Theology Q and A

You know what to do.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Theology Q and A

  1. Thomas Mazanec says:

    Did Mary have a Guardian Angel?
    Was that angel Gabriel?
    Did Jesus have a Guardian Angel?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Jesus did not have a guardian angel: {26:53} Or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, so that he would give me, even now, more than twelve legions of Angels?
      Mary had a guardian angel; I don’t know if it was Gabriel.

  2. Matt Z. says:

    I just heard an expert on angels, a priest on Catholic radio say Jesus had many angels and guardian angels. This would make sense because in Matthew 4:10 “Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’” 11Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.”

    The verse you state above doesnt mean that Jesus didnt have guardian angels, but the fact that he didnt call the angels to save him at that time, since Jesus had to do God’s will.

    • Ron Conte says:

      The claim is baseless that Jesus had many guardian angels. My position that Jesus had no guardian angel is based on His identity as the Son of God, who is above all angels and commands all angels. So no angel or set of angels is above him to guard him, rather, they all obey him as their Lord and commander. They minister to Him as servants before a King. And we see that even the devils (fallen angels) are compelled to obey Him.

  3. Matt says:

    Many Saints practiced self flagellation as a means of reparation of former sins and mortification of the flesh. Should Catholics practice self flagellation in their lives? What is truly the purpose of self flagellation, to minimize your stay in Purgatory? If you can write a post on self flagellation that would be great.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I think it is a bad idea. The Church should formally deprecate that practice, i.e. state that it is not recommended and should generally not be used. Some of the Saints used practices that are not fitting for the vast majority of the faithful.

  4. Thomas Mazanec says:

    This implies one quarter of people go to Hell:
    According to Burke, approximately one-fourth of the NDE experiences that he reviewed were extremely negative…

    • Ron Conte says:

      I don’t believe that conclusion is justified. Some near death experiences are fraudulent, as their descriptions of judgment and the afterlife are contrary to Catholic teaching. Otherwise, persons who die and go to Heaven are less likely to be given a second chance by God by revival after clinical death. So the sample, even if it were real NDEs, is biased in favor of those who need that second chance.

  5. DAS says:

    Along with self-flagellation, I don’t see what is gained by harping on the sinless-ness of St. Joseph. He is less heroic and inspiring to the faithful when presented as such, and I feel such claims are speculative and serve as clutter. Am praying for your relief from pain.

    • Ron Conte says:

      There’s a private revelation, Our Lady of America, in which Joseph speaks of his sanctification in the womb and his sinlessness. I plan to write a commentary on the prayer to explain different points within it.

  6. Jong Ricafort says:

    Hi! Ron,
    My simple question is similar to St.Thomas Aquinas.
    “When was the merit of Christ redeeming sacrifice applied to Mary”?
    The Dogma of IC stated the word “preserved” instead of “sanctified”, it would meant that at the “first instant of conception”, Mary’s existence was already sanctified, all it needs is to preserved the state.
    So, there are still two possible window for Satan to influence or touch Mary’s existence before the first instant of conception happen.
    1. St.Joachim and St.Anne “martial act” if done under concupiscence. Is their “marital act” devoid of concupiscnece or lust? Yes or No?
    2. If, the marital act was devoid of concupiscence or was sanctified by God, then there’s still one window where Satan can touch with his malice Mary’s existence. How? thru the seed of St.Joachim. Council of Trent teaches that the father is the source of original sin thru his seed.
    If St.Joachim had not yet reach Theosis, as St.Joachim traditions flows more from Eastern Church.
    Did St.Joachim able to pour in a seed not tainted with concupiscence, meaning it was sanctified too.
    So, my question boils down to the seed coming from St.Joachim and the marital act of St.Joachim and St.Anne, can I ask your views on this, if there is a Church Father saying the merit of Christ was applied at the seed, as this will give light to Genesis3:15 and St.JP2 teaching on absolute enmity of Satan vs. Woman start from seed.

    • Ron Conte says:

      In us fallen sinners, transmission of original sin is from both parents, as both are in the fallen state and both contribute genetic material from their fallen bodies. So St. Thomas was wrong that original sin is transmitted only from the father.

      “When was the merit of Christ redeeming sacrifice applied to Mary?”
      in the first instant of her conception, when she was not only preserved from inheriting original sin from both her parents, who were both in the fallen state, but also sanctified by being given the state of grace and many other graces. The use of “preserved” in the dogma does not exclude additional sanctification.

      Original sin is transmitted to fallen sinners regardless of whether the marital act by the parents is done with or without sin. The mere fact that the parents are fallen is sufficient for the transmission of original sin.

      Mary was preserved in the first instant of her existence, and not beforehand by sanctification of the seed.
      I believe that Joachim and Anna conceived Mary in a manner both virginal and miraculous, as described by Bl. Emmerich. So they did not have marital relations, but rather God intervened to cause her immaculate virginal miraculous conception so that she was conceived of both her parents, without sexual union, and without original sin.

    • Jong Ricafort says:

      Thanks for your reply Ron,
      You mentioned Blessed Emmerich; she had a vision that an angel healed St.Joachim “concupiscence” by touching his head and giving him a prefigured holy eucharist.
      This vision was supported St.John of Damascene teachings that St.Joachim had poured in a purified or spotless seed, like a refined gold. Because Mary as the New Ark must come from refined gold, She is the “House of Gold” or Tabernacle of God, meaning the seed of St.Joachim must be refined too like gold, and this is where the “merit of Christ was applied” as seen by Blessed Emmerich. So, from the purified seed up to marital act and at first instant of conception, Mary’s existence was “preserved” because St.Joachim seed was already sanctified from the beginning.
      Council of Trent teaches the original sin was thru propagation, so the humanity comes from the Father and the “marital act” is the “instrumental cause”. So, in order for Mary’s existence not to be touch by Satan malice from the seed, St.Joachim concupiscence must be healed first thru Holy Eucharist and the “marital act” was sanctified as revealed to St.Bridget of Sweden. There was a real “marital act” but it was sanctified, and there was a real generation of seed but it was refined or purified. So, Satan malice had not touch Mary’s existence from the seed. (Proverbs17:6, Psalm139:16 and Genesis3:15)
      St.John of Damascene teaches teaches the ff;
      “O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

      “O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens.” [Ibid, 2; “Fetus” means offspring in Latin. We mention this because in modern societies the term has lost its Latin and (and true) definition and has come to signify a “non-person” for all practical purposes, a distortion for political manipulation——The Web Master]

      “She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

    • Ron Conte says:

      We have to follow the dogma of the Magisterium whenever official teachings disagree with past opinions of Saints.

  7. Thomas Mazanec says:

    Is it true that during the Medieval Great Schism, canonized Saints were on both sides of the dispute?

  8. King Robert the Bruce says:

    There are rumors circulating that Pope Francis may visit Moscow isn’t that what one of the seers of Garabandal said that when the Pope returns from Moscow then hostilities will begin in Europe around the time of the warning.

  9. David says:

    1. Do you agree with the Thomist version of the TULIP (Calvinist 5-point doctrine)? The Thomist would modify it to this (explanations for each in brackets):

    T = total inability (to please God without special grace); [Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10]]
    U = unconditional election; [“God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. . . . Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, ‘Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.’”[ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.]
    L = limited intent (for the atonement’s efficacy); [ Aquinas, “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect.” [Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6.]]
    I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation); [Aquinas taught, “God’s intention cannot fail …. Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, ‘Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.’” [ST I:II:112:3.]]
    P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life) [Aquinas said, “Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect.” [ST I:23:6.]]
    (Modification is here:

    2. Concerning angels which were brought up before: I have heard in sermons that people can have multiple guardian angels for different purposes, for instance, when people get married they are assigned an angel to help protect the marriage, or when a priest is made he gets one for his priesthood, a bishop one for that, and the Pope one for that (so the Pope would have 4, each one being ranked higher to help aid them in their office). Is this true?

    3. On last things, do you think that annihilationism is a possibility for the end of those humans who are reprobated?

    Thank you for opening the Q&A.

    • Ron Conte says:

      1. I don’t agree that that is a correct representation of Aquinas. Also, there has been 700 years of magisterial teaching since Aquinas, so we should not base salvation theology mainly on his work. See this article, contradicting Akin on TULIP:
      2. There is no magisterial or scriptural basis for such a claim, and it is not common to the Fathers either. False.
      3. No. The damned in Hell remain forever.

  10. Sarah says:

    very timely Q&A because I just found your books on amazon. I had a question about Anne Emmerick which you use for a lot of your work. Reading her book on this page she says that the blacks descend from Ham, but this can’t be right if the flood wasn’t entirely global which you also believe. It also seems kind of offensive how she made the comment since all nations were once idolatrous. How can we accept the revelation then? What about contradictions with any other revelations like I heard of Maria Valtorta? Can God contradict or be the author of falsity?

    • Ron Conte says:

      God permits errors in private revelations, so that they do not eclipse public revelation (Tradition and Scripture). Errors occur by the misunderstanding of the visionary, or in the writing down of the visions.

Comments are closed.