Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Antipope Paul VI allowed contraception in will and deed

Psalm 126:3-5: "Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb. As arrows in the hand of the mighty, so the children of them that have been shaken. Blessed is the man that hath filled the desire with them; he shall not be confounded when he shall speak to his enemies in the gate."

Antipope Paul VI, much like the heretic antipope Pius XII before him, clearly sets forth principles of true Catholic theology, only to then stomp them under his cloven hoof through his heretical doublespeak.  He explains how contraception is forbidden, and then, under the pretext of condemning it, allows his followers (whom I dare not call Catholics until they abjure!) to practice it in will and in deed.

Antipope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 11: "The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy."  It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile."

Note that he says "for reasons independent of their will.  In other words, they have neither done, nor willed anything to prevent conception.

Antipope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 11 (cont'd): "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

So we should be permitted to reasonably assume that the intrinsic relationship he here speaks of is a COMPLETE relationship, not merely one of physiology, but of the mutual will of the spouses.

Antipope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 12: "This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

So man may neither break the unitive, nor the procreative signifigance of the marital act, neither physically, nor, (dare I say?) in his will.

Antipope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 13: "Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life."

If the marital act is to "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life", and the act itslef requires a movement of the will before it can take place, then (call me crazy) it must require that the entire will be in accord with this intrinsic relationship.

Antipope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 13 (cont'd): "Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will."

I agree.  Those couples who even partially seek to rend the intrinsic relationship between the marital act and procreation are sinning.

Antipope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 16: "If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained."

And there it is, a clear endorsement of "natural" birth control, or NFP (as though there were something natural about constantly taking temperatures, consulting charts and jumping through other such hoops to determine the infertile periods).  It is a clear contradiction of everything he just said.  It is undeniable that any exercise of the marital act, in which the will is opposed to the procreation of children, is an unlawful exercise of the act, because it severs, at least in the will, the intrinsic relationship the act has with procreation.

Tobias 6:22: "(T)ake the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children."

If a couple's intention is to avoid having children while engaging in the marital act specifically designed to generate children, then it really doesn't matter what method they use; they have already committed the sin, at least in their will.

A comment was made by another author comparing NFP to a farmer who plants his corn in the dead of winter so as to avoid a plentiful harvest.  This is hardly different than spilling one's seed on the ground for fear of conceiveing a child.  And behold! no unnatural devices are used in the method of Onan.  All he does is move a little to one side... and his will was fixed on the same purpose behind the use of "Natural Family Planning".

Genesis 38:9-10: "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... And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing."

St. Augustine, On the Morals of the Manichæans, Chapter 18: "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion."

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Bad Water; Doubtful Baptisms!

It is possible that many people who believe themselves to have been validly baptized may not be so at all.  Let's take a look at two things that ought to immediately make most people baptized in the last several decades (if not longer) seriously question the validity of their baptisms.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, ex cathedra: "Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water..."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on Baptism, Canon 2, ex cathedra: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Where you baptized with tap water?  Are you confident enough to call it "true and natural", despite its potential (and even likely) corruption?  Is corrupt water, true and natural water?

This is just a thought.  Since the pope, when speaking ex cathedra is infallible, we better be CERTAIN that the water we were baptized with was true and natural.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism: "Now since we said above, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes each of these in Baptism. The matter, then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river water, water from a pond, well or fountain."

And here is an excerpt from Goffine's Instructions on Baptism to emphasize the point:

So unless you are certain that your Baptism was performed with true and natural water, it is prudent to regard your Baptism as doubtful, and as soon as you are able, obtain conditional Baptism, in true and natural (i.e. river/lake, well or rain) water using the same form as Baptism, except beginning with the words "If thou art not baptized," or "If thou art able to be baptized,".

And obviously, nobody ought to be baptized who does not first hold the Faith of Jesus Christ, professed by the Catholic Church under popes St. Peter to Pius IX (the last Catholic Pope), outside which their is no salvation.  Nobody professing allegiance to heretic antipopes like Leo XIIIPius XII or Benedict XVI (and all those in between, and their false religion) should be baptized while in such a state, as they would immediately be schismatic and outside the Church after their valid baptism.

Saint Augustine, Address to the People of the Church at Caesarea: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost [not a supernatural, saving faith], and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." 

Additionally, any man or woman who believes the Catholic Faith rightly (read this page if you think you already are Catholic), and who is considering matrimony ought to be conditionally baptized by someone other than his potential spouse, as Baptism creates a spiritual affinity under which it is not longer lawful for the one baptized to marry the one he or she has been baptized by.

Finally, any infant in imminent danger of death prior to the age of reason (generally about seven years old) MUST be baptized, even if it is being raised by Jews or heretics.  Why?  Because despite the possible, even likely, danger of the child being raised perverted and going into the fires of hell forever if it should survive the threat to its life (and this is only a possibility, though a grave one, which is why healthy infants are never to be secretly baptized if they are in the custody of non-Catholics), whereas if the child dies unbaptized, it is a CERTAINTY that it will go to into the hell forever.