Response on Tithes
#11
(11-14-2019, 07:16 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: You make a convincing case for why I shouldn't be Catholic. Let's see what others have to say. It's possible that it's a false religion, but I thought that wasn't true.

It is true that I will sooner stop being Catholic than ever give money to the local archdiocese. I also would have to assume that I was right to do so if you are saying indirectly funding Planned Parenthood is what is required to remain in the Church. Seems pharasaical but what do I know. You sound pretty certain. I don't have any rejoinder other than maybe this is all not for me. I won't fund homo commie baby killers.

If people conflate tithes with donations or alms, then I can understand the confusion.  Paying your tithe is not donating money to the Church, so you are not indirectly funding anything.  Even if you want to put it into the terms of providing for the material support of the Church, it's not donation.  It's payment of a debt.

In all, there's no good reason therein to abandon Christ in the Eucharist based upon subjective pleasure or displeasure.
Reply
#12
(11-14-2019, 08:53 AM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 05:49 AM)yablabo Wrote: So, you're telling me that you can in good conscience fulfill your obligation to hear Mass, receive the blessed sacrament perhaps, and withhold material support to both to the priest and bishop who make this available to you?  Besides being condemned, that sounds like stealing, i.e., taking something for nothing.

The Priest and only the Priest (Provided he's no James Martin heretic). I agree that we should give toward our faithful Priests so they can obviously live and continue to administer the sacraments to us such as the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but I will not give a cent to the 'Church' or other ministry unless I know who is running it and they are transparent (i.e. not a James Martin heretic).

For example, any money that doesn't go to my Priest will highly likely end up toward the Australian 2020 Plenary Council which is full of outright heresy. Nobody should give a cent to fund that nonsense. Just the faithful Priests who administer the sacraments to live and continue their necessary work in these dark times.

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You
I hear you.  I understand the motivation behind this position, but I don't think even the bishops require donations plenary councils...and donations are outside of the discussion of tithes.
Reply
#13
(11-14-2019, 09:18 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 07:16 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: You make a convincing case for why I shouldn't be Catholic. Let's see what others have to say. It's possible that it's a false religion, but I thought that wasn't true.

It is true that I will sooner stop being Catholic than ever give money to the local archdiocese. I also would have to assume that I was right to do so if you are saying indirectly funding Planned Parenthood is what is required to remain in the Church. Seems pharasaical but what do I know. You sound pretty certain. I don't have any rejoinder other than maybe this is all not for me. I won't fund homo commie baby killers.

I can't "like" your response here because I don't like it but it does sum things up. If the bishop or the parish priest is spending the money I gave to the Church on hookers and blow that's his problem, if he's using it for public sin particularly sins that work against the mission of the Church then it's my problem. This pray, pay, obey mentality that yablabo advances is exactly and I mean EXACTLY why the sexual abuse crisis in the clergy is unstoppable. It's why churches were gutted and altars stripped. Now that the laity aren't too stupid to know what's going on we're being told we don't have the right to know what's going on and if we do find out we either must remain passively docile or cheer the wolves on as they devour our children.

This is what happens when the predators interpret the rules. There's a bizarre movie called Snowpiercer where this is demonstrated.

The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls not the material enrichment and sexual gratification of the clergy. The sheep are not expected to stand idly by while they are butchered by hired hands. Most clearly we are not expected to heed the call of hired hands, we know the voice of our Shepherd. Our Lord says His sheep know the Shepherd and flee from the stranger and won't follow him... well... STOP FOLLOWING THE STRANGERS!
Your premise is apparently that the generations past were too stupid to know what was going on.   Ok.  Sounds an awful lot like the position taken by the cathars...who oddly enough also rejected tithing except to the perfects of their choice.  It's part of what the Third Lateran Council was called to deal with in 1179.
Reply
#14
(11-14-2019, 09:41 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: I think yabablo is sincere, but there are plenty of nu-Catholics who share her exact disposition as a way of brow-beating trads into submission on the one hand while glorifying the "priesthood of the laity" and ecumenism with other faiths on the other hand.  Normally, I would be dismissive of this sort of attitude, but again, I think she is sincere.
...exerpt removed...
This is not germane to the opening post, but I don't have much to add to it at this time.  Just curious.

EDIT: I guess the last question I'd throw at you just to pick your brain is this: What is your best argument against the position you've stated?
1) What do you think about other things going on in the Church?  

What in particular?

2) What about pachamama?  

Pachamama is a demon.  I don't think about it much at all.  If you're referring to the recent idolatry, I execrate and condemn it with all my being as beyond horror.  The idolatry is the sort of thing that begs lightning to strike people dead.

3) What about altar girls?  

I'm opposed to cross-dressing for reasons outside of immediate personal safety.  As far as I am concerned, it is a witness to the depravity of the adults involved to have any children serving at the altar, but most especially those who are not confirmed and who do not discern the body and blood.

Beyond that, I think it profanes the sacrifice of the mass to have women or girls serving at the altar.

4) What about the contents of Vatican II?  

I'm not sure of what you're getting at here.  If I were to guess what you're getting at, my answer would be: the documents of the Second Vatican Council are problematic.  A few of these contain sound information in line with what has always been taught.  Others contain error after damnable error.

5) I know that you only attend the Novus Ordo, so you must be fairly well disposed toward it all?  

I'm not sure what this means.  I hope that I'm always properly disposed to receive the blessed sacrament when I present myself.

6)  I just want to get a sense of this.  What about female deacons?  

There's no such thing.  There's never been such a thing.

7) What about immigration?  

What about it?  Who cares if people want to move around within the bounds of the civil law to make things easier to work for the common good and toward salvation?

8) And because you didn't address it in the last thread, what about the SSPX?  

What about them?  From my understanding Pope Francis has come the closest of any Pope yet to giving them regular faculties without in fact doing so.

9)  Your last point, on which your entire thesis certainly does not turn, was that not tithing constitutes a form of theft; but what if I only attend SSPX chapels?

I did not contend that not tithing constitutes a form of theft.  The statement that I made had to do with a specific scenario in which a person affiliated with one group, receiving the spiritual benefits of that group, deliberately sends his material support outside of that group to some other group.
Reply
#15
(11-14-2019, 10:32 AM)ThatGladTrad Wrote: Maybe we should start by taking a look at the concept of tithing. Firstly, tithing is not a religious law, it is an ecclesiastical law binding on the Jews (and at one point required of Catholics under pain of excommunication). The concept of tithing is very popular in America, however, where it was reintroduced by... The protestants.

So I'm sorry if I'm not sympathetic to your legalistic view of supporting your local Church...
Your euphemisitic sorrow has missed its point.

Your position is opposed to history and to the concept of anathema.
Reply
#16
(11-14-2019, 11:46 AM)ServusDei Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 05:49 AM)yablabo Wrote: I opened a new thread to post my lengthy reply...

Just as we were dispensed from the requirement of circumcision, tithing is not required of Catholics. The Church instead requires the Faithful to support it, which we do when we give (no matter how much) to the collection basket during the offertory.

Donations are an excellent means of charity, and it shouldn't be dismissed by "Tithing is not almsgiving or donation, and cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates."

As to "Tithing... cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates," if we have grounds to ascertain that any or significant part of donated money is going toward the payment for immoral licentiousness, then it is an act of complicity to donate. For example, if a parishioner of Fr. Martin's gives him money -- that the parishioner knows he'll use for sodomy -- then he is morally guilty of a grave and mortal sin.

We do not have to give money to a wolf in shepherd's garb.
We were not "dispensed" of the requirements of circumcision; we were forbidden from practicing circumcision.  That prohibition is not at all like the situation with tithing.

Everyone seems to think that changing the expression to be more inclusive or a wider scope is a method of removing a subset.  That's illogical.

Tithing is providing for the material needs of the Church.  No one says that you have to write a cheque or put cash in the basket when it passes by during offertory.  It is your business how you render that debt.  You could reckon it in the hours you spent fixing the plumbing at the rectory, in stock animals, or in fruits of your harvest.  It is solely between you and the Church.

Donations or almsgiving being an excellent means of charity have no bearing on the discussion, so should be dismissed.  I have already agreed in the complicity and culpability which comes with donation of money or material aid for sinful activity.  Tithes however are not donations.
Reply
#17
I want to believe you're not going out of your way to misunderstand a single point for the purpose of ignoring everything else, please don't make that anymore difficult for me than it already is. "Now that the laity aren't too stupid" was not an assertion that the laity were stupid but an acknowledgement that for centuries that is precisely the argument that has been used against the people in the pews. It was also purely a throw away clause that had nothing to do with the larger point that, for reasons I simply can not understand, you seized upon and then ran off with in an entirely different direction. So spare me the cathar comparison.

In case you really did miss the point I'll make it painfully clear:

This pray, pay, obey mentality that yablabo advances is exactly and I mean EXACTLY why the sexual abuse crisis in the clergy is unstoppable. It's why churches were gutted and altars stripped

There. That's the takeaway, address that and don't worry about how many angels I think can dance on the head of a pin.
Reply
#18
(11-14-2019, 10:45 PM)boredoftheworld Wrote: In case you really did miss the point I'll make it painfully clear:

This pray, pay, obey mentality that yablabo advances is exactly and I mean EXACTLY why the sexual abuse crisis in the clergy is unstoppable. It's why churches were gutted and altars stripped

I disagree with the text in red, and I disagreed when I read it before. 

Your misunderstanding of my position has led you to mischaracterise it.

I doubt that you would say we are not required to pray.

I doubt that you would say we are not required to provide for the material support of the church.

I doubt that you would say we are not required to obey in all things except sin.

Apparently you're unaware of the numerous protests in and around churches being gutted and high altars being cut into parking lot stones within the last 60 years.  That's ok.  It happened regardless of the protest because the laity had neither the ability nor the authority to stop it.  They don't bear any guilt for what they had no moral means to stop.

Catholic men used to wear placards and walk in front of the churches during mass from 1963 on to protest the "dialogue" masses which were under experimentation at the time, for goodness sake.  It's more than what we see done in most places now...where people just slink off to the SSPX regardless of their regularity.

Evil people (parents, clergy and religious) is why the sexual abuse continues, not because people choose to live a life of catholic sensibilities.
Reply
#19
(11-14-2019, 11:05 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 10:45 PM)boredoftheworld Wrote: In case you really did miss the point I'll make it painfully clear:

This pray, pay, obey mentality that yablabo advances is exactly and I mean EXACTLY why the sexual abuse crisis in the clergy is unstoppable. It's why churches were gutted and altars stripped

I disagree with the text in red, and I disagreed when I read it before. 

Your misunderstanding of my position has led you to mischaracterise it.

I doubt that you would say we are not required to pray.

I doubt that you would say we are not required to provide for the material support of the church.

I doubt that you would say we are not required to obey in all things except sin.

Apparently you're unaware of the numerous protests in and around churches being gutted and high altars being cut into parking lot stones within the last 60 years.  That's ok.  It happened regardless of the protest because the laity had neither the ability nor the authority to stop it.  They don't bear any guilt for what they had no moral means to stop.

Catholic men used to wear placards and walk in front of the churches during mass from 1963 on to protest the "dialogue" masses which were under experimentation at the time, for goodness sake.  It's more than what we see done in most places now...where people just slink off to the SSPX regardless of their regularity.

Evil people (parents, clergy and religious) is why the sexual abuse continues, not because people choose to live a life of catholic sensibilities.

Yeah... no. You're not serious so I'm not playing. If I wanted this sort of discussion I'd throw a kitten at the "Catholics" on patheos.
Reply
#20
(11-14-2019, 10:07 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 01:49 PM)piscis Wrote: The past anathemas, excommunications, etc. of the ecumenical and local councils are all relevant to a proper understanding of canonical, doctrinal, and moral tradition, and of course, canon law articulates and protects certain aspects of the moral law, so they are never irrelevant in any given age. Nevertheless, the normal understanding of Canon 6 § 1 (1983 CIC) is that unless it is contained in current legislation, these past punishments are abrogated. This is why you don't even hear traditional priests talking about the anathemas of some past council as binding, not because they are unimportant, but because they are no longer binding.

Your conclusion here is absolutely false.

If it were true, it would apply even to St. Paul's anathema in his letter to the Galatians.

Matters of church law cannot abrogate the anathemas of the ecumenical councils.  Nothing undogmatises dogma.

There, you're doing it again. I wasn't arguing that dogmas are no longer dogmas just because a censure attached to it no longer applies in the same way. You're confusing theological censures with ecclesiastical censures. I was recalling the distinction by noting the changes the CIC 1917 and CIC 1983 introduced to ecclesiastical censures. The anathema attached to the definition of a dogma is to be understood as condemning the opposite proposition. But there are occasions, as you yourself pointed out, in which these anathemas included certain ecclesiastical censures, such as the loss of a Christian burial (a so-called vindictive punishment). These latter were certainly abrogated with the 1917 CIC and again in 1983 (in fact, Pius IX had reduced a number of them even earlier in the mid 1800s). The ecclesiastical censures were strictly reduced to a very small list, the most famous of which are the latae sententiae excommunications but not exclusively those. The SSPX is under another such censure, the suspension a divinis. If you want me to quote the 1917 CIC as well, I certainly can...

So, no, my conclusion was not absolutely false. You unwittingly put into my mouth a confusion regarding the anathemas and proceeded to disagree with the entire canon law tradition of the past 150 years.

But again, I return to my first point above--you seem to be nitpicking certain principles, insisting that they be spoken with absolute, emotionless clarity (except when you fail to do so yourself as instanced above). And I can't help but wonder to what end? I don't think anyone is any clearer about what exactly you're insisting on in your efforts to be so exacting. I'm really trying to understand here what exactly you're taking issue with, but as this goes on, I get more confused. You also have made a lot of strawmen out of things people have been saying. Another instance of it:

Quote:Everyone seems to think that changing the expression to be more inclusive or a wider scope is a method of removing a subset.

Really? Who is arguing that? Everyone? I don't think anyone is. I've clarified this point multiple times now, but you've ignored that, presumably because you disagree with my wording for some reason.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)