples to have as many children as they are physically able, or even any children at all. They are just not to artificially frustrate the creation of new life. God's own design in the Natural Law and the Sacrament of Matrimony even seem to cut against you. If it was His "singular and a specific purpose" to have as many souls as possible, why limit each man to one wife? Certainly more souls could be created if a man was allowed several wives. Why limit most women to one child per pregnancy? If humans procreated like dogs, for example, with several pups per pregnancy, there would be innumerable more souls than there are now.

Additionally, the Church teaches that virginity is a higher calling than married life and parenthood. If God's primary motivation was to have as many souls as possible, why would virginity be the higher calling?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2013, 12:52:33 PM »

It's really easy to understand if you read Saint Augustine.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aug-marr.asp

Matthew 13:9
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2013, 03:05:01 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Jehanne
My parents were not Christian. My mother had my sister and I when she was, respectively, 17 and 18 years of age. No other kids after that, although, I am convinced that she had at least one abortion at some time during the 1970s, after Roe v. Wade became "the law". I was born in 1967.

The point is that God is the creator of life and He with a singular and a specific purpose. Namely, to fill heaven with as many souls as will accept and die in His graces.

It is not something we, by virtue of our free will, are permitted to deny Him by trying to procreate for the fun of it then expect Him to not really care one way or the other - - or worse yet, to believe the Church teaches and allows (read: encourages) it.

Certainly NFP proponents will agree that if in fact NFP actually is a teaching of Holy Mother the Church, then they should be able to produce the teachings about those who never made it to creation because of NFP.
What was / is the fate of those who never made it to creation thanks to the parent's choice over the providence of God?

Your argument fails, however, when it is taken to its natural extension: If this is God's true motivation, then humans should have as many children as they physically can. Of course we know Catholics are not obliged, nor have they ever been obliged, to do this.

The Church doesn't obligate married couples to have as many children as they are physically able, or even any children at all. They are just not to artificially frustrate the creation of new life. God's own design in the Natural Law and the Sacrament of Matrimony even seem to cut against you. If it was His "singular and a specific purpose" to have as many souls as possible, why limit each man to one wife? Certainly more souls could be created if a man was allowed several wives. Why limit most women to one child per pregnancy? If humans procreated like dogs, for example, with several pups per pregnancy, there would be innumerable more souls than there are now.

Additionally, the Church teaches that virginity is a higher calling than married life and parenthood. If God's primary motivation was to have as many souls as possible, why would virginity be the higher calling?

Virginity is the higher calling - it also has nothing to do with the rhythm method - or would you say that the act of virginity is done strictly to avoid having children?

What does the Church teach about the end victims of NFP - ie what was / is the fate of those who never made it to creation thanks to the parent's choice to practice NFP over leaving the decision to the providence of God?

soulguard · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2013, 03:22:03 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

You're claiming that not only one Pope, but a century of Popes erred in permitting married couples to abstain at certain times. If "People are not forced to have marital relations in marriage" as you say, then it stands to reason that they are free to choose when, if at all, to have relations or when not to have relations. Such a choice cannot be imposed upon them; it's their choice.

Is it not teaching that the husband must consent to the wife and she to him, if either ask it of them? Unless one of them declares to the other that they take a period of abstinence for piety reasons. Just a random question, not important to me but just for knowledge sake. I stayed off these NFP threads because I am not married, that's probably why others stayed away also.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2013, 04:44:49 PM »

However, it's good to know what you're getting into when you get married, because this is a major abuse, especially in the novus ordo church, but also in some traditionalist circles.

You want to make sure you find a woman that's going to go along with Divine Providence, and not try to make excuses when things become more difficult with successive children in a row, perhaps a difficult pregnancy here or there, and other such temptations. Unless you know for certain your vocation isn't marriage, it's profitable to be educated on this matter.