See the new post for Q and A.
As in past posts, this is an opportunity to ask me theological questions on almost any topic of doctrine or discipline. The post will close after several days.
— Ron Conte
-
Those who reject the Magisterium, grasp at straws seeking its replacement.
-
Click here for a list of my Roman Catholic theology books and booklets, including books about the future.
-
To read the Kindle versions of my books, without a Kindle device, get the free cloud reader — or — any of the free Kindle reading apps.
The CPDV — my conservative Catholic translation of the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate into English, is available at Amazon.com in Kindle format and online here.
Meta
Subscribe to my RSS Feed. (If you use Google Chrome, first add a Chrome RSS reader or extension.)
the reproach of Christ 
What is the best way to visualize the angels as they appear in the Gospels? Say, the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation? Did Mary see and speak to an apparition, or did the angel take on flesh and blood and appear in human form? In the Resurrection passages, the angels at the tomb are also referred to as young men, which would point to them having appeared in human form.
from Blessed A.C. Emmerich: “But now at her right hand there poured down such a mass of light in a slanting line from the ceiling of the room that I felt myself pressed back by it against the wall near the door. I saw in this light a shining white youth, with flowing yellow hair, floating down before her. It was the Angel Gabriel. He gently moved his arms away from his body as he spoke to her. I saw the words issuing from his mouth like shining letters; I read them and I heard them. Mary turned her veiled head slightly towards the right, but she was shy and did not look up. But the angel went on speaking, and as if at his command Mary turned her face a little towards him, raised her veil slightly, and answered. The angel again spoke and Mary lifted her veil, looked at him and answered with the holy words: ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word.’ ”
life of the blessed virgin mary
Are souls in Heaven able to watch their children’s journey on Earth? Can they intercede and pray for their children’s salvation?
Yes, to both questions. However, they have a detached concern for their good, and an understanding of how free will applies to their decisions in life.
“ they have a detached concern for their good”
I’m not entirely sure about this. I think that we picture for ourselves an image of heaven too much “artificial” sometimes, i think that things might be quite different.
For example i know of cases of people who have been visited by a soul of a loved one and said soul showed concern and preoccupation, because these people were going through troubling trials.
I think that we will retain much more of our “humanity” than we think, even though it will be purified from sin we will retain what is good in our nature, and that means our relationships with our loved ones and our friendships as well.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas said, these things are not strictly necessary in Heaven, because the Visio beatifica is more than enough, but God will allow these things to further show his mercy and love.
Hi Ron,
Why Amoris Laetitia’s bashers fail to realize that the new code of canon law already has a permission for individuals in state of objective mortal sins (the ortodoxes, being schismatics) to attend Catholic Sacraments without repenting of their errors and embracing the Catholic Faith?
I’m talking about canon 844.3 of the new code of Canon law.
Even the Cardinals, do they realize that if hey want to “correct” Pope Francis ( for the pastoral practice he endorsed with the inclusion of the letter to the bishops of Buenos Aries in the AAS) they would have to correct even that permission of Saint John Paul II?
Because the concept is the same: deciding to not convert to the catholic faith and to remain in a scismatic Church is an objective grave sin (Lumen Gentium 14, And see even the ex cathedra of the Cantate Domino regarding the exclusion of schismatics from Heaven) but they can attend because they are in good faith, thus not culpable (unless some of them realize the truth and still refuse to convert).
The same applies to the divorced and remarried, since they can lack full knowledge or, with full knowledge, they can have mitigating factors (such as a reduction of freedom due to various circumstances).
What do you think about it? Why nobody brought this point to the surface, why nobody mentioned that Amoris Laetitia’s pastoral practice is not “something new” and it can’t be condemned without condemning the previous case at the same time?
Good point. That Canon has been discussed in this context. I agree with what you are saying, but the papal critics listen to no one but themselves. Eventually, the rule will change to prohibit anyone guilty of objective mortal sin from receiving, and then most Catholics will stop going to Mass. It’s not just the divorced and remarried. Most Catholics commit objective mortal sin without repentance and confession.
I don’t know if that will happen, it may be true.
But my question is: if the “common” critics can be unaware of that canon, i find it highly unlikely that that is the case for the Cardinals.
Cardinal Burke is a canonist. How can he think that he is feasible to “condemn” Al without at the same time condemning that Canon as well?
That’s my question.
And maybe, just maybe, is the reason behind their decision to not proceed with the formal correction? Maybe they realized that “we have a precedent” and thus they will be forced to condemn Saint Jon Paul II if they want to condemn Pope Francis?
I doubt that’s the reason. The AL critics oversimplify the theological situation. I think they would be dismissive of the Canon 844 argument (even though I find it sound).
One more thing
“That Canon has been discussed in this context”
Where? Do you mean in this blog or in other blogs? I’ve never seen it mentioned.
CanonLawBlog
discussing a post or article on another site.
Thanks, Ron.
But that blog talks about divorced and remarried ortodoxes and develops and argument over this.
What i was saying is different. I was saying that the ortodoxes, even when they aren’t divorced and remarried, according to Al’s critics shouldn’t be allowed to the Sacraments, because their refusal to convert to the Catholic Church is in itself a very grave sin which excludes from salvation IF it is done with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
Every man and woman has the duty to convert to the catholic faith, but if he or she doesn’t convert in good faith, even though he or she knows the Catholic Church, he or she can be saved and can be united with the Church although in an invisible way (because belonging to the Church is essential, since we know that “Extra Ecclesiam NULLA salus”).
So it’s not only the problem of the divorced and remarried ortodoxes, the problem is that the ortodoxes shouldn’t be allowed to receive catholic Sacraments at all IF we want to apply the same standard that Amoris Laetitia’s bashers want to apply to the divorced and remarried.
Because refusing to convert to the catholic faith sends your soul to hell just like committing adultery if it is done with full culpability.
Why don’t you write that argument up in a full-fledged article, and I’ll post it on my blog under your name (or pseudonym) as a guest author. It’s a really good argument that deserves more attention.
@Ron
“ I think they would be dismissive of the Canon 844 argument (even though I find it sound).”
I think the same thing and i have even verified when i discussed this argument in Italy. But the problem is that they CAN’T be dismissive of this argument, because it is a fact that the Church already allows public mortal sinners (schismatics who have the intention or staying schismatics and not converting to the true catholic faith) to receive the Sacraments.
So it can’t be said that the Church can’t allow the divorce and remarried to receive the Sacraments just because they are public sinners, because otherwise the same would apply to a public schismatic.
And they can’t even say that staying in schism isn’t an objective mortal sin in and of itself because both Lumen Gentium 14 and Cantate Domino prove otherwise.
So yeah, they are dismissive of this argument but they can’t.
I don’t see why Catholics in objective mortal sin would stop going to Mass in such a case, as they don’t stop going before hand, but I could be wrong.
@Ron
“Why don’t you write that argument up in a full-fledged article, and I’ll post it on my blog under your name (or pseudonym) as a guest author. It’s a really good argument that deserves more attention.”
That might be a good idea, Ron, I’m working on it. 😉
Hi Ron I have just been reading that a research team in calvin college Michigan have said they expect two stars to collide in 2022 and it reminded me what one of the visionaries at garabandal said that the beginning of the warning will be like two stars colliding do you think it could possibly be in the timeframe for the warning
Well, 2022 is a possible year for the Warning. But I think the “A” that precedes the actual Warning stands for Angel. The Angels are always heralds of the works of God. And the “two stars” colliding theory, I don’t think it comes from the words of the Virgin Mary, but from commentators and assumptions, and possibly false private revelations that claim to add information about the Warning.
Ron,
Do you think there is a eschatological significance to USA recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
Yes, I think so. It may well be part of the lead up to the start of the first part of the tribulation.
Hi Ron. This question is more technical than theological, but I would like to know what you think. At Garabandal, Our Lady confirmed that the Shroud of Turin is the true burial shroud of Jesus. It shows the nail wounds in the wrists, not palms. Yet, stigmatists like St. Pio receive the wounds in the palms. Why is this, and do you think Jesus nailed through the palms or wrists? Happy Christmas, Shane
Shane, my opinion is that the nails went through the anatomical wrist, which is in the palm of the hand. I don’t know the location for stigmatists, but their wounds need not be in the same exact location. The meaning of the stigmata is what is important. see my article:
http://catholicplanet.com/articles/article16.htm
The palm of the hand would not support the weight of the “crucifixee’s” body, so the Romans would hav ehad to put the nail through the wrist.
The anatomical wrist is in the heel of the palm of the hand.
Could attendance at a Protestant service fulfill the Sunday obligation? Does an Orthodox Mass fulfill the Sunday obligation?
Catholics should not, generally speaking, attend protestant services, and that attendance does not fulfill the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. Protestants don’t have Mass. If no Catholic Mass is available, attendance at Orthodox Mass suffices for the obligation.
Hi Ron,
I hope that you are doing good. I have some questions for you
Is weekday Mass less important than Sunday Mass?
Can a Catholic attend a Protestant service if invited?
Can a Catholic be a close friend of a gay, Muslim or atheist person?
Is that true that Jesus only stays with us for about 15min after the communion?
Thanks
Is weekday Mass less important than Sunday Mass? — Sunday Mass fulfills the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath, so it is more important. “And then they shall admonish their people to attend frequently their own parishes, at least on the Lord’s days and on the greater feasts.” Trent
Can a Catholic attend a Protestant service if invited? — Yes, but care must be taken to avoid scandal or the danger or being influenced into false teachings.
Can a Catholic be a close friend of a gay, Muslim or atheist person? — They can be friends, but the closeness is limited by the serious disorder of each person that you named.
Is that true that Jesus only stays with us for about 15min after the communion? — When the Communion host dissolves in the stomach, then the real Presence ceases, and that may take about 15 minutes, very approximately. However, St. Theresa of Avila says that there is no better time for prayer than the hour after Communion. So He continues to be present in our souls by grace.
The Secrets of La Salette: Melanie’s secret 11. ‘In the year 1864, Lucifer with a great number of demons will be unleashed from hell; they will abolish the faith little by little and even in persons consecrated to God; they will blind them in such a way that barring a particular grace these persons will take on the spirit of these bad angels: several religious houses will lose the faith entirely and will lose many souls.’
Why do you think that God allowed Lucifer and a great number of demons to be unleashed from hell?
In 1884, Pope Leo XIII, had a vision where God allowed Satan a greater power to destroy the Church. Satan was given 75 to 100 years. How is this event different than the one in 1864?
The year 1864 is in the Islamic calendar, and so it refers to the distant future. That is a time of great sinfulness on earth, which is why God permits the fallen angels to do more. They are not literally unleashed from Hell, but rather are given fewer restraints.
The 1884 vision occurred because of increasing sinfulness on earth; more sin results in fallen angels having more influence. But the Church cannot be destroyed.
1864 AH is about 2430 AD
https://www.searchtruth.com/hijri/index.php
Sorry Ron, I did not write that correctly. I should have stated greater power to try to destroy the Church. Of course the Church can not be destroyed.
You have said much about the two events at Garabandal, the warning and the Miracle. However, you have made no mention about the Chastisement that will occur if we do not amend our lives after the Warning and Miracle. The children talked about a chastisement that will not be a natural event but will be supernatural and will come straight from God. How does this fit into your timeline of future events such as the war. By the way, in 1963 Mary told the children there will be no world war 3.
My books contain a longer discussion of the WW3 claim. Essentially, she was only saying that either (1) there would be no world war between 2 or 3 of the superpowers (US, China, Russia), or (2) there would be no world war at that time (in the 1960s). Her words at la Salette and Scripture clearly indicate major future wars, move extensive than WW2.
The Chastisement is the Three Days of Darkness at the end of the first part of the tribulation. That is supernatural.