New Q&A (closed)

post your theological questions here

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to New Q&A (closed)

  1. Is this the best of all possible worlds, if everything works out according to God’s plan?

  2. Does every nation have an angel? Does every species of animal or plant have an angel? Does every planet have an angel?

  3. Mark P. says:

    In the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, we pray that he “cast[s] into hell Satan and all other evil spirits who roam the world, seeking the destruction of souls.”

    So are Satan and these other evil spirits already condemned to hell, and just not there yet?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Yes, they are condemned to Hell. Fallen angels cannot repent and be saved. They will be sent to Hell at some point in time.
      Matthew {8:29} And behold, they cried out, saying: “What are we to you, O Jesus, the Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”

  4. Matt Z. says:

    I listened to a talk by a priest (I believe Father Wolf) who said that unbaptized babies will go to the limbo of the babies for ever. He backed this teaching up with Scholars quotes, Saints writings, and Ecumenical Councils. I believe in this as well. Imagine the abortionist that takes away the chance of a child to go to heaven!?!? Plus this teaching enforces the necessity and importance of Baptism. So the Church teaches that we must believe in the limbo of the babies as dogma, but it is a non-infallible teaching that the limbo of babies last forever?

    • Ron Conte says:

      He’s wrong. No Council has taught that infants go the the limbo of Hell. All this is explained in my books and articles on the subject. See “Forgiveness and Salvation for Everyone”. The limbo of Hell exists, but the only persons who go there, in my understanding is adults who die in original sin alone, because they have committed the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace, despite ample opportunity. All infants are given the state of grace before death by a baptism of blood.

  5. jbbt9 says:

    Ron,
    With reference to 1 Cor 15:35-37,42-49
    When we die do our souls alone go to Heaven, or is it that both our soul and spirit goes to heaven?
    At the General Resurrection will our resurrected bodies be reunited with our souls and spirits or just our spirits?

    .

    • Ron Conte says:

      spirit is the quality resulting from the union of body and soul. When body and soul separate, the spirit ceases to exist. Spirit is not a separate soul-like thing. It is the result of the close cooperation of body and soul.

    • stefano says:

      Ron,
      I was just wondering were those definitions of soul and spirit come from.

      By the way, I was also puzzled by your assertion that “When body and soul separate, the spirit ceases to exist”; if anything, because the spirit of Christ cannot differ from the Holy Spirit, and since Jesus truly died just like every human being, it would imply that the Holy Spirit no longer existed right after his death.
      You could still argue that in fact it continues to exisit as the body of Christ perpetuates in the Church, but this is a weak argument, because of course the Holy Spirit lived well before the phisical and mystical body of Christ.

      But there is also another aspect to consider: we know that we will regain our body upon resurrection; in the hipothesys that the spirit were just an interaction of body and soul, we would also regain the same spirit (the soul remaining unchanged, and being there no reason for the body to change). Hence, there would be no difference between resurrection and resuscitation. But we know that there will be a difference, in the very same way as a seed differs form the corresponding plant.

      So, in order to say that we will regain “our own” body (not something else), what do the seed and the plant must have in common?

      If in S.Paul’s view the life of the seed is clearly else from the life of the plant, how can the seed resurrect in the plant? This can only be due to the fact that they both share the same spirit. If we say that the spirit of the seed ceases to exist after the seed dies, where does the plant come from? And if the plant doesn’t need a seed, why the seed?

      Instead, some mystics have properly defined the spirit as either the vertice, or the deepest part of the soul, a part which is inhabitated exclusively by God Himself, therefore the closest point of contact of each one of us with God Creator. It is a part of us which only God knows and that remains unknown even to us. How would you comment on that?

      Thanks for your patience.

    • Ron Conte says:

      The term “spirit” has different definitions. When we say the human person is body, spirit, and soul, that is not the same as spirits, meaning angels, nor is it the same as the Holy Spirit. Jesus had a human nature (body, spirit, soul). The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of Jesus, in that sense. There are three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

      For the human person, the spirit is not a part of the soul (that is again a different meaning of the word). It is just as I said, the quality of life when body and soul are united. Your resurrection argument makes no sense. After the general Resurrection we have glorified bodies, we also have souls that have the Beatific Vision, so the body and the soul are different. The definition of spirit I am using comes from my understanding of Scripture.

    • stefano says:

      Thank you Ron. I respect your point of view, but the Beatific Vision doesn’t make our soul different; the Beatific Vision is the enabling capacity to see God face to face. However, the soul cannot be different, since we are what we are, and we can only be what God has once and for ever thought us to be.

      God has no interest in making any of his creatures different; rather, He wants to preserve all of His Creation by renewing it (“Behold, I make all things new”). He wants to make us new just in order to preserve that peculiar “us” in everyone.

      So the glorified body: much like the plant and the seed, it represents a continuum with the previous state, not a hiatus “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it”. One can find his life if he loses it (if he dies like a seed), but what he loses and find is the same thing, “his” life. There is no other life.

  6. John Platts says:

    If a penitent confesses an unnatural sexual act or the use of contraception without the intention of committing any additional sexual sins but hears false advice from the priest who is hearing the confession that unnatural sexual acts or contraception are okay, is the penitent’s confession still valid?

  7. Matt says:

    Father Ripperger states in one of his talks that a Priests hands are a sacramental.and therefore a layperson is not allowed to lay hands on the head of people for healing. However, in Mark {9:37} John responded to him by saying, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name; he does not follow us, and so we prohibited him.”{9:38} But Jesus said: “Do not prohibit him. For there is no one who can act with virtue in my name and soon speak evil about me. {9:39} For whoever is not against you is for you.

    Can a layperson, claiming they have a gift of healing, lay hands on a person, and supposedly heal them?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Fr. Ripperger is just wrong on that point. Only a priest can dispense the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. But a lay person, if given the gift of healing, may do so.

    • Matt says:

      I think what Fr. Ripperger stated was in general, that a layperson can not place their hands on the head of a person, and pray for healing. However, I agree that if a person has a gift of healing from God, let them lay their hands.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Wow. That is just setting the stage for a schism. No, we don’t judge the teachings of Popes and Councils against our own understanding or misunderstanding of Tradition and Scripture, as if we were judges over the Magisterium. Popes and Councils often teach truths that are implicit in Tradition and Scripture, so it is not the case that we can simply look in Tradition and Scripture, to verify that a teaching is correct. No, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption did not emerge from theology, as if these truths could not be taught by the Pope unless first taught and agreed on by theologians. No, we do not judge the Pope’s teaching against Tradition and Scripture. Truth is not decided in the Church by a process of majority rules. The Bishops cannot join with supposedly orthodox theologians and members of the faithful to judge which papal teachings to accept.

      If a Pope or Council teaches infallibly, then we are obligated to believe, regardless of the content of the teaching.

  8. Dora says:

    Will the Jews convert as a nation before the end of time?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Hundreds of years in the future, the Jews will realize that the Antichrist is a false savior, and they will believe in Jesus, the true Christ. But I don’t think they convert in the sense of abandoning Judaism. They accept the Christian faith and are baptized. They remain in a large sense Jewish. This occurs just before the Return of Christ.

Comments are closed.