| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Doctrine or custom Aghhh !; Why did I start. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 29. April 2009, 15:56 (292 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Wednesday, 29. April 2009, 15:56 Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Hello just a little  I volunteered to précis some thoughts from various threads to provide a simple summery of Doctrine as opposed to custom.
 Why did I Lord Why?At present i have an essay of about 1800 words and my head hurts. I shall try to condense it further but to remain coherent and to answer the question either you have to accept a long answer or the simple statement ‘Things are what they are because God created a wonderful image and then the devil cut it up to make a jig saw which Adam and Eve tossed over so we have been looking for the pieces ever since. And there is no shortage of advice from people who suggest we should have started with the corners, or the flat bits or the white fluffy bits.... and the poor old Pope has to referee some times or there would be no progress at all. The Picture is painted and cannot be changed but there are a variety of ways of putting a jigsaw together, some of you parents may have experience of jigsaw refereeing. Any way off to water the turf which I laid about 10 days of glorious sunshine ago, you think the Good Lord would have let a few April showers fall on it, but then there is a bank holiday coming up so maybe he has been saving the rain for that. Ho Hum. |
 
|
|
| Mrs.Pogle | Wednesday, 29. April 2009, 16:39 Post #2 |
Happy Couple!
|
You should live here in Pogle's Wood ~ it rained down all day Monday and Tuesday...I was out in it! 
|
"Living Life on the Home Front!" My Blog: Life on the Home Front  “It is most laudable in a married woman to be devout, but she must never forget that she is a housewife. And sometimes she must leave God at the altar to find Him in her housekeeping.” ~ St. Frances of Rome | |
 |
|
| Powerofone | Wednesday, 29. April 2009, 19:35 Post #3 |
|
Don't forget to mention how some doctrines changed into customs and how some customs became doctrines and how some customs were thought to be doctrines but were not after all. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 02:48 Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'll try Powerphone but your question is a bit like that oft quoted "So when did you stop hitting you wife?" or if you prefer the old Marks Brotherss' gag. " Whoes on First? no Whats on first Whoes on second?" |
|
|
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 12:25 Post #5 |
|
In this context, I'm intrigued by the changing status of usury. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 13:04 Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
If the official doctrine of the church on usury has changed then it is news to me. If the official doctrine of the church on usury has changed then it is news to me. There has never been a time when a universally decree banned or universally condoned usury. The only consistent thread, which grows out of Luke’s gospel and the beatitudes, is a requirement to be charitable and merciful in the treatment of the poor and not to demand interest unjustly. (Essay currantly stands at over 2000 words) |
|
|
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 14:32 Post #7 |
|
However,Aquinas: Summa Theologica: Question 78 The Sin of Usury http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm Also, from New Advent: "the 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest. The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice. This prohibition is contained in the Decree of Gratian, q. 3, C. IV, at the beginning, and c. 4, q. 4, C. IV; and in 1. 5, t. 19 of the Decretals, for example in chapters 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13. These chapters order the profit so obtained to be restored; and Alexander III (c. 4, "Super eo", eodem) declares that he has no power to dispense from the obligation. Chapters 1, 2, and 6, eodem, condemns the strategems to which even clerics resorted to evade the law of the general councils, and the Third of the Lateran (1179) and the Second of Lyons (1274) condemn usurers. In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic (see c. "Ex gravi", unic. Clem., "De usuris", V, 5)." Heresy! I think the penalty was death at that date. Seems it was taken quite seriously |
|
|
|
| Powerofone | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 15:39 Post #8 |
|
It was an Abbot & Costello routine. But I take your point. Also Pope Benedict ?? sometime in the mid 18th century published a condemnation of usury. It seemed to fall just short of being dognatic. |
|
|
|
| Clare | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 18:08 Post #9 |
Wacko Schismatic Traditionalist Woman
|
Usury is still condemned, I believe. It's just nigh on impossible to avoid it these days. |
|
S.A.G. My attempt at a blog. | |
|
|
|
| Derekap | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 19:06 Post #10 |
|
If you lent me £100,000 to buy a house and I repaid you £100 per month, by the time I repaid you in full the £100,000 may well not buy so much. Therefore some interest is surely morally legal and logical? |
| Derekap | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 19:15 Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm read on down the page and you will see that my earlier statment is correct the church has never agreed a difinative rullling on usuary.
But as I have said all along the matter is confusing and I shall not fall out over Vienne 
|
|
|
|
| Clare | Thursday, 30. April 2009, 19:53 Post #12 |
|
Wacko Schismatic Traditionalist Woman
|
It's unavoidable. But is it moral, legal, and logical that £100,000 will not still be worth £100,000 in years to come? I can't see what's logical about it. But I also cannot see what I can do about it either! |
|
S.A.G. My attempt at a blog. | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Friday, 1. May 2009, 05:59 Post #13 |
|
Deleted User
|
One of the difficulties that I am experiencing in putting together the answer to this question is that people keep quoting information form unauthenticated sources such as the New Advent Site run by Mr Kevin Knight. He has reproduced a selected online edition of the 1917 Catholic Encyclopaedia that was approved for use in the Archdiocese of New York. He also has produced an edition of the Suma Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas, which is impressive but the translation lacks an authentic imperator. It is also interesting to note that in the online library there are very few references to church documents published after 1958. The few that are generally refer to the churches teaching on Sex, Abortion, Birth Control and Euthanasia; there are a couple of other tokens but nothing of the great wealth of documents published as a result of Vat II. Such a selective reading list and the lack of current ecclesiastical imperator lead me to conclude that this is not a reliable sauce of information. Then I am not a scholar and some of you are so I leave it up to you to decide on the usefulness of selective quotes from this source. 
|
|
|
|
| Clare | Friday, 1. May 2009, 07:33 Post #14 |
|
Wacko Schismatic Traditionalist Woman
|
It's more reliable than a selective reading list that consists of only post-1958 documents...  The Church began a long time before 1958. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand documents from before then (the Bible is pre-1958!). After all, what can the post-1958 documents say that could possibly contradict the pre-1958? 
|
|
S.A.G. My attempt at a blog. | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Friday, 1. May 2009, 08:47 Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
Clare selective reading is dangerous and I did not intend to rule out the pre 1958 documents. What concerns me is that that New Advent is selective for a purpose and since there is no Imperator to govern the site, recognised by any tradition, anything on the sight should be regarded with caution. As I have said, I am not a scholar but in any research, one should be careful to check the authenticity of ones material it also helps to have an open mind. From examining the New Advent Site, I am concerned that it is biased in its presentation of evidence. (note I am concerned this is only my personal opinion) However with open mind and a generous heart we can I hope find common ground and for me that is in the core proclamation of our faith issued at the Council of Nicea. If you prefer I am happy to the use and refer to the Apostles Creed, since that form of the creed is the creed that the Church when under the direction of his holiness Pope John Paul II recommended for use at children’s masses because of its clarity and ease to learn. The articles of our faith are contained within the creed, all else, that man has written is either an explanation off or defence of these tenets of faith. There is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church let us agree that and work forward from there. 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Car Park · Next Topic » | |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
6:52 AM Nov 8