Author Topic: Two random questions (Read 1204 times)

curiouscatholic23 · « **on:** November 30, 2011, 10:02:03 PM »

1.) I have heard that before Vatican 2 it was a venial sin to steal anything under value of $50 dollars, while it was a mortal sin to steal anything $50 or more. Is this true?

2.) This question goes out to especially sedes, because it is essentially assuming the novus ordo vatican 2 sect is another religion. I feel these are really important questions because they are very common. two scenarios:

-Suppose a man was born before Vatican 2 in 1955 and baptized catholic under Pius XII. He gets married in 1980 in a novus ordo church. He went into the marriage believing in contraception and obviously because it was liberal novus ordo, he either directly or indirectly supported the heretical teachings of Vatican 2. Suppose that man gets a divorce in 1985.

Then in 1990 he converts to traditional catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again in a sede chapel? Did he ever have a valid marriage?

-Suppose a man is born either pre or post vatican 2 in what his parents thought were the catholic church. He and his wife decide to do a civil wedding. He later divorces her but converts to traditonal catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again?

pax · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2011, 08:58:53 AM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

Suppose a man was born before Vatican 2 in 1955 and baptized catholic under Pius XII. He gets married in 1980 in a novus ordo church. He went into the marriage believing in contraception and obviously because it was liberal novus ordo, he either directly or indirectly supported the heretical teachings of Vatican 2. Suppose that man gets a divorce in 1985.

Then in 1990 he converts to traditional catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again in a sede chapel? Did he ever have a valid marriage?

-Suppose a man is born either pre or post vatican 2 in what his parents thought were the catholic church. He and his wife decide to do a civil wedding. He later divorces her but converts to traditonal catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again?

"Believing in contraception"? Do you mean he had every intention of using contraception in his marital relations? That would invalidate even the marriage of one who holds the exalted status of sedevacantist!

"Accepts sedevacantism"? Can you point me to the Council or Pope who proclaimed sedevacantism a doctrine essential to salvation? No Catholic who marries outside the Church is in a valid marriage. However, if he comes to his senses he can have his marriage validated by the local Ordinary in an ancient ritual known as sanatio in radice: "the healing of the roots".

pax · « **Reply #2 on:** December 01, 2011, 09:04:43 AM »

http://books.google.ca/books?id=C8lSwywHH6AC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=sanatio+in+radice+history&source=bl&ots=inf035gqpi&sig=hrGOr2ZONxyQbjaHETs149Ampls&hl=en&ei=vpbXTti4M-bo0QGXh_zqDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanatio%20in%20radice%20history&f=false

gunfighter · « **Reply #3 on:** December 01, 2011, 09:14:00 AM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

1.) I have heard that before Vatican 2 it was a venial sin to steal anything under value of $50 dollars, while it was a mortal sin to steal anything $50 or more. Is this true?

2.) This question goes out to especially sedes, because it is essentially assuming the novus ordo vatican 2 sect is another religion. I feel these are really important questions because they are very common. two scenarios:

-Suppose a man was born before Vatican 2 in 1955 and baptized catholic under Pius XII. He gets married in 1980 in a novus ordo church. He went into the marriage believing in contraception and obviously because it was liberal novus ordo, he either directly or indirectly supported the heretical teachings of Vatican 2. Suppose that man gets a divorce in 1985.

Then in 1990 he converts to traditional catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again in a sede chapel? Did he ever have a valid marriage?

-Suppose a man is born either pre or post vatican 2 in what his parents thought were the catholic church. He and his wife decide to do a civil wedding. He later divorces her but converts to traditonal catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again?

Ask a priest about the marriage question. My thinking is that if he believed he was marrying in the Catholic Church, then the first marriage is valid.

Regarding stealing, my understanding was that the degree of severity was based on a day's wages. More than a day, it was mortally sinful. What constituted a days wages? I am not sure. However, it is obviously more today, than in the 50's.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** December 01, 2011, 09:29:45 AM »

First Question: No. There is not, nor has there ever been, a specific dollar amount that the universal Church set to distinguish mortal and venial sin; though it is very possible that some (or even many) priests set an arbitrary amount and told people this in confession. Frankly, I cannot imagine a priest telling someone that stealing $40.00 would not be serious sin today let alone in the 1950s and before when $40.00 would be worth so much more than it is today. Consider the fact that $40.00 could easily be an entire day's salary at $5.00 an hour!

Second Question: Examples such as this is what demonstrates the insidiousness of the Conciliar church. I am not sure that anyone on a forum such as this can truly answer the question. I can certainly say that the safest answer is to say that man should not assume he can marry again. Virtually no person, even if he accepts--hook, line, and sinker--the heresies of Conciliarism believes that he has left the Catholic Church. Christ warned about following blind guides because both end up falling into the pit. Also, remember the Catholic Church recognizes marriages of non-Catholics as valid. The Pauline Privilege applies only when conversion to the Faith occurs and the non-converting party refuses to accept the conversion and rejects the convert which is not the case here as the parties separated before the man's conversion.

But even directly supporting the heresies of Conciliarism does not mean that he did not intend, at the time of the wedding, to fulfill the requirements of marriage. He may very well have approved of his wife's use of birth control pills, but did he truly intend and expect that he would never children and absolutely reject even the possibility? Just because one believes that contraception is acceptable before God, that incorrect belief can lead to sin and it can lead to leading others to sin, but holding that, or any other, heretical belief does not, in itself invalidate a marriage.

Furthermore, even Conciliar catholics generally seem to enter into marriages with the intent that the marriage will be until death. In the first scenario, I don't necessarily see, on the very few facts presented, anything that would mean the man's first marriage is not valid and can be put asunder.

The second scenario, i.e., the civil wedding, may be a different story since he was not even married in the eyes of his own sect.

In any case, due to the lack of a Catholic hierarchy in Rome, I think you may get different answers from different priests.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2011, 06:24:22 AM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

1.) I have heard that before Vatican 2 it was a venial sin to steal anything under value of $50 dollars, while it was a mortal sin to steal anything $50 or more. Is this true?

2.) This question goes out to especially sedes, because it is essentially assuming the novus ordo vatican 2 sect is another religion. I feel these are really important questions because they are very common. two scenarios:

-Suppose a man was born before Vatican 2 in 1955 and baptized catholic under Pius XII. He gets married in 1980 in a novus ordo church. He went into the marriage believing in contraception and obviously because it was liberal novus ordo, he either directly or indirectly supported the heretical teachings of Vatican 2. Suppose that man gets a divorce in 1985.

Then in 1990 he converts to traditional catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again in a sede chapel? Did he ever have a valid marriage?

-Suppose a man is born either pre or post vatican 2 in what his parents thought were the catholic church. He and his wife decide to do a civil wedding. He later divorces her but converts to traditonal catholicism and accepts sedevacantism. Can he marry again?

"Then in 1990 he converts to traditional Catholicism and accepts sedevacantism..."

Question: Which one is it? Did he convert to traditional Catholicism, or did he accept sedevacantism (which has a shorter history than the Novus Ordo, is formally schismatic)?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2011, 06:43:40 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

First Question: No. There is not, nor has there ever been, a specific dollar amount that the universal Church set to distinguish mortal and venial sin; though it is very possible that some (or even many) priests set an arbitrary amount and told people this in confession.

St. Alphonsus Liguori said that over a certain amount was a mortal sin, under a certain amount was not, but it depended on the circuмstances. Stealing $40 from someone who depends on that $40 to survive would be far more grievous than from someone who drops $40 and doesn't notice it and for whom that paltry sum is a drop in the bucket.

And the amount that St. Alphonsus Liguori quoted I'm sure was more than $40.

Quote

Frankly, I cannot imagine a priest telling someone that stealing $40.00 would not be serious sin today let alone in the 1950s and before when $40.00 would be worth so much more than it is today. Consider the fact that $40.00 could easily be an entire day's salary at $5.00 an hour!

You really can't imagine that?

Quote

Second Question: Examples such as this is what demonstrates the insidiousness of the Conciliar church. I am not sure that anyone on a forum such as this can truly answer the question. I can certainly say that the safest answer is to say that man should not assume he can marry again. Virtually no person, even if he accepts--hook, line, and sinker--the heresies of Conciliarism believes that he has left the Catholic Church. Christ warned about following blind guides because both end up falling into the pit. Also, remember the Catholic Church recognizes marriages of non-Catholics as valid. The Pauline Privilege applies only when conversion to the Faith occurs and the non-converting party refuses to accept the conversion and rejects the convert which is not the case here as the parties separated before the man's conversion.

But even directly supporting the heresies of Conciliarism does not mean that he did not intend, at the time of the wedding, to fulfill the requirements of marriage. He may very well have approved of his wife's use of birth control pills, but did he truly intend and expect that he would never children and absolutely reject even the possibility? Just because one believes that contraception is acceptable before God, that incorrect belief can lead to sin and it can lead to leading others to sin, but holding that, or any other, heretical belief does not, in itself invalidate a marriage.

Furthermore, even Conciliar catholics generally seem to enter into marriages with the intent that the marriage will be until death. In the first scenario, I don't necessarily see, on the very few facts presented, anything that would mean the man's first marriage is not valid and can be put asunder.

The second scenario, i.e., the civil wedding, may be a different story since he was not even married in the eyes of his own sect.

In any case, due to the lack of a Catholic hierarchy in Rome, I think you may get different answers from different priests.

This claim that intending to limit children invalidates a marriage seems very far-fetched. Marriage is a natural institution, the implications of accepting that intending to limit children invalidates marriages simply throws out all marriages among people who think it's okay - that's an absurd consequence.

Not intending to have children at all though - that clearly shows that someone does not have the proper conception of marriage.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2011, 06:48:03 AM »

Stealing an apple at a grocery store would in all likelihood be a venial sin - I don't imagine anyone going to Hell for that.

Stealing someone's $20 double eagle on the other hand . . . I need to look up the amount that St. Alphonsus quoted.

We should have an aborrence of stealing, but we should have an abhorrence of sin whether it's venial or mortal. What we should not do, is look on petty thieves as being "bad people" simply because we have never done such things ourselves. I remember when I was five years old feeling terribly guilty because I stole a sugar cube from someone's school project that was on display - it was an extra sugar cube from the box, not from the project itself.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2011, 07:03:01 AM »

On this page an Englishman gives equivalents to the amounts in pence and shillings (relative to the means of the victims) that St. Alphonsus says you would have to take from someone to commit a mortal sin.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JPUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&dq=moral+theology+st.+alphonsus+liguori+stealing&hl=en&ei=NcjYTr_xGOTd0QHI8vzEDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2011, 07:10:33 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: TKGS
First Question: No. There is not, nor has there ever been, a specific dollar amount that the universal Church set to distinguish mortal and venial sin; though it is very possible that some (or even many) priests set an arbitrary amount and told people this in confession.

St. Alphonsus Liguori said that over a certain amount was a mortal sin, under a certain amount was not, but it depended on the circuмstances.

So...it appears that I said exactly what St. Alphonsus said, just with different words. I'll accept that.