Free dvds and Books

Objection: Both of the Sacred Penitentiary’s Responses of the years 1853 and 1880 taught that NFP is allowed for married spouses, and so, you have no right to reject the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Answer: The 1853 and 1880 responses are not only unofficial and fallible, but they are also illogical and heretical, and they do not even defend the current practice of NFP, as we will see.

In this section, we will refute a specific argument in favor of NFP promoted by various heretics and heretical sects posing as “traditional Catholics,” priests, and even bishops. Precisely because these people claim to be traditional Catholic and hold the true Faith, it is especially important to refute their arguments. One such heretical individual bent on murdering and deceiving souls is the heretical so-called Bishop Mark. A. Pivarunas of CMRI, a sedevacantist religious so-called community. However, Mark. A. Pivarunas’ “evidence” that defends NFP is neither infallible nor official nor certified as authentic. It is also ambiguous and contradictory.

There was a need in the Church for an organ that contained the official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations because many decrees and responses were fraudulent or doubtful.

Therefore, the Roman Congregations needed an official organ in which to publish their decrees and responses that would guarantee authenticity. Authentic and official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations are found in the Acta Sanctae Sedis (ASS) from 1904 to 1908 and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) from 1909 onward.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Acta Sanctae Sedis: “A Roman monthly publication containing the principal public documents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of ‘Acta Sanctæ Sedis in compendium redacta, etc.’, and was declared, 23 May, 1904, an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all documents printed in it are ‘authentic and official.’… On the Roman Congregations: Editors of periodicals on ecclesiastical subjects have been allowed for several years back to publish in their magazines the acts of the Congregations, and one of these periodicals, Acta Sanctae Sedis, has received the privilege of being declared ‘authentic and official for publishing the acts of the Apostolic See’ (S.C. de Prop. Fid., 23 May, 1904).”

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 9: “The laws issued by the Holy See are promulgated by being published in the official organ of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed.”

A Practical Commentary: “The publication of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis began in January, 1909, and from the very beginning it was declared the official organ of the Holy See. [Footnote: The Constitution ‘Promulgandi’ of Pius X, Sept. 29, 1908; Acta Ap. Sedis, I, 5.]”

Consequently, any so-called Holy Office decree or response that exists outside these organs, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (ASS) from 1904 and the AAS from 1909, is not certified as authentic and is not official. (Hereafter I will simply refer to these documents as unofficial while understanding that they are also not certified as authentic.) Hence, Mark. A. Pivarunas’ argument has no credibility because it rests on responses that are not official and cannot be certified as authentic.

Official Roman Congregations’ decrees and responses are also fallible

Even if Mark. A. Pivarunas produced the official Roman Congregations’ decrees or responses defending NFP, that does not help his case because they are also fallible.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Infallibility: “Proof of Papal Infallibility - The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements...”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Acts of the Roman Congregations: “…(b) Authority of doctrinal decrees - Doctrinal decrees are not of themselves infallible; the prerogative of infallibility cannot be communicated to the Congregations by the Pope.”

People that calls themselves Catholic, I believe, would agree with this. Consequently, they would also have to believe that the unofficial evidence that he uses to defend NFP is likewise fallible.

The 1853 response