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.

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.

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:

     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.

Quote from: hugeman

    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?
 

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: hugeman

    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]

3.9 million is a lot for church.  Where is it and how many does it accommodate?