Rorate Caeli has a fascinating interview of Sandro Magister on Pope Francis which took place on November 14, last year
This year Sandro Magister celebrates 40 years as a Vatican journalist. His first articles in L’Espresso in fact, date back to 1974. And today, from those columns and also from the site of the weekly magazine, he still continues to report Vatican and Church news, everything very well-documented without bowing down to anyone.
Born in 1943, a native of Busto Arsizio, with degrees in Philosophy and Theology from the “Cattolica”, Magister has followed many Roman pontiffs. His articles regarding the present Pontiff, Pope Francis, are distinct from the mainstream Vatican journalists, unhesitatingly noting contradictions.
*****
Question: Magister, Pope Bergoglio, has been basking in worldwide success these past months, but some of his decisions have given pause for thought. For example, he has presented himself as Bishop of Rome but at the Synod for the Family, he evoked the Codes of Canon Law confirming Petrine power.
R: It’s true. He did that in his closing speech.
Q: He outlined a shared and open vision in the governing Church, yet he appointed an outside commissioner with rather tough methods to the Franciscans of the Immaculate and also de facto put a bridle on the bishops conferences.
[CONTRADICTIONS ARE INHERENT TO BERGOGLIO’S CHARACTER]
Q: When speaking to the popular movements he seemed to echo some of Tony Negri’s analyses on work, as you wrote on the blog Settimo Cielo. But then he accepted the “layoff” of 500 workers, among them, calligraphers, painters and printers of which the Office of Papal Charities decided it had no more use for.
R: In fact that incident is a bit jarring…
Q: …as jarring as his harsh ultra-libertarian positions on justice and prisons by having the ex-nuncio to the Dominican Republic jailed in advance of judgment on accusations of pedophilia.
R: That’s right.
Q: So, you have been a vaticanist for a long time, what do you think of all this?
R: That there are contradictions inherent in the character of Jorge Bergoglio. This is based on observations of valid evidence over many months.
Q: What conclusions have you come to?
R: Throughout his life he has been a person who has acted on different fronts contemporarily and does the same thing now as Pontiff; he leaves passages open, and on first reading, there are many contradictions. Anyway, those you mentioned are not the only ones.
[VERY TALKATIVE, BUT SILENT WHEN IT COULD MATTER]
Q: Tell us about some others…
R: He is a very talkative Pope and has telephoned and approached all different kinds of people both near and far, but has been silent about the Asia Bibi case.
Q: The Pakistani lady who has been in prison a long time, condemned to death for apostasy…
R: Exactly. Pope Francis has not uttered a word about her. The same goes for the kidnapped Nigerian girls and that unbelievable act of a few days ago in Pakistan when a Christian married couple were burnt to death in a furnace.
[POPE ORGANIZED THE SYNOD FROM START TO FINISH]
Q: These are stories connected to relations with Islam, which we’ll return to later. Some are beginning to define these contradictions as “Jesuitism” in the sense of a ‘multi-way of thinking’.
R: This is a disparaging and unacceptable estimation, even if it’s true that Jesuit spirituality historically has shown itself able to adapt to the most diverse situations, at times even contradictory among themselves.
Q: …as the organization of the recent Synod appeared contradictory…
R: An organization precisely calculated by the Pope, not left to chance as was lead to believe; there were other contradictory elements as well.
[POPE’S DEBATE ON COMMUNION FOR REMARRIED TOUCHES VERY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH]
Q: For example?
R: Bergoglio has said repeatedly that he didn’t want to make compromises with doctrine, that he was with the tradition of the Church. But then, he opened discussions, like the ones on Communion for the divorced and remarried, which effectively touch the very foundations of the Church.
Q: Why?
R: Because it is inevitable that Communion for the divorced and remarried will result in the acceptance of second-marriages, and so to the dissolution of the sacramental bond of matrimony.
[BEWILDERMENT WITH BERGOGLIO NOT LIMITED TO TRADITIONALISTS]
Q: I’m not a vaticanist, but the sense from the outside is that bewilderment is growing and not only from the hierarchy. What’s more, also in sectors you would certainly not define as traditionalist…
R: This is undeniable. We have leaders in prominent positions, not Lefebvrians, who are making this clear, even if they don’t express it in drastic and antagonistic terms. Not even Cardinal Burke, recently removed from his position as the ex-Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura, did so, because there isn’t a prejudicially hostile tendency against the Pontiff. Certainly there are evident manifestations of uneasiness.
[THE UNDERMINING OF BISHOPS IN AMERICA AND ITALY]
Q: What about an example?
R: Take for example the Episcopate in the United States, that is, the bishops of one of the most numerous Catholic populations in the world. In recent years, that Episcopal Conference expressed a coherent and combative line in the public arena, even regarding certain decisions by Barack Obama on ethical issues. A line shared by many prominent prelates. A collective, more than the sum of singles, a management team, we could say…
Q: And so the Americans?
R: They are somewhat uneasy. The Cardinals and Archbishops, like Timothy Dolan from New York, Patrick O’ Malley from Boston, José Gomez from Los Angeles or Charles Chaput from Philadelphia, are all uneasy. This is the episcopate that Burke himself comes from and is certainly not restricted to the marginal traditional circuits, but continues to be part of one of the most solid national Churches.
Q: And also the Italian Episcopal Conference as you said before, appears to be a bit in difficulty.
R: Yes, there are many difficulties in trying to keep up with this Pope. The President, Angelo Bagnasco seems to be the one in most difficulty.
Q: Also since his successor Archbishop of Perugia, Gualtiero Bassetti has already been indicated. He was made a Cardinal by Bergoglio.
R: But, as far I know also Bassetti is among the Italian bishops who are uneasy.
[IT WAS THE POPE’S DECISION TO USE KASPER TO OPEN HOSTILITIES]
Q: Among the Italians, the most explicit were perhaps the Milanese, Angelo Scola and the Bolognese, Carlo Caffarra.
R: Yes, they were with their interventions before and during the Synod. But it was all inevitable considering the Pope’s decision to assign the opening of the discussions to Cardinal Walter Kasper, and so this basically was the start of the hostilities .
Q: Why?
R: Because Kasper is proposing again today exactly the same theses defeated in 1993 by John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger, the latter being the Prefect of the Holy Office at the time.
[POPE ACTUALLY SCOLDS CONSERVATIVES, NOT PROGRESSIVES]
Q: Yes, the Pope launched Kasper, he made Abp. Bruno Forte special Secretary to the Synod and who carried weight during the work itself, so much so as to provoke reactions from some Synod fathers. But then, finally, Francis intervened scolding both sides – almost like an old Christian Democrat against opposite extremisms.
R: It’s another recurring practice of this Pontificate: reprimands to one side and the other. However, if we want to make an inventory, the scoldings aimed at the traditionalists, the legalists and the rigid defenders of doctrine appear to be much more numerous. On the other hand, whenever he has something to say to the progressives you never understand who he is really referring to.
Go here to read the rest. The main take away from the interview is that if you are confused by the Pope join the club. 1 Corinthians 14:8 comes to mind: For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle ? At best the confusion caused by the Pope is unintentional. At worst, the Pope intends the confusion he sows as a feature, not a bug.
If the Pope’s confusing statement’s were unintentional, we who are conservatives and traditionalists might get something in our favor every once in a while! Sadly, Pope Francis’s statements show he has it in for those of us who are of that persuasion.
If the Pope’s confusing statement’s were unintentional, we who are conservatives and traditionalists might get something in our favor every once in a while! Sadly, Pope Francis’s statements show he has it in for those of us who are of that persuasion.
I think everything Pope Francis does is intentional. By changing the moral practice of the Church to open Holy Communion to folks in “irregular relationships” (love that wording; it’s so benign) he is: 1. Merely recognizing what already is happening in most places. 2. Possibly eliminating the need for sacramental confession and the formalities and cost of annulments which is really just another re-alignment with the reality current Catholic practice. What we have here overall is putting the finishing touches on Vatican II.
If this is not to your liking there is always the alternative of SSPX.
We must not allow ourselves to be out-smarted and/or out-maneuvered by the enemies of the Cross of Christ. We know their ultimate (abominable) aim, therefore we must look for ways and means to thwart that despicable aim.
We must fight smart.
.
But, Schism is not an option
http://www.popeleo13.com/pope/2015/02/12/category-archive-message-board-252-schism-is-not-an-option/
I followed the link to the remainder of the interview. It is unfortunately a confirmation of a sense of things ‘not so good’. The interview also reflects a growing ‘bill of particulars’ about Pope Francis, his conduct and ideology. Pray for the Pope and remain militant…..in a Church sense of the word.
Pope St Pius X, pray for us.
“When he was in Bethlehem, he stopped in front of the wall that partitions the territory from Israel and stood there in absolute silence: we don’t know what he meant by this. And in Lampedusa when he shouted “Shame!” it wasn’t clear who should be ashamed and what they should be ashamed of.”
Such ambiguity from churchmen is by no means uncommon. On hearing the news of Talleyrand’s death, Prince Metternich mused, “Now, I wonder what he meant by that.”
Ambiguity is the hallmark of the modernist.
It is not ambiguity that concerns me as much as outright contradiction. For a pope who cries there must be “subsidiarity” in order to dismantle the present Vatican curia, to then turn around and demand the nations of the world “distribute (re-distribute) private wealth, raises serious questions. Why? Pius XI called violating the principle of subsidiarity “a grave evil.” Which pope should we believe?
Don Lond wrote, “For a pope who cries there must be “subsidiarity” in order to dismantle the present Vatican curia, to then turn around and demand the nations of the world “distribute (re-distribute) private wealth, raises serious questions…”
According to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, “On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies”
I do not see how the Holy Father’s request violates this principle, more especially as Bl Paul VI taught in Populorum Progressio that “Such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified. We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority. As We told the United Nations General Assembly in New York: “Your vocation is to bring not just some peoples but all peoples together as brothers. . . Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a world authority capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political planes?””
“Such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified. We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority. As We told the United Nations General Assembly –
We’ve had 94 years worth of experience with standing multi-purpose international organizations and a bit longer with regional associations. How you think it’s been working out for us all, MPS?
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Subsidiarity is aimed at protecting and respecting the dignity of man, thus is a moral criterion–not to elevate the higher order, but to limit it’s power to the appropriate reason–serving mankind.
From Pius XI;
“…[Subsidiarity] … that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.”
Thus, to demand that nations take from some solely because of his and Obama’s share evil (inequality) is deemed not licit and a grave evil.
Don Lond
Just as Populorum Progressio teaches that “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation,” the same principle surely applies to those nations whose natural resources are “extensive, unused or poorly used.”
Art Deco
The international conventions governing the Rhine, the Danube, the Suez and Panama canals have contributed to the genral prosperity, as had the International Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law has made some, albeit limited, progress in promoting uniform rules on the international carriage of goods, international sales and in other areas, too.
Because progress has been less than one might wish does not mean there has been no progress at all.
Michael Paterson-Seymour
The essence of the faith is simply that nowhere in the gospels does Christ call upon Caesar or state controlled economics to solve the church’s mission of salvation–in fact the gospels speak only of the opposite.
We have clearly lost our path in depending upon fallen man (Caesar and the state) to save mankind. I include the coming embarrassment of the Church aligning itself with the “climate change” hoax created by the politicalized UN as a path to salvation.
I prefer the exercise of our great gift of free will though I fail often to give thanks for that gift by saying yes, obediently and lovingly, to God’s call to use that gift for his glory. I watch as the constitutional framework for the protection of that gift and for the advancement of ordered liberty is torn asunder. I detest statism in all its ugly and seductive forms, and as the empirical manifestation of modernity and post modernity.
–from 1Samuel 8
Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full to those who were asking him for a king.
He told them: “The governance of the king who will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot.
He will appoint from among them his commanders of thousands and of hundreds. He will make them do his plowing and harvesting and produce his weapons of war and chariotry.
He will use your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers.
He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his servants.
He will tithe your crops and grape harvests to give to his officials* and his servants.
He will take your male and female slaves, as well as your best oxen and donkeys, and use them to do his work.
He will also tithe your flocks. As for you, you will become his slaves.
On that day you will cry out because of the king whom you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you on that day.”
Typically, an elected leader who contradicts himself is seen as weak, a backtracker, a liar, a buffoon, or all of these things.
This roman Pontiff has his likes and his dislikes and he isn’t the least bit hesitant about showing any of them. He is also afraid – afraid of stepping on the toes of Protestants, and afraid of direct confrontation with Islam.
His personally appointed hatchet man for the the FFI has been found guilty of lying and defamation and must pay a fine and apologize publicly to the family of the FFI founder. The FFI never deserved such treatment and whether it was the Roman Pontiff who personally ordered it or gave carte blanche for Fr. Volpi to do what he did – it makes the Roman Pontiff a mean and petty man.
The t shirt he posed with – the one saying no to fracking – I wanna see him try it here. Fracking has kept our gas bills down and provided jobs and an abundant supply of energy. Yes, Mr. Primavera, nuclear power is more efficient but its enemies have been most successful against it.
Pope John Paul II should have made Cardinal Kasper the titular head of the Diocese of Antartica, sent him there and forbid him to leave.
The international conventions governing the Rhine, the Danube, the Suez and Panama canals have contributed to the genral prosperity, as had the International Convention on the Law of the Sea.
—
Treaties were not an innovation of the 1920s and any secretariats administering these treaties would not be a ‘multi-purpose’ organization. (And, no, I’m not buying re Law of the Sea, which the Reagan Administration refused to submit for ratification because its purpose was to legitimate the appropriation of mining revenues by 3d world kleptocracies).
There were serious contradictions in the presentation of Obama Care
to the American people for their approval. We later learned those
contradictions were intentionally placed in the original proposal to
the American people, who the Obama administration regarded
as stupid, to confuse them about the truth of Obama Care for the
purpose of deceiving them into accepting government health care.
I believe the duplicitous Bergoglio understands this and uses
contradictory statements to confuse and to deceive the faithful.
Don Lond wrote, “nowhere in the gospels does Christ call upon Caesar or state controlled economics to solve the church’s mission of salvation–in fact the gospels speak only of the opposite.”
Yet the Apostle says of the civil magistrate, “For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.” (Rom 13:4)
Moreover, many commentators interpret Luke 22:38, “But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough” to refer to the civil and temporal powers in Christendom.
“For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.”
Yep, a clear reference to Catholic support for the death penalty and zip to do with the welfare state. As to the two swords theory of governance to justify secular authority for the Pope, let us say that was always a somewhat strained analogy, but if the popes had not fastened upon the idea that the Church was not subject to the State, the Church would have ended up as merely an organ of the State. Once again, however, this has bupkis to do with the welfare state.
Donald R McClarey wrote, “As to the two swords theory of governance to justify secular authority for the Pope”
A more common interpretation was of Pope and Emperor as the spiritual and temporal heads of Christendom. The Eastern Fathers also refer to the two swords as signifying the συμφωνία, the agreement or concord between the two powers, with the emperor as the protector of the Church and guardian of her unity. This theory is expounded at rather tedious length in the Ecloga or legal codification of Leo III (the Isaurian) in 726. You will find it, too, in the Basilics of the Emperor Leo the Philosopher c 900.
Pope Gelasius in 494 set forth the standard Catholic Western interpretation in which the spiritual was superior to the secular:
“There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation.”
In the East the Church was subordinate to the Emperor. In the West that was never the case, however much secular rulers wished it might be so. The Protestant Reformation overturned this understanding with disastrous consequences.
A very well known educated, intelligent, non argumentative, highly respected radio talk show host, who I have been listening to for decades, said something recently on air that caused me concern about Pope Francis. He said the man who is our Pope is a man “of the left.” He said this comes from some Argentinian good friends of his who knew the future Pope well in Argentina. With that in mind, my concern is from statements Pope Francis has made about so-called “global warming” and the poor nations, which he is going to address in an encyclical later this Fall which he says he hopes will have an impact on the national leaders when they come together one last time to address this issue and bring forth some kind of global regulations.
My concern was heighten with the recent statement by President Obama that the greatest threat to our nation is “global warming not ISIS;” doubling down on that with his administration saying afterwards that the “demonstration of terrorism cannot be stopped by killing those who commit it, but the need to provide more jobs and better economies for those impoverished countries,” inferring – caused by “global warming.” If Pope Francis and Barack Obama are kindred spirits on this issue woe be to the world, especially the U.S. of America and our liberties.
Once before the Church sided with the left on a major issue, what she called “a consistent ethic of life” which was an expansion of the definition of “pro-life,” a word coined to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice” after Roe v. Wade. This change of focus was supposed to expand the support for “pro-life” bringing in many more groups of people. What it really did was killed the “pro-life” movement, ending the possibility of ever passing a Right-to-Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The “many more groups of people” that were supposed to help get a RTL amendment passed, in reality were Catholic Democrats who didn’t want to leave their party or the Church. What the U.S. bishops responsible for this new direction for “pro-life,” really wanted to accomplish was to “keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (page 242, 243, “Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism,” a biography by Eugene Kennedy – a 30 year long friend of Bernardin’s) The affect of a Pope Francis Barack Obama tag-team on “global warming” wouldn’t be isolated to a single group of people like the unborn, it will negatively affect hundreds of millions of people in developed countries around the world, especially those of us in the U.S.
The heresy here is that the human person is subservient to the planet. God is a SOVEREIGN PERSON. God is a Supreme Sovereign Being, WHO is three Persons in one God, in a Trinity of Persons. The human beings are sovereign persons made in the image of the Persons of God.
The planet is a creation. The planet is created for man, the person of man by the Person of God, Whose Divine Providence rules over the destiny of the person of man and the paths of the universe.
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ, the Vicar of the Person of Jesus Christ, “in persona Christi” and “as alter Christi”. If Pope Francis does not or will not acknowledge his own sovereign personhood, Pope Francis, by his office as Pope Francis must acknowledge the Persons of God in the Holy Trinity. Pope Francis must acknowledge every individual human being as a person, especially the unborn child of a pregnant woman.
The sovereign person, immediately created at procreation, has a free will. The person’s will to live is the Right to life inscribed in our Declaration of Independence.
Whosoever thinks that he can redefine man’s soul is insane.
The Left despises subsidiarity. Rather than the rule of conscience, self-regulation, governance first of family, and local community, being assisted and facilitated by leaders, a top-down totalitarianism is envisioned by those sharing Obama’s apparent worldview. From the movement to disarm private citizens to the establishment of global control of energy allocation, an international super-state would emerge. Militant Islam is seen merely as a distraction from these goals rather than an evil force filling the moral vacuum in the soul of the West.
Let us not forget that relativism applies to subsidiarity as well. The pope said it as a reason to dismantle the curia, but then seems to ignore it when it applies to social justice/political power (that nations must “re”distribute and “inequality” is evil statements)
Make no mistake the Catholic political left (there can be no Catholic “spiritual ” left as we are either with Him or against Him) will use “subsidiarity ” illogically against the hierarchy…demanding as they long have –a bottom up democratic church seeking to remove the power of the hierarchy. A completion of the Protestant revolution?
Don L: “A completion of the Protestant revolution?” Very many,(at least fifty) years ago, an old friend told me that he thought the rise of Nazi Germany was a consequence of the Protestant Reformation. I think as much can be said of the rise of the various expressions of Marxism. Now, I realize that a form of historicism is also an expression of Marxist theory, and is to be avoided. Nonetheless every effect has its cause.
William P Walsh wrote, “The Left despises subsidiarity…”
Lord Acton explains this very well. “It condemns, as a State within the State, every inner group and community, class or corporation, administering its own affairs; and, by proclaiming the abolition of privileges, it emancipates the subjects of every such authority in order to transfer them exclusively to its own. It recognises liberty only in the individual, because it is only in the individual that liberty can be separated from authority, and the right of conditional obedience deprived of the security of a limited command.”
It is an attitude that goes back at least as far as Rousseau’s suspicion of particular interests that undermined the general will. Recall the French Revolution and the Law of 18 August 1792, dissolving corporations: “A State that is truly free ought not to suffer within its bosom any corporation, not even such as, being dedicated to public instruction, have merited well of the country”
Trading partnerships were exempt and, as F W Maitland noted, “for a long time past French law has afforded comfortable quarters for various kinds of groups, provided (but notice this) that the group’s one and only object was the making of pecuniary gain. Recent writers have noticed it as a paradox that the State saw no harm in the selfish people who wanted dividends, while it had an intense dread of the comparatively unselfish people who would combine with some religious, charitable, literary, scientific, artistic purpose in view.”
Pope Francis cries out for “social Justice” and the re-distribution of wealth as though it has not been done and is not being done. In this, Pope Francis joins the Left in disenfranchising individuals, of their sovereignty and acknowledgment of their conscience for each man to decide what he can and cannot afford to tithe. The United Nations and other powerful forces will use the authority of the Catholic Church to impose a monetary system that will cause all men to be denied in body and soul. It is the human soul that the devil wishes to get and this will enable the devil.
.
It is the non-taxable tithes that some governments wish to arrogate for themselves and Pope Francis is playing their tune. If all the monies of the world (read temple tax) come to the reigning government, Pope Francis will get nothing, or whatever is left over. If people read Deuteronomy 14: 22-29 concerning tithes, the proper order of the distribution of wealth or money is there inscribed.
Mary de Voe wrote, “Pope Francis joins the Left in disenfranchising individuals, of their sovereignty and acknowledgment of their conscience for each man to decide what he can and cannot afford to tithe.”
The payment of tithes was a legal obligation for over a thousand years, beginning with an ordinance made by Charlemagne as King of the Franks, in a general assembly of his Estates, spiritual and temporal, in 778-779. The ordinance was in the following terms : “Concerning tithes, it is ordained that every man give his tithe, and that they be dispensed according to the bishop’s commandment.”
A Capitular for Saxony in 789 appointed tithes to be paid out of all public property, and that all men, “whether noble, or gentle, or of lower degree,” should “give according to God’s commandment, to the churches and priests, of their substance and labour : as God has given to each Christian, so ought he
to repay a part to God.”’
A Capitular of 800 made the payment of tithes universal within the fiscal domain of the whole Frankish kingdom. We are told the reading of this Capitular was interrupted by loud and repeated shouts from Pope Leo IV and the assembled clergy of “Life and victory to our ever-august Emperor!”
From this time onwards, therefore, we may say the civil law superseded any merely spiritual admonitions as to the payment of tithes. Their payment was no longer a religious duty alone; it was a legal obligation, enforceable by the laws of the civil head of Christendom.
Michael Paterson-Seymour: “From this time onwards, therefore, we may say the civil law superseded any merely spiritual admonitions as to the payment of tithes. Their payment was no longer a religious duty alone; it was a legal obligation, enforceable by the laws of the civil head of Christendom.”
.
But the sovereign person, who is a citizen, counted his earnings that were to be tithed.. If Obama’s social Justice kicks in, Obama will take what he decides.
.
The civil law did not supersede the spiritual admonitions as to the payment of tithes. Reading the Bible at Deuteronomy 14: 20-29 one can see that God instructs every man: “Whatever you desire, oxen or sheep, wine or strong drink, or anything else you would enjoy and there before the Lord, your God, you shall partake of it and make merry with your family. But do not neglect the Levite…” “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithes of your produce FOR THAT YEAR and deposit them in the community stores…”for the Levite, the alien, the orphan, and the widow WHO BELONG TO YOUR COMMUNITY…” (not illegal aliens).
.
First, after the Lord, God, comes the family, and making merry, then comes the Levite. After three years comes the community stores. The produce remained the property of the citizen and so did the authority from God to manage his property, “so, that the Lord, your God may bless you in all that you undertake.”
.
The blessing from God is real. The Blessings from the State must be Liberty (The Preamble)
.
When the government dictates any law from the Bible, they acknowledge God and His supreme sovereignty over man. In a society, such as ours, a nation that has denied the existence of God and God’s sovereignty over man, there is only tyranny over man in every breath “We, the people” take and every law that the tyrant makes.
Mary de Voe wrote, “But the sovereign person, who is a citizen, counted his earnings that were to be tithed.”
No, the bshop could raise an action of augmentation, modification and locality before the count or the missi dominici to determine the amount for each parcel of land.
As Lord President Inglis said in Duff v. The Earl of Seafield, Nov. 9, 1883, n R., at p. 141: “Some confusion in argument is always introduced by looking upon teinds as a burden upon lands. Teinds are not a burden upon lands. They are a separate estate” In effect, the Church owned a tenth of the land and the proprietor the other nine-tenths. That is wy the tithe-owner had to draw his teind on the ground of the land; the landowner was not obliged to transport it.