As usual, you may ask questions on a wide range of issues in Catholic theology. I’ll do my best to answer.
— 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 
If we are trying to share the Gospel with someone who is atheist or agnostic, are we still successful if they do not become Catholic, but perhaps become just a deist?
Yes, for you have substantially helped them along the path of salvation. They might have invincible ignorance about the requirement to become Christian or Catholic. They might reform their lives sufficiently to reach Heaven by way of Purgatory.
What is the criteria that determines whether a doctrine has been developed or actually changed? For instance, there has been some talk about condemning capital punishment as intrinsically evil, with some claiming that it would be a “development” of a pro-life issue. Yet others claim that capital punishment has never been considered intrinsically evil and calling it such would also be contrary to Scripture.
Capital punishment is approved in both Testaments of the Bible, so it is not intrinsically evil. A doctrine cannot develop in such a way as to contradict definitive past teachings. I don’t think there is a set of criteria for development of doctrine.
Some Catholics are interpreting Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s prophecy of 2 Popes being Benedict XVI and Francis. It would seem that her prophecies about the Church’s clergy and doctrines being compromised with heresies certainly sound like our times. What are your thoughts on her prophecies applied to the current situation?
I understand her prophecies and for the most part what that refer to. This is all explained in my books on the first and second parts of the tribulation. http://www.catholicplanet.com/books.htm
Benedict and Francis are not the two Popes. After Pope Francis resigns, a conservative Pope succeeds him (probably Arinze as Pius 13). Many conservatives leave the Church under Pope Francis. Many more liberals leave the Church under Pius 13th. Then Pius is martyred and Rome is captured in World War 3. Since the next election for Pope cannot be held in Rome, the schismatics and heretics cease this opportunity to election a false pope. A true pope is also elected (first, perhaps?). The false pope probably takes the name Pope Peter II, but he is an invalid Pope, having been invalidly elected. The false Pope has more followers than the true Pope, mostly liberals who departed from the Church under Pius. The reason for the departure is that most Catholics are led by secular society so much so that they have rejected many dogmas on faith and morals. When Pius insists on adherence to dogma to receive Communion, they depart. The whole story of what happens is in my eschatology books. Much of what Emmerich says also refers to the distant future, in the second part of the tribulation, when the Antichrist reigns over a false Church, led by a woman antipope. However, the true Church exists in competition to the false Church. At no time does a false pope reign over the true Church.
Ron, why is it so hard to convert hardened sinners in this day and age? According to messages given to Pedro Regis, we live in times worse than before the Flood. I continue to pray for extended family members who are lapsed Catholics and are deep in mortal sin.
You know what Vatican II said about that, right? Catholics are partly to blame for the unbelief of atheists, by not living up to our calling from Christ: “Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.”
What do you think are the most important points that Catholics can learn from Protestants and Muslims?
Muslims have a good understanding that God calls men and women to different roles in religion, society, and family. Muslims have a great devotion to prayer, and they rightly reject many of the sinful tendencies of Western society. Protestants, especially Evangelicals, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and have a strict understanding of sexual ethics.
Don’t catholics already know these things?
There is an article titled “Vatican denied, now admits papal commission is re-examining Humanae Vitae” on LifeSiteNews.com where Matthew Hoffman claims that “the writings of Pope Francis are leading some of the Vatican’s theologians to contradict the encyclical, and Francis himself appeared to deny the encyclical’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception in an in-flight press conference in 2016.”
I agree that theologians other than the Pope (including priests, individual bishops, and individual Cardinals) can fall into heresy. However, I believe that Pope Francis cannot be an heretic and I disagree with Matthew Hoffman’s position that Pope Francis “appear[ing] to deny [Humanae Vitae]’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception.”
The Catholic Church has infallibly taught that contraception was intrinsically evil, and this teaching was already infallible back in the 1960’s when theologians were advocating for the Catholic Church to change its teaching to allow the use of contraception.
What is your position regarding Matthew Hoffman’s claim regarding Pope Francis “appear[ing] to deny [Humanae Vitae]’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception”?
He did not deny that contraception was intrinsically evil. I don’t think a passing remark to journalists merits much time and effort in explaining it. When the accusation itself says “appearing to” do something, it is weak and baseless on its face. We don’t make accusations against a Pope based on appearances.
4.576 – Message of Our Lady Queen of Peace, transmitted on 12/30/2017 to Pedro Regis
Dear children, open your hearts to the Light of the Lord and let Him transform your lives. You live in the time of great tribulations and only by the power of prayer can you bear the weight of the trials that are to come. Take care of your spiritual life. Faith is your great treasure. Come to Jesus. Seek Him through His Word and in the Eucharist. Recognize His Presence in His faithful ministers and in the person of your neighbor. Jesus is your everything. In Him is your victory. Do not stray from the path I have pointed out to you. Speed up your conversion. What you have to do, do not leave for tomorrow. Do not retreat. I love you and will always be with you. After all the pain, the Lord will wipe away your tears and see the Great Triumph of My Immaculate Heart. Forward without fear. This is the message that I am sending you today in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. Thank You for allowing Me to meet you here one more time. I bless you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Be at peace.
In this message our Lady is stating to “Speed up your conversion.” It appears with her statement that the Tribulations will begin very soon.
Yes. Soon. And at the end of the first part of the tribulation, there will be “the Great Triumph of My Immaculate Heart.” This refers to the worldwide blessings and time of peace after the three days of darkness (last three days of March, 2040.)
Ron, will you have a post about the possibility of the first secret of Medjugorje occuring this Good Friday, March 30, 2018?
It is possible. I’m not sure what else to say about that.
I am troubled the apparent apparitions at Medjugorje (and Garabandal). Do you have an article that explains your position, in light of: the bishops of Mostar-Duvno ruling against them; the scandals of the Franciscans there; Mary almost dropping Jesus (really?); the inconsistencies (lies) the children have been caught in (including that the “Gospa” would only appear 3 more times after the first incident); the claims of the “Gospa” that people need NOT convert to Catholicism; the circus of the seers traveling the world and inciting the “Gospa” to appear to them on demand; the wealth of the seers; the lack of vocations among the seers; etc., etc. etc.
These criticisms of Medjugorje and Garabandal are very must like the criticism that people bring against the Bible. I don’t think the correct response is to go through each complaint, and explain it away. It is a matter of faith, not in the sense of beliefs requiring assent. Rather, it is faith that comes from cooperation with grace, so that reason is able to accept things that are not absolutely proven by reason alone.
I will say that the seers are fallen sinners, like any of us. They can sin, even gravely. Not every revelation is given only to Saints. Most complaints are explained by the faults and sins of those associated with the visions. The claim of a vision where Mary almost drops Jesus could be a figure, representing the Church’s faults on earth. She seems at times as if She will drop Jesus and the Gospel message, but that is only how it seems.
Mary did not say that people should not convert to Catholicism. However, Catholic teaching is that persons who refuse to convert can still be saved, if their refusal is not an actual mortal sin (or if it is and the repent), and if they die in a state of grace. My book on salvation theology explains all this in great detail, based on magisterial teaching. I see nothing in the messages that contradict a proper understanding of salvation theology.
Comparing the Bible (the Word of God, inerrant and inspired) to alleged apparitions (unapproved and full of inconsistencies) is a surprising response to me. If it is simply a matter of faith, then it follows that a person’s individual assessment of truth justifies going against or, at least, before the Church. The local bishops, ordained through the Church, by God, have spoken out against the apparitions from the beginning.
Is there not damage being done to the laity who, like yourself, decide that each knows best? How is this not one more example of cafeteria Catholicism where individuals determine what they are to believe? Are these “apparitions” uniting faithful Catholics or dividing them?
There is always a set of criticisms that people can bring against the Bible (inerrant Word of God), the decisions of a Pope (including his opinions and decisions on discipline), private revelation (not inerrant, not required belief). A person can apply the theological virtue of faith not only to dogmatic truths, but to non-infallible teaching and to pious theological opinions. Faith is an ability that is exercised in many ways.
My writings in eschatology are presented as fallible and speculative. The Church permits the faithful to hold a variety of different opinions on open questions, including opinions on claimed revelations.
Is there any Magesterial teachings on modesty in dress? You write about it in your speculative theology section. Pope Pius XII wrote letters on modesty in dress, how much weight do those letters hold? Can we assume skin tight clothing is immodest and sinful?
Modesty is the teaching of Scripture. Everything in the Faith does not need to be a discrete dogmatic teaching. The particulars of dress are a matter of judgment, although some choices are clearly immodest, and other choices are clearly modest.
Culture may affect this (think Victorian England).
Is writing (making notes) to personal Bible(s) intrinsically evil (sacrilegious)?
No, not unless the notes themselves are sacrilegious or blasphemous. Writing in a Bible, for a good purpose, is not wrong.
My cousin once had a Bible that she highlighted every important passage in yellow.
The trouble was, she thought all the passages were important.
Whole pages were mostly yellow.