text:
Home › Forums › Legacy (non-group) Forums › Legal Matters & Representation
Affadavits now on the public site
thesunnysouth
Joined: 10/10/08 Expires: 31/05/09
Status: unspecified
Posted: Sat, 14/02/2009 - 00:48
The affadavits we have been waiting for are now been posted on the public site. It is late and there is a lot of detail. However i note that the DCS is still a loan. Again the regulations stipulate that once everyone has received £50K and those over £50K have received 60% the scheme will then revert to paying back the IoM. Not until the DCS has been repaid will those still awaiting 40% get any further recompense.
Whereas all other governments pay in full this government wants its money back whilst depositors still await for their money. Why could they not just say we will collect money once everyone has their full 100%.
This is not a compensation scheme but a well crafted loan.
Flat list - collapsedFlat list - expandedThreaded list - collapsedThreaded list - expanded
SOA OR DCS - Schedule pf payments
If we as depositors are required to vote for the SOA then we need to be informed by the IoM Treasury how payments to depositors will be made in the case of the DCS as it would probably take up to 10 years for the participating banks to raise the funds required. If the Treasury proposes to advance funds to accelerate payments to depositors in an SoA scenario (50k GBP paid within 2 years) I do not see why they cannot do the same in the case of liquidation.
Comparison needed
expatvictim
Status: a depositor
Íf they wanted to, then IOMG could take out a loan and cover us all 100% - but they won't; nor will they offer up any more money if liquidation goes ahead and the DCS is triggered - simply because they are not legally obliged to. After all it would be us, the depositors who voted for liquidation not them. In neither scheme is the IOMG likely going to lose big money in the long term.
Irrespective, as LondonTeam have requested, a proper comparison is what is needed for a range of depositors liabilities. Unfortunately without a better understanding of the KSFUK situtation - when and how much will be returned, then when the 50k minimum under liquidation/DCS will be payed (for those of us in the > 50k groups at least) is, in my opinion anybodys guess. So at the moment, with deference to bond holders: 50k/(20k) minimum guaranteed over 2 years or 50k minimum/(SFA) over ???. Not withstanding the possibility that enough will be recovered in two years to pay everyone up to 50k where applicable.
That then leaves us with what rights we give up going down the SOA route versus the DCS'and how that might affect us getting 100% back (in a reasonable time frame). I'm no legal eagle so ultimately we need a simplified description from a qualified lawyer ("John Wright where are you) of what we are giving up in each case in order to make the best informed decision for our own particular circumstances. Not clear to me that we don''t give up certain rights under the DCS as well as the SOA -but best left to the experts.
Note: I am not endorsing either the SOA or the DCS - simply put I don't believe I have enough factual information to make än assesment.
Also what we do with these "rights";...
...likely time-frame and costs of pursuing these claims; chances of success
London Team Blog
This is a copy of our blog post.. I was going to create another topic.. but rather than proliferate them, it seems best to add it to this one:
Well, the affidavits finally arrived.. 24 hours late and at a time when our lawyers won't be able to review them without weekend work! Should we be surprised?
On first reading, we are very disappointed. Obviously, we need to hear what our lawyers have to say. They may see some magical ray of light where we, as lay people, can't.
Seems to us that IoMG and Alix Partners have spent the time converting the examples we had last time into words.. but the result is the same except:
They have hired Gabriel Moss, a respected QC, to consider similar schemes in financial institutions in the UK and advise how the scheme might retain our, and a liquidator's, legal rights. He recommends retaining the provisional liquidator and giving him/them extensive extra powers.
The scheme IoMG are proposing retains the LP, but we see no extra powers.. yet.. and we already know how powerless Mike Simpson is at present from his replies to questions on legal avenues!
One positive thing. The IoM Treasury have agreed not to recover the 10 million quid they have invested until we have 100% back. Seems Allan Bell, at least, may have got the message.
They propose to convert currencies at October 8th which is grossly unfair to currency account holders.
There is absolutely nothing for bond holders
They still plan to recover their money, used to accelerate payments and provide a DCS equivalent, when depositors have recovered 60p in the pound.
They have not answered the DAG lawyer's questions.
We still don't have an SoA we could vote on.
is not only unfair, it must be illegal
klauseriksen
Using Oct 8th as the date for exchange rate calculations is not only unfair, it must be illegal. Foreign currency holders with less than £50K equivalent will actually receive LESS from the SOA than they would from the DSC. Thus it goes against the main principle of the SOA that ALL should get the SAME or MORE from the SOA than the DSC. I myself am a foreign currency depositor with >50K in the pot and will definitely challenge this in the courts if it is forced through. The only way to have a chance of getting the SOA to work is to use the SAME DATE for exchange rate calculations as the DSC would use.
Who would like to join me in legal action if the SOA goes through in its current form?
Defeating SoA on 19 February
jkk
Klauseriksen, I will gladly join you in any future action against IoMG. But I think there is a much simpler, quicker and much less expensive way of defeating this criminal scheme.
All we have to do is find a lawyer who will petition the Court in our name to issue a liquidation order on the 19th February and... that's it! I am hearing that Deemster Corlett might be very sympathetic to such petition this time.
I do not think we will get support from the LondonTeam and their lawyer for such action, because they seem to be quite comfortable with prolonging this farce indefinitely. I cannot appear personally in the Court because I am broke and stuck in a remote corner of a remote continent. But if we can find a lawyer who will accept a deferred fee payment, I am ready to add my name to the petition.
Do you think Jonathan Smalley could be interested?
Time to launch legal action to recover our deposits
bdsa
klauseriksen, I'm in favor of legal action if they offer us anything less than 100 percent plus interest and costs and compensation for the hardship we have endured. Despite all our outreach efforts and lobbying, so far nobody in the Isle of Man Government has admitted any responsibility for their negligence nor indicated any intention to reimburse the depositors in full.
And the final insult is this SOA proposal. Do they really think foreign currency depositors would accept a discounted exchange rate and the surrender of their legal rights, all for a promise of a possible 60 percent reimbursement? The fact that the Government proposed such as scheme demonstrates that they are out of touch with reality and, quite frankly, incompetent beyond belief. I really don't think there is anyone at home in IOMG and the time is long past for us to expect any serious response from them.
The way forward for the depositors is clear - an overwhelming vote for liquidation, followed by the launching of a legal action to reclaim our deposits plus interest and costs. How the IOMG will finance this 100 percent reimbursement is their business. Many viable options have already been put on the table. Perhaps Alix and Partners can advise them. But since they obviously don't intend to do it voluntarily then our only option is to use the court system to compel them.
Bonds..again
When you say...There is absolutely nothing for Bond holders do you mean here is nothing mentioned Or do you mean they state Bond holders will get nothing...?? My understanding was that over 400 million was deposited via bonds (Is that correct ? ) and that only going the S.o.A route would help the cause of Bond holders......Surely the Insurance companies with so much invested will have a massive say in all this and if the SoA doesnt allow for this how can the whole thing move forward...
Chipmunk.. bonds
Apologies! Just meant that there is no reference to bondholders!
Insurance companies will be treated as any other large creditor.. unless the IoMG have done a side deal about which we know nothing.
We have contacted all the insurance companies but only had fairly non-commital replies to date, as indeed other depositors have.
We have also written to the IPA and the Insurance Companies concerning the role of Donald Gelling. The letter is here:
email exchange with insurance co
London team has the 36 hours passed and have you published the email exchange you mention in the letter. If so where? Thanks.
Thanks London team...By the way please ad one more Insurance company ..Hansard.....I believe they also have many millions deposited via Bonds....I have almost half a million alone in there....I do talk to them often but they are not so responsive.....
observations on the position taken by IOMG
I hope no-one will mind if I repeat my comments, posted elsewhere on this forum, in reply to a posting from "Manx-person":
Maybe I am missing something, but what is the source of additional money, over and above liquidation + DCS, that is the basis of what you say is the greater certainty in the case of the SoA? I still find this mysterious.
Also, why should the SoA require depositors to give up their statutory rights in the DCS? Why should the DCS not still be available to be called upon if the SoA does not perform as is being claimed? After all, it is now accepted by our opponents (I think that is the right word in this case) that the SoA will still permit liquidation to be called upon if necessary.
Going back to basics, are we now to accept that the DCS was never necessary, and that depositors should have been told when they put their money in the bank: "You can deposit your savings with confidence, because the IOM is very proud to announce that it has absolutely no depositors' compensation scheme. Instead the IOMG is committed to proposing an SoA in the event of a bank's collapse and, as should be obvious to everyone, an SoA will always be better than a statutory government guarantee".
Have I got that right? If so, one wonders why almost all other countries have a compensation scheme. Also, I find myself wondering why the IOM banks and the IOMG attached so much weight to the existence of the DCS right up until the very moment that it was needed, if they knew all along that a scheme of arrangement would be better for depositors.
I return again to my point in an earlier posting. The IOMG kees saying that it aims to do what is best for depositors and best for the IOMG. Best for the depositors (i) is return of all their savings. Best for IOMG (ii) is spending as little of its own money as possible and avoiding the stain of a liquidated bank on its reputation. The problem is that (i) and (ii) are mutually exclusive.
Finally, why replace a well tried and tested process (liquidation) with an untested and as yet unparticularised scheme, especially when the former is also reinforced by a statutory guarantee?
@elgee: Tynwald on Bank SoA contributions-
follow_the_tao
http://www.manxradio.com/audiovault/Keys-1.wma
As I understand the Banks contribution to the SoA "is dependent on the fact the the payments will be no more than that under the DCS.
At least that's what I understand from the comments.
Listen and tell us how you interpret their comments.
Banks agreement to payments
Spanishfly
From listening to the recording I get a sense of panic They have no formal or even letter of intent from the banks how much still talking when still talking Wake up lads the hearing is on the 19th Feb NEXT WEEK , you are really tell us that we have no money other than what the IOM has fronted up .
How can any depositor make a judgement on that sort of waffle, a statement was also made that 6000 had already taken up the 1000 pound bung , who are these 6000 ?
As I have posted before I am growing very tired of being treated as money grabbing, only after the high interest offshore tax evader , we appear to be getting yet again the run around buying time WHY IOM?
The 10000 Pound Early Payment appears to have been a PR stunt where has that gone that was to suck us into SOA .
I will be too old to enjoy my own money I worked long and hard ,I retired , Now GONE , Yesterday I was Mixing concrete for a days pay When was the last time Mr Tony Brown had to graft for 10 Hours for 80 Euros .
Liquidate lets get this show on the road
There are, as I understand it, 31 banks that would be levied under the DCS. Their maximum contribution would be £350,000 each p.a., say a maximum of 11m p.a. A reasonable expectation might be around 7m p.a., which is around 35m over the likely period of the proposed SoA. That amount of money will make very little difference to the net payout to depositors - perhaps at most about 7% (assuming total payout of 60% of 800m).
So perhaps you are right. Maybe the banks are not expected to contribute anything or hardly anything to any knd of scheme (DCS, SoA) and the SoA has been devised primarily to conceal that.
If so, then the banks themselves are dictating IOM government policy, which is a curious state of affairs especially as the banks all share responsibility for the financial crisis that precipitated the downfall of our bank.
@Spanishfly
IceCrusher
When I met with Allan Bell I posed this very question about the banks agreement and contribution to the SoA; he was quite adamant that extensive discussions had taken place with the participating banks and that they were in agreement. I noticed just a tinge of aggravation over this particular question, a little dismissive. I asked JW about it and he volunteered that any discussion would be confidential and we wouldn't get sight of any agreement between the Treasury and the banks...
Emperors New Clothes
After 4 months Alan Bell could not give the Tynwald a straight answer this week when asked about the Banks committment to fund the proposed SOA (or DCS I presume).
I believe that the Banks, who are all under severe pressure to stay afloat, let alone profitable, have all told Mr Bell to go and take a running jump. A number were part nationalised by HMG so you can imagine how keen they are to contribute to the SOA.
This latest SOA appears to me to be the last attempt of IOMG to get us to agree to a SOA (which the Treasury will fund without reference to the banks from what I can see) so that the DCS is not triggered as they are afraid the world will see that the DCS is made of the same substance as the Emperors New Clothes.
PS. they must be running out of fag packets in the IOM - the rock solid Parental G'tee was written on the back of one, as was the rock solid MOU between the FSC and FSA and now it appears the DCS is also written on the same type of material....
manx-person
Status: not a depositor
Well as I see it the next court decision is whether to allow a further postponement to develop the SoA (which is a legal document not a bunch of projections) or to liquidate.
The EPS will hopefully be increased to £10K and I understand this will be available whether there is a SoA or a Liquidation.
If the decision is made to liquidate then the DCS, and liquidation is what you get.
If a decision is made to allow the SoA to be developed then the document will be produced and it will be voted upon.
If the SoA is then approved by the requistite majority, thats what you get, if not revert to DCS and liquidation.
It wouldn't really matter if the parental guarantee ran to 200 pages. The issue is, and was from the day it was written (i) whether it is enforceable and (ii) Whether the guarantor has the money.
If you think the DCS is worthless, then it seems to me that the SoA could possibly produce a better result.
You have posted often over the past 4 months and I always read them as you do appear to have a good knowledge of the IOM Financial Services industry. I know you have been open about your circumstances but I think it timely to remind all that you are not a depositor and you work in the IOM Financial Services Industry so have a vested interest in keeping it alive and well - please correct me if I am wrong.
One thing that we all need to be careful of is not allowing our anger to overpower everything else so that we as a group end up cutting off our nose despite our face just to hit out at the IOMG.
Yes, you are right, although there are other posters on this forum who I know have simply misdeclared their depositor status.
I don't disagree with what you have said in your post, but I think that the SoA is the best chance of optimising a result for the depositors. For example the IOMG could change their undertakings and give additional undertakings. Its about experting influence in order to get this change.
In the case of an SoA the Treasury in effect defer their £10M till (if) all depositors get 100%. In a liquidation they would just get a pari passu distribution.
The position regarding foreign currency depositors and date of conversion is 'fixed' with a liquidation, an SoA has the capability to do something different.
Of course people may think that the SoA is, to quote Mr Roper "a scheme of smoke and mirrors" and if thats the case and people vote against it then it wont go ahead.
I appreciate your comments about anger, but if I had been a depositor I would not be very happy about the speed and nature of the resolution proposed so far by the IOMG and the performance at the TSC etc. and consider that in the most part people on the forum have been very civil given their perilous situations.
Brabander
Posted: Sun, 15/02/2009 - 11:52
Manx-person you appear to be an "insider". In any case you have not denied it.
I personally do not object to insiders in the Manx financial services industry posting onto this forum.
You mention that the Manx Treasury has agreed to defer repayment of their deposit of £10m until all other depositors have received 100%. That represents good but insufficient progress.
You mention that the IOMG could change their undertakings and give additional undertakings. I take it this means that the exact terms of the SoA are very much negotiable!
My personal opinion is that the biggest stumbling block is the percentage recovery at which the IOMG loan is repaid. This percentage is currently unacceptably low at 60%. I would need to see a significant increase in this percentage. I assume a DAG team could negotiate a substantial improvement!
As depositors with £50k or less at stake are not impacted by this I believe that these negotiations should be organised (and paid for if we need legal assistance) by depositors with >£50k involved.
I am prepared to make a contribution to such a scheme provided such a contribution is on a pro rata basis.
I realise not everybody with over £50k will be able to or will be prepared to contribute but the percentage contribution would be extremely low.
Ng, perhaps a "poll" could be conducted for depositors with over £50k to find out how many feel that this would be a worthwhile strategy.
SoA and FX factor for non sterling accounts
columbgc
Barabander,
Another significant factor for the non sterling account holders is the proposed date for the FX rate. In my case (and probably others' as well) the SoA guaranteed 60% at the OCT 08 date is less than the DCS guaranteed 50K at the FEB 09 FX rate! If indeed aspects of the SoA are negotiable, then I don't see many non Sterling account holders be willing to go for the SoA unless the FX date is revised or there is an agreement to pay back the 60% in the currency of the original accounts.
foreign currency holders
Fair point! It is evidently unfair that the trigger point for conversion to Sterling is 8th october 2008. A fairer date would be the date at which an agreement is reached. The point in my previous post is that forever repeating the mantra "we want 100% back and we will not accept anything else" may ultimately get depositors with over £83.33k (£50k/0.6) not a cent more than 60%. Conducting realistic negotiations with the IOMG may get us a better deal than that.
Fifth columnists
bobwin
Joined: 23/12/08 Expires: n/a (free)
If you know there are moles on this site, please send an e mail to Ng and identify them.
It would show that there are indeed people out there who wish to sabotage our endeavours.
In regards to SOA vs DCS, the latter is enschrined in law, the former is not and anyway has not been adequately defined.
To be fair to all IOM residents, I am happy to follow the rule of law.
duplicate post...
Thanks. If that is right, then that suggests that less money would be available under the SoA, doesn't it?
To me it suggests that there
To me it suggests that there won't be any more money available.
I AGREE WITH ELGEE
Monkeyface3604
I think Elgee is identifying some very good points.
Quite clearly the fact that the SOa is asking us to sign away our rights means that someone involved in the process is clearly worried that they are liable. I for one do not intend to give up any of my rights!!!
The DCS which has always been unclear as to how it works is all of a sudden being twisted into something that appears to be worse than the SOA......note i only say appears. At the end of the day someone is liable in this mess and as long as we keep hold of our rights to pursue that person then i feel we will have a more favourable outcome...its the ace up our sleeve, lets not fold it for a half hearted hand....the slight chance of a flush!
Why do the IOMG not want to go to DCS......I say f*ck it lets find out and go for the liquidation!!!
Less Funds in SoA than in DCS
"Manx-person" seems to be an abbreviation of "manx-government-person" so let us not pay too much attention to that person's propaganda.
Concerning the funding of the SoA, it needs to be pointed out that there will be less, not more, money in that latest version of SoA than in liquidation + DCS. The SoA "top up" payments are funded by Manx Treasury alone whereas the DCS will receive additional funding from the banks operating on the island.
There is also the question of moratorium on legal actions under SoA. In case of liquidation we retain all our rights to sue all parties that may be culpable in the bank's failure including IoM government. The liquidator may even be obliged to lead a legal action on our behalf, and with a bit of luck we may recover 100% of our deposits.
It is difficult to imagine that a scheme administrator would initiate such action against the government who employed him in the first place.
additional funding from banks
sambururob
Following the Tynwald debate i understood that the banks contribution would be limited to circa £270,000 each per year for three years. If there are 34 banks we are talking about £10 m p.a. It is costing Tynwald £94m to pay out £10,000 each. I don't think the banks are a major bonus compared to the return of the £550m from Kaupthing UK.
SOA is dependent on IOM banks too
Your rational for there being less money in the SOA than the DCS is flawed. Listen to the Manx Radio broadcast of last weeks House of Keys session. The SOA is dependent on IOM bank contributions too - if they don''t agree to contibute then the SOA fails and the bank goes into liquidation anyway.
No Mention of Banks' Participation
I heard all kinds of funny stories on the radio, but there is no mention of banks' participation in Bell's and Lovett's affidavits. They declare under oath that the scheme will be funded by proceeds from the liquidation plus a loan from the Treasury, which they will claw back afterwards.
There is no legal framework for banks to contribute to the present version of the SoA.
Bank participation
Agreed, from the Tywenald 'debate', there is not (or was not at that time) any written/legal agreement between IOMG and the banks. If the plan is for the banks to pay the Treasury (as opposed to them paying directly into the scheme) then I doubt that there would be any legal requirement to mention them in the affidavits. It does beg Elgees question (below) as to how the banks themselves benefit from the SOA over the DCS (or else why sign up for it) - and more importantly how that might affect overall return and timing after the 60% threshold is reached. Like a previous poster I fail to see how ~10M a year has a significant impact on meeting the 50k/ 2 year 'guarantee'so not sure why the SOA is reliant on the banks. (I can think of some reasons - but there is enough speculation on this site already)
Yes, SoA = Stand on our own Assets
gerry paul johnson
I too understood that the SoA was a stand alone proposal, not linked to any other banking entity. Is this wrong?
Okay, then let's suppose that there is the same money paid by the banks in both the DCS and SoA. Quite apart from the question of what is the advantage of the latter to depositors (which apparently is one of speed of payout, but only because the IOMG chooses to slow the paying out process down in the DCS case) what is the advantage to the banks of the SoA, because evidently there must be one? I have been told that it is that there is a greater likelihood of the banks being able to recover their money in the case of the SoA, but am not sure that I understand why since in both cases the money to repay the banks has to be recovered by liquidation or the same process under a different name in the case of the SoA?
Spectating not Participating
The most obvious benefit of the SoA for the banks is that they would not have to make a contribution (which by all accounts they are extremely reluctant to do).
Since the DCS would not be invoked, they would avoid having to make any payment, and the IOMG could claim never to have had to invoke the DCS, and therefore demonstrate "good governance". Despite facts demonstrating the contrary.
@elgee 2 - the pot size
rbirch
no, you are not missing anything, the pot size is the same whether its DCS or SoA.
my view is that giving up our legal rights under the DCS requires much more than a marginal improvement on timing .....
like someone else posted, i was expecting the affidavits to dot i's & cross t's of the SoA so an informed comparison may be made .... perhpas this might arrive before 19th .. otherwise we are no further forward
DCS vs. (new?) SoA needs to be explained better side by side
Before we can draw any conclusions on what's best for each of us, we should ask for a side by side comparison between DCS and SoA. Too many assumptions / interpretations from our side are floating around. London Team, via our lawyer, should be able to explain these in plain English by comparing them using examples covering the <50K and >50K as well as currencies (GBP, USD, EUR).
Another difference between
expatfrance1
Another difference between the SoA and DCS. I believe the 3 scheduled payments via the SoA are 'guaranteed' with the IOM topping up/loaning the money to ensure that the payments are made.
The £150 million commited by the IOM to the DCS is not guaranteed. If another bank crashes on the Island between now and October the £150 million will be severely diluted.
Our lawyers asked IoMG for these.. why should we, the depositors have to pay for this work?
The IoMG have refused to assist us with legal fees to consider the SoA.. and now they are adding to our costs by supplying incomplete information which we are expected to fill in for ourselves!
bellyup
Its disgraceful that we the victims of this debacle are left not only bereft but with the donkey work of translating this weasel worded legalise into something vaguely understandable.
Not that its not understandable.
The IOMG dont want to pay out anything ( people dont hold your breath for that 50k) they want a risk free get out plan for themselves.
What's difference in new affidavit?
So what, if anything has changed with these new affidavits, except that we now have the appearance of some big wig QC from London?
Lots of words in the
Lots of words in the affadavits. Not sure if I understand it all.
Regarding the point regarding IOM getting its money back after depositors have received only 60%. You state that:-
'Not until the DCS has been repaid will those still awaiting 40% get any further recompense.'
I am not sure this is the case. The document says that the right of depositors to recieve payments in PRIORITY to payments provided by the Treasury will cease after depositors have recieved 60% of their money. This could mean that once the 60% has been paid, if any other money is recovered rather than all of it being distributed to depositors, a percentage of the distribution (not all) will be returned to the IOM Treasury.
Still not ideal by any means but maybe not as bad as at first sight. Not saying that I agree with the proposal but just trying to cut through all the legal crap!
Payments after 60p: @expatfrance1
See clause 7.8 e
...... a catch up distribution which shall be made solely to the Treasury.
Layman's view only.
As, I see, moving down.. sunny points out too
Clause 7.8 e in which
nivit
Clause 7.8 e in which document?
I think he means sub-paragraph 7.8(e) of the exhibit to Lovatt's latest affidavit.
Expatfrance
To quote directly from the documents.
'Once the Pari Passu distribution for all scheme creditors with allowed claims is 60% the company shall pay the treasury an amount equal to the foregone distribution by way of a catch up distribution which shall be made solely to the treasury'
It goes on to talk about starting to pay creditors again once the repayment has been made. Seems fairly straightforward to me, its a loan. Under liquidation they would have to pay the DCS with no recompense until creditors have received their money. In this SOA they are simply loaning the money and want it back ahead of savers. As this scheme will severely effect larger depositors who in the main have to vote for it to get the 75% of value I cannot see why they would do this if it will take two years from the start of the scheme to get 60% and many, many years more to get the rest.
Payouts start 3 months after the start of the scheme. Therefore that will probably coincide with the first anniversary of this debacle. Therefore 3 years after the collapse < £50k get their money and others get 60%. As someone else has already said many elderly people are unlikely to outlive this scheme. It is a disgrace.
Treasury loan
I have valiantly tried to decipher David Lovett's latest affidavit. If I understand the document correctly the key points are:
1. The IOMG are effectively writing off their £10m deposit with KSFIOM
2. The IOMG "lend" interest free funds to enable eligible depositors to be paid up to £50k or 100% of their deposits whichever is the lower. They claim these payments can be made faster than if the DCS is triggered.
3. They claw back this "loan" from KSFIOM once all eligible depositors have received at least 60% of their deposits. This claw back has priority over any further payments to depositors
NB If the DCS was triggered the top up payments made under that scheme would not be claimed back from KSFIOM. The impact of this totally wipes out the advantage of the fact that they are writing off the £10m deposit.
If these interpretations are correct I will most definitely vote against this proposal. As I am a higher value depositor I believe that this arrangement would be considerably worse for me than a straight forward liquidation and triggering the DCS for lower level depositors (even after disregarding the implications of being prevented from sueing the culprits in this debacle!).
I believe that the receiver currently has sufficient liquid funds to pay a dividend of 10%. A depositor with £500k would therefore receive £50k very quickly, in any case quicker than other the proposed scheme as he/she would not be affected by any delays regarding payments under a DCS.
However more importantly, after this depositor has received 60% (£300k) the IOM Treasury would have priority in the payments of any funds recovered by the liquidator of up to around 70% (my assessment). Only when the recovery were to exceed this percentage would this depositor get any additional funds. In my judgement it is very unlikely that there will be a recovery greater than 70% and in any case this might take many years.
It therefore follows that this scheme caps larger depositors to a maximum recovery of 60%!
I hope I am incorrect in my assumptions.
By the way I have less at stake than £500k but even in my specific case the I can still only see disadvantages.
thesunnysouth, Looks like you
thesunnysouth,
Looks like you may be right which is no good. I wish they could write this stuff in plan English.
If I understand it correctly, under the SoA depositors will get a total of 50k in 3 tranches over the 2 years from when the scheme starts with the first payment around Aug/Sep. This will be guaranteed even if sufficient assets cannot be realised as the IOM Treasury will top up the amount.
With the DCS there is still no telling how much will be distributed and over what timescale.
@ expatfrance1
"With the DCS there is still no telling how much will be distributed and over what timescale."
No... but at least we could still sue their arses!
(all members)
You must login in order to post into this group.
Questions for the Conference Call with Mike Simpson 1st June 16:00 BST (tentative)
More Exposure in Parliament - Read and E-Mail Here


In this unit, core research-based psychotherapies and psychological counselling skills are studied and practised. Topics include various current psychotherapies, models of psychotherapeutic helping, advanced skills, issues in evaluating evidence and outcome, assumptions and issues underlying research paradigms in counselling psychology, psychopharmacology, diversity-sensitive psychotherapy.
describe and apply sound practice principles concerning the therapeutic relationship, setting, record keeping and varied interventions.


text:
Most Commonly Abused Drugs
Opioid Abuse and Addiction
Prescription Drug Abuse & Addiction
Illegal Drug Abuse
Illegal Drug Abuse and Street Drugs
Book & Product Reviews
Rehab Programs
Drug Detox & Withdrawal Guides
Help For Loved Ones
Family & Loved Ones of Addicts
Mental Health Resources & Guides
Mental Health, Self-Care & Wellness
Prescription Drug Abuse and Addiction
What Is Gabapentin and What's It Used For?
admin April 13, 2019 Leave a Comment
Gabapentin is a prescription drug that's garnering a lot of attention right now because of its abuse potential. Gabapentin isn't a new drug, but it's increasingly being seen in drug overdoses involving opioids. So what is gabapentin, what is gabapentin used for and do people use gabapentin to get high?
What is Gabapentin?
How Does Gabapentin Work?
What is Gabapentin Used For?
How Is Gabapentin Used?
Gabapentin Side Effects
Gabapentin and Suicidal Thoughts or Behaviors
Gabapentin High and Abuse
Can You Get High From Gabapentin?
Can You Get Addicted to Gabapentin?
Can You Overdose On Gabapentin?
The Takeaway—What is Gabapentin?
First and foremost, what is gabapentin?
Gabapentin is a prescription anticonvulsant drug primarily used for the prevention and control of epileptic seizures.
Gabapentin is also a treatment for nerve pain related to shingles in adults. This antiseizure drug is available under the brand name Neurontin, as well as Gralise.
There are quite a few off-label uses for gabapentin as well including for the treatment of different types of nerve pain, fibromyalgia, and restless leg syndrome.
Gabapentin was first approved in 1993, and a generic version of the drug has been available in the U.S. since 2004.
There is currently research looking at the potential to use gabapentin to treat mental health disorders like anxiety and depression too.
People often wonder how does gabapentin work. Gabapentin is believed to work by affecting the brain and central nervous system.
When gabapentin is used as a treatment for seizures, it is thought to reduce nerve impulse firing that leads to those seizures. Gabapentin likely stabilizes electrical activity occurring in the brain and also impacts how nerves send messages from the body to the brain.
Specific details of how gabapentin works include:
Gabapentin may affect electrical signals that build up in the nerve cells, and it affects brain neurotransmitter activity. Neurotransmitters are naturally occurring body chemicals that are integral in the sending of messages between nerves.
GABA is a natural neurotransmitter that calms nerve activity and keeps the activity balanced in the brain—gabapentin seems to increase the production of GABA.
Gabapentin may also affect glutamate, another neurotransmitter that causes nerve excitement. It is believed to be part of epileptic seizures and the sending of pain signals to the brain. Doctors and researchers believe gabapentin helps reduce the amount of glutamate released in the brain.
Gabapentin's primary use is for the treatment of epileptic seizures, but there are other uses as well. These include:
The treatment of partial seizures
Central neuropathic pain
Off-label uses not currently approved by the FDA include for the treatment of anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, and insomnia. It's estimated that around 90% of gabapentin use is to treat off-label conditions.
Gabapentin is used orally in tablet form primarily. The dosage of gabapentin someone uses depends on individual factors and the condition being treated. An example of common gabapentin dosages include:
For partial seizures, someone might take a 300 mg dose of gabapentin by mouth every eight hours. This may go up to 600 mg taken orally every eight hours.
For the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia, someone might start with a once-a-day 300 mg dose of gabapentin, and then move to taking a 300 mg dose of gabapentin every 12 hours.
Along with the question of "what is gabapentin" often comes another question, which is what the side effects are. There are common side effects but also potentially severe side effects. Some of the gabapentin side effects may include:
Loss of muscle coordination
Excessive sleep
Repetitive eye movement
Slurring
Water retention leading to swelling in the arms, hands, legs and feet
Changes in mood
While it's considered a rare side effect of gabapentin, suicidal thoughts or behaviors can occur when someone uses this medication. The possibility of suicidal thoughts or behaviors to occur when someone uses gabapentin led the FDA to issue a warning in 2009.
There are now packaging inserts not only with gabapentin but some other anticonvulsant drugs that mention this risk.
Some studies have also shown that the use of gabapentin in people with bipolar disorder almost doubles the rate of suicidal ideation.
Gabapentin is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. In 207, it was the fifth-most prescribed drug in the country. Much of this is related to the crackdown on the prescribing of opioids occurring in the U.S. Due to the opioid epidemic; many doctors have to look outside of opioid pain medications to treat pain in their patients, so they've started using gabapentin.
Gabapentin is widely available, and it's not a federally controlled substance, unlike opioids.
That widespread availability coupled with the effects of the drug has led to growing gabapentin abuse.
People wonder can you get high from gabapentin. The answer is maybe. Gabapentin is not an opioid, but it can create a relaxing effect that some users describe as being similar to marijuana. While a gabapentin high on its own isn't very powerful, what's more common is for people to use gabapentin with other drugs such as opioids to increase the high.
A study published in the Addiction journal in 2016 found that around a fifth of the people who abuse opioids also misuse gabapentin. Another study that looked at adults in the Appalachian region of Kentucky found that 15 percent of research participants who abused opioids had also used gabapentin in the previous six months to get high.
Due to the growing abuse of gabapentin, many states have taken their own measures to curb how much is prescribed. For example, Kentucky recently classified gabapentin as a controlled substance and many states are considering doing something similar.
There have also been moves in Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio and several other states to control how much gabapentin doctors prescribe.
It is possible to get addicted to gabapentin, although it's not common to become addicted to the drug on its own. What's more common is for people to develop polysubstance addictions—often to opioids and gabapentin. Another combination people may utilize are gabapentin and benzodiazepines like Xanax.
While gabapentin addiction on its own isn't very addictive, physical dependence can form. When someone is dependent on gabapentin if they don't gradually taper down their dosage, they may experience withdrawal symptoms.
Gabapentin withdrawal symptoms can include:
In severe cases, gabapentin withdrawal can include delirium and withdrawal seizures.
The development of tolerance and dependence can occur in recreational gabapentin users as well as people who use it medically. For most people, gabapentin withdrawal symptoms will start to occur within 12 hours after taking the last dose, and up to 7 days after the last dose.
So far we've answered key questions about gabapentin including what is gabapentin, what is gabapentin used for and what are gabapentin side effects.
Another frequent question is "can you overdose on gabapentin."
The answer is yes, you can.
In fact, one of the reasons Kentucky made gabapentin a controlled substance is because of how frequently it's reported as part of overdose deaths in the state. According to data from the coroner's office in Kentucky, gabapentin was involved in almost one-fourth of all of the state's overdose deaths. Reports go on to say gabapentin shows up in about 1 in every three overdose deaths that occur there.
Gabapentin on its own isn't a very strong drug, so to feel effects, someone would need to take very high doses, which is one reason overdoses can occur.
Gabapentin is also a central nervous system depressant, as are opioids, alcohol, and benzodiazepines. When someone combines gabapentin with another central nervous system depressant, it increases the likelihood that they will experience respiratory depression and an overdose.
To sum it up, what is gabapentin? Gabapentin is not an opioid, but it is a central nervous system depressant primarily for the treatment of seizures, as well as nerve pain. It's also being used off-label for various purposes including the treatment of chronic pain.
What are gabapentin side effects? Most are mild such as drowsiness or dizziness, but severe side effects can occur, like suicide ideation.
Finally, what is gabapentin abuse? Gabapentin abuse most often occurs when someone combines the drug with other substances and in particular, opioids. This increases the feeling of being high, but also the risks of becoming addicted and overdosing.
Cunha, John P DO FACOEP. "Gabapentin." RxList. Accessed April 13, 2019.
Leonard, Jayne. "Gabapentin: What to Know." Healthline. November 13, 2018. Accessed April 13, 2019.
Ghelani, Rita. "Gabapentin: uses, dose, side effects and warnings." Netdoctor. March 17, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2019.
Rodriguez, Carmen Heredia. "New on the streets: Gabapentin, a drug for nerve pain and a new target of misuse." STAT. July 6, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2019.
Vestal, Christine. "Abuse of Opioid Alternative Gabapentin is On the Rise." Pew. May 10, 2018. Accessed April 13, 2019.
gabapentin prescription drugs
Categories Select Category Addiction and Family Alcohol & Drug Withdrawal Alcohol Abuse & Addiction Anxiety Disorders Book & Product Reviews Comprehensive Mental Health Resources Eating Disorders Illegal Drug Abuse and Street Drugs Life in Recovery Opioid Abuse, Addiction and Drug Guides Personal Stories About Addiction & Recovery Personality Disorders Prescription Drug Abuse and Addiction Treatments for Addiction Uncategorized
Adderall Addiction Treatment: Signs, Symptoms and Treatment Options
Is There a 12-Step Program for Food Addiction?
What is the Success Rate of Addiction Treatment?
Hydrocodone vs. Oxycodone: How Do They Compare?
BPD vs. Bipolar: How Do They Compare?
© 2021 My Addiction Info - Developed by Auto Computation
Addiction Resource Guide-About Us
A Complete Guide to Rehab and Addiction Treatment
Addiction and Recovery Conversations
Treatments for Addiction
Opioid Abuse, Addiction and Drug Guides
Personal Stories About Addiction & Recovery
Terms(forced agreement)
Addiction Info and Resources Delivered To You
We regularly send out information for people who struggle with addiction as well as their loved ones.
Never display this again

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Garena Free Fire Squad WAGFunkyM + Hack 100 và cái kết … supports all platforms such as Windows, MAC OS, iOS and Android. But keep in mind that there will be some issues with older mobile platforms. If you have issue with your phone, please let us know and we will fix it asap.
Enjoy Garena Free Fire Squad WAGFunkyM + Hack 100 và cái kết ….
All files are uploaded by users like you, we can't guarantee that Garena Free Fire Squad WAGFunkyM + Hack 100 và cái kết … are up to date.
We are not responsible for any illegal actions you do with theses files. Download and use Garena Free Fire Squad WAGFunkyM + Hack 100 và cái kết … on your own responsibility.


text:
Creig Northrop
Northrop Realty
Creig Northrop has over 30 years of experience in the real estate industry, and as President and CEO of Northrop Realty specializes in residential real estate throughout the greater Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan area. In 2000 Creig and his wife Carla Northrop started the Creig Northrop Team, which went on to become the #1 Team in the Nation an unprecedented three times! The Creig Northrop Team received this honor for a third time in 2016, after the Team achieved peak performance with the completion of 1,772 transactions resulting in a combined value of $765.5 million. Accomplishing the pinnacle of performance as a Team, they new levels of success and in February 2018 announced that the Creig Northrop Team would become Northrop Realty, A Long & Foster Company. Today, Northrop Realty is a full-service brokerage that employs 200 energetic professionals. Northrop Realty completed 1,805 transactions for a combined value over $800 million,
Leading the Market & Building a Team of Rockstars


Post-Vatican II efforts to significantly rethink Catholic theology have been suppressed over the past few decades, in the same way that the implementation of a Post-Vatican II Rite has been suppressed. WHY?
Because a post-Vatican II Theology would cut across the political and economic agendas of western civilization, both church and state?
Because a post-Vatican II Theology created cracks in the wall that kept Judeo-Christian scriptures and tradition within strict political and economic boundaries?
Because the foundation and daily functioning of top-down church/state structures depend most heavily on the Roman "God-in-charge" model?
Because the survival of western political/economic agendas depends on the image of an all-knowing, all powerful, judgmental (exclusionary) God-in-Charge? If that image changes, do political/economic agendas change as well?
Modern communication breakthroughs have chipped away at the religious rationale and justification of the Roman Rite western model of authority and power as the gift and will of God. This "chipping away" appears to some as an attack on "God-in-Charge" theology, as if there can only be one and only one theological view of authority .
Post-Vatican II progressive theology emphasizes power-sharing images of God as core scriptural and traditional concepts…concepts heretofore minimized and neglected in favor of the Roman Rite western standard.
(God/Trump) as a doer who can single-handedly fix things if he wants to.
(God/Trump who) acts without being influenced by anyone else.
(God/Trump) projects power…strictly from the top down, from a subject to its objects, from the ruler to the ruled.
(God/Trump) can do anything. According to this logic, might also makes things right.
If "Trump's way of projecting power resonates with the way in which many people of faith perceive God's power to be at work," then the post-Vatican II Rite urgently needs to engage in a Theological Activism that highlights shared power as bona fide scriptural and tradition-based concepts and practices…shared power in no way inferior to the efficient Roman model.
The present underlying theological substructure of politics/economics continues to support the political rise and popularity of dictator-type personalities and trickle-down economics. With no input from progressive activist theologians, is there any hope for substantive change of heart and mind in regard to the stranger? …or any hope, that matter, for change in the ultimately apocalyptic direction in which we are moving at full speed ahead?
Is it time for people of faith to think more deeply about the God they are worshiping and the kinds of power they want to support?
A post-Vatican II rite in union with Rome has no fear to engage in prayer-based Theological Activism in ecumenical dialogue…exploring how we might see God in new ways…in wisdom ways that are invitational, NOT confrontational or polarizing.
*Activist theologian and author of several books on this subject, Joerg Rieger, co-author of OCCUPY RELIGION: Theology of the Multitude with Kwok Pui Lan are both part of the Occupy Theology Movement.
Abajo está la traducción de "The Church in the Trump Era: Catholicism or Americanism?"…or Something Else?" on this website.
Cuando Massimo escribe esto sobre la Iglesia Católica Norteamericana, está a punto de identificar por su nombre al brazo neoconservador Católico con más influencia, incrustado en las áreas teológica y financiera de la Iglesia Católica a NIVEL MUNDIAL, desde el Vaticano hasta las parroquias: el Opus Dei.
El Opus Dei se fundó en 1930 y desde entonces se ha extendido a 16 países. En 1982, el Papa Juan Pablo II creó un nuevo estatus jurídico para este grupo neoconservador conformado por clérigos y laicos: la "personal prelatura" como un reconocimiento especial canónico, otorgado por la Iglesia Católica Romana. Como tal, declara que evita involucrarse en la política en sus prédicas y en sus actividades; pero al mismo tiempo otras fuentes afirman que su misión es infiltrarse en las esferas más altas del poder político, financiero y cultural. Otro grupo revisionista y neoconservador es la tradicionalista Sociedad de San Pio X, a la que el Papa Benedicto XVI le ofreció el estatus de "personal prelatura".
Podría ser esta la razón del incremento de movimientos políticos neoconservadores en otros países.
When he said it, they walked away.
more life, greater life than what is given.
Where's it at? Or is there no such thing?
Where's it at and do I want to go there?
I need let it break?
Let my bread be broke?
MY Say…all else at bay.
or let it be taken.
Let it break as it will?
Won't that make me a loser?
"Don't we all lose our bread anyway?
Can't take it with us.
"No, …but somehow it sustains us.
just all 'round me and you.
for life has broken it on me.
…unless I let my bread break?
…those precious plans for how things ought to be?
just "rightfully" ought to be?
They said I'd be happy; they said I'd be safe.
Certainty and Security, my bedfellows, chafe.
Where, O where, is the bread I need break?
Jesus is saviour: what does it mean?
How can we understand the Christ rising, apart from the traditional sense?
Must that rising be constrained in traditional belief in a physical flesh and blood way?
Or is there a rising that goes beyond such a physical phenomenon?
a transformation like Pentecost perhaps?
when love is what we call divine.
Is it Jesus who saves by his physical death and rising?
"Love one another as I have loved you"…?
Is it the embrace and practice of this Jesus love that "does" the actual saving?
Is it this very loving that forgives sins…because such love cannot hold judgments and hurts in the same breath as the divine love to which Jesus calls us?
for physical death to hold us?
Abajo está la traducción de "Reform Roman Catholicism, A Rational Alternative?" on this website.
Pobre del Papa Francisco, con sus manos atadas por la interpretación literal sobre la posibilidad de ordenar mujeres, LGBT, comunión para las mujeres divorciadas, y otros problemas.
Como Patriarca del Rito Romano de la Iglesia Católica, está atrapádo entre una roca y un lugar duro. Antiguas interpretaciones del liderazgo papal, cimentadas en el modelo de dominio monárquico/masculino, con su considerable apoyo económico.
La percepción actual del liderazgo, arraigada en una conciencia cultural, que rechaza los modelos monárquicos y prefiere la unidad democrática.
Cuan irónico resulta que "Católicos por una Reforma", con una orientación democrática, sostengan que el Papa Francisco debe hablar como un monarca y ordenarle al Rito Romano que cambie.
De igual modo parece asaz extraño que los católicos a favor de la Reforma, expresen una gran satisfacción cuando el Papa Francisco baja de puesto o despide a Romanistas ultra-conservadores, ¿o no?
¿Qué acaso este catolicismo reformista no acabará promoviendo la posición: "echar fuera toda la oposición", llevando finalmente a un enfoque de uniformidad? Posición que los Católicos reformistas le han criticado por mucho tiempo a los Católicos Romanistas, por utilizar contra el Vaticano II a Cardenales, Obispos y Pastores.
A pesar de que la posición Católica Romana es, por tradición, contra los cambios, los católicos con una mentalidad abierta a la reforma, se consuelan pensando que el Catolicismo Romano eventualmente cambiará, aún si ellos no vivirán para ver esos cambios.
Hace alrededor de mil años, el Catolicismo del Rito Romano no pudo forzar a las Iglesias Católicas Orientales a aceptar y practicar las interpretaciones Católicas Occidentales de la teología, el gobierno y la liturgia. Ante esta situación, trabajaron para lograr un acuerdo.
El acuerdo logrado funcionó para mantener la unidad entre el Oriente y el Occidente. Puede ser que usted considere o llame este acuerdo una "Política de Tolerancia", que le permite al Rito/Iglesia Oriental, diferencias tales como la de los sacerdotes casados o un gobierno colegial, si ellos prometían reconocer al Patriarca de Roma como cabeza de la Iglesia Católica.
Esta tradición de "tolerancia amistosa", ha sido recientemente aplicada en el caso del Rito/Iglesia Anglicana Católica, que promete unión con el Papa como Patriarca de Roma. ENTONCES, ¿Por qué si hay un disentimiento en lo que se refiere a la ordenación de las mujeres y en otros temas, no puede nuestra Iglesia resolver este disentir, mediante su antigua política de "Tolerancia"… Rito Romano tolerancia del Rito/Iglesia Vaticano II, con sus interpretaciones y prácticas distintas de la Teología, gobierno y Liturgia? ¿Por qué no?
¿Seremos capaces los católicos de atrevernos a creer en algo diferente?
When Massimo writes this about the American Catholic Church, he comes close to identifying by name the most influential arm of Catholic neo-conservatism embedded both financially and theologically in the WORLDWIDE Catholic Church from the Vatican down to local parishes…Opus Dei.
Opus Dei was founded in the 1930's and has since spread to over 16 countries. In 1982, Pope John Paul II created a new juridical status for this neo-conservative Catholic clerical/lay group…the "personal prelature" as special canonical recognition by the Roman Catholic Church. As such, it claims to eschew political involvement in its preaching and practice, while other sources claim its mission is to infiltrate the highest spheres of political, economic and cultural power. Another neo-conservative revisionist group, the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, was offered "personal prelature" status by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012.
Opus Dei has been operating a strong recruiting campaign for young professionals, prospective seminarians and other college students in the USA and other countries since long before the 1995 America Magazine article about them. Link below.
the neo-conservative relationship of the U.S. bishops with Pope Francis?
the neo-conservative relationship of American Catholics toward their federal and local governments?
could this be part of the reason for the rise of neo-conservative political movments in other countries?
There could be a third choice here, no? Since Roman Catholicism, beginning with the U.S., is increasingly coming to be defined by revisionist neo-conservative movements of the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't the U.S. and Catholics worldwide have the choice to be part of a Vatican II Rite in union with Rome?
"Civil war in the global church?
Traditionalists, a "tiny segment of the Catholic faithful and hierarchy? REALLY?
"Apreciamos la esperanza que tiene Massimo Faggioli sobre la posibilidad de que la Iglesia del Concilio Vaticano II va a regresar.
Sin embargo ¿cree usted que en los pocos años que le quedan al Papa Francisco, le sea posible revertir "la masiva simpatía e Irénica actitud" hacia el tradicionalismo, que ha sido succionado por la población católica y transmitido en numerosas universidades seminarios, parroquias y publicaciones en todo el mundo durante los últimos 30 años o más?
Además el deceso de tantos clérigos, teólogos y laicos creyentes del Vaticano II. ¿Usted cree que podemos sentarnos cómodamente y esperar que el Papa Francisco reviva el Vaticano II… enfrentándose a un movimiento fuerte, tradicionalista, generalizado y penetrante hacia una "Iglesia más pura y pequeña?
El hecho es que el Rito Romano de la Iglesia Católica, se ha establecido como un formidable oponente al Vaticano II y a sus interpretaciones proféticas de la teología, gobierno, litúrgia e identidad católica.
Por lo tanto, ¿por qué no permitir a Roma, -el hermano mayor-, que siga siendo el guardian de la hermenéutica del Concilio de Trento, así como la representante del catolicismo institucional.
Mientras tanto, el Papa Francisco queda en una difícil posición: la de liberar al Vaticano II de las manos de aquellos que siempre verán al Vaticano II solo como una confirmación del Concilio de Trento.
El Papa Francisco puede proteger de un sisma a la Iglesia universal y bendecir las tradiciones de la Iglesia de Trento y de la Iglesia del Vaticano II, ramas "igualmente válidas aunque distintas" del pensamiento católico y de su práctica.
Esta postura sería semejante a la de "separada pero siendo una en" hermandad, como es el caso de Roma y la Iglesia Católica Oriental. Esta última tiene una interpretación menos escolástica/más mística, que su hermano mayor Romano, tanto de la teología católica, como del gobierno y la Liturgia.
Por otra parte, si el Papa Francisco muere, la Iglesia se acomoda de nuevo en su modo curial, de un catolicismo del Concilio de Trento, como si el Concilio Vaticano II nunca hubiera existido, ¿o no?
"It is clear that a new ecclesial style is being called for, and this new style requires an understanding of the variety of situations that must be dealt with," said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family.
IS IT all about "a new ecclesial style"?
Be kind to Catholics and they will come flooding back into the Church?
where "poise and style" are more important than truth and facts.
if Vatican II is to make any substantial contribution to the modern world.
in the belief that these are gifts of God .
comforting those who long for stability in a world of change.
Vatican II Catholicism, however, honors aggiornamento ("the act of bringing something up to date to meet current needs") as gift of the Holy Spirit.
updating ministry style or incorporating the internet as a means of evangelization.
"New style ministry" is not enough aggiornamento for Vatican II Catholics!
since the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council of 1962-1965.
a Vatican II Catholic Rite/Church in union with Rome.
Judaism had to transvalue itself after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.
simple revision of Temple/high priest-oriented theology and practice.
as the new "presence of God" experience.
he is writing about doctrinal transvaluation in terms of a Vatican II+ orientation.
Roman Rite Catholicism has no desire or need for doctrinal transvaluation.
Vatican II Rite Catholicism needs it desperately!
Some believe we have gone far beyond the need for "aggorniamento," i.e. updating" of church structures, language and reconnecting to the culture in the vernacular.
Perhaps we have just begun the aggorniamento process which needs to acknowledge that we have arrived at a split mind within the Western/Latin Branch of Catholicism…a place where Roman and Vatican II Catholics see things so very differently, that we speak two very different cultural languages as Catholics, akin to the 1054 East-West mystical/scholastic split mind in Catholicism, including the Eastern Churches which remained in union with Rome.
This "split mind" in our Church drove the direction of Vatican II and, according to the article below and other sources, this "minority mind" had such a great influence on the Church that we are still wrestling with its contributions today.
So, we ask, "Should so many be so hesitant of even addressing the option of a Vatican II Rite standing next to its 22 Eastern siblings in union with "elder sibling" Rome?
For too long, we have not tackled the task of transvaluing* the very important doctrines which have provided structure and meaning to our faith…for so long.
culminating in the rejection of Catholicism so evident today?
As more than one theologian has said, we DO need "right" theology.
We also need to transvalue,* not dilute it, according to each new epoch.
what is vehicle for the faith which has carried us into the 21st century.
There are and always will be great differences of opinion on this question.
that many still hold so very sacred.
is likewise going on in other Christian denominations.
and THE INSISTENCE OF GOD.
…not just "continuity and rupture"?
Vatican II pointed us in the poetic direction while retaining the literal hermeneutic.
of theology, governance and liturgy in the Church today?
in our Church which has managed to "allow" 22 other rites in union with the Roman Rite of the Jerusalem Church of Saints Peter and Paul and the earliest Christians?
Sisters Lea and Consilia welcome your feedback…even a "like" if you are so inclined.
*transvalue here meaning: "To represent or evaluate something according to a new principle, causing it to be revalued" differently…with the "new principle" being the work of the Holy Spirit in Vatican II and the world.
Before sin, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, freely and openly—no boundaries. Suddenly God sets limits.
Suddenly love defines differently. No longer you = me or me = you in womb-like comfort. Homey oneness get a push away to make room for ego-separateness, for self, for one's transcendent mystery, for God's transcendent mystery.
For Adam and Eve, womb-like intimacy gets a jolt and ego is born infantile.
Original Sin—Invading God's Space…Violating Transcendence?
"Do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Was it a test? Or was God defining Divine space—the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Was this never meant to be our space?
Was eating of this tree an unintentional effort to cross boundaries with God…an unconscious effort to blot out the loneliness of self and vanquish it by invading the Other? If so, eating of this tree was denying God's Otherness, an attempt to steal into the unique mystery of the other justified by the childish whim that love must have no boundaries. Love with boundaries was something Adam and Eve could not yet understand.
Ego boundaries were the one thing God couldn't give Adam and Eve.
Ego must discover its own separateness and come to honor it.
Presumably, God could have forgiven Adam and Eve and allowed them to remain in the Garden, but how could Love do that? The Garden was no place for ego development anymore than the womb is place for such development.
Adam and Eve needed an environment where they could experience themselves as separate from God in order to learn a sense of unique and individual self.
Without knowing that, they could never understand how to relate with God as adults.
And certainly God had no mind to keep them ever-children.
O Happy Fault! Garden Sin of Origin, O HAPPY FAULT!
"Esta guerra verbal… entre los Católicos buenos contra los Católicos malos y en la que la definición de "buenos" y "malos", depende del lado en que estás… ¿cuánto tiempo va a prolongarse esta guerra?
Que enorme daño se están haciendo las dos posturas entre si y a la Iglesia por no creer que en las dos hay buena voluntad!
Que escándalo le estamos dando a nuestros niños y luego nos preguntamos porque tienen tan poco o ningún deseo de pertenecer a nuestra Iglesia.
No hay duda que existen católicos que necesitan desesperadamente, certeza y seguridad en este mundo tan rápidamente cambiante…esto podemos entenderlo.
¿Será necesario que el lado Post-Vaticano II se mofe y vilipendie a quienes están en la posición del Pre-Vaticano II por su visión de salvar al mundo aferrándose al entendimiento y prácticas "tradicionales" de la doctrina… nosotras podamos ver que algunos de esos valores están pasados de moda, o distorsionados y finalmente no-Cristianos- No hay duda que ellos nos ven de manera similar.
Y sí, si hay Católicos que sienten la desesperada necesidad de un cambio en la Iglesia… un cambio que no puede esperar 50 o 500 años… por lo mismo el tiempo apremia esta necesidad, dentro de la visión de la Iglesia como la Roca de Pedro en lugar de la de la Barca de Pedro en mar abierto.
¿Será necesario que el lado Pre-Vaticano II se mofe y vilipendie a quienes estando en la Iglesia ven al Vaticano II de una manera diferente a como ellos lo ven? ¿Es acaso necesario que ellos denuncien como herejía cualquier deseo o intento por de-construir la tradición con el fin de continuarla más fielmente en el mundo actual? ¿Es necesario que nos acosen y persigan por no ser capaces de pensar como ellos, así como ellos también son incapaces de pensar como nosotros?
Un Cisma no es la respuesta para ninguno de los dos lados. El Árbol de la Familia Católica, se inició de una Raíz en Jerusalem, extendiendo sus ramas en tres diferentes tradiciones: Roma, Antioquía y Alejandría.
Spirit was/is calling forth from within the event of the Second Vatican Council?
and its applications for our time.
in Jesus the Christ and our proclamation of the Good News to the world.
a God who designed the universe according to the order of His Will.
…God that calls and promises but doesn't command, awaits response but doesn't demand.
More on Vatican II Theology to come on Rite Beyond Rome.
On Religion and The Weakness of God, A Theology of the Event with us.