Lad, I get your argument.  I anticipated everything you're saying several pages ago and gave an argument which I believe is supported by the relevant material.  I'd like to know what your rebuttal is to my objection.  Here it is again: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779

You did nothing of the sort.  At this point in the argument, you need to explain how the subordination of ends refers to the intrinsic end when there's only one intrinsic end.

I countered your position with this argument, and instead of addressing it, you simply refer back to your original argument.

.
The reason it is important for you to respond is that I deny your premise (i.e., that CC conditions the lawfulness of relations on the two principles you've laid out).  I deny it based on what the encyclical says both in Latin and English, as well as the explanations of the docuмent from the man who drafted it.  Moving forward when you've not sufficiently defended the premise would be a mistake.
.
If you want to continue arguing that two principles exist then you need to prove it.  Quote CC where it agrees with you, or quote something else.  Give me some reason to accept the premise besides your say-so.