Theology Q and A (open 12/28)

This is 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

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Theology Q and A (open 12/28)

  1. Francisco says:

    So, unless there is a teaching which meets the criteria taught in Vatican I and II for infallibility, magisterial documents such as Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters, and the like, they generally teach non-infallibly. When the Pope teaches non Excathedra or not exercising the Magisterium like homilies, books of private theology, interviews, the Pope is speaking fallibly. Is this correct?

    • Ron Conte says:

      When the Pope is not exercising the Magisterium, he is fallible. So the Pope is fallible in interviews, private theology, homilies, etc. But, of course, if he has a book of private (fallible) theology, and he happens to discuss a dogma like the Assumption, it remains infallible.

      Now, when the Pope is exercising the temporal authority (e.g. judgments of the prudential order), he is also fallible, except for dogmatic facts, which are infallible. Some commentators place dogmatic facts under the Magisterium, but I would say they fall under the temporal authority.

  2. Marco says:


    Here you asked me to write a full-fledged articol regarding the admission of the ortodoxes to Catholic Sacraments and i have completed it.

    I’m very glad that you promised me, here , to correct any grammatical errors, that’s very kind of you.

    Anyway, how can i send you the article?

    If you are going to publish it i would like to be mentioned with this pseudonym, if you don’t mind.

  3. Marco Cavalli says:

    Ok Ron, i will put it in a comment.

    Let me adjust few things and in a few hours it will be ready.

  4. Marco Cavalli says:

    The next comment, Ron, is my article.

  5. MICHAEL HART says:

    I’m preparing electronic files of the CPDV. There are several editorial/content decisions that I can/will make, but rightfully should belong to you, if you care to make suggestions.

    1. Notes appear in the Latin/English diglot edition. Can I assume these are part of the CPDV and encode them into the English only module? That is, make the notes in the Diglot into footnotes for the CPDV for verses that contain notes?

    2. There is a short Version Summary on the page about the CPDV, and a longer “Introduction to the CPDV” which appears on a page about “Bible Articles” ( Are these revisions of the same information, or can they appear as two separate sections in the introductory matter? That is, is it OK to publish these two articles with the CPDV as preface and introduction in sequence?

    2A. The file ‘Introduction to the CPDV’ contains a date of 2013 in the last paragraph which appears to be a prediction (that as far as I can tell did not occur.) Is there a more recent version of this file, or is it appropriate to strike that specific statement, or should it stand as published?

    3. I’ve processed all the errata. Are there any more recent, that haven’t been published yet?

    3A. On this note, I started from the Epub file which was dated 2010, and noticed documented changes were sporadically present. Some errata listed as 2013 were already fixed in the epub, but some errata listed as 2009 and 2010 were not fixed. because of this, I plan to reprocess another set and then run more agressive checking on both. Which is the ‘true source’ of the CPDV?

    The files will be published as USFM files. This format is pretty much the global standard for encoding Bibles. It might provide enhanced editing and proofing abilities if you used an editor designed for USFM going forward.

    • Ron Conte says:

      1. Yes, you can use the Latin-English notes in the English only CPDV. But many of the notes concern how the Latin was translated, if you don’t mind that topic.
      2. You may use both as you see fit.
      2A. Yikes! I didn’t realize that assertion was still online. I’ve updated the article, removing that claim. You can edit any of the CPDV related articles or descriptions, as you see fit.
      3. No, the errata are up to date. You are all set.
      3A. The master files for the CPDV are the online html files. Nothing else is necessarily up to date. When I publish the CPDV, I go to the website for those files.
      4. USFM — I don’t plan to do any work on the CPDV in the short term. Maybe at a later time.

      You can contact me by e-mail:
      That is preferred over blog comments.

Comments are closed.