Theology Q and A (closed)

Ask a question on a topic in Catholic theology.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Theology Q and A (closed)

  1. Tom Mazanec says:

    Why can some sins only be forgiven by a Bishop? What are they?

    • Ron Conte says:

      There are no sins that can only be forgiven by a bishop, although there are cases of excommunication that can only be lifted by a bishop. A valid confession forgives all sins.

  2. Francisco says:

    Many years ago I saw the movie Cast Away and made think about the following scenarios:

    A couple has a valid Sacrament of Marriage, then the husband goes far away to war and has an accident in a fire or similar event and he is believed to be death even thought his body is not able to be found. Many years later, his wife remarries, has another Sacrament of Marriage with another man, a truly valid second marriage. Then after several years, the first husband comes back and finds out that his wife has another husband, more children and has established a new life.

    Does the woman has two husbands in this life?
    Does the second marriage becomes invalid at that point? If so, how can it be explained or what would be the reasons?
    What about if, after realizing that her first husband is alive, the woman wants to come back with his first husband and leave the second husband?

    • Ron Conte says:

      The second marriage was never valid because the husband from the first marriage did not die. The wife must leave her second husband, and return to her first husband. However, she did not sin, in that she did not realize that the second marriage was invalid.

  3. Paul M. says:

    If the majority of people are saved, as you speculate, then what is the benefit to being Catholic?

    I ask this in light of the many articles excusing most nonCatholics who lack full knowledge of the severity of their sins coupled with the many articles condemning “conservative” and “liberal” Catholics and prominent theologians who embrace heretical positions. (I am even confused whether or not you believe most of these latter Catholics are in the state of grace in your opinion.)

    It seems to me that the more one seeks the truth the more they would be jeopardizing their salvation in your theology.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Catholics have greater glory in heaven, and we do more good here on earth. We are better able to guide other souls to salvation. We participate in the work of the Church, the Ark of salvation, in saving others. And our path to Heaven is well-lit, straight, and level, whereas the path of others is more difficult, the further away from Catholicism they are. Catholics are more likely to be saved. So there are many benefits.

      Some of these false teachers are not in a state of grace. I’m not judging them. It just shows in their behavior. Many Catholics who have gone astray from the fullness of truth are probably in the state of grace, though, due to ignorance and the influence of secular society and false teachers.

      No, the more we seek the truth, the easier the path to heaven becomes.

    • Marco says:

      @ Paul

      “If the majority of people are saved, as you speculate”

      It’s not only Ron’s speculation. There are the words of our Lady and other saints, and even Pope Benedict XVI, in his encyclical Spe Salvi, taught something identical.

      Let me quote his words

      “There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].

      46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.”

      As you can see, even his words imply that the vast majority of the human race goes to Heaven, through Purgatory.

    • Marco says:


      “No, the more we seek the truth, the easier the path to heaven becomes.”

      Yeah, and as i said the other die it has to be easier not only on at a theoretical level, but even as far as the final outcome is concerned. Otherwise, given our fallen nature, the proposition “the Truth will set you free” (John 8:32) would me meaningless. It would be true only in the abstract.

    • Marco says:

      “and as i said the other die”

      Day, obviously, not die.

  4. John Platts says:

    At least in my opinion, oral sex is a form of masturbation since oral sex either involves the use of the mouth as a means of stimulating another person to sexual climax or acts of masturbation that involve sexual climax into the mouth of another person. As such, oral sex is an intrinsically evil act that is prohibited under the Catholic Church’s teaching against masturbation, and oral sex also has the very same evil moral object of depriving sexual acts of its unitive, marital, and procreative meanings like that of acts of masturbation that do not involve the use of the mouth. Do you agree with the position that oral sex is a form of masturbation?

    • Ron Conte says:

      It is similar to, and different from masturbation. Oral sex involves another person, so that increases the harm of the sin. It is also a greater moral disorder, since the mouth is intended for food, speaking, praying, receiving the Eucharist. Both types of acts are deprived of the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings, so they have that in common. They are related, but oral sex is not a form of masturbation. You are right, though, that the teachings against masturbation imply a condemnation of oral sex as well — because the two acts have the same moral deprivations.

  5. Joshua says:

    Mr. Conte, I remember hearing that if a priest should ever break the seal of confession, he would have to go all the way to the Pope himself to receive absolution. Is this true? And if so, why can’t he just go to an ordinary priest, if all priests have the power to forgive any sin? Thank you.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Correction. Canon Law: ‘Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.’ The priest must go to confession for forgiveness. For the excommunication to be lifted, he must apply to the Holy See (not necessarily to the person of the Pope).

  6. Tom Mazanec says:

    Is it true that a priest who breaks the Seal of the Confessional must spend the rest of his life in a penitential monastery?

    • Ron Conte says:

      No. It is a mortal sin, and carries the penalty of automatic excommunication. He must repent and have the excommunication lifted by applying to the Holy See. (I don’t know the exact procedure.) Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

  7. mikeydante says:

    A person who try’s to imitate Christ , prays the rosary (not very well) . Goes to Mass, has Christ in his life but then comits a mortal sin , dies and goes to hell. Is this how should be, is this justified in our teaching?

  8. Matt says:

    I wrote before about Ortodoxy. Please provide convincing Catholic rebuttals to these arguments against Papal Supremacy.
    MOST IMPORTANT: The Keys to the Kingdom are given to Peter. But the Orthodox Church says there is also an interpretation accepted by Church Fathers that the Keys were given to the other apostles as well. Is this true that Augustine, ect, accepted this interpretation?

    [edited by Ron Conte]

    • Ron Conte says:

      Sorry, Matt, but I had to delete most of your comment. I can’t let a series of heretical propositions stand on my blog, and I don’t have the time to go through every point and provide a rebuttal. It doesn’t matter is some early Church fathers failed to understand some doctrines that the Magisterium later clarified and taught. We believe in the teachings of the Magisterium, in the primacy of authority and honor of the Pope, and in the interpretation of Scripture proposed by the Magisterium, even if some Saints erred on some points.

      The passage from Matthew on the keys clearly says Peter, not the other Apostles. The passage from John says that Jesus secured Peter’s faith by prayer, so that he could strengthen the other Apostles, clearly giving him a distinct role that is more than honor.

    • Matt says:

      The Bible can have multiple interpretations!! So which is correct?!! An easy rubutal is God did not write the Bible, it is the words of God IN THE WORDS OF MEN. The Apostle Matthew got spiritual intuition from God, and wrote down his thoughts. Therefore, since it is not written directly by God, the most direct interpretation might not be the ORIGINAL INTENT!! Perhaps, Matthew didn’t actually INTEND it to be interpreted as you are interpreting it?

      To settle this, we would need to go back in time and ask him!! But he did preach and speak to people, who then preached to others!! Therefore:

      Proposition. The correct interpretation is most likely the one that the MAJORITY of church fathers in 30-400 AD believed in.

      Why? Because the Church Fathers were closest to hearing the correct interpretation, as it was passed down by word of mouth, before too many changes got built into the original correct interpretion. Therefore, if the MAJORITY of early church fathers did believe something, it is utterly bizzare to claim this has no bearing on how Matthew and John WANTED THOSE PASSAGES TO BE INTERPRETED!!

    • Ron Conte says:

      Do you really believe that? It is Catholic dogma that
      Second Vatican Council: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit….” (Dei Verbum, n. 11).
      and that the Magisterium is the authoritative interpreter of Tradition and Scripture. There is no teaching saying that the majority view of early Church fathers is dogmatic. Tradition and Scripture are infallible, and the Magisterium can teach infallibly. Your proposition is in contradiction to Church teaching.

      Also, specifically on the keys given to Peter, Vatican One gave the official interpretation:
      1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

      2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

      Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

      3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
      Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

      4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

      5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

      6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

      So it is Catholic dogma, with an attached anathema, that Peter is the sole leader of the Church on earth, above every other Bishop and member of the Church on earth.

    • Matt says:

      I am having a debate on WHY the pope is infallible with an Orthodox woman I met! They accept that Scripture is infallible, but they don’t accept our interpretation of scripture. Since our Tradition is infallible and our Pope is infallible, because Peter was given special authority (more than just honor) by Jesus, which we say is true because of our interpretation of scripture. We cannot then justify that interpretation of scripture with infallible Tradition when talking to an Orthodox who doesn’t accept that. Or else we are using circular logic!!!

      Second, we BOTH agree with:
      “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit….”

      But it is not the WORDS that are infallible, it is the ORIGINAL INTENT, the MEANING, that is infallible. Words convey the meaning being asserted. Also, people can write words indenting to convey one meaning, but could lead to multiple other meanings if one interpreted them vaguely, metaphorically, contextually, ect. So the real question is: did the authors want them to be interpreted directly or metaphorically/ indirectly/ ect?

      Since we only have the words in front of us, and can’t ask Matthew to his face what he meant by those words, and since it is the MEANING that is infallible (which is not necessarily the direct interpretation), we have to figure out what that meaning actually is. We have to figure out why a direct interpretation is correct of the passages supporting papal infallibility and not a metaphorical or indirect interpretation.

      I am claiming that the Bible was written by men, and the ASSERTIONS were inspired by the Holy Spirt, but because people wrote the Bible, it is possible the actual words were written imprecisely (we don’t believe God just handed the Bible to us).

      You are putting words in my mouth!! I never claimed that a majority of church fathers make it dogmatic; I claim that the writings of influential people in the early church (church councils, popes, other documents, church fathers) from 30-400 AD, can shed light on what is MOST LIKELY the true interpretation of scripture!! (This is the meaning asserted by the Holy Spirt. And note I said most likely, not dogmatic, so don’t put words in my mouth)!! I reiterate that I believe this proposition is true because the Apostles conveyed that true meaning to others by word of mouth, who then wrote it down, so the earliest Christian texts can help answer questions of proper interpretation!!

    • Ron Conte says:

      Your Orthodox friend is leading you astray. “I am claiming that the Bible was written by men, and the ASSERTIONS were inspired by the Holy Spirt” No. According to the teaching of the Church, the Bible has two main levels of meaning:
      1. things signified by words (the direct level of meaning, which can be literal or figurative)
      2. the things signified by the words then signify other things (the indirect or spiritual level of meaning).
      Both levels are asserted by the Holy Spirit. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit using human persons as true authors. We cannot divide the Bible into parts that are of men and parts that are of God.

      No, a Catholic cannot hold that the most likely interpretation is the opinion of early Church fathers. Our belief is that the Magisterium is inspired by the same Holy Spirit who wrote Scripture, and that the Tradition of the Church is a Living Tradition, also inspired by the Spirit. So Tradition and Magisterium teach us the meaning of Scripture.

    • Matt says:

      You constructed disagreement were none existed. I agree that both of the levels of meaning came from the Holy Spirit. It is, as you say, “the things signified by the words” which came from the Holy Spirit.

      I never said we divide the Bible into parts that are from God and parts that are from men, the MEANING was ALL from God. The words themselves, aka. the word choice used to convey that meaning, was from the men who wrote the Bible. Are you saying God told the authors each specific word that they should write? Or my position: men got inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but still had to choose which words to write to convey that inspiration (it was God’s meaning, not God’s word choice). But we agree, what those words were intended to signify was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

      But the answer to this question does nothing to help me with the Orthodox vs Catholicism debate.

      As you say, the Bible can signify literal or figurative usage. So how do we know if those passages should be interpreted literally or in some other figurative way?

      You answer this question by appealing to Holy Tradition. But just like you can’t appeal to the Bible when having a debate with a Muslim over whether Christianity or Islam is correct (because you are merely starting at the conclusion, without demonstrating it). And other religions could similarly appeal to their holy books. Then, so too, when trying to discover whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true Christianity, we can only appeal to the Bible (we both agree it’s infallible), but we cannot appeal to our Holy Tradition to answer this question. Because we can’t start out from the assumption that Catholicism is correct, anymore than we should start out with the assumption God exists when debating an atheist. What I mean is, an Orthodox person could similarly just appeal to their Tradition.

      ***So please give me a better response than Holy Tradition (you have a Vatican I response) in answering whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true Christianity!!!

      If Catholics cannot give me satisfactory answers to these questions, then my faith will be greatly shaken. If you can’t, then at least refer me to reading, so I can respond to the opposition research presented in the Wikipedia article. I’m loyal to God number 1, not Catholicism, so I am approaching this debate with an open mind trying to see who is more right. I am trying to stay true to God. Thanks!!!

    • Ron Conte says:

      “the word choice used to convey that meaning” is from the human authors. No. Instead, they wrote all those things and only those things that the Holy Spirit willed. Dei Verbum: “they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”

      It is not always clear whether a passage is literal or figurative. The interpretation of the Bible is from Tradition and Magisterium.

      You are wrong to say that we must answer the Orthodox starting with their own false assumptions. Then we will end up with their false conclusions. When arguing with a Protestant who believes in sola scriptura, we should present the full truth to them, that there are three pillars of truth, Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, not only one.

      “If Catholics cannot give me satisfactory answers to these questions, then my faith will be greatly shaken.” You are allowing yourself to be led away from the true Faith by your emotional attachment to an Orthodox woman. Faith is not based on answers that are conformed to the use of reason by fallen sinners. Faith is believing beyond what reason perceives, in response to grace. If this woman is shaking your faith, you should abandon her. Otherwise, you will fall into heresy and schism, and be excommunicated.

      The correct answer is as I stated, Tradition and Magisterium interpret Scripture. Each source of truth sheds light on the other sources of truth. And Catholicism is the true faith, established by Christ. So you should be loyal to that Church founded by Him. The Orthodox faith began with the great schism of 1054. Forget about arguments, and believe based on faith.

    • Matt says:

      First, where did I say we have to start with Orthodox’s false assumptions? We should be able to start with ***NEITHER our assumption that our Tradition is correct, nor their assumption that their Tradition is correct, and still be able to arrive at the correct conclusion. We should be able to start with “we don’t know” and then be able to use logic, reason, evidence, and propositions (which consistently anger you because apparently there is only one way, faith alone, to arrive at the correct conclusion).

      Second, the fact that faith is vital, does not imply we can’t also arrive at the same conclusion by accepting certain premises and then reasoning forward from those premises. Thomas Aquinas would be turning over in his grave right now, given he attempted to prove God’s existence by not merely saying “it is so.” But providing reason. This is an insult to someone who obsessively studied the cosmological, ontological, ect arguments for the existence of God!!! If this were true, every debate would merely end by the first side saying “I say so” and the other side saying “I say so.” In a world where logic, reason, and evidence are increasingly valued (I even value historical evidence, not just scientific evidence), religion needs to happily respond with reason.

      Third, in your “sola scripture” argument, I don’t have to appeal to our Tradition to dismantle it. And I don’t have to start with their false assumptions, and arrive at a false conclusion. I can do it fairly easy by starting with OTHER propositions, reasoning forward, and then arriving at Catholicism (but I don’t have space to do it). I DON’T HAVE TO START AT THE CONCLUSION!!!

      For the Bible, it is once again possible for BOTH of what we said to be right, so why are you so quick to assume contradiction?

      “they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”

      NOWHERE DOES IT SAY GOD ONLY WANTS ONE WORD CHOICE. It is possible that the authors used their own word choice, but at the same time “everything” was what God wanted and there was “only those things God wanted.” We don’t have to assume God told the authors each specific word to use to come to that conclusion (given many different word choices could convey God’s meaning, and for all we know God could be happy with many of them). It’s possible what you are saying is right, but it is not obvious my position is an immediate contradiction. There is only a contradiction if I think there are extraneous things in the Bible, or God was not pleased and did not want the word choice used.

      ***How do you know it couldn’t be human word choice and still be those things that He wanted? Perhaps God does not care about the many synonymous word choices to convey the meaning of the Holy Spirit, but cares more that the word choice (chosen by humans) will sufficiently convey his meaning?

    • Francisco says:


      Simon was the ONLY Apostle whose name was changed to Chephas/Rock (Peter in English), not the twelve. He specifically said to “Simon son of Jonah” (Matt 16:17). When God changes the name of a person, He does it for a purpose, it signifies the new role that person is taking in his life by God’s will, such as the cases of Abram to Abraham “Father of many nations” (Gen 17:5), Sarai to Sarah “Mother of kings” (Gen 17: 15-16), Jacob to Israel “Strong with God” (Gen 32:28) among others. Similarly, when God changed the name of Simon to ‘Rock’ (Peter) signifies the position that he is acquiring from God, the firm Rock where the Church of Jesus on earth stands and is built (Matt 16:18).

      Now, Jesus is the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20) but since He had to go to the Father, He decided to leave a Chief Representative of His on earth to take care of His Church, so He appointed Peter/Rock as His Vicar. The words: “whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven” echo Isaiah 22:22 that says: “And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open”. The keys of the house of David were given to Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah (Only to Eliakim, only to one person, not to a group of persons) in order to take care of this house and also this giving away of the keys is a sign of giving authority in order to guard the house.

      The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ who is a man with one head, not an animal or a monster with many heads. Therefore, there can only be one man who represents Him in this specific role and that person is he whom we call the Pope, the successor of Peter.

      Notice that Jesus gives this charge as a custodian of His Church to Simon because God the Father has revealed Simon a truth, that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God”. Similarly, thousands of years before, the Pharaoh entrusted Joseph (the O.T. Joseph) a charge only subordinate to himself because God has revealed to Joseph the correct interpretation of the Pharaoh’s dreams: “Therefore, he [the Pharaoh] said to Joseph: “Because God has revealed to you all that you have said, would I be able to find anyone wiser and as much like you? You will be over my house, and to the authority of your mouth, all the people will show obedience. Only in one way, in the throne of the kingdom, will I go before you.” And again, Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, I have appointed you over the entire land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:39-41). The Pharaoh doesn’t appoint many subordinates over the land of Egypt, but only to one person to be in charge, Joseph. Why do you think the Pharaoh appointed Joseph (as mentioned above) over the entire land of Egypt? It was because he knew that God was with Joseph. Only by a revelation from God is that Joseph was able to correctly interpret the Pharaoh’s dreams with certainty, in other words, infallibly. So the Pharaoh knew that God was going to guide Joseph administrating his land, and when the Pharaoh is appointing Joseph as his administrator over the entire land of Egypt, see what he does:

      {41:42} And he took the ring from his own hand, and he gave it into his hand. And he clothed him with a robe of fine linen, and he placed a necklace of gold around his neck.

      Taking his ring from his own hand and giving it to Joseph is a sign of giving authority, as well as of clothing him with a robe of fine linen and a necklace of gold on his neck.

      Similarly, Jesus says to Peter: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

      The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven belong to God, but He gives them to Peter as a sign of giving him authority.

      430 years later, God choses only Moses in order to lead the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt, then Joshua, Moses’ successor.

      The authority that the Pope has as Peter successors comes from God and as such must be respected.

  9. Paul M. says:

    In order to argue that unbaptized innocents go to heaven, limbo must not exist. On what basis do you argue for this and is there room in official Church teaching today for you to believe limbo does not exist and for me to believe that it does? Thanks.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Limbo as a fringe of Hell, where the souls suffer the least punishment (deprivation only), exists. The Limbo of the Fathers, as a fringe of Purgatory, exists. That is where unbaptized infants go, temporarily, to receive the spiritual development they were denied on earth (in my view). Limbo as a third final destination cannot exist. We can only find true happiness in God, per Pope Benedict 16 and JP2. If infants die without baptism, they do not have the state of grace, or love, faith, and hope. So they cannot be happy. We are not mere animals. There is no mere natural happiness. It is supernatural happiness or eternal punishment.

      Limbo as a third final destination is not a heresy; it is tenable today. But I don’t see any substantial theological support for the opinion.

  10. Tom Mazanec says:

    What was it like to write inspired writings? Was it just like writing anything, but God made sure it was inerrant? Or was it like hearing an audible voice? Or what?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Not like an audible voice. I suppose it was like a poet writing an “inspired” poem, or a husband writing a heart-felt love letter to his wife. I suppose it was compelling, and yet entirely free. Grace works with free will like a fish swims through water. Free will was created to work with grace, so it is not forced.

Comments are closed.