CMRI Questions and Discussion

[Sure]

What about the trial of Pope Formosus in “Synod of the Corpse” of 897?
It is not a matter of adjusting beliefs but of what is logical. Since in medicine you can conceive in the ‘assumed infertile times’, therefore by NFP it is a mode of contraception.
Again, there have been errs taught by a valid Pope:
***Pope John XXII held the false view ***that the just of the Old Testament don’t receive the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment (en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Pope_John_XXII).
Pope Honorius I, encouraged the heresy of monotheletism, for for which he was later condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm).

I apologize, but maybe I am not reading Casti Connubii correctly but does not this mean there are no grave reasons?:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Also see post #58:
Medically there are no infertile times since one can still conceive during the ‘assumed infertile times’. Hence even though conception may be lower during these times, it is not 100% confident that you will not conceive. Therefore these assumed infertile times are in fact not infertile, and so you can only deduce that the act of NFP is contraception. This is a known fact, and thus frustrates the natural power and purpose of the marriage act.

Lastly, it is of no consequence since, it is fact, that most modern Catholics are explicitly using NFP so to not have children (i.e. as contraception), irrespective of what you or I discuss it to be.

So is NFP subordinate to the ‘primary end’ of marriage and the marriage act or to secondary ends?

Your reading of Casti Cannubii is completely flawed. It is not intrinsically evil precisely because it is not contraception. It is choosing a “time” when conception is unlikely but not impossible. It doesn’t frustrate anything because there is NO moral obligation to perform the marital act at a precise time.

NFP is completely subordinate to the primary end of marriage and the secondary end of marriage.

Your allegation that most Catholics use NFP as contraception is ludicrous. Why then do Catholics who use NFP usually have families of 6, 8, 10, 12 kids or more???

Ask yourself, why are there zero reputable moral theologians who agree with your assessment?

The Church doesn’t err on Faith and Morals. Get over it. There is nothing more to discuss here.

 

[MMLJ]

Your reading of Casti Cannubii is completely flawed. It is not intrinsically evil precisely because it is not contraception. It is choosing a “time” when conception is unlikely but not impossible. It doesn’t frustrate anything because there is NO moral obligation to perform the marital act at a precise time.

NFP is completely subordinate to the primary end of marriage and the secondary end of marriage.(what is the Primary end of marriage?)

Your allegation that most Catholics use NFP as contraception is ludicrous. Why then do Catholics who use NFP usually have families of 6, 8, 10, 12 kids or more???(if this is so true, then why use NFP? and BTW, many of my friends and relatives (Catholic) use NFP as contraception among other methods)

Ask yourself, why are there zero reputable moral theologians who agree with your assessment? (irrelevant, since they are not medically inclined and do not submit to the FACT that one can conceive during the ‘assumed infertile periods’)

The Church doesn’t err on Faith and Morals. Get over it. There is nothing more to discuss here.

I do apologize if I have angered you in some way, but I do not think you have understood my meaning. You may be correct that theologians do not agree with what I have written, but theologians are not physicians.

Answer me this trivial question:
Can women conceive during your ‘assumed infertile periods’?

I am not saying that my understanding of Casti Connubii is perfect but I think that NFP is not what Christ would want.

Anything against conception is ‘contraception’. NFP is not for conception is it? If it is show this thread how it is.

If families are using NFP and still having large families, then of course this negates the use of NFP.

Get over it?
I am justing posting what was in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
Popes have erred in the past according to the Catholic Encyclopedia so why are you being abrupt with me?

Since you have said, “there is nothing more to discuss” you are advised to avoid my posts, and please let another member address them. I thank you for your kindness.

May God Bless you.

 

[Sure]

I do apologize if I have angered you in some way, but I do not think you have understood my meaning. You may be correct that theologians do not agree with what I have written, but theologians are not physicians.

Answer me this trivial question:
Can women conceive during your ‘assumed infertile periods’?

I am not saying that my understanding of Casti Connubii is perfect but I think that NFP is not what Christ would want.

If families are using NFP and still having large families, then of course this negates the use of NFP.

Get over it?
I am justing posting what was in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
Popes have erred in the past according to the Catholic Encyclopedia so why are you being abrupt with me?

Since you have said, “there is nothing more to discuss” you are advised to avoid my posts, and please let another member address them. I thank you for your kindness.

May God Bless you.

I am not angry and I apologize if my post appeared that way.

Yes. Women can conceive during apparently “infertile” times. NFP is not an exact science. If God wants you to conceive, you will.

I think perhaps you misunderstand NFP and its proper use. NFP is not approved contraception. NFP is not the norm. It is the exception to the norm. The norm as you will agree is married couples enjoying the marital embrace whenever so inclined and welcoming children. Sadly, in our fallen world there are times when circumstances of health, finances, etc. can be a good reason for a couple to avoid the marital embrace at the most fertile times. The most prevelant use of NFP is actually to do what Nature herself sometimes fails to do and that is spacing between children. God did not design women to bear children every 12 months. His design in Nature was for women to have a child and then remain naturally infertile (through breastfeeding) for 12-24 months. This resulted in children spaced 2-3 years apart. Some women don’t have this natural infertility and so use NFP to space the children in a more natural way.

I hope this helps…thanks

 

[MMLJ]

His design in Nature was for women to have a child and then remain naturally infertile (through breastfeeding) for 12-24 months. This resulted in children spaced 2-3 years apart. Some women don’t have this natural infertility and so use NFP to space the children in a more natural way.

I hope this helps…thanks

Again you are incorrect, breastfeeding does not inhibit contraception 100%. It may reduce the frequency but it does not, and this is fact, provide 100% efficacy. That is why in individuals in hospitals are advised against it as a means of ‘contraception’ by physicians. BTW, physicians call it a poor method of “contraception”. Theologians must consult physicians in order to fully understand these very important medically proven facts:

Individuals can and do conceive during the ‘assumed infertile periods’ and during the breast feeding of a new born.
You are most welcome to verify this with any physician or online via medical websites (especially ObGyn sites)

 

[Sure]

Again you are incorrect, breastfeeding does not inhibit contraception 100%. It may reduce the frequency but it does not, and this is fact, provide 100% efficacy. That is why in individuals in hospitals are advised against it as a means of ‘contraception’ by physicians. BTW, physicians call it a poor method of “contraception”. Theologians must consult physicians in order to fully understand these very important medically proven facts:

Individuals can and do conceive during the ‘assumed infertile periods’ and during the breast feeding of a new born.
You are most welcome to verify this with any physician or online via medical websites (especially ObGyn sites)

I am not incorrect, because I never claimed it worked the same way in all women. Of course, women can get pregnant while breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding does not always cause extended amounts of infertility in women, but it most commonly does. MOST women who breastfeed exclusively have an average of 11 months without ovulation. Since they don’t ovulate, they cannot get pregnant. Some women are immediately fertile 8 weeks after giving brith even though they breastfeed and some women can go 2 or 3 years without ovulating from even minimal breastfeeding. The average however is 11 months.

 

[MMLJ]

edited:

Again you are incorrect, breastfeeding does not inhibit conception 100%. It may reduce the frequency but it does not, and this is fact, provide 100% efficacy. That is why in individuals in hospitals are advised against it as a means of ‘contraception’ by physicians. BTW, physicians call it a poor method of “contraception”. Theologians must consult physicians in order to fully understand these very important medically proven facts:

Individuals can and do conceive during the ‘assumed infertile periods’ and during the breast feeding of a new born.
You are most welcome to verify this with any physician or online via medical websites (especially ObGyn sites)

 

[MMLJ]

**Where in the encyclical Casti Connubii does Pope Pius
mention any kind of specific birth control? **

The focus is on the intentions of the married couple on having children, primary end. Pope Pius XI ends the encyclical by stating the example of Onan as an evil use of man’s free will.

Genesis 38:8-10
8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

St. Jerome’s exegesis is, "Onan who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

 

[Sure]

**Where in the encyclical Casti Connubii does Pope Pius
mention any kind of specific birth control? **

The focus is on the intentions of the married couple on having children, primary end. Pope Pius XI ends the encyclical by stating the example of Onan as an evil use of man’s free will.

Genesis 38:8-10
8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

St. Jerome’s exegesis is, "Onan who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

I don’t have it here. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I haven’t seen you respond yet to the fact that, IF NFP is immoral as yous seem to allege then that means there is no Church and no Pope, because it means that for over the last 130 years or so the Church has been teaching error on a moral issue.

 

[MMLJ]

Thread Redirection

NFP is being dealt with on another thread so let us go on to another issue.

CMRI have connections to the Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc.

Discuss:

For example the Thuc line priests, Archbishop Thuc, etc., and how they pertain to the CMRI before and at present. Since some of us may not know much or anything w.r.t. the Thuc-line priests.

 

[bobzills]

I don’t have it here. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I haven’t seen you respond yet to the fact that, IF NFP is immoral as yous seem to allege then that means there is no Church and no Pope, because it means that for over the last 130 years or so the Church has been teaching error on a moral issue.

Did the Church teach an error on the moral issue of torture? It looks like the teaching of the Church is at least contradictory on this issue, since at one time it said that torture was allowed, under certain cicumstances, while at a later time it said that torture was not allowed?

 

[MMLJ]

Thread Redirection

NFP is being dealt with on another thread so let us go on to another issue.

I would like to know more about CMRI connections to the Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc.

Discuss:

For example the Thuc line priests, Archbishop Thuc, validity and licitness of the sacraments (some may have already been discussed), the founder of CMRI Francis Schuckardt (his rise and fall),etc.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Sure]

Did the Church teach an error on the moral issue of torture? It looks like the teaching of the Church is at least contradictory on this issue, since at one time it said that torture was allowed, under certain cicumstances, while at a later time it said that torture was not allowed?

No, it didn’t teach an error…and start a new thread you’re way off topic.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Thread Redirection

NFP is being dealt with on another thread so let us go on to another issue.

I would like to know more about CMRI connections to the Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc.

Discuss:

For example the Thuc line priests, Archbishop Thuc, validity and licitness of the sacraments (some may have already been discussed), the founder of CMRI Francis Schuckardt (his rise and fall),etc.

Thank you and God Bless

From their website:

This Congregation began in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in 1967, as an association of lay Brothers and Sisters devoted to spreading the message of Our Lady of Fatima. Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc The Congregation held its first General Chapter in July, 1986, at Mount St. Michael in Spokane, Washington. During this meeting, CMRI established its Rule and Constitutions. In the same year, the Rule was approved by Bishop Robert McKenna, O.P., whose episcopal lineage can be traced back to Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc. (Archbishop Thuc received extraordinary patriarchal powers from Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. By means of these faculties, he could legitimately consecrate bishops without the usual mandate from Rome. These faculties were renewed on December 8, 1939, by Pope Pius XII and were never rescinded.)
(cmri.org/history.htm)

 

[bobzills]

(Archbishop Thuc received extraordinary patriarchal powers from Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. By means of these faculties, he could legitimately consecrate bishops without the usual mandate from Rome. These faculties were renewed on December 8, 1939, by Pope Pius XII and were never rescinded.)
(cmri.org/history.htm)

Are there any other bishops who received these extraordinary patriarchal powers ? I read somewhere that Archbishop Thuc was suspended for the consecrations at Palmar de Troya? Why would he have been suspended if he had these patriarchal powers?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Are there any other bishops who received these extraordinary patriarchal powers ? I read somewhere that Archbishop Thuc was suspended for the consecrations at Palmar de Troya? Why would he have been suspended if he had these patriarchal powers?

I just posted info from the CMRI website.

Here is something from the SSPX:

4.4. The Case of Bishop Thuc: No matter how divided is the Sedevacantist world, it is a matter of fact that it survives sacramentally thanks to the episcopal consecrations performed by Bishop Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc (1897-1984). Bishop Thuc was the former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Hué, Vietnam. At the time of the fall of Vietnam to Communism in 1975, he had to flee out of the country, and was more-or-less abandoned by Roman authorities. In 1976, he consecrated Bishop Clemente Dominguez y Gomez, the founder of the sect of Palmar de Troya, Spain. Bishop Thuc was then excommunicated** by the Vatican for such consecration, but was ‘reconciled’ by Paul VI in the course of the same year. In 1977, the following year, he consecrated Bishop Laborie, the founder of the sect called Eglise Latine de Toulouse. Then, in 1981-1982, he consecrated Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and 3 other bishops in different ceremonies held in secret in his private apartment, in Toulon, France. In 1982, he made a statement, called the Munich Declaration, by which he declared Vacancy of the See of Peter, in other words that John-Paul II lost his office. Last but not least, Bishop Thuc was finally ‘reconciled’ by the Vatican shortly before his death, in 1984. So, from 1976 till his death, Bishop Thuc had been oscillating between Sedevacantism and reconciliation with the Vatican. This fact is enough to question the seriousness of the Munich Declaration. I think that he was a good man much abused by many on account of his own readiness to consecrate bishops, but could not have been the one whom God chose as the instrument of His Providence, although his work has shown itself altogether ‘providential’ for the Sedevacantists!23 We should not forget that **the present day Sedevacantist bishops, and then the priests they ordained are all coming from the lineage of Bishop Thuc.(sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm)
**
Hope this helps.

 

[bobzills]

I just posted info from the CMRI website.

Here is something from the SSPX:

4.4. The Case of Bishop Thuc: No matter how divided is the Sedevacantist world, it is a matter of fact that it survives sacramentally thanks to the episcopal consecrations performed by Bishop Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc (1897-1984). Bishop Thuc was the former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Hué, Vietnam. At the time of the fall of Vietnam to Communism in 1975, he had to flee out of the country, and was more-or-less abandoned by Roman authorities. In 1976, he consecrated Bishop Clemente Dominguez y Gomez, the founder of the sect of Palmar de Troya, Spain. Bishop Thuc was then excommunicated** by the Vatican for such consecration, but was ‘reconciled’ by Paul VI in the course of the same year. In 1977, the following year, he consecrated Bishop Laborie, the founder of the sect called Eglise Latine de Toulouse. Then, in 1981-1982, he consecrated Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and 3 other bishops in different ceremonies held in secret in his private apartment, in Toulon, France. In 1982, he made a statement, called the Munich Declaration, by which he declared Vacancy of the See of Peter, in other words that John-Paul II lost his office. Last but not least, Bishop Thuc was finally ‘reconciled’ by the Vatican shortly before his death, in 1984. So, from 1976 till his death, Bishop Thuc had been oscillating between Sedevacantism and reconciliation with the Vatican. This fact is enough to question the seriousness of the Munich Declaration. I think that he was a good man much abused by many on account of his own readiness to consecrate bishops, but could not have been the one whom God chose as the instrument of His Providence, although his work has shown itself altogether ‘providential’ for the Sedevacantists!23 We should not forget that the present day Sedevacantist bishops, and then the priests they ordained are all coming from the lineage of Bishop Thuc.(sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm)

Hope this helps.

It doesn’t help, because it contradicts what was said before. Which is it:
1.“Archbishop Thuc received extraordinary patriarchal powers from Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. By means of these faculties, he could legitimately consecrate bishops without the usual mandate from Rome. These faculties were renewed on December 8, 1939, by Pope Pius XII and were never rescinded”
OR
2. His patrairchal powers were rescinded and he was excommunicated for attempting to use them.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It doesn’t help, because it contradicts what was said before. Which is it:
1.“Archbishop Thuc received extraordinary patriarchal powers from Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. By means of these faculties, he could legitimately consecrate bishops without the usual mandate from Rome. These faculties were renewed on December 8, 1939, by Pope Pius XII and were never rescinded”
OR
2. His patrairchal powers were rescinded and he was excommunicated for attempting to use them.

Sorry if I was not clear. I was posting two different views of the Thuc line. It is of evident Thuc was a sedevacantist and consecrated bishops without a mandate from Rome.
Regarding these extraordinary powers I was unable to determine if any other similar event occurred or whether this was fact or spin.
And of course the SSPX and CMRI will contradict each other at some point otherwise they would be no differences between them. SSPX is not sedevacantist while the CMRI are (colossal difference!). If I am not mistaken the CMRI splintered off from the SSPX (but you can correct me if I am wrong)

 

[SemperFidelis]

If I am not mistaken the CMRI splintered off from the SSPX (but you can correct me if I am wrong)

It was the SSPV who splintered off from the SSPX in 1983, due to the fact that they didn’t want to use the 1962 Missal, which Archbishop Lefebvre mandated. The CMRI came into being in 1967 immediately following the Second Vatican Council. The SSPX wasn’t founded until 1970, after the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It was the SSPV who splintered off from the SSPX in 1983, due to the fact that they didn’t want to use the 1962 Missal, which Archbishop Lefebvre mandated. The CMRI came into being in 1967 immediately following the Second Vatican Council. The SSPX wasn’t founded until 1970, after the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI.

Thanks for the correction. Yes you are of course correct.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Thanks for the correction. Yes you are of course correct.

No problem and God Bless!