Request for Assistance on Infallible Magisterium

[transfinitum]

I would appreciate responses to the following hypotheses (formulated negatively) and my very short-form answers.

1. The Magisterium erred by teaching definitively that the receipt of interest on a loan is the mortal sin of usury (Fifth Lateran Council, many other Popes and Councils), then requiring the Church to deposit operating funds at interest (1910 Code of Canon Law).

PROPOSED ANSWER:The****Church has never changed its doctrinal definition of usury. It has failed in practice to adhere to it, most notably in the 1910 Code of Canon Law.

2. The Magisterium erred in asserting (in the papal bull “Unum Sanctam”) that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human person, that they be in subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

PROPOSED ANSWER: Unum Sanctum does not meet the criteria for an infallible definition of dogma.

1. The Magisterium erred in allowing a Curia Cardinal (Kasper), acting in his official capacity as spokesman for the Catholic Church, to claim that the Church rejects on theological grounds the need for Jews to be saved under the New Covenant.

PROPOSED ANSWER: While Cardinal Kasper is incontestibly teaching heresy in his statement that Jews are saved under the Old Covenant, his heresy is not a magisterial teaching.

 

[metal1633]

transfinitum:

I would appreciate responses to the following hypotheses (formulated negatively) and my very short-form answers.

1. The Magisterium erred by teaching definitively that the receipt of interest on a loan is the mortal sin of usury (Fifth Lateran Council, many other Popes and Councils), then requiring the Church to deposit operating funds at interest (1910 Code of Canon Law).

PROPOSED ANSWER:The****Church has never changed its doctrinal definition of usury. It has failed in practice to adhere to it, most notably in the 1910 Code of Canon Law.

2. The Magisterium erred in asserting (in the papal bull “Unum Sanctam”) that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human person, that they be in subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

PROPOSED ANSWER: Unum Sanctum does not meet the criteria for an infallible definition of dogma.

1. The Magisterium erred in allowing a Curia Cardinal (Kasper), acting in his official capacity as spokesman for the Catholic Church, to claim that the Church rejects on theological grounds the need for Jews to be saved under the New Covenant.

PROPOSED ANSWER: While Cardinal Kasper is incontestibly teaching heresy in his statement that Jews are saved under the Old Covenant, his heresy is not a magisterial teaching.

Answer 1: The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. 27, only forbids excessive interest. There is no canon law which takes into consideration the question of moderate interest; and canon law nowhere states distinctly that interest is, under any circumstances whatsoever, contrary to justice. Excessive Interest is contrary to Justice. Ask anyone who took out a loan from a loan shark.

Answer 2: The Church did not err in **Unum Sanctum. **People err in interpreting it out of context and without taking into accountother Documents dealing with the same subject.

Answer 3: You are correct. Cardinal Kasper is incontestibly teaching heresy in his statement that Jews are saved under the Old Covenant, his heresy is not a magisterial teaching. An individual Cleric can only speak infallibly when in union with the Church. Cardinal Kasper was speaking contrary to the Church and so doing violated his office and brought scandle to the Church.

 

[MrS]

transfinitum:

I would appreciate responses to the following hypotheses (formulated negatively) and my very short-form answers.

PROPOSED ANSWER:The****Church has never changed its doctrinal definition of usury. It has failed in practice to adhere to it, most notably in the 1910 Code of Canon Law.

PROPOSED ANSWER: Unum Sanctum does not meet the criteria for an infallible definition of dogma.

PROPOSED ANSWER: While Cardinal Kasper is incontestibly teaching heresy in his statement that Jews are saved under the Old Covenant, his heresy is not a magisterial teaching.

Any Church teaching regarding interest rates is not Doctrine…who told you it was Doctrine???

Infallibility is a “negative” protection. It only occurs when certain criteria are met - Pope speaking from the chair of Peter for all Christians of all ages…Bishops teaching in union with the Pope…etc.
Infallibility is the grace of the Holp Spirit which will prevent Doctrinal error on matters of faith and morals.
Councils and decrees are only infallibile when they reiterate a Doctrinal teaching.

Cardinal Kasper was not only off base, he was un-disciplined. Since the Church is Jesus Christ (Paul learned that 2000 years ago), there is no salvation outside the Church WHO IS Jesus Christ. Feeney almost got it right.

Good Questions…you should get lots of good answers on this forum - but if they are not Christ-centered answers, proceed at your own risk.

MrShttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[Vincent]

I as I understand it, usury is still condemned by the Church. The question is, whether the current practice of lending at interest is usurious.

As David Palm concluded in “The Red Herring of Usury” (registration required),
“Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not a change of the Church’s teaching on usury. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. ‘Still she maintains dogmatically that there is such a sin as usury, and what it is, as defined in the Fifth Council of Lateran’…”

 

[transfinitum]

Thanks for your reply…you wrote:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. 27, only forbids excessive interest. There is no canon law which takes into consideration the question of moderate interest; and canon law nowhere states distinctly that interest is, under any circumstances whatsoever, contrary to justice. Excessive Interest is contrary to Justice. Ask anyone who took out a loan from a loan shark.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"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).

So I would appreciate a link to the text quoted from Lateran IV approving interest in any amount whatsoever. As near as I can tell interest taking has been defined as usury throughout the history of the magisterium, and it is merely the practice which has changed.

 

[transfinitum]

Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

MrS:

Any Church teaching regarding interest rates is not Doctrine…who told you it was Doctrine???

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“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).”

So it certainly appears to me that the Council of Vienne taught, explicitly, and as an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, that interest taking in any amount whatsoever was sinful. It even goes so far as to state that anyone who denies this, is to be considered an heretic.

Interesting, yes?

I can find no magisterial teaching to the contrary.

 

[transfinitum]

[Thank you for your response.

You wrote:

as I understand it, usury is still condemned by the Church. The question is, whether the current practice of lending at interest is usurious.

I reply:

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“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).”

As David Palm concluded in “The Red Herring of Usury” (registration required), "Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time.

How, exactly? What power does the nature of transportation have to change the nature of money? Is a gold coin no longer of the same nature if it is transported over a railroad? Why not?

A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself.

I insist that such an apparently absurd assertion be rigorously demonstrated. How, precisely, is the nature of money changed by the “development of competitive markets”?

But this is not a change of the Church’s teaching on usury.

The Church has, so far as I can tell, never changed its teaching on usury. Merely its practice.The Church teaches that anyone who denies the demanding of interest on a loan to be sinful, is to be condemned as an heretic. See above.

Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury.

The Council of Viennes insists that the author of the above sentence is an heretic. See above.

This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury.

It constitutes a sophist’s attempt to assert a change in the nature of money, without demonstration. As for the charging of interest, the magisterium condemns it as a mortal sin, and condemns those who would deny this as heretics.

 

[fix]

transfinitum:

Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

MrS:

Any Church teaching regarding interest rates is not Doctrine…who told you it was Doctrine???

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"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)."

So it certainly appears to me that the Council of Vienne taught, explicitly, and as an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, that interest taking in any amount whatsoever was sinful. It even goes so far as to state that anyone who denies this, is to be considered an heretic.

Interesting, yes?

I can find no magisterial teaching to the contrary.

It is a red herring. The entire concept of money has changed. It must be understood in light of what money is today. Usury was a sin and is a sin today and always will be a sin.

 

[Catholic2003]

There is an encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV that is relevant to the usary discussion. It says, in part:

1. II. 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.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

There is an encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV that is relevant to the usary discussion. It says, in part:

That is the point. Money, at that time, had a very different meaning than today.

 

[metal1633]

transfinitum:

Thanks for your reply…you wrote:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. 27, only forbids excessive interest. There is no canon law which takes into consideration the question of moderate interest; and canon law nowhere states distinctly that interest is, under any circumstances whatsoever, contrary to justice. Excessive Interest is contrary to Justice. Ask anyone who took out a loan from a loan shark.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"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).

So I would appreciate a link to the text quoted from Lateran IV approving interest in any amount whatsoever. As near as I can tell interest taking has been defined as usury throughout the history of the magisterium, and it is merely the practice which has changed.

I dont think you read what I wrote. I did not say “Lateran IV approving interest in any amount whatsoever” I said “The Fourth Council of the Lateran… only forbids excessive interest.” EXCESSIVE Interest.