Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Marlelar on May 18, 2014, 05:58:35 PM
-
My jaw dropped at Mass this morning. Father Riccomini was talking about our building debt. The parish had to borrow money from the Society and it is being paid back WITH INTEREST !
INTEREST? REALLY? The Society charges it own :really-mad2: interest on building loans?????
I would expect Wells Fargo or B of A to charge interest but the SSPX charges the SSPX to borrow money to complete its own building project?
Disgraceful.
:really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2:
Marsha
-
How much money are we talking about? And for how long? And at what rate of interest? If it is a large sum, it would be fair that some interest is paid. Otherwise the capital, once reimbursed, will not have its original purchasing value. A very close and very dear family member borrowed a considerable sum from us. After five years, no money, no contact. I should have listen to my wife.
-
Actually loans from Dioceses to parishes almost always require interest to be repaid for the reason adduced above.
-
Marlelar,
I Know from SSPX coordinators that the SSPX has long been loaning money to buy churches or to purchase additional buildings so they can own the property upfront, but the faithful has to pay back at “very low interest” (I didn’t ask details). Since the Resistance begun, they have been trying to get those loans paid as fast as possible. They want to own the property but not pay for it. That is the reason they have always afforded to dump any property at the drop of a hat wherever their “pray, pay & obey” policy fails.
-
:thinking: :dancing-banana:
And if the declining numbers don't pay up? The diocese would love to expand the monstrosity of the "Catholic Community" adjacent to the SSPX.
-
My jaw dropped at Mass this morning. Father Riccomini was talking about our building debt. The parish had to borrow money from the Society and it is being paid back WITH INTEREST !
INTEREST? REALLY? The Society charges it own :really-mad2: interest on building loans?????
I would expect Wells Fargo or B of A to charge interest but the SSPX charges the SSPX to borrow money to complete its own building project?
Disgraceful.
:really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2:
Marsha
I think this needs to be clarified with someone in the SSPX management. Our local SSPX chapel has begun a fundraising campaign to build a new school and church and they may have to borrow some money as well. The priest here told me that the SSPX has its own internal banking system where they pool money together from all the different chapels and loan it out to where it is needed without usury. This would seem to contradict what you have just heard. :scratchchin:
-
Leaving aside the fact that the Church has not yet defined precisely what constitutes "usury" (and therefore to accuse the SSPX of practicing it in regard to internal chapel loans is premature to say the least), the following work of Fr. Denis Fahey is available in entirety online, and provides a good foundational introduction to the principles involved in the matter:
http://www.liberius.net/livres/Money_manipulation_and_social_order_000000317.pdf
-
It is wrong, and a Jєωιѕн banking scheme, to charge interest to a Catholic church or chapel. In fact, the entire Jєωιѕн banking scheme is immoral-- and interest should never be charged. Maybe SSPX priests should read some of the seventh and eigth grade readers that its students (should be ) read (ing).
The Hebrew word for interest is neshekh, which means, closely, "a bite", as , "to loan money to the goy and take a bite out of him." Read Father Charles E. Coughlin's excellent book "Money, Questions and Answers" or his
"ѕυιcιdє of Capitalism."
Christ's parable was NOT to instruct Christians to loan money to each other, and thereby derive an income from the money; it was to invest the money in capital, which improved commerce or business, and thereby returned a value for the investor.
This money-loaning scheme, which the SSPX uses all over, is part and parcel of the SSPX' drive for more and more money at any cost-- build up the buildings, water down the faith so anybody will enter, then exact the principal with interest from the faithful. ( Contrast this with the old SSPX which advised against going into debt!). This reported scheme is likely the arrangement which Krah and the Jєωιѕн Rothschild group made with Fellay and Co. to build the new taj mahal seminary-- now they need to accept Vatican II and all its errors; so as to get the seminary rooms full of novus ordo boys--with their parents and/ or the novus ordo bishops paying the bills.
-
It is wrong, and a Jєωιѕн banking scheme, to charge interest to a Catholic church or chapel. In fact, the entire Jєωιѕн banking scheme is immoral-- and interest should never be charged. Maybe SSPX priests should read some of the seventh and eigth grade readers that its students (should be ) read (ing).
The Hebrew word for interest is neshekh, which means, closely, "a bite", as , "to loan money to the goy and take a bite out of him." Read Father Charles E. Coughlin's excellent book "Money, Questions and Answers" or his
"ѕυιcιdє of Capitalism."
Christ's parable was NOT to instruct Christians to loan money to each other, and thereby derive an income from the money; it was to invest the money in capital, which improved commerce or business, and thereby returned a value for the investor.
This money-loaning scheme, which the SSPX uses all over, is part and parcel of the SSPX' drive for more and more money at any cost-- build up the buildings, water down the faith so anybody will enter, then exact the principal with interest from the faithful. ( Contrast this with the old SSPX which advised against going into debt!). This reported scheme is likely the arrangement which Krah and the Jєωιѕн Rothschild group made with Fellay and Co. to build the new taj mahal seminary-- now they need to accept Vatican II and all its errors; so as to get the seminary rooms full of novus ordo boys--with their parents and/ or the novus ordo bishops paying the bills.
Quite the grave accusation you are making, and completely irresponsible.
Do you have any idea how long the SSPX has been making chapel loans?
-
It is wrong, and a Jєωιѕн banking scheme, to charge interest to a Catholic church or chapel. In fact, the entire Jєωιѕн banking scheme is immoral-- and interest should never be charged. Maybe SSPX priests should read some of the seventh and eigth grade readers that its students (should be ) read (ing).
The Hebrew word for interest is neshekh, which means, closely, "a bite", as , "to loan money to the goy and take a bite out of him." Read Father Charles E. Coughlin's excellent book "Money, Questions and Answers" or his
"ѕυιcιdє of Capitalism."
Christ's parable was NOT to instruct Christians to loan money to each other, and thereby derive an income from the money; it was to invest the money in capital, which improved commerce or business, and thereby returned a value for the investor.
This money-loaning scheme, which the SSPX uses all over, is part and parcel of the SSPX' drive for more and more money at any cost-- build up the buildings, water down the faith so anybody will enter, then exact the principal with interest from the faithful. ( Contrast this with the old SSPX which advised against going into debt!). This reported scheme is likely the arrangement which Krah and the Jєωιѕн Rothschild group made with Fellay and Co. to build the new taj mahal seminary-- now they need to accept Vatican II and all its errors; so as to get the seminary rooms full of novus ordo boys--with their parents and/ or the novus ordo bishops paying the bills.
Quite the grave accusation you are making, and completely irresponsible.
Do you have any idea how long the SSPX has been making chapel loans?
Wake up and read the original post. You think Father R. was lying to the parishioners? ( I doubt it) Or you think Rostand was mistaken, and is going to give them the money for nothing?
-
I would think that any interest that the SSPX charges on a loan to be a very small token amount like under prime rate, probably to satisfy legal requirements. I really would find it hard to believe that they would be charging something like 6-8% on the loan and making money off of it.
I would just ask your priest for a clarification on this before getting mad/loosing any sleep over it. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for this.
-
It is wrong, and a Jєωιѕн banking scheme, to charge interest to a Catholic church or chapel. In fact, the entire Jєωιѕн banking scheme is immoral-- and interest should never be charged. Maybe SSPX priests should read some of the seventh and eigth grade readers that its students (should be ) read (ing).
The Hebrew word for interest is neshekh, which means, closely, "a bite", as , "to loan money to the goy and take a bite out of him." Read Father Charles E. Coughlin's excellent book "Money, Questions and Answers" or his
"ѕυιcιdє of Capitalism."
Christ's parable was NOT to instruct Christians to loan money to each other, and thereby derive an income from the money; it was to invest the money in capital, which improved commerce or business, and thereby returned a value for the investor.
This money-loaning scheme, which the SSPX uses all over, is part and parcel of the SSPX' drive for more and more money at any cost-- build up the buildings, water down the faith so anybody will enter, then exact the principal with interest from the faithful. ( Contrast this with the old SSPX which advised against going into debt!). This reported scheme is likely the arrangement which Krah and the Jєωιѕн Rothschild group made with Fellay and Co. to build the new taj mahal seminary-- now they need to accept Vatican II and all its errors; so as to get the seminary rooms full of novus ordo boys--with their parents and/ or the novus ordo bishops paying the bills.
Quite the grave accusation you are making, and completely irresponsible.
Do you have any idea how long the SSPX has been making chapel loans?
Wake up and read the original post. You think Father R. was lying to the parishioners? ( I doubt it) Or you think Rostand was mistaken, and is going to give them the money for nothing?
http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#productiveloans
Do you accept Belloc's distinction between "productive" and "non-productive" loans?
I have read and am aware of Belloc’s theory that it is licit to charge interest on a loan provided that it is productive, and that in this case it is not truly usurious.
In my opinion, a productive loan is effectively the same thing as what is more traditionally called "extrinsic title for legitimate interest." One of the extrinsic titles that I cited (July 1998 The Angelus in "Q&A": cf. CATHOLIC FAQ above: "Is Usury A Sin") was human productivity. Clearly, if the money is used to help man to produce something by his work, the person who provides the funds can share (to a moderate extent) in the productivity of the work. However, it is not the money itself which is productive. That is why the payment of dividends is perfectly moral, but the question of interest is much more delicate. I must confess that I prefer not to give a blanket approval to all "productive loans," as does Hilaire Belloc. I believe that it is very easy to go from that concept to that of modern day investment, and consequently just to consider as usurious that which is speculative investment. This is not the position of St. Thomas Aquinas and of Catholic Tradition. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
-
Not being part of any finance committee (if there is one) I am certain I would not be given any detailed information about the chapel loan.
The rate of interest does not matter to me, it is the principle of the thing. It is the SSPX lending money, in essence, to itself since it is the Society which owns the property and then it charges itself interest which can then be put on a financial sheet somewhere as income. It doesn't matter that it is common practice in NO circles, it smells fishy.
I'm no expert, just another plain Jane in the pews who is becoming more and more disillusioned. Apparently I'm not alone as the bulletin insert points out that almost 300K in pledges have evaporated.
I have the insert that was put in our bulletin:
Project cost 3.9M
Cash raised by Faithful 1.4M
SSPX loan 2.4M
Monthly Debt Service (1.5M interest only 3 years) $9,558 month
Monthly bldg fund (almost) 16K a month.
179K in pledges rescinded
127K in pledges not honored to date
Of course the "not honored" ones could be because of unemployment, unexpected hospital bills etc and they may still get those funds.
They should have taken the advice of Lord Polonius (Hamlet) -
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Marsha
-
3.9 million is a lot for church. Where is it and how many does it accommodate?
-
The problem I have with the interest is that the faithful is paying it on their (SSPX) own property . The loan payment should be enough. And they ONLY lend money when the deed is on their name. If it was not, I would not object to a low interest.
-
3.9 million is a lot for church. Where is it and how many does it accommodate?
It is in Phoenix, AZ on property they already owned. I believe it will seat 700. Here is a link (http://www.ourladyofsorrows.org/home.html)
It will be a beautiful church.
Marsha
-
3.9 million is a lot for church. Where is it and how many does it accommodate?
It is in Phoenix, AZ on property they already owned. I believe it will seat 700. Here is a link (http://www.ourladyofsorrows.org/home.html)
.
It will be a beautiful church.
Marsha
You just made my case. The faithful has enough burden with the loan . To charge interest, is immoral, IMO.
-
Monthly Debt Service (1.5M interest only 3 years) $9,558 month
That's what? About 7.5%?
I'm only surprised that you're surprised. The SSPX operates like a business and wants to know that the Phoenix division is profitable.
Consider that if you were a happy "customer", you wouldn't really care what they did with your contributions or who owned the building when it was finished.
-
I'm only surprised that you're surprised. The SSPX operates like a business and wants to know that the Phoenix division is profitable.
For some funny reason I keep expecting them to behave with Christian principles rather than strict business principles. My bad :cool:
Marsha
-
I have the insert that was put in our bulletin:
Project cost 3.9M
Cash raised by Faithful 1.4M
SSPX loan 2.4M
Monthly Debt Service (1.5M interest only 3 years) $9,558 month
Monthly bldg fund (almost) 16K a month.
179K in pledges rescinded
127K in pledges not honored to date
Trying to run those numbers in a mortgage calculator seems to bring the interest into the ~2% range but that is making an assumption on the amortization as 25 years, which is pretty standard, but it could be 20 years or 30 or 35 years. That doesn't strike me as very high interest (or usurious) since that won't even keep up with the inflation rate.
But that is just me running the numbers provided in a calculator, I obviously had to make some assumptions to get the payment into the $9,500 range with the info provided. So take this for what it is worth.
-
I have the insert that was put in our bulletin:
Project cost 3.9M
Cash raised by Faithful 1.4M
SSPX loan 2.4M
Monthly Debt Service (1.5M interest only 3 years) $9,558 month
Monthly bldg fund (almost) 16K a month.
179K in pledges rescinded
127K in pledges not honored to date
Trying to run those numbers in a mortgage calculator seems to bring the interest into the ~2% range but that is making an assumption on the amortization as 25 years, which is pretty standard, but it could be 20 years or 30 or 35 years. That doesn't strike me as very high interest (or usurious) since that won't even keep up with the inflation rate.
But that is just me running the numbers provided in a calculator, I obviously had to make some assumptions to get the payment into the $9,500 range with the info provided. So take this for what it is worth.
It says that's an interest only payment unless they meant something else.
-
I don't know what they mean by "1.5M interest only 3 years", that's just exactly how it was printed in the bulletin.
Marsha
-
Think about it folks. The lay faithful in Phoenix are asked to donate over $3.8 million to build a church that will be OWNED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT of the SSPX. They are being asked to give not from their excess but to sacrifice from what they need.
On their own they are able to collect a little over $1.4 million, quite heroic in the current economy. Without their consent Fr. Rostand decides to impose on the faithful a district loan for the balance. Now they are under the added burden of raising, every year, another $115,000 which accomplishes nothing toward the original goal.
So Fr. Rostand charges interest to the lay faithful WHO HAVEN’T BOUGHT HIM A CHURCH FAST ENOUGH.
-
Do any of you know what parish loans and debts and diocesan funding was like before Vatican II? Paying off interest to the diocese/province and mortgages are nothing new. The best pastors were those who could build parishes, get them out of debt, pay the diocesan assessments, special collections, bishop's fund etc.
-
Once upon a time the SSPX understood the definition of usury and the Catholic principles that oppose usury.
The February 2001 issue of The Angelus carried a book review of Hilaire Belloc’s Usury, which Angelus Press once offered for sale. Here is an extract from the review:
“The point Belloc makes in his short essay is that usury, contrary to the now common understanding of the term, is not the charging of exorbitant interest on a money loan. Rather, it is the charging of any interest whatsoever [emphasis in original] on a loan which is not ‘productive’ (i.e., on a loan which does not yield financial profits for the borrower). We have become so used to thinking of usury as the charging of high rates of interest, that we have forgotten that usury has nothing to do with the rate of interest charged at all.
“What Belloc points out is that there are two types of loans which could be made. The first is a loan the money from which the borrower invests to make a profit for himself. In this case, whether it was Aristotle or St. Thomas or Roman Law, no one objected to the loaner reaping a certain percentage of the profit which was the direct result of his loan. This type of loan Belloc refers to as a ‘productive loan.’ The ‘unproductive’ loan, however, is one in which no profit is made from the loan (e.g., mortgages). [emphasis added] In this case, the borrower does not take money out of his profit to pay the lender more than he has borrowed, rather he must take money out of his basic livelihood to pay the lender ‘interest’ on the money borrowed.”
The U.S. District of the SSPX is extracting usurious payments from the lay faithful who were too slow to raise enough money to buy the district a new church. Otherwise, all that $1.4 million might have had to be returned to the laity. There are no financial naïfs among the SSPX leadership.
-
I think we have to take into account inflation because since our money is worthless paper and they keep printing more of it we have inflation. If the interest charged is less than the rate of inflation I have no problem with it. If the interest charged is more than inflation then I think it is wrong.
-
Who owns the property and how are these chapels organized?
-
I would find it insulting if
1) I first GAVE FOR FREE a property to a person, and the income stream generated by it (in this case the church, land, buildings, and parishioners weekly donations).
2) then I additionally give the person $1.4 million
Then I ask the person for a loan of X, and the person charges me interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of that, and for what? In exchange I received a priest of the SSPX (who's education I paid).
I was better off housing all the independent priests who were abandoned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
READ this carefully and absorb it people:
We are in exile!!! We are not in a time of monument building! All we should aspire to is to find a valid priest to help us hold on to the true faith. ALL else is superfluous. The SSPX Catholics have become monument builders seeking to create a 1950's Catholicism paradise island.
-
I have been to NO parishes that had loans with the diocese.
When those parishes got into trouble the bishop would normally agree to forgive the entire amount of the loan.
The question now is, under similar circuмstances- would the SSPX forgive the loan ?
-
My jaw dropped at Mass this morning. Father Riccomini was talking about our building debt. The parish had to borrow money from the Society and it is being paid back WITH INTEREST !
INTEREST? REALLY? The Society charges it own :really-mad2: interest on building loans?????
I would expect Wells Fargo or B of A to charge interest but the SSPX charges the SSPX to borrow money to complete its own building project?
Disgraceful.
:really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2:
Marsha
I think this needs to be clarified with someone in the SSPX management. Our local SSPX chapel has begun a fundraising campaign to build a new school and church and they may have to borrow some money as well. The priest here told me that the SSPX has its own internal banking system where they pool money together from all the different chapels and loan it out to where it is needed without usury. This would seem to contradict what you have just heard. :scratchchin:
Leaving aside the fact that the Church has not yet defined precisely what constitutes "usury" (and therefore to accuse the SSPX of practicing it in regard to internal chapel loans is premature to say the least), the following work of Fr. Denis Fahey is available in entirety online, and provides a good foundational introduction to the principles involved in the matter:
http://www.liberius.net/livres/Money_manipulation_and_social_order_000000317.pdf
A follow up on this. As Sean Johnson said, the term "usury" needs to be defined. I was working with the definition of usury being the charging of any interest whatsoever. I've checked with my priest and he believes there is a little interest for loans from the district as compensation for loss of investment, interest, etc. I believe this is a fair practice and do not see any issue with it. Whether it is wise for a particular parish to take on the burden of a loan, interest or not, is another matter. Even if the money were free, it still has to be paid back and can put a large burden on the faithful.