I’m trying a new feature for my blog: a Q & A session with my readers. If any of my readers and fellow Catholics have a question about specific points in my writings, or a general theological question, or a question about the meaning of a Bible passage, you can post a comment below. I will try to answer questions within a day or so. Check back later for the answer.
This feature is only for questions that sincerely seek answers. Please do not ask a question merely to have a platform for your own views and arguments. If you think that you know the answer to your own question better than I do, then don’t ask.
— I’m keeping the Q and A session open continuously. I’ll start a new post about one a week for the latest questions.
All comments are moderated.
the reproach of Christ 
Regarding the enlightment and 3 days of darkness. From my understanding the enlightment of our soul or seeing our soul as God sees it comes first. Then like 400 years later the 3 days of darkness come. I had read that in Trial,Tribulation and Triumph. So why are people mixing up the 2?
Cindy
My view is a little different:
The Warning (or “enlightenment”) only illuminates our conscience, so we see our sins, those which are still on our conscience. But we do not see our soul as God sees it. That is a false claim found in false private revelations. We do not see our soul as God sees until the particular judgment, after death.
The second part of the tribulation (in the 25th century), also called the greater tribulation, does occur roughly 400 years after the first part of the tribulation (in the 21st century). But there is an event of severe supernatural darkness in both parts. The one for our generation closes the first part of the tribulation.
Dear Ron,
Thanks be to God. I feel much better now. Thank you. God bless you always.
Yours gratefully,
Denise Robson.
tJMJt
Ron,
Copy and pasted from sacredbible.org.
John
{21:20} Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, the one who also had leaned on his chest at supper and said, “Lord, who is it who shall betray you?”
{21:21} Therefore, when Peter had seen him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, but what about this one?”
{21:22} Jesus said to him: “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you? You follow me.”
{21:23} Therefore, the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you?”
{21:24} This is the same disciple who offers testimony about these things, and who has written these things. And we know that his testimony is true.
{21:25} Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written.
In other translations verse 21:21 is written ‘Peter seeing him said to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?’
Some claim that this Bible translation implicates John as the one that betrayed Jesus. Can you help me refute this claim and why is the translation different?
{21:21} Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic autem quid?
{21:21} Therefore, when Peter had seen him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, but what about this one?”
The Latin does not justify a translation using the verb to do. It is a very simple sentence. There is no word meaning ‘man’ or ‘to do’.
The Greek text is available here:
Click to access joh21.pdf
The Greek is essentially the same as the Latin:
Domine hic autem quid
kurie houtos de ti
Lord this-one about what
There is no word meaning ‘man’ or ‘to do’.
In any case, the poor translation “Lord, and what shall this man do?” does not imply that John will betray Christ. In addition, we are obligated by faith to interpret Scripture in the light of Tradition and Magisterium (and other Scripture passages). So it would be contrary to Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium to interpret this verse as implying that John would betray Christ.
Hi Ron,
at present we have people in our parish who are traditional Catholics who also attend Latin mass, and we have staunch Vatican 2 supporters. I find this confusing, because the Vatican 2 supporters also support women for the priesthood and faith sharing with protestants, and protestant ideology. One supporter described God to an RCIC group of parents as an “entity”, and an “it”, neither a male or female……
I’m finding myself being drawn to traditional Catholics. Was there something wrong with the Latin Mass, before it was changed by Vatican 2?
Would appreciate some clarity on this. Thank you. God bless.
Kind regards,
Denise
Vatican II is being used as an excuse by some liberal Catholics, so that they can ignore past magisterial teachings and believe whatever they like. But the Council said no such thing. And if these persons did not use Vatican II as their excuse, they would find some other excuse. So they are not really supporters of Vatican II. They have gone astray from Church teaching, just as you have perceived.
The traditionalist Catholics have also gone astray. Just as the liberal Catholics use Vatican II as a symbol of their rejection of certain Church teachings, so do the traditionalists use the Latin Mass as their symbol to reject recent magisterial teachings. There is nothing wrong with Vatican II, nor with the Latin Mass. These good things are simply being misused as an excuse to reject what the Church teaches.
The Church has the authority to change the Mass. Jesus did not hold a Latin Mass at the Last Supper. And it cannot possibly be the case that the 1962 Mass is the perfect Mass, as if the Church were without a good form of the Mass for over 1900 years.
The Mass should be said in every language on earth, including Latin, so as to honor God in every way possible. However, no form of the Mass, not even the form used by Jesus at the Last Supper, is an unchangeable dogma. The traditionalists err by treating details of form as if these were unchanging dogma. They also err by refusing to accept any teaching of a Council or Pope, if it is not in accord with their own narrow thinking.
Avoid both groups. Go to Mass to worship God, as a humble Catholic Christian. And don’t join any of these divisive groups that use various excuses to modify Church teaching according to their own wishes.
Ron,
Thank you for your answers to my questions.
What is your take on young children that announce to their parents that they feel they feel they are in a female body but are male and/or have attractions to the same sex at a young age? Is it demonic influence? The Catholic Church states it is a mystery. I’ve known of devout Catholic families ripped apart by this issue. Why would God allow such a test on families? I’ve seen boys especially exhibit effeminate qualities at a very young age and you can tell that the child will have homosexual tendencies at a later date.
The main point to understand is that human persons are in a fallen state, and so we are susceptible to disease, injury, death as well as various types of disorders. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder. By extension of that teaching, we can understand that the other gender and sexual issues (such as you describe) are also disorders. There may be some genetic influences, but genetics is not the whole story.
The fact that children are all raised in a sinful secularized society does harm, even great harm to some. The influence of particular individuals on a child can also result in disorders pertaining to gender and sexuality. In some cases, some of these children have suffered sexual abuse. In other cases, it is the influence of the many sinners around such a child. Too many persons, even among Catholics, commit mortal sins frequently and do not repent. Living among unrepentant sinners can have profound harmful effects.
No, I don’t think it is demonic influence. It is the mystery of sin and the effects of a sinful society on the innocent.
Dear Ron, i have some questions that i expect you can respond to me.
1) What is your position about Garabandal aparitions?
2) Would the figure that appears in Ap. 19 11-21 be the Great Monarch?
3) Which biblical passages could supports the Great Monarch and Angelical Shepherd’s profecies?
Thanks very much for your response.
Damián
1) I believe that the Garabandal apparitions and the Medjugorje apparitions are true private revelations from Heaven.
2) No, that figure is Jesus. The passage specifically calls him: “And his name is called: THE WORD OF GOD.”
3) See my booklet: The Great Monarch and the Angelic Shepherd. There is a whole chapter on that subject:
PART II: The Great Monarch and the Angelic Shepherd in Sacred Scripture
The Book of Isaiah
The Book of Hosea
The Book of Judges
The Book of Haggai
The Book of Zechariah
The Books of Maccabees
The Book of Daniel
The Gospel of Matthew
The Book of Revelation
”The minority view, held by myself and a few other authors in eschatology (hold that Jesus returns twice)”. I would very much like to know who these authors are and the references to their eschatological work or views? As well, do any Fathers of the Church hold or imply this view ? Would be grateful if you could also provide references? Thank you.
John
Father Gobbi (To the Priests, Our Lady’s Beloved Sons)
Father Albert Roux (In Defense of the Orthodoxy of The Marian Movement of Priests, Our Lady’s Messages and Fr. Gobbi)
Father Joseph Iannuzzi (The Triumph of God’s Kingdom in the Millennium and End Times)
Saint Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho)
Thankyou Ron – I like your reasoning from our Blessed Lords eschatological discourse.
Another question if you dont mind – with regard to the era of peace. Stephen Walford in his book Heralds of the Second Coming argues forcefully that no Pope had taught definitively that the era of peace is literal rather the era of peace refers always to the final and definitive Second Coming of Christ. Has any Pope written about an interim era of peace?
The term “era of peace” is usually used to refer to the time described in Rev. 20:6. The majority view is that it is figurative, and that there is only one Return of Jesus. The minority view, held by myself and a few other authors in eschatology, is that Christ returns twice, with a long reign of peace for the Church on earth in-between. The CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger gave a reply to a theologian on the topic (cited by Fr. Roux in his booklet defending the views of Fr. Gobbi in eschatology) saying that it is an open question.
However, the brief time of peace after the first part of the tribulation (the lesser tribulation, as it is called) is not that era of peace. It is not controversial that there would be some peace, holiness, and rebuilding after the lesser tribulation:
{24:14} And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout the entire world, as a testimony to all nations. And then the consummation will occur.
Ron,
If a person consciously and sincerely repents of his mortal sins in his heart on his death bed but does not have a chance to receive Holy Communion and/or Sacrament of Reconciliation before death, can the person be saved from Hell?
A person who is in Heaven will know what happened to their siblings and parents in the afterlife. If for example the person learns his father is in Hell, how can the person not be in sorrow as in Heaven there are no tears?
-Matt
The Church teaches that: if a person is in a state of actual mortal sin, repentance with perfect contrition restores the soul to a state of grace, even before he goes to Confession. And if he cannot get to Confession, e.g. because he is on his death bed, he will still be saved. He dies in a state of grace and so he will have eternal life.
The person in Heaven, who knows that some relatives or friends from this life ended up in Hell, understands with a great fullness and clarity, that they are in Hell due to their own free decisions, despite ample grace from God. People are only sent to Hell by God if they died unrepentant from actual mortal sin. An actual mortal sin always includes [1] full knowledge of the grave immorality of one’s choice and [2] full deliberation (full freedom) in committing the [3] grave sin. No one in Heaven wishes that God would have taken away the free will of their relatives or friends so that they would not have been able to choose to sin gravely and to refuse to repent.
My question concerns your interpretation that the tribulation is divided into two parts. Can you provide evidence for this from Scripture and private revelation/prophecy?
Yes, but the proof is lengthy. I will summarize here.
Jesus’ eschatological discourse:
{24:8} But all these things are just the beginning of the sorrows.
{24:13} But whoever will have persevered until the end, the same shall be saved.
— the first part of the tribulation, beginning and end.
{24:14} And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout the entire world, as a testimony to all nations. And then the consummation will occur.
— the brief time of peace after the first part.
then the rest of the verses pertain to the second part.
The Book of Revelation has a similar division: the first six seals, then the first six trumpets of the seventh seal. But then there is a break in the sequence, the ‘seven thunders’ intervenes to represent the set of events linking the first and second parts of the tribulation, through the inter-tribulation period. Later in the book, the second part of the tribulation is presented, including the reign of the Antichrist. There is no mention of the Antichrist in the earlier sequence of events from the first seal through the sixth trumpet of the seventh seal.
In private revelation, the Virgin Mary, at La Salette in the secrets to Melanie, describes a severe set of sufferings (n. 1 to 20), then a brief time of peace and holiness (n. 21), then a sequence of events leading eventually to the reign of the ten kings, and much later, to the reign of the Antichrist.
The many prophecies about the great Catholic monarch and the Angelic Shepherd make no mention of the Antichrist, because they are from different parts of the tribulation, the first and second parts, respectively.
Saint Methodius prophesied: “In the last period Christians will not appreciate the great grace of God who provided a Great Monarch, a long duration of peace, a splendid fertility of the earth. They will be very ungrateful, lead a sinful life…. The just God will in consequence give Lucifer and all his devils power to come on earth and tempt his godless creatures.”
See my writings in eschatology for more.