This post is for general Q and A on topics in theology or on Covid-19. Also, I’m asking my readers for suggestions for a topic to cover in future posts.
RLCJ
-
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 
Article suggestions: explorations/commentary on the theological content of select Church Father and Doctor writings (like the apologies of Justin Martyr, portions of St. Irenaeus, homilies by St. John Chrysostom, etc), posting your own meditations on Rosary mysteries, commentary on key portions of biblical books (Romans 6-8, Matthew 5-7, 1 Corinthians 7 or 15, for instance) particularly focusing on spiritual or allegorical insights you might see, discussion of private revelations (how you think they happen, particular errors you see in any you largely trust, etc), lastly philosophical engagement with thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, etc.
Theology questions:
1) Do you favor any particular theodicy, if so which is it?
2) Since the authors of Scripture were truly human, and so had limited knowledge, at what “level” does the intention of the author become inerrant? What I mean is this: they would not have known of the egg in the conception of humans, so when they wrote of conception, they didn’t intend what we intend by it. So would the knowledge of the writer be in error, but the concept conveyed be considered inerrant? Essentially, the author is inerrant only in the ideas he conveys, not the particular definitions of the he has in mind (another example being “earth,” they would not have thought of it to include all the continents we know to exist, but nevertheless it should be understood that God creating the earth includes this).
3) How do you regard the founders of religions that have large amounts of helps to salvation but are mutually exclusive with the Catholic religion? Thinking of individuals like Zoroaster and Islam’s prophet, or the founders of Baha’i. Especially when they claim divine revelation and visions. Do you think that they could be saved in spite of the errors, just as their followers may be?
Thank you for posting this Mr. Conte, I have continued to pray for you. God bless you, and God bless you all.
Thanks very much, David.
I don’t have a particular theodicy, an explanation of why God permits evil and suffering, other than the obvious free will argument.
Scripture is infallible in what Scripture itself asserts as true, and the writer can err in his own understanding. For example, Paul clearly expected the return of Christ within a generation; but Scripture does not state that error.
Founders of religions might have a sincere but mistaken conscience, and so be saved, or they might not be saved, even if the religion has much good in it. Moses was saved, but he was not permitted to enter the Holy Land due to his own sins. For founders who sinned gravely and are not saved (which is not for me to judge), the good in their religion is of God, not of the founder. And even evil persons are under the providence of God.
I will cover some of the other topics you mentioned in other posts.
Thank you for answering. God bless.
If breaking bread is communion then would this mean communion in the hand ? But would this not be look strange at the breaking bread meal
I don’t understand your question. Breaking bread implies the use of hands, thereby implying divine approval for Communion in the hand. What would look strange?
Personally l would like to see content on:
1)the indissolubility of the marriage
2)the negative effects of personal sin on the individual and the Church, both actual mortal sin and objective mortal sin
3)the heresy of modernism
Question: Is objective mortal sin the same as a serious venial sin?
Objective sin is whether or not an act is sinful, without consideration for whether the act was committed with full knowledge and full deliberation; objective mortal sin is gravely immoral; objective venial sin is not gravely immoral.
Actual sin can be mortal or venial; an actual mortal sin must be gravely immoral, objectively, and must have been committed with full knowledge and full deliberation. An actual venial sin is any sin committed with some knowledge, and some deliberation. If there is no knowledge that an act is sinful, it is not an actual sin. If there is no consent of the will, there is no actual sin.
An objective mortal sin can be an actual venial sin if the gravely immoral act is committed without both full knowledge and full deliberation.
Article suggestion: a reply to Fr. Anthony Cekada’s “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” about the invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.
The basic principle which refutes his argument is that the Church is indefectible and She holds the keys. So if She changes the rite, it is necessarily valid as She cannot lead astray or destroy a Sacrament or harm the path of salvation for Her flock. Moreover, She has the right and authority to make changes to Sacraments. So an argument from some priest or theologian cannot withstand the indefectibility and the authority of the Church.