|
Post by jonathan on Jun 12, 2019 11:41:21 GMT -5
Let me start with Isaiah 22:21-25, the prophecy of the Pope: [21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. [23] And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. [24] And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. [25] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.
Isaiah 22 contains a prophecy of the pope, calling him a “peg in a sure place” who will have the power of binding and loosing (“he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open”). Furthermore, Isaiah 22:25 contains a prophecy about the removal of the papal office some day. The sure peg “shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish”. Woah! This seems to suggest that the Church will perish when the papal office is removed. It seems we are indeed living in those times foretold in Isaiah with no Pope since 1958. Now why did I title this post “All is Lost”? Because it seems that the entire Church has perished and not even a remnant remains, at least that I can find. Let me explain by showing how a few groups that claim to be part of the Church are not. Conciliar / Novus Ordo Catholics: heretical, invalid sacraments, in communion with an Antipope, making them schismatic as well. Eastern rite Catholics: in communion with an Antipope, making them schismatic (similar to Eastern “Orthodox” who have valid sacraments but do not submit, or have the will to submit, to a valid Roman Pontiff) SSPX: illogical stance towards (anti)Papacy, making them schismatic as they acknowledge Antipopes as Pope CMRI: defends usury as acceptable, making them heretical NovusOrdoWatch: defends usury as acceptable, making them heretical For CMRI, I reached out to ask a question about usury and had an email conversation with Father Benedict Hughes. Over the course of several back and forths, he continued defending usury despite the Church condemning it universally throughout time (see my previous forum post here). I had a similar experience with NovusOrdoWatch, where I reached out with an email question about usury and they defended it over several back and forth emails. I’m guessing that organizations like SSPV have similar stances towards usury though I haven’t confirmed that. So where does that leave us? With virtually no Catholics left on earth and no way of receiving the sacraments. I have yet to meet someone who holds to all the traditional teachings of the Church, including the one banning usury. Do you? If so I’d love to hear from you at jonathan.s.fulton@gmail.com or send me a private message via the forums. Please include usury in the email somewhere in case it gets put in my spam folder.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 12, 2019 13:01:45 GMT -5
Sir, I would urge you to slowly and carefully read THIS. You have, in my opinion, jumped into very deep water before learning to swim. The mistakes you are making about usury are so clearly related to mistakes others in our times are making on so many other issues: Baptism of desire and blood, the lawful use of the rhythm, the Galileo case, the belief that the world is flat, etc. It is mostly rooted in a reliance of one’s self and one’s assumption that one is fit to privately interpret primary sources. We no longer have living theological masters to learn from, and that alone should make all of us slow down when reading any matter of theology. The problem of the existence modern unapproved writers on theological topics compounds the problem even more. We still have access to the masters, the deceased theologians of the past, who through their writings guide us through complex topics such as this, but we need to carefully and humbly follow them. I posted a great explanation of usury by Fr. McLaughlin on this forum, have you had a chance to read it? It is linked HERE
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jun 12, 2019 13:48:41 GMT -5
Pacelli, With respect, I humbly disagree that I have jumped into deep waters without learning to swim. The primary sources are simple and straight forward. And yes, I did have a chance to read the explanation of usury by Fr. McLaughlin. NovusOrdoWatch and Fr. Benedict Hughes provided the same article defending usury. The summary is that it says there are some non-mutuum contracts where it is permitted to have interest. With that I do not disagree. It makes no argument that mutuum contracts make interest permissible, however, which is the crux of the issue. Let me re-iterate the primary sources here. Pope Benedict XIV (in very plain and easy to understand language): The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made Catechism of the Council of Trent (surely an orthodox source, also in easy to understand language): To this class also belong usurers, the most cruel and relentless of extortioners, who by their exorbitant rates of interest, plunder and destroy the poor. Whatever is received above the capital and principal, be it money, or anything else that may be purchased or estimated by money, is usury; for it is written in Ezechiel: He hath not lent upon usury, nor taken an increase; and in Luke our Lord says: Lend, hoping for nothing thereby. Even among the pagans usury was always considered a most grievous and odious crime. Hence the question, "What is usury ?" was answered: "What is murder?" And, indeed, he who lends at usury sells the same thing twice, or sells that which has no real existence. The saints St. Ambrose - "Whatever exceeds the amount owed is usury." St. Bernardine of Sienna - "I ask thee before all else, dost thou believe in the law of God? Yes. Next I say to thee, that if thou dost depart from this faith thou art a heretic. God hath commanded that thou shalt not practise usury." Many more quotes on usury from the saints: www.saintsquotes.net/Selection%20-%20Usury.html
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 12, 2019 14:49:20 GMT -5
Jonathan, This is from McHugh and Callan’s moral theology, (boldfacing as emphasis added) linked HERE
It’s worth noting that Frs. McHugh and Callan were notable translators of the very document you quoted from, the Catechism of the Council of Trent. These priests were highly regarded for their doctrinal orthodoxy, and it seems that what they are saying follows along what other approved theologians were saying. Is it true that there has been a change as to what money means in modern times as opposed to what Pope Benedict XIV taught? Frs. McHugh and Callan (who are among many other theologians) are stating as much, and if it is true, then the underlying assumption you are operating under is no longer applicable. In a case such as this, your duty as a Catholic, a subject of the Pope, is to bring this conflict to the Pope for judgment and not attempt to judge it for yourself. Your duty as a Catholic is to not believe the Church has defected based on your interpretation of this doctrine. The Church has not yet spoken on this specific matter, on whether the fact of the case, the definition of money, has changed from its former meaning. There can be no dispute as to whether the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV is no longer the teaching of the Church, the only element to this that needs a resolution is the question of the current definition of money, and whether it is the same as the definition being used in Pope Benedict’s teaching. The fact that the Holy See permitted its moral theologians to explain this doctrine in this way means that the Holy See has tacitly permitted this doctrine, and by that it is at least a tolerable position. I realize that the Church has not directly spoken in this matter. In the meantime, as we are in a time of grave crisis in the Church, I would urge you to shelve this matter and when things return to normalcy in the Church to submit your reasoning and your sources to the Pope for his judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 12, 2019 16:49:25 GMT -5
The Eastern rites are only in communion with Frank in the sense that he is the APPARENT Pope. They have no facility nor legal status to assume otherwise...unless you wish to share something Im unaware of. The fact that you think banksters would be capable of destroying the Church says more about what you understand the Church to be and who She really is...than what assumptions you have made about usury. Usury is the least of the worlds afflictions...pedophila and the sodomite agenda is FAR more important today.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jun 13, 2019 10:57:44 GMT -5
The definition of money is fairly simple: it’s a medium for exchange. Always has been, always will be. We don’t need a Pope to rule on that though if we had one he would certainly rule the same way Pope Benedict XIV ruled in Vix Pervenit.
Two other comments.
1. “Usury is the root of all evil.” - St. Edward the Confessor, King of England 2. Dante places usurers in the lowest circle of hell, along with blasphemers and sodomites.
So yes, usury is an extreme evil that's run rampant in the world and even infested what would be the remnant of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 13, 2019 15:56:42 GMT -5
The definition of money is fairly simple: it’s a medium for exchange. Always has been, always will be. We don’t need a Pope to rule on that though if we had one he would certainly rule the same way Pope Benedict XIV ruled in Vix Pervenit. Two other comments. 1. “Usury is the root of all evil.” - St. Edward the Confessor, King of England 2. Dante places usurers in the lowest circle of hell, along with blasphemers and sodomites. So yes, usury is an extreme evil that's run rampant in the world and even infested what would be the remnant of the Church. Usury is really nothing more than the Jewish Question. Usury is the "holy spirit" of Anti Christ...it is how antichrist influences the worlds leaders and corrupts the masses. So yes Usury is a very important "MECHANISM" but that is all it is. The Muslims have no usury in their systems...are they to be considered more virtuous than the Church since they are NOT connected to the "root of all evil"? Logically all your assertions are well meaning but just of wrong focus. (Dante was a Poet and artist...not an infallible source of theological assertions BTW). The definition of money HAS CHANGED since Dante...EXTREAMLY... do you know for instance that all the usurious debt that is saddled on americans either personally or through government borrowing today is simply a phantom of electrons and the sound waves of the tappity tap of a bank managers keyboard? When you get a home loan the banksters don't actually walk to the back and get a stack of cash and give it to the person your getting the house from. The banksters literally "create" the debt "out of thin air" and make a notation on the computer and poof! The borrower is in debt and the seller is given a "credit". Guess who actually risked ZERO! The Banksters...nothing nadda zilch. In fact its in their BEST INTEREST as the creditor FOR YOU TO DEFAULT on the loan! Why...because then they get to steal your REAL (see that word...burn it into your brain) Estate. REAL ESTATE...get it. The banksters get to take whats REAL for what was really just an electronic illusion... in fact a Lie! And who pray tell is the Father of Lies? NOW what does all this have to do with your attempt to make USURY the core evil destroying the world? Well it defeats it in my opinion thusly. Guns dont kill people...people kill people. Usury doesnt kill people...banksters kill people. So ( getting back to my previous point) the discussion is REALLY about the Jewish Question and the Jews master...antiChrist. Not about HOW the JEWISH banking houses and financial institutions do the dirty work (usury). So if you insist we focus on usury you would be like the spotter demanding the sniper focus his shot on the horn of the charging rhinoceros! Yes the Rhinos horn will maul us...but shooting the horn wont stop the Rhino. So lets talk about the Jewish question. "The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end." -- St. Paul, I Thessalonians ii.14-16
"The Jews are enemies of God and foes of our holy religion."
-- Padre Pio
"Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers' faith, advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness!"
-- St. Gregory of Nyssa
As E Michael Jones rightly says (despite his many flaws he is dead on about the political and "spiritual" Jew in todays world events) "Unless we can name our enemies how can we ever discuss a strategy for defeating them" (interesting show to watch on this subject.... www.bitchute.com/video/H9Z070he9HdV/ ) You want to defeat usury my friend? You need to focus your sniper on the Rhinos heart...not his horn.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 13, 2019 16:20:55 GMT -5
The definition of money is fairly simple: it’s a medium for exchange. Always has been, always will be. We don’t need a Pope to rule on that though if we had one he would certainly rule the same way Pope Benedict XIV ruled in Vix Pervenit. Two other comments. 1. “Usury is the root of all evil.” - St. Edward the Confessor, King of England 2. Dante places usurers in the lowest circle of hell, along with blasphemers and sodomites. So yes, usury is an extreme evil that's run rampant in the world and even infested what would be the remnant of the Church. No, this is your opinion, and it is not the opinion of the approved theologians, Fr. McHugh and Fr. Callan and others who I can present to you if you need to read more. They explain why the definition of money in modern times differs from that of the past. If you disagree, then bring the matter to the Pope, when that is again possible, and until then don’t worry about it. You are not the Pope, and your opinions are not part of the Church’s teaching. I have nothing more to add other than my previous post. You should really read the text I gave you from Fr. Hogan and pray for humility. Your ideas are leading you to become either a heretic or apostate, as you admitted that you are being tempted with believing the Church may have defected, so if I were you, I would flee to confession before you fall off the cliff. Nothing is worth the loss of your eternal soul.
|
|