A post for theological questions on faith, morals, salvation, and matters of Church discipline.
-
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 
Are EMHCs supposed to “bless” people who cannot receive the Eucharist?
My opinion is that they should not. But they often do.
If a non-Catholic comes to a priest for moral guidance in a personal situation which he wishes to keep secret, does the Seal of the Confession apply?
No, that is not the seal of the confessional. But most priests would and should keep that conversation private.
A common Protestant criticism of Marian apparitions is, “why don’t Catholics experience apparitions of Jesus? Is not Jesus greater than Mary?” Or “why not apparitions of the apostles instead of Mary?”
My thinking in response to these objections is that, 1) since Catholics already have Jesus present in the Eucharist, He is already with the Church on Earth and therefore a human bodily appearance is unnecessary, 2) the Ascension seems to imply that He will not come back until the end of time anyway in a bodily form of any sort, 3) the Assumption (which obviously is not very effective in debating this issue with Protestants) provides the theological “backing” of such apparitions 4) the book of Revelation perhaps implies future apparitions of the Blessed Mother and 5) the beginning of St. Luke’s Gospel implies that, going forward, Mary will have a special relationship with all generations. Do you have any thoughts on this criticism of Marian apparitions?
The teaching of the Church is based on the teaching of Jesus. Marian apparitions permit a different type of intervention, that will not compete with Tradition and Scripture since it is from Mary, not Jesus himself.
In Old and New Testament passages where someone encounters an angel, how did they know it was an angel? Sometimes, the person knows immediately it is an angel, like Mary and Joseph. Other times, like in Tobit, the angel looks like a person all along. And then, in the case of the Gospel Resurrection accounts, the angel(s) at the tomb are called both “young man” and just “angel.”
I don’t know.
I worry about my teenage children. I worry about their homework, where they will go to college, and who they will marry. I worry about my pension plan. However, all of this seems to be a moot point if the World is about the go through Chastisements from God. My understanding is that the Tribulations will be quite horrific. It will brutalize most people, even holy people, and the normalcy of life will be turned upside down. I understand it is for our own good and the events will set the world straight and save many souls from Hell. My point is why bother worrying with all the daily and future stresses of life as if though life will continue to be normal next 20-30 years. It will not. A 1/3 of us will die, perhaps even more.
The tribulation is divided into two parts. The first part is for our generation, but it unfolds over many years. It will be possible to live a life faithful to God despite the difficulties.
Can you speak on the roles of male and female in the plan of salvation, less as it pertains to reproduction, but more in terms of roles in the family, Church and marketplace? Thanks.
That is too lengthy a topic for a blog post or comment. Men and women are intended by God to have different roles, to a limited extent, in the Church, the family, and society.
Perhaps this could be your next book, Ron (hint, hint)?
What should a confessor do if an insane person confesses to, say, assassinating Abraham Lincoln?
A fully insane person cannot validly receive the Sacrament, because he can’t understand right from wrong in order to have contrition for what is wrong. A mentally ill person, as a matter of degree, often has sufficient understanding of morality to receive confession validly, but not someone who is so ill that he thinks he assassinated Lincoln.
Is there any precedent for having a Pope Emeritus? If Benedict properly revoked the papacy, should he not return to being a regular cardinal? I have read some compelling (at least, to me) arguments that Benedict is still Pope, despite the general acceptance that Francis is Pope. As a person whose parents divorced when I was young and my mother “remarried”, the idea of the Church having TWO Holy Fathers disturbs me.
Pope Saint Celestine V resigned. Both he and the subsequent Pope issued magisterial documents on the validity of papal resignations. The document by Pope Saint John Paul II, UDG, also specifies that a Pope may resign. So it is unquestionably valid for Benedict to resign, and therefore no longer be Pope. The title “Pope Emeritus” basically means “he who used to be Pope” (but isn’t now).
Also, since the Church is indefectible, God would not allow someone, like Francis, to be accepted by the universal Church and lead it as Pope, if he were not valid. All past antipopes had no such acceptance.
A certain moral theologian talks about how it is moral for a woman to stimulate herself before or after intercourse as long as she stimulates herself externally and does not place anything inside the “vas.” Also, he states that a man may stimulate a woman orally as long as nothing unnatural enters the “vas.” Is this not still mastrubation and mutual masturbation?
See my book on this subject (The Catholic Marriage Bed). The Saints taught no such thing. There is no such distinction permitting external acts, versus internal ones. This is clear from magisterial teachings in Denzinger condemning the use of sexual devices on the wife, and condemning any kind of masturbation. These external acts are still masturbation or manual sex, and are still gravely immoral. The theologian making this false and rather unique claim has no grounds on which to stand. All the Saints who consider this topic and the magisterial documents make no such distinction. In fact, Pius 12 says that the man and woman are essentially under the same rules for sexual acts.
If a valid Pope decided, in his free will, to declare an error ex cathedra, would he die first?
Prevenient grace prevents his free will from deciding to teach error ex cathedra.
If prevenient grace can prevent a Pope’s free will from deciding to teach error ex cathedra, why doesn’t it prevent people’s free will from going to Hell?
The Pope freely accepts his office and may freely resign, so it is fair to place this limit on what he can choose to do. It is consistent with the office he accepts. But preventing free will from sinning gravely would not be fair, as this would require a very substantial limit on free will and the choices of human persons. Many choices potentially involve mortal sin.
“But preventing free will from sinning gravely would not be fair, as this would require a very substantial limit on free will and the choices of human persons”
It would not be unfair if the person willingly accept this or asks this with her own free will (besides, i don’t view the impossibility of sinning as a limitation of freedom, quite the opposite, but it would be too long).
People can pray for the grace to avoid sin, and for final perseverance. But God is not going to automatically prevent grave sin at the time of death.
I mean, renouncing an unbounded freedom (and as i said i don’t agree with this view of freedom, but i will assume its true for argument’s sake) for the greater good (salvation) would be a decision of the free will itself.
It is absurd to state that free will is only free if we have the possibility of damning ourselves till our last breath while willingly renouncing this greater freedom for a greater and more desirable good (salvation) would be detrimental to free will.