Another post for questions and answers.
-
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 
Is the phrase “Adoration of the Cross” correct? – We ought adore God alone, not a created thing. Should “Veneration of the Cross” be a more adequate term for Good Friday?
We adore the Cross as a figure of speech, the Cross representing our Lord dying for our salvation. The expression does not mean we are adoring a piece of wood. So there is nothing wrong with that wording as a figure of speech.
Is it true that Jesus, from His Conception, always had the thought of the Crucifixion before Him and never had a carefree moment?
Jesus had the beatific vision in his human nature, from his conception/incarnation. So his human nature was always perfectly happy. However, I speculate that, at his passion and crucifixion, the Trinity deprived his human nature of the beatific vision, temporarily, so that he could suffer fully.
During mass when the Our Father is prayed some hold hands or some put their hands in the orans position. The GIRM doesnt say to do this. In my opinion its extremely distracting to hold hands. Its also distracting that the entire congregation isnt in unity with this. I read the orans position is for the priest. Most of the mass I have my hands crossed just by my sternum. Today, we celebrated a small mass and the priest asked everyone to hold hands, I said no thank you to the person next to me and the priest heard this and smiled almost as if he was irritated with me. Ive read the priest cannot force the congregation to hold hands. What do you kniw about this?
I don’t care for hand-holding at Mass. There is no rule for or against this behavior. In any case, no one should be forced to hold hands. But no one should be forced to use the orans position, or to kneel or stand or sit at various times. Christ gives us freedom, not enslavement.
I’m opposed to the view of liturgical form which argues for one form only, on every point, as if no other form could be reasonable. I understand that there are certain reasons for each motion or position, etc. But none of this is dogma. Jesus did not teach any particular liturgical form. And the Church has had many various forms. These exterior details are just not important.
Is there any hope that the world may someday become Christian. By the “world”, I do not mean the west or Europe. I am talking about the billions of people who either have false religions or no religion. Will they see before the world ends? Jesus calls Himself the light of the world, but there are so many who have never seen the light. Or are they in for a rude shock when He returns?
After the first part of the tribulation, the Church will have great success in preaching the Gospel worldwide, and Catholic Christianity will be the most popular religion by far (all Christians having united in one Catholic Church during the tribulation). But not everyone will be Christian. Then as the world becomes ever more sinful, Christianity becomes the least of the world’s religions, despised by all nations (Mt 24:9). Then, after Christ returns, there will be a time of holiness on earth. But Christ does not reign on earth during that time; He returns to heaven. The Church reigns over the whole world, which will be entirely Catholic Christian. However, people will still be sinners.
See my book The Second Part of the Tribulation for the situation prior to Jesus’ return.
Dear Ron, I have a couple of theological questions for you, and they somehow relate to the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox.
1) Gregory Palamas, who is honoured as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches (the latter with approval by the Holy See by express approval of St. John Paul II), believed that we should distinguish between God’s inner essence and God’s uncreated energies. Some later theologians from the Eastern Church, such as Gennadius Scholarius, believed that the concept of “formal distinction” from the theology of Blessed John Duns Scotus was a Latin counterpart to the Eastern position. Is this concept acceptable, once established that the formal distinction does not imply an ontological distinction between God and his attributes, or between the single attributes? Has the Magisterium ever condemned this proposition after Duns Scotus was beatified? The Eastern Orthodox also believe that “something” of God will never be experienced, since the human mind is finite while God is infinite, which leaves me with question #2.
2) Gregory of Nyssa held the concept of epektasis. According to this private opinion, the blessed souls in heaven progressively grow in their knowledge and experience of God, becoming more and more similar to him through all eternity, in a process that will never cease and that increases the joy of the soul. The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics generally describe it in the same way that the fire heats a piece of metal: the more the metal is exposed to heat, the more it melts and warms up, becoming more and more similar to fire in some properties, but never turning into fire itself. Did the Magisterium condemned this opinion?
If these doctrines are not heretic, my interpretation is the following: God’s essence can be distinguished in its individual attributes, but only by formal distinction. The lumen gloriae received by the blessed in Heaven is an instrument of grace that makes it possible to contemplate all of God’s essence, but separately in its individual attributes. To use some imagery, it’s like looking into an intense white light using a prism that splits it into its essential colours so that you can see ALL of it and experience its individual properties separately. The “quid” that makes the individual attributes ontologically identical with God is LOVE, which defines God’s true and infinite essence. The more the souls look into God’s glory, the more they love Him and become similar to Him through Love, becoming love-filled, so their knowledge and likeness of God increases in a never-ending process.
We cannot distinguish between God’s inner essence and God’s uncreated energies as this would imply that God is not One (dogma). Gregory Palamas was wrong. I don’t think Scotus’ idea is the same. God is entirely One in his Nature. But we do consider God in different attributes — love, mercy, justice, existence, etc. Even so, these are in no way distinct in God. It only seems that way to us. The Persons of the Trinity do not have different attributes; they are different in their relations to one another.
Is it possible to contemplate all of God’s essence, but separately in its individual attributes? No, absolutely not. God is infinite. The infinite cannot be entirely understood by the finite human mind, not even by considering the different attributes.
I don’t believe in the theory that the blessed in Heaven become ever more like God. At first, when we enter Heaven, we learn and change, but soon we reach our limit as finite creatures. We cannot become ever more like God in a never-ending process, because we are finite.
A person who is unable to go to Confession, how should one confess a mortal sin, simply due to fear of sudden death?
If you are unable to go to Confession, pray to God about your sin, ask for forgiveness and say one of the acts of perfect contrition (you can find online).
Ron,
If the Passover was on a Friday, why was our Lord celebrating it on a Thursday? Did others celebrate it on Thursday as well or did our Lord have to celebrate it early in order to become the Paschal Lamb?
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich says that the Jews from Galilee were permitted to celebrate the Passover a day early, because of the number of persons celebrating it at Jerusalem.
Hi Ron,
1) Does God have any feeling? I mean, can God sometimes be angry, or be happy?
2) If a person was in a state of mortal sin and then an accident happened. If this person loses his mind, how can he ask for forgiveness? Will his illness count as his punishment due to his sin?
3) Is the Blessed Mary higher than all other celestial beings?
4) Is it a good idea run to confession as soon as one sins or it is better to wait to do the proper exam of conscience?
5) Is there any difference between praying for someone by citing his name over not citing it?
Thanks for all that you do
Sincerely,
Emanuel
1. The Divine Nature of the Most Holy Trinity is absolute perfection, and so there is no change in God. This means God cannot have changing feelings, such as being angry, then sad, then happy, etc. Also, God does not have feelings at all, because such things are less than absolute perfect goodness. So God is said to be both unchanging and impassible (no feelings).
2. If the person had at least imperfect contrition, then, when he is unconscious or delirious or insane, he can receive the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and be forgiven for his mortal sins. But without some contrition, that Sacrament would not work to forgive sin. If the person is unrepentant from actual mortal sin, and then goes insane or falls unconscious, and later dies, then he would end up in Hell. It is the same as if a person sins mortally and dies immediately.
3. Mary is greater than all other created persons. The human nature of Jesus is greater than the human nature of Mary. But Mary is greater than all the holy angels, and all holy human persons.
4. A person who sins gravely should repent with perfect contrition first, so that he returns to the state of grace immediately, and then he should go to Confession at his usual time, most often within a week or so, and remember to make a good examination of conscience to find all his sins before confessing.
5. No, there is no difference, as far as God is concerned.
“ If the person had at least imperfect contrition, then, when he is unconscious or delirious or insane, he can receive the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and be forgiven for his mortal sins. But without some contrition, that Sacrament would not work to forgive sin. If the person is unrepentant from actual mortal sin, and then goes insane or falls unconscious, and later dies, then he would end up in Hell. It is the same as if a person sins mortally and dies immediately.”
But where is the providence here?
In a real situation, if the person lived a very devout life, the grace of God would bring that person to repentance in time, or the providence of God would arrange events so that the person could be forgiven.
The good thief didn’t live a very devout life. Why he was blessed with the possibility of accepting Jesus at the very last moments?
Corrige
Why was he blessed with the possibility of accepting Jesus at the very last moments?
What would be the morality of time travel? Note, I do not expect it, but I love stories about it, so I would like your thoughts:
Is it moral to go back and change history if:
1) An alternate timeline perpendicular to the original one is created?
2) An alternate timeline replaces the original one?
I don’t think alternate timelines are possible. How would changing history be moral if it affects billions of lives? The bad consequences would morally outweigh any objective. If you change history to prevent World War II, how do you know you might not create a worse situation?
Can a being or creature have free will but not abstract reason, or abstract reason but not free will?
In my opinion, these three things go together: free will, abstract reason, and an immortal soul. So if a created being has anyone, they have the other two. The ability of behaviorally modern humans to reason abstractly proves free will, and both together prove an immortal soul. The anatomically modern humans, prior to behavioral modernism, did not have the ability to reason abstractly, therefore they did not have free will or an immortal soul. So they lived prior to Adam and Eve.