Catholic Faith Defender

JOHN. 8:32 “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”

Catolic Faith Defender -Freedom Park of Cebu Chapter-

Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to DEFEND for the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge…

John 8:32 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free

Can. 229 #1 Lay people have the duty and the right to acquire the knowledge of Christian teaching which is appropriate to each one’s capacity and condition, so that they may be able to live according to this teaching, to proclaim it and if necessary to defend it, and may be capable of playing their part in the exercise of the apostolate.

A New Evangelization in a New Millennium A Call for a New Apologetics


For those of us seeking to generate a new apologetics in a new evangelization capable of drawing all closer to Christ, His Church, and one another, the account of Jesus’ disposition toward the adulteress and her accusers is instructive.

“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. . . . Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again” (Jn. 8:7-11).

For those of us seeking to generate a new apologetics in a new evangelization capable of drawing all closer to Christ, His Church, and one another, the account of Jesus’ disposition toward the adulteress and her accusers is instructive. Christ, who is God and thus knows the sinful hearts of all men and women, castigates those who were so ready to punish the adulteress, not because their judgment on her sin was in error, but because they lacked humility and respect. After forgiving the woman, Jesus immediately confirmed the nature of her act by calling it a sin and calling her to conversion — to a turn toward God and His truth that sets us free to love.

As a communion formed by preserving and sharing Christ’s gifts, the Church best fulfills her mission when she ministers with Our Lord’s combination of respect for persons and for the truth that fulfills them. In other words, the Church is both Catholic and apostolic. As Catholic, she reaches out to everyone, even — and especially — those most sinful and broken. But as apostolic, the Church also reaches out with the faith that comes to us from the apostles, without compromises that would contravene the dignity and vocation of beings made in the image of a self-giving God.

The liberal-conservative rift that so threatens the Church’s unity and mission can, at least in part, be explained by the failure to integrate the apostolic and the Catholic aspects of our ecclesial identity and the objective and subjective aspects of the human person. Political labels often prevent us from understanding the Church as she understands herself. Although labels do point to real and important problems, they can leave us divided and paralyzed unless we go beyond them to see the Church as a mystery of faith and love.

A new apologetics will — following Christ’s example — combine truth with charity. Apologists need both clear minds and open hearts. Since only the truth transforms and unites, much work needs to be done to understand and articulate the Magisterium’s moral and doctrinal positions, with particular attention paid to cultivating an authentic understanding of conscience and religious freedom, as taught by Vatican II. Much of this work of telling the truth should take place in homilies, youth and adult catechetical programs, seminaries, diaconate formation programs, and Catholic schools and universities. The implementation of ex corde Ecclesiae is a necessary first step toward a renewed understanding of how our faith supports and sustains in truth the institutions of Catholic higher education.

But given our fallen human nature, the call to conversion at the heart of the Gospel will only be heard if it is made with love for the one who has not yet adequately accepted the faith. Since no Christian evangelizer preaches himself or herself, the call to conversion must be made with humility, and to all. And given our modern appreciation for the uniquely subjective dimension of any human act and of human freedom, the call must presuppose the goodwill and respect the dignity of those in need of conversion.

The Church’s ministry to homosexuals is a case in point. Based on God’s self revelation and the Church’s personalistic reading of the natural law tradition that “discovers in the body the anticipatory signs, the expression and the promise of the gift of self” (Veritatis Splendor, no. 48), Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed Christ and the Church’s constant teaching about the nature of human sexuality. This gift is given in the service of heterosexual married love and for the procreation of new human life. In this context, the sexual self-control promoted by the virtue of chastity means that spouses act chastely when they completely give themselves to one another. Outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage, the virtue of chastity enables men and women to refrain from sexual acts until they are married or even for life, especially if a believer makes a vow of perpetual chastity. For all vocations, chastity permits us to live constantly and joyfully with God and others.

A generation ago, public mores in American life more or less supported the Christian understanding of chastity and marriage. Now it is too often assumed that unmarried people become adult by becoming sexually active — an assumption that makes conversion and life with God and others more difficult. Complicating the reception of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is the idea that one’s personal proclivities — whether biologically or socially generated — are always normative, and that those with homosexual orientations are a persecuted minority whose vindication demands not only respect for them as the Church teaches, but also approval of their sexually acting out. There is great pressure from many sectors of society now to place homosexual relations on a legal par with normal heterosexual relations. For many homosexual activists, therefore, the Church is an unjust enemy. This judgment is shared by others who find common cause with homosexual activists because they share a similar understanding of human sexuality divorced from the complementarity of sexual differences and the transmission of life.

In this challenging and sometimes discouraging milieu, the Church must strive to defend her teaching more convincingly and clearly. But one can win an argument and lose a soul. Ministry to homosexuals begins, therefore, as does all ministry, with love for the person ministered to. In a loving context, the truth may be better heard. There are various theories about the causes of a homosexual orientation, but those whose sexual orientation is objectively disordered nevertheless have the right — circumscribed by law, if necessary — to be respected and regarded with compassion and sensitivity. They will not listen to the call to conversion unless they are respected as persons. They will not have access to the Church’s pastoral and sacramental support, which makes living chastely a concrete possibility, unless the face of those who minister to them is the face of Jesus Christ.

Other examples come to mind. How does the Church reach out in truth and love to abortionists and secularists, to those who believe the Holy Father is the anti-Christ and those who think Catholics are not Christians? Only a Church internally united around Christ and the apostolic faith will be able to reach out effectively to speak the truth in love to the whole world.

The language of love is more universal than the more specialized vocabularies needed for apologetics today, but all languages are essential for the new evangelization. When Vatican II first called the Church to become an evangelizing people, that call put aside the classic apologetics of the counter-Reformation and insisted on just presenting the faith on its own terms. The biblical renewal and renewed study of the Fathers of the Church gave us the sources for presenting the faith. Thirty years after the Council, however, it is clear that the faith still has enemies and that new arguments are needed to create a new apologetics in the service of the new evangelization. Treating our own brothers and sisters in the household of the faith as enemies on the basis of political labels distracts us from the work of creating this new apologetics. Enmity among Catholics saps our strength and stops our evangelizing.

United for the faith among ourselves, we can more easily share the faith with others. There were two kinds of sin among the people Jesus addressed in chapter 8 of St. John’s Gospel: adultery and self-righteousness. The cure for both is faith and love.


52 Responses to “Catolic Faith Defender -Freedom Park of Cebu Chapter-”

  1. quincy said

    Christ in our midst!

    I’m looking for a CFD here in Cebu wherein I can join their doctrinal seminars. Im in Lapulapu can you please help me where to find a CFD near my place.I would be very thankful for your response and please do it in my emmail add I also have a number if this could help 09261825516

  2. dirk said

    naa pa bay mga debate dri sa sugbo mahitungod sa mga panag bangi sa nagka daiyang sekta sa pagtoo?..kong naa, asa dapit ng espidnoha makaplagan?kay sa adabao..atubangan sa cathedral..dri wako kahibalo..asa diay na dapit?

    • catholicfaithdefender said

      Brad, naa dapit sa plaza….

      • Aegis-Judex said

        What time and day will the CFD-FPCC appear in the Plaza? I’m from Lilo-an, and I’m looking for the nearest CFD… unless the Freedom Park Chapter IS the provincewide chapter…

        Semper Fidelis!

      • khim said

        bro, gud am. I’m a catholic also. unsa gani and biblical foundation kontra sa mga umaataki sa catholic na gidili kuno and pag-ampo ug balik-balik sa bibliya? unsaon nako pagtobag ani?

  3. katolikongpinoy said

    Buot kong makabalo if kini ba ang official blog sa CFD Cebu


    brother Francis, Dipolog City

  4. Bro Noel said

    > Hope CFD Ormoc will have there CFD – Ormoc soon. . .

  5. Bro Noel said

    > Hope CFD Ormoc will have there CFD – Ormoc website soon. .

  6. Dodge said

    Does Catholic violate the Commandment of God?

    Most of the non-Catholics accusing us that we violate in making carve images of Saints, Angels, Prophets and Faithful Servants of God.
    First, let’s take a look and read the Holy Scripture.

    “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)

    The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed Himself to His people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some represents a preverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

    “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4)

    The divine injunction included 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 the 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 trancendent 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.” (Wisdom 13:3)

    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 cherubim.” (Num 21:4-9; Wis 16:5-14; Joohn 3:14:15; Exodus 25:10-22; 1 kings 6:23-28; 7:23-26)

    In God’s omniscience, He explains everything in Exodus about graven images. At that exact time, He gave Moses the false gods – graven image commandment, then, He commanded two cherubim be made for the “Ark of the Covenant”.
    Again, at the exact time, Aaron and the Israelites were making the “golden calf”.
    Exodus 32:1-5, ” When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, “Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know has become of him.” And Aaron said to them. “Take off the rings of gold which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said; “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”

    In God’s infinite wisdom, He knew exactly what the Israelites did and He said to Moses:
    Exodus 32:7-10, “Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves, they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf; they have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone; that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation.”

    Here, He explicitly demonstrated that statues, decorations or religious images please Him, but false god idols are taboo.

    May God bless you all. Pax et Bonum!

  7. dirk said

    kinsay pwede nato ma textsan sa cfd para sa lecture kay mo attend ko

  8. jacinth said

    unsay schedule sa debate sa plaza mga brad?

  9. gerry said

    brod maayo unta ug maka abot ang cfd dre sa baguio kay way nanalipod sa atong simbahan nakapatuyang ug panaway ang atong mga igsoon nga dli katoliko batok sa atong simbahan.ilang simbahan mas dagko pa sa atong simbahan.

    • brodjun said

      recquest gi kan sa inyong parish para mag organize ta og CFD from cebu CFD president Ramon gitamondok and USJR..

      call this number…09175462031
      and brod Jun Purca 09104262677.

  10. ray said

    Hi CFD! i always check your blog kasi dami ko po natutunan dito. more power!

    • brodjun said

      ok tanks the Lord all viewing to website……God bless you…….

      • Ako din.. marami akong natutunan sa dito sa CFD website… at ibnahagi ko rin ang aking natutunan dito.. sa aking mga kapatid sa simbahan namin.. Katoliko poh kami,,.. pati na rin sa mga kabataan sa aming lugar.. ako ay isang youth president poh.. sa amin.. tnx.. and more power..

      • catholicfaithdefender said

        Salamat sayo bro…. more power to you………………

      • helow.. ano poh ba yung isang website poh ninyo? yung bago… ? taga Mindanao poh ako.. bakit wala poh kayong chapter dito sa Kidapawan City?

      • CFD member said

        Daghan chapter ug member sa CFD dha sa Mindanao Bro Jimar Jamile pero basin la lang ka kahibalo ug kinsa ang member diha sa inyong lugar. Maayo siguro ug mangutana ka sa pari sa inyong parokya. Salamat kaayo. . .

  11. Glenn N. Alfanta said

    Dear CFD,

    Una sa tanan gusto ko magpasalamat sa inyo sa padayon sa pagtabang sa atong mga igsoon pinaagi sa paglamdag sa ilang mga huna-huna.

    Aduna lamang akoy mga pangutana sa inyo mahitungod sa pangutana sa akong kauban sa trabaho,.miyembro siya sa gitawag nila ug Victory Church,. ang una niya nga pangutana mahitungod sa atong mga pari,.
    ,.ngano daw nga ang atong mga pari dili pwede mag asawa,.wala man daw kuno na siya sa bibliya,.and ikaduha niyang pangutana mahitungod sa mga larawan ug rebulto ug sa mga santo,.kini nga kauban nako nabunyagan sa simbahan sa romano katoliko ug sa tibuok niyang pamilya siya lamang karon ang nalahi,.

    ,.sa adlaw nga iya akong gipangutana mahitungod ani,.akong gitinguha nga ako siyang matubag sa sakto ug husto nga tubag ug dili ako makapasakit kaniya,.apan ang akong mga tubag kulang pa para kanako,.

    ,.ako nanghinaut sa inyong tabang ug kung duna pa kamoy mga lain nga butang nga mahimo ninyong ibahin kanako,.

    ,.daghang salamat,.

  12. Gio Domanillo said


    Good evening.

    (1) Do you have incoming schedule/s (between November to December this year, 2009) regarding CFD Seminar in Cebu? When? Where? How many days? Kindly notify me thru my email.

    (2) Can you give me contact numbers of CFD Cebu Chapter for further inquiries?

    Hoping for an immediate answer.

    Thank you. God bless

  13. Jessy said

    Meron po ba kayong chapter dito sa middle east like Riyadh, KSA and Dubai UAE??

    Gusto ko po sanang umattend sa doctrinal seminars and be a CFD

  14. gerry carillo said

    brod maayo unta maka abot dre sa baguio ang cfd kay daghan kaayo mga dli katoliko dre

  15. Catholic Truth said

    Mabuhay ang CFD! Sana meron ring CFD dito sa Manila at sa buong Luzon, para buong Pilipinas na! God bless all of you!

    • brodjun said

      patungo ang taga CFD sa maynila…
      to cant duck Apologitec Bible study..yong tapus convension sa May 22 and 23 N’tional…Tapus mag or ganize sa maynila..
      The Lord provide all organizer from maynila……..

  16. dodong said

    Mga brod and sis, nindot kaayo inyong mga pagbinayloay og huna-huna. Unta maka-invite pod ta na ko sa inyo bahin sa history sa Tridentine Latin Mass. Nagtoo ko na nakabalo na sad mo nga gipadayag na kini ni Santo Papa Benedict VI. Kaso wala gipaabot dri sa atong mga kaparian sa Pilipinas. Hangyo-a ninyo ang atong mga kaparian sa pagcelebrar ani nga pinaka-catoliko natong nga pagsimba sa atong Balaang Ginoong Jesu Kristo.

    Dagahan Salamat

  17. Dodong said

    Corrections from my previous message.
    Pasayloa ko sa akong pagsayop og sulat sa pangalan ni Santo Papa Benedict XVI.

  18. hello bro n sis,good day all visaya,, wala man siguro maka lowas nga religion.. bisan unsa pa ka nindot ang simbahan..ang makalowas sa tawo ang pag kamatinod anon nya sa pag alagad sa genoo,,,oo nindot ta ug simbahan pero ang nasa sulod sa simbahan mapili ra ang matinod anun,,ang uban mi simba lang arun maka pakita sa nindot nga mga gamit,, dagko ug offreng para ingnon nga dato,,,ang genoo na ka kita tanan unsa ato gibuhat unsa ang sulod sa ato kasing kasing,kong mag comment mo inyo ba gihuna huna magka daghan usa ninyo gi send?????,,,ang inyo mga comment daw wala mo iniskwelahan pataka lang mo ug sulat..ako bata palang ko gadako ko ngamay pamatasn ako papa pastor sa UCCP DUMAGUETE.SILLIMAN UNIVERSITYPIRO NEVER ME NGA nka dongog ug comment sa ubang religion ang catholic sa dumaguete ug UCCP MAAYO kayo united happy members ang tanan tongud sa nag dumala ngagipakita sa mga tawo ang pag dasasig sa pag pangalagad sa genoo,,.TO ALL PEOPLE IF YOU ARE A CRISTIAN,,,~~~~~JESUS CALL THE CROWD TO HIM AND SAED… LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES INTO A MANS MOUTH DOES NOT MAKE HIM UNCLEAN,BUT WHAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH THAT IS WHAT MAKE HIM UNCLEAN.,~~~~~~~,MATHEW_10_11

    • brodjun said

      og mao ra brod kung walay religion na maka luwas kamo ang maka luluoy UCCP na imong gipa sa kupan kay imong gitan aw ang manimba sa Simbahan Catholic og uccp…….
      sa ato pa nasayop diay si Christo sa pag tukod og Iglesia Catholica..
      Ensay,calliopedia volume 5 page Christo ang nag tukod..kahibaw ka kinsay nag tukod sa uccp pangutana sa imong pastor kay kana dili maka luwas..
      na man sa mateo 16,18 gi tukod ni Christo na iyang ubanan kanonay Mateo 28:20 sa jerusalim man gitukog niya lukas 24:47….buhat 23;11 nasulat ni tuig 67 A.D..kana imong gipasakupan diha na banaa sa tuig 33 pangutan,a imong papang pastor..basaha ang word history..

  19. CFD Brothers and Sisters,

    We will be attending the CFD Convention this coming May 22 – 23.

    In the MIGHTY name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God bless us all!!!

    May the Good Lord help us organize the CFD Manila and Luzon Chapters!

  20. Bibliya Tradition og Authoridad sta Iglesia.

    GK.TL bibliya-usa ka lebro nga gilang kuban sa daan tugon uog bag-ong tugon linamdagan sa Espiritu Santo
    O.T. 39-ProtoCanonical-1st Five books of Proto Canonical books can is called-Pentatech 7-Deutero canonical books
    Total -O.T. 46-books
    sa N.T. 27-books

    11.Gi-unsa paglambo ang BIBLIYA?

    1) Sepher -500 B;C – Job . 19;23-24
    Stylus -340 B;C – Alexander D’Great.
    2)Papyrus or Byblus 250 B:C hari Eumenes sa Pergamus
    3)Parchmenter Megillah , LK.4:17,20
    BIBLIYA-BIBLE-Story of GOD’s revelation in history written by men under the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT
    History-GOD-LOVE man
    Latin Vulgeate-405,A.D,-16 A.D.Doway Version-KJV

    111.mga sinultihan nga gigamit sa O.T-Hebrew Chadaic syro -Caldaic-Greek.N.T.Aramaic- syro-Chaldaic Greek.

    1V.rason sa Apocrypha!tulo-
    1-una kay kini nahisulat sa Greek
    2-Econo micanhon }Porgatoryo 2 Mac.12;43;45
    3-Doctrinal nga katuyoan
    Protestant Bible Dictionary by;Pel Oabet,P605-606

  21. Gino said

    Hello, I want to know how to get in touch with the CFD in Cebu. Can you help me please? I would like to know more.

  22. mariusranque said

    good day brothers… naa ba tay mabasa sa biblia bahin sa “gracia preventiva” or preventive grace ni Mother Mary. Siya gi-andam ng daan para sudlan sa batang si Jesus mao nga aduna ba siyay gracia nga lahi ato nga ordinaryong tawo nga may original sin. salamat brothers. can i have soc fernandez email address? thanks again. God bless you all.

  23. Helo.. ph sa lahat,, sa totoo lang ay marami akong natutunan ditoo.. more power and God bless you.. all CFDs..

  24. flavs said

    i hope may CFD na dito sa manila..para makatambong ko sa inyong mga activities kay naa nako sa manila nagwork. ron..dghan kaayo diri mga mini mga magtutudlo naglaroy.laroy dgko
    raba kaayo ning ilang mga simbahan mas dako pa kaysa atoang simbahan….thnks more power CFD

  25. Br. Ronald N. Que, CJLC said

    Praise be Jesus and Mary,


    Brothers, please issue an answer to these preposterous remarks against the Catholic Church, it was e-mailed to me by a “hardcore” Born -Again Christian “Steve”. From Youtube username BornAgainRN.

    By the grace of God and through the intercession of Mary, I will pray that you will be able to study well and refute his heretical and fanatical bigotry.

    Please email me the reply / transcript to our office:

    May God bless your MInistry!

    In Mary,

    Br. Ronald N. Que


    I have no doubt that you are well-educated in CATHOLIC church history, but unfortunately, not all of it, nor CHRISTIAN Church history. As I mentioned before, if you study Catholic church history, there are large gaps in the papacy — sometimes YEARS — where there was no pope. When you trace the papacy back, you actually find that the bishop of Rome being the ‘supreme bishop’ of the Christian church does NOT go back to Peter. This is because in the early Church, the bishop of Rome didn’t have anymore authority in the Church, than any other bishop. This didn’t occur until much, MUCH later, when the Roman Empire began to crumble & Christianity was ‘legal,’ & the ‘head’ of the Catholic church was located in Rome. So, the ‘bishop of Rome’ adopted the title of the Roman Emperor — Pontificus Maximus (which is where we get ‘Pontiff’ from). The confusion comes from believing that Peter is the ‘rock’ that Christ built His Church on, based on Matthew 16. However, in the Greek, not only does ‘rock’ come from a different Greek word (‘petra’) than Peter (‘Petros’), but the main confusion comes from believing that ‘THIS rock’ refers to Peter, because ‘Peter’ is the previous NOUN. However, in Greek, the word for ‘this’ refers to the previous SUBJECT (not ‘noun’), which is in the previous sentence, & the previous ‘subject’ is the REVELATION that God gave Peter ‘Who’ Jesus was (‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God’). ‘THAT’ is the ‘rock’ (‘petra’) that the Church is built on — individual ‘stones’ that God has revealed ‘Who’ Jesus is — not Peter, which is why Peter refers to himself as a ‘FELLOW’ elder in his epistle, not the ‘HEAD’ elder, & why Christ says “the gates of Hades will not prevail against ‘IT'” – ( not ‘HIM.’) If you notice in Mark’s account, he doesn’t even bring that part up, & Mark’s Gospel is basically the words of Peter. So, if Peter though he was the ‘rock,’ he would have definitely left that in there — but he didn’t. Also, if you examine the Greek for ‘this’ in the NT in other passages, you’ll find that it does NOT refer to the previous noun in those passages either. And when the OT was translated into Greek, the term ‘this rock’ NEVER refers to the previous noun, but either the previous SUBJECT in another verse or a later verse. So, based on the original Greek (not the translated English or Latin), Peter was NOT the ‘rock’ that Christ built His Church on, nor the ‘first pope.’

    Since ALL Scripture — both OT & NT is God-breathed — obviously GOD is the reason we ‘have the Bible in our hand.’ The fact that He guided fallible, sinful men to put it together — first by the Jews (OT), then by the Church (NT), rather than asking ‘who’ put it together, a more appropriate question should be ‘what’ godly characteristics did they look for in discerning which books to include & which ones to omit? Obviously, a book that would contain historical & theological errors in & contradictions between previous & later Scripture couldn’t be included, otherwise, they would be like saying that God Himself is capable of being in error & contradiction, which is impossible. So, first, you need to ask yourself ‘are ALL the books in the Catholic Bible free from error & contradiction?’ And the answer is ‘no’ — in fact, ALL of the books in the Catholic Bible that are NOT in the Protestant Bible have errors and/or contradictions in them (which I can readily prove to you). The Hebrew OT (the OT books that are in Protestant Bibles) were well-established long before the time of Christ, which is why Christ authenticated them when He spoke to the Pharisees (Luke 11:49-51). The confusion that the early Catholic church had was that since the Septuagint was a TRANSLATION of both the Hebrew OT & the Apocrypha into Greek, they ‘assumed’ that the 7 Apocryphal books, that are in Catholic Bibles today, were also in the Hebrew OT, so they placed those books in the already accepted Hebrew OT canon…even though later the Catholic church realized that they WEREN’T in the Hebrew OT canon.

    As far as the NT canon, keep in mind, that by mid-FIRST Century, the large majority of the NT was accepted as SCRIPTURE — Paul referred to Luke’s Gospel as ‘SCRIPTURE’ (1 Timothy 5:18) — which would also include Acts, which was Luke’s ‘continuation’ from his Gospel, and Peter called ALL of Paul’s epistles ‘SCRIPTURE’ (2 Peter 3:15-16). And by the end of the 1st Century, John’s book of Revelation was ‘self-authenticated’ to a revelation from Jesus (Revelation 1:1), as well as the closing of the canon (Revelation 22:18-19), & by doing so, it authenticated John’s Gospel, as well as his epistles. Also, if we go to the writings of the ECF’s, these early Church Fathers wrote numerous books and letters in which they made over 38,000 quotations from the New Testament. From their writings alone we could reconstruct the entire New Testament minus about 11 verses.” (Recently, some Christian apologists have discovered only 6 verses of the NT aren’t quoted by the ECF’s.) So, by the time the various LOCAL councils were formed to discern between false ‘gospels’ & epistles, and Inspired ones, there was no question based on the testimony of the Paul, Peter, & John that the 27 books we have in the NT now, as well as the 39 books in the OT that was accepted in the days of Jesus (& previous to that) were Inspired Scripture. However, because the writings of the ECF’s are NOT Inspired, & because they WERE fallible men, they made the mistake of placing those 7 Apocryphal books in the Bible, but they were not UNIVERSALLY accepted until Trent, but rather accepted by LOCAL councils — which were frequently wrong, which had to be corrected by universal councils. And the reason they struggled with the Apocrypha, was because of the obvious & blatant errors & contradictions in them, which they only UNIVERSALLY accepted as Inspired Scripture, ONLY in response to the Reformation (this is supported even by EWTN):

    Although other books not included in the Bible were regarded as ‘authoritarian’ in ‘some’ churches (such as didache, the ‘gospel’ of Thomas, Clement’s 1st epistle to the Corinthians, etc.), they weren’t considered ‘Inspired,’ but rather ‘edifying reading’ like the way the FIRST Century Christian Church viewed the 7 Apocrypha books. The didache contains word for word verses from Revelation, which argues for a ‘post-Revelation date,’ which would have been when the Bible was completed. The ‘gospel’ of Thomas paints a completely DIFFERENT ‘Jesus,’ than that from Scripture, plus it was written LATER that the Inspired Gospels. Although Clement was mentioned in the NT, & part of that early Christian Church, it wasn’t considered ‘Inspired,’ because his writings made ‘some’ (albeit, not many) false statements, such as him believing that the Phoenix was a real animal. 2 Clement is a ‘theoretical’ epistle that can’t be verified, which proves that ‘if’ it existed, it’s not part of Scripture, otherwise, God would not have allowed it to lost. And although Clement was ‘A’ bishop of Rome, he was NOT a pope, & neither was Peter. So, other than CATHOLIC church ‘tradition,’ the only evidence that Peter ‘might’ have been in Rome, was his reference to it, by referring to ‘Babylon’ (a ‘key word’ for ‘Rome’). However, Peter was NEVER bishop in Rome (ie: pope), because according to the Catholic ‘tradition’ his ‘papacy’ would have been somewhere between 30 to 64 (or 67 A.D.) & inbetween this time, Peter wrote his epistle to Rome, & Paul NEVER referred to Peter, nor to the bishop of Rome, like he addressed bishops of other cities. In fact, the term ‘bishop of Rome’ isn’t mentioned in ANY NT book, including Revelation. And that’s because the bishop that was in Rome wasn’t anymore ‘supreme’ than any other bishop.

    So, the Catholic church didn’t ‘choose’ what books went in the Bible. Rather, the ALREADY established OT & NT books were included, & certain godly criteria were used to discern between between false ‘gospels’ & epistles and Inspired ones. And as far as Christians “scratching and stabbing each other with divided teachings” that was a common occurrence in the Catholic church over the centuries. Popes murdered & were murdered by ‘competitors’ to the papacy, they brutally tortured & murdered anyone who questioned the authority of the pope — even when he was wrong, the papacy was frequently ‘bought’ by influential families in the church during the middle ages, like the Borjia’s. So, the Catholic church is not ‘exempt’ from ‘divided teachings’ — many of which popes disagreed & had ‘divisions’ with each other, even over salvation. How many ‘rites’ are in the Catholic church alone today? And let’s not forget about the divisions from the Catholic church BEFORE the Reformation (the Great Schism — Eastern Greek Orthodox; Oriental Orthodox — 451; etc.)

    Yes, Christ wants unity & not division, but only unity of a ‘TRUE Church’ that obeys HIM, not church leaders that teach a different plan(s) of salvation than He did. And how we ‘know’ what Jesus’ plan is, is by looking to SCRIPTURE, & if church teachings on salvation are contrary to Scripture, than that teaching isn’t from Christ. So, the Church should be united by SCRIPTURE, not ‘ecumenism’ or ‘ecumenical bibles.’ So, the Catholic church did NOT ‘give us our Bible.’ The OT was ‘given’ to us by the Jews FIRST, then the Jews (plus Luke) ‘gave us’ the NT, which was completed by the FIRST Century. The Bible (plus the uninspired Apocrypha) was placed under one cover, CENTURIES later.

    Your comments about Luther are irrelevant, because I’m not a follower of Luther or the ‘successor’ of Peter, but of Jesus (read 1 Corinthians Ch.1). The reason Luther wanted to remove James, was because as a former Catholic, he believed that James was teaching a ‘works+faith’ salvation plan (which James WASN’T teaching). It’s also why he ‘originally’ thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin & ‘immaculately’ conceived (which NEITHER is true). In fact, the concept of the PVM originates — not from the Bible — but from the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James — a SECOND Century Gnostic writing, which is confirmed from Jimmy Akin from CatholicAnswers. Plus, Luther wasn’t ‘head’ of the Protestant Church, like Catholics imply he was. Other Protestants worked WITH Luther to discern between Inspired Scriptures & false ‘scripture’ using the godly characteristics by the OT Jews & the first Century Church before them.

    Lastly, regarding the false ‘gospel’ of salvation that the Catholic church teaches, I’m referring to the Catholic church’s ‘interpretation’ of ‘water’ in John 3:5, & how that interpretation contradicts other Catholic dogmas (like ‘invincible ignorance,’ ‘baptism by desire,’ ‘baptized by blood,’ the ‘hope’ of salvation for babies who die without baptism, etc), which I’ll cover in another reply to you. So, before you quickly respond to that with Catholic ‘cookie-cutter’ responses that I’ve heard hundreds of times already by Catholics, I want you to REALLY think about the problem with that CATHOLIC interpretation of John 3:5, & how the Catholic church is the one who is ‘really’ calling Jesus a ‘liar.’

    BTW, the HOLY SPIRIT ‘intercedes’ for me (Romans 8:26-27) & so does JESUS (Romans 8:34) — NOT Mary. Mary is in Heaven, but she’s DEAD. Just like the High Priest was the ONLY one who could intercede for Israel & go before God, today, Jesus OUR ‘High Priest’ intercedes FOR US before God (Hebrews 4:14) — NOT Mary.

    John 3:5
    Consider this Catholic belief about John 3:5:

    ‘UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven.’

    The Catholic church believes ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism. So, John 3:5 could read:

    ‘UNLESS one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven.’

    This would mean that a person CANNOT enter Heaven, UNLESS he is baptized IN WATER (emphasis added). In Greek, ‘UNLESS’ means ‘except,’ & ‘CANNOT’ means ‘has no power,’ so in Greek, John 3:5 would read:

    ‘EXCEPT one is baptized IN WATER & the Spirit, he HAS NO POWER to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

    This would mean that the ONLY way to enter Heaven is to be baptized IN WATER (again, emphasis added). So, how exactly can a person who is ‘baptized by desire,’ ‘baptized of blood,’ ‘invincibly ignorant,’ or the ‘hope of salvation for unbaptized babies who die WITHOUT being baptized IN WATER? Remember, Jesus used EXCLUSIVE language (‘UNLESS’ & ‘CANNOT’), which in Greek, means that being baptized IN WATER would be the ONLY way to enter Heaven, ‘IF’ the ‘water’ refers to the waters of BAPTISM, which is the official Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5.


    Paragraph 1 is simply based from the Greek. There’s nothing ‘anti-catholic’ about it. It’s whether you accept the fact or not that the NT was originally written in Greek, not English or Latin. When you translate from one language to another, you lose meaning, because languages have different rules & the meaning and intent of words & phrases don’t always translate as well. One of the main differences I see between Catholics & Protestants, is that Catholics tend to personally interpret a verse based on what they ‘think’ a passage means in English, while the Protestant desires to know what the most accurate meaning based on the original languages of the Inspired text. And that’s why Catholics think Peter is the ‘rock’ that Jesus built His Church on, while Protestants believe that it’s the revelation that God gave to Peter ‘Who’ Jesus is. So, it’s not ‘anti-catholic,’ it’s disciplining oneself to desire to know what a passage means outside of one’s religious opinion & tradition. Logically speaking, how could the ‘rock’ be Peter when 1) Peter never refers to himself as ‘rock’ (petra), 2) When Jesus refers to Peter in other passages, he refers to him as ‘stone’ (Petros), not ‘rock’ (petra), 3) Immediately after Jesus talks about the ‘rock’ He is to built his Church on, Peter’s faith fails, & Jesus looks TO Peter & says ‘get behind me SATAN!’ 4) Even in one of Peter’s epistles, he calls himself ‘Simon Peter,’ not just Peter, 5) Peter NEVER refers to himself as a ‘rock’ in his epistles, but a ‘fellow’ small ‘stone,’ 6) Even after the Church is established, Peter was so wrong in doctrine that Paul had to rebuke him to his face. If Peter can be wrong, the pope & the magisterium certainly can be. And far as the Pontifex Maximus being adopted by the papacy from Roman Emperors, this information can be found right from where there’s over 200 references regarding that term, over 30 from EWTN, & even on Wikipedia if you want a neutral source. So, that’s hardly ‘anti-catholic.’
    And, again, historically, there is no evidence either Christian or otherwise, that Peter was the first pope, nor that the bishop of Rome had any higher ‘supremacy’ in the Church than any other bishop. CatholicAnswers even quotes an ECF, Ignatius’ letter to Smyrna, “Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” Catholic incorrectly believe that this refers to the bishop of Rome, however, Ignatius never mentions the bishop of Rome. Rather, he’s addressing the bishop of SMYRNA, just as John addresses the ‘angel’ (‘messenger’ — ie: the bishop) of Smyrna in Revelation. The bishop of Rome is not even mention in ANY of John writings, which were the last to be written to complete the canon.

    Paragraph 2 is simply your ability & willingness to accept whether a particular writing is Inspired or not, or if you simply ‘believe’ your religious leaders tell you. You say that you can’t be swayed, but if you can’t recognize an error & contradiction in a writing, then apparently you can be. Personally, I don’t have a problem if the 7 Apocryphal books are Inspired, but after putting my ‘religious’ beliefs, aside I decided to be more like the Bereans, rather than the Thessalonicans, & ‘compare what I have been taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). Unfortunately, more times than not, Catholics don’t do that. I am ‘still’ willing to SHOW you the errors & contradictions in the Apocrypha if you want to see them. But based on your responses, you are unwilling to even look at them, because if you were spiritually discerned & you accepted those errors & contradictions, it would pose a problem for you as a Catholic. And only the Holy Spirit can help you with that.

    Paragraph 3 is simply right out of the Bible, so there is nothing ‘anti-catholic’ about that (unless you are implying that the Bible is anti-catholic). I even gave you the actual VERSES to prove that most of the NT was CALLED ‘SCRIPTURE’ by mid-1st Century. If you don’t believe me, then go ahead & READ the SCRIPTURE verses I provided. The last part of Paragraph 3 was straight from EWTN — a CATHOLIC source that shows that the matter of the Apocrypha was ‘not settled’ until well AFTER the council of Florence (1441). I even gave you the EWTN Web site, so you could READ it. Again, hardly ‘anti-catholic.’

    Paragraph 4 is simply explaining — objectively — ‘why’ books like the didache, 1 Clement, the ‘gospel’ of Thomas, etc were not included in the Bible, which the Catholic church would AGREE with. So, again, hardly ‘anti-catholic.’ The last part addresses the logical & historical reason why Peter was NOT the bishop of Rome, based on ‘when’ the Catholic church believes he reigned as pope. So, aside from simply ‘believing’ in what the Catholic church ‘tells you,’ the burden of proof is on ‘you’ to prove from Scripture, as well as from logic that Peter reigned during that time. Scripture is totally absent about Peter’s papacy, as well as logic based on Scripture & early FIRST Century CHRISTIAN Church history.

    Paragraph 5 is based on CATHOLIC history that, again, the Catholic church would agree with. Sorry, but the Catholic church has a very evil track record, especially around the middle ages. All you have to do is turn on EWTN or go to their Web site, & a lot of this is discussed.

    Paragraph 6, again, is based on SCRIPTURE — again, certainly not ‘anti-catholic’ – & whether you accept & are able to spiritually discern ‘why’ God sent His Only Begotten Son to die FOR us, which was previously discussed.

    Paragraph 7 was about your incorrect understanding about Luther & the REASONS ‘why’ he wanted to remove the Apocrypha & the canonically Inspired Scripture (the latter, he DIDN’T, btw). And, the ‘true’ source of the PVM, which CatholicAnswers AGREES with. Check it out on YouTube or go to their site & check it out for yourself.

    Paragraph 8 addresses the contradictory doctrinal beliefs of the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5. You say that you can’t be ‘easily swayed,’ yet you accept these Catholic contradictions in their own doctrines, because you’ll readily believe in Catholic theology, simply for the sake of Catholic theology, rather than objectively examine those doctrines, like to noble-minded Bereans would, to see if those doctrines are SCRIPTURALLY sound, or if they are not.

    Paragraph 9, again, are direct quotes from SCRIPTURE ‘Who’ the Apostle Paul says ‘intercedes’ for us, not who ‘religious’ fallible men says intercedes for us. So, do you believe Inspired Scripture, or fallible religious men, who have a long tract history of changing their theology on salvation?

    All I’m asking is three things? 1) Examine the separate email regarding John 3:5 & address the Catholic contradictions of salvation…and really take some time to let it sink in before responding, 2) Think about ‘why’ the books of the Bible are in there, rather than ‘who’ put them in there. IOW, ‘what’ godly criteria did the OT Jews & then the early Church use to discern between Inspired Scripture & false writings? Why did they include the Gospel of Luke, but not the ‘gospel’ of Thomas? & 3) If you are so confident that the 7 Apocryphal books belong in the Bible, then why aren’t you confident enough to ask me to SHOW you those errors & contradictions? I’m more than willing to show them to you.

    So, before responding with ‘cookie-cutter’ Catholic responses like ‘Jesus isn’t bound by the same commands He gives us’ or ‘God is merciful,’ etc. keep in mind that Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE words, & since Jesus is God, He can’t make an EXCLUSIVE statement, but then later ‘change His mind,’ because that means His original statement would be false, & God cannot lie.

    Really think about this…

  26. sabino L.Vallecer said

    tabangi ko ninyo aron mahanas ko pagagamit sa biblia kay usa ako ka chapel chairman ang ako problema kon adunay sda ug born again maglisod ko ug lahutay sa biblia nila. tabangi ko

  27. nestor ronolo said

    brod kana ba mga anti pope kinsa man pod nag proklamar na mga anti pope na sila? ang catholic pod ba nga simbahan or lain nga secta?

  28. Rocham Lauranilla said

    taga pagadian city ko. naa program sa radio namo dri every sunday. usa ko ka catholic faith pero gusto ko mo apil ug seminar sa apolegitics para daghan ko makat-onan. gusto pod ko ma certified catholic faith defender.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: