post your questions in the comments
-
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 
Dear Ron,
Thank you for the good work you are doing.
With regard to a prior comment, I believe the term “Oriental Orthodox” is used to describe Eastern Churches that do not accept the Council of Chalcedon and can be considered “monophysite” or “miaphysite” because they believe there’s only one nature in Christ. The term “miaphysite” might be better because some of them believe there are divine and human properties joined together in the one nature or “physis” of Christ. Various Syrian (“Jacobite”) Churches would be Oriental Orthodox as well as Eastern Churches in Egypt (Coptic) and Ethiopia. The Armenian Apostolic Church used to be considered Oriental Orthodox, but their Catholicos/Patriarch issued a joint Christological statement with John Paul II in 1996 that accepted the essence of what Chalcedon teaches on the two natures of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the first seven ecumenical councils (including Chalcedon), but they do not accept the teachings of later ecumenical councils (especially Vatican I on papal infallibility). The Eastern Orthodox also allow for divorce and remarriage and they consider doctrines such as purgatory, the Filioque, and the Immaculate Conception as theological opinions rather than dogmas (and some of them vehemently reject these Catholic dogmas) There are other differences (as you know), but it would take much longer to list them.
I have a question of my own to raise. A number of years ago, Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, gave a talk at an ecumenical gathering in which he proposed revising canon law to allow the theological errors of popes to be corrected:https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/change-canon-law-to-correct-papal-errors-leading-theologian/5725 Would not this proposal contradict what Vatican I teaches in chapter three of Pastor Aeternus (Denz.-H 3063)? As you know, Fr. Nichols later signed a statement accusing Pope Francis of the delict of heresy. Would not Fr. Nichols be the one who is teaching heresy and not Pope Francis? I mention this because not long ago Catholic World Report published an article praising Fr. Nichols as a great defender of the faith. I was shocked that a Catholic publication would praise a theologian whose opinions on papal primacy are highly dubious if not heretical.
Yes, Fr. Nichols’ proposal contradicts Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3, in multiple places, including n. 9:
“Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
Since the faithful, no matter their rank, cannot appeal to an Ecumenical Council against the judgments of the Roman Pontiff, Canon Law cannot be used to reject, rebuke, correct, or alter a decision of the Pope on doctrine or discipline. Peter holds the Keys.
Another problem with Nichols’ proposal is that it assumes the Pope is gravely wrong, even heretical, contrary to the charism of truth and never failing faith given by Christ to Peter and his successors [Lk 22:32].
See also PA, chapter 3, n. 2:
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
Saint Bellarmine: “Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him [the Roman Pontiff] so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope; yet from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err, if the Pontiff would err.”
Lyons I: “this privilege which our Lord Jesus Christ handed to Peter and in him to his successors, namely, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, in which assuredly consists the authority and power of the Roman church….”
Lyons II: “If questions will have arisen on faith, they ought to be decided by his [i.e. the Roman Pontiff’s] judgment”
Pope Leo XIII: “14. “But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. “The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom if an extraordinary and supreme power is not given, there are as many schisms to be expected in the Church as there are priests” (S. Hieronymus [Saint Jerome], Dialog, contra Luciferianos, n. 9). It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre-eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. I). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. [Pope Saint Leo the great] sermo iv., cap. 2).”
Thank you for the very nice explanation on the differences between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Excellent explanation.
What really seperates Catholicism from the Eastern Orthodox theologically, at this point in time?
Same question for the Oriental Orthodox.
I don’t know what the distinction would be between Eastern and Oriental. I think the latter is just an older term for the former.
At this point, there are many grave differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians. The great schism has led to many heresies being adopted by the Eastern Orthodox. So reconciliation would be difficult. But all things are possible with God.
Can you explain the Catholic theological concept of “charity”? I’ve heard it claimed that people who are not baptised cannot have charity, and I’m not really following what that means.
charity is the infused theological virtue of love, which is always accompanied by faith and hope, the other two infused theological virtues. To be saved, one must die in the state of grace, which always includes those three virtues. So whoever has charity is in the state of grace and is on the path to Heaven. There are three types of baptism: by water (the full Sacrament), by desire, and by blood. Any of those three types gives love, faith, hope, and the state of grace. So an unbaptized person (lacking the Sacrament of Baptism) can be in the state of grace and have charity by a baptism of desire, which can be implicit.
Hello Mr. Conte: Is it ok for a catholic woman (or man) to use a bikini as swimsuit?
People have to use their own good judgment on how to dress and on modesty. It is not necessarily wrong for a woman to wear a two-piece bathing suit.
In one of Father Corapi’s videos on Easy Prayer for Hard Times on YouTube, he mentions that without humility, purity, charity, faith, and trust, one can pray until they are blue in the face, and nothing is going to happen.
As you know, we are all imperfect. We all are in need of improvement in virtues.
Fr Corapi was a rather tough teacher and I respect him. I learned a lot from his preaching about the Catholic faith when he was on EWTN and listening to YouTube videos.
We are all fallen sinners. We strive to be holy. Yet. If prayers are not answered unless we have these virtues, to some degree or another, I am at a loss of the point of praying. Does God answer prayers only for those that are holy. Must a person be in a state of grace to have prayers answered.
Suppose a person is not in a state of grace or is unrepentant from actual mortal sin. That person lacks the infused virtues of love, faith, and hope, and yet they can and often do cooperate with actual graces. Their prayers can be said in cooperation with actual graces, and certainly can be answered by God. So Fr. Corapi is completely wrong, and his position on prayer is heretical.
What is the solution to the Holy Father’s speech about preferring to think that hell is empty?
He said he likes to imagine that Hell is empty. He stated the faithful do not have to do so. He has at other times clearly indicated that some persons go to Hell. The Gospel offers salvation to all; but not all attain salvation as some reject that offer. But inherently the Gospel tends toward an empty Hell, as it offers Heaven to all.
Hi, there hope you are doing well.
I had a question about the use of the term “St.” What does this term actually mean? Because we use it to describe both Angels (like St. Michael) and people. Is there a difference here in its application?
Thank you very much in advance!
The “saints”, small “s”, are alternately, all the souls in Purgatory and Heaven, or all those in a state of grace on earth, or all the faithful on earth, etc. It is not precisely defined.
The “Saints”, capital “S”, are persons of exceptional holiness, or persons designated as Saints either by canonization or reference in Scripture or longstanding usage in the Church. A canonized Saint is certainly a holy person, worthy of being imitated (Paul: “imitate me as I imitate Christ”), who lived a Christ-like life, and died in the state of grace with many merits earned for heaven. The Church has the authority to designate certain persons as Saints. It is the majority opinion of theologians that the canonization by a Pope of a Saint falls under the secondary objects of papal infallibility and so cannot err. But the guarantee is not merely that the person died in the state of grace, but also that they showed exemplary virtue in imitation of Christ.
How to reconcile the fact Pope Francis has said “homosexuality is not a crime” (https://www.voanews.com/a/pope-francis-homosexuality-not-a-crime-/6933125.html) with traditional Catholic teaching? Now, of course, the state can’t surveil what happens in the bedroom, but e.g. out in public?
I genuinely try to understand, so I thought perhaps he thinks it’s the same reason e.g. insulting someone, which is a sin, shouldn’t be a crime, but it’s still frustrating sometimes, as much as I acknowledge he’s not obliged towards anyone (not legally binding, but morally, paternal charity so as to not leave his herd confused at least strongly recommends it?), when he just says something like that without any further explanation (well yes, he added the distinction between crime and sin should be made and that it’s a human condition, but that doesn’t answer the confusion for a (albeit, almost purely theoretical) Catholic society in which public homosexuality would be illegal?).
It might also be probable he simply means it as a fact in Italy (although I remarked to someone else I think the interview was in the Vatican, and if it isn’t a crime there, what is lol), or simply the attraction, but not practiced, but from the context, I highly doubt that.
Homosexuality, as an orientation, is neither a sin nor a crime. Homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. But not every sin should be a crime under the laws of society.
Now the Pope was commenting on certain laws, such as in some African nations, which have grave penalties, even death, for homosexual behavior. The Pope rejects such laws. A theoretical Catholic society might have laws regarding sexual behavior, but certainly not the death penalty. Christ did away with the Mosaic death penalty, i.e. for religious offenses, when he was confronted by the Pharisees and the woman caught in adultery. Also, if homosexual acts were to be illegal, then gravely immoral heterosexual sexual acts would also have to be made illegal. Pope Francis clearly does not see such a path as good for society.
To have a good society, the people must freely choose to be good, to pray and have faith, and to seek to live a moral life. Good laws are necessary but not sufficient. Overly harsh laws were not favored by Christ.
My question concerns prayers to saints. Isn’t it permissible when praying to saints to ask them directly for help as well as to ask them to intercede or pray for us? Can’t they directly help us as well as pray for us just as we on earth directly help each other and pray for each other? For example, couldn’t I rightly pray thus: “Saint Joseph, help me to be a better father” just as well as, “Saint Joseph, pray for me to be a better father”?
Thank you for this service.
Sent from my iPhone
Yes, that type of wording in a prayer is fine. We know that Saints in Heaven help us by God’s providence and grace, by intercession before God. But there’s nothing wrong with asking for help directly, as we know how that help is provided.
Has the Pope authority to teach about climate change?
The Pope has authority over doctrine (faith, morals) and discipline. So a teaching from the Pope on climate change does not fall under the keys of Peter; such a “teaching” is not of the Magisterium and so is not binding. However, the Pope does have the same right as anyone to opine on subjects under public discussion and offer his guidance, perhaps based on concern for the good of humanity. But we can disagree.