Theology Q and A (closed)

Ask Ron Conte a theological question.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Theology Q and A (closed)

  1. Grindall says:

    There won’t be any married priests, of course. Do you think a shorter training period would entice more clergy to emerge? I was stunned to learn the deacons for our parish studied 3 or 4 years, but are expected to do all their work for free! They aren’t even allowed to keep their honoraria donations, which I think is absurd.
    I believe clericalism comes from priests or bishops that are too highly decorated, especially with multiple or secular degrees, but too much education of any type makes them pompous and full of themselves. What do you think?

    • Ron Conte says:

      I think some men might be ordained with a shorter training period, if they are qualified. The way finances are handled by the Church also needs to change. Bishops have too much control over the money, and there is no oversight. I think Bishops should not need to have Ph.Ds or the equivalent, as is now the case.

  2. Matt Z. says:

    Fr. Chad Ripperger talks about infallibility of the Sensus Fidelium, the Fathers of the Church, and of the Theologians of the Scholastic era. Is there more infallibility than just papal, conciliar, and magesterial infallibility?

    • Ron Conte says:

      I’m sorry to have to say this but Fr. Chad’s theology is lacking in some ways. But he attains popularity by being conservative. This is a serious problem in the conservative Catholic subculture, where the more conservative priests are considered to be more reliable in their theology, and that is not necessarily the case. The sensus fidelium is not infallible. There is a type of infallibility spoken of in Vatican II, where the whole body of the faithful, including the Pope and Bishops, are infallible when they are in agreement, but that is an example of the living Tradition, not the Magisterium. Also, the Fathers are not infallible, nor are any group of theologians.

      The three types of magisterial infallibility are as I stated, which is what Vatican I and II taught.

    • MG says:

      I have listened to many of Father Ripperger’s talks. I am concerned that you consider his theology to be very poor.

      I recommend that you do a post on several points how Fr. Ripperger’s theology to be poor.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I spoke too harshly. I’ve edited my previous remark.

  3. Matt Z. says:

    He did state that there are certain conditions for their infallibility, if that makes his stance any better?I enjoy listening to Fr.Chad because I find his teachings true and presented very clear. He does have his opinions that sometimes can be mistaken for doctrine, but so do other theologians.

  4. Matt Z. says:

    The Catechism of the Council of Trent states “But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.”

    I understand that this is a discipline, and in my opinion a good one, but if Pope Pius X promoted daily Communion, would that not make it hard for Catholic daily mass going married laity to have marital relations?

    • Ron Conte says:

      those who go to Mass daily don’t need to abstain in this way. The discipline says “sometimes to abstain”. Discipline is changeable.

  5. Matt says:

    1. If lies are evil regardless of circumstances and intentions, is sarcasm a “lie?” Would that not imply that all “humor” (Consider: “I’m so hungry I could eat an elephant”), was at least a venial sin?

    2. Why do ultra conservative “sedevacantists,” (and liberals), say that the Church changed its teaching on “religious freedom?” Is there a basis for this claim?

    3. Going off of question 2, I have read we cannot “coerce” people into being Catholic. What constitutes “coercion?” Is it moral to support getting rid of church and state, creating a Catholic society, and incentivizing people to come to come to Church with tax savings? (Basically, is coercion just throwing people in jail? What are the extents of this principle of freedom of religion?)

    • Ron Conte says:

      1. a proper definition of lying will be in accord with reason, so of course sarcasm, a fictional story, a joke, are all not lies. A lie is the deliberate knowing deprivation of truth from an assertion.
      2. The Church has developed Her doctrine of salvation, such that invincible ignorance would excuse persons who choose not to join the Faith, and so they might be saved by an implicit baptism of desire. Previously, it was thought that they could not be saved unless they repented. It is a matter of interpretation of past teachings on salvation.
      3. I don’t think incentives are coercion. If you are forced to take a job you don’t want, that is forced labor and gravely immoral. If you are incentivized to take a job by an offer of higher pay and better benefits, it is not coercion. It is a matter of prudential judgment as to what circumstances are permissible to encourage persons to join the faith.

  6. MG says:

    We all know that the tribulations will begin soon. The start date has been elusive. I’m in a predicament. I have a unique job now that has a retiree health program with full benefits and for my spouse for the rest of my life. However, there is a job opportunity that pays more but it does not have any such retiree health. In fact, in my line of work, the retiree health programs have been eliminated. I am grandfathered in with my benefits.

    If the tribulations are forthcoming, I assume economies will collapse, and my retiree health program will be gone. Yes, I will pray on it, but what should I do?

Comments are closed.