Response on Tithes
#21
(11-14-2019, 11:52 PM)piscis Wrote:
(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.

If this is how self-described Latins misunderstand the concept of anathema, then I can empathize with our separated brethren in the east.
Reply
#22
Hm, random internet person's unspecified "concept of anathema" vs. the canonical tradition that goes back to the beginning? Tough choice...

It looks like I should have cited those old manuals for good measure, but your response indicates it wouldn't have helped anyway. Following the teaching of the Church, whether in doctrinal or legal matters, is very important to you except when it's not because it exemplifies, in your words, a "misunderstanding of the concept of anathema." Yet you conveniently never need to explain this concept, nor have you shown yourself to be knowledgeable of the canonical tradition at all. Or are you hinting at antinomianism in your response of empathy for the Easterners? Whatever it is, I certainly am not going to assume to know whatever you mean or knock down a strawman.

Anyway, once again, you nitpick on some particular point and don't offer anything to clarify what exactly your problem is. Certainly in this last case about anathemas, you haven't clarified anything. It's a very convenient position to have--to disagree and never explain why. And again, to what end? Since you've not made any attempt to respond to any of my points about tithing, which was the very purpose of your starting this thread, and since you haven't bothered to clarify why you're nitpicking about anything, I don't see what the point of continuing this discussion is.
[-] The following 2 users Like piscis's post:
  • boredoftheworld, Imperator Caesar Trump
Reply
#23
(11-14-2019, 10:14 PM)yablabo Wrote: 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.

This is a comment that I find intriguing because I feel that I am identifying common ground with you; however, I'm not sure that's entirely the case.  I would say that I am providing for the material needs of the Church by donating tithing to the SSPX chapel I attend.  But I also consider myself "rendering my debt" to the Church by assisting at their Masses, praying the SSPX's prayers, being a visible member of the community of affiliated laity, etc.  This is my way of contributing to fixing the Church in the same way someone might fix some plumbing in a church.  Perhaps that isn't "material" but the money part certainly is.  

Of course, as I type this out, it feels farther away from your own position and closer to the myriad comments in this thread that oppose yours, so I dunno.  

It's pretty interesting that you spell "cheque" the wrong way.
Reply
#24
*Anglophilia intensifies*

Oh this will be humourous. Let me get my favourite colouring book from Mother of Our Saviour before it gets out of hand.
Reply
#25
(11-15-2019, 10:52 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 10:14 PM)yablabo Wrote: 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.

This is a comment that I find intriguing because I feel that I am identifying common ground with you; however, I'm not sure that's entirely the case.  I would say that I am providing for the material needs of the Church by donating tithing to the SSPX chapel I attend.  But I also consider myself "rendering my debt" to the Church by assisting at their Masses, praying the SSPX's prayers, being a visible member of the community of affiliated laity, etc.  This is my way of contributing to fixing the Church in the same way someone might fix some plumbing in a church.  Perhaps that isn't "material" but the money part certainly is.  

Of course, as I type this out, it feels farther away from your own position and closer to the myriad comments in this thread that oppose yours, so I dunno.  

It's pretty interesting that you spell "cheque" the wrong way.

I'm not claiming that you cannot provide for the material needs of the church by tithing to the SSPX priests and bishops.  If the bishops have a specific jurisdiction and if you are a subject of one of those bishops, and thereby the priests under him, then you ought to make your provision to the SSPX.

A big problem with coming together on anything is using feeling (a subjective appreciation) to judge anything.  Judgment is solely a rational process.

It is extremely interesting how some of the respondents on this thread have dismissed the propositions I've made due to the false conclusions they've made about what I may or may not be implying rather than simply judging the words I've used based upon rational thought process.  Ultimately, I'm not proposing that anyone is not doing what he ought to by the church.  That is an internal forum judgment to be made by a person himself when he prepares for the sacrament of penance.  I am only attempting to expose the objective.
Reply
#26
(11-15-2019, 11:04 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: *Anglophilia intensifies*

Oh this will be humourous. Let me get my favourite colouring book from Mother of Our Saviour before it gets out of hand.

θα προτιμούσατε τις απαντήσεις μου στα ελληνικά;

...ar lietuviškai?
Reply
#27
(11-15-2019, 01:16 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 11:04 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: *Anglophilia intensifies*

Oh this will be humourous. Let me get my favourite colouring book from Mother of Our Saviour before it gets out of hand.

θα προτιμούσατε τις απαντήσεις μου στα ελληνικά;

...ar lietuviškai?

No I was commenting on ICTrump complaining about cheque instead of check by calling it "wrong".  Hence the extra "u" in the words I uused.
[-] The following 1 user Likes boredoftheworld's post:
  • yablabo
Reply
#28
(11-15-2019, 01:33 PM)boredoftheworld Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 01:16 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 11:04 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: *Anglophilia intensifies*

Oh this will be humourous. Let me get my favourite colouring book from Mother of Our Saviour before it gets out of hand.

θα προτιμούσατε τις απαντήσεις μου στα ελληνικά;

...ar lietuviškai?

No I was commenting on ICTrump complaining about cheque instead of check by calling it "wrong".  Hence the extra "u" in the words I uused.

I thought we were all attempting comedy, so I joined in.
Reply
#29
(11-15-2019, 01:36 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 01:33 PM)boredoftheworld Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 01:16 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 11:04 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: *Anglophilia intensifies*

Oh this will be humourous. Let me get my favourite colouring book from Mother of Our Saviour before it gets out of hand.

θα προτιμούσατε τις απαντήσεις μου στα ελληνικά;

...ar lietuviškai?

No I was commenting on ICTrump complaining about cheque instead of check by calling it "wrong".  Hence the extra "u" in the words I uused.

I thought we were all attempting comedy, so I joined in.
Well it's all Greek to me, except for the Lithuanian parts.
[-] The following 1 user Likes boredoftheworld's post:
  • yablabo
Reply
#30
(11-15-2019, 10:52 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: It's pretty interesting that you spell "cheque" the wrong way.

Implying "check" is the right way.
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)