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.