Author Topic: Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (Read 1802 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** October 09, 2015, 08:46:15 AM »

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2015, 09:24:50 AM »

I am learning new things every day. I did not know that there was a difference in the teaching re: the primary end of marriage post-Vatican II. After going back and re-reading the JPII catechism and the 1983 Code of Canon law and comparing them with the 1917 Code of Canon Law the change is very clear.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:06:31 AM »

Pius XII started to erode the primary end of marriage in his Allocution to Midwives.

Pius XI had taught in Casti Conubii that the primary end cannot be subordinated to the secondary. Pius XII ignored that previous teaching in the Allocution.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:51:13 AM »

I haven't had time to read the whole article yet but it appears to be a reasonable refutation of the idea that Pope Pius XII eroded the primary end of marriage.

http://christorchaos.com/Forty-ThreeYearsAfterHumanaeVitae.html

Also, read the allocution: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM. In it he clearly states that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and upbringing of children.

Quote

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it.

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2015, 01:30:50 PM »

The root behind the current attack on marriage is the post-conciliar novelty demoting procreation as marriage’s primary end which began with Pope Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives. Divorce, the anticonceptive mentality, and most fundamentally, the erosion of the patriarchal hierarchy of the family are all key factors which contribute to its demolition.

"In 1944 the Holy See released a docuмent where it condemned the claimed that mutual help and love has the same importance as the procreation of new life within marriage; saying, moreover, that such a proposed equalization goes contrary to the Church’s teaching". However, it all officially changed with the novelty notions on family emerging during Vatican II Council.

Quote

“The Declaration of the Holy See ends with the following question addressed to the Cardinals of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office: ‘Can one admit the doctrine of modern writers who deny that the procreation and education of children are the primary end of marriage, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinate to the primary end, but rather are of equal value and are independent of it?’ They replied: ‘No, this doctrine cannot be admitted.'”

However, the pastoral Second Vatican Council quietly reversed (or implicitly rescinded) this condemnation advocating that mutual love and respect of the spouses is now the primary end of marriage, while procreation is subordinate and comes second.

https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/at-root-behind-the-attack-on-marriage-is-a-post-conciliar-novelty-demoting-procreation-as-marriages-primary-end/

Is that type of aberrant logic which sodomites use in order to advance their agenda for "marriage" equality. After all, if now children are not the primary end of marriage but it is mere "love", then why can't they marry as well?. That is the sick result of false charity of course, since in such case, it is not love, but disordered and sinful lust.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:17:29 PM »

Cantarella, there is no mention of Pius XII in the article you linked. You have accused Pope Pius XII of a great sin, yet you haven't proven your accusation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:52:51 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I haven't had time to read the whole article yet but it appears to be a reasonable refutation of the idea that Pope Pius XII eroded the primary end of marriage.

Yes, Pius XII understood the teaching of the Church about what are the primary vs. secondary ends of marriage. But when he started in on NFP, he based his tentative support for NFP on the notion that the "inherent power" of the act was not frustrated (as in birth control or onanism, etc.). What Pius XII failed to consider, however, was that Pius XI in CC enunciated TWO principles which made the marital act licit, one of which was that the "inherent power" of the act was not frustrated, but the other that the primary ends can never be subordinated to the secondary. Pius XII directly quoted the first principle but failed to mention the second. NFP contradicts the second principle because the couple are attempting to partake in the secondary ends while deliberately trying to prevent the primary ends. NFP erodes the principle regarding the primary and secondary ends of marriage. And that's where the floodgates were opened regarding the primary and secondary ends of marriage.

Lest you partake in Pius XII worship, it was also Pius XII who set up Bugnini in his initial liturgical experimentation. Pius XII allowed various "Mass of the Future" types of experiments. Pius XII also opened the door on evolution. Pius XII allowed the first ecuмenical meetings. Pius XII put into place a vast majority of the bishops who would bring us Vatican II. His was the watershed papacy that transitioned into V2.

Yes, I know, this is a great scandal to many SVs, those who cling to an exaggerated notion of papal infallibility.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:55:02 PM »

Quote from: Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives

The conjugal act

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical <Casti Connubii>, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.

This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.

Let Our words be a sure rule for all those cases which require of your profession and your apostolate a clear and firm decision.

No mention of CC's reference to the primary and secondary ends of marriage.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:58:18 PM »

Quote from: Pius XI, Casti Conufii

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

1) secondary ends must be subordinated to the primary

AND

2) the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved

Pius XII mentions #2 but ignores #1. Pius XI taught that BOTH must be present.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 09, 2015, 03:14:32 PM »

Quote from: Pius XII, Allocution

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

Notice this watered down language. These secondary ends are not "EQUALLY" primary, "much less superior"? But "essentially" subordinated?

At the very least an extremely weak and poor choice of words. What does it mean to be not equally primary? Are these now just less primary? Are these simply "not superior"? They are "essentially" subordinated. Only "inasmuch as intended by nature"? I've never seen so many qualifiers used instead of simply stating that these are "secondary" as Pius XI did.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #10 on:** October 09, 2015, 04:32:52 PM »

You have to be careful to distinguish between a poor word choice that was not intended to convey a non-Catholic meaning and the deliberate choice of ambiguous words which were clearly intended to open the door to non-Catholic interpretations. At worst, Pope Pius XII is guilty of the former, whereas Paul VI was guilty of the latter.

It isn't too difficult to understand the correct meaning of Pius XII's allocution. The primary end is the procreation and upbringing of children. All the other ends are subordinated to that. There really isn't any way to interpret it in a non-Catholic way. It might not be the best word choice and I don't know if that has something to do with the translation or not. But the meaning is still clear. Compare that with V2 where the meaning was not clear and then afterwards we heard from the men who created the docuмents that the ambiguity was intentional and that it was meant to be exploited after the council to lead the Church into accepting non-Catholic doctrine.

Cantarella · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2015, 06:44:44 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Cantarella, there is no mention of Pius XII in the article you linked. You have accused Pope Pius XII of a great sin, yet you haven't proven your accusation.

No need for harshness. In the original book written by Don Pietro Leone, Pope Pius XII is indeed mentioned:

Quote

After presenting Pope Pius XII’s strict words about the resort to, and more frequent use of natural forms of birth control, which are sinful if not practiced for grave reasons, Don Pietro Leone shows how Pope Paul VI, in his own encyclical (Humanae Vitae), has omitted any encouragement of large families, while more than once emphasizing “responsible parenthood,” which was, and still is, understood in the ambiguous context of the quasi-Malthusian empirical arguments about an alleged overpopulation:

“Turning now to Humanae Vitae, we remark that it makes no appeal to generosity or fruitfulness (apart from one comment that ‘marital love is fecund’), but rather to ‘responsible parenthood.’ Mr. Galvin points out that this phrase is used seven times in the encyclical, and occurs in the title of the Majority Report produced by the Papal Commission prior to the encyclical, which in fact favors artificial contraception. This appeal to responsible parenthood is made in the context of ‘the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples’ with particular reference to population growth. … We remark that Humanae Vitae advocates a wide use of natural birth control. We have seen in the summary above how it also praises the practice in glowing terms.”

http://catholicism.org/don-pietro-leones-book-the-family-under-attack-a-much-needed-guide-for-the-synod-of-bishops-on-marriage-and-the-family.html

Nobody is accusing Pope Pius XII of "grave sin", God forbid; but as Ladislaus has explained many times, and you yourself said later on here:

Quote from: Clemens Maria

You have to be careful to distinguish between a poor word choice that was not intended to convey a non-Catholic meaning and the deliberate choice of ambiguous words which were clearly intended to open the door to non-Catholic interpretations. At worst, Pope Pius XII is guilty of the former, whereas Paul VI was guilty of the latter.

Allocution for Midwives (even if there was an unfortunate liberal misinterpretation of the text and a poor choice in words) did open the doors for the later abuses of Natural Birth Control Planning, dislocating the primary end of marriage.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Lest you partake in Pius XII worship, it was also Pius XII who set up Bugnini in his initial liturgical experimentation. Pius XII allowed various "Mass of the Future" types of experiments. Pius XII also opened the door on evolution. Pius XII allowed the first ecuмenical meetings. Pius XII put into place a vast majority of the bishops who would bring us Vatican II. His was the watershed papacy that transitioned into V2.

Yes, I know, this is a great scandal to many SVs, those who cling to an exaggerated notion of papal infallibility.

This is most likely the reason why Clemens Maria found fault in my post.