Pro-life Catholic Who Attends Latin Mass Appointed As New UK House of Commons Leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Or maybe that’s what St. John Chrysostom has in mind.
Click to expand...
He had in mind something, well…different for his city of Constantinople and the Roman Empire.

ahem 🥺:

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 11 on the Acts of the Apostles (Chrysostom)

"…It is not for lack of miracles that the church is stagnant; it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost, and fallen back on private property. If we lived as they did, with all things common, we should soon convert the whole world without any need of miracles at all.

For ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ – those chilly words which introduce innumerable wars into the world – should be eliminated from that holy Church . . .The poor would not envy the rich because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich, for there would be no poor. All things would be in common.

If this were done now, we should live more pleasant lives, both rich and poor, nor would it be more pleasant to the poor than to the rich themselves. And if you please, let us now for awhile depict it in words, and derive at least this pleasure from it, since you have no mind for it in your actions. For at any rate this is evident, even from the facts which took place then, that by selling their possessions they did not come to be in need, but made them rich that were in need.

However, let us now depict this state of things in words, and let all sell their possessions, and bring them into the common stock. How much gold think you would be collected?

For my part, I conjecture — for of course it is not possible to speak exactly — that supposing all here, men and women, to empty out their whole property, lands, possessions, houses — for I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they sat at liberty — perhaps ten hundred thousand pounds weight of gold would be the amount collected: nay, twice or thrice as much.

But if we had made actual trial of this, then indeed we should boldly venture upon this plan (τοὕ πράγματος). What grace too, think you, would there not be! For if at that time, when there was no believer but only the three thousand and the five thousand: when all, throughout the world, were enemies, when they could nowhere look for comfort, they yet boldly entered upon this plan with such success; how much more would this be the case now, when by the grace of God there are believers everywhere throughout the world? What Gentile would be left?

For my part, I think there would not be one: we should so attract all, and draw them to us? But yet if we do but make fair progress, I trust in God that even this shall be realized. Only do as I say, and let us successfully achieve things in their regular order; if God grant life, I trust that we shall soon bring you over to this way of life…"
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
However, let us now depict this state of things in words, and let all sell their possessions, and bring them into the common stock. How much gold think you would be collected?
Click to expand...
Who among us have done this? Unless one has, how can one then demand that government collect “perhaps ten hundred thousand pounds weight of gold would be the amount collected: nay, twice or thrice as much?”
 
Getting back to the OP: IMHO it is interesting that JRM is a Pro -Life Catholic who attends Latin Mass, but that makes him no better or worse than the rest of us. The Right Honourable Member for the 18th Century has however advised his staff to use only imperial measures. So we need to look out our yardsticks, brush up on poles, perches, bushels, chains and fathoms etc. The man’s an idiot!
 
PickyPicky said:
Not only that, but the Church’s charity was supported, (in England at least — I don’t know what happened elsewhere), by tithes: a national form of taxation whereby, as Jon would put it, the Church was
Click to expand...
For what I hope is an obvious reason I am wondering what you mean by the church in England. Also tithes aren’t taxes, they’re voluntary, unless you are a jew in ancient israel. Anywhere else a 10% tax is just that, a tax. I don’t play a sales tithe.
 
Vouthon said:
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs
Click to expand...
St John Chrysostom exhorted his listeners to give, begged them to give, he never commanded them to give. Jesus commanded, but He never set an amount for Christians, only Jews.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
40.png
Vouthon:
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs
Click to expand...
St John Chrysostom escorted his listeners to give, begged them to give, he never commanded them to give. Jesus commanded, but He never set an amount for Christians, only Jews.
Click to expand...
He also never commanded that we require others to give.
 
No He did not. Taxes are not a substitute for alms-giving. They are a hindrance to it.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
For what I hope is an obvious reason I am wondering what you mean by the church in England
Click to expand...
Ah, OK. I mean, for the purposes of this discussion, the Church from the Saxon age (at the very latest from the C8th) through the Middle Ages (and therefore, I presume, the Church as you would recognise her to be). Payment was compulsory.
 
JonNC said:
Who among us have done this? Unless one has, how can one then demand that government collect “perhaps ten hundred thousand pounds weight of gold would be the amount collected: nay, twice or thrice as much?”
Click to expand...
I’m not demanding.

You asked me what St. John Chrysostom, specifically, envisioned in the 4th century and so I directed you to the answer in his Homilies as found on New Advent’s collection of the writings of the Church Fathers.

'tis all.
 
Vouthon said:
40.png
JonNC:
Who among us have done this? Unless one has, how can one then demand that government collect “perhaps ten hundred thousand pounds weight of gold would be the amount collected: nay, twice or thrice as much?”
Click to expand...
I’m not demanding.

You asked me what St. John Chrysostom, specifically, envisioned in the 4th century and so I directed you to the answer in his Homilies as found on New Advent’s collection of the writings of the Church Fathers.

'tis all.
Click to expand...
Of course. This is why I said , “if one…”.
 
In the empire of Charlemagne, where tithe payments to the Church were also compulsory, the revenue was supposed to be divided one part to the bishop, one part to the clergy, one part towards the church fabric, and one part to the poor.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
No He did not. Taxes are not a substitute for alms-giving. They are a hindrance to it.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is why I say that if the Church cedes it’s role of helping the least of His children to government, there is no charity that can be claimed by anyone. Compulsory charity is an oxymoron.
 
Interesting. Thank you.

I take no issue with the Church establishing such mandates. When done via the Church it is an act of faith that gardeners merit. There is no reason to believe taxes to the state do likewise, or as much good. Perhaps the Church would do well to do so again on pain of sin.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
Compulsion by the Church is conceivably an exception.
Click to expand...
Not quite.
“ The Lord requires us to give to the poor not only the tenth part, but all of our superfluous wealth.”

- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, quoted in St. Robert Bellarmine’s work “The Art of Dying Well,” trans. John Dalton, p. 26
Click to expand...
The tenth part or “tithe” was obligatory and in the medieval era was generally enforced, to my understanding, by not only ecclesiastical courts but by the secular law of the land as well in many kingdoms throughout Europe.

Over and above that, the church hierarchy regarded itself as possessing the right to distribute or empower the state to distribute superfluity in wealth generally of an individual or group of individuals, if it was deemed that the need of the poor was (for some reason, perhaps economic or a harvest failure) grave and manifest, and that their natural law right to receiving succour from the superfluous wealth of the rich (which canon law understood as belonging, in principle, to the poor rather than to its rich holders) was being denied or not sufficiently met through charity or tithe, then the church believed that the local bishop could just (in theory) take that wealth from them.

That’s because it’s not a voluntary ‘donation’ on the part of the rich but rather an obligation arising from natural law (i.e. no ‘credit’ in virtue accrues to them by fulfilling their obligations, in the same way as it does from acts of charity).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top