Again, I’m opening up a post to questions on a wide range of topics in theology. You can ask me general questions on faith, morals, or salvation. You can also ask questions on my writings in particular is eschatology, ethics, and other subjects.
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.
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
the reproach of Christ 
Nonetheless, many leaders, including Catholic philosophers, theologians, bishops and cardinals, clearly imply – or perhaps some may even claim – that the Petrine “charism of truth and never-failing faith” does not extend so far as to prevent each Pope from ever teaching or believing material heresy as a private person; so:
1) what further magisterial arguments
and
2) what per absurdum arguments
can I offer them to refute their stance and thereby prove the fullest extent of the Petrine charism?
Each Pope can err in his theological opinions, and to a limited extent in his non-infallible teachings. His decisions on discipline can err to a significant extent, though never so as to lead us away from the path of salvation. So saying that the gifts of truth and never-failing faith only prevent him from the extremes of teaching material heresy or falling into grave sins against faith is not very extensive. And Vatican I based this teaching on the words of Jesus in the Gospels.
Further arguments are in my book (In Defense of Pope Francis). One argument is that, if a Pope could commit heresy and be automatically removed from the office of Pope, losing his authority, we could never know which Councils were valid, and therefore never know which teachings are truly of the Magisterium, and therefore never know which ideas are heresy. All would be placed in doubt. And the Church as the Ark of Salvation would sink. (per absurdum)
As a lover of science and science fiction, I was wondering…will we know the mysteries of Creation in Heaven? Do Medieval Saints now know about atomic structure, exoplanets, etc.? Or might a historian be able to know the paths history would have taken if events had occurred differently? How much natural knowledge will we have in Heaven?
We will know whatever we ordinately wish to know, as long as it can be known by a finite human mind (assisted greatly by grace). Yes, persons who died long ago will understand the knowledge of modern and future science. Yes, a historian will understand different paths history would have taken. But in Heaven, we do not know all things all in one act, as only God does.
Is objective mortal sin also always venial sin?
A person could have invincible ignorance, so that objective mortal sin were not an actual sin at all. Or a person could have reduced culpability, so that objective mortal sin is only actual venial sin. And full culpability would make an objective mortal sin also an actual mortal sin.
In your book “In Defense of Pope Francis” you teach that no Pope can ever commit apostasy, heresy or schism: does “heresy” include “material heresy as a private person”? How would you refute, both doctrinally and logically, the notion that a Pope is capable of committing material heresy as a private person?
I’m asking because a great controversy is mounting here in Europe, more radical than that over the 5 Dubia by the 4 Cardinals. Last month, a Catholic philosopher, Josef Seifert, publicly asked Pope Francis and all the Church whether purely logical consequences could be drawn from a passage from Amoris Laetitia VIII that would cause the entire moral edifice of Catholic doctrine to collapse. This would imply that a Pope is capable of material heresy, although Seifert is unwilling to conclude that this is really possible or that this is actually the case with Pope Francis regarding that passage. A colleague of Seifert further argues that the passage in question, according to Francis’ own intention, is not of the magisterium, although it is found in a magisterial document, and therefore the Pope may have possibly fallen into material heresy because he merely expressed his own ideas as a private person (private doctor).
Granted, Seifert may have misunderstood the passage and/or used other wrong premises and/or drawn logically wrong conclusions.
Could you clarify the matter?
Vatican I taught that every Pope has the gift of truth and the gift of a never-failing faith, and this teaching is based on Sacred Scripture. So the Pope cannot teach material heresy, not even as a private opinion, as that would be contrary to the gift of truth. And the Pope cannot commit apostasy, heresy, or schism as that is contrary to the gift of a never-failing faith.
The above mentioned interpretations of AL are exaggerated. An interpretation in Christian charity would at most disagree with the emphasis of AL on certain points, and would wish that the document included a reaffirmation of other teachings. But the Magisterium is not obliged to keep repeating the same teachings again and again. Pope Francis did not deny any infallible past teaching, he simply clarified some points of pastoral care for fallen sinners. See my posts on AL:
https://ronconte.wordpress.com/?s=Amoris+Laetitia
I believe that AL contains magisterial teachings and decisions on discipline (which are not teachings per se). But in any case, I find no substantial errors in the document.
A family friend’s son was into much fornication, illicit drug use, anti-Christian death metal music, and then committed suicide. I am very concerned that this person may have been condemned to Hell. Since God is not bounded by time, does God take into account much prayer over many years and many many Masses said for this person after death?
God does take that into account. But people have free will. All the prayers in the world can’t save someone who chooses not to be saved. He may have gone to Hell, or perhaps he will spend a long time in Purgatory. We don’t know.
@Ron
“God does take that into account. But people have free will. All the prayers in the world can’t save someone who chooses not to be saved. ”
While it’s true that God can’t force a free will decision, I say, quoting Garrigou Lagrange who was quoting Saint Thomas, that:
1) “God changes the will without forcing it, but he can change the will from the fact that He himself operates as He does in nature”;
2) ” God moves the will immutably on account of the efficacy of the moving power which cannot fail; but on account of the nature of the will that is moved, which is indifferently disposed to various things, the will is not necessitated but remains free”.
That’s the all point behind the doctrine of intrinsically efficacious Grace, correct me if I’m wrong, Ron.
So, while I’m positive that God does not and will not force a conversion, He still can make it happen without doing violence to free will. Otherwise what would be the point behind promises such as the ones attached to the Sacred Heart devotion (A.K.A the first Fridays devotion), the fifteen prayers of Saint Bridget and so on?
And what would be the point behind the Holy Virgin’s assertion that many souls go to Hell because nobody prays for them (in the apparition of Fatima, if I remember correctly)?
St. Thomas’ position on efficacious grace has not been adopted by the Magisterium. Different explanations of grace among Saints and theologians address the problem of the omnipotence of God and the free will of man. Thomas’ view is too far in the direction of grace prevailing over free will. My own view is that God does not use His omnipotence to overwhelm the free will, and so we all have sufficient grace to be saved, but many are not saved due to free will.
The plan of God is that we assist one another in the path of salvation. When we refuse to do so, some souls are lost. Even so, they are given grace of all kinds that is more than sufficient for salvation. I reject the idea that there is a certain TYPE of grace which is essential to, and an absolute guarantee of salvation, and that some souls are simply denied that grace. Instead, we all have ample opportunity in grace to enter the state of grace, and to avoid mortal sin, and to repent from mortal sin. No special type of grace is needed, other than the ordinary actual and habitual graces.
Did Jesus fail to pray enough for Judas Iscariot? No, and yet his soul was lost. No matter how many devotions you offer, some souls will be lost, because God does not permit you to overwhelm their free will.
@Ron
I have some questions for you, I would be very glad to receive an answer to each of them, so I ask you to be patient.
“Thomas’ view is too far in the direction of grace prevailing over free will”
Maybe because you look at free will from the perspective of “libertas indifferentiae”?
“St. Thomas’ position on efficacious grace has not been adopted by the Magisterium. ”
But it has not been rejected either, if I’m not mistaken.
“My own view is that God does not use His omnipotence to overwhelm the free will”
I don’t think that the thomistic doctrine of efficacious Grace implies a negation of free will, otherwise the Church would have condemned it, don’t you think?
“The plan of God is that we assist one another in the path of salvation. When we refuse to do so, some souls are lost. Even so, they are given grace of all kinds that is more than sufficient for salvation. ”
Of course, God always gives grace more than sufficient for salvation, but the point is that, according to Mary’s words, if someone had prayed for those souls they would have received grater graces, which would have lead those souls to repentance, and most important, final repentance. Isn’t this the point behind the assertion that “many are lost because nobody prays for them”?
“No matter how many devotions you offer, some souls will be lost, because God does not permit you to overwhelm their free will.”
And what about those who made those devotions for themselves? For example, Jesus promised, for the devotion of the first fridays, that
“I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that My all-powerful love will grant to all those who shall receive communion on the First Friday in nine consecutive months the grace of final penitence; they shall not die in My disgrace nor without receiving their sacraments; My Divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment.”
I believe that this implies that God will not let them die in mortal sin, and one way or another He will take care that these souls obtain an Holy death. Otherwise this promise would be absurd and pointless, and God does not make empty promises.
The same goes for the promises attached to other devotions, such as the prayers of Saint Bridget, which you yourself said that it’s a good devotion.
And one last point: I believe that the impetration of Graces which lead to final repentance without failing is implied even by Saint Alphonsus ” whoever prays is certainly saved”, because with prayer one can obtain greater graces for the observance of the Commandments and for final repentance.
Even if you do not subscribe to the thomistic view of Grace i think that it’s implied by the promises attached to certain devotions, the Holy Virgin’s words, and Saint Alphonsus words (which was not a thomist) that God has the power to ensure that someone obtains a holy death without violating his/her free will.
If not for the intrinsic efficacy of Grace, for the congruity of circumstances or other ways known to God.
I am, obviously, open to correction if I’m mistaken, and I want to apologize one more time for my grammar errors, having a conversation about theology in English when you are Italian is not that easy. :D
@Ron
” Instead, we all have ample opportunity in grace to enter the state of grace, and to avoid mortal sin, and to repent from mortal sin. No special type of grace is needed, other than the ordinary actual and habitual graces”.
Why Saint Alphonsus said that whoever prays is certainly saved?
I believe that with prayer one can obtain greater graces, which will make far easier and sure to repent, otherwise i cannot see the point of praying in the first place, if we receive only ordinary and habitual graces just like those who don’t pray.
Do you agree or do you think that even with constant prayer someone can be lost?
The TYPES of grace are the same. The amount of grace is greater whenever we cooperate with grace in words of prayer, self-denial, and works of mercy, meriting an increase in grace and an increase in justification (the state of grace). Yes, prayer makes it easier to be saved. But it is not literally true that everyone who prays is saved. Some Bishops and priests and religious end up in Hell, despite their prayers.
Eucharistic adoration – can adoration ever be of the Lord’s blood instead of a consecrated host? Or is this not possible because the chalice has to be made of opaque metal material and would be impossible to view?
Eucharistic miracles sometimes show some blood on the host in a monstrance. But otherwise, Eucharistic adoration is not done of the blood. There is no real theological reason prohibiting it, it’s just a practical matter, I think.
Hi Ron, what are your thoughts about receiving Communion if one is late to mass or not able to pay attention to the entire Liturgy with a devout heart? Is there a Church teaching on this? So for example, a daily Mass, one comes to the Church after the Gospel, in your opinion should one receive Communion? Or lets say at Sunday Mass, taking care of a disruptive child and it was hard to pay total attention, and/or one missed parts of the Mass, should one receive Communion? I do not receive Communion if these things happen, but I want to know your opinion. Thanks!
The faithful may receive Communion despite many venial sins and many failings, including not paying attention during Mass, or showing up late. If you arrive so late that you miss the entire liturgy of the Word, then perhaps you might refrain from receiving Communion. But even in such a case, if you have some spiritual need that might be met by the Lord in Communion, I’m sure He is willing to be received by any sinner in the state of grace.
Will the world end because occidental countries apostasied from the fate? Is it in vain to hope for all countries to come into the Church or is that just Milenarianism?
Mt {24:9} Then they will hand you over to tribulation, and they will kill you. And you will be hated by all nations for the sake of my name.
Eventually, all nations will reject Christianity, and the number of faithful believers will be relatively few.
No, the world does not end because of any particular nation or group of nations.
In my speculative eschatology: After Christ returns, the whole world will become Christian. Then Christ returns to Heaven, and the Church reigns over the whole world for hundreds of years. Then Christ returns a second time for the general Resurrection.
Hi Ron,
I have couple of questions.
1) In general, which wrongdoings count as sins of cooperation? For example, is it ok to be a friend of a gay person since you let him know that you disagree with him about his life’s style?
2) Do we sin by omission when we remain silent about something sinful that our friends or relatives are doing?
3) Once you posted something about dressing code. You argued that “parishes should not have a dress code for holy Mass”, and ” [this] type of decision should be to left to each individual conscience”. I wonder, as example of this issue, which kind of decision is better to let for individual conscience.
4) Is luminous mysteries an optional one? I mean, if one is committed to pray the rosary every day, but keep skipping the luminous mystery. Is that ok?
5) Is death penalty, like abortion, intrinsically evil?
Thanks
Emanuel
1) See my booklet, Roman Catholic Teaching on Cooperation with Evil.
It is a complex subject, so there is no short answer.
But yes, you can be the friend of a gay person. Cooperation means cooperating with sinful acts, not with sinful persons (we are all sinful persons).
2) A sin of omission only occurs when the moral law requires an act. We are not required to go around judging everyone’s acts and telling them when we think it is a sin. They are subject to their own consciences.
3) This question is too vague and would take too long to discuss. Many decisions are best left to individual consciences.
4) Yes, optional.
5) The death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as it is a just punishment for very grave crimes.
Since God knows from all Eternity if a person will go to Hell, does that mean that the person was Predestined to Hell and had no chance?
No, He simply knows our free will decisions. You know which foods you freely chose to eat yesterday, and that cannot change, but it was still a free will decision.