You are on page 1of 161

Frequently Asked Questions about the Catholic Church

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. Her 860 million members inhabit the width and breadth of the earth, comprising almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Paradoxically, however, the Catholic Church is also the world's most controversial religious concept. Catholic belief is different, too different to be orthodox, say Protestants and Christian cultists. Catholic belief is too ethereal to be logical, and too strict to be enjoyable, say the humanists and agnostics Hence to millions of people, Catholicism is not only a colossal success, it is also a colossal enigma. Of course, there has to be an explanation for these contradictory opinions-- and there is an explanation: Protestants and others who have questions about Catholic belief too often make the mistake of going to the wrong place for the answers. Too often books written by religious incompetents are consulted. The result is incomplete and distorted information. With such information, one cannot help but see the Catholic faith as a colossal enigma. The right place to go for information about Catholic belief--in fact the only place to go for complete and authoritative information--is the Catholic Church herself. As any detective will tell you, no investigation is quite so complete as an on-the-spot investigation. Hence, dear reader, if you are a Protestant, an unaffiliated Christian, or an agnostic, who wants to know the truth about Catholic belief, take this friendly advice: Seek out a Catholic priest and put your questions to him. You will find him a very understanding and obliging person. Or read this little booklet. This booklet was written by a Catholic who knows the questions you are likely to ask, as well as the answers, because once he, too, was outside of the Catholic Church, looking in. The questions in this booklet are basically the same ones he put to a Catholic priest, and the answers are basically the same ones given him by that priest. Read this booklet; then forget all the fiction you have heard about the Catholic Church, for you will have the gospel truth.

Why do Catholics believe that the universe and all life in it was created by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called God? What actual proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence? Why do Catholics believe that God is three Persons, called the Holy Trinity? How can God be three Persons and still be one God?

Why do Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was God the Son--the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Would it not be more reasonable to believe that He was a great and holy man... a religious leader of exceptional talent and dedication... a prophet?

The Catholic Church

Why do Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that Christ's true Church is a spiritual union of all Christian denominations? Why do Catholics refuse to concede that their church became doctrinally corrupt in the Middle Ages, necessitating the Protestant Reformation?

The Pope
Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope, when the word ``Pope'' doesn't even appear in Catholic Bibles? Just where does the Pope get his authority to rule over the Catholic Church? Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is a human being, with a finite human intellect, like the rest of us? What is the scriptural basis for this belief?

Why do Catholics believe in seven sacraments, while Protestants believe in only two? Exactly what is a sacrament, and what does it do for a person?

Scripture and Tradition

Why does the Catholic Church discourage Bible reading when, according to the Apostle, ``All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach...[and] to instruct in justice''? (2 Tim. 3:16). If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God--if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth--why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many Bibles? Why does the Catholic Church base some of her doctrines on tradition instead of basing them all on the Bible? Did Christ not tell the Pharisees that in holding to tradition they were

transgressing the commandment of God? (Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:9).

Why do Catholics try to earn their own salvation, despite the fact that salvation can only come as a free gift from Jesus Christ? Why do Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation! Does not Paul say in Romans 3:28 that faith alone justifies!

Why do Catholics worship Mary as though she were a goddess, when it is clear in Scripture that she was not a supernatural being? Why do Catholics pray to Mary and the saints when Sacred Scripture states that there is one Mediator between God and man--Christ Jesus? (2 Tim. 2:5). Why do Catholics repeat the same prayer over and over again when they pray the Rosary? Is this not the vain repetition condemned by Christ in Matthew 6:7?

Why do Catholics believe in a place between Heaven and Hell called Purgatory? Where is Purgatory mentioned in the Bible?

Why do Catholics confess their sins to priests? What makes them think that priests can absolve them of the guilt of their sins? Why don't they confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do? Granting that priests do have the power to forgive sins in the name of God, what advantage does confessing one's sins to a priest have over confessing directly to God in private prayer? Do Catholics confess all the sordid details of their sins to the priest?

The Eucharist
Why do Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all? Why do Catholics believe their Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ? Why don't they believe as Protestants do that Christ is only present symbolically, or spiritually, in the consecrated bread and wine?

Why are Catholic lay people usually given Holy Communion only under the one form of bread? By not giving the consecrated bread and wine, isn't the Catholic Church depriving its people of the full benefit of Holy Communion?

Use of Latin
Why is Latin the language of the Church? How can the congregation understand the Mass whenever it is said in Latin?

Why do Catholics call their priests ``Father'' despite the fact that Christ said: ``Call no man on earth your father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven''! (Matt. 23:9). Why don't Catholic priests marry? The Bible says that a bishop should be ``blameless, the husband of one wife'' (1 Tim. 3:2), which certainly indicates that Christ approves of marriage for the Christian clergy.

The Bible says that after Christ was baptized He ``came out of the water'' (Matt. 3:16), indicating that He was baptized by total immersion. Why doesn't the Catholic Church also baptize by total immersion instead of by pouring on the head? Why does the Catholic Church baptize infants, who have no understanding of what is taking place?

Birth Control

Why is the Catholic Church opposed to birth control? Where in the Bible is birth control condemned as being contrary to the Will of God?

Other Pratices
Why have Catholic women traditionally worn hats in church? Are bareheaded women forbidden to enter Catholic churches? Why must Catholics pay money for a Mass that is offered up for deceased relatives and friends when the Bible states that the gift of God is not to be purchased with money? (Acts 8:20). Conclusion One man's story of conversion. For answers to other questions, try the Augustine Club's Apologetics Toolkit or the Catholic Answer Finder

Why do Catholics believe that the universe and all life in it was created by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called God? What actual proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence? Catholics believe that the universe is the creation, and the exclusive dominion, of an infinitely powerful Spirit Being, called God, because the evidence which points to that conclusion is so overwhelming that there is no room left for even the slightest vestige of doubt. First, there is the evidence of logic. Through the process of simple mathematical-type reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with certain indisputable principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can bring itself into existence. Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call ``God.'' (The theory of evolution, even if it could be proved, would not explain the origin of anything; evolution simply deals with what may have happened after matter came into existence.) Further, 1) personal creation (man) presupposes a superior Personal Creator, 2) universal order presupposes a Universal Orderer, 3) cosmic energy presupposes a Cosmic Energizer, 4) natural law presupposes a Universal Law Maker. Basic principles of reason such as these explain why so many of the world's leading scientists are firm believers in God. Then, there is the evidence of divine revelation--on countless occasions God has revealed Himself by voice, vision and apparition (by means which are receptive to the human senses), and demonstrated His Omnipotence by stupendous, obviously supernatural miracles. Many of these revelations are a matter of authenticated historical record. The Scriptures, for example, are full of such accounts; and in modern times the world has been witness to such Heaven-sent miracles as those at Fatima, Lourdes, and St. Anne de Beaupr in Quebec, Canada, where the cured have left a forest of crutches in testimony. (The Lourdes Medical Bureau is open for examination by any doctor.) In addition, there is the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius which still takes place in Naples each year on September 19, his feastday; the incorruption of the bodies of many

Catholic saints (such as St. Bernadette, who died in 1879); and the miraculous Eucharistic Host of Lanciano, Italy, which has been scientifically proven to be human flesh and human blood, type AB--to mention only a few of the miracles still on-going in the 20th century, which point to the existence of a God. And lastly there is the evidence of human intuition. Psychologists have long known that every human being--the atheist included--intuitively seeks God's help in times of great calamity, and instinctively pleads for God's mercy when death is imminent. Hence the renowned Voltaire, who was so eloquent in his denial of God while he enjoyed health, fame and fortune, repudiated all of his atheistic writings on his deathbed and frantically sought the ministrations of a Catholic priest. Nikolai Lenin, as he lay on his deathbed, looked around him and frantically asked pardon of the tables and chairs in the room. For as hunger for food proclaims the existence of food, man's intuitive hunger for God proclaims the Reality, the Omnipotence and the Justice of God. Catholic belief in God, therefore, is purely and simply an expression of intellectual sanity.

Why do Catholics believe that God is three Persons, called the Holy Trinity? How can God be three Persons and still be one God? Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three distinct and equal divine Persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--because on numerous occasions God has described Himself thus. The Old Testament gives intimations that there are more than one Person in God. In Genesis 1:26, God says, ``Let us make man to our image and likeness.'' In Isaias 9:6-7, God the Father revealed the imminent coming into the world of God the Son. In Psalms 2:7, we read, ``The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'' And in the New Testament, God reveals this doctrine even more clearly. For example, at the baptism of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father was heard: ``This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'' (Matt. 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, God the Son commanded the Apostles to baptize ``in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' And in 1 Cor. 12:4-6, the Bible refers to God with three names: Spirit, Lord, and God-- corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three divine Persons in one Godhead may be incomprehensible to the human mind, but that is to be expected. How can man fully comprehend God's infinite make-up when he cannot fully comprehend his own finite make-up? We have to take God's word for it. Also, we can satisfy ourselves as to the feasibility of God's triune make-up by considering various other triune realities. The triangle, for example, is one distinct form with three distinct and equal sides. And the clover leaf is one leaf with three distinct and equal petals. There are many physical trinities on earth, therefore a Spiritual Trinity, who is God in Heaven, is not against human reason--it is simply above human reason.

Why do Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was God the Son--the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Would it not be more reasonable to believe that He was a great and holy man... a religious leader of exceptional talent and dedication... a prophet?

Catholics believe that Jesus was God the Son, incarnate in human flesh, firstly because God's physical manifestation on earth, plus all the circumstances of that manifestation, were prophesied time and again in Divine Revelation, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy right to the letter; secondly, because He claimed that He was God (John 10:30, 14:9-10 and numerous other passages), and He never deceived anyone; thirdly, because He proved His divinity by His impeccable holiness and the flawless perfection of His doctrine; fourthly, because only God could have performed the miracles He performed miracles such as walking on the sea, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, and, after His death on the Cross, resurrecting Himself from His own tomb; fifthly, because only God could have, in the brief space of three years, without military conquest, without political power, without writing a single line or traveling more than a few score miles, so profoundly affected the course of human events; sixthly, because only God can instill in the soul of man the grace and the peace and the assurance of eternal salvation that Jesus instills. Why do Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that Christ's true Church is a spiritual union of all Christian denominations? Catholics believe that theirs is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ's true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles' Creed and the Primitive Christian letters). Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: ``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.'' Our Lord said: ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (``And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.'' Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church. Supplement: ( added by JRRC)
Mabasa ba sa Biblia ang Iglisya

Katolika Apostolica Romana?

1.) Church Iglesia (Church) ( ): Mat. 16:18 18} And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (KJV). 2.) Catholic Catholic) (

): James 1:1 Catholic Epistles of St. James the Apostles (Douay Rheims Version).

3.) Apostolica

Apostolica (Apostolic): Mat.10:39 Apostolic discourse (Jerusalem Bible); Act. 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs (TNIV). 4.) Roman(Romana) Romana (Roman): Rom. 1:1 The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (KJV)
Kung gusto nila(igsoong protestante) mabasa sa isa ra ka cite ang pulong nga Iglisya


Apostolica Romana :
The Jerusalem Bible: ROMANS The letter of Paul to the Church in Rome Chapter 1, Verse 7-8 To you all, then, who are Gods beloved in Rome, called to be saints, may God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ send grace and peace. First I thank my God through Jesus spoken of all over the world. The Greek New Testament: Roma 1:8 , Roma 1:8 he pistis humon KATAggelletai en holo to kosmo, Novum Testamentum Latine : Roma 1:7-8 7omnibus qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei vocatis sanctis gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo 8primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum pro omnibus vobis quia fides vestra adnuntiatur in universo mundo. diri nato Makita ang kamatuoran nga ang Iglisya sa Roma nga maoy mamungag daghan mga santos ug ang pagtuo mukaylap sa tibuok kalibutan (Universal or catholic) mundo. At mapapansin sa itaas na sa Roma 1:1,6-8 mabasa nato ug masabot nga Iglesia, Roma, Universa or Catholic ug kini apostolika tungod si San Pablo nag sulat nga apostoles ni Kristo Jesus. Buhat 9:31 9:31 Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4 with Concordance

. Buhat 9:31 Mabasa nato sa Grego ang EKKLESIA KATHOLIS ( which correspond to Catholic Church.
One of the historical Bases:

If you are a Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33. (Ann Landers (Jewish), syndicated columnist in the
Daily Record of Morris County, N.J. (from which we take this piece) for Monday, November 11,1996 reads)

Grollier Encyclopedia volume V, page 106:

Catholic Church


Katholikos, universal, general). Term generally applied to the Divine Pentecost.

society founded

by Jesus Christ, and endowed by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of

Why do Catholics refuse to concede that their church became doctrinally corrupt in the Middle Ages, necessitating the Protestant Reformation? Catholics refuse to concede such a thing out of faith in Jesus Christ. Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church ``another Paraclete . . . the spirit of truth,'' to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as ``the pillar and ground of the truth.'' (I Tim. 3:15). If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther's revolt) became doctrinally corrupt as alleged, it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against it--it would mean that Christ had deceived His followers. Believing Christ to be the very essence of truth and integrity, Catholics cannot in conscience believe that He could be guilty of such deception. Another thing: Catholics cannot see how the division of Christianity into hundreds of rival camps and doctrinal variations can be called a ``reformation'' of the Christian Church. In the Catholic mind, hundreds of conflicting interpretations of Christ's teachings do not add up to a true interpretation of Christ's teachings. If the Catholic Church never fell into error, how explain the worldly Popes, the bloody Inquisitions, the selling of indulgences and the invention of new doctrines? A careful, objective investigation of Catholic history will disclose these facts: The so-called worldly popes of the Middle Ages--three in number--were certainly guilty of extravagant pomposity, nepotism and other indiscretions and sins which were not in keeping with the dignity of their high church office--but they certainly were not guilty of licentious conduct while in office, nor were they guilty of altering any part of the Church's Christ-given deposit of faith. The so-called bloody Inquisitions, which were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens--even as priests and bishops--were indeed approved by the Church. (Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were left alone by the Inquisition.) And the vast majority of those questioned by the Inquisition (including St. Teresa of Avila) were completely cleared. Nevertheless, the popes roundly condemned the proceedings when they saw justice giving way

to cruel abuses, and it was this insistent condemnation by the popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions. The so-called selling of indulgences positively did not involve any ``selling''--it involved the granting of the spiritual favor of an indulgence (which is the remission of the debt of temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins) in return for the giving of alms to the Church for the building of Christendom's greatest house of prayer--St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. One must understand with regard to indulgences that there are always two acts to be fulfilled by the one gaining the in-dulgence: 1) doing the deed (e.g., alms-giving) and 2) saying of some prescribed prayers with proper spiritual dispositions. In the case in point, the first act for gaining the indulgence was ``giving alms.'' If the almsgiver thereafter failed to say the requisite prayers, he would not receive the indulgence because he had failed to fulfill both required acts. The indulgences therefore were not ``sold''; the very giving of money was itself the first of two requisite acts for gaining the indulgence in question. The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church's proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all--for those ``new'' dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints--saints the calibre of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope, when the word ``Pope'' doesn't even appear in Catholic Bibles? Just where does the Pope get his authority to rule over the Catholic Church? True, the word ``Pope'' doesn't appear in the Bible--but then neither do the words ``Trinity,'' ``Incarnation,'' ``Ascension'' and ``Bible'' appear in the Bible. However, they are referred to by other names. The Bible, for example, is referred to as ``Scripture.'' The Pope, which means head bishop of the Church, is referred to as the ``rock'' of the Church, or as the ``shepherd'' of the Church. Christ used that terminology when He appointed the Apostle Peter the first head bishop of His Church, saying: ``Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.'' (Matt. 16:17-19). ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd.'' (John 10:16). ``Feed my lambs... feed my sheep.'' (John 21:15-17). The words ``rock'' and ``shepherd'' must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Certainly the other Apostles understood that Peter had authority from Christ to lead the Church, for they gave him the presiding place every time they assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).

In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was ``the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter.'' In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) ``mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood . . . the place of Peter.'' Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first Pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Literaria: ``That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients.'' Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ--by God Himself.

Supplementary: ( added by JRRC)

Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

February 15, 2011 By admin

Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

Bro. G-one T. Paisones CFD/CFLAMP

In this essay, we would like to outline some of the paramount attacks and criticisms of our Catholic doctrine regarding Petrine Primacy. We are also dealing here in answering those attacks and criticism, using primarily the Bible and the writing of the successors of the apostles (Church Fathers) as the tools in our apologetics discussion. We can see below the question/critics-and-answer format to give much evidence in justifying the Petrine Primacy base in the Bible and in the early Christian paradigms. Please take note, that the protestant article will be labeled in red font; while our immediate and Biblical reply is in Green font. Criticism:

In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: Pope, Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Sovereign Pontiff. All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, Holy Father is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11) Answer: The title Pope is from the Italian language papa and Greek word papas which means father. In Matt 16:18-19 Jesus gives Peter the keys of kingdom of heaven. Among all apostles; Peter is only the one who receive the keys and it is referred to Isaiah 22:22 in which Shebna the chief steward of the old Davidic kingdom pass his office to Eliakim. Those the Lord Almighty place in the shoulder of Eliakim the key of house of David. The Lord Almighty put the authority over Eliakim in which Eliakim opens the house of David that no-one can shut, and what Eliakims shut no-one can open. God promise to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth (Psalm 89:3-4); those Saint Matthew clearly establishes the tie of David to Jesus (Matt 1:1). Saint Luke wrote in the gospel that angel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given the throne of His father David (Luke 1:32). As Christ give alone to Peter the keys (Mat 16:19), Peter now become the father of Gods people or the church- it is referred to Eliakim which the Lord Almighty made him the father of Jerusalem (Isaiah 20:21). It is the reason why Catholics called the successor of Peter- Pope or Father based on the Bible. Why we call our Pope Holy (Santo)? We call our pope as Holy because the meaning of this word is person separated or dedicated to God as indicated by our standard reference below: SAINT-in a religious sense it means that which is separated or dedicated to God, and therefore remove from secular use. The word is applied to people, places, and things (e.g. the temples, vessels, garments, the city of Jerusalem, priest). In a personal sense it means holy. (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 518) Is Peter a priest? The answer is YES! And it can read in the Bible. The Popes title Holy Father is truly Biblical, even it does not explicitly appear in the Bible but we can understand it; through implicit manner of correct exegesis or interpretation of the Bible. (For more information about calling our priest as father please click this link:

Criticism: Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. A vicar is One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office. (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a Vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows: Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God. Answer: Catholics believe that the Pope is not an absolute God (Tandaman sa Pagtuong Katoliko by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 77). Therefore the assertion of our protestant brothers in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 could not apply to the Catholic Church. We Call the Pope the Vicar of Christ because the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter the first Vicar of Christ. In establishing the Pope as Vicar of Christ; first we need to prove that Saint Peter was the (first) Vicar of Christ here on earth when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven. Here are the arguments: ->Christ is the Shepherd of the Flock (John 10: 11-16)

->Christ commissioned Peter to Shepherd his sheep (John 21:15-17) ->This happened in the post-resurrection period (when Jesus Christ commission Peter to be His Vicar or He place Peter to be a Shepherd of His flock as He is) ->History attests that Saint Peter has successor (Church History by John Laux) The teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope is Vicar of Christ is truly Biblical. Criticism: The Catholics today speak of the Pope as vicar, taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God, Matt. 1:23; John 1:1), yet there is only one passage in the entire Bible which speaks of a man doing such and it calls him the man of sin. Answer: Catholic speak that the Vicar-ship of the Pope is not to the extend that the Pope is equal to God, but Vicar-ship of His (Jesus Christ) works here on earth such as strengthen and establish his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible. Did our protestant brothers agree that Christ commissioned Peter in strengthening and establishing his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible?

Pope Benedict xvi -

Criticism: James Cardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Archbishop said, Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God. (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 82) The apostle Paul said, For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no other foundation but Christ! Therefore, any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone cannot be the church of Christ. Answer: The meaning of for other foundation no one can lay is the churches which found only by (ordinary) human and it is not Christ founded church (Act 17:24 KJV God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands,) example of this man made church is the Protestant Churches which founded only by men any where in the world. We had already established the meaning of 1 Cor. 3:11 for other foundation no one can lay. In the foundation of the true church; Peter, apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ-the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60).Christ promise that He is with the church until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20) and the gates of Hades (Death) shall not prevail against the church (Matt 16:18). Therefore Matt 16:18 and Eph 2:20 are not contradict to 1 Cor. 3:11. Protestant Churches are not the true church because Christ said that He will establish a church (Matt 16:18); Christ had already finished founded His church when He still on earth (Matt 18:17), and He is with the church everyday until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20) therefore from the time of Apostolic period until nowadays the true church continue to struggled and still exist- and this church is theOne, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church. Therefore James Cardinal Gibbons is correct when he said in his book that Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God. The contention of Cardinal Gibbons above is base on the Bible and Patristic Writings.

Pope Innocent X Criticism: Catholic writers often speak of the primacy of Peter and the primacy of the Pope. However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope! Answer:

Take note that the Bible used by our protestant brothers may be it is the Douay Rheims Bible, a Catholic Translation of the Bible. Catholic believes that Christ has the ultimate Primacy here on earth Col. 1:18 (DRB). But Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People (John 21:15-17). Therefore Christ made Peter the Bishop (or overseer) of all Bishop and all his people. The doctrine of Catholic Church regarding the Primacy of Peter and/or the Pope does not mean that the Pope (or Peter) is above all things making himself equal to God. The primacy of Pope to all Catholic bishops, priests, deacons and all members of Catholic Church are in the following conditions: -as visible head of the church -as Bishop of the Bishops -in matters of (universal) church Governance -as successor of Saint Peter -In teaching (address to all people) regarding of Faith and Morals (when the Pope speaks EX-CATHEDRA).

Pope Pius X Criticism: Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church. Please notice the following from Catholic sources: The pope, therefore, as vicar of Christ, is the visible head of Christs kingdom on earth, the Church, of which Christ Himself is the invisible head. (Answer Wisely, by Martin J. Scott, p. 49). According to the will of Christ, all its members profess the same faith, have the same worship and Sacraments, and are united under the one and same visible head, the Pope. (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, by John F. Noll and Lester J. Fallon, p. 42) Catholic officials always use the word visible no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matt. 28:18; Emp. mine D.R.). Answer: Catholics believe that Christ is the head of the Church (Eph 5:23 TNIV For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.) (The Documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Number 7- The Head of this body is Christ.) After His Resurrection, our savior handed his works (as a shepherd) to Peter; as a shepherd in his people (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and other apostles to propagate and govern her (cf. Mt. 28:18 ff.). Here, He firmly guide the church for all ages as the pillar and mainstay of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsist in the Catholic Church, which govern by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, posses an inner dynamism toward Catholic unity. (The Documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Number Please take note that our Protestant brother uses a Catholic Bible translation- the Douay Rheims Bible. Catholic believe that all authority in heaven and earth has given by God to his summoned people (Mat 28:18), and Christ give an authority to his disciples to preach the Good News (Mat 28:19), to make disciples of all nations (Mat 28:19), to teach them to obey everything had commanded by Him (Mat 28:20), to forgive the sins of anyone their sins are forgiven; and do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20:23), and the authority of binding and loosing (Mat 18:18). Among of the apostles, Peter had given by Christ a higher authority: Christ gives to Peter alone, the keys of kingdom of Heaven (Mat 16:19), Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People (John 21:15-17), and Christ appoint in strengthen and establish his brethren (Luke 22:32). Criticism: Luke 17:20-21 says, And on being asked by the Pharisees, When is the kingdom of God coming? he answered and said to them, The kingdom of God comes unawares. Neither will they say, Behold, here it is, or Behold, there it is. For

behold the kingdom of God is within you. The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king. Eph. 5:23-25 shows that Christ is the only head of the church. Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Consequently, the wife is subject to her husband as the church is to Christ. Just as the wife is subject to only one headher husband, the church is subject to only one headChrist. Just as the husband does not send a substitute to rule over his wife, Christ does not authorize a substitute to rule over His bride, the church. Catholics often use the expression, One fold and one shepherd to sustain the doctrine of the papacy. (See Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 59, q. 3). They teach that the one shepherd is the Pope and the one fold represents the Catholic Church. Hear what Jesus said about it: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheepI am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (John 10:11, 14-16). Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one can understand that one and one equals two, he can understand this. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherdthats one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherdthats two! Answer: Thank you for your contention above and because of your contention; it is easy in my task to prove that Christ is the spiritual head of the church and the Pope is the visible head of the church. I would agree with you that Christ is the spiritual head but I would not agree with you that The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king. In my previous contention; I said that in the Bible; we must not limit our understanding in a term, phrase and sentence. Sometimes a term where used as a figurative sense (Biblical Expression) and many times as a literal sense. The phrase Kingdom of God has different meaning in the Bible: Kingdom of God- (Gr. Basileia tou theou). The word kingdom is capable of three different meanings:(1) the realm over which a monarch reigns, (2) the people over whom he or she reigns, and (3) the actual reign or rule it self. In English the third use of the word is archaic and so is not always given its rightful place in discussion of the term; but in Greek and Hebrew, this is the primary meaning. All three meanings are found in NT 1. The kingdom of God is sometimes the people of the kingdom (Rev 1:6; 5:10) 2. The kingdom of God is the realm in which Gods reign is experience 3. The kingdom is also Gods reign or rule NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil., Page 333) <emphasis mine> And the meaning of the church: CHURCH- the English word derives from the Greek word kuriakos (belonging to the Lord), but it stands for another Greek wordekklesia (whence ecclesiastical), denoting an assembly When we turn to Acts, the situation changes, the saving work has been fulfilled, and the NT church can thus have its birthday at Pentecost. The term is now used regularly to describe local groups of believersIt is a building of which Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone or foundation (Eph 2:20-22), the fellowship of saints or people of God (1 Peter 2:9), the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-26), and the body of Christ, he being the head and Christians the members (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph 4:4, 12, 15-17).NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil., Page 121) <emphasis mine>

The people of the kingdom of God are the church, which is the body of Christ. Therefore the people of the kingdom of God or the church are visible (a building). We already establish that Peter commission by Christ to shepherd his people (John 21:15-17); hence making Peter the Bishop of the Bishops and the flock. Therefore Peter is the leader, superintendent and head of the church. The meaning of word Head in the scripture: HEAD-(Heb. Rosh, Gr. Kephal ). The OT uses rosh 592 times, translated chief, leader, top, company, beginning, captain, and hair but in most often head, sometimes used figuratively (e.g., Exod. 18:25; Josh 2:19; 1 Sam 28:2; 2 Sam 3:8; Job 10:15, 20:6). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 242 And we can read in the Bible that peter is a leader, literally!!! Conclusion: We have delineate the scriptural or biblical evidence of the uniqueness of apostle Peter compare to the other apostles, and these uniqueness (as the leader) are the solid foundation and scriptural proof that Peter is the first pope.

Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is a human being, with a finite human intellect, like the rest of us? What is the scriptural basis for this belief? The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty--the Faith of Jesus Christ. In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, ``from the Chair'' of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation--only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to ``define,'' some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: ``I will give (o thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.'' (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to ``hear the church'' (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth--without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible. For a complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years--sometimes hundreds of years--of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England's Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching. Supplementary:( added by JRRC) from Catholic apologetic staff:

Papal Infallibility How many times have you heard from well meaning, totally ignorant people that the Pope is just a man and can't be infallible because he is a sinner just like the rest of us? In other words, no man can be infallible because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Being a sinner, which indeed the Pope is(he goes to confession just like the rest of us), has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility, officially defined at the Vatican I council of 1870, says that when the Pope is officially defining church dogma, the Holy Spirit is also. There are three requirements for infallibility to be invoked: 1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter.

2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. 3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctine that binds the entire Church to assent. If any one of the above 3 requirements is missing, the papal declaration is not considered to be an infallible doctrine. Not everything the Pope says is infallible. So what are some of the biblical roots of the doctrine of infallibility? Well, for starters, Jesus Christ Himself, who created the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18, also promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide it in truth always. John 14: 16-17, 26: "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paracleteto be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" John 16:14: "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth" Luke 10:16: "He who hears you, hears me" Mt. 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Matthew 23:1-3: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (**NOTE - Just as the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, the Pope sits on the chair of Peter. And notice how Jesus told everyone to obey the scribes and the Pharisees, even though they were sinners. Just so, we have to obey the Pope in matters of faith and morals in the Church, even if the Pope is a sinner). Then there was the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. This Church council was held to determine whether or not Gentiles had to first be circumcised before becoming Christians. In the closing document, Peter says the following, from Acts 15:28: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things".

The Holy Spirit was invoked, so therefore, it has to be an infallible decision. There have been 3 instances of an officially declared Papal Infallible doctrine. The first was in 1854, when Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (The blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in St. Anne's womb free from original sin), then in 1870 at the first Vatican Council when the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity was officially declared to be true, and then in 1950 by Pope Pius XII when he declared the doctrine of the Assumption (the blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven). So even if the Pope is a sinner, when it comes to officially defining dogmas concerning faith and morals, the Pope has the biblical protection of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus Christ Himself to protect the Church from moral error. To ignore these scripture verses is to ignore one of the central tenets of the entire Bible. Even Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture, because it's inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is no different. And some Protestants seem to make infallible statements all of the time about themselves being "saved", in spite of Phillipians 2:12.

Why do Catholics believe in seven sacraments, while Protestants believe in only two? Exactly what is a sacrament, and what does it do for a person? Catholics believe in seven sacraments because Christ instituted seven; because the Apostles and Church Fathers believed in seven; because the second Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1274) defined seven; and because the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) confirmed seven. In short, the enumeration, seven, arises from the perpetual tradition of Christian belief--which explains why that enumeration is accepted not only by Catholics, but by all of the other ancient and semi-ancient Christian communities--Egyptian Coptic, Ethiopian Monophysite, Syrian Jacobite, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. To understand what a sacrament is, and what it does for a person, one must know the correct, the traditional Christian, definition of a sacrament. Properly defined, a sacrament is ``an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace'' (holiness) to the soul . . . that is to say, it is a divinely prescribed ceremony of the Church in which the words and action combine to form what is at the same time both a sign of divine grace and a fount of divine grace. When this special grace--

distinct from ordinary, inspirational grace--is imparted to the soul, the Holy Spirit of God is imparted to the soul, imbuing the soul with divine life, uniting the soul to Christ. As the Scriptures point out, this grace is the grace of salvation--without it man is, in a very real sense, isolated from Christ. And as the Scriptures point out, Christ gave His Church seven sacraments to serve as well-springs of this ineffable, soul-saving grace, the grace which flows from His sacrifice on Calvary: BAPTISM--the sacrament of spiritual rebirth through which we are made children of God and heirs of Heaven: ``Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'' (John 3:5. Also see Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:2-6). CONFIRMATION--the sacrament which confers the Holy Spirit to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ: ``Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.... Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.'' (Acts 8:14-17. Also see Acts 19:6). The EUCHARIST--the sacrament, also known as Holy Communion, which nourishes the soul with the true Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, under the appearance, or sacramental veil, of bread and wine: ``And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.'' (Mark 14:22-24. Also see Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:1920, John 6:52-54, 1 Cor. 10:16). PENANCE--the sacrament, also known as Confession, through which Christ forgives sin and restores the soul to grace: ``Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. '' (John 20:22-23. Also see Matt. 18:18). EXTREME UNCTION--the sacrament, sometimes called the Last Anointing, which strengthens the sick and sanctifies the dying: ``Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord . . . and if he be in ,ins, they shall be forgiven him.'' (James 5:14-15. Also see Mark 6:12-13). HOLY ORDERS--the sacrament of ordination which empowers priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, administer the sacraments, and officiate over all the other proper affairs of the Church: ``For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.... Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.'' (Heb. 5:1-4. Also see Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 4:14). Also: ``And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.'' (Luke 22:19).

MATRIMONY--the sacrament which unites a man and woman in a holy and indissoluble bond: ``For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'' (Matt. 19:5-6. Also see Mark 10:7-9, Eph. 5:22-32). There you have it, the Word of Christ and the example of the Apostles attesting both to the validity and the efficacy of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. In truth, every one of them is an integral part of Christ's plan for man's eternal salvation.

Why does the Catholic Church discourage Bible reading when, according to the Apostle, ``All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach...[and] to instruct in justice''? (2 Tim. 3:16). If the Catholic Church discourages Bible reading, the Pope, the thousands of Catholic Bishops, and the many millions of Catholic lay people, are not aware of it. For the Popes have issued pastoral letters to the whole Church, called encyclicals, on the edifying effects of Bible reading. The Catholic Bible far outsells all other Christian Bibles worldwide. In fact, it has always been thus. The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church--compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The very first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church--printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church--the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury. It was this perennial Catholic devotion to the Bible which prompted Martin Luther--who certainly cannot be accused of Catholic favoritism--to write in his Commentary on St. John: ``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.'' [See also the Apologetics Toolkit's ``Divine Tradition and Sacred Scripture'']

If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God--if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth--why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many Bibles? The Bibles which were collected and burned by the Catholic Church in times past--notably the Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles--were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the holy Word of God. In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those ``Bibles'' precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were replaced by accurate editions. There can be no doubt that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics.


November 20, 2010 By admin

By: Bro. Jessel F. Mosquera Former Chapter President CFD-ORMOC CITY CHAPTER

QUESTIONS: Unsa man Balaang Kasulatan (BIBLIA)?Z Ang Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. (Dei Verbum #42) Ug kay ang Balaang Kasulatan hinugpong man nga mga sinulat nga gitawag ug Biblia, busa kini gihulagway sama sa mosunod: The BIBLE is a collection of sacred books, composed under the positive influence of God and written at various times and places by various men whom God chose for this purpose (INSPIRATION) and which have been received by the Church as inspired (CANONICITY). Or simply the Old Testament and New Testament. 2500-1500 BC PATRIARCHAL TIME During this time, certain oral traditions seemed to surface (Gen. 4:23-24) THE SONG OF LAMECH (Gen. 9:24-27) BLESSINGS OF NOAH Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 1700 BC

Abraham migrated with his kinsmen from Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia to the land of Canaan 1600-1200 BC SOJOURN IN EGYPT AND SINAI The famine in Canaan caused the exile of Jacob and his family in Egypt for 400 years. Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 1250 BC THE START: MOSAIC CORE TRADITION (START WITH SINAI EVENT) DEUT. 6:6-9 And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: And thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising. And thou shalt bind them as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between thy eyes. And thou shalt write them in the entry, and on the doors of thy house. Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 1200 Probably the death of Moses 1200-965 BC SETTLING IN CANAAN, MONARCHY Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 1050-586 BC The Golden Age of Israel 965 BC REIGN OF SOLOMON 950 BC YAHWIST TRADITION The oldest source is the Jehovistic, or Yahwist (J, from its use of the divine name Jahwemodern Jehovahor Yahweh), commonly dated in the 10th or 9th century BC. J includes a full narrative account from creation to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Source: Microsoft Encarta 2007 931BC

Roboam (King of Judah, capital of Samaria) Jeroboam (King of Israel) 926 BC DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM 9TH CENTURY (900-801) SAMARITAN CANON -contains only the first 5 books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch/Torah) -used by the separatist Samaritans (only a few remaining today) SAMARITAN CANON Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 8th BC ELOHIST TRADITION The second is the Elohist (E, from its use of the general name Elohim for God), usually dated in the 8th century BC. E is no longer a complete narrative, if it ever was; its earliest material concerns Abraham Microsoft Encarta 2007 721 BC FALL OF SAMARIA, END OF NORTHERN KINGDOM; FUSION OF YAHWIST & ELOHIST TRADITIONS Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 7th CENTURY BC DEUTERONOMIST TRADITION Next is Deuteronomy (D, limited to that book and a few other passages), dated in the late 7th century BC Microsoft Encarta 2007 5th CENTURY BC PRIESTLY TRADITION Last is the Priestly Writer (P, for its emphasis on cultic law and priestly concerns), dated in the 6th or 5th century BC. P concentrates on the covenant and the revelation of the law at Mount Sinai, but sets that into a narrative that begins with creation. Microsoft Encarta 2007

Period of Oral Tradition handed down YAHWIST (950 BC), ELOHIST (850 BC), DEUTERONOMIST (700 BC), PRIESTLY (6TH CENTURY BC), ALEXANDRIAN (301-200 BC) Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa)/EWTN 400-300 BC FUSION OF JEPD (JEHOVISTIC/YAWIST, ELOHIST, PRIESTLY, DEUTRONOMIC TRADITIONS) SEPTUAGINT (LXX) [10] HEBREW CANON collected. Greek translation. Hebrew a dying language; dead by 135 AD. Greek the common language. Aramaic the common language. 3RD CENTURY BC ALEXANDRIAN CANON -contained 56 books -Greek translation from the Masoretic (Hebrew, Aramaic) texts -included the Deuterocanon Greek original -used by Jesus and by the Diaspora -translated into Latin during first and second century AD. Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) In Alexandria, Demetrius of Phaleron is the librarian of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC); he wanted copies of the Jewish Law for the Library of Alexandria. Such is perhaps the beginning of a Greek translation of the Torah This work of translation was done by 72 Hebrew scholars who were sent by the High Priest Eleazar. Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa) 180 BC Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) presupposes a collection of sacred books (Chapters 44-49) 150 BC COMPLETION OF SEPTUAGINT VERSION Source: JOSEPHUS, ANTIQUITIES, BOOK II, CHAPTER 8, PARA 5.

100 BC PALESTINIAN CANON - considered the Hebrew Bible by conservative Judaizers -contains only 39 books -decided at the Council of Jamnia (100 AD) -criteria for inclusion: a. scripture must be written in Hebrew/Aramaic b. must be written within Palestine during some remote age c. contents must conform with Torah d. was written before the time of Esdras (444 BC) AD YEAR OF THE LORD 36/37AD Josephus gave the list of Jewish sacred books 50 AD Council of Jerusalem 51 AD FIRST NEW TESTAMENT WRITING 1 Thessalonians 68-70 AD Jewish Council of Jamnia (or Jabneh) 80-90 AD DIDACHE WRITTEN Didache (Greek, teaching), ancient Christian manual of instruction, also called Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It was probably written in Syria during the 1st century, although some critics have estimated a later date of composition. The document was unknown until its discovery in 1873 and its publication in 1883 by Philotheos Bryennios, Greek metropolitan of Nicomedia. The Didache is a compendium of moral precepts, of instructions on the organization of Christian communities and of regulations pertaining to liturgical worship. It contains the oldest recorded eucharistic prayers and directives on baptism, fasting, prayer, and the treatment of bishops, deacons, and prophets. Revered by many early Christians as equal in importance to the books of the New Testament, the Didache was used to instruct converts. Today it serves as a valuable source of information about early Christian life and belief. SOURCE: Microsoft Encarta 2008. 90 AD

Rabbi Akiba, an enemy of the Christian Church, decreed another canon of OT. The first to exclude 7 deuterocanonical books About 95 AD, the Jews at a Council of Jamnia (or Jabneh) submitted their second books to renewed inspection. Apparently, they wanted to exclude from the canon any book which: -seemed to deviate from the Pentateuch -was written after the time of Esdras (444 BC) -was not written in Hebrew -was not written in Palestine (For these reasons many of the deuteroi would be excluded. But discussion continued on into the 2nd century even with regard to some of the protocanonical books) Source: CFD MANUAL 100 (125) AD LAST NEW TESTAMENT WRITING 2 Peter CHRISTIAN ERA || NT writers worked with Council of Rabbis at Jamnia collected LXX; 300 of 350 OT quotes a Hebrew canon of 22/24 books; perhaps in the NT are from LXX; pressured by needs of Apostolic Church; Unfixed canon. Unfixed canon. c. 200 AD | | [11] | || Fixed canon: end of Fixed canon: end of 2nd, early 2nd century; 3rd century. || Melito of Sardis, | c. 170 AD | || ALEXANDRIAN CANON PALESTINIAN CANON 45/46 books 39 books (Lamentations was considered a part of Jeremiah) Source: EWTN 110 AD IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, St. Birth and to use the term catholic church

Source: EWTN 120 AD PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS (Phrygia) + knew of a collection of the sayings of the Lord to have been written in Aramaic or Hebrew by Matthew Source: EWTN The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., The Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels of the New Testament). The deuterocanonical (from the Greekdeutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g., Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament). The apocryphal (from the Greek apokryphos meaning hidden) books have multiple meanings: (1) a complimentary meaning that the sacred books were too exalted for the general public; (2) pejorative meaning that the orthodoxy of the books were questioned; (3) heretical meaning that the books were forbidden to be read; and lastly (4) neutral meaning simply non-canonical books, the meaning the word has today. Another word, pseudepigrapha (from the Greek meaning false writing) is used for works clearly considered to be false. Source: EWTN Deuterocanonical 1. Tobit 2. Judit 3. Kaalam ni Solomon 4. Baruc 5. 1 Macabeo 6. 2 Macabeo 7. Sirac Deuterocanonical 1. ESTER (Greek) parte sa ESTER (HEBREW) 2. ANG SULAT NI JEREMIAS 3. TULO KA BATAN-ONG LALAKI parte sa BASAHON NI DANIEL SA HUBAD NGA GREGO 4. SUSANA parte sa BASAHON NI DANIEL SA HUBAD NGA GREGO 5. SI BEL UG ANG DRAGON parte sa ASAHON NI DANIEL SA HUBAD NGA GREGO


PESHITTO FIRST NT CANON (excludes the ff. Deuterocanonial books for reason of uncertainty in authorship: Hebrews, Jude, 2nd John, 3rd John, 2nd Peter, James, Revelation PERIOD OF CONTROVERSY The following reasons serve as the background for the controversy as to what books are inspired and should be contained in the Bible: -existence of the three canons (Samaritan, 9th C. BC; Alexandrian, 3rd C. BC; Palestinian, 100 AD -OT) SAMARITAN CANON 9th CENTURY BC -contains only the first 5 books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch/Torah) -used by the separatist Samaritans (only a few remaining today) ALEXANDRIAN CANON- 3rd CENTURY BC -contained 56 books -Greek translation from the Masoretic (Hebrew, Aramaic) texts -included the Deuterocanon Greek original -used by Jesus and by the Diaspora -translated into Latin during first and second century AD. PALESTINIAN CANON 100 BC - considered the Hebrew Bible by conservative Judaizers -contains only 39 books -decided at the Council of Jamnia (100 AD) -criteria for inclusion: a. scripture must be written in Hebrew/Aramaic b. must be written within Palestine during some remote age c. contents must conform with Torah d. was written before the time of Esdras (444 BC) -doubts on the Deuterocanon shared by St. Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory the Great, John Damascene, Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan -increased writing of Apocryphal books patterned after New Testament writings -teaching of Marcion rejecting most Old Testament and New Testament (Luke, Hebrew, Pauline Pastoral Epistles) -rise of Montanism and Gnosticism -existence of Moratorian Fragment (180 AD), a first attempt of an official list but excluded Hebrew, James, 1-2 Peter, 3 John -Origens Commentary on the Book of Joshua which included the complete New Testament books -in practice, the Deuterocanons were used by all Christians in liturgy, translations, and versions (Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Aramaic) Source: How The Bible Came To Be (Josefino Roa)

185 AD Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons Developed a New Testament Canon (without 3 John, James or 2 Peter) Source: EWTN 190-220 AD Tertullian, the first to use the term NOVUM TESTAMENTUM applied to the Christian writings of the New Testatment (NT). Then the term Old Testament (OT) to the Jewish writings and NT to the Christian writings. There are reasons for thinking that at this date (170AD) the corresponding word testamentum was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common in the time of Tertullian. Mileto, Bishop of Sardis, c. 170 AD, created the earliest list of books identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Source: EWTN 200 AD Muratorian Fragment contained a Canon similar to Trent Source: EWTN 250 AD KING EUMENES OF PERGAMOS Invented the rolled parchment or megillah 2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring my coat that I left in Troas with Carpus; bring the books too, and especially the ones made of parchment. 250 AD Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea History of the Church written; referred to James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John as disputed, yet similar to most. Source: EWTN 342 AD Codex Vaticanus (Vatican Manuscript). Legend has it that St. Athanasius brought it to Rome. The oldest vellum manuscripts are the three great uncial codices of the Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 4th and 5th centuries AD 350 AD

Moratorian Canon (FRAGMENTS) Includes 7 NT deuterocanonical books. Also includes other apocryphals: Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Proto-Gospel of St. James, Letter of our Lord to Agar. 360 (to 384) AD EARLY TRANSLATION Pope St. Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to issue a corrected text. Source: EWTN 360 AD St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria listed 27 books of the NT 360 AD The Council of Laodicea, c. 360 AD, produced a list of books similar to todays canon. This was one of the Churchs earliest decisions on a canon. Source: EWTN Source: EWTN 382 AD JEROME, St. 345?-419 + secretary to Pope Damasus I in 382 The Vulgate: translated the Bible (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia) from Hebrew and Greek into Latin + biblical scholar 383-384 in Rome Source: EWTN 382 AD Council of Rome ( 382 AD) prompted Pope Damasus Decree. Pope Damasus, c. 382 AD, wrote a Decree listing the books of Trents canon. Source: EWTN 382 AD

The Canon of the New Testament was recognized by an assembly of church officials in Rome in 382 (AD) and Carthage in 397 (AD). Source: Microsoft Encarta 393 AD Council of Hippo (in north Africa), 393 AD Council of Hippo (No. Africa) (393 AD), approved a list of OT (Old Testament) and NT (New Testament) Canon same as later in (Council) of Trent. Source: EWTN 397 AD Council of Carthage (No. Africa) 397 AD, approved a list of Old Testament) and NT (New Testament) Canon same as later in (Council) of Trent. Council of Carthage (also in north Africa), 397 AD, from which Protestant and Evangelicals take as the authority for their canon of the New Testament, 27 books, approved the Alexandrian canon of the Greek Septuagint, 46 books, as the canon for the Old Testament. 405 AD Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405 AD) Wrote to Pope Innocent I requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the Trent canon. Pope Innocent I (405 AD) (Bishop of Rome, 401-417) Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent. Source: EWTN 494 AD Council of Rome decreed that Latin Vulgate Church, official interpreter 691 AD Conformity of the Eastern Church 900 AD Vulgate universally accepted 1228 AD Cardinal Stephen Langton created the chapters of both the Old and New Testaments in the Latin version of the Bible in 1228 AD. 1228-1263 AD

Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro (Hugo de Saint-Char) CHAPTERS 1450- 1456 AD Gutenberg Bible, known also as the Mazarin Bible and the 42-Line Bible, it is a Latin edition of the Bible, printed at Mainz, Germany, sometime between 1450 and 1456 It is interesting to note that the Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible, was the Latin Vulgate Bible with the Alexandrian canon, 46 books, of the Greek Septuagint. October 31, 1517 AD Martin Luther separated from the Church 1525-31 AD Tyndale Bible PRINTING OF BIBLE-PROTESTANT In 1525 the English reformer William Tyndale translated the New Testament from the Greek text, copies of which were printed in Germany and smuggled into England. Tyndales translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew text was only partly completed. His simple prose and popular idiom established a style in English translation that was continued in the Authorized Version of 1611 (the King James Version) and eventually in the Revised Standard Version of 1946-52. Note: Authorized Version of 1611 (the King James Version) still 73 books (with Deuterocanon) Microsoft Encarta 2008 1528 AD Fr. Sanctes Pagninus, a Dominican priest divided the OT chapters to verses 1534 AD Luther translated the Bible into German with 73 books, name deuterocanonical with Apocryphal 1551 AD Robert Estienne (also Stephanus), French printer, made the Concordance; divided the NT chapters to verses 1560 AD Geneva Bible 66 books; due to Calvinistic and anti-ecclesiastical feelings 1563 AD

at the Council of Trent, 1563, the Old Testament canon of 46 books following the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint. Council of Trent 1545-1563 The canon of OT and NT received final (An ecumenical council definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in called to respond to the the NT; heresy of the Reformers); Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deutercanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority. The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible. Source: EWTN 1582-1609 AD Douay-Rheims PRINTING OF BIBLE-CATHOLIC 1611 AD King James Version, deuterocanonical books still included 1648 AD The Puritans in the Westminster Confession opposed the use of deuterocanonical, hence, omitted Puritanism, movement arising within the Church of England in the latter part of the 16th century that sought to purify, or reform, that church and establish a middle course between Roman Catholicism and the ideas of the Protestant reformers Puritan theology is a version of Calvinism Microsoft Encarta 2008 Puritans In its original meaning it signified those who strove for aworship purified from all taint of Catholicism . . . Source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA) 1870 AD VATICAN I. It reaffirmed Council of Trent 1957 AD

THE DIVISION OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION OF THE NATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST (US) have decided to include again the 7 books omitted by the CALVINIST and PURITANS 1959-1964 AD VATICAN II. ECUMINICAL. Protestant theologians and Bible experts were have agreed that the Catholic Church was right regarding the Alexandrian Canon of the OT which includes the deuterocanonial books AS a result, Protestant Bible was printed with deuterocanical books with the title Apocrypha (The Oxford Annotated Bible) Source: EWTN Pope Benedict XV The individual authors of these books worked in the full freedom under the divine inspiration, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character Z Nganong ang Santos nga Kasulatan linamdagan man? Pope Benedict XV- The individual authors of these books worked in the full freedom under the divine inspiration, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character Ang Santos nga Kasulatan gitawag nga linamdagan sa talagsaong paagi. Ang biblikanhong lamdag nagpasabot nga ang mga balaan ug linatid (canonical) nga mga basahon sa Daan ug Bag-o nga Kasabutan, sa tanan ug sa kinatibukan, nasulat ubos sa lamdag sa Espiritu Santo, sa ingon nga ang Dios mismo maoy ilang magsusulat ug ang Biblia Pulong sa Dios. Source: Dei Verbum 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church 105-106 Ang Dios nagpili ug pipila ka mga tawong magsusulat, kinsa isip matuod nga mga magsusulat migamit sa ilang tawhanong galamhan ug katakus, apan inagak sa Espiritu Santo nga naglamdag sa ilang mga hunahuna ug nagpalihok sa ilang kabubut-on, nga ilang gisulat ang buot sa Dios nga isulat. Ang biblikanhong lamdag, diay, maoy usa ka tuga sa talagsaong kalihokan sa Dios, nga gihatag ngadto sa mga matag magsusulat, sa mga tighashas (editors), ug sa mga tigpundok (compilers) sa mga sinulat, nga sakop sa katilingban, alang sa kaayohan sa katilingban. Dinhi naumol ang mga balaang teksto sa Daan ug Bag-ong Kasabutan. Niining maong mga teksto nahasukad ang Apostolikanhong Simbahan, nga nagpabiling bugtong tinugyanan sa Dios alang kanato ug sa tanang kaliwatan nga Cristiano. Z Nganong nalangan man ang tigpundok (compilers) sa pagtigum sa mga basahon sa Biblia labi na ang New Testament?

Sa wala pa ang tuig 397 AD (Council of Carthage), ang mga nagkalain-laing mga libro wala pa matigum apan anaa gitipigan na sila sa ubang grupo o kahugpungan (congregations). Ang mga pagpanglutos batok sa Simbahang Catolico, nga misamot kakusog, mipugong aron kining mga libro sa New Testament ma-authenticated and placed under one cover. Hinuon, kining importante nga trabaho (compilation of the New Testament books) nagsugod sa dihang si Emperador Constantino mihatag ug kalinaw sa Cristianismo (niadtong 313 AD) pinaagi sa paghatag sa mga Cristianos ug kagawasan nga ma-practice ang ilang relihiyon sa Roman Empire. Kini nga dokumento mao ang Edict of Milan. (Source: Catholic Religion Proved by Protestant Bible) Persecution of the Christians was ended, and Constantines co-emperor, Licinius, joined him in issuing the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which mandated toleration of Christians in the Roman Empire. Source: Microsoft Encarta Z Unsa man ang ubang problema nga giatubang niadtong gusto mosuta sa mga sulod sa New Testament? Sa wala pa ilha ang mga linamdagang mga libro nga ingon niana, daghan pang libro ang nasulat ug gituhoan nga linamdagan usab; BUSA, ang Simbahang Catolico mihimo ug makuting examination. Iyang gibahin ang mga basahon sa mosunod: Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical ug Apocryphal. 1. Ang Protocanonical books mao kadtong mga libro nga walay duda ug pangutana officially accepted sa Simbahang Catolico nga divinely inspired. 1. 2. 3. Ang Apocryphal books mao kadtong mga libro nga dili linamdagan. Example. Ang Ebanghelyo adunay 4 ka magsusulat: sumala ni San Mateo, San Marcos, San Lucas ug San Juan. Apan adunay pay laing 11 nga Apocryphal nga apil sa pagpili busa 15 tanan. Sa Biblia aduna lamay 1 ka Pinadayag (Revelation), ang katapusang libro sa New Testament ug sa Biblia. Apan apil sa gipilian, aduna pay 6 ka Apocryphal busa 7 tanan. Ang mga biblical scholars migahin ug daghang katuigan sa Holy Land aron sa pagtuon sa mga orihinal nga pinulungan diha sa mga sinulat sa New Testament. Kinsa man sa katapusan, ang nag-decide unsang libro ang linamdagan ug busa mahaapil sa New Testament o Biblia?Z Sa duol na ang 400 AD, ang Simbahang Catolico sa usa ka General Council ginamit ang iyang infallible authority(dili masayop sa mga butang mga may kalambigitan sa pagtuo ug moralidad), finally decided unsang libro ang linamdagan ug unsa ang dili. DUHA RAY MAHIMONG NAHITABO, INSAKTO ANG SIMBAHAN NIINING GENERAL COUNCIL O DILI? Ang Deuterocanonical books, sama sa Protocanonical books, gidawat sa Simbahang Catolico nga linamdagan human ang mga ebidensya nasuta ug ang mga pagduda napapas mahitungod sa ilang inspired character.

Kon ang Simbahang Catolico wala masayop kaniadto, nganong masayop man siya karon? Ang Biblia nagpakita sa otoridad sa Simbahan nga siya wala masayop (infallibility). (Infallibility, in Christian theology, the doctrine that in matters of faith and morals the Church, both in teaching and in believing, is protected from substantive error by divine dispensation. Source: Microsoft Encarta) Z Aduna bay dakong kalainan tali sa unsay gisugo ni Cristo (nga itudlo sa mga Apostoles) ug unsay nahasulat sa New Testament? Ang atong Ginoo nagsugo sa iyang mga Apostoles sa pagtudlo SA TANAN unsa man gani ang iyang GISUGO. Ang Simbahan kinahanglan motudlo sa tanan. John 14:26 The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and make you remember all that I have told you. Hinuon, ang giingong Protestant Bible mismo nagtudlo usab nga ang Biblia wala maghupot sa tanang doktrina sa Ginoo Jesu-Cristo. John 20:30 In his disciples presence Jesus performed many other miracles which are not written down in this book. John 21:25 Now, there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written. Z Ang Biblia ba klaro nga nag-pasabot nga adunay wala masulat nga pulong sa Dios (unwritten word of God)? Sumala sa mga teksto sa Biblia nga gikutlo nato sa unahan ( John 20:30 ug John 21:25), ang New Testament klarong miangkon nga WALA KINI NAGHUPOT o NAKA-RECORD SA TANANG GIHIMO NI CRISTO UG BUSA consequently SA TANAN NIYANG GITUDLO. Ug tungod kay ang Biblia dili kompleto (incomplete), kini nanginahanglan ug katugbang pag-abag niini. Apostolic Tradition supplements the Bible. (Source: Catholic Religion Proved by Protestant Bible) Z Kanus-a nakompleto ang New Testament and placed under one cover? Sa tuig 397 AD, pinaagi sa Council of Carthage. Ug gikan niini, ang mga DILI Catolico mikopya o mikuha sa ilang New Testament gikan sa Simbahang Catolico. (Source: Catholic Religion Proved by Protestant Bible) We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics (for example) that they possess the Word of God which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing about it. (Source: Martin Luther, Father of Protestantism in his comment about St. John Chapter 16) Hangtud sa 397 AD, ang pipila ka mga Cristyano nakabasa o aduna lamay access sa PARTE sa New Testament ug dili kompleto. Sa niining maong sitwasyon, magamit ba ang Bible-Alone theory? Ang tubag: Dili. Council of Trent 1545-1563 The canon of OT and NT received final (An ecumenical council definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in called to respond to the the NT; heresy of the Reformers); Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deutercanonical alike, in their entirety and with all

their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority. The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible. Source: EWTN
Tags: Bible History, Canonicity, Chapter President, Chapter Questions, Death Of Moses, Dei Verbum, Divine Name, Jessel, Kinsmen, Lamech, Land Of Canaan, New Testament, Old Testament, Oral Traditions, Ormoc City, Positive Influence, Sacred Books, Sacred Scripture, Sojourn In Egypt, Ur Of The Chaldeans

Why does the Catholic Church base some of her doctrines on tradition instead of basing them all on the Bible? Did Christ not tell the Pharisees that in holding to tradition they were transgressing the commandment of God? (Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:9). Observe that in the Bible there are two kinds of religious tradition--human and divine. Observe that when Christ accused the Pharisees He was referring to ``precepts of men'' (Mark 7:7), to their human traditions. Christ wanted divine tradition preserved and honored because He made it part and parcel of the Christian deposit of faith--as the Apostle Paul affirmed: ``Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.'' (2 Thess. 2:14. Also see 2 Thess. 3:6). This divine tradition to which Paul refers--this revealed truth which was handed down by word rather than by letter-- is the tradition upon which, along with Sacred Scripture, the Catholic Church bases her tenets of faith--as the primitive Christian Fathers affirmed. Wrote St. Augustine: ``These traditions of the Christian name, therefore, so numerous, so powerful, and most dear, justly keep a believing man in the Catholic Church.'' The New Testament itself is a product of Christian tradition. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of a New Testament. [See also the Apologetics Toolkit's ``Divine Tradition and Sacred Scripture'']

Why do Catholics try to earn their own salvation, despite the fact that salvation can only come as a free gift from Jesus Christ? Catholics fully recognize that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins and thus ``opened the gates of Heaven,'' and that salvation is a free gift which no amount of human good deeds could

ever earn. Catholics receive Christ's saving and sanctifying grace, and Christ Himself, into their souls when they are baptized. Yet they also know that Christ has established certain conditions for entry into eternal happiness in Heaven--for example, receiving His true Flesh and Blood (John 6:54) and keeping the commandments (Matt. 19:17). If a Christian refuses or neglects to obey Our Lord's commands in a grave matter (that is, if he commits a mortal sin), Our Lord will not remain dwelling in his soul; and if a Christian dies in that state, having driven his Lord from his soul by serious sin, he will not be saved. As St. Paul warned the Galatians with regard to certain sins: ``They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.'' (Gal. 5:21). It must be added that Christ will always forgive and return to a sinner who approaches Him with sincerity in the Sacrament of Penance. Catholics follow St. Paul, who did not think that his salvation was guaranteed once and for all at the moment he first received Christ into his soul; for he wrote: ``I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.'' (I Cor. 9:27). Also: ``With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you...'' (Phil. 2:12-13). ``And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required.'' (Luke 12:48). ``He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.'' (Matt. 10:22). Nevertheless, Catholics realize that even the fulfilling of Our Lord's requirements for salvation is impossible without the free gift of His grace. [See also the Apologetics Toolkit's ``Who Will Be Saved?''] Supplementary: (added by JRRC)

Why does the Church teach that works can obtain salvation?
Full Question
Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach the doctrine of "works righteousness," that through good works one can earn salvation?

The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God's grace--completely unmerited by works--that one is saved. The Church teaches that it's God's grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, "God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work." Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26). The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1). The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9). By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one. So, far from teaching a doctrine of "works righteousness" (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.

Why do Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation! Does not Paul say in Romans 3:28 that faith alone justifies! Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ. What Our Lord demands is ``faith that worketh by charity .'' (Gal. 5 :6). Read Matthew 25:31-46, which describes the Last Judgment as being based on works of charity. The first and greatest commandment, as given by Our Lord Himself, is to love the Lord God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the second great commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself. (Mark 12:30-31). When the rich young man asked Our Lord what he must do to gain eternal life, Our Lord answered: ``Keep the commandments.'' (Matt. 19:17). Thus, although faith is the beginning, it is not the complete fulfillment of the will of God. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that faith alone justifies. When St. Paul wrote, ``For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law,'' he was referring to works peculiar to the old Jewish Law, and he cited circumcision as an example. The Catholic Church does not teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are not meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace--that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6)--only these good deeds work toward our salvation, and they do so only by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. These good works, offered to God by a soul in the state of grace (i.e., free of mortal sin, with the Blessed Trinity dwelling in the soul), are thereby supernaturally meritorious because they share in the work and in the merits of Christ. Such supernatural good works will not only be rewarded by God, but are necessary for salvation.

St. Paul shows how the neglect of certain good works will send even a Christian believer to damnation: ``But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.'' (1 Tim. 5:8). Our Lord tells us that if the Master (God) returns and finds His servant sinning, rather than performing works of obedience, He ``shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.'' (Luke 12:46). Furthermore, Catholics know they will be rewarded in Heaven for their good works. Our Lord Himself said: ``For the Son of man . . . will render to every man according to his works.'' (Matt. 16:27). ``And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.'' (Matt. 10:42). Catholics believe, following the Apostle Paul, that ``every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.'' (1 Cor. 3:8). ``For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints.'' (Heb. 6:10). ``I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming.'' (2 Tim. 4:7-8). Still, Catholics know that, strictly speaking, God never owes us anything. Even after obeying all God's commandments, we must still say: ``We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.'' (Luke 17:10). As St. Augustine (5th century) stated: ``All our good merits are wrought through grace, so that God, in crowning our merits, is crowning nothing but His gifts.'' Had St. Paul meant that faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, he would not have written: ``. . . and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.'' (1 Cor. 13:2). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the Apostle James would not have written: ``Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only'? . . . For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.'' (James 2:24-26). Or: ``What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?'' (James 2:14). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the Apostle Peter would not have written: ``Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.'' (2 Peter 1:10-11). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the primitive Christian Fathers would not have advocated good works in such powerful words. Wrote St. Irenaeus, one of the most illustrious of the primitive Christian Fathers: ``For what is the use of knowing the truth in word, while defiling the body and accomplishing the works of evil? Or what real good at all can bodily holiness do. if truth be not in the soul? For these two, faith and good works, rejoice in each other's company, and agree together and fight side by side to set man in the Presence of God.'' (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching). Justification by faith alone is a new doctrine; it was unheard of in the Christian community before the sixteenth century. [See also the Apologetics Toolkit's ``Who Will Be Saved?'']

Why do Catholics worship Mary as though she were a goddess, when it is clear in Scripture that she was not a supernatural being? Catholics do not worship Mary, the Mother of Christ--as though she were a deity. Of all the misconceptions about Catholic belief and practice, this one is the most absurd. Catholics are just as aware as Protestants that Mary was a human creature, and therefore not entitled to the honors which are reserved to God alone. What many non-Catholics mistake for adoration is a very profound love and veneration, nothing more. Mary is not adored, first because God forbids it, and secondly because the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which is based on Divine Law, forbids it. Canon Law 1255 of the 1918 Codex strictly forbids adoration of anyone other than the Holy Trinity. However, Catholics do feel that Mary is entitled to a great measure of exaltation because, in choosing her as the Mother of Redemption, God Himself exalted her--exalted her more than any other human person before or since. Catholics heap tribute and honor on Mary because they earnestly desire to be ``followers of God, as most dear children.'' (Eph. 5:1). Mary herself prophesied: ``For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.'' (Luke 1:48-49). Catholics know that every bit of the glory they give to Mary redounds to the glory of her divine Son, just as Mary magnified God, not herself, when Elizabeth blessed her. (Luke 1:41-55). They know that the closer they draw to her, the closer they draw to Him who was born of her. In the year 434 St. Vincent of Lerins defended Christian devotion to Mary this way: ``Therefore, may God forbid that anyone should attempt to defraud Holy Mary of her privilege of divine grace and her special glory. For by a unique favor of our Lord and God she is confessed to be the most true and most blessed Mother of God.'' Today 75% of all Christians still hold to this same view. Why do Catholics pray to Mary and the saints when Sacred Scripture states that there is one Mediator between God and man--Christ Jesus? (2 Tim. 2:5). When Catholics pray to Mary and the other saints in Heaven they are not bypassing Christ, whom they acknowledge as the sole Mediator between God and man. They are going to Christ through Mary and the other saints. They are asking Mary and other saints to intercede for them before the throne of Christ in Heaven. ``For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.'' (James 5:16). How much more availing is the unceasing prayer of the sinless Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ! St. Paul asked his fellow Christians to intercede for him: ``Brethren, pray for us.'' (2 Thess. 3:1). And again: ``I beseech you therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God...'' (Rom. 15:30). Christ must particularly approve of our going to Him through Mary, His Blessed Mother, because He chose to come to us through her. And at Cana, He performed His first miracle after a word from His Mother. (John 2:2-11). It is clear in Sacred Scripture that the saints in Heaven will intercede for us before the throne of Christ if they are petitioned in prayer (Apoc. or Rev. 8:3-4), and it is clear in the records of primitive Christianity that the first Christians eagerly sought their intercession. Wrote St. John Chrysostom in the fourth century: ``When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His enemies, but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power.'' If the saints have such power with God, how much more His own Mother.

Supplementary: ( added by JRRC) ref: CFD manual.


Panudlo sa Sta. Iglesya Ang Sta. Iglesya nagtudlo nga kinahanglan ang pag-ampo ngadto sa Dios alang sa kaluwasan, mahitungod sa pagsangpit sa mgaSantos nga tua na sa langit, kini maayo ug mapuslanon. Ang mgaSantos nga naghari uban kang Cristo didto sa langit makaampo alang kanato ug makadungog sila sa atong mga pag-ampo busa makaayo alang kanato ang pagdangop sa ilang panabang. Ang Sta. Iglesya usab nagtudlo nga ang mga anghel ug mga santos sa langit angay sa atong pagtahod ug pagpasidungog.

Pagsupak: Supak 1. Si San Pablo miingon: Walay laing manlalaban taliwala sa Dios ug sa tawo, si Cristo nga tawo (1 Tim. 2:5). Busa dili na kita modangop og laing manlalaban gawas sa bugtong manlalaban nga mao si Cristo. Supak 2. Si Jesus miingon: Ako mao ang dalan, ang kamatuoran ug ang kinabuhi. Walay makaadto sa Amahan kondili pinaagi kanako (Juan 14:6). Busa si Cristo ra ang bugtong dalan ngadto sa Amahan ug dili si Maria o ang mgasantos. Supak 3. Si San Pedro miingon: Ang kaluwasan makaplagan diha lamang kaniya, kay wala nay laing ngalan sa tibuok kalibotan nga gihatag sa Dios ngadto sa katawhan nga makaluwas kanato (Buh. 4:12). Busa dili na ta mosangpit og lain pang ngalan gawas sa ngalan ni Jesus.

Supak 4. Sa sulat ngadto sa taga-Hebreo mabasa: Ug busa makahimo siya, karon ug sa gihapon sa pagluwas kanila nga moduol sa Dios pinaagi kaniya, kay buhi man siya hangtod sa kahangtoran aron pagpangaliya sa Dios alang kanila (Heb. 7:25). Igo na nga si Cristo nag-ampo alang kanato! Supak 5. Ang mga santos nga gisangpit sa mga katoliko dugay nang nangamatay busa dili sila makadungog sa mosangpit kanila tungod kay wala na man silay pagkaamgo: Ang mga patay dili na makadayeg sa Ginoo (Sal. 115:17). Supak 6. Ang mga santos dili angay nga simbahon kay gani si San Pedro midumili man nga simbahon siya ni Cornelio ug miingon: Tindog, ayaw akog simbaha kay tawo lamang ako (Buh. 10:25). Supak 7. Ang mga anghel usab dili angay nga simbahon kay ang usa ka anghel nga buot simbahon ni San Juan mibalibad man sa maong pagsimba ug miingon: Ayaw kana buhata! Sulogoon lamang ako sa Dios sama kanimo Maoy simbaha ang Dios (Pin. 22:8-9). Supak 8. Ang mahatagan sa pagsimba mao lamang ang Dios. Si Jesus miingon: Simbaha ang Ginoo nga imong Dios ug siya lamang ang alagari (Mat. 4:10).

Tubag: Si Cristo ang atong bugtong manlalaban kabahin sa iyang buhat sa pagpanubos nga mitugyan sa iyang kaugalingon aron pagluwas sa tanang tawo (1 Tim 2:6). Apan si San Pablo usab miangkon nga nahimo siyang manlalaban tungod sa Maayong Balita: ang Dios naghatag kanako sa bulohaton sa pagpanalipod sa ebanghelyo (Fil 1:16) ug iyang gihisgotan si Moises nga tigpataliwala pinaagi sa iyang paghatag sa Kasugoan ngadto sa katawhan: Ang Balaod gihatag pinaagi sa mga anghel inabagan sa usa ka tawo nga maoy tigpataliwala (Gal 3:19). Ang mga Santos matawag nga manlalaban dili sa pagpanubos kondili diha sa ilang pagka-makaampo alang kanato: Ang pag-ampo sa tawong matarong dakog kahimoan (Sant. 5:16). Sa Daang Tugon si Abraham nagpataliwala alang sa katawhan og ang Dios misugot nga dili niya laglagon ang siyudad kon dunay lima lamang ka matarong nga mga tawo nga hikit-an tungod sa pangaliya ni Abraham (Gen. 18:32). Sa panahon sa ilang gubat batok sa mga Amalekanhon, samtang si Moises mag-ampo modaog sila batok sa ilang mga kaaway. Apan kon mohunong si Moises sa pag-ampo ang ilang mga kaaway modaog batok sa mga Israelitas. Dinhi atong makita nga ang pag-ampo ni Moises mas lisod nga buntogon sa mga Amalekanhon kay sa espada ni Josue (Exo. 17:11). Ang katawhan nga nakasala, silotan na unta sa Dios apan wala niya ipadayon tungod sa pag-ampo ni Moises. Ang Ginoo miingon kang Moises: Gipasaylo ko sila sumala sa imong gihangyo (Num 14:20). Ang tulo ka mga higala ni Job mideretso silag ampo ngadto sa Dios apan giingnan sila sa Dios sa pagdangop kang Job nga usa ka tawong balaan kay ang pag-ampo ni Job alang kanila maoy iyang pamation (Job 42:8). Sa dihang usa ka magtutuo nga namatay didto sa Jope gipakuha sa mga tinun-an si San Pedro nga didto sa kasikbit nga dapit sa Lida aron mag-ampo alang sa namatay (Buh. 9:36-39). Nganong wala na man lang sila modirektag ampo ngadto sa Dios? Nganong ila pa man nga gisangpit si Pedro? Tungod kay nasayod sila nga ang pag-ampo ni Pedro dakog kahimoan. Sa dihang si San Pablo hiabtan og unos kuyog sa 273 ka mga pasahero sa barko, usa ka anghel mipakita kaniya ug miingon: Ayaw kahadlok, Pablo ang Dios, sa iyang kaayo moluwas kaninyong tanan tungod kanimo (Buh. 27:23-24) pasabot nga tungod sa mga pag-ampo ni San Pablo.

Ang atong mga kaatbang sa pagtuo mouyon nga ang mga santos makatabang pinaagi sa ilang mga pag-ampo apan kana mahimo lamang samtang sila buhi pa ug uban pa kanato. Apan matud nila nga ang gisangpit sa mga katoliko mga santos nga dugay na nga namatay. Ang Kasulatan nagtudlo kanato nga ang tawo dunay kalag nga dili mamatay uban sa lawas. Usa ka binoang nga sayop ang panghunahuna nga ang mga matarong nga mga tawo mamatay daw nag-antos sila sa silot, apan naghupot diay sila sa masaligong paglaom sa pagkawalay kamatayon (Kaal. 3:2-4). Si Jesus nagtudlo kanato: Ayaw kahadloki ang makapatay sa lawas apan dili makapatay sa kalag (Mat. 10:28). Si Moises nga dugay nang namatay nakita sa mga tinun-an nga nakigsulti kang Jesus (Mat. 17:3). Si Jesus nagtudlo sa iyang mga tinun-an nga pagkamatay sa kabos nga si Lazaro gidala siya sa mga anghel ngadto sa kiliran ni Abraham samtang ang dato nga namatay ug gilubong nag-antos didto sa kainit sa kalayo (Luc. 16:22-25). Si Jesus naghisgot ni Abraham, ni Lazaro ug sa dato nga dunay pagkaamgo sa sunod nga kinabuhi luyo sa kamatayon! Ug si San Juan nagmatuod kanato sa dapit nga nahimutangan sa mga kalag sa mga santos: ug nakita ko ilalom sa halaran ang mga kalag niadtong gipamatay tungod sa ilang pagsangyaw sa pulong sa Dios misinggit sila, Ginoo nga Labing Gamhanan, balaan ug matuod! (Pin. 6:9-10). Bisan kon atua na sila sa pikas nga kinabuhi apan nagpadayon sila sa pagtabang sa mga buhi. Usa ka minatay nga gilubong natandog sa bukog ni Eliseo ug nabuhi (2 Hari 13:21). Busa mahitungod kang Eliseo giingon: Walay butang nga malisod ra kaayo alang kaniya. Bisan sa namatay na siya, ang iyang lawas naghimog milagro. Sa kinabuhi ug sa kamatayon naghimo siya ug katingalahan nga mga milagro (Sir. 48:13-14). Liboan ka mga tuig sukad sa pagkamatay sa mga patriarca si Jesus miingon: Kay didto nahisulat nga miingon ang Dios kang Moises, Ako ang Dios ni Abraham, ang Dios ni Isaac, ug ang Dios ni Jacob. Sa ato pa, siya mao ang Dios sa mga buhi, dili sa mga patay (Mar. 12:26-27). Busa ang mga Santos buhi sila diha sa Dios! Mahitungod sa mga anghel ania ang giingon sa Kasulatan mahitungod sa ilang pagkamakatabang. Si Jacob tapos sa iyang pagsangpit sa Dios aron manalangin sa iyang mga apo miingon: Panalanginan unta sila sa Dios nga naggiya kanako hangtod karon. Ang anghel nga nagluwas kanako sa tanang katalagman manalangin unta kanila (Gen. 48:17-18). Walay nakita nga panagsumpaki si Jacob sa pagsangpit sa Dios dason sa pagsangpit sa iyang anghel! Ug nganong misangpit man si Jacob sa iyang anghel kon wala pa siya magtuo nga ang iyang anghel makadungog kaniya? Si Anghel Raphael mipaila ngadto ni Tobit ug miingon: Tobit, sa pag-ampo mo ug ni Sara sa Ginoo, ako mao ang nagdala sa inyong mga pag-ampo ngadto sa iyang mahimayaong presensya (Tob. 12:12). Ug si San Juan midason niini: Laing anghel nga may dalang bulawang sudlanan sa insenso miabot ug mibarog atubangan sa halaran. Gihatagan siyag daghang insenso aron idugang sa mga pag-ampo sa tanang katawhan sa Dios ug ihalad didto sa halaran nga diha sa atubangan sa trono (Pin. 8:3). Kon ang mga anghel mao ang tigdala sa atong mga pag-ampo nganong dili man nato sila masangpit sa pagtabang kanato? Si San Pablo miingon: Busa unsa man diay ang mga anghel? Silang tanan pulos mga espiritu nga nag-alagad sa Dios ug gipadala niya aron pagtabang niadtong maluwas (Heb. 1:14). Karon kon ang mga anghel nga lahi og kahimtang kay kanato nagtinguha sa atong kaluwasan pinaagi sa ilang pag-ampo dili ba usab diay ang mga Santos nga mga tawo nga sama kanato nga nakasinati sa atong tawhanong kahuyang? Kon ang mga anghel makadungog sa atong mga pag-ampo mao usab ang mga Santos. Si Jesus miingon: mahisama sila sa mga anghel (Mat. 22:30). Si San Juan nagmatuod usab: Ang nasayran nato mao nga inigpadayag na ni Cristo mahisama kita kaniya, kay makita man nato siya sa iyang pagkamao gayod (1 Juan 3:2). Ug mahitungod sa kahibalo sa mga langitnong binuhat si San Pablo miingon: Ang nahibaloan ko karon tipik lamang, apan mahingpit ra unya kini, sama kahingpit sa kahibalo sa Dios bahin kanako (1 Cor. 13:12). Sa dinhi pa siya sa kalibotan si San Pablo miingon: wala akoy hunong sa pagpasalamat sa Dios tungod kaninyo. Gihinumdoman ko kamo sa akong mga pag-ampo (Efeso 1:16). Karon nga atua na si San Pablo sa langit mahimo ba nato ang paghunahuna nga nalimot na siya sa iyang mga kaigsoonan nga ania pa sa kalibotan? Kon ang gugma mao ang nag-agda sa mga santos sa pag-ampo alang kanato sa buhi pa sila karon ang gugma mahingpit didto sa langit busa masiguro nato

nga mas mosamot ang ilang pag-ampo alang sa ilang mga kaigsoonan nga ania pa sa kalibotan. Kon nakatabang sila kanato sa buhi pa sila, mohunong ba diay ang ilang pagkamakatabang kanato karon nga hingpit na silang nahiusa sa Dios? Angay natong timan-an ang Sta. Iglesya nagtudlo nga ang bisan unsang kaayohan nga atong nadawat tungod sa pangama sa mga santos kining tanan naggikan sa Dios nga mao ang tinubdan sa tanang mga maayong butang (Sant. 1:17). Sama ang buwan nanghulam sa iyang kahayag gikan sa adlaw ang mga santos usab nagkuha sa ilang kahayag gikan ni Cristo nga mao ang Adlaw sa Katarong. Apan angay usab natong timan-an nga gibut-an sa Dios nga dunay mga grasya nga atong madawat gikan kaniya pinaagi sa pag-ampo sa mga Santos.

Tubag 1. Ang bugtong pagka-manlalaban ni Cristo (1 Tim. 2:5) mahitungod sa iyang buhat sa pagpanubos (1 Tim. 2:6). Busa wala mosumpaki niini ang pagka-manlalaban sa mga santos diha sa ilang pagka-makaampo ngadto sa Dios alang kanato sumala sa atong napamatud-an sa unahan. Tubag 2. Si Cristo mao ang bugtong dalan ngadto sa Amahan (Juan 14:6) kay pinaagi sa iyang kamatayon naabli ang langit alang kanato (Efeso 2:18). Ang mga santos atong dalan kun panig-ingnan sa ilang pagsunod kang Cristo (1 Cor. 11:1, Fil. 3:17). Tubag 3. Walay laing ngalan nga gihatag nga makaluwas kanato (Buh. 4:12). Kini matuod sa paagi nga si Cristo ang tinubdan sa atong kaluwasan. Ang mga santos makaluwas dili sa ilang kaugalingon kondili ingon nga mga instrumento sa Ginoo (1 Cor. 9:22, Buh. 13:47). Tubag 4. Kon si Cristo nga atua sa langit nagpadayon sa pag-ampo alang kanato (Heb. 7:25) wala kana magpasabot nga dili na kita maka-ampo alang sa usag-usa tungod kay gibuot sa Dios nga dunay mga grasya nga gikan kaniya nga atong madawat pinaagi sa pag-ampo sa mga santos (Job. 42:8). Tubag 5. Ang walay kabana mao ang lawas sa minatay (Eccl. 12:7). Apan ang mga kalag sa mga santos atua karon sa langit uban sa Dios (Pin. 6:9-10) ug duna sila pagpakabana alang sa mga buhi (Luc. 16:22-24). Tubag 6. Si Cornelio bag-o pa nga nakabig busa wala pa katudlo-i sa pagsimba sa usa ka santos kay ang mga pagano nagtuo nga tungod kay ang mga apostoles makahimog milagro mga dios nga nanaog gikan sa langit (Buh. 14:11). Apan ang mga santos masimba sa paagi nga pagtahod ug pagpasidungog kanila (Dan. 2:46, 2 Hari. 2:15). Tubag 7. Dunay duha ka possible nga husay niining bahina. Una- agi kinig pagtuboy sa kabalaan ni San Juan tungod kay ang mga santos mahisama na man sa mga anghel (Mat. 22:30). Ikaduha-ang himaya sa anghel sama sa himaya sa Dios (Oseas 12:4) busa nagtuo si San Juan nga si Jesus ang iyang nakita busa buot niya kining simbahon. Ang anghel masimba usab nianang paagi sa pagtahod ug pagpasidungog sa anghel (Jos. 5:14, Dan. 8:17). Tubag 8. Ang Dios angay sa labing hataas nga pagsimba nga gitawag og latria kay siya ang atong Magbubuhat (Sal. 100:2). Ang mga santos ug mga anghel masimba nianang gitawag og dulia kun pagtahod ug pagpasidungog kanila tungod sa ilang kadugtongan ngadto sa Dios nga napamatud-an na sa nag-unang mga tubag.

Pagtulon-an: Kinahanglan nga atong hatagan og pasidungog ang mga anghel ug mgasantos pinaagi sa atong pagsaulog sa ilang kapistahan ug sa pagdebosyon ngadto kanila ug pagsunod sa ilang pagkinabuhi. Ang tawag sa pagbalaan alang sa tanan ug mahimo kini diha sa atong tagsatagsa ka nahimutangan- diha sa atong panimalay, sa atong buhatan ug sa atong palibot. Atong pahimuslan ang mga kahimanan sa pagsantos sa atong kalag pinaagi sa mga pag-ampo ug sa mga sacramento labi na gyod sa sacramento sa pagkompisal ug pagkalawat nga kanunay natong madawat.

Supplementary From the blog splendour of the church:

The Splendor of the Church

Proclaiming the Truth, Beauty, Grandeur and Majesty of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church!
Showing newest posts for query final judgement. Show older posts Showing newest posts for query final judgement. Show older posts
SUNDAY, JUNE 19, 2011

Kapatas vs Redge23 Re: Communion of Saints

A Magnificent Altarpiece or Retablo

[Note: The following is the text of my debate against Redge23, a baptist and an anticatholic debater from Bereans. net Forum. This debate happened last year and it is only now that we will be presenting this debate in full. Notice the changes in Redge23's demeanor as the debate progresses. The debate is long and bloody so I ask the indulgence of everyone. - FLHL] Redge 23 Bishop Tagle: 4:40 "Ayon sa tradisyon ng simbahan, ang mga banal na tao o tinatawag nating saints... naniniwala tayo na kapiling na sila ng Diyos...Naniniwala tayo sa Communion of saints...kaya maari tayong manawagan sa kanila para ipagdasal tayo...intercession" Notice how the roman catholic church twisted the truths from the scripture. They rather resort to their own traditions rather than paying attention to the Holy Writ. The scripture says: Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness. Kapatas: You have it all wrong. We do not ask our saints TO SAVE US. Obviously they don't have that kind of power. What we asked to our saints is to intercede for us. Because the bond of the departed brothers and sisters to the community of believers here on earth still exist. Christian unity transcends death. The problem with you is that you are asking for a physical answer from the already spiritual beings. Somekind of twisted naive realism. Of course their response is also spiritual, in the order of the supernatural, and therefore accessible only thru faith. Our departed brothers may not be physically present but they are with us in spirit, just like St. Paul said in his epistle: Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. Surely, the Virgin Mary, St. Peter and Paul, and all the saints are with us, not in the flesh but in spirit. They are still part of the church even though they no longer with us in the flesh. If that is so, why not ask them for intercessory prayers? Afterall, the Lord is the God of the living and ALL ARE ALIVE TO HIM. (cf. Luke 20:38)

Redge 23 There is a large chunk of difference between merely asking you friends(who are alive)to pray for you and necromancy. It is not prohibited to ask a brother to pray for you since the new testament church members prayed for each other. Take note that James was talking to LIVING people. James 5:16 "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." The problem is asking the dead to aid you just like what Saul did when he sought to speak to Prophet Samuel (who was already dead) for help 1 Samuel 28:08-16 8And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. 9And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? 10And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. 11Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. 12And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. 13And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 14And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. 15And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. 16Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? Kapatas: There is no necromancy from us because we are not trying to worship nor invoke the physical presence of the departed. We are just asking for prayers from them. They are more in the position to hear our prayer because they are no longer limited by time and space. They are already supernatural beings, their souls were already perfected. The bible states that prayers of just men have powerful effect. (cf. Jas 5:16) The Lord hears the prayers of righteous men. (cf. 1 Peter 3:12) Since Virgin Mary, St. Peter and St. Paul and other saints were righteous people, why not ask them for prayers?

Simon the magician asked St. Peter and John for intercessory prayers. Nowhere in scriptures do we see that both condemned said actuations of Simon. By the way, St. Peter and St. John are catholic saints. Acts 8:24 At sumagot si Simon at sinabi, Ipanalangin ninyo ako sa Panginoon, upang huwag mangyari sa akin ang alin mang bagay sa mga sinasabi ninyo. The text shows that asking saints for prayers are not prohibited but rather demonstrated in the bible.

Redge23 Who is supposed to be our model? Hebrews 12 2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Kapatas: This is not an "either or" proposition between Christ and the saints. Christ is the first model of course. But other than him, there are other followers of Christ who exhibited commendable virtue and way of living which are worth emulating. The bible encourages christians to emulate them as well: Heb 13:7 Alalahanin ninyo ang nangagkaroon ng pagpupuno sa inyo na siyang nangagsalita sa inyo ng salita ng Dios; at sa pagdidilidili ng wakas ng kanilang pamumuhay, ay inyong tularan ang kanilang pananampalataya. The bible teaches that we have to remember the saints and the way they live, and TO EMULATE THEM. Tularan sila. Letra por letra kinokontra ka ng kasulatan eh.

Redge23 Really? "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. amen" This prayer makes no sense if you don't recognise the SALVIFIC ROLE of Mary. Then why do you call Saint Mary Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. Kapatas You are overreading it. Obviously your preconceived bias against the church leads you to such preposterous speculation. That phrase from the prayer Hail Mary is simply a supplication to

Virgin Mary to PRAY FO US TO GOD, not to FORGIVE US OF OUR SINS because we know that it is God who will forgive sins. Obviously, there is a world of difference right?

Redge23 Does this mean that PAUL knew what's will be going on with the church when he's dead? Paul knows the "Tanakh" I don't think he would have missed this! Psalm 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Kapatas That verse refers to what will happen to our physical body when we die. Of course, our earthly ideas will cease. But the scripture is also clear that while the body dies, the spirit returns to God. Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. And that spirit is alive and conscious. Not D-E-A-D as in dead. Revelation 7:10-14 10 At nagsisigawan ng tinig na malakas, na nangagsasabi, Ang pagliligtas ay sumaaming Dios na nakaupo sa luklukan, at sa Cordero. 11 At ang lahat ng mga anghel ay nangakatayo sa palibot ng luklukan, at ng matatanda at ng apat na nilalang na buhay; at sila'y nangagpatirapa sa harapan ng luklukan, at nangagsisamba sa Dios, 12 Na nangagsasabi, Siya nawa: Pagpapala at kaluwalhatian, at karunungan, at pagpapasalamat, at karangalan, at kapangyarihan, at kalakasan, nawa ang sumaaming Dios magpakailan kailan man. Siya nawa. 13 At sumagot ang isa sa matatanda na, nagsasabi sa akin, Ang mga ito na nangadaramtan ng mapuputing damit, ay sino-sino at saan nagsipanggaling? 14 At sinabi ko sa kaniya, Panginoon ko, Ikaw ang nakakaalam. At sinabi niya sa akin, Ang mga ito'y ang nanggaling sa malaking kapighatian, at nangaghugas ng kanilang mga damit, at pinaputi sa dugo ng Cordero. That episode is in heaven, with God sitting in his throne. The elder, which is a spirit knows what's going on. These verses show that spirits of long departed are conscious. They know. How come you don't know?


Please don't accuse me of asking for a physical answer from the already spiritual beings. I have never raised that. Kapatas Oh yes. That is the logical conclusion of your argumentation. You are against praying to the long departed for the reason that they are DEAD. So you are not really against praying to someone other than God. In fact, you believe that it is ok to pray for living brothers. Then you cite a verse in psalm stating that the thoughts of dead person are already gone because they are dead. What does that mean? It means you are against praying to the departed because they can no longer respond physically as in contrast to the living. In a sense, you are demanding physical answers from spiritual beings. Since you're absurd demand remained unsatisfied, you attacked our practices of praying to the saints.

Redge23 My friend you have misquoted Luke 20:38. That text speaks of the resurrection and therefore quoting that text on the topic in question is out of context. Read it again. Kapatas Whether the text talks about resurrection or something else, it doesn't deny the fact that as far as the Lord is concerned, the saints are ALIVE. It is very plain in the text so you can't deny that.

Redge23 After all, you don't ask Elijah and Moses to pray for you. Kapatas Why not? Moses and Elijah are considered saints in the Catholic Church. The church has no standing rule that praying to Moses or Elijah is prohibited.

Redge23 WoW! thats doctrinal gymnastics sir! please quote a scripture to back up your claim that the dead are not limited by time and space? Kapatas This is not doctrinal gymnastics. It is common sense grounded on scriptures. Spirits of saints are no longer constraint by physical limitations. So why treat them as if they are still bound by the physical laws of nature? Remember that these are spirits of righteous men made perfect (cf. Heb

12:23) If they are perfect, then they are no longer limited by physical evil or by the shortcomings of the physical world. In the book of revelation, spirits of saints who were martyred for the sake of the gospel, were aware of what is happening here on earth. They are aware that the Lord has yet to avenge their death: Revelation 6:9-10 9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? What does the text tells us? It tells that souls of martyred saints are alive and conscious. They are even praying to God in a loud voice to avenge them because THEY KNOW that they have yet to be avenged. And when the retribution was exacted to the prostitute who corrupted the earth, these souls are rejoicing even singing songs of praise. Revelation 19:1-2 1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. So definitely souls in heaven are aware of what is happening here on earth.

Redge23 Have you read 1 Samuel 28:3-16? Saul was only seeking for Samuel's help. Kapatas Don't try to sugar coat what Saul did. What Saul did is necromancy. He tried to invoke the presence of the dead, even resulting to witchcraft to achieve the purpose. He tried to consult the spirits like what the "psychic mediums" do. Surely, to associate it to catholic practice of praying to the saints requires a vivid imagination and intestinal fortitude because it is tantamount to lying. There is a world of difference between invoking the presence of the dead using witchcraft and the catholic practice of praying to the saints.


Sir, kindly pay attention to the details of the text. Was Simon dead when he asked for intercession? Read again. Kapatas Does the bible have a provision that praying to saints is prohibited? Spirits of saints are ALIVE as I demonstrated earlier, so why prohibit praying to them? If it is ok to pray to the saints when they are here on earth, then it is more fitting to ask them when they are in heaven with the Lord since they have found favor with God. The bible states that prayers of righteous men have powerful effect so why not ask for their help?

Redge23 Give me a text in the scripture where GOD allows the living to ask intercession from the departed ones. Notice that the texts you are quoting are always about two living parties where one asks for intercession and the other prays for the one who asks for it. Kapatas I'll do that if you can give verses which explicitly say that praying to the departed ones is a sin. The spirits of saints are ALIVE in heaven. So asking prayers to the saints whether they are physically present here on earth or in heaven as spiritual beings is ok. Afterall, saints in heaven do have prayers: Revelation 8:3-4 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. Saints are capable of praying. So why not ask prayers to them?

Redge23 tsk tsk tsk Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.

You are hardly reading. The scripture commands us to imitate THEIR faith , NOT the person having that faith. Kapatas I'm reading alright. My bible says "imitate their faith". Surely when you imitate the faith of the saints, you will imitate their way of living. You can't separate the faith to the person. This is not just about imitating the person for its own sake. You imitate the person because of his great faith.

Redge23 There is a great danger when one puts up his confidence in man than Yeshua. Kapatas Imitating the saints doesn't mean you no longer trust the Lord. This is not an "either or" proposition between Christ and the saints. Wag mong pagsabungin ang dalawa. You can still be a follower of christ while you imitate the saints. This what St. Paul said in his epistle: 1 Cor 11:1 Maging taga tulad kayo sa akin, na gaya ko naman kay Cristo. Tularan daw si San Pablo eh gaya ng pagtulad niya kay Cristo. So you can imitate saints while still a follower of Christ.

Redge23 Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Kapatas That's why you don't trust your pastors? You don't trust your church leaders? You don't trust St. Paul and the sacred authors? That is the danger of your "either or" proposition. Pinagsasabong mo yung hindi naman magkalaban.

Redge23 Why are we to imitate the kind of faith that the apostles have? Romans 10:17

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Ah! The Word of God was right when it said that we are to imitate THEIR faith because the faith of the apostles did not originate from them, rather from GOD! Kapatas To imitate the faith of the saints is tantamount to imitating their way of living, their teachings, sayings. You can't separate the person to his faith. You can't imitate the faith of the person while rejecting his persona.

Redge23 Sir marunong akong mag tagalog! Alam ko po ang pagkakaiba ng TULARAN sa ALALAHANIN let's see... Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Where in the passage did it says WE ARE TO EMULATE THEM? I don't think i'm the one perverting the scripture. Kapatas Marunong ka pala eh. So alam mo na hindi lang "alalahanin" ang nasa talata kundi rin "pagtulad". Eh di merong EMULATION. The text enjoined the believers to EMULATE the saints. Emulating the faith of saints means you will emulate their actions, will follow their teachings and examples. This is what St. Paul said: Philippians 4:9 Ang mga bagay na inyong natutuhan at tinanggap at narinig at nakita sa akin, ang mga bagay na ito ang gawin ninyo: at ang Dios ng kapayapaan ay sasa inyo. May emulation o wala. Tagalog na yan ha? Pinagsasabong mo kasi si Cristo at mga santo. Hindi yan yung tipong isa lang dapat na pwedeng piliin. Christ is the first model of chirstians, but next to him, there are saints. The bible is very explicit that we have to imitate the saints.

Redge23 Sir I don't think I over read it. I'm not against the phrase "Hail Mary" because Gabriel said that.

Please form your rebuttal on the issue given. If you really don't believe that saints have nothing to do with your salvation, then what is "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.Amen" for? Please don't make rebuttals on issues I did not even raise. Kapatas I'm not talking about just the phrase. If you bother to read carefully, I'm actually referring to your misconception of the prayer itself. Pray for us sinners is very different from forgive us our sins which is applicable only to the Lord. We asked Virgin Mary to pray for us, not to forgive us. There is a world of difference between asking someone to intercede for you to the Lord and asking a person to save you. If for you that is the same, then thats your problem. The Virgin Mother definitely has a role in human salvation since she agreed to God's Plan to conceive Christ. But we know also that it is the Lord that saves. That's why we don't have prayers like Mary, saves us or something to that effect.

Redge23 If you are a genuine roman catholic then you would not have missed this!: 5. And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God's anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.( St. Bernard, In Nativit. S. Mariae de Aquaeductu.) Kapatas Your argument is fallacious. Do you mean to say that catholics who have yet to read the document were not genuine catholics? How about catholics born prior to the release of this document you've posted? They are fake catholics then? Don't make a rule that a catholic should suppose to read this particular text that you've posted in order to be a "genuine roman catholic". You are not in the position to determine who are genuine who are fake catholics.

The fact that Virgin Mary has to intercede means she doesn't have the actual power to grant the petitioner's request. She has to still pray to God. God is the one that grants the petitioners prayer. We put our trust to the Blessed Virgin because God trusted her, which is demonstrated when at the fullness of time, God entrusted Mary the role of conceiving the Messiah. If you are a genuine follower of God, you will follow God's example. If God trusted Virgin Mary, then by all means, you will also trust Virgin Mary as well. Those I know who distrust whom God trusted are the enemies of God. The bible specifically states: Ephesians 5:1 Kayo nga'y magsitulad sa Dios, na gaya ng mga anak na minamahal; We have to follow the examples set by God. If God trusted Virgin Mary, then you must trust the Virgin Mother as well, that is if you are a follower of God.

Redge23 Sir, this is ridiculous! I did not claim that the dead is unconscious after his physical death! You should have got that to begin with if you are reading the hebrew text! Psalm 146:4 "His breath goeth forth he returneth to his earth in that very day his thoughts(esh-to-naw') perish" (heb. eshtonah) - means thoughts or PLAN New Living Translation (2007) renders: When they breathe their last, they return to the earth, and all their plans die with them. Kapatas Then, you believe that the spirits of the dead are ALIVE and CONSCIOUS? That's a welcome development.

Redge23 Therefore when I quoted that text I meant that the dead cannot execute its will or whatever he has in mind. Kapatas Definitely because he is already dead. He cannot do physical action because his physical body is long gone. But his spirit is conscious and alive, and therefore capable of doing actions in the

spiritual sense. One of that is to pray for others, especially those left here on earth. The Book of Revelations shows that saints do have prayers. But these saints were already saved and made perfect so for whom are their prayers? There prayers are for the people of God suffering here on earth!

Redge23 The dead cannot mediate on behalf of the living! I did not say that their souls are knocked unconscious after death like what J. Witnesses claim! Ezekiel 14:18 As I live, declares the Almighty LORD, not even Noah, Daniel, and Job could rescue their sons or daughters. They could rescue only themselves. Kapatas That verse in Ezekiel doesn't say anything about mediation or intercession. The text only shows that no man can save other man, because it is God who do the act of saving. The verse doesn't say that no man can intercede for others. Interceding and saving are two different things. You are overreading it really.

Redge23 Please avoid prejudgments if you do not have sufficient evidence to prove it. Kapatas I'm not prejudging you. I'm not even saying that you are like the Jehovah witnesses subscribing to soul sleep. You are actually the one who brought that. What I'm doing is simply stating biblical truths. The spirits of saints are ALIVE and CONSCIOUS. Is that prejudging already?

Redge23 I have already answered this. You were just clouded with your prejudices. Thank God I'm a Baptist and not someone from Watchtower in Brooklyn. Kapatas Yeah you claim to yourself that you're a baptist but you don't baptized people so your selfconfessed tag is actually a misnomer.


Who says I'm denying the text? You?... What I'm trying to get across was the text stating that God being the "God of the living" does not allow you to ascribe to Saint Mary the Office that SOLELY belongs to Christ. Kapatas And who says that I gave to Virgin Mary the Office of Christ? You are actually the one who is clouded with prejudice, to the point that you are putting words in my mouth. Luke 20:38, be it refers to resurrection or something else doesn't deny the fact that as far as God is concerned, EVERYONE IS ALIVE TO HIM. Luke 20:38 So the Lord isn't the God of the dead, but of the living. This means that everyone is alive as far as God is concerned. It is very plain in the text. For God, everyone is alive. The saints even though their physical bodies have long died, are alive with God. They were not DEAD as in D-E-A-D. This is further reinforced by another text from the Gospel of John: John 11:25 Jesus then said, "I am the one who raises the dead to life! Everyone who has faith in me will live, even if they die. Definitely that verse refers to saints. They were ALIVE even though their physical bodies died because they have faith in Christ. If they were alive then they can intercede. They can pray to God on our behalf. That is because even though they are not with us here on earth, definitely the saints are thinking of their brothers left here. 1 Thessalonian 2:17 As for us brothers, when we were separated from you for a little while - not in our thoughts, of course but only in body - how we missed you and how hard we tried to see you again! Definitely, wherever St. Paul is right now, he is thinking for the good of the church and his brothers in faith left here on earth. We may not be with him physically, but never in thoughts as he said. So saints are actually thinking of their brothers constantly. If that is the case, then saints praying to God for their brothers here on earth is not far fetched idea but a reality you have to live with. The verse also added that he, referring to St. Paul, is very eager to see his brothers in faith. how we missed you and how hard we tried to see you again! Saints really wanted to see their brothers in faith. If here on earth, they can exert physical effort

to realize this, in heaven, the only thing that they can do is to pray for their brothers so that they may endure in faith and be saved and be united with the community of saints in heaven.

Redge23 "... that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation." ( St. Bernard, In Nativit. S. Mariae de Aquaeductu.) Kapatas I don't buy that because you chopped the whole text. The phrase should be understood together with the whole message of the document. I'm just thinking your motivation for mangling the text. Desperation perhaps? he he he

Redge23 No. What I mean with "after you don't pray to Moses and Elijah", was you don't really give much importance to them just like what you do to other Patron saints. Kapatas Don't make preposterous claims and don't answer for us because you are not in the position to do so. What is your proof that we don't give Moses and Elijah importance? You better back your claims with proofs. The bible explicitly warns us not to become false witnesses. Exodus 23:1 Huwag kang magkakalat ng kasinungalingan: huwag kang makikipagkayari sa masama, na maging saksi kang sinungaling. Wag magkalat ng kasinungaligan daw. Bakit ka nagkakalat ng kasinungalingan?

Redge23 If Martin de Porres is the Patron Saint of Hairdressers , Cajetan Patron Saint of Unemployed people and Prophet Elijah the Patron saint of Marijuana (cannabis). What is Moses, Isaac, Haggai, Malachi Saint Patron of? see how Romanism mock around? Kapatas That is ignorance showing its ugly head. Where is the rule that you have to designate someone as patron of something in order for you to prove that you give that someone importance? Where is that rule? How come you dont apply that rule to yourself?

Is your pastor important to you? Then why not make him as patron of something then? See? You newly-invented rule come crashing straight at you. FYI, Prophet Elijah is considered a saint by the catholic church. We designate July 20 as his feast day: "In Western Christianity, the Prophet Elijah is commemorated as a saint with a feast day on 20 July by the Roman Catholic Church"[] Moses feast day is September 4 while Haggai is December 16. For those who have no specific feast days, the church designated November 1 as All Saints Day. Surely that includes Isaac and Malachi. How about your baptist group? Do you give Elijah, Moses, Isaac, and Haggai importance? Then let's compare who gave them the most importance, your group or the Catholic Church. C'mon, shows us what you have done to them.

Redge23 Ah! No wonder why you guys believe that the souls of those who have departed could roam around the world without limit. Kapatas I didn't say that saints have no limit. What I stated was that saints, since they are already spiritual beings, are no longer limited by the physical laws of nature. There is a world of difference between the two but unfortunately, your hatred against the church blinded you to see the plain truth.

Redge23 Thanks to you, now the dead became gods! WOW! So much for your paganism! Kapatas Credit goes to your twisted imagination. lolz I didn't said that saints are Gods, you are. Your logic fails big time for the simple reason that God is not the ONLY spiritual being. Spirits of saints and angels are spiritual beings as well, unbounded by the physical laws of nature. Are they God? No. But for you they are. Isn't it terrible?

Redge23 You said they are perfect and without limit. Really? THEN WHY DID ABRAHAM, BEING DEAD HAVE LIMITATIONS? Luke 16 . 26And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there. Kapatas That verse talks about the the gap between hades and heaven. The gap is in spiritual sense. Not physical. Obviously, spirits are bounded by that spiritual gap. Even James Taylor knew that with the phrase "no angel born in hell..." in his American Pie song. How come you don't know?

Redge23 I have already answered this Kapatas No, you don't. You didn't even bother tackling the verses I've posted which prove that spirits of saints in heaven are ALIVE, CONSCIOUS, and are AWARE of what is happening here on earth. [cf. Rev. 6:9-10; 7:10-14; 19:1-2] It is as if you are allergic with those verses.

Redge23 No difference with what you guys do. "Asking help from a saint". Kapatas Not really, considering you've omitted an important point in the text in a desperate effort to equalize the church doctrine of communion of the saints with necromancy. How pathetic. Saul didn't just asked help from prophet Samuel. He actually resorted to conjuring up the dead using witchcraft and black arts which is prohibited by God. Now that's the point you've omitted. That's dishonesty. Because the church doesn't resort to witchcraft nor engaged in conjuring up the dead when asking prayers to our saints. Church teaching regarding this matter is very clear as provided by the catechism: CCC#2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology,

palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. The church is clearly against necromancy. It is documented unlike your baseless accusation. Asking prayers from the saints is different from resorting to black arts and the occult to summon/communicate with the spirit of the dead. You are mixing two different things like water and oil, which is pathetic. Redge23 Yes! Kapatas Where in the bible you can find that asking prayers from saints is prohibited? Where?

Redge23 And so was Elijah! He was ALIVE wasn't he? Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. Kapatas Did I say that saints have power on their own? All power comes from God. The fact that they need to INTERCEDE and PRAY to God on our behalf instead of DIRECTLY ACTING on our petitions clearly shows that they don't have intrinsic power on their own to grant or deny our requests. That function is reserved to God alone. Nevertheless, the scripture has no provision specifically prohibiting asking prayers from saints. So why, prohibit it? Are you greater than the bible? Isnt that going beyond what was written? You are violating your sola scriptura credo. Quote from: Redge23

The best they could do for you is to pray direct to God.

Therefore, you yourself admitted that saints CAN PRAY TO GOD on our behalf. If that is the case, whats all the fuss? I don't know why you reject the idea of asking prayers from saints when in fact you yourself agree that saints do pray to God for people here on earth! You are caught by your own contradiction.

Redge23 So why waste your time praying direct to a saint who does not have Gods full supernatural power to answer your prayer in the first place-

Kapatas Because prayers of righteous men have powerful effect. (cf. James 5:16) And that God listens to the prayers of the righteous. (cf. 1 Peter 3:12) Also because the scriptures states that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for ALL MEN. (cf. 1 Tim 2:1) Definitely that includes saints.

Redge23 and who probably will not even hear or pick up your prayer anyway since the chances of that saint being tuned into your specific prayer at a specific time are probably a million to one. Kapatas How do you know? Perfected spirits of saints are no longer restrained by physical laws of nature. Considering their strong bond with the church, definitely wherever they are, saints are thinking of their struggling and suffering brothers left here on earth. Just like St. Paul said, when we were separated from you for a little while - not in our thoughts, of course but only in body(cf. 1 Th 2:17) In what way they can help people here on earth? Through prayer.

Redge23 When Jesus was walking in the New Testament He specifically told us that we are to pray direct to God the Father if we have any specific needs that must be met. There is not one verse that I am aware of where He told us that we could also pray direct to dead saints. Kapatas If Christ is so against asking prayers to saints, then why Christ didnt make any statement specifically prohibiting it? This is aside from the fact that Christ didnt make any statements that prayer should ONLY BE DIRECTED TO GOD.

Redge23 If God the Father wanted this possibility as an option, then I believe Jesus would have specifically told us so in the New Testament but He did not! Kapatas Actually, God considers that possibility which is clearly demonstrated when St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for ALL MEN. (cf. 1 Tim 2:1)

Redge23 WHAAAAAT You'll do that if I can? Supposedly I can't find a text that prohibits praying to the saints, if you have the text and if you seek to enlighten me and the people reading this thread, then you in now sweat would have quoted it immediately. Truth is, you don't have that text to prove it that is why you are using this no-brainer kind of alibi! Kapatas Its not an alibi. Its an effective strategy to stanch your deceptive argumentation anchored on the assumption that God prohibits praying to saints, when in fact you dont have any verses to support it. Di ba natigilan ka? Give me verses which states that God prohibits praying to the saints. If you can do that, I will give the verses you are looking for.

Redge23 But let me quote it to you anyway! 1. When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. (Deuteronomy 18:9) 2. Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19:31) 3. And the person who turns after mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people. (Leviticus 20:6) 4. So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;(1 Chronicles 10:13) 5.And when they say to you, Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? (Isaiah 8:19 ) Kapatas

Misquotation at its best. Everyone knows that we, catholics dont resort to black arts, witchcraft and occultism when praying to our saints. It is too much a stretch of imagination to associate asking prayer to saints to necromancy since we dont have mediums or psychics or witches. Its bordering on the delusional.

Redge23 Lastly, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were already dead when these passages were written, but GOD did not allow his people to pray to the them. So even if you may will argue that the saints are ALIVE, it still would not work because these passages bars living people from inquiring to those who have died physically, otherwise God would have put an exemption. Kapatas We are not inquiring on saints. We dont use mediums and psychics when we pray to saints. BTW, Asking for prayers and inquiring are two different things. Thats why I find your statements preposterous and absurd. You are really trying hard pushing your own twisted understanding of the catholic faith. Sadly for you, we know better.

Redge23 Another misquotation! Where in this passage do we see that the prayers they have is the prayer of intercession? Kapatas It is an intercession prayer because saints in heaven are already saved. So for whom are their prayers? To the people of God here on earth! The bible states that if you see your brother committed a sin that does not lead to death, pray for him and God will forgive him. (cf. 1 John 5:16f) That's intercession. Since you already admitted that saints can pray for us, therefore, saints can intercede.

Redge23 And just a "heads up", I did not claim that the saints can NEVER pray at all! Rather, they cannot intercede! Kapatas Praying for others is an act of intercession. That's what saints do.

Redge23 Again: Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.Ezekiel 14:20 Kapatas That verse only shows us that no man can save other man because it is God who do the act of saving. But the text doesn't say that intercession of saints is not possible. You already admitted that saints pray for people here on earth.

The best they could do for you is to pray direct to God.

You said that yourself. That's intercession.

Redge23 Imitating THEIR faith is different from imitating THEM! We are to emulate the kind of faith that came from GOD rather than the person who possesses it! Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Kapatas Faith comes from God in the sense that it is a product of grace, but faith is also integrated in the person. You can't say you imitate the faith of St. Paul while rejecting his person. If you imitate his faith, you will imitate his actions, his attributes, character, thinking, and way of living. Heb 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Be IMITATORS OF THOSE who through their faith and patience inherit the promises. The bible clearly teaches the imitation of saints.

Redge23 This faith is of divine origin (Romans 10:17). It is not something that came from the saints

themselves, rather it was handed down to them. see the difference? That is why the bible was not wrong when it said: Kapatas And who said that faith originates from saints themselves? Faith is indeed of divine origin. (cf. Phil 1:29) But faith is integrated with the person who lived that faith. So imitating the faith of the person will mean imitating aspects of that person: attributes, character, way of living, etc. That is why the author of the Letter to the Hebrews encourages Christians to be imitators of those who have inherit the promise. Hebrew 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Redge23 1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. Kapatas WE are to imitate God's holiness rather than imitate humans! But no one has seen God. So how can you imitate his holiness? From his handiworks. (cf. Rm 1:20; Psalms 19:1) That includes the saints whose holiness are manifestations of the holiness of God. So imitating the lives of holy saints, like St. Peter and Paul, is in a way, imitating the holiness of God.

Redge23 Key word: Hermeneutics!!! You have missed the message that Paul was trying to drive out! Paul said we are to imitate him as he imitate Christ. This means that if we obey the Lord's will, we are not really imitating Pau, rather the Messiah! Kapatas But the point here is that, St. Paul encourages christians to IMITATE HIM. So clearly the bible teaches imitations of saints. Whether in the process, we imitate christ, is another issue. St. Paul is very explicit in his message, we have to be imitators of him, since he is a saint, so it is very clear that the bible supports imitation of saints.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Be imitators of me [St. Paul]. Thats the imitation of saints for you.

Redge23 I respect them... but we are not taught to develop false loyalty. Paul himself made emphasis on that. Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Imagine Paul the Apostle himself taught the church to reject him and angels if they teach false gospels! Kapatas Who says that we have to develop false loyalty to saints? I think you should cut out those strawmans of yours because it doesn't really help your position. You have yet to show me verses which explicitly states that saints should not be imitated. So concentrate on that first.

Redge23 I don't wonder why romanists still defend homosexual and pedophile priests...they are blinded with false loyalty! Kapatas As if there are no pedophiles and homosexual fundie baptist pastors. there are many sexual abuse cases on your group that is mostly "swept under the rug" for fear of the maniacal pastor and not hurting your church.talking about blind loyalty. lolz.

Redge23 Hebrews 13:7 says Remember your leaders...imitate their faith. Nothing in there saying that we are to imitate our leaders Kapatas

How about this: Hebrew 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Now its your turn, show me a verse from the bible explicitly stating that we should not imitate saints.

Redge23 Would the pedophile and sodomite priests that you have? Now tell me you can separate the persona from the kind of faith they have. Kapatas Imitating erring members is very different from imitating saints. You're confused. You are pushing for the former while the latter is taught explicitly by the bible. In the imitation of saints, you imitate the saints' positive qualities, their commendable attributes and character, and their holy manner of living. What's wrong with that? If parents are the models of their children, saints like the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, St. Peter and St. Paul, people who have inherited the promise, are models for christians.

Redge23 The Logic in you paradigm: A. The bible tells me to imitate my leaders to please GOD B. Rev. John believes in the bible but he is is gay. C. Therefore i have to be both bible believer and gay to please GOD FAIL! You are left with no choice but to believe the bible and be gay at the same time because you are incapable of separating the faith to the person. Kapatas You have it all wrong. What I'm saying is that we have to imitate the saints especially their virtues and way of life, saints being people who have shown exemplary virtues and who have led a life of holiness and sanctity. You don't imitate what is bad. You imitate what is good. 1 Thessalonian 5:21-22 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Redge23 Philippians 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. Paul was talking about what the church in Philippi learned, received, heard and seen in him that originated from GOD! Paul has no claim on the things that he has! There is no question that every good thing comes from God. That is a non-issue. Kapatas The issue here is that St. Paul admonished the church in Philippi to do what the christians there have LEARNED, RECEIVED, HEARD, and SEEN from St. Paul. That's imitation of saints straight from the apostle's mouth. St. Paul act as a role model to christians in Philippi. St. Paul wanted christians to EMULATE the examples that he set before them. That's imitation.

Redge23 Acts 20:24 But I put no value on my life, if only at the end of it I may see the work complete which was given to me by the Lord Jesus, to be a witness of the good news of the grace of God. Kapatas But nowhere in the verse we can find St. Paul saying that we should not imitate saints. If you are so against the practice of imitating saints, then at least produce biblical texts which clearly supports your position. Up until now, you have yet to give us those verses.

Redge23 If you believe that Christ is the first model of Christians, but next to him, there are saints. Why would you settle for second best? Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man Kapatas We are not settling for the second best because it is not an "either or" proposition, wherein a christian has to choose between saints or Christ. Saints are not competing with Christ. Saints are

not incompatible with Christ. The reality is that, christians can be imitators of Christ and saints at the same time.

Redge23 Exactly my point! Yeshua ALONE is man's mediator to GOD. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Kapatas We believe in the text. That's why all prayers still have to go to Christ in recognition of that truth, and that includes prayers of saints. Even Virgin Mary's intercessory prayers still have to go to Christ. Christ being mediator between God and men doesn't prevent his followers to mediate on one another, since in the final analysis, all their prayers whether for themselves or for others are still directed to Christ. It is not as if saints can ACT DIRECTLY on the petition. The fact that they have to pray on our behalf to God in Christ's name testifies that Christ is indeed the mediator between God and men. Virgin Mary and the saint's mediatorship is depended on the mediatorship of Christ. St. John said that if ever one saw his brother commit a sin that doesnt lead to death, he can pray for that erring brother and God will forgive him. [cf. 1 John 5:16] Thats mediation. A brother praying for another brother is a form of mediation. Does it violate Christ as one mediator between God and men? No, for the simple reason that ALL PRAYERS are still directed to Christ. CCC#970 Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it. No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source. Christs mediatorship doesnt exclude his followers to share in it, just like Christs priesthood which is shared by his ministers and faithful and Gods goodness which is not confined to God alone but rather manifested to his creatures. This is demonstrated by the fact that although Christ is the one mediator between God and men, he wanted his disciples and followers to share in his mediatorship:

1 Tim 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, Christians are encouraged to intercede, to become a sort of secondary mediators for all men, working and cooperating with Christ.

Redge23 It seems that you have gone away from you romanist faith, as if you didn't really believe that you elevate Mary to a position that only belongs to Christ Kapatas It seems that you're out of your mind. Virgin Mary and the saints don't directly act on the petition but rather refer our petition to God thru prayer. It testifies that there is a higher being than the saints who deal with the petitions, and that is God. Therefore, your baseless accusation that we elevate Virgin Mary to a position belonging alone to Christ is unfounded and irresponsible. We elevate Virgin Mary and gave her honor but not in a way that surpasses Christ. BTW, we don't elevate her because of caprice, but rather because God Himself elevated the Blessed Mother among women, by entrusting to her the role of Mother of the Messiah. So if ever we honor Virgin Mary, it is because God honor her first! [cf. Luke 1:28] I just wonder why you hate someone whom God Himself loved. Those I know who hate whom God has loved are the enemies of God. Maybe you are one of those.

Redge23 St. Germanus of Constantinople ( 733) says: "Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee ... O Most Holy One ... Nobody can receive a gift of Grace except through thee ... O Most Chaste One" (Or. 9, 5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast) Kapatas We have no problem with that since nowhere in the text we can find stating that Virgin Mary is GOD. The statement of the venerable saint should be understood together with Virgin Marys unique RELATIONSHIP with Christ, our savior. Virgin Mary, in obedience to God, conceived and gave birth to the messiah. If you accept Christ as savior, then in the process, you also affirm that salvation can be found through Virgin Mary since she bring forth Jesus to the world. Her blessed womb serves as sanctuary of Jesus, our salvation, for nine months. In a way, salvation enters the world through her. It is no different when the scriptures stated that "salvation comes from Jews." [cf. John 4:22] Does it mean Jews replaced Christ as savior? No. It only means that God chose Israel as the starting point wherein salvation shall be preached throughout all nations.

The problem enters when you try to isolate Virgin Mary from her exalted relationship with Jesus, just like what you are doing. Without Christ, it is so awkward and erroneous to say that salvation can be achieved through her. What had she done to deserve that? But all becomes clear when her exalted relationship with Christ is considered. That's why the Church is correct when it teaches that all devotions to the Blessed Mother originate from her relationship with her son, Jesus.

Redge23 St. Jerome says: "By a woman the whole world was saved" (cf. Tertullian, De carne Christi 17).

Kapatas That is true considering Virgin Marys role in salvation history. She agreed to Gods plan of saving humanity by conceiving the messiah. So through her obedience and trust of the Lord, she becomes an instrument of salvation of humanity. But again, all of this should be understood together with her relationship with Jesus, the Saviour. Isolating Virgin Mary from this reality will only result to confusion just like you are in right now.

Redge23 St. Bernard of Clairvaux Claimed: "The sinner that ventures directly to Christ may come with dread and apprehension of his wrath; but let him only employ the mediation of the Virgin with her Son and she has only to show that Son the breasts that gave him suck and his wrath will immediately be appeased.- Catholic Layman (July, 1856). Kapatas It refers to a sincere repentant sinner asking the Virgin Mary to intercede for him to Christ. The sinner can ask forgiveness directly to Christ if he feels like it. Or go to Virgin Mary and ask her to intercede for him with the ultimate intention of asking forgiveness to Christ. It is Lord that forgives the sinner, not Virgin Mary. Nowhere in the text we can find stating that Virgin Mary is the one that forgives sins or she is God.

Redge23 You're starting to sound like a Baptist. Amen!!! Kapatas

Sounding like baptist? Not really, but I rather I sound more like a catholic. That is what the Catholic Church teaches for 2,000 years. Christ is the savior and not Virgin Mary, that's why we don't have prayers asking the Blessed Mother "to save us" but rather "to pray for us". How come you don't know?

Redge23 But your religion teaches this: And may I quote St. Bernard of Clairvaux again: "The sinner that ventures directly to Christ may come with dread and apprehension of his wrath; but let him only employ the mediation of the Virgin with her Son and she has only to show that Son the breasts that gave him suck and his wrath will immediately be appeased. - Catholic Layman(July, 1856). Kapatas What's wrong with that? Does it teach that Virgin Mary is GOD? What the venerable saint had said was that Virgin Mary's intercession was very powerful, testifying to what the scriptures have stated: "the prayers of a righteous man have a powerful effect." [cf. James 5:16]

Redge23 And who is in the position to determine who is a true roman catholic and not? You? Kapatas Well, between us two, I'm more credible to determine who is a genuine catholic or not. Why? Because I'm a catholic myself. A cradle catholic to be exact. Unlike you who is a baptist, posing as a credible determiner of genuine and fake catholics. Give me a break. Lolz

Redge23 Sir I quoted a genuine roman catholic document from the works of St. Bernard himself. It was not an anti-catholic document that you might count against me so in stead of whining, why don't you check the reference and see for your self? "The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.( St. Bernard, In Nativit. S. Mariae de Aquaeductu.) Kapatas

Yeah, you've quoted St. Bernard but that's not the issue. The problem lies when you say that one should supposed to read that particular writing of the saint to be a genuine catholic. That logic is something that is bordering on the delusional. Do you mean to say that generations of catholics who lived and died prior to the publication of that particular document were fake catholics? See how fallacious your arguments are.

Redge23 On the contrary St. Bernard of Clairvaux claimed that Mary can MANIPULATE GOD. "The sinner that ventures directly to Christ may come with dread and apprehension of his wrath; but let him only employ the mediation of the Virgin with her Son and she has only to show that Son the breasts that gave him suck and his wrath will immediately be appeased.- Catholic Layman (July, 1856). Kapatas When the Blessed Virgin Mary was able to convince Christ to turn six stone jars of water into wine in a wedding in Cana [cf. John 2:1-11], do you mean Virgin Mary MANIPULATED CHRIST? Christ loved his mother. The scriptures states that he is obedient to her. Luke 2:51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. Christ is obedient to his mother. So if for instance her Mother asked him to forgive a lowly repentant sinner, Christ will definitely grant the request considering that the request is not unreasonable at all and the one who is asking is her mother, whom he is obedient to as the scripture testifies. It's not manipulation. It is obedience whose foundation is love.

Redge23 We are taught in the church to be loyal to GOD alone. We respect, and love those whom GOD used to fulfill HIS will like Mary,Moses, Joshua, The Apostles etc. Kapatas Baloney. Actually you hated Virgin Mary's guts. You don't even call her BLESSED, which the scriptures stated a title to be bestowed unto her by succeeding generations from that time onward. [cf. Luke 1:48] You even degrade her by delegating her to the ordinary when the scriptures specifically calls her "Full of Grace" [cf. Luke 1:28] and "Blessed among Women". [cf. Luke 1:42] You even gave more importance to your pastors who were not even mentioned in the bible than the Blessed Virgin Mary.

C'mon, shows us HOW you gave importance and love to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Or maybe you are just doing lip service unto her? Or perhaps you want to hear David Currie's testimony? "I estimate that I have listened to more than four thousand sermons by evangelicals and fundamentalists. Since most of them were well over thirty minutes long, that means over two thousand hours of listening..., There were sermons centered on the lives of Hannah, Debra, Elizabeth, Rachel, Leah, Sarah, and Eve. Not once, however, did I sit through a sermon whose central subject was Mary!"[Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David B. Currie, p. 129] Now that's a nifty way of giving importance to Virgin Mary.

Redge23 We are not taught to abhor them. It seems to me that not praying to the saints is tantamount to hating them. Not at all. Kapatas You abhor Virgin Mary. It is so obvious in your actuations. You don't call her "Blessed", you even demonized her by associating her to Semiramis, Isis, or other obscure pagan gods. Well, if it is not abhorring then I don't know what is.

Redge23 After all, no where in the scripture says that Peter asked for Abraham's intercession. Kapatas Because not all things that happened were written down, that includes mental prayers of St. Peter. What is important is that spirits of saints are ALIVE, CONSCIOUS, and capable of PRAYING as testified by the scriptures [cf. Revelation 8:3-4] and by YOU: Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
If saints are capable of praying on our behalf, then asking prayers from them is not useless.

Redge23 Weird! God entrusted Israel to Moses. How often do you pray to prophet then? Do you see how inconsistent you can get? Kapatas Why? Do I have to pray to each and every saints in heaven to prove my point? What I only need to prove is that asking prayers to saints is possible. I did just that. Even you yourself agreed to that: Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
Oh di ba umamin ka?

Redge23 Hahaha!!! Who said that the dead are not conscious? Please quote a statement wherein I said that the dead are unconscious. I'll be waiting. Kapatas The verse in Psalm you've just quoted. It shows that you believe that the dead are not conscious. I even agreed with you but I showed you that although their physical body died and therefore not conscious, their souls were pretty much ALIVE and CONSCIOUS. They even KNOW what's happening on their surrounding, and even here on earth. [cf. Revelation 7:10-14; 19:1-3]

Redge23 I only quoted a text for you to realize that the dead(though its soul being conscious) cannot intercede. Kapatas How come? When you already admitted that the spirits of saints in heaven can pray directly to God on our behalf. Isn't that intercession? Redge23 Post #10:

Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
INTERCESSION: 1. Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another. 2. Mediation in a dispute. [] You can't escape this one. You are caught by your own contradiction.

Redge23 That's what the Psalm means in Hebrew when it said "thoughts" perish! In fact I was shocked with your rebuttal as if I ever said anything concerning soul -sleep. Clearly it was your prejudgment. Kapatas I didn't contest the meaning of "thoughts" in hebrew so cut out those red herring of yours. I even agreed with you that the physical bodies of dead saints are indeed not conscious. The whole body of my rebuttals centered on the idea that although the physical bodies of departed saints were dead and not conscious, their spirits were ALIVE, AWARE, and even capable of PRAYING to God. What I did was simply sharing my belief. If for you that is prejudging then that's your problem.

Redge23 Where in revelations does it say that the prayers are for the people of God suffering here on earth. Kapatas Well, it requires common sense to find that. For you not to find it is quite shocking and very revealing. Spirits of saints were already saved and perfected. [cf. Hebrews 12:23] So for whom are their prayers? It is for their brothers who are struggling and suffering here on earth. Because saints though separated physically from their brothers in faith, are still united with them in spirit. Colossians 2:5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. The saints, although absent physically, are united with the Church in spirit. So wherever they are, they are definitely thinking of their brothers and sisters here on earth, desiring what is good for

the church and for the brothers in faith. If when they are alive here on earth they can pray for their brothers in sisters, then what constraints them from praying for their brothers? Even you admitted that spirits of saints in heaven can pray to God on our behalf. Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
Why the change of heart right now? Alam mo ba ang tawag ng bible sa pabago-bago ng sinasabi?

Redge23 And I will show you a text that implicitly say the saints in heaven can't! Read: Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness. Kapatas Where in the verse we can find that saints in heaven can't pray to their brothers here on earth? Where? I don't see it.

Redge23 I'll wait for your allusion in revelations as you claim that the saints were praying on behalf of those who were in earth. Kapatas I already did that. Or perhaps you wanted your own testimony regarding the matter: Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
Isn't that enough?

Redge23 Doesn't it? Well, just so you know, this text is exactly the reason why Jews do not asks for their Patriarch's(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob...) intercession. If you are a seminarian, I hope you study the Tanakh because if you are going to read the entire Ezekiel 14, God warns that HE will put Israel to desolation and yet Noah, Daniel, and Job (being dead) cannot stop it. Now you're telling me it's got nothing to do with intercession and mediation? I am not over reading are just not reading. Kapatas What's your proof that Ezekiel 14:20 is the reason why Jews don't ask for intercession? Don't make assertions like that without proofs. You should know better. Apparently you don't read your bible thoroughly. Jews themselves pray on behalf of long departed brothers. Case in point, Nehemiah. Nehemiah 1:6 let thy ear be attentive, and thy eyes open, to hear the prayer of thy servant which I now pray before thee day and night for the people of Israel thy servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against thee. Yea, I and my father's house have sinned. Nehemiah is praying not only for himself but for his people and forefathers. But the bible states that his forefathers were already dead. Nehemiah 2:3 I said to the king, "Let the king live for ever! Why should not my face be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lies waste, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?" Nehemiah's forefathers were long dead. But that didn't prevented him to pray to God on their behalf. That's intercession. Surely, his forefathers wherever they are, were also praying to God on behalf of Nehemiah and still existing Israelites since intercession is part of their religious culture.

Redge23 Yes you did! How did you come up with a rebuttal that was trying to refute a soul-sleep doctrine when I did not even raise it to begin with?! You thought that all the while I was a proponent of soul-sleep when I quoted Psalm 146:4! Kapatas Actually you are the one who brought the issue of soul sleep. My arguments are focused on the reality that although the physical body of a person dies and therefore unconscious, their spirits are alive and conscious. That is not prejudgment but rather an effort to clarify things since when you quoted psalms 146:4, you are arguing that saints are DEAD and can't intercede. Its not my

problem if you feel you're being tagged as one of the JWs since your doctrine is almost similar to them. Imagine, saints are dead. That's terrible.

Redge23 Hahahahah!!! Really? Did you mean that John the Baptist was only called Baptist after he was already baptizing people? Boy, I am not surprised why roman catholics are poor in hermeneutics. Matthew 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, Kapatas The verse does not tells us that John has yet to baptise people when he preached in the desert. And even so, John was called the "baptist" precisely because of the work he was known for, BAPTIZING PEOPLE. Now, why you claim that you are a baptist and yet you don't even baptized people? Therefore, your self-proclaimed tagged is a misnomer.

Redge23 John is not yet baptizing people by this time and yet he is ALREADY called BAPTIST. Kapatas Precisely because that verse was written MANY YEARS AFTER the actual events described. So for purposes of clarification, St. Matthew addressees John with his title "baptist" as John is introduced in the Gospel in consideration of the WORK John was known for. The verse doesn't speak of John being called "the baptist" even before he gave his first baptismal ritual. It is not something like John was called "the baptist" immediately after he was born. So why claim you are a baptist and yet you don't baptise people? Isn't that a misnomer?

Redge23 But its nice to know that now you recognise that Baptists alone are the ones ho can AUTHENTICALLY baptize. After all, you don't call your priests as baptists. That's a good development! Kapatas I don't recognized the validity of your group's baptism. To claim that I admitted that your group can authentically baptize is a sign of desperation. Dream on.

The 11 disciples were the ones originally directed by Christ to preach the Gospel and baptize people [cf. Matthew 28:19-20] and yet, nowhere in the bible they were called as baptists. That's why the use of the title baptist among your group is unbiblical.

Redge23 I'm sorry but I NEVER PUT A LINE IN YOUR MOUTH. I'm not like some people I know who forms their rebuttal full of strawman. Again I only quoted St. Bernard. "... that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation." ( St. Bernard, In Nativit. S. Mariae de Aquaeductu.) Kapatas The statements of the venerable saint should be understood together with Virgin Mary's relationship with Christ, the savior, the source of hope, grace and salvation. If through the Virgin Mary and no other, Christ enters the world, then indeed, it is through the Blessed Mother that all hope, grace and salvation can be found. The problem with you is that you are isolating Virgin Mary from her son. That's why you are confused.

Redge23 Your religion teach that it is through Mary we will obtain every hope, every grace, and ALL salvation. Kapatas, please.... Kapatas Only because of Virgin Mary's RELATIONSHIP with her son, Christ our Savior, because through her and no other, Christ enters the world.

Redge23 And yet why don't we see in the scripture ancient Israel ever prayed to Moses despite him being Physically dead yet spiritually alive? Did Peter and the rest of the NT saints ever prayed to Isaac, or Joel or Jeremiah? Kapatas But Nehemiah prayed to God in behalf of his departed ancestors. That's intercession. [cf. Nehemiah 1:6; 2:2-3]


Still an have no biblical basis because if what you claim is true, then Paul is not happy in heaven because of the suffering of GOD's children. Kapatas Who says that St. Paul is not happy in heaven? Did I say that? What I said was that St. Paul, wherever he is, always thinks of the church. when we were separated from you for a little while - not in our thoughts, of course but only in body - [cf. 1 Thessalonian 2:17] Also, the church is always in the heart of St. Paul, You are always in my heart [cf. Philippians 1:7] Because even though he is absent physically, he is united with the church in spirit. Colossians 2:5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. If St. Paul is still united with the Church spiritually even though he is absent physically, and that he always thinks of the church, and the church is always in his heart, then praying for his suffering and struggling brother to God is not a far fetched idea. It is a reality. 2 Thessalonian 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, St. Paul always prays for his brothers. If St. Paul and his fellow missionaries always pray for their brothers while here on earth, WHAT PREVENTS THEM IN PRAYING FOR THEIR BROTHERS LEFT HERE WHEN THEY ARE IN HEAVEN? Even you agreed that saints pray to God on our behalf: Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
Need I say more?

Redge23 Just to think of how roman catholics high-jacked the name of Chrsit as an excuse to kill jews and muslims in the Crusades- how roman catholics through MALLEUS MALIFICARUM and protestants killed whomsoever the believe as witches would definitely put Paul in grief. Then heaven is no longer a happy place for the saints just the bible says it is.

Kapatas This is clearly a red herring. Jews and Muslims were killed during that time because they also kill christians. Those are the time of WAR. In war, there are those who will kill and be killed. Even God directed Israel to wage war against their idolatrous neighboring kingdoms. Also, capital punishment is considered a norm in judicial system during that time. It is only now that capital punishments are abolished when judicial system got refined. Even so, it is the catholic church that convinced the government of the Philippines to abolish death penalty, not your baptist group. So live with it.

Redge23 First off, I already quoted the entirety. I'm dissappointed that instead of checking it, you just resort to a lazy response of "I don't buy that because you chopped the whole text". Perhaps I have to get my self used to it. hahaha Kapatas Yeah. I got used to your evasion tactic. Instead of explaining your admission that saints in heaven pray to God on our behalf, you opted to stay silent on it: Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
I pointed it to you on my previous post and yet you purposely evaded it. Why? Oh why?

Redge23 You asked for it: 5. And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God's anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.( St. Bernard, In Nativit. S. Mariae de

Aquaeductu.) Kapatas I answered this already. This should be understood together with Virgin Mary's unique and exalted RELATIONSHIP with Christ. Isolating Virgin Mary from Christ will only result to confusion and delusion.

Redge23 Hahahaha...Rumblings of an agitated man. Really? Have you ever asked Elijah and Moses' intercession the way that you ask St. Josephs' ? Are your members ever informed that they can were to ask Elijah's intercession? I have never heard a priest taught us in various catechisis that a saint who was prophet Habakuk can actually intercede for me. O wait! I can hardly recall a day dedicated for Habakuk. Don't you realize it? The Prima Facie case is your since you claimed that we are to ask the intercessions of the saints. Kapatas Why? Is asking prayers to saints the ONLY way of giving them importance? The Church designated special days in honor of these saints. Elijah's feast day is July20: "In Western Christianity, the Prophet Elijah is commemorated as a saint with a feast day on 20 July by the Roman Catholic Church"[] Moses feast day is September 4. For those saints with no specific feast days, we dedicated November 1 as All Saints Day. Surely that includes Habakkuk. Now that's our way of giving them importance. How about your group? How do you give importance to said saints? C'mon, show it to us. Give us the specifics. Let's compare who gave saints the higher importance: The Catholic Church or your baptist group.

Redge23 Hah? Hindi ako nagsinungaling sa mga posts ko dito. Baka ikaw. Ikaw lang naman yung marunong mambintang di ba? Nasa inyo ang burden of proof. Kung hindi mo pa alam yan, basahin mo ang title ng thread na ito. Kapatas

Nagsisinungaling ka. Sabi mo hindi namin binibigyan ng importansiya sina Elias at Moses. Pinakita ko sayo na we even go as far as designating a specific feast day in their honor. Kaya bukung-buko na nagsisinungaling ka. Hinahamon nga kita na magkumparahan tayo kung sino ang nagbibigay sa mga nasabing santo ng mas malaking importansiya: Yung Simbahang Katoliko or yung grupo mo. Ano na? Mukhang tahimik ka sa hamon kong eto.

Redge23 Huh? Are you serious?!!! HAHAHAAH... Why should I when we don't venerate saints the way you and your ancient fellow pagans do? Kapatas That's why I'm challenging you. Let's compare who gave said saints greater importance: the Catholic Church or your group? You are silent about this? Why?

Redge23 We don't need to have a celebration day for saints because we are taught to celebrate God every day. This is how we pay respect to the saints who have gone before us- to posses the kind of love, faith, hope that they have to glorify GOD. Kapatas Baloney. The issue here is how you gave saints importance. Giving importance to God is another issue. So c'mon, give us the specifics how your group gave importance to saints. What have you done to them?

Redge23 Hahahah,...funny how Other saints have multiple days of celebration for their honor while Malachi and others only have one. Hahahah How noticeable are romanists trademark for bieng inconsistent! I'm not surprised! Kapatas At least we designate a day in their honor, unlike your group who have done nothing and yet has the gall to criticize those who have done much. Isn't that pachydermic to the highest order? St. Paul admonished christians to honor saints, just like Efaproditus who nearly died for the sake of the Gospel:

Philippians 2:29-30 29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me. If we are to honor people who nearly died for the sake of Christ, then how much more we have to honor saints who have died for the sake of the gospel? Surely, designating a feast day in their honor is a way of giving importance and honor to them right? We honor Rizal on December 30 and Bonifacio on November 30. If we did that to honor heroes, then it is only right to designate a feast day in honor of saints, who are heroes of the faith. Now, I asked you, what have you done to the saints? Let's compare who gave them the most importance.

Redge23 I have no idea of that song. So much for your fondness on that Satanic American Pie. Kapatas I just heard that song. Hearing and quoting a song against a heretic doesn't necessarily entails fondness of the song. Youre confused.

Redge23 Then why did Abraham told the richman that Moses and the prophets were on earth to preach for his family instead of offering to God an intercession for their salvation? Ah! Because Abraham knew that there was nothing he can do. Thank God for Abraham who trust GOD's judgement! Kapatas Delusions. Abraham only said that the rich man's brothers, if they don't believe the teachings of Moses and the prophets, then nothing can convince them. Nowhere in the text can we find Abraham specifically stating that intercession is not possible.

Redge23 Really, I didn't? I think I just over estimated you sir KAPATAS. I thought that I have already made my self clear if what I believe that saints in heaven are ALIVE, CONSCIOUS and upon quoting Luke 16 where Abraham knew that Moses and the prophets were on earth would already suffice the common sense in you that I knew that saints are well AWARE of what is happening here on earth. . I'm sorry. It's nice to know you are fond of American Pie though.

Kapatas Yeah. You made yourself perfectly clear that saints are ALIVE, CONSCIOUS, AND CAN PRAY TO GOD ON OUR BEHALF. Redge23 Post #10: Even though that saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The

best they could do for you is to pray direct

to God.
Therefore, you yourself admitted that intercession of saints are possible. Why all the fuss? Tapos na dapat debate di ba? Umamin ka na. lolz.

Redge23 You said: "Saul didn't just asked help from prophet Samuel"...Hang on! You're not reading your bible! 1 Samuel 28 9And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? 10And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. 11Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. 12And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. 13And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 14And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.15And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. So you mean to say that Saul's ascent to seek guidance from the departed prophet was right and the only reason why it was wrong was simply because he used divination? Be careful with your answer. Kapatas Saul is wrong because he resorted to necromancy. What is necromancy? It is the act of conjuring up and communicating with the dead for purposes of determining the future. NECROMANCY

1. The practice of supposedly communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future. 2. Black magic; sorcery. 3. Magic qualities. [] Surely, no Catholic conjures up and communicate with saints through black arts in order to determine the future, right? Your sense of analogy leaves much to be desired. It's horrible.

Redge23 No prohibition? Is not Ezekiel enough for you? Are you more intelligent that Moses the first Jewish Rabbi who did not ask for the Patriarchs' intercession? Kapatas Definitely, there is no prohibition on the intercession of saints. The verse in Ezekiel only states that no person can save other person because it is God that saves. Nowhere in the text can we find that intercession is prohibited. Nehemiah even prayed to God on behalf of his dead forefathers. That's intercession. Don't pretend that you are greater than Nehemiah.

Redge23 or Jeremiah the prophet who wrote about praying directly to GOD in Jeremiah 33:3? Is God not enough for you? Oh wait! St. Bernard of Clairvaux says HE is not! To quote again: "The sinner that ventures directly to Christ may come with dread and apprehension of his wrath; but let him only employ the mediation of the Virgin with her Son and she has only to show that Son the breasts that gave him suck and his wrath will immediately be appeased.- Catholic Layman (July, 1856).St. Bernard of Clairvaux If Bernard of Clairvaux was only alive during Moses time, he would been stoned to death by the Jewish congregation! I'm enjoying every second of reading your rebuttals. I can see you bit by bit believing in SOLA SCRIPTURA. That's good so keep that up. hahahah Kapatas The statements of St. Bernard should be understood together with Virgin Mary's exalted RELATIONSHIP with Christ, the savior. Isolating the Blessed Mother from Christ will only lead to confusion, just like whats happening to you. BTW, I dont believe in sola scriptura because unlike you, Im not easily fooled by the likes of Martin Luther, the inventor of that heresy.

Redge23 Of course saints(who have not experienced physical death) CAN PRAY TO GOD on our behalf! I pray for my dad, my mom, my sister, my church, my pastor, etc. Do you believe that sainthood can only be attained after physical death? Kapatas But you said this: Redge23 Post #10: Even though that

saint is up in heaven, this person still has no power on his own to make anything happen for you. The best they could do for you is to pray direct to God.
Surely, the saints you are referring there are those not here on earth, right? Or I misreading it? Redge23 Hah! You keep on quoting Paul while he was still alive on earth! Typical faulty exegesis of romanists! Too bad you saints are still suffering with your church while our is already happy in Christ.hahahah Kapatas What difference does it make, considering that ALL, especially the saints are ALIVE as far as God is concerned: Luke 20:38 So the Lord isn't the God of the dead, but of the living. This means that everyone is alive as far as God is concerned. Suffering saints in heaven? Saints thinking of their struggling brothers here on earth doesn't necessarily mean they suffer. Christ is in heaven. Surely, he always thinks of his church here on earth. Does that mean Christ is also suffering? Give me a break.

Redge23 The instruction was clear! Luke 11 1And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his

disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 2And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3Give us day by day our daily bread. 4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Apparently because Christ taught HIS apostles to pray directly to the Father, all other way of prayer is invalid. Kapatas Nowhere in the verse can we find Jesus stating that all prayers should be directed to God ALONE and that, PRAYING TO or FOR THE OTHERS is prohibited. And BTW, we catholics prayed the "Our Father" more than you and your group.

Redge23 Again you are quoting a text were Paul's and the people whom he delivers to are all alive! hahahaha Kapatas Because death doesn't matter for a christian. One's relationship with the church is not terminated at death. ALL are alive as far as God is concerned. [cf. Luke 20:38] And that those who believe in Christ [saints], even tough they die will again live. [cf. John 11:25] If that is so, then saints can pray to God on our behalf just like what they do when they are still here on earth.

Redge23 I already quoted them, you simply chose to ignore them. To Tita Emmy and Mj, if you are reading this post I want you to see how apologists/fanatics in your recent religion flunk textual exegisis. Read his every respose and ponder on them. You were never wrong on leaving roman paganism! Kapatas No, you don't. Nowhere in the verses you've posted we can find God prohibited the intercession of saints. On the contrary, I showed you verses proving the intercession of Saints. You are the one ignoring those verses. [cf. 1 John 5:16; Revelation 8:3-4; Nehemiah 1:5-6; 2:2-3] I feel sorry

to your tita because she got bamboozled by a cultic group claiming they are the lost descendants of the early church. lolz

Redge23 What a big lie! Does this occur to you that you are only asking for them to pray for you? No, you don't know what you are talking about. You'd rather resort to imploring Michael's defense than God the creator of ALL who disposes him. BLASPHEMERS! Repent! Saint Michael Prayer Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and the snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray and do thou O Prince of the Heavenly Host, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen Kapatas Why not? Christ himself availed the help of angels. Dont tell me you are stronger than Christ. Luke 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. Matthew 4:11 Then the devil left Jesus, and angels came to help him. Christ was assisted by angels. It that is so, then asking prayers and help from angels is not useless. They do help. It is not an either or proposition, since angels are not incompatible or against God. Asking help from them doesn't mean you no longer believed in God. Your logic is so horrendous, it can't stand to serious scrutiny.

Redge23 On the CONTRARY, the Scripture says: Psalm 59:1 Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God: defend me from them that rise up against me. Psalm 69:18

Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies. Kapatas We have prayers that are direct to God. Like the Our Father. We pray lots of it. But we also pray for the intercession of saints. St. Paul even asked his brothers in faith to pray for him to God. St. Paul should have prayed directly to God, why would he asked his brothers in faith? Hebrews 13:18-19 18 Keep on praying for us. We are sure we have a clear conscience, for we want to do the right thing at all times. 19 And I beg you all the more to pray for me, so that God will end me back to you the sooner. Keep on praying for us. And I beg you all the more to pray for me. That's intercession for you straight from St. Paul's mouth. Since unity with the Church does not terminate at death, then christians, whether here on earth or in heaven, are still praying and supporting each other. Unlike in your group, when one is dead, he/she is forgotten.

Redge23 Hah! Gay or Pedophile Pastors head straigh to jail and are disfellowshipped. Kapatas Many raped cases were not pursued for fear of your maniac pastors or for fear of hurting your church. A pastor accused of raped can deny allegations and continue with his ministry. Since you don't have hierarchy in your church, pastor can't be investigated or be punished unless that pastor admitted for his crime or got caught red handed with his immoral acts.

Redge23 Unlike your sodomite priests who despite proven to have erred are still allowed to retain priesthood in your desperation to cope the dramatic decrease of you recruits. Kapatas Erring priests make up a small percentage of the catholic priesthood so don't exaggerate things. And those erring priests were given disciplinary actions. The Church don't condone the act. The Church even take care of the victims. Di ba ang bait simbahan namin? Our church in general, bear the responsibility of taking care of the victims of its erring members. How about your group? What does your group have done to the victims of your maniac pastors?

Redge23 There is no difference with sodomite pastors who have gone from us and yours. They are all misfits. The difference is in the way how we and you exctract them. Ours are banned. Yours aren't. BIG BIG difference! No wonder why romanist population are drastically decreasing for the past few decades. I am not surprised! Kapatas It is because sinners that they are, the church is still considering the possibility that they be redeemed and change their ways. What's wrong with that?

Redge23 You forgot to read the latter part of the Hebrew 6:12. Faith and patience are fruits of the HOLY SPIRIT (Gal 5: 20-23) therefore imitating the holy qualities given to the saints is as good as saying imitating GOD! Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Kapatas We are not talking about the origin of the saint's holy qualities. Red herring. What we are talking here is whether it is right to imitate saints. The bible is very clear on that: 1 Cor 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Heb 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you. 2 Thessalonians 3:8-9 8 we did not eat any one's bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you.

9 It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate. The bible is explicitly urging Christians to IMITATE saints. And here is the verse which shows that Christians indeed IMITATED the saints: 1 Thessalonians 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit; The christians in Tesalonika imitated St. Paul. The verse also shows that they imitated the Lord. That is why it is possible to imitate saints and the Lord, since there is no either or between the two. One can imitate the saints and the Lord at the same time since the two are not incompatible with each other. Notice that the word imitate in the text is in the past tense. Meaning, the imitation of saints is a teaching demonstrated in the bible. Imitation of saints is a doctrine practiced by christians. That's why we catholics imitate saints. That's what christians do. Now, if you and your group don't practiced the imitation of saints, it only mean one thing: you are all fakes! lolz Admit it, youve got busted in this. You have yet to shows us verses which says that we should not imitate saints.

Redge23 The Prophet Jeremiah preached against false trust. Sadly, roman catholics do that. They would dare to ask for Michael's help rather than GOD's. This angers GOD and the angles as well as the apostles are well aware of this. Kapatas Whats wrong on trusting Gods ministers and disciples? Does it mean that if I trust them, I no longer trust God? Your argument is rubbish. It is proffering an either or proposition that is not supported by the bible. Christ himself said that listening to his disciples means listening to Christ himself, and rejecting them will mean rejecting Christ. Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Thus, if one listens and trust Gods disciples, that person also listens and trust the Lord. There is no either or here since the saints are Gods disciples, whom God approved and trusted: 1 Thessalonians 2:4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts.

If God approved and trusted St. Paul who is a saint, why distrust saints? Are you greater than God?

Redge23 Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Kapatas Misquotation. I will show you why. That verse tells us that a man whose heart DEPARTS from the Lord and put his whole trust to a mere mortal will be cursed. It shows what will happen to a man who instead of believing God, decided to believe man. Does the verse applicable to us catholics? No. Why? Because we trust the Lord and because we trust in the Lord, we also trust his servants, the saints as well. It is not as if we trusted Gods servants while we reject God. Thats why it is a misquotation. Copied from your pastor who is clearly kulang sa turo. Do you know what will happen to those whom the bible calls kulang sa turo? Kawikaan 5:23 Siya'y mamamatay sa kakulangan ng turo; at sa kadahilanan ng kaniyang pagkaulol ay maliligaw siya. Ang kulang sa turo ay mamamatay. Kaya iwan mo na yang pastor mo. Wag kang kokpya sa kanya dahil kulang yan sa turo.

Redge23 Romanists have hyper veneration to the saints that they consider as only honoring. The following Bible passages reveals their idolatrous veneration. Kapatas We dont worshipped saints as Gods. Saints are honored because the bible states that we should honor them: Philippians 2:29-30 29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me.

Men who nearly die or have died for the sake of Christ and the Gospel are to be honored. Thats why we catholics honor saints. We follow the teachings of the bible.

Redge23 The romanists say its ok but Peter whom they believe as their pope says otherwise: Acts 10: 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Kapatas The verse is very explicit. The reason why St. Peter dissuade Cornelius from his actions is because he bowed down to the ground in front of St. Peter with the INTENTION OF WORSHIPPING him. Thats definitely a No-No. But the bible clearly teaches that bowing down to the ground in front of a person doesnt necessarily mean worshipping. Some do it to give honor, especially to men of God, like King David: 1 Kings 1:16 And Bath-sheba went down on her face on the earth before the king giving him honour. And he said, What is your desire? Clearly, there is a type of bowing with the intention of giving honor, not worship. Thats what we do to our saints. We bow down to them not because we worshipped them as gods but rather to give them honor.

Redge23 The romanists say its ok but the Angel says the opposite: Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. How much more clearer can the the scripture get? Kapatas Another misquotation. The angel dissuade St. John in bowing before him because St. Johns intention in bowing is TO WORSHIP THE ANGEL. It is very explicit in the text. Indeed the scripture is very clear. Read it aloud yourself. Bowing before anyone with the intention of worshipping that person is a sin of idolatry. But if you bow only to give honor to that person, that

is not wrong since the bible demonstrates that men of God, like King David are honored by men by bowing unto him. [cf. 1 Kings 1:16; 2 Samuel 9:6] Thats why we honor our saints by bowing unto them. Thats the bible way of honoring men of God. Apparently you dont do that. Thats why your practices are unbiblical.
Posted by Fr. Abe, CRS at 4:45 PM 5 comments Labels: Apologetics, Baptists, Bereans, Born-Again, Communion of Saints, Debate, Divination-Witchcraft-Sorcery-Necromancy, Franz Luigi Lugena, Kapatas, Marian Apologetics, Prayer for the Dead

Why do Catholics repeat the same prayer over and over again when they pray the Rosary? Is this not the vain repetition condemned by Christ in Matthew 6:7? Catholics do not just repeat the same prayer over and over again when they pray the Rosary. The Rosary is a progression of many prayers--the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Gloria, the Hail Mary and the Salve Regina--and these prayers are accompanied by many holy meditations. As the Rosary progresses, Catholics meditate on the joyful, the sorrowful, and the glorious mysteries of the life of Christ and His Mother. True, the Hail Mary is repeated many times during the course of the Rosary, and some of the other prayers are repeated several times, but this is not ``vain'' repetition, certainly not the vain repetition condemned by Our Lord. The vain repetition He condemned is that of people who pray standing ``in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.'' No prayer is vain, no matter how often repeated, if it is sincere, for Christ Himself engaged in repetitious prayer in the Garden of Gethsemani (``. . . he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word''--Matt. 26:39, 42, 44), and we are informed in the Apocalypse (Revelations) 4:8 that the angels in Heaven never cease repeating, night and day, the canticle: ``Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.'' The publican humbly repeated the prayer: ``O God, be merciful to me, a sinner,'' and he went away justified; whereas the pharisee went home unjustified after his long-winded extemporaneous prayer. (Luke 18:9-14). God was likewise pleased with the repetitious prayer of the three young men in the fiery furnace, whom He preserved miraculously untouched by the flames. (Dan. 3:5290). Protestants also engage in repetitious prayer: the same prayers at mealtime grace, the same prayers at Benediction, etc. The time lapse is no factor; it is still repetitious.

Why do Catholics believe in a place between Heaven and Hell called Purgatory? Where is Purgatory mentioned in the Bible? The main body of Christians have always believed in the existence of a place between Heaven and Hell where souls go to be punished for lesser sins and to repay the debt of temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven. Even after Moses was forgiven by God, he was still punished for his sin. (2 Kg. or 2 Sam. 12:13-14). The primitive Church Fathers regarded the doctrine of Purgatory as one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. St. Augustine, one of the greatest doctors of the Church, said the doctrine of Purgatory ``has been received from the Fathers and it is observed by the Universal Church.'' True, the word ``Purgatory'' does not appear in the Bible, but a place where lesser sins are purged away and the soul is saved ``yet so as by fire,'' is mentioned. (1 Cor. 3:15). Also, the Bible distinguishes between those who enter Heaven straightaway, calling them ``the church of the firstborn'' (Heb. 12:23), and those who enter after having undergone a purgation, calling them ``the spirits of the just made perfect.'' (Heb. 12:23). Christ Himself stated: ``Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.'' (Matt. 5 :26). And: ``Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.'' (Matt. 12:36). These are obviously references to Purgatory. Further, the Second Book of Machabees (which was dropped from the Scriptures by the Protestant Reformers) says: ``It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.'' (2 Mach. 12:46). Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the dead. In fact, the custom of praying for the dead--which is meaningless if there is no Purgatory--was universal among Christians for the fifteen centuries preceding the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, ordinary justice calls for a place of purgation between Heaven and Hell. Take our own courts of justice, for example. For major crimes a person is executed or sentenced to life imprisonment (Hell); for minor crimes a person is sentenced to temporary imprisonment for punishment and rehabilitation (Purgatory); for no crime at all a person is rewarded with the blessing of free citizenship (Heaven). If a thief steals some money, then regrets his deed and asks the victim for forgiveness, it is quite just for the victim to forgive him yet still insist on restitution. God, who is infinitely just, insists on holy restitution. This is made either in this life, by doing penance (Matt. 3:2; Luke 3:8, 13:3; Apoc. 3:2-3, 19), or in Purgatory . Also, what Christian is there who, despite his faith in Christ and his sincere attempts to be Christlike, does not find sin and worldliness still in his heart? ``For in many things we all offend.'' (James 3:2). Yet ``there shall not enter into it [the new Jerusalem, Heaven] anything defiled.'' (Apoc. or Rev. 21:27). In Purgatory the soul is mercifully purified of all stain; there God carries out the work of spiritual purification which most Christians neglected and resisted on earth. It is important to remember that Catholics do not believe that Christ simply covers over their sinful souls, like covering a manure heap with a blanket of snow (Martin Luther's description of God's forgiveness). Rather, Christ insists that we be truly holy and sinless to the core of our souls. ``Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.'' (Matt. 5:48). This growth in sinlessness--in Christian virtue and holiness--is of course the work of an entire lifetime (and is possible only through the grace of God). With many this cleansing is completed only in Purgatory. If there is no Purgatory, but only Heaven for the perfect and Hell for the imperfect, then the vast majority of us are hoping in vain for life eternal in Heaven.

Why do Catholics confess their sins to priests? What makes them think that priests can absolve them of the guilt of their sins? Why don't they confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do? Catholics confess their sins to priests because-- as it is clearly stated in Sacred Scripture--God in the Person of Jesus Christ authorized the priests of His Church to hear confessions and empowered them to forgive sins in His Name. To the Apostles, the first priests of His Church, Christ said: ``Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'' (John 20:21-23). Then again: ``Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'' (Matt. 18:18). In other words, Catholics confess their sins to priests because priests are God's duly authorized agents in the world, representing Him in all matters pertaining to the ways and means of attaining eternal salvation. When Catholics confess their sins to a priest they are, in reality, confessing their sins to God, for God hears their confessions and it is He who, in the final analysis, does the forgiving. If their confessions are not sincere, their sins are not forgiven. Furthermore, Catholics do confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do: Catholics are taught to make an act of contrition at least every night before retiring, to ask God to forgive them their sins of that day. Catholics are also taught to say this same prayer of contrition if they should have the misfortune to commit a serious sin (called a ``mortal sin'' by Catholics).

Granting that priests do have the power to forgive sins in the name of God, what advantage does confessing one's sins to a priest have over confessing directly to God in private prayer? Catholics see several advantages in confessing their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance. First, there is the Church's guarantee of forgiveness, which private confessions do not provide; secondly, there is the sacramental grace which private confessions do not provide; and thirdly, there is the expert spiritual counseling which private confessions do not provide. With the Apostles, Catholics recognize that the Church is, in a mysterious way, the Body of Christ still living in the world (Col. 1:18); therefore they recognize that God will receive their pleas for mercy and forgiveness with far greater compassion if their pleas are voiced within the Church, in union with the Mystical Body of His Divine Son, than if they are voiced privately, independent of the Mystical Body of His Divine Son. Do Catholics confess all the sordid details of their sins to the priest? No, Catholics are instructed not to confess the sordid details of their sins, because it would serve no useful purpose. All that is required of the penitent is the number and classification of sins committed, as well as a sincere contrition for having sinned, a promise to make restitution if the sin has harmed others, a firm resolve to avoid future sins and the occasions of sin, and the carrying out of the penance assigned by the priest (usually the praying of a few prayers). Actually, there are fewer intimacies revealed to the priest in the confessional than are usually

revealed to one's doctor, lawyer, or psychiatrist; hence the Sacrament of Penance is not the embarrassing experience many non-Catholics imagine it is. Rather, it is a wonderful relieving experience, for it is through this sacrament that sins committed after Baptism are washed away by the blood of Christ and the sinner becomes once again reconciled with God. Why do Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all? Most non-Catholics do not realize it, but Christ Himself offered the first Mass at the Last Supper. At the Last Supper He offered (sacrificed) Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner, that is, under the form of bread and wine, in anticipation of His bloody sacrifice on the cross to be offered on the following day, Good Friday. In the Mass, not now by anticipation, but rather in retrospect, Christ continues to make that offering of Himself to His Father--by the hands of the priest. ``And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.'' (Matt. 26:26-28). Christ ordered His Church to perpetuate that sacrificial rite for the continued sanctification of His followers, saying, ``Do this for a commemoration of me'' (Luke 22:19)--so the Catholic Church complies with His order in the Mass. In other words, every Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass derives all its value from the Sacrifice of the Cross; the Mass is that same sacrifice, not another. It is not essentially a sacrifice offered by men (although men also join in), but rather it is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Christ's bloody sacrifice on Calvary was accomplished ``once'' (Heb. 10:10), just as Scripture says. The Catholic Church likewise teaches that the sacrifice of the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice-- offered ``once.'' But the Apostle Paul--the same Apostle who wrote this text in the book of Hebrews--also bears witness that the sacrificial rite which Christ instituted at the Last Supper is to be perpetuated--and that it is not only important for man's sanctification, but is the principal factor in man's final redemption. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, St. Paul tells how, at the Last Supper, Our Lord said: ``This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.'' Thus at every Mass the Christian has a new opportunity to worship God with this one perfect sacrifice and to ``absorb'' more of Christ's saving and sanctifying grace of Calvary. This grace is infinite, and the Christian should continuously grow in this grace until his death. The reason the Mass is offered again and again is not from any imperfection in Christ, but from our imperfect capacity to receive. Finally, the holy sacrifice of the Mass fulfills the Old Testament prophecy: ``For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.'' (Mal. 1:11). The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered every day throughout the world, and in every Mass the only truly ``clean oblation'' is offered, that is, Christ Himself; thus the Mass is the perfect fulfillment of this prophecy. [See also the Apologetics Toolkit's ``The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist'']

Why do Catholics believe their Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ? Why don't they believe as [most] Protestants do that Christ is only present symbolically, or spiritually, in the consecrated bread and wine? Catholics believe that their Holy Communion, the Blessed Eucharist, is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because that is what Christ said It was: ``This is my body... This is my blood'' (Matt. 26:26-28; see also Luke 22:19-20 and Mark 14:22-24); because that is what Christ said they must receive in order to have eternal life: ``. . . Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you...'' (John 6:48-52; 54-56); and because that is what the Apostles believed: ``The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?'' (1 Cor. 10:16). ``Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.'' (1 Cor. 11:27-29). Also, Catholics believe that Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ because that is what all Christians believed until the advent of Protestantism in the 16th century. Wrote Justin Martyr, illustrious Church Father of the second century: ``This food is known among us as the Eucharist . . . We do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior, being made flesh by the Word of God.'' Wrote St. Cyril of Jerusalem, venerable Church Father of the fourth century: ``Since then Christ has declared and said of the bread, 'This is my Body,' who after that will venture to doubt? And seeing that He has affirmed and said, 'This is my Blood,' who will raise a question and say it is not His Blood?'' In addition to the witness of Sacred Scripture and Christian tradition, Catholics have the witness of the Holy Eucharist itself: On numerous occasions great and awesome miracles have attended its dis- play, and seldom has its reception by the Catholic faithful failed to produce in them a feeling of joyful union with their Lord and Saviour. In the face of all this evidence, Catholics could hardly be expected to adopt the Protestant position. [See also the Apologetics Toolkit's ``The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist''] [It should be noted that Lutherans do in fact believe in the Real Presence, but because their clergy were not ordained by a successor of the Apostles (that is, ordained by an Apostle or one of their successors), the bread they bless does not really become the Body of Christ. High Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, but that is in defiance of the offical creed of the Anglican Communion that Christ is present 'every way but physically.' Also, while Anglicans bishops may have in the past been successors of the Apostles, their understanding of ordination and the priesthood changed so radically that it is no longer valid.]

Supplementary: (added by JRRC) Ref CFD manual:


Panudlo sa Sta. Iglesya. Ang Eukaristiya mao angsacramento ug sakripisyo sa pagconsagrar sa pan ug bino aron mahimong lawas ug dugo ni Cristo. Matud ni Sto. Tomas de Aquino nga ang Eukaristiya mao ang kinalabwan sa tanang mgasacramento tungod kay diha sa Eukaristiya dili lamang nga madawat nato ang grasya nga atong gikinahanglan kondili madawat gyod nato si Cristo nga mao ang tighatag og grasya. Diha sa Eukaristiya atong madawat ang tibuok nga Cristo- ang iyang lawas, dugo, kalag ug pagka-Dios. Ang Eukaristiya mao ang kalan-on nga espirituhanon nga mohatag og kahimsog sa atong kalag. Ang Sta. Iglesya nagsugo sa mga matuohon sa pagkalawat nga takos labing menos makausa sausa ka tuig.

Supak 1. Ang pag-ingon ni Jesus nga siya ang pan sa kinabuhi (Jn. 6:35) dili literal kondili usa ka sambingay sama sa iyang pag-ingon nga siya ang punoan sa paras (Jn. 15:1). Supak 2. Ang pagkaon sa iyang unod dili sabton nga literal nga unod tungod kay ang unod walay kapuslanan (Jn. 6:63) kondili ang pagdawat sa iyang pagtulon-an ug ang pagtuo kaniya (Jn. 6:35). Supak 3. Ang pan ug bino simbolo lamang sa lawas ug dugo ni Cristo ug dili literal sama nga si Jesus miingon nga siya ang pultahan(Jn. 10:9) dili sabton nga literal nga nahimo siya nga pultahan.

Tubag: Maingon nato nga dunay tulo ka hugna sa pagtukod ni Cristo niining maongsacramento.

Una- ang pag-andam sa katawhan. Nasayod si Jesus nga kining maong pagtulon-an mosukod gayod sa pagtuo sa iyang mga tinun-an busa si Jesus mihimog tulo ka dagkong milagro aron pagpasabot kanila sa iyang diosnong gahom. Ang unang milagro nga gihimo ni Jesus sa pagsugod niya sa iyang misyon mao ang pagusab sa tubig ngadto sa bino (Jn. 2:1-11). Sunod nga milagro nga gihimo ni Jesus mao ang pagpakaon ang lima ka libo ka mga tawo gikan sa lima ka piraso nga pan ug duha ka piraso nga isda (Jn. 6:1-15) ug sa pagkasunod nianang gabii, sa paglakaw ibabaw sa tubig (Jn. 6:16-21). Pinaagi sa pagpadaghan sa pan ug isda ug paglakaw ibabaw sa tubig, iyang gipamatuod ang iyang gugma ug pagtagad ngadto kanila ug sa iyang gahom ibabaw sa balaod sa kinaiyahan. Busa iyang giandam ang ilang hunahuna ug kasingkasing sa pagtulonan mahitungod sa langitnong kalan-on saSantos nga Eukaristiya.

Ikaduha- mao ang saad sa Eukaristiya (Jn. 6:25-69). Sa pagkasunod adlaw, iyang gitudloan ang panon sa katawhan nga misunod ug nangita kaniya. Sa diha sila nangutana kaniya, Magtutudlo, kanus-a ka pa mahiabot dinhi? (v. 25) si Jesus nga nasayod sa ilang hunahuna mitubag, Sultihan ko kamo: nangita kamo kanako kay nakakaon man kamo sa pan ug nangabusog ug dili tungod kay nakasabot kamo sa mga milagro nga akong nahimo (v. 26). Sa hinayhinay gituboy ni Jesus ang ilang hunahuna gikan sa butang nga kalibotanon ngadto sa butang nga espirituhanon. Siya miingon Ayaw kamo paghago alang sa kalan-on nga madunot, kondili sa kalan-on nga molungtad ngadto sa kinabuhing walay kataposan. Kining kalan-ona ihatag kaninyo sa Anak sa Tawo (v. 27). Unya gipangutana nila siya, Unsa may among buhaton aron pagtuman sa gisugo sa Dios? (v. 28). Si Jesus mitubag, Kini ang buluhaton nga ipabuhat sa Dios kaninyo: nga motuo kamo sa iyang gipadala (v. 29). Niining tungora gipahimug-atan ni Jesus ang kahinungdanon sa pagtuo. Sila mitubag: Unsa mang milagroha ang imong ipakita kanamo aron manuo kami kanimo? Ang among mga katigulangan nangaon ug mana didto sa kamingawan, sumala gayod sa giingon sa Kasulatan: Gihatagan niya silag pan gikan sa langit (v. 30). Dinhi makita nato nga sama sa ubang okasyon ang mga judio mga tawo nga kulang sa pagtuo- buot silang makakita og milagro. Dili pa igo ang milagro nga ilang nasaksihan nga gibuhat ni Jesus. Ug kay si Jesus naghisgot man og kalan-on nga mohatod ngadto sa kinabuhing dayon buot nilang mohimo si Jesus og mas dako nga milagro kay sa nahitabo sa ilang mga katigulangan didto sa disyerto nga gipakaon sa mana.

Ug sa dihang sila miingon Ginoo, hatagi kami kanunay niining maong kalan-on (v. 34), si Jesus mipadayon sa pag-ingon Ako mao ang pan nga naghatag sa kinabuhi. Ang moari kanako dili na gayod gutomon; ang motuo kanako dili na gayod uhawon (v. 35). Ug iya silang gisultihan sa tin-aw gayod Ug ang pan nga akong ihatag mao ang akong unod aron mabuhi ang kalibotan (v. 51). Ug sa dihang misupak sila sa pagingon Unsaon man niining tawhana sa paghatag kanato sa iyang lawas aron kan-on? (v. 52). Siya mipahimug-at sa literal nga gipasabot sa kamatuoran sa iyang mga pulong sa pag-ingon nga dili lang kinahanglan nga sila mokaon sa iyang unod kondili kinahanglan nga sila moinom usab sa iyang dugo: Ang mokaon sa akong unod ug moinom sa akong dugo may kinabuhing walay kataposan ug banhawon ko siya sa kataposang adlaw. Kay ang akong unod mao ang matuod nga kalan-on, ug ang akong dugo mao ang matuod nga ilimnon. Ang mokaon sa akong unod ug moinom sa akong dugo magpuyo dinhi kanako ug ako diha kaniya (v. 54-56). Tungod niini daghan sa iyang mga tinun-an miingon Lisod kaayong dawaton kining pagtulon-ana. Kinsa bay makasabot niini? (v. 60) ug busa wala sila modawat niini. Ug si Jesus miingon

ngadto kanila Nakapabugnaw ba kini sa inyong pagtuo kanako(v. 61) nga sa laing pagkasulti nakalitan ba kamo sa akong gisulti?

Kon (uban sa mga tigsupak) ang mga judio naghunahuna nga sa pagkaon sa iyang unod ug pag-inom sa iyang dugo, ang iya lamang gipasabot mao nga ilang dawaton ang iyang pagtulon-an diha sa ilang hunahuna ug kasingkasing, dili unta sila makugang. Ang mga judio nakalitan, tungod kay ilang gisabot nga si Jesus nahisgot gayod sa matuod nga pagkaon sa iyang unod ug pag-inom sa iyang dugo. Kon nasinayop pa nila pagsabot ang gisulti ni Jesus, Iya unta silang gipakita sa ilang kasaypanan sama sa iyang gihimo sa ubang okasyon (Mat. 16:5-12, Jn. 3:3-8, Jn. 11:11-14). Dili unta ni Jesus angkonon ang pagtulon-an nga ilang gipahid ngadto kaniya. Apan wala kini ipanghimakak ni Jesus. Sa laing bahin, siya misubli pagtudlo sa diosnong bili sa kalan-on nga ilang gisalikway. Ang eksakto nga mga pulong nga gilitok ni Jesus mao kining mosunod: a) Nakapabugnaw ba kini kaninyo? Pananglit makita ninyo ang Anak sa Tawo nga mokayab balik sa iyang gigikanan? (v. 61-62) nga nagpasabot dili ba kamo makadawat sa akong gisulti? Dili ba lang gihapon kamo motuo kanako kon makita ninyo kining maong unod nga mosaka ngadto sa langit? b) Ang espiritu mao ang naghatag og kinabuhi, ang unod walay kapuslanan (v. 63) nga nagpasabot Ang espiritu sa akong pagka-Dios mao ang naghatag og kinabuhi, o makapahimo sa akong unod nga makahatag og kinabuhi nga kalan-on; ang ordinaryo nga unod sa tawo sama sa inyong gihunahuna walay kapuslanan. c) Ang mga pulong nga gisulti ko kaninyo-Espiritu ug kinabuhi (v. 63) nga nagpasabot nga ang mga pulong nga akong gisulti kaninyo usa ka saad alang kaninyo sa kalan-on nga makapahimo kaninyo nga usa kanako diha sa espiritu ug kinabuhi. d) apan pipila kaninyo wala manuo mao nga gisultihan ko kamo nga walay makaari kanako gawas kon itugo kini sa Amahan (v. 64-65) nga nagpasabot nganong misupak man kamo kanako? Wala ba kamo motuo nga ako mao ang Anak sa Dios ug makahimo sa akong gisaad?

Apan bisan pa niini ang mga judio wala matagbaw, tungod kay wala gihapon bakwia ni Jesus ang iyang sugo sa pagkaon sa iyang unod ug pag-inom sa iyang dugo. Ang kapandulan nagpabilin gihapon nga nag-ali sa ilang agianan; busa daghan sa iyang mga tinun-an mibiya ug wala na gayod mokuyog kaniya (v. 66). Busa miingon si Jesus sa 12 ka mga apostoles Ug kamo, mobiya ba usab kamo kanako?(v. 67). Si Simon Pedro mitubag kaniya, Ginoo, kinsa may among kapaingnan? Anaa kanimo ang mga pulong nga naghatag og kinabuhing walay kataposan. Nagtuo kami ug nasayod nga ikaw mao ang Balaan sa Dios (v. 68-69). Kining talamdon nga mga pulong, nga puno sa kamaunongon ug paghigugma, atong gisagop ingon nga atoa, uban sa pagpanaad sa pagkamatinumanon ngadto ni Jesus bisan kinsa pa ang motalikod kaniya.

Gituman ni Jesus ang iyang saad atol sa kataposang panihapon uban sa iyang napulog-duha ka mga apostoles. Iyang gipangandoy ang pag-abot sa maong takna: Dako kaayo ang akong tinguha sa pagkaon uban kaninyo niining panihapon sa Pangilin sa Pagsaylo sa dili pa ako mag-antos (Luc. 22:15). Unya mikuha si Jesus sa pan, nagpasalamat sa Dios, ug gipikaspikas niya kini ug gihatag sa iyang mga tinun-an ug miingon Dawata ninyo kini ug kan-a, kini ang akong lawas. Unya gikuha niya ang kupa, nagpasalamat sa Dios, ug gihatag kanila ug miingon Imna kini ninyong tanan, kini mao ang akong dugo nga naglig-on sa kasabotan, ang akong dugo nga giula alang sa tanang mga tawo aron ang mga sala mapasaylo (Mat. 26:26-28). Si Jesus misulti niining mga pulonga sa usa ka labing solemne nga okasyon. Siya naghatag ngadto sa iyang mga tinunan sa kataposan niyang pakigpulong, sa kataposan niyang tinguha ug kasugoan, kay sa pagkasunod adlaw siya

paantoson ug patyon. Niining tungora naghatag siya ngadto sa iyang mga tinun-an sa ilang erensya kun kabilin o panulondon. Busa siya misulti kanila sa labing tin-aw ug dayag nga mga pulong. Ang mga pulong nga iyang gigamit sa ilang kaugalingon dili mahimong masaypan, ug labi na gayod kon lantawon ubos sa saad nga iyang gihimo nga iyang ihatag ang iyang unod aron kan-on ug ang iyang dugo aron imnon. Ang mga apostoles mituo, sama nga kita nagtuo, nga sa iyang pag-ingon Kini ang akong lawas Kini ang akong dugo, nga ang pan ug bino nabalhin ngadto sa iyang mahal nga Lawas ug Dugo.

Ang pagtuo sa mga apostoles ug sa karaang Iglesya sa matuod nga presensya ni Cristo diha sa Santosnga Eukaristiya gipamatud-an sa mga bantugang tagsulat. Si San Ignatius sa Antioch(d. 117) miingon Ang Eukaristiya mao ang Unod sa atong Manluluwas nga si Jesu-Cristo (Epistola ad Smyrna c. 7). Si San Justin Martyr (d. 167) miingon Ato kining gidawat dili ingon nga ordinaryo nga pan o ordinaryo nga bino, kondili si Jesu-Cristo ang atong Manluluwas nga dunay Unod ug Dugo alang sa atong kaluwasan, ug busa kita usab gitudloan nga ang kalan-on nga gi-consagrahan pinaagi sa pulong sa pag-ampo gikan Kaniya mao ang Unod ug Dugo ni Jesus nga nahimong tawo (Apologia i.c. 66). Si San Irenaeus (d. 203) miingon Ang pan ug bino pinaagi sa pulong sa Dios nabalhin ngadto sa Eukaristiya, nga mao ang Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo (Adversus Heresies v. 2,3). Si San Hippolytus sa Roma (d. 235) miingon Siya naghatag kanato sa iyang kaugalingong diosnon nga Unod ug sa iyang kaugalingong bilihong Dugo aron kan-on ug imnon (In Proverb, ix. 2). Ang maong santos nga pagtulon-an gidawat sa mga nagtuo ni Jesus sulod sa gatusan ka mga katuigan nga walay misupak hangtod sa pag-abot ni Berengarius nga miingon nga ang mga pulong kini ang akong lawas nagpasabot Dili kini akong lawas apan simbolo lamang. Kini maoy pag-ingon nga si Cristo wala gayod mohatag ngadto sa katawhan sa iyang Unod aron kan-on ug busa namakak sa iyang panaad nga gihimo. Kining maong interpretasyon nakahaling gilayon sa balaanong kasuko sa tibuok Simbahan; giisip ug giila kini nga supak sa karaang pagtuo sa Sta. Iglesya ug sa panudlo ni Cristo mismo; gibakwi kini sa nagpasiugda niining maong sayop nga panudlo nga namatay nga mahinulsolon.

Tubag 1. Sa pag-ingon ni Jesus nga siya ang punoan sa paras ug kita ang mga sanga (Jn. 15:1) klaro nga usa kini ka sambingay kay masabot man nato ang duha ka kamatuoran nga gitandi nga sama nga ang mga sanga nabuhi tungod sa punoan ang mga magtutuo nabuhi tungod ni Jesus, samtang sa laing bahin si Jesus mipasabot nga ang pan nga iyang ihatag mao ang iyang unod (Jn. 6:51) nga kinahanglan nga atong kan-on aron kita mabuhi (Jn. 6:53) busa ang panagtandi dili magamit. Tubag 2. Ang pagkaon sa unod kon sabton sa dili literal nga pagsabot nagkahulogan og pagpanimalos, pagdagmal o pagpatay (Eze. 5:10, Isa. 49:26, Miq. 3:3) nga dili mahimo nga mao ang sentido nga gipasabot ni Jesus. Ang ordinaryo nga unod sa tawo nga maoy naa sa panabot sa mga judio mao ang way kapuslanan (Jn. 6:63) apan ang unod ug dugo ni Cristo tungod kay kini nahiusa man sa iyang pagka-Dios makahatag og kinabuhi (Jn. 6:54-56). Tubag 3. Dili mahitabo nga sa kataposang panihapon si Jesus magsulti ug sambingay: 1) tungod sa kasolemne sa maong okasyon; 2)tungod kay si Jesus nasayod nga ang iyang mga tinun-an hinay nga mosabot; 3) si Jesus, tungod kay siya Dios, nasayod sa mahimong sangpotanan sa iyang gipamulong, nga dili maihap ang katawhan sa umaabot nga panahon nga magsimba kaniya ubos sa bayhon sa pan; ug ikaupat- ang mga apostoles nagpahayag sa ilang pagtuo sa matuod nga presensya ni Cristo diha sa Eukaristiya Ang kupa sa panalangin nga tungod niini gipasalamatan nato ang Dios-dili ba kini pakig-ambit man nato sa dugo ni

Cristo inig-inom nato gikan niining kupa? Ug dili ba pakig-ambit man nato sa lawas ni Cristo inigkaon nato niining pan nga atong gipikaspikas? (1 Cor.10:16). Diha sa consagrasyon, dili si Cristo ang nahimong pan kondili ang substancia sa pan maoy nabalhin ngadto sa buhi nga lawas ni Cristo samtang ang bayhon sa pan ug bino nagpabilin.

Pagtulon-an: Kinahanglan nga ato kanunayon nga paninguhaon ang pagdawat ni Cristo diha sa pagkalawat. Ang Eukaristiya 1)mohiusa nato kang Cristo Ang mokaon sa akong unod ug moinom sa akong dugo magpuyo dinhi kanako ug ako diha kaniya (Jn. 6:56), 2) mohatag kanato og dugang grasya, ang mokaon kanako mabuhi tungod kanako (Jn. 6:57), 3) mohiusa nato sa usag-usaSanglit may usa lamang ka pan, kitang tanan bisan daghan, usa lamang ka lawas, kay nakig-ambit man kita sa usa lamang ka pan(1 Cor. 10:17), 4) ug naghupot sa saad sa pagkabanhaw Ang mokaon sa akong unod ug moinom sa akong dugo may kinabuhing walay kataposan ug banhawon ko siya sa kataposang adlaw (Jn. 6:54). Apan tungod kay diha sa pagkalawat, si Jesus man gayod ang atong pagadawaton kinahanglan usab nga mohimo kitag pagpangandam sa atong kalag Busa ang mokaon sa pan sa Ginoo ug moinom sa iyang kupa sa paagi nga dili takos, nakasala batok sa lawas ug sa dugo sa Ginoo (1 Cor. 11:27).

Why are Catholic lay people usually given Holy Communion only under the one form of bread? By not giving the consecrated bread and wine, isn't the Catholic Church depriving its people of the full benefit of Holy Communion? In the Catholic Church the congregation is usually given Holy Communion only under the one form of bread because, if the consecrated ``bread'' is accidently dropped on the floor in the serving, it can be wholly retrieved--particles of the Body of Christ would not be left on the floor to be desecrated. If Holy Communion were given under both forms, and if the consecrated ``wine'' were accidentally spilled on the floor in the serving, it would be a virtual impossibility to retrieve all of the precious Substance--some part of the Blood of Christ would, through smearing and absorption, ineviably be desecrated. By not giving the congregation Holy Communion under both forms, the Catholic Church is not cheating anyone, because in receiving either the consecrated ``bread'' or the consecrated ``wine,'' the communicant receives the complete Body of Christ, including His Flesh and His Blood, His Soul and His Divinity. The consecrated ``bread'' by itself imparts a true Holy Communion with Christ, a full measure of sanctifying grace, even as Christ said: ``The bread that 1 will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.... He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.'' (John 6:52,59). And the Apostle Paul: ``Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.'' (1 Cor. 11:27). After the Consecration the priest receives Holy Communion under both forms, and this suffices to complete the Holy Communion part of the Mass service.

Why is Latin the language of the Church? How can the congregation understand the Mass whenever it is said in Latin? The Catholic Church began in the days of the Roman Empire, and the language spoken throughout that Empire was Latin. St. Peter moved the seat of Church government from Antioch to Rome, and the Catholic Church government remains centered there to this very day. It was only natural that Latin became the language of the Church. As the centuries elapsed, for example, Latin still remained the language of the educated classes--even into the 18th and 19th centuries. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Latin should still be the official language of the Catholic Church. It simply always has been. Furthermore, a universal language greatly facilitates the unity of the Church. Ecumenical Councils, for example, have always been held in Latin, enabling bishops from all over the world to communicate with each other easily. Moreover, unlike English, French, German and the other languages of the Western world, Latin does not change over the centuries--it is not affected by national idioms, slang and the like-therefore, in Western countries Latin is the official language of the Mass because it helps to preserve the original purity of the Mass liturgy-- although today, the Mass is usually said in the language of the people. Catholics have always had a complete translation of the Mass Latin in their missal, or Mass handbook, so they have always been able to understand and follow everything the priest says and does at the altar, even when the Mass is in Latin. It should also be borne in mind that the Mass is never exclusively in Latin. All sermons, Gospel and Epistle readings, parish announcements and closing prayers are in the language of the congregation.

Why do Catholics call their priests ``Father'' despite the fact that Christ said: ``Call no man on earth your father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven''! (Matt. 23:9). Catholics call their priests ``Father'' because in all matters pertaining to Christ's holy faith they perform the duties of a father, representing God. The priest is the agent of the Christian's supernatural birth and sustenance in the world. ``Father'' is a title which does not conflict in the slightest with Matthew 23:9. Christ forbids the Christian to acknowledge any fatherhood which conflicts with the Fatherhood of God--just as He commands the Christian to ``hate'' his father, mother, wife, and his own life, insofar as these conflict with the following of Christ. (Luke 14:26). But Christ does not forbid Christians to call His own representatives by the name of ``Father.'' Catholic priests share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (not a human priesthood), and their sacred ministry partakes of the Fatherhood of God. Like St. Paul (himself a Catholic priest), every Catholic priest can refer to the souls he has spiritually begotten as his children in Christ. (1 Cor. 4:14). St. Paul considered himself to be the spiritual father, in Christ, of the Corinthians: ``For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.'' (I Cor. 4:15). The title of ``Father'' is entirely proper for an ordained priest of Jesus Christ. Why do Catholics practice fasting and abstinence from meat on certain days? Does not St. Paul call abstaining from meats a ``doctrine of devils''? (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Catholics give up eating meat--for example, on Good Friday--to commemorate and honor Christ's Sacrifice on that day, and to follow His instruction to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. (Matt. 16:24; Mk. 8:34; Lk. 9:23). It is a practice that dates back to the earliest

days of the Christian Church. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both mention it in their writings. It is a practice which is thoroughly Christian, for we note that Christ Himself recommended fasting, saying: ``When thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face... and thy Father, who seeth in secret, will repay thee.'' (Matt. 6:17-18). In the same vein the Apostle Paul described his own suffering for Christ: ``... in hunger and thirst, in fastings often...'' (2 Cor. 11:27). Fasting was practiced both by Christ's followers (Acts 14:22) and by Christ Himself. (Matt. 4:1-2). And Our Lord told His disciples that some devils cannot be cast out ``but by prayer and fasting.'' (Matt. 17:20). Paul's denunciation of those who abstain from eating meat applies to those who reject the eating of meat entirely, as though it were evil in itself. His denunciation has nothing to do with the abstinence of Catholics, for on other days Catholics eat as much meat as do other people. Moreover, the abstinence from meat is not binding on all Catholics. Young children, old people, sick people, and all Catholics in countries where meat is the principle diet, are excused.

Supplementary(added by JRRC) from Catholic Apologetic staff:

Call No Man "Father"?

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax." Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christians Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53). How should Catholics respond to such objections?

The Answer

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasnt forbidding this type of use of the word "father." In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of Gods role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship. For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:2021). This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

A Change with the New Testament?

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testamentthat while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, its no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons. First, as weve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to ones biological father. It also doesnt exclude calling ones ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac." Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see. Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didnt intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:810). The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:1920, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his

gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christs teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers." Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christs words.

So What Did Jesus Mean?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men" (Matt. 23:67). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige. He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers. Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our fatherelse we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as suchwe must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying. Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are sucheither literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhoodor a particular kind or degree of fatherhoodto those who do not have it. As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles. Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individuals supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual manthe formation of a "cult of personality" around himof which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher. He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

The Apostles Show the Way

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here. Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2). He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothys worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22). Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Pauls literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Pauls statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:1415). Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:1314). By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood. Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priests spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christs ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact. NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Why don't Catholic priests marry? The Bible says that a bishop should be ``blameless, the husband of one wife'' (1 Tim. 3:2), which certainly indicates that Christ approves of marriage for the Christian clergy. Catholic priests do not marry because, while Christ does indeed approve of marriage for the Christian clergy, He much prefers that they do not marry. He made this quite clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up ``all'' to follow Him, saying, ``And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.'' (Matt. 19:27-29). The Apostle Paul explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the Christian clergy: ``He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.'' (1 Cor. 7:32-33). In other words, matrimony is good--

Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church--but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments--that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law--under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law.

The Bible says that after Christ was baptized He ``came out of the water'' (Matt. 3:16), indicating that He was baptized by total immersion. Why doesn't the Catholic Church also baptize by total immersion instead of by pouring on the head? The Catholic Church usually baptizes by pouring: 1) because water sufficient for total immersion is not readily obtainable in some localities, 2) because total immersion would be cruel for babies, fatal for some sick people and impossible for some prison inmates, and 3) because the Apostles baptized by pouring. In the Didache, composed by the Apostles, the following procedure for Baptism is prescribed: ``Pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'' The words ``came out of the water'' do not necessarily imply total immersion. They could just as well imply that Christ came up on the shore of the river Jordan after standing ankle deep in the water. This is not to say that the Catholic Church considers Baptism by total immersion invalid--she simply does not consider it practical as a universal form.

Why does the Catholic Church baptize infants, who have no understanding of what is taking place? The Catholic Church baptizes infants because Christ wills it. He must will it because He said, ``Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me.'' (Matt. 19:14). According to the Apostle Paul, one cannot truly come to Christ except through Baptism. (Rom. 6:3-4). Christ must will it because the Apostles baptized ``all the people'' (Luke 3:21 ) and whole households (Acts 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16). Certainly ``all the people'' and whole ``households'' included infants. Christ must will it because He stated categorically that Baptism is a necessary prerequisite for salvation (John 3:5), and He certainly desires the salvation of infants. He must will it because the primitive Christian Church, which had fresh firsthand knowledge of His Will, baptized infants. In the ancient catacombs of Rome the inscriptions on the tombs of infants make mention of their having been baptized. One such inscription reads: ``Here rests Archillia, a newly-baptized; she was one year and five months old; died February 23rd.'' An unbaptized infant is not simply in a ``natural'' state; it is in the state of reprobation, living under the reign of Satan, with the sin of Adam ``staining'' its soul. Therefore infants should be baptized as soon as is reasonably possible--usually within 2-3 weeks of birth. When children grow up with Our Lord dwelling in their souls, they have a powerful protection against sin. Moreover, Our Lord can thereby draw children to a deep love for Himself at a very early age--as He did with St. Therese, St. Maria Goretti, St. Dominic Savio, and Francisco and Jacinta Marto.

Supplementary (added by JRRC) Ref. CFD manual:


Panudlo sa Sta. Iglesya Ang Sta. Iglesya nagtudlo nga ang sacramento sa bunyag mao ang una sa mga sacramento nga atong madawat busa mao kini ang ganghaan ngadto sa atong espirituhanong kinabuhi. Ang bunyag mopapas sa salang panulondon ug mopasaylo sa mga salang buhatnon ug mowagtang sa kastigo temporal busa ang nabunyagan usa na ka bag-ong binuhat ug wala nay nahibilin diha kaniya nga gikaligutgotan sa Dios. Pinaagi niining maong sacramento madawat nato ang kinabuhi sa Dios (grasya nga makasantos) ug mahiusa kita ngadto ni Cristo ug mahimo kitang sakop sa lawas nga mistiko ni Cristo nga mao ang Iglesya . Sa pagbunyag kanato atong nadawat ang tulo ka diosnong birtud sa pagtuo, paglaom ug paghigugma sa Dios ug ang mga gasa sa Espiritu Santo. Tungod kay ang mga gagmayng bata natawo man diha sa kahimtang sa salang panulondon busa kinahanglan usab nga sila padawaton sa bunyag. Matud ni San Augustine nga, ang salang panulondon mitapot sa kalag sa bata hawa sa iyang kasayuran busa mahimo sab kini nga kuhaon pinaagi sa bunyag hawa sa iyang kasayuran.

Pagsupak: Supak 1. Ang bata bisan kon walay bunyag malangit gihapon kay si Jesus miingon: kay ang Gingharian sa Dios ila sa sama niining mga bataa (Mar. 10:14). Busa dili kinahanglan nga bunyagan ang bata. Supak 2. Si Jesus miingon Isangyaw kining Maayong Balita Ang motuo ug magpabunyag maluwas (Mar. 16:15-16) busa sa dili pa bunyagan, walihan una ug patuohon. Ang mga gagmayng bata wala pay pagtuo ug dili pa makasabot sa wali busa dili angay nga bunyagan. Supak 3. Ang tagsatagsa kaninyo kinahanglan maghinulsol ug magpabunyag (Buh. 2:38) busa sa dili pa bunyagan pahinulsolon una. Ang mga bata dili pa makahinulsol busa walay labot sa bunyag. Supak 4. Si Jesus dako na nga nagpabunyag (Mat. 3:13-16) ug siya mao ang atong panig-ingnan (1 Ped. 2:21). Busa dako ra gyod ang angay nga bunyagan. Supak 5. Ang sala mao ang paglapas sa balaod (1 Juan 3:4) ug ang mga bata wala pay nahimo bisan unsa nga kalapasan (Rom. 9:11)busa ang mga bata walay sala ug dili angay nga bunyagan. Supak 6. Dili tinuod nga ang bata dunay salang panulondon, Ang anak dili mag-antos sa sala sa iyang amahan (Eze. 18:20). Supak 7. Ang formula nga gamiton sa pagbunyag mao ang ngalan ni Jesus ug dili trinitarian, Busa misugo siya nga bunyagan sila sa ngalan ni Jesu-Cristo (Buh. 10:48).

Supak 8. Ang paagi sa pagbunyag pagtusmaw kun immersion ra gayod, Tungod niini, sa pagbunyag kanato gilubong kita uban kaniya (Rom. 6:4).

Tubag: Ang mga bata apil sa planosa Dios sa kaluwasan, kay kabubut-on sa Dios nga ang tanang tawo maluwas ug mahibalo sa kamatuoran(1 Tim. 2:4). Si Jesus miingon, ang inyong Amahan nga atua sa langit dili buot nga may mawala bisag usa niining mga gagmayng bata (Mat. 18:14). Si Jesus nagtudlo kanato sa usa sa mga kondisyon aron ang tawo makasulod sa langit, Walay makakita sa gingharian sa Dios gawas kon siya matawo pag-usab (Jn. 3:3). Ug sa unsa mang paagiha nga mahitabo kini? Si Jesus mipadayon sa pagtudlo, Sultihan ko ikaw: walay makasulod sa gingharian sa Dios gawas kon matawo siya pinaagi sa tubig ug sa Espiritu (Jn. 3:5). Gipasabot kanato ni Jesus nganong kinahanglan nga ang tawo matawo pag-usab pinaagi sa tubig ug sa Espiritu, Ang gianak sa tawo, tawo usab; ug ang gianak sa Espiritu, espiritu usab (Jn. 3:6). Ang bata nga gihimugso niining kalibotana gianak sa tawo busa tawo usab (Jn 16:21) ug kinahanglan pa siya nga matawo pag-usab pinaagi sa tubig ug sa Espiritu aron siya mahimong anak sa Dios. Ang tubig dinhi nagpasabot sa bunyag, Walo lamang ka tawo ang misulod sa arka ug naluwas sa tubig nga naghulagway sa bunyag nga karon nagluwas kaninyo (1 Ped. 3:20-21), kita iyang giluwas, dili tungod sa bisan unsang maayo nga atong nabuhat, kondili tungod sa iyang kaluoy pinaagi sa paghugas nga gihimo sa Espiritu Santo aron kita makabaton ug bag-ong kinabuhi (Tito 3:5). Ang bata bunyagan aron pagkuha sa salang panulondon nga mitapot diha kaniya, Daotan ako sukad ako mahimugso; ug makasasala sukad ako ipanamkon (Sal. 51:5) ug aron siya mahiusa kang Cristo, Gibunyagan kamo aron mahiusa kang Cristo, ug busa nakaambit na kamo sa kinaiya ni Cristo (Gal. 3:27). Ang kasaysayan sa unang mga kristohanon nagtug-an kanato nga apil ang mga gagmayng bata sa bunyag. Si San Irenaeus, nga tinun-an ni Polycarpio, nga tinun-an ni San Juan Ebanghelista miingon: Si Cristo mianhi aron pagluwas sa tanan pinaagi kaniya; ang tanan nga natawo pag-usab (nabunyagan) diha kaniya-masuso ug mga gagmayng bata, mga batan-on, ug ang mga tigulang. Usa ka pastor nga protestante nga si Dr. John Theodore Mueller sa iyang libro Why Baptize Children? pahina 3-4 miingon, Gikan sa unang mga adlaw sa mga santos nga mga apostoles ang Kristhohanong tradisyon nagpadayon hangtod karon sa walay hunong ug walay bugto: ang Iglesya nagbunyag sa mga batang masuso. Si Tertulliano natawo sa amihanang Africa sa mga tuig 150 mimatuod sa kamatuoran nga sa iyang panahon ang pagbunyag sa bata maoy pagbansay nga makaylapon kaayo. Ang Lutheran Encyclopedia nagaingon usab, Gikan sa apostolikanhong panahon hangtod sa pagtungha sa tinuhoang Anabaptist sa ikanapulog unom ka siglo, ang doktrina sa pagbunyag sa bata walay usa nga milalis.

Tubag 1. Ang gipasabot ni Jesus nga ang Gingharian sa Dios ila sa sama niining mga bataa (Mar. 10:14) mao kadtong mga bata nga gipaduol kaniya ug iyang gipanalanginan (Mar. 10:16). Ang bunyag mao ang pagpaduol sa mga bata ngadto kang Jesus, Gibunyagan kamo aron mahiusa kang Cristo, ug busa nakaambit kamo sa kinaiya ni Cristo (Gal. 3:27). Tubag 2. Ang giingon nga walihan una dayon patuohon sa dili pa bunyagan referido kini sa mga dagko na nga nakabig (Mar. 16:15-16). Dili tinuod nga ang gagmayng mga bata walay pagtuo, Ug mahitungod niining

gagmayng mga bata nga nagtuo kanako (Mat. 18:6). Ang mga bata ug ang mga masuso gibansay mo sa paghalad ug hingpit nga pagdayeg kanimo (Mat. 21:16). Tubag 3. Ang gipasabot nga pahinulsolon sa dili pa bunyagan (Buh. 2:38) mao ang mga dagko nga kinabig nga nakahimo na og actual sins kun salang buhatnon apan ang mga anak sa mga kristyanos apil usab sa bunyag, Kay saad sa Dios alang man kaninyo ug sa inyong mga anak (Buh. 2:39). Daghang okasyon nga ang tibuok panimalay nabunyagan: panimalay ni Lydia (Buh. 16:15), panimalay sa guwardiya (Buh. 16:33) ug ang tibuok panimalay ni Estefanas (1 Cor. 1:16). Ang tibuok banay naglakip sa mga masuso (Joel 2:16). Sa Daang Tugon ang Dios namunyag apil sa mga bata (1 Cor. 10:2, Exo. 12:37). Tubag 4. Ang bunyag nga gidawat ni Jesus kang Juan dili mao ang hingpit nga bunyag. Si Juan Bautista miingon, Nagbunyag ako kaninyo pinaagi sa tubig, apan may moabot nga mas labaw pa kay kanako Magbunyag siya kaninyo pinaagi sa Espiritu Santo ug sa kalayo (Luc. 3:16). Dunay mga tawo nga nakadawat sa bunyag ni Juan apan gibunyagan pag-usab (Buh. 19:2-5) Ang giingon nga si Cristo panigingnan dili kay dako na siyang gibunyagan kondili diha sa iyang pagpailob (1 Ped. 2:23) ug sa iyang pagkamapaubsanon (Fil. 2:5-8). Tubag 5. Ang naa sa mga dagko mao ang sala nga paglapas sa sugo (Rom. 1:24) apan dunay sala nga dili personal nga paglapas sa sugo kondili miresulta sa unang paglapas ni Adan nga mitakod ngadto sa tanang tawo-lakip sa mga bata, Daotan ako sukad ako mahimugso; ug makasasala sukad ako ipanamkon (Sal. 51:5). Nakasulod sa kalibotan ang sala pinaagi sa usa ka tawo, ug ang sala nagdalag kamatayon. Busa mikaylap ang kamatayon ngadto sa tanang katawhan kay nakasala man ang tanang tawo (Rom. 5:12). Tubag 6. Mahitungod sa personal nga kadautan sa sala, ang mismo nga amahan nga maoy naghimo maoy manubag (Eze. 18:20) apan ang negative effect kun kadaut nga resulta sa iyang sala motakod kini ngadto sa iyang mga anak, Nakasala ang among katigulangan ug nangamatay sila; ug kami ang nag-antos sa silot sa ilang mga sala (Lam. 5:7). Tubag 7. Ang bunyag sa ngalan ni Jesu-Cristo nagkahulogan og pinaagi sa gahom ug mando ni Jesus tungod kay ang ngalan nagpasabot man og gahom kun autoridad, Ug si Pedro miingon, walay akoy salapi o bulawan, apan hatagan ko ikaw niining ania kanako: sa ngalan ni Jesu-Cristo nga Nazaretnon, lakaw (Buh. 3:6). Unsa bang gahoma ang anaa kaninyo, ug kinsa mang ngalan ang gigamit ninyo? (Buh. 4:7). Gigamit usab kini aron pagpalahi sa bunyag ni Juan (Buh. 19:1-5) apan ang pulong nga gamiton kadtong gitudlo ni Jesus, ug bunyagi sila sa ngalan sa Amahan, sa Anak ug sa Espiritu Santo (Mat. 28:19). Tubag 8. Dili kay pagtusmaw ra gayod ang paagi sa pagbunyag. Gitagna nga ang pagbisibis og tubig makapasaylo sa sala (Eze. 36:25) ug ang bunyag mao ang paghinlo sa sala diha sa Bag-ong Tugon (Heb. 10:22). Gihisgotan usab nga ang pagbubo sa tubig ug sa Espiritu makahinlo sa atong mga kalapasan (Isa. 44:3). Si Saulo gibunyagan sulod sa balay diin walay sapa o dagat (Buh. 9:16-18).

Pagtulon-an. Kinahanglan nga ang mga ginikanan dili maglangan sa pagpabunyag sa ilang mga anak sa labing madaling panahon gikan sa pagkahimugso niini. Kinahanglan nga panalipdan ug amomahan sa mga dagko ang mga bata nga nabunyagan diha sa kristohanong pagtulon-an. Sa matag adlaw kinahanglan nga atong bag-ohon kanunay ang mga saad nga atong gihimo diha sa bunyag sa pagsalikway ni Satanas ug sa tanan

niyang mga lansis. Pasalamatan nato ang Dios sa paghatag kanato diha sa bunyag sa mga birtud sa pagtuo, paglaom ug paghigugma kauban sa grasya ug sa tanang mga gasa saEspiritu Santo.

Why is the Catholic Church opposed to birth control? Where in the Bible is birth control condemned as being contrary to the Will of God? The Catholic Church is not opposed to birth control when it is accomplished by natural means, by self control. She is opposed only to birth control by artificial means, by the employment of pills, condoms, IUD's, foams, jellies, sterilization, non-completion of the act of sexual union--or any other means used to prevent conception from resulting from this act--because such means profane the marital embrace and dishonor the marriage contract. God slew Onan for practicing contraception (Gen. 38:9-10); the word ``onanism'' derives from Onan's deed. In fact, up until the Church of England's Lambeth Conference of 1930, which accepted contraception and thus broke with the Christian tradition, contraception had been considered by all Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant, to be gravely sinful. The Catholic Church does not feel free to change the law of God, as do Protestants. In the New Testament, there is only one instance where sin is punished by God with immediate death, this was the fate of Ananias and Saphira, a husband and wife who went through the motions of giving a gift to God but fraudulently kept back part of it. The Bible says they lied to the Holy Spirit. (Acts 5 : 1-11 ). In contraception, two people go through the motions of an act of self-giving, but obstruct the natural fruition of their act, i.e., the conception of children, which is the ultimate purpose for which God created sexuality. Sexual union is a gift from God to the married, but by practicing contraception, married couples are accepting the pleasure God built into the act and yet denying Him its purpose, new people. They are in effect mocking God. But ``Be not deceived, God is not mocked.'' (Gal. 6:7). Christ cursed the fig tree which, despite a fine external appearance, bore no fruit. (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14). Marriage is God's plan for populating Heaven, yet contracepting couples refuse Him the specific fruit of their marriage, which is children, when they engage in the act which should produce children yet frustrate the natural, God-intended result. Further, the sin of ``sorceries'' or ``witchcrafts'' (``pharmakeia'' in the Greek--Gal. 5:20; Apoc. 9:21; 21:8)--which the Bible condemns along with fornication, murder, idolatry, and other serious sins--very possibly includes secret potions mixed to prevent pregnancy or cause abortion. Such potions were known and used even in the first century. Common sense and conscience both dictate that artificial birth control is not only a violation of the Natural Law but is a perfidious insult to the dignity of man himself. For it implies free reign to physical impulses; it implies total disregard for the fate of the human seed; it implies utter

contempt for the honorable birth of fellow humans, those fellow humans who are born as the result of a contraceptive having failed and whose very existence is therefore considered to be an unfortunate ``accident,'' rather than a gift of God; it implies the most extreme selfishness, for no advocate or practitioner of artificial birth control would have wanted it for his or her own parents. Further, contraception undermines the respect of husband and wife for each other and thereby loosens the marriage bond. Worst of all, many ``contraceptives,'' such as the IUD and most if not all birth control pills, work by actually causing an abortion early in the pregnancy; thus, this so-called ``contraception'' is in reality abortion--the killing of a human being--rather than the preventing of conception. In every age there is some favorite sin which is accepted by ``respectable'' worldly Christians; in our times the ``acceptable'' sin is contraception--a sin which fits in perfectly with the view that the purpose of human life is to attain earthly happiness. The true Christian couple, on the other hand, will realize that God desires them to have children so that these children can come to know Him and love Him and be happy with Him eternally in Heaven. Marriage is God's plan for populating Heaven. How wise it is to let God plan one's family, since He loves children much more than do their earthly parents, and His plans for them go far beyond any plans of these parents. Innumerable stories are told of God's Providence to Christian parents who trusted in Him and obeyed His law. For those who have a true and serious need to space or limit the number of their children, the new methods of natural family planning based on periodic abstinence have proven to be extremely reliable (unlike the earlier ``rhythm'' methods) . Finally, the Christian will realize that the self-denial involved in bearing and raising Christian children is a school of Christlikeness. Our Lord said: ``If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.'' (Matt. 16:24). But He also said: ``My yoke is sweet and my burden light.'' (Matt. 11:30). God promises sufficient grace to those who seek to obey Him. And the resulting peace of soul which the obedient married couple enjoys is beyond all price. Why does the Catholic Church make no exceptions when it comes to divorce? Does not the Bible say that Christ permitted divorce in case of fornication? (Matthew 19:9). The Catholic Church makes no exceptions when it comes to divorce because Christ made no exceptions. When Christ was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife ``for every cause,'' He replied that a man ``shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh . . . What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'' (Matt. 19:3-6). And the Apostle Paul wrote: ``But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.'' (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In Matthew 19:9 Christ does not permit divorce in cases of fornication. He permits separation. This is clear from the fact that those who separated were cautioned not to remarry. Read Mark 10-12 and Luke 16:18. Also, we know that divorce is against Divine Law because it is plainly against right reason. Were it not for our man-made laws which ``legalize,'' popularize, and even glamorize divorce, discontented married couples would make a more determined effort to reconcile their differences and live in peace; they would be obliged by necessity to swallow their false pride and accept the responsibilities they owe to their spouses, to their children, to society as a whole, and to God.

Any sociologist will confirm that there is far less immorality, far less suicide, far fewer mental disorders and far less crime among peoples who reject divorce than among the so-called ``progressives'' who accept it.

Why have Catholic women traditionally worn hats in church? Are bareheaded women forbidden to enter Catholic churches? The Apostle Paul explains that Catholic women should cover their heads while in church: ``You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?'' (I Cor. 11:13). ``Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven....'' (I Cor. 11:4-5). Paul's words do not imply that the Church is closed to women who have no head covering immediately available, nor does the custom of the Catholic Church imply this. Why must Catholics pay money for a Mass that is offered up for deceased relatives and friends when the Bible states that the gift of God is not to be purchased with money? (Acts 8:20). Catholics are not compelled to pay for Masses offered up for someone's special intention. They are simply reminded that giving a ``stipend'' (usually $5) is the custom. Priests will oblige without a stipend being paid if the one making the request can ill afford it. Giving stipends for special intention Masses is the custom because it is only fitting and proper that there should be some token of appreciation for the special service rendered, especially in view of the fact that the average priest draws a very small salary. For many priests these stipends mean the difference between standard and sub-standard living conditions. And this custom definitely has scriptural approval. Wrote the Apostle Paul: ``Who serveth as a soldier at any time, at his own charges? . . . Who feedeth the flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? . . . So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel, should live by the gospel.'' (I Cor. 9:7-14). Of course the gift of God is not to be purchased with money. But that does not imply that God's ministers are free-serving slaves. Protestants will generally agree to this because within Protestantism it is likewise customary to give the minister who performs baptisms, marriages, etc. a token of appreciation in the form of money. Protestants do not call their gift of money a stipend, but that is exactly what it is.

There it is--the truth about Catholic belief and practice. This is the truth which brought the author of this booklet into the Catholic Church . . . the truth which brings millions of people into the Catholic fold year after year... the truth which explains why Newman, Chesterton, Knox, Brownson, Maritain, Mann, Swinnerton, Muggeridge and a host of other world-famous intellectuals chose to embrace the Catholic Faith. This is the truth which inspired the following confession by the renowned scientist, John Deering--a confession which expresses in eloquent fashion the fundamental motivation of every Catholic convert, be he famous or unknown: ``I was born and raised in an atmosphere of proud, agnostic intellectualism. My father, a medical doctor by profession, was a disciple of Schopenhauer and Freud, and my mother was an ardent disciple

of my father. My own favorite dish as a youth was Voltaire. Thus by the time I reached manhood, I was quite thoroughly baptized in the pseudo-religious cult of humanism. I preferred to call it humanism because, unlike the blunt Voltaire, I never could profess publicly to being an out and out atheist, even though there really isn't much distinction between the two. ``Being of a curious, speculative turn of mind, with strong leanings toward the more challenging fields of dialectics, I eventually took up the study of metaphysics--the science of the fundamental causes and processes of things. This subject intrigued me, indeed obsessed me, as no other subject had before. Here, I told myself, was the science of sciences. Here was the supreme test of my personal philosophy. If God exists, I told myself, metaphysics would reveal Him. Either I would be justified in my quasi-atheism, or I would be compelled in conscience to abandon it completely. ``Then the inevitable happened. I came face to face with the proposition, proved by all the principles of logic, that God does indeed exist. The evidence was so abundant as to be incontrovertible. Just as sure as two and two make four, God not only exists, He is existence. To argue the point would have been tantamount to arguing against all reality! ``Toppled at last from the vainglorious perch of agnosticism, I immediately set about making another intellectual ascent--this time up the great imposing structure of Christian theology. I procured a Bible and spent every free moment absorbed in its sacred content. I had established the existence of God in my mind; now I must know something of the nature, the personality, of God. The Bible, I figured, would give me a clue. ``Much of what I read in the Bible was vague--I was not, after all, familiar with the customs and language idioms of the ancient Jews who wrote the Bible--but I could grasp the central theme. Quite obviously, the central theme of the Bible portrayed God not only as an Omnipotent, Alllntelligent Spiritual Being, but as the Essence of Love, Essence of Justice and Essence of Mercy. In other words, God is pre-eminently a personal Being. And Jesus Christ was God personified, come into the world not only to make atonement for the sin of Adam, but to reassert His Sovereignty, elaborate on His Laws and illuminate with brighter light the pathway to heavenly immortality. And the torchbearer of this light was His Church, founded on the Apostles. Endowed with the authority of God, and imbued with the Holy Spirit of God, His Church was given the holy task of perpetuating His ministry of salvation after His return to Heaven. ``There was the divine plan of redemption, life's real purpose, brought into clear and beautiful focus by the Author of the plan--God Himself. There, in brief, is man's only real hope for happiness and security. ``Only one thing remained to be solved. God's Church--Where amidst the vast galaxy of the world's churches was God's true Church to be found? Then I recalled something Christ said: 'Seek and ye shall find... knock and it will be opened unto you.' Inspired by these words of divine wisdom, I embarked on the search. I undertook an extensive study of comparative religion, concentrating on the Christian religions. Since the other religions rejected the divinity of Christ, they naturally were in default.

``With painstaking impartiality I held every Christian church up to the light of Scripture, logic and history, checking and double-checking lest I overlook some small but significant piece of evidence. Three years of this meticulous checking, then I found the object of my search. I finished with one name superimposed in great bold letters on my conscience--`Catholic!' ``On every ground I found the claims of the Catholic religion valid and altogether irresistible. The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian church, I determined; therefore, she is the original Christian Church, the one Church founded, constituted and sanctioned by Jesus Christ Himself. ``I had no other recourse in conscience but to embrace the Catholic Faith. And now I must testify that it satisfies my mind, solaces my heart and gratifies my soul. My blessed Catholic Faith fills my soul with a peace and a sense of security I had never before thought possible. ``Now that I am in the Catholic Church I have a much clearer picture of its true image. I see in all her vitals the Image of Christ. In the reception of her sacraments I feel His comforting hand; in her pronouncements I hear His authoritative, cogent voice; in her manifold world-wide charities I see His love and compassion; in the way she is harassed and vilified I see His agony and humility on Calvary; in her worship I feel His Spirit girding my soul. ``This compels my obedience. All else is shifting sand.''

Formatted in HTML and published on the World Wide Web with permission of TAN Books by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, September 1995. Adapted from the booklet The Catholic Church Has the Answer by Paul Whitcomb, published by TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL 1986 800-437-5876 Originally published by the Loyola Book Co., Los Angeles, CA Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles Vicar General April 13, 1961 Last update: August 15, 2000

January 29, 2011 By admin

The Image of the Holy Child, Sto. Nino de Cebu Dear Benjie, First of all I would like to thank you for reading my first response and for sending me your counter-response. I hope that through this exchange I could clarify to you the catholic position on the proper use of images in worship. I have posted your reply in bold blackwhile my comments are in blue. Thank you for your email and the opportunity to exchange some important thoughts about God how we are to truly worship and obey Him. I dont mind relatively long answers and I understand they can be elicited by even the shortest questions. In fact I appreciate your long answers and your taking the time to compose them. I have read through your response quite a few times to make sure that I understand what you are trying to say. Please allow me to respond to your points and I hope this will be the start of a healthy and beneficial exchange of thoughts. I appreciate you for making the above comments. Let me pose a thought about how the Bible is very clear when it comes to images. Going back to Deut 4:15, God warned the Israelites not to even make any visible representation of Him since they saw no form. So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. (Deu 4:15-18) The Catholic Church is in complete agreement with your statement. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 2129 we can read: The divine injunction included in the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image

for yourselves, in the form of any figure (Deut 4:15-16). It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. He is the all, but at the same time he is greater than all his works (Sir 43:27-28). He is the author of beauty (Wis 13:3). I think the key to understanding the prohibition in Deut 4:15-18 and the Churchs teaching in CCC 2129 is the phrase Since you saw no form If we read Deut 4:15-18 carefully what God proscribes is the making of man-made representations of Him as if the divinity can be found in those visible forms or as if God existed in those visible forms. For example, God appeared to Moses at Mount Sinai in the form of a burning bush (Exo 3:3) but we are not to think that God is really the form of a burning bush. The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove during the baptism of our Lord (Mat 3:16) but we are not to think that the Holy Spirit is really the form of a dove. When God appeared to the prophet Daniel in a vision in the form of man (Dan 7:13) we are not to think that God in his divinity is in the form of man (as the Mormons think that God has a body). This teaching is repeated by St Paul in the New Testament: Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination (Acts 17:29). Thus Deut 4:15-18 is a proscription against idolatry that is the worship of images as God or the belief that images carved by men are the form of God thereby attaching virtue or divinity to the image. The book of the prophet Isaiah portrays vividly idol worship: With a part of their wood he warms himself, or makes a fire for baking bread; but with another part he makes a god which he adores, an idol which he worships Of what remains he makes a god, his idol, and prostrate before it in worship, he implores it, Rescue me, for you are my god (Isa 44:15-17). Thus it is clear that the pagan thinks that the image which he carves is the form of his god and has inherent power in them and because of this they worship such idols. This is totally different from the Catholic teaching and practice. As I have mentioned in my first response that the Catholic Church teaches that images are not the form of the divinity, nor do they have inherent virtue or power in them that for which they are to be honored but that the honor which is given them is referred to the originals which they represent. God is talking about the mere making of a (man-made) representation of Him, the infinite and invisible God. Likewise with Exo 20:4. I think you and I cannot even begin to talk about how the images are used whether for worship, decoration, veneration, reminder, iconolatry, etc. Gods command is clear. We are not to make any representation of Him whatever the intentions of our hearts might be. After making clear that icons are not representations of the divinity (i.e., that God exist in these forms made by man) the Catholic Church recognizes the use of sacred images in economy of Gods revelation to man. CCC par 2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant and the cherubim. (Num 21:4-9; Wis 16:5-14; Jn 3:1415; Exo 25:18-22; 1 Kings 6:23-28; 7:23-26) God cannot command in one part of the Scriptures what He forbids in another part for God cannot contradict Himself. If Exodus 20:4 is an absolute prohibition on the use of images in worship then God would contradict himself because in Exo 25:18-22 He commanded Moses to make a graven image of a cherubim. God would have contradicted Himself for in Eze 41:18-19 He ordained that His temple be adorned with sacred images. Only the Catholic position would harmonize these seeming contradictions. In Exo 20:3-5 God was proscribing against idolatry (that is the worship of images as gods) while in Exo 25:18-22, Eze 41:18-19 He ordains the proper use of images in worship (iconolatry). This distinction is very important in understanding the Catholic position. You ask, Could not God also use sacred images, signs and symbols to uplift the mind and heart of men to divine realities? I do not deny the feeling you get when you look upon painted and carved images. They may very well cause you to look towards the reality of Heaven represented by them. But God is as much concerned about the means, as He is with the end, especially when it comes to approaching Him. He has laid down clear commands and guidelines. I would urge you to study the example of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10. Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, It is what the LORD spoke, saying, By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored. So Aaron, therefore, kept silent. (Lev 10:1-3) I totally agree with you that obedience to Gods will is of paramount importance. I believe that when Moses carved the graven image of the Cherubim and placed it on the Ark of Covenant He was obeying the will of God. I believe that when Joshua prostrated himself before the Ark of Covenant on top of which was the image of two the cherubims of glory he was doing the will of God (Joshua 7:6). I believe that when Solomon and people of Israel made Gods temple and adorned it with sacred images they were doing the will of God (Eze 41:18-19, 2 Chron 7:15-16). They wanted to worship God in a way that was not prescribed by Him. As a result, fire from the Lord consumed them and God told Moses that those who come near Him must treat Him as holy and honor Him. They could very well have thought along the same line of thinking and felt uplifted with their new method of worship. This line of thinking got them killed right then and there. We see here that

however we intend to worship the true and living God, God has laid down His clear commands, spoken to His prophets, written down for us in Scripture. Yet God in the Old Testament prescribes that His temple be adorned with sacred images. Catholic use of images in worship is not a new method of worshipping God but is in consonance with the practice of the people of God in the Old Testament. God also commands us in Scriptures to honor sacred images. We have examples of this in the Old Testament: When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the LORD was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God (2 Sam 6:6-7). The Lord has commanded elsewhere that only the priest can touch the Ark of Covenant for it is holy but Uzzah disregarded Gods prohibition and was punished. In the book of Psalms God was not pleased when the enemies of Israel destroyed the sacred symbols inside His temple: Turn your steps toward the utter ruins, toward the sanctuary devastated by the enemy. Your foes roared triumphantly in your shrine; they set up their own tokens of victory. They hacked away like foresters gathering boughs, swinging their axes in a thicket of trees. They smashed all your engraved work, pounded it with hammer and pick. They set your sanctuary on fire; the abode of your name they razed and profaned. They said in their hearts, Destroy them all! Burn all the shrines of God in the land! (Psalms 74:3-8). These are Old Testament examples. I would like pose a question to you regarding the New Testament. If images were indeed that beneficial, would not one gospel writer even mention it, even in passing? If it were so essential so as to make iconolatry a command given by the Roman church, why dont we see it even mentioned by one gospel writer in the entire New Testament? Thank you for your question. First, I would like to point out that in the Catholic Church there is what we call a hierarchy of truths. Some truths are more central or fundamental to the Christian faith than others. For example doctrines regarding the Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption are more fundamental than the doctrines about images, saints, angels, and Mary. Even if the doctrine on the use of images in worship is not central to the Catholic Faith, we believe that it is a truth revealed by God nevertheless. As Catholics we are not free to pick and chose on what we like to believe. We are bound to accept all that God has taught us in Scriptures and the Churchs teachings. In response to your question I would invoke a key principle in Biblical interpretation: That whatever God has explicitly commanded in the Old Testament which He has not revoked in the New Testament then that command is still valid. We see God explicitly commanding Moses and the Israelites to use sacred images to adorn Gods temple. This explicit command was not abrogated neither by Jesus nor the apostles in the New Testament. Therefore, the command is still valid. However, I would beg to disagree when you said that this was not mentioned by one gospel writer in the New Testament. Let me quote St Paul in his letter to the Hebrews: Behind the second veil was the tabernacle called the Holy of Holies, in which were the gold altar of incense and the ark of the covenant entirely covered with gold. In it were the gold jar containing the manna, the staff of Aaron that had sprouted, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were thecherubim of glory overshadowing the place of expiation. Now is not the time to speak of these in detail. With these arrangements for worship, the priests, in performing their service (Heb 9:36). Jesus mentions the bronze serpent in the desert as pointing to His death on the cross: And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life (John 3:14-15). In the New Testament we find that laws pertaining to unclean foods, Sabbaths, circumcision, etc was already abrogated for they have already found fulfillment in Jesus but nowhere can we find that the use of images in worship has been revoked. On the other hand, when Jesus appeared in human form He ushered a new era of sacred images that of the image of Christ, his mother, and of the saints. When Jesus became man he was seen in human form and thus made it lawful to represent him in human form. The early Christian martyrs who hid and worshipped in the catacombs during the roman persecution attested to this holy practice of representing Jesus through their carvings in the walls of the catacombs. If I may take your indulgence, I would like to offer a solution as to why the New Testament mentions very little (nothing in fact according to your observation) on the subject of sacred images. As I have mentioned initially that there is a hierarchy of truths within the Christian faith. During the time of Jesus the temple which the Israelites have rebuilt was still standing and this temple with all probability was adorned with sacred images as is its predecessor. It was something taken for granted as permitted by God and not so to speak a big issue for them. The apostles in their written account on the life, words and deeds of our Lord focused on the more pressing issues of the day ie., The messiahship of Jesus, his divinity, incarnation and the redemption. When the early Christians started to separate themselves from Judaism, the use of sacred images was not a common practice among them for a very prudent reason. They were subjected to roman persecution and possessing images of our Lord would naturally invite apprehension by the hateful authorities. But despite this situation the pious faith of the early Christians prompted them to carve images and symbols which represented Jesus in his humanity and this is attested by archaeological evidence found in the catacombs. When the persecution ended, the Christians were free to practice their religion in public and this ushered a new era of sculpture and painting of sacred images of Jesus, Mary and the other saints and martyrs. This practice was uncontested for the next 500 years until the time of the Iconoclast heresy led by Emperor Leo the Isaurian who burned Churches and caused precious images of Christ and the saints to be melted and the metal reformed in his own effigy. The bishops of the Catholic Church convened in the Second Council in Nicaea in 787 AD in order to suppress the Iconoclast heresy. For the next hundred years, sacred images again flourished to adorn Christian shrines and churches. The next wave of opposition against the use of sacred images came from the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al). In countries where the monarch were protestants we can witness pillage of churches which still can be observed nowadays with some headless statues of saints for example in some Anglican churches in England. As to Gods commands to Moses to make cherubim and to David in the construction of the temple, can we make them a justification to make images? As you said, God does not contradict Himself. He has commanded in Deut 4:15 and Exo 20:4. What then is the difference?

I think I have answered this question in the preceding paragraph but I shall repeat it here. In Exo 20:3-5 and Deut 4:15 God was proscribing against idolatry (that is the worship of images as gods) while in Exo 25:18-22, Eze 41:18-19 He ordains the proper use of images in worship. Again, this distinction is very important in understanding the Catholic position. The difference, I would posit, in the command to Moses and to David is that they were Gods commands out of His infinite wisdom, power and sovereignty. But for what purpose did God command them to carve graven images of Cherubim and other sacred images which adorn Gods temple? If God is infinite wisdom then He must have a wise purpose for all His actions. If God is infinite power then He can also use sacred symbols to manifest that power as He did when He commanded Moses to make a graven image of a serpent so that all who look upon the bronze serpent will be healed from the snakes venom (Num 21:4-9). If God is sovereign then why do we question Him when he permits and ordains in Scriptures the right use of images in worship? For example, to help you see where Im coming from, in Gen 22, God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac and offer him as a burnt offering. Can you use Gods command to Abraham to kill Isaac as a justification to do likewise today? God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac in order to test him and to illicit his strong faith and to serve as model in faith and obedience to Gods will. Otherwise how would we know of Abrahams faith if not by his actions and obedience to Gods command. Abraham knew that despite Gods command God will be able to fulfill His promise to make Him the father of a great nation. So with regards to Gods command to Abraham, He has a purpose. God knew already that Abraham will obey Him. But He gave the test in order for Abraham to perform a meritorious act and to make Abrahams faith known to us. Thus, we see that God does not act capriciously just to show his sovereignty. With regards to His command to adorn His temple with sacred images He also has a purpose and that is to uplift the minds and hearts of His people to divine realities through their senses. What sacred music does to the ears (and I know a lot of non-catholic fellowship have wonderful choirs) sacred carvings and paintings does to the eyes. But among the five senses the eyes is more important than the ears in giving insight and knowledge. Thus in Catholic worship all our physical and spiritual faculties are engaged towards God. In Jeremiah 8:10, God said that He will give the wives of the Israelites to others. Will this make God inconsistent because God also commanded Thou shall not commit adultery? We should not understand Jeremiah 8:10 as God positively willing to give the wives of the Israelites to others for then He would be inconsistent about His prohibition of adultery. Rather, Jeremiah 8:10 should be understood as God permitting the Israelites to be defeated by their enemies and their wives be taken by their invaders as a punishment for their sinful ways. Both catholic and protestant theologians distinquish between Gods positive will and His permissive will. God positively wills good to happen but he permissively allow evil to happen for if not it would make God the author of evil. Jeremiah 8:10 employs the language of prophecy about the impending punishment of Israel because of their constant violation of Gods commandments. Throughout the Bible, there are specific commands and declarations of God to specific people or groups of people that we cannot carelessly copy today. You are right about that. On the other hand there are commands from God in the Old Testament which we cannot carelessly neglect today. I think this includes the right use of images in worship since this is part of Gods revelation to man which was consummated in the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God. Who are we to presume that we can do as God did? Catholics are not presuming to do as God did. The Catholic Church has always warned us against the sin of presumption that we could do better than God. What Catholics believe is that God forbids idolatry but permits and ordains iconolatry. We are simply trying to obey Gods commands and trusting in His divine wisdom that through Scriptures and the guidance of the Church sacred images can be used to uplift the mind and hearts of men for the greater glory of God. Another (probably weak, bear with me) example I can think of is when you forbid your 2-year old child to even light a matchstick because you cannot even begin to imagine what can happen. Will you be inconsistent if you forbid lighting a match stick with your child, but you yourself can light that same matchstick? Can the child say My dad did it, why cant I do it? Your 2-year old cannot possibly fathom your reason for doing things. Your understanding is far greater than your childs. In the same way, we cannot possibly begin to understand Gods reason for doing things because His understanding is infinitely beyond ours. But what we do have is His clear command we are not to make any visible representations of Him.

In your example, I agree that the 2-year old child should respect the wisdom of his father even if for the moment he might protest because he does not comprehend the fathers good intentions to keep him from harms way. It is a good thing that you mentioned about the Dad. I presume that you are a Dad and I too am a Dad (I have 3 lovely daughters as of this writing). This is what I learned about being a Dad. Even though our children is not expected to understand fully our prohibition (they most of the time insist) yet we have the obligation to at least give them a good explanation for such prohibition. Some Dads (I hope there are few) would not like their children to question their authority and yet they fail to explain to their children in a language they can understand the reasons for such prohibition. If Dads do this, then they appear to be acting capriciously towards their children. Their children might obey them but it would be out of fear and not out of love and respect. To continue with your example suppose that the child now comes of age and he learns the proper use of the match stick I think that the wise Dad would gladly allow his child to light the match stick. Let me clarify my point (please bear with me also). God (Our Father) has forbidden his people (us) from making any visible representations of Him (Deut 4:1-18) to protect them (us) from idolatrous practices as the heathens do who place their hopes in idols. On the other hand He has commanded his people (us) to adorn His temple with sacred images not in order that we worship them as gods (thus making an idol out of them) but in order to lift our minds and hearts to Him. Children needed to be taught the right way. But we are already adults in the faith and we understand fully the difference between idolatry and iconolatry. St. Paul encouraged his fellow Christians to a grow and mature in the faith: Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God (Hebrews 6:1). My comment on how the Lord Jesus could not at any time have looked like the image of the Sto Nino was refering to how people adorn the image, not on the physical features, since we do not have any record of that. Jesus was born in a manger. He did not have the royal adornments that we see put on the Sto Nino. He lived the ordinary life of a carpenters son when he was a child, not in a palace. Im glad that your clarified your point. Actually Catholics also portrays Jesus in the way you prescribed. Just take a look at the Belen during Christmas time. We will see there the image of the child Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes as the Bible describes: While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn (Luke 2:6-7). But there are also other Biblical passages that portray the child Jesus as King: For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From Davids throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains by judgment and justice, both now and forever (Isaiah 9:5-6). She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne (Revelations 12:5). This is what the image of the Sto Nino tries to portray: the child Jesus as king holding a scepter (symbol of kingly dominion) and raising his hands in a sign of peace (Prince of Peace). The image of Lapu-lapu in Mactan does remind me of Lapu-lapu, even though I have not examined its facial features. But after last years Kadaugan sa Mactan, I read criticisms in Sunstar because the actors and Lapu-lapu himself wore modern rubber shoes and shades. Lapu-lapu and his comrades could not have looked like them, they said. They said it took away the solemnity of the event. If you have to represent somebody, do it right. Be faithful to the one you are representing. You are not free to innovate and decorate. I can agree with Sunstar critics. Rubber shoes and shades cannot be associated with Lapu-lapu. I too hope that the performers could have done better in depicting Lapu-lapu instead of making his character a laughing stock. I agree with you that if we are to represent somebody we should do it right and be faithful to the one we are representing. Your admonition especially applies when the person we are trying to represent is Jesus. This is why I am personally against people who would try to depict Jesus as a hippie beside a large motorbike, Jesus wearing a basketball uniform, or Jesus laughing loudly. Jesus never did appear as a hippie, he never was a basketball player, and with his humility and meekness I would seriously doubt if Jesus ever laughed boisterously. But these kind of images have never been part of the Catholic tradition of sacred icons. In Scriptures Jesus is portrayed as a child in a manger, as a son of a carpenter (so most probably this was his trade during those hidden years in Nazareth), as baptized in the river Jordan, as sharing the last supper together with his disciples, as nailed on the cross, as risen from the dead, and even as King of kings and Lord of lords. Thus I do not have any objections to these works of art which shows Jesus as such and these are the kind of images which adorn our Catholic churches. I still maintain that the Lord Jesus could not at any time have looked like the Sto Nino. But then again, we are commanded to not even make any image representing God. So no matter how accurately you try to dress up the Sto Nino, no matter how much an image reminds you of God, no matter how much emotion and upliftment of spirit is elicited, doing so is disobedience and a violation of Gods clear commands in Scriptures. I respect you and your convictions. What I have tried to do in this exchange is to present to you the Catholic position as it is in the hope that you will have a clearer idea on what Catholics believe and practice. I hope you learned something about the Catholic faith from a Catholic who knows his Catholic religion. I met other acquaintances of protestant persuasion who thinks that we Catholics worship images (In our correspondence, I am inclined to believe that you dont hold this view). This is far from the truth and a caricature of the real Catholic doctrine of the right use of images in worship. In putting emphasis of the First commandment, they forgot the other commandment in which God admonish: Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. If it is a sin to bear false witness against one person, how much more grievous are the sins of those who ascribe to us Catholics doctrines and practices which we condemn and abhor. If I have not convinced you of the truth of the Catholic position I

still have one appeal and request to make. If you ever met a non-catholic who would say that Catholics are idolaters, image-worshippers please tell him that such is not actually the case. Just like our separated brethren, the Catholic Church condemns idolatry as a grievous sin against the first commandment but the Catholic Church stands by iconolatry which is the proper use of images in worship. I would like to end here for now. I would still like to respond to your comment about equating truth with Scripture and the Roman Catholic stand in a separate email. If you feel commenting to my reply kindly do so. But if you feel we have exhausted the subject matter then I would welcome your separate email on Scripture and Roman Catholic stand. Thank you once again for sharing your own thoughts and may God be honored in these exchanges. It has been most rewarding to have this dialogue with you. In our days a lot of people would disdain from controversies and I think this does no service to the truth. I hope we can discuss our disagreements in a brotherly manner urged by our common love for the Truth. Thanks for reading thru my reply. Truly yours, Ramon Retrieve from:
Tags: Beneficial Exchange, Benjie, Catechism Of The Catholic Church, Catholic Position, Ccc Paragraph, Cebu, Cfd, Deuteronomy, First Response, Graven Image, Hand Of Man, Holy Child, Horeb, Injunction, Israelites, Likeness, National President, Sacred Images, Visible Representation, Winged Bird

From CFD manual. LARAWAN

Panudlo sa Sta. Iglesya Ang Sta. Iglesya nagtudlo nga ang Ang mga larawan ni Cristo, ug sa iyang Inahan nga Birhen, ug sa ubang mga Santos, kinahanglan nga batonan ug huptan, labina gyod diha sa mga simbahan, ug ang igo nga pagtahod ug pagpasidungog ihatag ngadto kanila; dili tungod kay gituohan nga sila dunay gahom o birtud nga tungod niini sila pasidunggan, o ang bisan unsa nga pag-ampo himoon ngadto kanila, o ang bisan unsang pagsalig ibutang diha kanila sama sa gihimo kaniadto sa mga pagano, nga nagbutang sa ilang paglaom ngadto sa mga diosdios; apan tungod kay ang pagpasidungog nga gihatag ngadto kanila gipahinungod ngadto sa ilang gilarawanan, busa pinaagi sa mga larawan nga atong gihagkan ug diin sa ilang atubangan kita moduko sa atong mga ulo o moluhod, atong gisimba si Cristo ug gipasidunggan ang iyang mga Santos, kang kansang sama ilang gilarawanan.


Supak 1. Gidili sa Dios ang paghimo sa bisan unsang larawan ug ang pagyukbo ngadto kanila: Ayaw pagbaton ug laing dios gawas kanako. Ayaw pagbuhat ug diosdios o larawan sa bisan unsa didto sa langit o dinhi sa yuta, o diha sa tubig nga anaa ilalom sa yuta. Ayaw pagyukbo sa bisan unsang diosdios ni magsimba niini, kay ako ang Ginoo nga inyong Dios ug abughoan ako (Exo. 20:3-5). Supak 2. Ang pagkulit sa mga larawan nga samag dagway sa lalaki ug sa babaye gidumtan usab sa Dios: Ayaw kamo paghimog mga larawan nga inyong simbahon-larawan sa bisan unsang dagway, sa lalaki o sa babaye (Deut. 4:16-22). Supak 3. Lakip ang pagprosesyon sa mga larawan gisaway usab sa Dios: Ang mga tawo mihatag sa ilang plata ug bulawan ug nagsuhol sila g platero aron himoon kining diosdios ug ila kining gisimba. Pas-anon nila kini ug dad-on; itungtong nila kini sa butanganan niini.. (Isaias 46:6-7). Supak 4. Gipanghimaraot sa Dios kadtong nagsimba og mga larawan: Ang ilang mga dios hinimo sa salapi ug bulawan, mga binuhat og tawo. May mga baba sila apan dili makasulti, may mata apan dili makakita. May mga dalunggan apan dili makadungog Ang nagbuhat ug misalig kanila mahisama unta sa mga diosdios nga ilang gibuhat (Sal. 115:4-8). Supak 5. Ang pagka-Dios dili kabuhatag larawan nga hinimo sa kabatid sa tawo: Ug sanglit kita mga anak man sa Dios, dili nato hunahunaon nga ang Dios samag dagway sa larawan nga bulawan, plata o bato nga gikulit pinaagi sa kahanas sa tawo (Buh. 17:29). Supak 6. Matod pa ni San Pablo nga kadtong nagsimba sa mga larawan dili makasulod sa gingharian sa langit: Sa walay duhaduha nasayod kamo nga ang mga daotan dili makasulod sa gingharian sa Dios. Ayaw limbongi ang inyong kaugalingon kay ang mga tawo nga makighilawason, o nagsimba sa mga diosdios dili makasulod sa gingharian sa Dios (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Supak 7. Ang dulngan sa mga nagsimba og mga diosdios mao ang impyerno: Apan ang mga talawan, ang mga mabudhion ang mga nagsimbag diosdios, ug ang tanang mga bakakon mahiagom gayod sa linaw nga kalayo ug asupre nga mao ang ikaduhang kamatayon (Pin. 21:8). Tubag: Ang mga pasahe nga gikutlo sa unahan tin-aw nga nagdili sa pagsimba sa mga diosdios. Apan unsa man kining mga diosdios? Si San Pablo naghatag kanato sa tukma nga kahulogan niini: Nahibalo kita nga ang diosdios nagrepresentar ug butang nga dili tinuod (1 Cor. 8:4). Busa pinasukad niini nga kahulogan ang mga larawan ni Cristo, ni Birhen Maria ug sa mga Santos dili matawag nga diosdios tungod kay kini sila nagrepresentar man sa mga butang nga dunay tinuod nga pagkamao. Ang diosdios mao usab kadtong mga larawan nga giiisip nga dios o dunay gahom niadtong nagsimba kanila, moluhod siya ug mosimba niini; mag-ampo siya niini ug moingon, Luwasa ako kay ikaw may akong dios (Isa. 44:17). Alang kanato tin-aw nga atong nasabtan ug gitudlo sa Sta. Iglesya nga ang mga larawan walay gahom o birtud sa ilang

kaugalingon kondili mga representasyon lamang sa mga binuhat nga atong gipahanungdan sa atong pagpasidungog. Diha sa Biblia ginganlan ang mga diosdios nga gisimba sa mga pagano. Gihimo niya kini kay gisalikway man ni Salome ang Ginoo ug nagsimba siya kang Astarot, ang diosa sa taga-Sidon, kang Camos, ang dios sa Moab, ug kang Moloc, ang dios sa mga Amonihanon (1 Hari 11:33). Mao kini ang kataposan sa mga diosdios sa Babilonia. Kaniadto gisimba si Bel ug si Nebo ang maong mga diosdios wala makaluwas sa ilang kaugalingon (Isaias 46:1-2). Ug sa pagkasayod sa mga tawo sa Asdod sa nahitabo, miingon sila, Ang Sudlanan sa Kasabotan sa Dios sa Israel kinahanglan ipahilayo kay iya kitang gipaantos ingon man si Dagon nga atong dios (1 Sam. 5:7). Ang inyong gidala mao ang tolda sa diosdios nga si Moloc, ug ang larawan sa bituon sa inyong diosdios nga si Repan; sila mga diosdios nga inyong gibuhat aron simbahon (Buh. 7:43). Sa pagkakita sa mga tawo sa gibuhat ni Pablo, naninggit sila sa ilang pinulongang Licaonianhon, Nanaog ang mga dios sa dagway sa tawo! Ug ilang gianggaag Seus si Bernabe ug Herme si Pablo, kay siya man ang tigpamaba (Buh. 14:11-12). May usa ka platero nga ginganlag Demetrio nga namuhat ug mga modelong plata sa templo sa diyosa nga si Diana (Buh. 19:24). Kining maong mga larawan sa mga bakak nga dios o diosa mao ang gidili sa Dios ang pagbuhat ug pagsimba kanila! Apan sa laing bahin ang Dios nagsugo sa iyang katawhan sa pagbuhat og mga sagradong larawan nga maoy tigpahinumdom kanila sa iyang presensya. Sa isigka-tumoy sa takob sa kahon paghimog duha ka kerubin nga bulawan, usa sa isigka-tumoy niini. Himoa kini nga unay gayod sa takob. Kinahanglan nga ang mga kerubin magabukhad sa ilang mga pako aron hipandongan sa ilang mga pako ang takob; mag-atubang sila nga magtan-aw sa takob Makigkita ako kaninyo didto. Sa tungatunga sa duha ka kerubin nga anaa ibabaw sa Sudlanan, ihatag ko kanimo ang tanan kong mga sugo alang sa katawhan sa Israel (Exo. 25:18-22). Gihisgotan kini ni San Pablo diha sa Bag-ong Tugon Ibabaw sa Sudlanan didto ang mahimayaong mga binuhat nga nagkahulogan sa presensya sa Dios ug gipandong ang mga pako sa mga binuhat sa dapit diin adto pasayloa ang mga sala (Heb. 9:5). Ang templo sa Dios sa Daang Tugon gidayandayanan sa mga linilok nga mga larawan. Gihal-opan niya ang tibuok Templo ug bulawan-ang mga sagunting, mga bakanan, mga bungbong ug mga pultahan niini, ug gidibuhoan niyag mga kerubin ang mga bungbong (2 Kron. 3:7, 10). Gihulagway usab ang sulod sa templo sa basahon ni Propeta Ezequiel: Ang bungbong sa Templo didto sa sulod gikan sa salog hangtod ibabaw sa pultahan gikulitan ug mga larawan sa mga palmira ug sa mga kerubin. Matag kerubin may duha ka nawong: may nawong sa tawo nga nag-atubang sa palmira sa usa ka kilid, ug ang nawong sa usa ka liyon nag-atubang sa palmira sa laing kilid. Gikulit kini sa tibuok palibot sa Templo gikan sa salog ngadto sa ibabaw sa pultahan (Eze. 41:17-20). Ug ang Dios nagpili sa maong Templo diin Siya simbahon: Bantayan ko kining dapita ug andam ako sa pagpatalinghog sa pag-ampo nga himoon dinhi. Karon gipili ko kining Temploha ingon nga dapit diin simbahon ako hangtod sa hangtod (2 Kron. 7:15-16). Dihay panahon nga ang Dios miluwas sa iyang katawhan ginamit ang kinulit nga larawan. Ug giingnan si Moises sa Ginoo, Paghimog bitin nga tumbaga, ug ibutang kini sa tumoy sa usa ka tukon; ug ang hipaakag bitin, kon makakakita niini, dili mamatay. Busa nagbuhat si Moises ug bitin nga tumbaga, ug gibutang kini niya sa tumoy sa usa ka tukon; ug kon ang hipaakag bitin motan-aw sa bitin nga tumbaga, dili siya mamatay (Num 21:8-9). Apan sa dihang gisinayop

pag-ila sa katawhan ang maong larawan sa bitin gipaguba kini sa Dios: Gidugmok niya ang halas nga tumbaga nga hinimo ni Moises, kay hangtod niadtong panahona ang katawhan sa Israel nagsunog man ug insenso ingon nga halad niini (2 Hari 18:4). Paglabay sa panahon ang katawhan nakapamalandong sa matuod nga kahulogan sa maong hitabo sa ilang kasaysayan: Sa diha nga ang makalilisang ug mangtas nga mga bitin mihasmag kanila tungod sa kalala sa ilang hilo, wala magdugay ang imong kapungot ingon nga malaglag ang imong katawhan. Kining kagubota milungtad lamang sa mubo nga panahon, ingon nga usa ka pasidaan. Unya gihatagan mo sila sa usa ka makaayo nga simbolo, ang tumbaga nga bitin, aron pagpahinumdom kanila unsa ang gipangayo sa imong Balaod. Kon ang usa ka tawo motan-aw niadtong simbolo, maayo siya sa kalala sa pinaakan sa bitin-dili tungod sa iyang nakita, kondili tungod kanimo, ang manluluwas sa tanang katawhan (Kaal. 16:5-7). Sa kasaysayan sa Israel atong makita nga gipatahod sa Dios ang mga balaang adlaw, butang ug dapit: Matngoni ninyo ang akong mga adlawng igpapahulay, ug tahora ninyo ang akong sanctuario (Lev. 19:30). Ug kining sanctuario mao ang nahimutangan sa Sudlanan sa Kasabotan nga dunay larawan sa mga kerubin: Ang Dapit nga Labing Balaan gibuhatan niyag duha ka kerubin nga metal ug gihal-opan niyag bulawan Nagtindog ang mga kerubin nga nagatubang sa kinadak-ang bahin sa Templo (2 Kron 3:10-13). Si Josue ug ang mga pangulo sa Israel nag-ampo nga naghapa atubangan sa Sudlanan sa Kasabotan: Tungod sa kasubo gigisi ni Josue ang iyang bisti ug mihapa sa yuta atubangan Sudlanan sa Kasabotan sa Ginoo. Ang mga pangulo sa Israel mihapa usab didto uban kaniya hangtod sa gabii (Jos. 7:6). Dunay higayon nga ang usa ka tawo wala motahod sa sagrado nga butang gisilotan sa Ginoo: Ug sa pag-abot nila sa giukanan ni Nacon, gigunitan ni Usa ang Sudlanan sa Kasabotan ug nasuko ang Ginoo kang Usa. Gipatay siya sa Dios tupad sa Sudlanan sa Kasabotan (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Si Josias nga gimandoan sa Dios sa pagbungkag sa tanang diosdios sa usa ka dapit wala niya ipaapil paglumpag ang monumento sa usa ka tawong balaan (2 Hari 23:15-18). Kadtong namuak sa mga sagrado nga larawan sulod sa Templo giisip nga mga kaaway sa Dios: Ang mga kaaway mo nagsinggit nga madaogon diha sa imong Templo; giilog nila ang Templo; ilang gipakayab ang kaugalingon nilang bandila. Ingon sila sa mga mamumutol ug kahoy nga namutol pinaagi sa wasay. Ug gilumpag nila pinaagi sa atsa ug martilyo ang kahoy nga may dibuho (Sal. 74:46). Ang Sta. Iglesya nag-awhag sa paggamit og mga larawan tungod sa daghang niining kapuslanan. Giingon, Kini mga balaang butang, ug kon inyo kining atimanon sa paagi nga balaan, kamo mismo isipon nga balaan (Kaal. 6:10). Ug dili alang sa walay kapuslanan nga gihatagan sa Dios ang tawo sa katakos sa pagkulit (Exo. 35:31). Una- ang mga sagradong larawan nagdayandayan sa templo sa Dios (Sal. 144:12). Sama nga ang Templo sa Dios sa Daang Tugon gidayandayan sa mga kinulit nga larawan mao usab ang atong mga balay alampoanan karon. Ikaduha- ang mga larawan magamit sa pagtudlo sa mga diosnong kamatuoran (2 Tim. 2:15). Dako kinig kapuslanan sa pagtudlo sa mga bata og sa mga tawo nga dili makamaong mobasa ug kadtong mga tawo nga dili makadungog. Ikatulo- ang mga larawan mopahinumdom nato sa Dios ug sa mga balaan (Heb. 9:5). Inigsulod nato sa simbahan nga puno sa mga sagradong larawan matuboy ang atong hunahuna ngadto sa mga langitnong butang. Ikaupat ang mga larawan ayuda sa pagpamalandong (Fil. 4:8). Daghang balaanong sentimento nga motubod sa atong pagbati inigsud-ong nato sa mga larawan nga naghulagway sa pagpasakit ni Jesus. Ikalima- ang mga larawan nag-agda kanato sa pagsunod sa panig-ingnan sa

mga balaan (Heb. 13:7). Ang larawan sa putli nga kasingkasing ni Maria nagpahinumdom kanato sa gisulti ni Jesus nga bulahan ang putli og kasingkasing kay makakita sila sa Dios. Ikaunom sama nga atong mga nasudnong bayani atong gipasidunggan pinaagi sa pagpabarog og monumento alang kanila sa samang paagi ang mga santos atong gibuhatag larawan aron pagpasidungog kanila (Sir. 44:10-15).

Tubag 1. Ang gidili sa Dios sa Exo. 20:3-5 mao ang pagbuhat sa mga larawan sa mga bakak nga dios ug ang pagyukbo ngadto kanila apan wala maapil sa gidili sa Dios kadtong mga larawan nga iyang gipabuhat (Exo. 25:18-22, Eze. 41:17-20). Tubag 2. Ang dulomtanan sa Dios nga gipasabot diha sa Deut. 4:16-22 mao kadtong mga larawan sa mga diosdios nga samag dagway sa lalaki sama ni Moloc (1 Hari 11:33) ug babaye sama ni Diana (Buh. 19:24) apan dili ang larawan nga samag dagway sa tawo nga gikulit sulod sa iyang Templo (Eze. 41:19). Tubag 3. Ang gisaway sa Dios nga pagprosesyon diha sa Isaias 46:6-7 mao kadtong labot sa mga diosdios (Isa 46:1-2) apan dili ang pagprosesyon sa mga sagrado nga mga larawan nga gihimo sa iyang katawhan (2 Sam 6:2-5, Jos. 6:1-7). Tubag 4. Ang gipanghimaraot sa Dios diha sa Sal. 115:4-8 mao kadtong katawhan sa ubang mga nasod nga nagsimbag mga diosdios ug wala moila kaniya (Sal. 115:2) apan kadtong namuak sa mga sagrado nga larawan diha sa Templo sa Dios iyang mga kaaway (Sal. 74:6-8). Tubag 5. Ang pagsimba sa Dios sa espiritu (Jn 4:24) wala magpasabot nga dili na mogamit og mga larawan kondili nga ang atong hunahuna atong ipahiuyon sa iyang kabubut-on (Rom. 12:12). Ang pagsimba sa Israel matuod nga pagsimba (Rom. 9:4) ug migamit silag mga larawan (Eze. 41:17-20). Tubag 6. Diha sa Buh. 17:29 ang gisultihan ni San Pablo mao kadtong mga pagano didto sa Atenas nga nagsimba og daghang mga diosdios (Buh. 17:16) nga naghunahuna nga ang pagkaDios anaa sa ilang mga larawan. Apan si San Pablo nagtuo usab nga ang mga larawan naglarawan sa presensya sa Dios (Heb. 9:5). Tubag 7. Ang gisaway ni San Pablo diha sa Rom. 1:23-24 mao kadtong mga pagano kansang pagsimba sa ilang mga diosdios naglambigit usab sa paghimo og malaw-ay nga mga buhat. Walay labot dinhi ang husto nga paggamit sa mga larawan diha sa pagsimba inubanan sa tinguha sa pagpahimuot sa Dios! Tubag 8. Diha sa 1 Cor. 6:9-10, ang giingon nga dili makasulod sa langit mao kadtong nakasala og idolatry kon pagsimba sa mga bakak nga dios dili ang mga naggamit sa mga larawan sa hustong paagi diha sa pagsimba iconolatry nga maoy gibansay sa katawhan sa Dios (2 Kron. 3:3-10). Tubag 9. Ang nag-una nga tubag igo na usab sa pagtubag niini.

Pagtulon-an: Kinahanglan nga atong tahuron ang mga sagrado nga mga butang ug dapit nga gihalad alang sa balaan nga mga katuyoan nga mopahinumdom nato sa Dios ug sa mga binuhat sa langit. Sa atong pagsud-ong sa mga sagradong larawan atong iampo ngadto sa Dios nga makasunod kita sa atong Ginoo ug sa mga Santos nga gilarawanan nini. Ato sab nga tahuron ang dignidad sa atong isigkatawo nga sama kanato gibuhat sa larawan og panagway sa Dios.


Prepared by: JRRC pagsupak: but when ye pray, use not vain repetitions(Mt 5:7)(Gideons version) Tubag: nitudlo ang Iglesia Katolika nga ang pag ampo mao : Authentic prayer, then is always rooted in the heart, and related to the neighbor in loving compassion and service(cf. CFC 1480), busa wala gayod nga gitudlo nga e memorize lamang ang mga pag-ampo sa Katoliko. :-)

ang Rosario nag gikan sa pulong nga rose nga supportado sa biblia the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them..and the blossom of the rose(Isias 35:1)(Gideons version) nagtudlo pa si San Pablo: fill your minds with those things that are good and deserve praise: things that are true..(Phil. 4:8)(Todays English Version), makita nato nga true ang Rosario ky gikan man sa pulong nga rose . Ang mga mysterio sa Rosario nabase kana sa biblia.

Hail Mary prayer is Biblical

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with you(cf. Lk 1:28) kini ang gigamit sa greeko nga pinulongan mao ang Chaire Kecharitome nga nagpasabot napuno sa gasya

the Lord is with you messianic nga prophesiya sa daughter of Zion (Zephaniah 3:17)(NIV) blessed you[Mary] among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus(Lk. 1:42) mao kana ang pagpasidungog ni St. Elizabeth nga napuno sa Holy Espirit. holy Mary gigamit kana tawag kay St. Mary isip sa usa ka Christiano , holy breathens(1 Thes 5:27; Heb 5:1); holy apostles(Eph 3:15); holy angels(Lk 9:26; Mk 8:38). Kung gigatwag ug holy ang mga christians; angels; apostles how much more Mary nga mao siya ang pinili sa Amahan nga Dios aron paganak kay Jesus. Mother of God kini gikan sa gisulti ni St. Elezabeth nga Lords mother comes visit to me(Lk 1:43) ang Greek nga pinulongan sa Lord mao ang Adunay nga nag pasabot nga Lord God. Sa Psalm 100:3 know the Lord is God. pray for us nakita kana sa (Col 4:3; Thes 5:25; 2 Thes 3:1; Heb 13:15). Makita pud nato nga ang pagampo sa mga Santos powerful sa pagtabang kanato(cf. Js 5:16; Heb 12:1). Ang intercession ni St. Mary makita nato sa John 2:1-11 ang maong panghitabo nga nabuhat ang unang milagro tungod sa pag interceed ni St. Mary . ug atong hinumduman nga Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever(Heb 13:8); makita nato ang kamatuoran nga kung naminaw si Jesus niadto maminaw japon sya kay Maria sa langit(also cf. Sirac 7:29-30). sinners makita nato sa (Lk. 18:23) . Gapatabang tag ampo sa mga Balaan nga tawo sa Dios sama ky St. Mary sama sa panghitabo sa Job 42:710 nga dunggon lamang sa Dios ang pag-ampo sa tulo ka makakasala kung e ampo kana ni Job. Ug paminawon ang pag-ampo sa matarong(cf. Prov. 15:29). now and the hour of our death gibase kana sa pray without ceasing(1 Tim 5:17)

Glory be
Mao kini ang Christian Doxology sa Rev 4:8.

Repeated prayers:
Si Jesus nag ampo man gihapon ug balik-balik sa samang pulong (cf. Mt. 26:4) Ang pagbalikbalik nga pag-ampo makita nato kana sa pasumbingay mahitungod sa biyuda nga mibalikbalik ug hangyo sa Hari hangtud gipasidunggan ang iyang hangyo(cf. Lk. 18:1-18)

Nasiguro gayod nato nga ang mga Santos anaa sa Langit!

instead, you have come to Mount of Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, with its thousands angles.. and to the spirits of the righteous men made perfect(cf. Heb 12:22-23) Saint intercession mabasa kana sa instruction sa 1 Tim 2:1.

Anaa sa Biblia nga nag-ampo usab sa tawo.

Gen 12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

Gen 13:9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

Gen 16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

Gen 23:13 And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land, saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there.

Gen 24:2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:

Gen 24:14 And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.

Gen 24:17 And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher.

Exodus 5:3 And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.

Joshua 7:19 And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.

Judges 1:24 And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will shew thee mercy.

1 Samuel 9:18 Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, where the seer's house is.

1 Kings 14:2 And Jeroboam said to his wife, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over this people.

2 Kings 2:19 And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth: but the water is naught, and the ground barren.

2 Chronicles 18:4 And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day. Isaiah 29:11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: Jeremiah 40:15 Then Johanan the son of Kareah spake to Gedaliah in Mizpah secretly saying, Let me go, I pray thee, and I will slay Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and no man shall know it: wherefore should he slay thee, that all the Jews which are gathered unto thee should be scattered, and the remnant in Judah perish? Jonah 1:8 Then said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of what people art thou? Luke 16:27 "Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house"


The Rosary is not in the Bible (say the Protestants), but we Catholics say that the Bible is in the Holy Rosary

MYSTERIES OF LIGHT - LUMINOUS MYSTERIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Baptism of Our Lord by John the Baptist The First Miracle of Jesus at the Wedding of Cana The Proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven The Transfiguration The Institution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist The Baptism of Our Lord - First Luminous Mystery (of Light)

Matthew 3:13-17
The First Miracle of Jesus at the wedding in Cana - Second Luminous Mystery ( of Light)

John 2:1-11
The Proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven - Third Luminous Mystery ( of Light)

Matthew 4:17 - Matthew 5:1-16

The Transfiguration - Fourth Luminous Mystery ( of Light)

Luke 9:28-36
The Institution of the Holy Eucharist - Fifth Luminous Mystery ( of Light)

1 Corinthians 11:23-29

THE GLORIOUS MYSTERIES 1 The Resurrection 2 The Ascension 3 The Descent of the Holy Spirit 4 The Assumption of Our Lady 5 The Coronation of Our Lady as Queen of Heaven and earth.

THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD Luke 24: 1-8; John 20:13-16; Luke 24:13-32; John 20:26-28; 1 cor 15:3-8

ASCENSION OF OUR LORD Acts 1.3 8-11; Mt 28.16-1; Lk 24.50-52

DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Acts 2.1-13; Acts 2.16-18 * Joel 3.1; Acts 2: 36 - 41

ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY Acts 2 :26-28; Song of songs 2.4; Song of songs 2.10-11; Song of songs 4:7; Psalm 45.3; Psalm 45.14-15; Psalm 89.2; John 14.3; Hebrews 4.16; 2 Timothy 4.8;1 Corinthians 13.12

CORONATION OF OUR LADY Genesis 3.15;Judith 13.16-18;Judith 15.10-13;Apocalypse 12.1; Ecclesiasticus 24 Read all Chapter;Gal 4.19;1 John .3-2 THE SORROWFUL MYSTERIES 1 The Agony of Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane 2 The scourging by the pillar 3 The crowning with thorns 4 The carrying of the cross 5 The Agony and death of Our Lord.


Luke 22: 39-46; Matthew 26:36-50


Mark 15:1-5


John 18: 36-38;John 19: 1-5; Matthew 27: 27-30; Mark 15: 17-19; John 19:5


Matthew 27: 31-33; Luke 23.26-31; Luke 23:33-49; Matthew 27.33 54; Jn 19.:16-37


Luke 23:33-49; Matthew 27.33 54; Jn 19.:16-37

JOYFUL MYSTERIES 1 The Annunciation 2 The Visitation 3 The Nativity 4 The Presentation 5 The finding of the Child Jesus in the temple


Luke 1:26-38 VISITATION

Luke 1:39 - 56 NATIVITY

Luke 2:7-19 ; Matthew 2:1-11



Santa Maria Ulay O Daghang mga Anak? Bro. Socrates C. Fernandez, C.F.D.

Kon Dunay tawo nga giataki pag-ayo ang doktrina bahin kaniya diha sa Bibliya kana dili lain kondili si Santa Maria ang Inahan ni Jesukristo nga atong Ginoo. SUPAK: 1. Si Maria, Inahan ni Jesus dili Kanunayng Ulay. Duna siyay daghang mga anak kay giasoy ni San Marcos sa gisulat niya kining Musunod: Dili ba kini si Jesus ang panday ang anak ni Maria ug igsoon nila ni Jacobo, ni Jose, ni Judas, ug ni Simon? ug wala ba dinhi nato ang iyang mga igsoong mga babaye? (Mar. 6:3). Tan-awa dili ba klaro nga si Maria, gawas ni Jesus duna pay daghang mga anak. Tubag: Ang pulong Igsoon sa Batasan sa mga Judio dili sabton nga kanunay nga igsoon sa mao ra nga amahan ug inahan, ang ilang mga paryenti matawag usab og igsoon bisan pa og uyoan o pagumangkon, sama niining musunod: Si Abraham mitawag kang lot nga akong Igsoon (Gen.14:16), bisan pa si Abraham mao ang uyoan ni lot (Gen.14:12) ug ang mga kadugo usab sa samang kagikan sa mga Judio matawag usab og igsoon. Sama niini: Ug si David miingon, sultihi ang mga Anciano sa Juda kamo mao ang akong mga kaigsoonan, kamo ang bukog sa akong bukog ug unod sa akong unod (2 Sam.19:11-12). Kadtong mga lalaki ug babaye nga gihisgotan nga mga igsoon ni Jesus dili sabton nga mga anak ni Santa Maria nga iyang Inahan. Kay ang uban kanila makita man nga dunay laing amahan ug inahan, nga dili mao si Santa Maria ug si San Jose. Si Alfeo kun Cleopas bana ni Maria nga paryenti ni Santa Maria Inahan ni Jesus. Ang makita nato nga mga ginikanan sa giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus, sama niining musunod: pila sa mga tinun-an ni Jesus, Si Santiago O Jacobo nga anak ni Alfeo.. ug si Judas nga anak ni Santiago(Luk.6:14). Ug kini sila si Santiago kun Jacobo ug si Judas giingon nga mga igsoon usab nila si Jose ug Simon. Ug ang gipasabot sa Biblia nga ilang ginikanan mao si Alfeo kun Cleopas. Sa libro sa mga Iglesia ni Kristo nga giulohag Ang Kasaysayan, Giingon: Si Santiago(Jacobo) siya anak ni Alfeo nga gitawag usab ug Cleopas nga bana ni Maria nga paryenti usab ni Maria nga inahan ni Jesus Kini usab nga Santiago Kauban sa 12 ka mga Apostoles siya usab ang nagsulat sa basahon nga gitawag sa iyang ngalan, mao usab kini siya ang gitawag og igsoon sa Ginoo (p.9) Diha sa tiilan sa krus ni Jesus sa wala pa siya mamatay: Apan duol sa krus ni Jesus nanagtindog ang iyang inahan(ni Jesus) ug ang babaye nga Igsoon sa iyang inahan, si Maria nga asawa ni Cleopas ug si MariaMagdalena (Juan.19:25). Ug ang maong Maria nga asawa ni Cleopas mao ang inahan sa mga tawo nga giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus: Ug usab didtoy mga babaye nga nagpaantaw sa pagtan-aw, ug ang pipila kanila mao si Maria Magdalena

ug si Maria nga inahan ni Santiago nga gamayon ug ni Jose ug ni Salome (Mar.15:40) Ang atong mga kaatbang sa pagtuo moingon nga ang gigamit nga pulong sa Griego sa pulong mga igsoon ni Jesus mao ang Adelphoi kun igsoon gayod sa unod, kay kon ig-agaw pa ang gipasabot gamiton unta ang pulong Syngeneis nga tukma sa atong pulong ig-agaw. Ang atong ikatubag niini. dili tinuod nga sa tanang panahon ang pulong adelphoi gigamit alang sa igsoon sa unod, mahimo usab kini nga gamiton bisan ang kahulugan lahi sama sa tanang mga pinili sa Ginoo silbi nga mga manghud ni Jesus kinsa mao ang kinamagulangan sa mga pinili, Prototokon en polois adelhpois, aron siya mahimong panganay sa daghang mga igsoon (Rom.8:29). Sa ingon, kadtong giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus dili gayud Sabton nga mga anak ni Maria ug Jose, kondili sa laing mga ginikanan, busa dili sila mga manghud ni Jesus. ug sa mabasa nato sa juan 7:4 masabot nga mga magulang ni Jesus ang mga gitawag og mga igsoon niya, kay daw sa maoy mamadlong kang Jesus ug wala kini mosalig kaniya (Juan.7:5) Supak: 2. Gihilabtan ni Jose si Maria human ang naulahi manganak kang Jesus kay giingon man:ug si Jose wala makigduol kang Maria hangtud gianak na niya ang anak niya nga panganay (Mat.1:25). Tubag: kining pulong hangtud diha sa Bibliya wala magpasabot sa kasagaran nga human mahitabo ang okasyon nga gihangturan nga duna nay laing sukwahi nga hitabo. Pananglit, ang Uwak nga gisugo ni Noe wala mobalik hangtud mihubas ang tubig human sa lunop (Gen.8:7). Bisan mahubas na ang Tubig wala gihapon kini mobalik. lain pa: Si Michal(Anak ni Saul)Wala manganak hangtud nga kini namatay(2 Sam. 6:23) Kon wala siya manganak nga buhi labi na nga wala manganak hangtud namatay mao nga kanang pag-ingon nga wala hilabti ni Jose si Maria hangtud o human manganak kang Jesus, kini nagpasabot hinoon pinasukad sa atong nasayran nga kamatuoran sa unahan, nga bisan humana manganak si Maria wala lang gihapon siya hilabti ni Jose. Ang pulong panganay nagpasabot nga maoy nag-abli sa tagoangkan sa iyang inahan bisan pag walay musunod nga manghud(Exod.13:2)Ug ang tagna bahin kang Jesus gipaila gayud siya nga usa ka bugtong sa ato pa walay manghud ug gitawag og panganay: ug sila mututok kanako nga ilang gipalagbasan(bahin kang Jesus nga gilansang) ug sila magbalata tungud kaniya ingon sa usa nga magbalata tungud sa iyang anak nga bugtong, ingon sa usa nga nagaantus sa kapait tungud sa iyang anak nga bugtong, ingon sa usa nga nagaantus sa kapait tungud sa iyang panganay nga anak(Zac.12:10). Supak: 3. Si Maria dili kay maoy bugtong bulahan, sanglit sa Daang Tugon, si Lia usab dihang nanamkon miingon nga ang tanang kababayen-an motawag kaniyag bulahan(Gen.30:9-13) si Jakel asawa ni Haber gitawag sa og bulahan sa tanang mga babaye (Maghuhukom 5:24)Ug bisan kinsa kanato mahimong labaw ka bulahan pa kay ni Maria kon mamati ug magatuman sa pulong sa Dios(Lukas.11:28). Tubag:

Lahi ang kabulahanan ni Maria kay sa gihisgotan nga mga babaye, kay si Maria puno sa Grasya (Luk.1:48) dili kay ang tanang mga babaye lamang kondili ang tanang mga kaliwatan gayud, ang motawag kaniya og bulahan. ug kon bulahan ang tawo kay nagtuman sa pulong sa Dios, Doble ang kabulahan ni Maria kay siya mao ang natawhan ni Jesus ug labi pa gayud siya nga nakapaminaw ug nakatuman sa pulong sa Dios kay kang bisan kinsa nga tawo (Lukas. 2:51) Supak: 4. Dili tinuod ang giingon sa mga katoliko nga si Maria walay sala, sanglit Ang tanang mga tawo nakasala (Roma.5:12,Roma.3:9-10) Kay si Maria tawo nan makasasala usab ug nalipay siya sa pag-abot sa iyang manluluwas (Luk.1:47). Tubag: Gitagna nang daan nga ang silbi nga esposa sa Espiritu Santo putli ugwalay buling diha kaniya (Awit 6:9) Sanglit ang Kinaadman dili man musulod sa kalag nga mahugaw ug lawas nga ulipon sa sala (Kin.1:4) si Kristo mao ang kaalam ug gahom sa Dios(1 Kor.1:24) nan, putli kun wala gayuy buling si Maria kay dili man musulod si Kristo sa kalag nga mahugaw ug sa lawas nga ulipon sa sala. Ug ang gipili sa Dios nga daan, gibalaan na niyang daan (Roma.8:30). Ug ang pagluwas nga nahuptan ni Maria mao ang paagi nga preventiva, sa wala pa siya matawo gipanagnaan na siyang daan og grasya, bisan si Jeremias gibalaan na nga daan diha pa sa tiyan sa iyang inahan(Jer.1:5) ang pagluwas sa ubang mga tawo mao ang Restaurativa, nagpasabot nga nahulog na ang tawo sa sala ug giugkat sa Dios(Luk.1:71). Supak: 5. Sayop ang pag-ingon nga si Maria Inahan sa Dios, kay ang Dios dili ikapangak og tawo,Ang Dios dili tawo ni Anak sa tawo(Num.23:19). Tubag: Tinuod nga ang Dios dili tawo,ni anak sa tawo, apan ang maong Dios makahimo sa pagpakatawo sa babaye, and Dios dili anak sa tawo sanglit siya wala may sinugdan ni katapusan, ug kini gihimo sa Dios, Ang pulong mao ang Dios ug kining pulong nahimong tawo(Jn.1:1-2,14) ug natawo sa usa ka babaye(Gal.4:4) sa pagbaot sa panahon. Ug ang wala mutuo nga si JesusKristo nagpatawo dili gikan sa Espiritu sa Dios(1 Jn.4:2). kon siya nagpakatawo nagpasabot nga siya dili siya tawo kaniadto. ug si Maria gitawag og Inahan sa Ginoo(Luk.1:43) Ug kining pagka-Ginoo ni Kristo, Ginoo sa tanan (Buh.10:36) Ug ang Ginoo sa tanan mao ang Dios(Rom.10:12,Pin.19:6), Busa sama ra nga si Maria gitawag gayud sa Bibliya ug Inahan sa Ginoo kun Dios, kay ang Ginoo nga atong Dios, ang Ginoo usa ra (Mar.12:29).

Supak: 6.nganong gitawag sa libro nga katoliko, Glories of Mary page 143, nga si Maria, asawa sa Dios, ug kini dili usa ka pasipala?

Tubag: Ang pag-ingon sa maong libro nga si Maria asawa sa Dios, dili kini sabton nga unodnon kun literal nga relasyon sa Dios ug ni Maria kondili usa kini ka Mystical Relation, sama nga ang Iglesia giingon ni San Pablo nga asawa ni Kristo,kay gipakasal ko kamo sa usa ka bana(2 Kor.11:2). Maingon nga sa Daang tugon, matawag Esraylita gitawag og asawa ni Yahweh, si Yahweh mao ang bana sa Israel(Jer.3:14) kay ang imong Magbubuhat mao ang imong bana.(Isa.54:5). Komo si Maria sa nakita ni San Juan sa Pinadayag 12:1-5 nakita nga usa ka nagpasabot sa adlaw, nagtindog ibabaw sa bulan og gipurongpurongan sa napulogduha ka bitoon(siya nagsimbolo sa tibuok Iglesia) kay gikan kaniya natawo ang bata nga mohari sa tanang mga nasud(si Kristo). Ug ang naghatag kaniyag binhi nga Makagagahom nga matawo kaniya mao ang Dios(Luk.1:35), Busa maingon ta sa tinawhanon nga pagsulti nga si Maria ingon sa Asawa sa Dios. Pagalondongan ikaw sa gahom sa labing Halangdon, ang bata nga matawo paganganlan nga balaan, ang Anak sa Dios. Kon duna siyay gahom si Maria dili gikan kaniya kondili sa Dios. Busa makatabang siya sa atong kaluwasan. Una sa iyang panig-ingnan, siya matinumanon sa pulong sa Ginoo(Luk.1:38). Ug mabungahon ang iyang pag-ampo ngadto ni Jesus nga iyang anak, kay bisan dili pa ang panahon pagmilagro kay siya ang naghangyo gihimo ni Jesus didto sa kasal sa Cana(Juan.2:111).

Sino Ba ang Babae sa Revelation 12? Author : jason abalos (IP: , E-mail : URL : Whois : Comment: May tanong po ako.. Sa isang aklat na isinulat ng PARI by ALBER HUNNI page.59 The epistles has taken from the apocalips,a woman surrounded by the sons splender who is wearing a crown by the twelve star and the moon beniete her feet.Appears to saint john avoice

announce that is hour salvation of the kingdom of jesus christ,The application to the IMMACULATE VIRGIN of LORDES is clear. So Maliwanag.. Na sabi ng PARI nio na TURO ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA na si VIRGIN MARRY ang BABAE sa Apocalipsis 12:1. Anu nmn ang sinasabi ng catholic bible sa DOUAY RHIMES VERSION sa {FOOTNOTE} ng APOCALIPSIS 12:1 ganito ang sabi A woman,this WOMAN is NOT the BLESSED VIRGIN! Ngayon alin po jan ang 22o? ang sabi ng pari sa aklat nio na virgin marry ang bab sa revlation 12:1 o sa catholic bible ng douay rhimes version na hindi raw si virgin marry ang babae sa revation 12:!? pakisagot po..

SINAGUTAN NI BRO. G-ONE PAISONES (In Edited Form) Dear Bro. Jason, Salamat sa comento mo sa amin, naway ang Dios ay gagabay sa iyo at sa iyong pamilya sa mga pag-araw araw na Gawain.

Sa hindi pa natin sagutin ang tanong mo, dapat malaman natin kung ano ang Book of Revelation o Apocalypse. Narito ang mga sumusunod na pahayag hinggil sa Book of Revelation: NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil. Page 504-505 (emphasis added) -REVELATION, BOOK OF THE (Gr. Apokalypsis, an unveiling). Sometimes called the Apocalypse. This is the last book of the Bible and the only book of NT that is exclusively prophetic in character. There are four main schools of interpretation: 1. Pretest- holds that Revelation is simply a picture of conditions prevalent in the Roman Empire in the late first century, cast in the form of vision and prophecy to conceal its meaning from hostile pagan. 2. Historical view contends that the book represents in symbolic form the entire course of church history from the time of writing to the final consummation, and that the mystical figures describe in it can be identified with human events in history. 3. Futurist- on the basis of the threefold division given in Revelation 1:19, suggests that what you have seen refers to the immediate environment of the seer and vision of Christ (19-19), what is now denotes the churches of Asia or the church age they symbolize (2:1-3:22), and what will take later relates to those events that will attend the return of Christ and the establishment of the city of God. 4. Idealist or Symbolic school treats Revelation as purely a dramatic picture of the conflict of good and evil. The New Jerome Bible Handbook, Page 310. The Apocalypse (Revelation) narrates extraordinary visions that concern things normally unseen and unheard by human beings. It is unique in the New Testament, but not the ancient world The Revelation has two focuses: Secrets of the cosmos and secret of the future. Secrets are revealed in order to present a particular interpretation of the times and to persuade the hearers or readers to think and live in a certain way. Sa nasambit natin sa itaas, mapapansin natin na ang Revelation ay may maraming interpretations batay na rin sa bumabasa. Atin pong talakayin ang Revelation Chapter 12 na basihan sa iyong katanungan. Kay ALBER HUNNI is Santa Maria ang Rev. 12:1; sa DOUAY RHIMES VERSION (St. Joseph Edition) < CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION> hindi si Santa Maria ang Revelation 12. Makikita po natin na para pong contradict ang statement ng dalawa (o masasabi ng iba na contrary talaga ang dalawa). Peru bakit po sinabi natin na parang contradict ang dalawa? Narito ang kasagutan: Dapat nating malaman na ang Revelation 12:1 ay isang fusion imagery o ang topiko ng Revelation ay may maraming kahulugan at nakadependi ito sa History, Phrase, Sentence, Context, at Interpretation ng mambabasa (Ang reference ay nasa itaas).

Narito ang nakasaad sa Rev. 12:1-2 (KJV) And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: {12:2} And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. Ang interpretation ng dalubhasa sa Biblia tungkol sa woman ng Rev. 12:1 ay: 1. Israel = Mic. 4:9-10; Isa. 66:7; Gen. 37:911 2. Eve = she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seedwhich in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus. (from James Akin of Catholic Answer) 3. Church = because, as Rev. 12:17 tells us, the rest of her offspring are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians. from James Akin of Catholic Answer) 4. Mary (Mother of Jesus) = Revelation 11:19- 12:1 it is Mary the Ark of New Covenant

Narito ang mga sumusonod na references: Holy Bible- Douay Rheims Version, Page 295 Apocalypse 12:1 Footnote -A woman. The Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady. The church with the sun, that is, with Christ. She hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet: and the twelve stars with which she is crown, are the twelve apostles: She is in labor and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. The New Testament of the New American Bible, Page 626- Revelation 12: 1f. 4-6 Notes: The Woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the starts symbolized Gods people in the Old and New Testament; Gn 37, 9f. The Israel of old gave birth to Messiah (v 5) and then became the New Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (vv 6:13-17). Biblia sa Kristohanong Katilingban (Christian Community Bible) Page 485- Revelation 12 Notes: Ang babaye nagpasabot sa katawhan nga mitabang sa plano sa Diyos, si Maria nga nanganak kang Jesus; siya ang simbahan nga mikagiw sa disyerto, sa ato pa, nagkinabuhing espirituhanong layo sa kalibutan, apan giamoma sa pulong sa Diyos panahon sa panglutos. TAGALOG: Ang babae (ibigsabihin) ay ang mamamayang tomulong sa plano ng Diyos, Si Maria na nagluwal kay Jesus; siya ang simbahan na pumunta (tumongo) sa disyerto, ibigsabihin ay nabubuhay sa espiritual (spiritual way of living) na malayo sa pansanlibutan na buhay (masasamang bagay), peru inaalagaan ng Diyos sa panahon ng kagipitan.

Revelation a Divine Message of Hope by: Fr. Bruce Vawter, CM. ((Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus Supreme Council, New Haven CT 06521-1971)) (Imprimatur John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford) Page 44 The first sign is a woman clothed with the sun; with the moon beneath her feet and the twelve starts in a crown about her head. As we see from the complete description of this woman (12:1-2, 5-6), she is both the Church and the Mother of the Messiah. The Church is presented both glorified and in her period of trial, all at once The Child to whom the woman gives birth in v.5 is certainly Jesus, as He is describe in the messianic language of Psalm 2:9. Conclusion: Kaya kung ang buong chapter sa Revelation 12 ang pagbabatayan natin iyan po ay hindi kay Santa Maria lamang nakabasi o nakatoon ang topiko; peru kung pagbabasihan natin ang Literal na ina ni Cristo na nag panganak sa kanya hindi rin mali na e-apply natin ang Revelation 12:1 kay Santa Maria. Ngayon alin po jan ang totoo? ang sabi ng pari sa aklat niya na si Virgin Mary ang babae sa revelation 12:1; o sa Catholic Bible ng Douay Rhimes version(New Edition) na hindi raw si Virgin Mary ang babae sa revelation 12:!? Alin ba ang totoo sa dalawa ang Pari ba (ALBER HUNNI) o ang CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION? Pareho pong totoo ang dalawa SAPAGKAT KUNG TATAPOSIN LANG NATIN ANG PAGBASA SA FOOTNOTE NG CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION GANITO ANG NAKALAGAY: CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION, PAGE 272- REVELATION 12:1 FOOTENOTE: A woman: this woman is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophesy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory clothe her, the moon is beneath her feet, she is crowned with a crown of twelve stars, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By accommodation the church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin. Samakatuwid nais ng may akda ng CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION na hindi lamang dapat nakatoon ang pagkakaintindi (ng mga Katoliko) sa Revelation 12:1 kay Santa Maria; sapagkat ang pinag-uusapan na BABAE sa boung chapter 12 ng Revelation ay hindi LAMANG ni SANTA MARIA naka sentro. Nasagutan po ang inyong tanong. Salamat


Panudlo sa Sta. Iglesya.- Ang Sta. Iglesya nagtudlo nga si Sta. Maria nagpabilin nga ulay sa wala sa pa siya manganak, sa iyang pagpanganak, ug human sa iyang pagpanganak kang Jesus ug nga si Jesus mao ang bugtong Anak ni Sta. Maria.

Pagsupak: Supak 1. Dili tinuod nga si Sta. Maria nagpabilin nga ulay tungod kay ang Kasulatan naghisgot og mga igsoon ni Jesus, Dili ba siya mao man ang panday nga anak ni Maria, ug igsoon nila ni Santiago, ni Jose, ni Judas, ug ni Simon? Dili ba ang iyang mga igsoong babaye ania man dinhi magpuyo? (Mar. 6:3). Samtang nakigsulti pa si Jesus sa mga tawo, miabot ang iyang inahan ug mga igsoong lalaki (Mat. 12:46), nagtigom aron mag-ampo kanunay uban sa mga babaye, ug ni Maria nga inahan ni Jesus, ug sa igsoong lalaki ni Jesus (Buh. 1:14). Supak 2. Matud pa, wala hilabti ni Jose si Maria hangtod nga nanganak kang Jesus (Mat. 1:25) busa masabot nga sa dihang natawo na si Jesus dunay nay nahitabo tali ni Maria ug ni Jose sama nga ang anghel miingon ngadto ni Zacarias, Dili ka makasulti hangtod nga matawo ang bata ug sa dihang natawo na si Juan nakasulti na ang iyang amahan (Luc. 1:20, 64). Supak 3. Si Jesus gitawag og panganay ni Maria (Luc. 2:7) busa masabot nato nga dunay gyoy mga manghod nga misunod ni Jesus nga panganay nga mga anak sa panagtiayon ni Maria ug ni Jose.

Tubag: Si Sta. Maria nagpabilin gayod nga ulay sumala sa gitagna sa Kasulatan. Ania karon ang usa ka ulay, manamkon ug manganak og usa ka anak nga lalaki ug ang iyang ngalan pagatawgon og Emmanuel (Isa. 7:14). Ang katumanan niini mao si Maria, Ug kining tanan nahitabo aron matuman ang giingon sa propeta, Ang usa ka ulay magmabdos ug moanak ug lalaki, ug nganlan siyag Emmanuel (nga sa ato pa, Ang Dios ania uban kanato) (Mat. 1:23). Laing tagna gihisgotan ni Propeta Ezequiel, Kining pultahana masinirhan na og dili na gyod kini pagaablihan pa, ni may lain pang moagi niining maong pultahan, tungod kay ang Dios sa Israel miaagi man niining pultahana (Eze. 44:2). Kining Dios sa Israel nga moanhi mao ang Dios nga moluwas sa iyang katawhan, Daygon nato ang Ginoo, ang Dios sa Israel! Kay mianhi siya aron pagtabang sa iyang katawhan ug paghatag kanilag kagawasan (Luc. 1:68). Ug siya mao si Cristo, Kay karong gabhiona, natawo sa lungsod ni David ang inyong Manluluwas, ang Cristo nga Ginoo (Luc. 2:11). Ug ang pultahan nga giagian ni Cristo sa iyang paganhi sa kalibotan mao ang tagoangkan ni Sta. Maria ug sumala sa tagna kini pagasirhan na nga nagpasabot nga wala nay laing matawo diha kaniya. Ang pultahan nagkahulogan usab kini og tagoangkan sa babaye, ug gisirhan sa Ginoo ang mga pultahan sa banay ni Abimelec (Gen. 20:17-19). Ang pulong Adelphos sa griego nga gihubad ngadto sa binisaya og igsoon gigamit kini nga dunay lapad nga kahulogan ug dili kanunay nga sabton nga igsoon sa unod. Gigamit usab kini pagpasabot sa mga paryenti o ig-agaw. Pananglit, si Abraham mitawag sa iyang pag-umangkon nga si Lot og igsoon (Gen. 14:14). Si Jacob gitawag og igsoon sa iyang uyoan nga si Laban (Gen. 29:15). Mahimo sab ang paggamit niini nga ang gipasabot mga kadugo o kaliwat. Ayaw ninyo likayi ang taga-Edumea kay inyo silang igsoon (Deut. 23:7). Si David miingon, kini sila unod sa akong unod ug bukog sa akong bukog, kini sila akong mga igsoon (2 Sam. 19:11-12). Gigamit usab kini tali sa suod nga managhigala. Si Hiram miingon kang Salomon, Igsoon ko, unsa god kining mga lungsod nga imong gihatag kanako? (1 Hari. 9:13). Si David miingon kang Jonatan, Naguol ako pag-ayo kanimo, igsoon kong Jonatan (2 Sam. 1:26). Diha sa Bag-ong Tugon gigamit kini pagpasabot sa mga igsoon sa pagtuo, Kay sila gibalaan ug ang nagbalaan kanila may usa lamang ka Amahan. Busa dili maulaw si Jesus sa pagtawag kanila nga iyang mga igsoon (Heb. 2:11). Atong masubay uban ang igo nga katukma nga kining giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus dili mga anak ni Sta. Maria kondili mga anak sa laing ginikanan. Kon kining giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus mga anak pa ni Sta. Maria ang ila untang amahan mao si San Jose. Apan atong makita nga ang ilang amahan dili si San Jose. Diha sa Biblia dunay duha lamang ka Santiago nga gihisgotan. Ang unang Santiago igsoon ni Juan mga anak ni Sebedeo (Mat. 10:2, 3). Ang laing Santiago nga igsoon ni Jose mga anak ni Alfeo nga sa griego Clopas. Atong mahibaloan nga sa paglansang kang Jesus, Didto may pipila usab ka babaye nga nagpaantaw sa pagtan-aw. Uban kanila si Salome, si Maria Magdalena, ug si Maria nga inahan sa batan-ong Santiago ug ni Jose (Mar. 15:40). Kini sila didto sa halayo apan atong makita nga sa pagkaduol na nila didto na sa tiilan sa krus si Maria nga inahan ni Jesus, Duol sa krus ni Jesus nagbarog ang iyang inahan ug ang igsoon sa iyang inahan, si Maria nga asawa ni Cleofas, ug si Maria Magdalena (Jn. 19:25). Matud sa karaang Historian nga si Hegesippus nga kini si Alfeo igsoon ni San Jose busa ang iyang asawa dili igsoon sa unod ni Sta. Maria kondili sister-in-law kun bayaw. Busa ang giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus dili niya igsoon sa unod kondili iyang mga ig-agaw ug sibo sa batasan sa mga judio sila gitawag og iyang mga igsoon. Dugang pa, wala gyod kitay mabasa sa Biblia nga kining giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus gitawag og mga anak ni Maria ug ni Jose.

Ang paggamit sa pulong hangtod wala kini magpasabot nga dunay sukwahi nga hitabo human sa hitabo nga gihangtoran. Ang batid sa Kasulatan nga si St. Jerome miingon nga ang pulong hangtod pasiunhan gani og negativo sama pananglit sa wala o dili ang kahulogan niini mao nga ang naandan nga kahimtang magpabilin human sa hitabo nga gihangtoran. Ania ang mabasa: Wala mobalik ang uwak hangtod nga mihubas ang tubig (Gen. 8:7). Sa taas pa ang tubig wala na mobalik ang uwak ug sa dihang mihubas na ang tubig nagpabilin gihapon nga wala mobalik ang uwak. Wala si Samuel makigkita pag-usab kang Saul hangtod nga siya namatay (1 Sam. 15:35). Sa buhi pa si Saul wala na makigkita kaniya si Samuel ug labi na sa dihang namatay na si Saul! Wala manganak si Mical hangtod nga siya namatay (2 Sam. 6:23). Sa buhi pa si Mical ang iyang kahimtang nga wala siya manganak ug sa dihang namatay na siya nagpabilin gihapon ang iyang kahimtang sa pagkawala manganak kay wala man gani manganak sa buhi pa unsa na kaha sa patay na! Mahitungod kang Zacarias dili niya naandang kahimtang nga dili siya makasulti busa ang panagtandi dili magamit, samtang sa laing bahin ang naandan nga kahimtang ni Maria sa wala pa siya manganak nga siya ulay ug sa dihang nanganak na siya nagpabilin ang maong kahimtang sa pagka-ulay pinasikad sa paggamit sa pulong hangtod diha sa Kasulatan.

Ang pulong panganay dili kini pagasabton nga duna gyoy mga manghod kondili nagpasabot sa unang moabli sa tagoangkan sa inahan (Exo. 13:2). Ang panganay mao ang gisugo sa Dios nga ihalad ngadto kaniya gihalad ko nga akong kaugalingon ang panganay nga lalaki sa tagsatagsa ka banay sa Israel ug ang panganay sa tanang mananap (Num. 3:12). Ug ang mga panganay dunay pinasahi nga katungod, Busa nanumpa si Esau ug iyang gibaligya ang iyang katungod sa pagka-panganay (Gen. 25:33). Ang Kasulatan naghisgot nga si Jesus bugtong ug panganay, aron inigtan-aw nila kaniya nga ilang gidunggab, magbangotan sila tungod kaniya, sama sa nagbangotan tungod sa kamatayon sa bugtong niyang anak. Ug magpaagas sila ug pait nga luha tungod sa kamatayon sa iyang panganayng anak (Zac. 12:10). Didto sa Ehipto dunay hipalgan nga usa ka lapida diin nakulit kining mga pulonga: This woman died while delivering her firstborn nga ang hubad mao kini: Kining bayhana namatay sa pagpanganak sa iyang panganay. Laing punto nga batasan sa mga Judio nga ang mga manghod motahod gayod sa mga magulang apan atong makita nga ang giingon nga igsoon ni Jesus nagpakita sa kawalay pagtahod kaniya (Jn. 7:3-5, Mar. 3:21). Ug didto sa krus gitugyan ni Jesus ang iyang inahan ngadto ni San Juan Apostol (Jn. 19:25-27). Kon si Maria duna pay laing anak mopauli unta siya sa ilaha ingon sa ilang custombre. Please visit for other Catholic Answers Catholic Apologetics Blog: splendor of the church God bless you my brethrens in Jesus Christ!