A CASE STUDY IN CATHOLIC BASHING, More or Les

A CASE STUDY IN CATHOLIC BASHING, More or Les

By: PHIL PORVAZNIK

 

 

Retrieve from: https://web.archive.org/web/20071221053607/http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num4.htm

 

 

Being an Exhaustive Refutation of the Biblical Bloopers, Historical Blunders, Logical Absurdities, Incoherent Nonsense, Outright Fabrications, and Pure Poppycock of the Posts of LES WILCOX

========================================================================

“Good. I’m ready for you Catholics to quit all this accusations without any substantiation. If it was really all that hilarious I would think as an adult you would just ignore it. Must be more serious than hilarious, huh?” LES WILCOX TO PHIL PORVAZNIK — FidoNet Open_Bible 8/14/95

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church….As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.” ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN — preface to RADIO REPLIES

“Errors die hard, especially Protestant fictions.” DOM JOHN CHAPMAN — Monk of Downside Abbey

“The committed fundamentalist, who is often a former Catholic, KNOWS the Catholic religion is wrong and thinks he can prove it from the Bible. The first step is to demonstrate to him that much of what he knows simply is not so. Emotional barriers will be overcome later, and they will fall as he realizes he has not been told the whole story.” KARL KEATING — from CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM

========================================================================

In this reply to the posts of Les Wilcox, I will respond to three anti-Catholic posts that have appeared in Open_Bible the past month:

1) THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH or THE ROMAN ROAD TO SALVATION by “Computers for Christ” in San Jose

2) Which will you believe? The Holy Scriptures, God’s Unchanging Word or The Human Traditions of Men? by The Conversion Center (for more on this group see chapter 4 of Karl Keating’s book)

3) Are some Roman Catholics Saved? by an ex-priest Rev H. Gregory Adams (for his story see FAR FROM ROME, NEAR TO GOD edited by another ex-priest Richard Bennett)

========================================================================

LW> We ask that you find out for yourself – in the manner that Paul COMMANDS us to: “TEST ALL THINGS – HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS TRUE”.

========================================================================

This will be the theme of this reply. Les reminds us of this command from the apostle to “test all things” (1 Thess 5:21). Unfortunately, not a single charge in these anti-Catholic posts WAS tested and hardly anything in them is true. The name’s Friday and the dates HAVE been changed to protect the innocent. In fact, most of it was just made up out of thin air and/or copied from other anti-Catholic material such as Loraine Boettner’s book ROMAN CATHOLICISM (P&R, 1962). There is not a shred of documentation for the errors, misunderstandings, fabrications, and irrelevancies in these posts.

And Les was complaining to me about no substantiation? Give me a break!

CATHOLIC “INVENTIONS”

Let’s start with the lists of supposed “inventions.”

First, the author of the post “THE ROMAN ROAD…” has no clue what Catholics mean by DOGMA. For example,

LW> The Roman Catholic Church maintains as irreversible and mandatory doctrine (we will use their term “DOGMA” in the remainder of this writing)

LW> There are a number of DOGMATIC doctrines of the Roman Catholic church that were NOT part of the original church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to make the claim that “the Church has always taught (????????)!” You can fill in the blank with EACH and EVERY dogma listed below.

LW> Look up the scriptures under the dates of certain doctrines.

LW> THE DOGMAS AND DATES ARE LISTED BELOW:

The author is confusing the terms “dogma” and “doctrine.” For both Catholics and Protestants, “DOCTRINE” simply means “teaching” and is derived from the Greek word -didache- denoting that which is taught (Matt 7:28; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9) or the act of teaching or instruction (Mark 4:2; Rom 16:17). Doctrine can be true or false (2 Tim 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1) though the Scripture stresses “sound doctrine” (1 Tim 4:6; Titus 2:1) taught by the apostles and passed on and guarded by their successors, the Bishops, such as Timothy and Titus (1 Tim 3:2; 4:11-16; 6:20-21; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2) who taught with Christ’s own authority (Mt 10:19-20,40; 16:18-19; 18:17-18; 28:18-20; Lk 10:16; Jn 20:21-23).

The Catholic term “DOGMA” refers to a true doctrine that has been solemnly defined by a Council of Bishops (cf. Acts 15) or a Pope. The actual date of the definition does not mean that is when the dogma was INVENTED but that is when it was solemnly DEFINED. To quote Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott from a standard reference source, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA (Tan Books, 1974) —

“By DOGMA in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority [or Magisterium] of the Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council explains:

Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenta sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solmeni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur [Denz 1792].

“All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching.” (Ott, p. 4)

A good example of this which all Catholics and Protestants accept is the Christological dogma of the two natures (divine and human) in the one Person of Christ defined as orthodox for the whole Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. “Peter has spoken through Leo!” the Bishops exclaimed. Pope Leo’s TOME settled the matter for this Council.

In fact, the first four ecumenical Councils of the Christian Church almost all Bible-believing conservative Protestants accept and receive as teaching the truth handed down to them from Christ and His apostles.

One could say the Church has ALWAYS taught the Trinity even though there have been those who have denied certain aspects of it (e.g. Subordinationists, Arians, Monarchians, Monophysites, Pneumatomakians).

There is a certain DEVELOPMENT of doctrine as Cardinal Newman explained in his classic work on the subject, concerning the nature of God. And there is one true teaching — the DOGMA of the Trinity — but many heretics and many false doctrines on the nature of God and Christ.

Since the author of “THE ROMAN ROAD…” has no idea what a DOGMA is almost everything in the list of “inventions” is completely irrelevant. So I would have the right to throw the whole list out of court from the start. It proves nothing.

However, I will deal with some of it below. And not only are these not dogmas, but most of them are not even DOCTRINES. The author does not know what a doctrine is either.

LW> Before we look at the books of John and Matthew, which the Roman church claims as its authority, I believe that it is important to look at the FACTS of recorded history. Let’s look AT THE RECORD OF HISTORY

The problem is these are hardly “FACTS.” There is not one shred of documentation for these “FACTS” of recorded history. Most of it is completely false. I will document this shortly.

Sorry, Les, I do not count Loraine Boettner as a credible historian. He simply made some of these dates up out of thin air! If you compare his list of “Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions” in his book ROMAN CATHOLICISM (p. 7-9) you will find almost all of these listed below. The dates in Boettner and “THE ROMAN ROAD…” are identical.

This is simply a case of one anti-Catholic copying another anti-Catholic. Neither produces ANY documentation.

These are hardly “facts” but FABRICATIONS of history!

Let’s look at some of these. Remember what the author of “THE ROMAN ROAD…” is claiming — that these are DOGMAS of the Catholic Church. Here are a few….

LW> 300 – MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

500 – PRIESTS BEGAN TO DRESS IN “PRIESTLY” GARB

600 – LATIN LANGUAGE AS ONLY LANGUAGE OF PRAYER (I Cor 14:9)

709 – KISSING THE FEET OF POPE ORDERED (Acts 10:25-26 & Rev 19:10, 22:9)

850 – FABRICATION AND USE OF HOLY WATER

965 – BAPTISM OF THE BELLS (Ceremony of actually baptising bells

998 – FASTING ON FRIDAYS & DURING LENT (Matt 15:11, I Cor 10:25, I Tim 4:1-8)

1090 – INSTITUTION OF ROSARY PRAYER BEADS

1265 – Mary’s HOUSE MOVED BY ANGEL TO LORENTO, ITALY

1287 – SCAPULAR PROTECTION DECREED (Brown cloth with picture

1593 – AVE MARIA ADOPTED

1710 – STUFFED DONKEY IN VERONA,ITALY AT CHURCH OF THE MADONNA OF THE ORGANS DECREED TO BE THE ANIMAL CHRIST ENTERED JERUSALEM ON

That last one is what I meant by “hilarious,” Les. I ask Les Wilcox, how dumb does he think Catholics are? A stuffed donkey in Italy is the donkey Christ rode in Jerusalem on? And this he thinks is a DOGMA? Or a doctrine?

Even if the dates are correct, NONE of these are dogmas, NONE of these are doctrines. The author does not know what either one is and apparently Les Wilcox has no clue either since he uploaded this nonsense. The Sign of the Cross, priestly dress, use of Latin, kissing the Pope as a greeting and sign of respect (1 Peter 5:14; Rom 16:16; etc… not worship so your verses hardly apply!), holy water, bell “baptism” (in the sense of blessing not that the bells actually received the Sacrament!), Friday fasting, the Rosary, the Legend of Loretto (spelling above is wrong), the Scapular, the Hail Mary (or Ave Maria), and Donkeys alive or dead or stuffed have nothing to do with Catholic Dogma, Les. Most of these are disciplines or customs of the Church, neither dogmas nor doctrines.

Now let’s look at some of the errors contained in the above.

The date for the use of Latin is way off. Latin was the COMMON (i.e. “vulgar” as in Latin Vulgate) language of the Christian people in the West from at least the 2nd century. All the early Fathers of the West wrote in Latin and it was used in the Liturgy almost immediately and is still the official language of the Church. Paul wrote to Latin-speaking Rome. And it is a beautiful language! But so what? What is the point of this “invention?”

The 1 Tim 4:1-5 passage I have answered a million times here. The “doctrines of demons” was to forbid marriage to EVERYONE and forbid certain foods because they thought these were SINFUL. These were the early Gnostic heretics who denied that Jesus “has come in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7).

The body is evil so the Incarnation was impossible and the marital union was also evil according to these heretics. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a Sacrament so we hardly forbid it. And we recommend fasting as a discipline (mandatory during Lent) just as the Bible does (following Jesus’ example in the desert — Matt 4).

One anomaly in the dating is the “institution” of the Rosary according to the above was in 1090 (wrongly attributed to Peter the Hermit, see Boettner) while the Hail Mary did not come into being until 1593.

The Rosary prayer originally consisted of the 150 Psalms. And the tradition of the Rosary actually is linked with St. Dominic (1170-1221) who is said to have received it from the Virgin Mary herself to combat the Albigensian heresy. See “The Rosary Dissected” by Terry L. Frazier (THIS ROCK Sept 94), an Evangelical convert to the Catholic faith.

Holy water can hardly be said to be “fabricated” in 850 A.D. since it is clearly found in the Old Testament as in the Jewish rites of purification (Num 5:17; 8:7; ch 19; Exod 30:18-20; Lev 11:28,32,40).

Using holy water and making the Sign of the Cross as Catholics frequently do upon entering a Catholic church reminds us of the waters of Baptism which once flowed over our foreheads — see Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers — and signifies that we are not worthy to enter into the Presence of Christ without purification. As Catholics say before Communion, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

Also, there is a contradiction between “THE ROMAN ROAD…” and the list from The Conversion Center —

LW> 850 – FABRICATION AND USE OF HOLY WATER

LW> Fabrication of Holy water……………………….A.D. 1009

Well, which is it? I guess the author thinks he can get away with this since at the bottom of the second list is added —

LW> (The dates are approximate.)

Yeah, approximately in the first or second millennium! They are both way off by hundreds and hundreds of years. Try this….

“It is required then that the water should first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away by its Baptism the sins of the man who is baptized.” ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (Letters 70:1 A.D. 258)

“King and Lord…look upon these waters and fill them with the Holy Spirit…that those who are being baptized may be no longer flesh and blood but spiritual.” SERAPION (Euchologion 19 c. A.D. 392)

SOURCE: New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol 14, p. 825-827) under “Water”

The “Asperges” or ceremony of sprinkling altar, clergy, and people with holy water on Sundays became a custom of the Church in the 800’s under Pope Leo IV. Maybe that is what these lists were talking about? But so what? Holy water is biblical (Num 5:17) so what is the big deal?

The Sign of the Cross was already an old custom in the time of Tertullian who lived from c. 155-250 A.D. —

“At every forward step and movement, when coming in and going out, when putting on our clothes, when putting on our shoes, when bathing, when at table, when lighting the lamps, when reclining, when sitting, in all the ordinary occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our forehead with the Sign.” (De corona or THE CROWN 3:4 A.D. 211)

SOURCE: The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens (3 volumes)

LW> 300 – MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

LW> Making the sign of the Cross……………………A.D. 330

Come on, Les! Make up your mind, 300 or 330? One is from “THE ROMAN ROAD…” and one from The Conversion Center. Has Les bothered to “test all things….” It would not appear so.

To answer each of these “inventions” would require a whole book (see Karl Keating’s CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM), so let’s move on….

LW> 300 – PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD

LW> Prayers for the dead were instituted…………….A.D. 330

Make up your mind, 300 or 330? Actually it was much earlier. Try Tertullian again —

“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries.” [-pro nataliciis annua- or on the anniversary of their death which is their birthday into eternal life] THE CROWN 3:3 A.D. 211

“A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband….Indeed, she PRAYS FOR HIS SOUL and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.” Tertullian, MONOGAMY 10:1,4 A.D. 213

“Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it PRAY FOR Abercius. Nor indeed, shall any man place another in my tomb.” EPITAPH OF ABERCIUS, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia Salutaris, 180 A.D.

“May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.” APOSTLE PAUL, c. 67 A.D. 2 Tim 1:16-18 THE IGNATIUS BIBLE-RSV

My Catholic Bible says Onesiphorus is dead. You don’t like that? Okay, how about….

“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” JUDAS MACCABEUS, c. 100 B.C. 2 Macc 12:46

Now if you don’t think this is Scripture, how do you determine what IS Scripture to begin with? You must at least admit this was a custom of the Jews and an early Christian practice, BEFORE 300 A.D.

LW> 325 – ANATHEMA DECREED TO ANYONE WHO ADDS OR CHANGES THE CREED OF FAITH OF NICE

Anathema was decreed by Paul (Gal 1:8-9). We follow the apostle. Now if you’re talking the Filioque clause “from the Father AND the Son” that subject has been discussed here with our Orthodox friends.

LW> 370 – COUNCIL OF LAODICEA REJECTS APOCRYPHA

Partially correct. The date is wrong — should be 363 A.D. Canon 60 (though the genuineness is open to doubt) enumerates the canonical books following Athanasius closely although Ruth is attached to Judges and Esther follows immediately. It does not include the Apocalypse (Revelation) among the NT canonical books. See F.F. Bruce THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE (Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 80, 210.

The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397,419) as well as the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus (382) accepted the “Apocrypha” or what Catholics call the deuterocanonical books, and these decisions were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of 2nd Nicaea (787), Florence (1438-43) and finally Trent (1545-63).

Catholics receive their canon, whether OT or NT, on the authority of the original historic Church founded by Christ (Matt 16:18-19). You have no such authority which is why I asked — how can you determine what IS Scripture? Do you have an answer to that, Les?

LW> 375 – VENERATION OF ANGELS AND DEAD SAINTS

LW> 593 – PRAYERS TO BE DIRECTED TO MARY ORDERED (Matt 11:28, Luke 1:46, Acts 10:25 & 14:14)

Boettner has — (see his ROMAN CATHOLICISM, p. 7-8)

Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images…..375

Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels, about…..600

First, they aren’t dead but alive with Christ in heaven (Matt 22:32; Phil 1:23; Rev 5:8; 8:3-4). Angels can pray for us too (see Psalm 103:20-21; 148:1-2). They are “ministering spirits” (Heb 1:7,14; 12:22f; Matt 18:10; Acts 12:11; Rev 5:11).

Second, the dates are way off. 600 A.D. ? Not quite.

“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels…as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep.” ORIGEN On Prayer 11 A.D. 233

“Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ].” PECTORIUS Epitaph A.D. 250

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.” ST. CYPRIAN Letters 56(60):5 A.D. 252

“Mother of God, listen to my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger.” Rylands Papyrus 3 A.D. 350

“You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard…But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?” ST. JEROME Against Vigilantius 6 A.D. 406

And so on….Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Ephraem of Syria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Pope Leo the Great all believed we could ask for the prayer of angels, Saints, the Virgin Mary, and all members united in the one Body of Christ.

Prayers cannot be “ORDERED” and your biblical verses are irrelevant.

LW> 394 – THE SACRAMENT OF THE MASS

394 A.D. for the Mass, huh? I exploded that myth in my looooooooong posts to Mick James — see This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers. The Liturgy has changed little from the time of St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.). See his 1 Apology ch 65-67.

LW> 431 – THE WORSHIP OF MARY

LW> Mary, QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17 & 25)

LW> Mary, MEDIATRIX (I Tim 2:5, Mt 11:28, Ecc 9:6)

LW> Mary, EVER-VIRGIN (Mt 1:25, Mk 6:3, Jn 2:2-4)

LW> 785 – Mary, CO-REDEMPTRIX (Acts 4:12, Ps 146:5, Heb 7:25)

LW> 788 – Mary, WORSHIP (Romans 1:25,Is 42:8, John 7:10)

LW> 1508 – Mary, MOTHER OF GOD (Mt 12:46-50, Mark 8;19-21, Acts 1:14)

LW> 1864 – Mary, SINLESS (Luke 1:46-47, Romans 3:10-19 & 23)

LW> 1854 – IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF VIRGIN MARY (Romans 3:23 & 5:12, Psalms 51:5)

Now this is what I meant by Incoherent Nonsense in my introduction.

How am I supposed to decipher all of this? First, “WORSHIP” of Mary has never been taught by the Church although there have been abuses in Marian piety and misunderstanding among Catholics. And will you please make up your mind. Was it 431 or 788 where the “worship” of Mary was taught? And was it 1864 or 1854 where the sinlessness of Mary from the moment of conception (Immaculate Conception) was taught?

The Conversion Center has the 788 one as —

LW> Adoration of Mary, the Saints, the Cross, images, relics…A.D. 788

Compared with “THE ROMAN ROAD…”

LW> 788 – WORSHIP OF CROSS, RELICS AND IMAGES AUTHORIZED (Exodus 20:4, Deut 27:15, Psalms 115)

And Loraine Boettner has —

Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in……788

The fact is neither “worship” nor “adoration” was taught in 431 or 788. Veneration is the proper Catholic term. We don’t worship wood, relics, or images. We venerate them or give them due respect or honor pointing to the person represented — see my History of Iconoclasm. This was defined and explained at the 2nd Council of Nicaea (787) as follows —

“We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer [Theotokos] and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration.

“Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the DIVINE nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross and also to the Holy Books of the Gospels and to other sacred objects….Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model; and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.”

(cited in THIS ROCK May 1994)

LW> 1508 – Mary, MOTHER OF GOD (Mt 12:46-50, Mark 8:19-21, Acts 1:14)

Mary declared the “Mother of God” in 1508? You’ve got to be kidding. I have testimony going back more than a thousand years earlier than that date in a debate I had with a rabid anti-Catholic Fundy — see Mary the Mother of God, for Theotokos = “God Bearer” or Mother of God officially proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Even Boettner (p. 7) got that much right. Theotokos was meant to safeguard the deity-humanity of Christ against the Nestorians who denied the title to Mary and also taught Christ was two persons.

As far as the perpetual virginity of Mary is concerned, your date is a bit off. I have another fairly exhaustive debate on that — see The Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. All the major Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley) defended it!

LW> 431 – Mary, QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17 & 25)

While “Queen of Heaven” was not officially taught in 431 as you erroneously say, the title is found as early as the fourth century in the prayers of Ephraem of Syria and is very popular also among our Eastern Christian brethren, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The verses in Jeremiah can hardly be used against us unless you wish to condemn the title “King of kings” for Jesus (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16) since it is used of the pagan king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:37). Because Jesus is the Davidic King, Jesus elevates His Mother as Queen of Heaven (Rev 12) just as the Queen-Mother was highly exalted and given a prominent place in the OT (1 Kings 2).

Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) —

“She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: ‘Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.'”

Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said —

“She was not filled with pride by this praise…this immense praise: ‘No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN….blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'”

(LUTHER’S WORKS 36:208; 45:107 as cited in REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY by Fr. Mateo available from Catholic Answers)

Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer’s brother-in-law, Zwingli’s successor said:

“What pre-eminence in the eyes of purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them…”

French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt said in the 17th century —

“We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God.”

(from MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [p. 89] by Calvinist theologian Max Thurian who later converted to the Catholic faith)

The titles of “Mediatrix” or “Co-Redemptrix” for Mary have not been officially defined so those dates are wrong. They do reflect the Marian piety and devotion of many great Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church. For a complete defense of Marian doctrines, get the above booklet from Catholic Answers. And read it carefully.

Let’s continue with the “inventions” list…..

LW> 593 – DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY (Gregory) (I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2, John 5:24, Rom 8:1)

LW> 1439 – PURGATORY DECLARED VALID DOGMA (Matt 25:46, I John 1:7, Luke 23:43)

Purgatory is another whole debate and I will give more on this subject in a later post. Suffice to say, the anti-Catholics you have quoted have no idea what purgatory is about. The dates are approximately correct but must be properly understood. Gregory the Great is usually referred to as the “inventor” of purgatory in 590 A.D. But Augustine certainly believed in the doctrine as early as 400 and we will get to his quotes and what the Bible says later.

The author of “THE ROMAN ROAD…” is completely wrong stating —

LW> As we have shown in the historical outline at the beginning of this writing, there was a period of almost six hundred years where (1) the Apostles, (2) early church fathers or (3) church historians did not know of or write about PURGATORY!

Wrong! Many of the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church wrote on the efficacy of praying for the dead and/or a state of purification after death beginning with Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, as well as Gregory the Great and later Catholic theologians as Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas and Bonaventure supported the doctrine. The Council of Florence (1438) merely defined as dogma what had been previously believed universally in the Church.

LW> 600 – TITLE OF POPE DECLARED FORE-RUNNER OF THE ANTI-CHRIST (Gregory, Bishop of Rome)

LW> Gregory the Great, while Bishop of Rome, in 600 A.D. wrote “I confidently say that whosoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or desires to be so called, in his arrogance, is the forerunner of antichrist.”

Oh no! Not the “universal bishop” controversy, again! I answered that quite thoroughly for Mick James and Pedro Vega in the Battle for the Papacy. “UNIVERSAL” in the sense of “ONLY” (that other Bishops weren’t really valid Bishops).

Now let’s move on to more fabrications of history….

LW> 1190 – SALE OF INDULGENCES

The Church never officially sanctioned the “selling of indulgences” although there were abuses in the 16th century. Whatever the date means, this is a caricature of the doctrine. For a biblical defense and explanation of indulgences, see “A Primer on Indulgences” by an Evangelical convert to the Catholic faith, James Akin in THIS ROCK (Nov 1994 issue) from Catholic Answers.

LW> 1229 – BIBLE FORBIDDEN TO LAYMEN (John 5:39, II Tim 3:15-17)

The Bible was never “forbidden” to laymen. Boettner has the same date and adds “forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia….1229.” I have two editions of Boettner’s anti-Catholic book and the later edition corrects this to the Council of Toulouse. There was no Council of Valencia in 1229. And as Karl Keating points out, there never was a Council in Valencia, Spain and the Index of Forbidden Books wasn’t established until 1543! What was “forbidden” were the erroneous versions of the Bible propogated by the Albigenses to support their heresy of Manicheanism. It was a local, temporary matter restricted to southern France. That is all.

LW> 1580 – POPE DECLARED TO BE “LORD GOD”

LW> 1922 – POPE DECLARED TO BE JESUS CHRIST

These two were quite hilarious and since you gave some quotes below I had to look this up. First, your quotes are as follows

LW> Pope John XXII decreed in 1685, “To believe that our LORD GOD the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed is to be deemed heretical.” Then Pius V stated, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.” Finally, Pope Nicholas I declared, “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, BEING GOD, cannot be judged by man.”

LW> Pope Pius X stated, “The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but HE IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? IT IS JESUS CHRIST that Speaks. Does the Pope accord a favor or pronounce an anathema? IT IS JESUS CHRIST who pronounces the anathema or accords the favor.”

Now we go to RADIO REPLIES by Fathers Rumble and Carty (volume 2)

2-310. Pope Pius X made the blasphemous claim that he was “Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks.”

REPLY: A Protestant paper, the “Church Review,” in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscipt of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:

“The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven.”

2-311. Pope Nicholas I. said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

REPLY: Never did Pope Nicholas I. say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this:

“Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none.”

And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is “above the law,” and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, “The king can do no wrong.” Italy itself has acknowledged the justice of the Pope’s claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

2-312. In the “Extravagantes” of Pope John XXII, Roman Canon Law says that it is heresy to deny the power of “Our Lord God the Pope.”

REPLY: That remark is attributed, not to Pope John XXII, but to the Canonist Zenzelinus, in his commentary on Title XIV of the “Extravagantes.” But an examination of the original manuscript of Zenzelinus, preserved in the Vatican Library, failed to reveal the words attributed to him; and it has been definitely proved that the reference to God is an interpolation in later copies of his commentary.

Phil P comments — let’s try to debate what Catholics really believe, Les, rather than trying to show we think the Pope is God, okay?

LW> 1907 – ALL SCIENCE CONDEMNED

LW> 1930 – PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONDEMNED

For these two I had to do some checking in the volumes of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967). Here is what I found —

First, do Catholics have something against science? One might think so from the Galileo case. This was discussed in great detail in a new mag The Catholic Dossier (July/Aug 1995) edited by Ralph McInerny. Here is what Pope John Paul II has to say about science —

“The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the Universe, and the correlative unity for which we strive in our human communities, seem to be reflected and even reinforced in what contemporary science is revealing to us.”

(JPII in “Dynamic Relationship of Theology and Science” in letter to Father George Coyne, S.J. director of the Vatican Observatory cited in “Beam Me Up, Lord?” by Gerard V. Bradley in above mag)

Now was “all science” condemned in 1907 ? Hardly. What was condemned by Pope Pius X was the heresy of Modernism in the decree -Lamentabili sane exitu- (July 3, 1907) which lists 65 condemned propositions containing the errors of Modernism in summary form. In the Encyclical -Pascendi dominici gregis- (Sept 8, 1907) the Pope emphasized the root tendencies and principles of Modernism.

What was condemned included 1) agnosticism, both in natural theology and in the symbolic, nonobjective approach to dogmatic content; and 2) vital immanence, an exclusive immanence of the divine and a consequent natural vital evolution of revelation; and 3) total emancipation of exegesis from dogma and of political-religious movements from ecclesiastical authority.

Modernism as an ideology emerged within the Church around 1900 and sought a revolutionary transmutation of Catholic doctrine through the application of naturalistic evolutionary philosophy and arbitrary historical criticism. It was condemned by the decree -Lamentabili- and the encyclical -Pascendi-, and definitively ended by the Oath against Modernism.

SOURCE: New Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11 (p. 408ff) on Pius X, volume 9 (p. 991f) on “Modernism,” volume 8 (p. 350) on Lamentabili, volume 10 (p. 1048) on Pascendi. How’s that for substantiation?

Now what about public schools? Were public schools condemned in 1930? Nope, wrong again. Under Pope Pius XI, the Encyclopedia explains —

“The encyclical on Christian education, -Divini illius magistri- (Dec 31, 1929), lays the foundation for a genuinely Christian theory of education, opposes the modern state’s monopoly of schools, and undertakes the demarcation and coordination of the education rights of the family, the Church, and the state.” (NCE volume 11, p. 412)

And now for our final inventions…..

LW> 1215 – DOGMA OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION DECLARED (Luke 22:19-20, John 6:35, I Cor 11:26)

LW> Sacrifice of the Mass…………………………..A.D. 1215

LW> 1215 – CONFESSION OF SINS TO PRIEST ORDERED (Ps 51:1-10, Luke 7:48 & 15:21, I John 1:8-9)

LW> Auricular confession of sins to a priest………….A.D. 1215

The exact technical term “transubstantiation” (from Latin meaning “change of substance”) was sanctioned here but the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed from the earliest centuries of the Church. See This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers for details (also find the two massive volumes A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST by the Anglican scholar Darwell Stone).

I had a discussion with David Goforth on Confession. I explained to him what the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) did. It merely reaffirmed the well-established practice while emphasizing the importance of penance. I gave several quotes from the early Fathers like Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom and Pope Leo the Great.

ORIGEN (c. 244 A.D.)

In addition to these [kinds of forgiveness of sins], albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins THROUGH PENANCE…when he [the sinner] does not shrink from DECLARING HIS SIN TO A PRIEST OF THE LORD AND FROM SEEKING MEDICINE….In this way there is fulfilled that too, which the Apostle James says: “If, then, there is anyone sick, let him call the PRESBYTERS [where we get PRIESTS] of the Church, and let them impose hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and if he be in SINS, THEY SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM [James 5:14-15; cf. John 20:21-23].” (Hom on Leviticus 2:4)

CYPRIAN (c. 250 A.D.)

Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who…CONFESS THEIR SINS TO THE PRIESTS OF GOD in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience….Indeed, he but sins the more if, thinking that God is like man, he believes that he can escape the punishment of his crime by not openly admitting his crime….I beseech you, brethren, LET EVERYONE WHO HAS SINNED CONFESS HIS SIN while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, WHILE THE SATISFACTION AND REMISSION MADE THROUGH THE PRIEST ARE STILL PLEASING BEFORE THE LORD. (The Lapsed 28)

For a serious scholarly defense of sacramental Confession, please locate the two massive volumes A HISTORY OF PENANCE by Oscar Watkins!

LW> 1545 – CHURCH TRADITION EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE (Mark 7:7-13, Col 2:8

Apostolic Church Tradition IS equal to Scripture (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). Mark 7, Matthew 15, and Col 2:8 condemn “traditions of men” that contradicted the written Word of God. You would have to show that a certain Catholic dogma contradicted the Bible, that you are properly understanding the Catholic teaching and properly interpreting the Bible, and explain why we should go against the traditional teaching of the Church defended by so many Saints and Fathers that have come before us. It is clear from these posts you have no clue what Catholics believe so you cannot do this.

Tradition has ALWAYS been normative as a Rule of Faith in the Church. -Sola scriptura- was simply never believed. The Council of Trent (1545-63) and Vatican II merely re-affirmed the constant teaching of the historic Christian Church — that for a doctrine to be true it must be established both from Scripture (at least implicitly) and from Tradition.

From EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by eminent Protestant scholar of Church history, J.N.D. Kelly of Oxford (1985) on his chapter TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE (p. 29 – 51)

“Scripture must be interpreted in the light of its fundamental ground-plan, viz. the original revelation itself. For that reason correct exegesis was the PREROGATIVE OF THE CHURCH, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which was the KEY to Scripture had been kept intact [St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4:26:5; 4:32:1; 5:20:2].” (38)

“The whole point of [Irenaeus’] teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, BOTH being vehicles of the revelation. If tradition as conveyed in the ‘canon’ [i.e. Creeds and teaching of the Church] is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the TRUE tenor of the apostolic message is there UNAMBIGUOUSLY SET OUT.” (39)

“Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where CONTROVERSY with heretics breaks out, the RIGHT interpretation can be found ONLY where the TRUE Christian faith and discipline have been MAINTAINED, i.e. IN THE CHURCH [Tertullian De praescr 19].” (40)

“[Tertullian] was certainly profoundly convinced [De praescr 15; 19; 37] of the futility of arguing with heretics MERELY on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it IMPOSSIBLE to reach any decisive conclusion in that field. He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the INDISPENSABLE KEY to Scripture belonged EXCLUSIVELY TO THE CHURCH, which in the -regula- [rule of faith] had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape.” (41)

“…the ancient idea that the Church ALONE, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the INDISPENSABLE KEY to Scripture, CONTINUED to operate as POWERFULLY [in later centuries] as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian.” (47)

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the WHOLE period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary AUTHORITIES, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING grasp of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (47-48)

“Thus in the end the Christian MUST, like Timothy [1 Tim 6:20], ‘GUARD THE DEPOSIT’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY INTERPRETED IN THE CHURCH’S UNERRING TRADITION.” (51)

(end of quote from EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by J.N.D. Kelly)

LW> 1870 – PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DECREED (II Thess 2:2-12, Rev 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18)

The date is correct — that is when the dogma was defined — but I gather from your biblical references that you believe the Pope is the “Man of Sin” and/or the Beast of Revelation and the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon.”

Oh dear….. You and Mick James would get along just fine.

That’s it for the so-called Catholic “inventions.” Much error, misunderstanding, and outright fabrication in the posts of Les Wilcox has been exposed. Oh boy, did that take a lot of work! You’re welcome, Joe Didde, William Putnam, Sean Brooks, John McIlroy and my other cheerleaders.

Perhaps later I can respond to the following anti-Catholic accusations, further misunderstandings, and outrageous statements made in the posts of Les Wilcox covering the following topics…..

On the Church, St. Peter and the Rock —

LW> History does not give any evidence whatsoever of the presence of Peter in Rome.

On Salvation —

LW> Romanism is a complicated system of salvation by works.

LW> The Roman Catholic church, then CURSES PAUL, THE APOSTLE, for his teachings!

LW> The Roman Catholics are as lost as the poor African or Hindu.

LW> Those who insist that there are saved Roman Catholics either do not know the Bible or do not know Roman Catholicism.

On being “Born Again” —

LW> And no Roman Catholic is a born-again believer in Christ.

On Purgatory —

LW> Nothing and nobody can condemn to Purgatory or to any other place of condemnation those who through Jesus Christ have been made free from all guilt.

On the Mass —

LW> This means, according to Roman teaching, that Jesus suffers the terrible agony of Calvary 200,000 times every day!

On the Sacrament of Penance —

LW> Confession to a priest is an inducement to commit more sin.

On calling our priests “Father” —

LW> Anyone calling himself a spiritual father is anti-christ.

On Jesus and Mary —

LW> He foresaw that she would become the object of great idolatry, would be given the place of Deity by the Roman Catholic system, and would be assigned names properly given to Deity only.

On the Catholic Church and idolatry —

LW> It has further taken deceit as a manner of common operation!

LW> We have read and investigated EACH and EVERY catechism that is being used by the Roman church. EACH one has this same deceit in its pages.

LW> Clearly the Roman Church is acting in direct opposition to the will of God, plainly stated in many verses of scripture…..

We’ll see what kind of response this gets from Les Wilcox and whether or not he wants me to continue…..

How about some “SUBSTANTIATION” from the Bible and from Catholic sources for the above, Les?

I feel like Mike Tyson because I think I already knocked him out in the first round. But anyway…..

PHIL PORVAZNIK (August 1995)

Have Popes Really Claimed to be God?

Retrieve from: http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html

 

Quotations (more properly, alleged quotations for the most part, as we’ll see later) showing that popes have claimed to be God or equal to God are a staple of anti-Catholic polemics. I recently ran across such a list, and the results of my investigations are below. I suspect the list as I got it is rather old, as its most recent entry dates only to the late 19th Century. The continuing growth of materials available on the Internet has made it possible to shed some light on the facts behind these “quotations”.

The List

1. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: “We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God.” (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c. 3)
2. The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus said: “Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth.” (Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618)
3. Pope Nicholas said of himself: “I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do… wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)
4. The RC New York catechism states: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth… by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.”
5. The title “Lord God the Pope” – these words appeared in the Canon Law of Rome. “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.” (The Gloss extravagances of Pope John XXII Cum. Inter, tit XIV Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685)

   Father A. Pereira acknowledged: “It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title “Lord God the Pope” for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII.”

6. Pope Nicholas I declared that “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man.” (Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
7. Speaking [in] the name of the Pope (a rhetorical device) Cardinal Manning said: “I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.” (Sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, Tablet Oct 9, 1864)

Responses

Cardinal Manning

I can find no better place to start the responses than with the last-given “quotation” from Cardinal Manning. As we shall see, it is no quotation at all.

Rather than provide my own refutation, I would like to quote an anonymous (as far as I can tell) writer in the New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 41, 10 October 1901, pp. 1-2. A scanned copy of the original article can be found online here.

The article deals well not only with the (fake) quotation in question, but with the tactics used to prepare the entire list given above. (In fact, I am not sure but that the “misquotations, garbled statements, mistranslations, at least one concocted ‘extract’–all secondhand–and … marvellously complete and comprehensive ignorance of Catholic teaching” to which the author refers are not a response to the exact list we now have.) I commend the second paragraph to your particular attention in this regard.

Dr. Starbuck, an eminent American non-Catholic divine, seriously blames some Protestant controversialists, not for lack of honesty, but for being ‘slovenly and inexcusably ignorant’ in their ‘expositions of Roman Catholic history and doctrine.’ ‘The Pope, like the poor,’ he adds, ‘we have always with us, and whenever we will we can do him evil. Well meditated attacks on him easily take the place of knowledge, of cultivation, of good manners, of deliberation in statement, of justice, of charity, and of all other requirements usually supposed to beseem a minister of the Gospel.’ Recent attacks upon the Pope in Christchurch and Dunedin were based upon misquotations, garbled statements, mistranslations, at least one concocted ‘extract’–all secondhand–and on a marvellously complete and comprehensive ignorance of Catholic teaching, of which our assailants knew as little as Bettesworth did of law–and he knew thereof neither ‘text nor margent.’ Our readers will recollect that the late Cardinal Manning was alleged to have said (among other things)–speaking in the name of the Pope; ‘I acknowledge no civil power… I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the consciences of men’; and again: ‘I am sole last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.’[Footnote 1.] We were referred to the London Tablet of October 9, 1864, for these words. But no Tablet was published on that date. We learned by cable message a few days ago that in a discussion on the subject in Melbourne, the alleged doctrinal utterance of Manning was credited to the Tablet of August 6, 1859, but after a most minute examination of the Tablet of that date we can find no trace whatever of anything at all resembling the words attributed to that distinguished convert. Some weeks ago a writer in the Christchurch Press quoted this alleged Manning extract on the authority of ‘the Rev. Mr. Lilley,’ whom he described as ‘an able, eminent Catholic writer’–confounding a Presbyterian clergyman of that name in Arbroath with the distinguished Catholic layman, Mr. W. S. Lilly. When his statement was corrected, he simply sprang a somersault and gave Mr. Grattan Guinness as the authority for the Cardinal’s speech!

Herein lies one of the difficulties of which Catholics experience in defending the fair fame of their Mother Church against the more noisy and ill-informed class of controversialists. A suspicious-looking ‘extract’ is quoted, with suspicious-looking vagueness, from (say) ‘a Catholic writer,’ or ‘a distinguished Catholic theologian.’ You forthwith make a request for name and chapter and verse. This is sometimes met with angry resentment, sometimes by an airy gibe, sometimes by a general statement to the effect that it is in Suarez (or Saurez, as a Wellington enthusiast called him recently), or Aquinas or Bellarmine or De Lugo or Liguori or some other noted Catholic writer–only that and nothing more, and you are left to toil through the 23 massive volumes of one author, or the 17 of another, or the 10 to 20 of the rest. More rarely there is a show of precise reference, but it is commonly found to be inadequate or deceptive–a mockery, a delusion, and a snare–as if one should refer you to ‘the seventeenth verse of the Bible’; or the ‘authority’ is non-existent, like ‘the Tablet of October 9, 1864.’ In the comparatively rare instances in which detailed references are given, you find that the alleged quotation is conspicuously absent, or that the author’s words have been shamefully garbled or mistranslated, or–as in the case of an ‘extract’ recently attributed (in a Dunedin paper) to St. Thomas Aquinas–that not a line of it was ever written by him. If you persecute your opponents on one reference (as, for instance, the Tablet of October 9, 1864), they fly to another (August 6, 1859). You follow the direction indicated by the new sign-post only to find that you have been again chasing a rainbow. And the upshot of the whole thing is this: you find, in practically every instance, that the ‘quotations’ are secondhand or tenth-hand, that they have been carefully and deliberately lopped and chopped and pruned and twisted and contorted till they more or less seriously misrepresent the views of the authors to whom they are attributed, and you not unnaturally conclude that all these inadequate and misleading references are merely so many ruses–the side-jumps of the hunted roebuck–to delay or prevent the discovery and exposure of those discreditable bits of controversial trickery.

It is reasonable to judge a quotation as you would judge a man–by the company it keeps. And the alleged Manning quotation is in decidedly bad company, among a pack of ‘faked’ and concocted and ‘doctored’ extracts of an altogether disreputable kind. It has, moreover, about it a suspicious and guilty look. It is, for instance, set down as Catholic teaching which it would be heresy to deny. Yet there are portions of that precious extract which it would be heresy to maintain; and they differ vastly from the clear-cut expositions and the sharply defined lines between doctrine and inference–between dogma and opinion–which are to be found in acknowledged works of Manning, such as his Petri Privilegium and his Vatican Council. At first blush, therefore, the alleged extract naturally seemed to us, in all its circumstances, to be a fabrication. We, however, declined in express terms to maintain this theory, and admitted the possibility of its publication as the result of ‘a reporter’s blunder and an editorial oversight.’ Despite the misleading references–which were calculated, if not intended, to baffle inquiry–we have at length succeeded in coming across the original report from which the alleged Manning quotation was taken. The report in question is that of a sermon by the late Cardinal on the Syllabus, and it appears in the London Tablet, volume 34, No. 1539, pages 601-602. Towards the end of his discourse Manning tells his hearers the sort of reply which, he fancies the Pope (Pius IX.) would make to the overtures of the advocates of divorce, godless education, endless devisions [sic] in religion, and ‘the absolute renunciation of the supreme authority of the Christian Church.’ The now notorious ‘Manning quotation’ purports to be a faithful transcript of one sentence taken from this part of the late Cardinal’s discourse. But, as we expected, the extract has been grievously lopped and tortured by the enterprising individual through whose instrumentality it first got floated into polemics. (a) He follows the usual plan of tearing it violently away from its context, (b) He turns the one sentence of the report into three–a small matter in itself, but significant as an indication of the man’s ideas of accuracy of quotation, (c) He takes the three vital clauses in the sentence, and, with the fullest apparent deliberation, completely alters their meaning–one by the substitution of one term for another, the other two by the cool omission of two all-important qualifying words. And (d) he tacks on to the end of the extract, as an integral part thereof, a misquotation from the Bull Unam Sanctam, of which not a trace is to be seen anywhere in the report. And then (e) forth steps the Rev. Mr. Gibb and informs all and sundry that this mutilated quotation is a statement of Catholic doctrine–with the rider that it would be heresy to deny it . Whereas, as a matter of fact, in the unmutilated report (for the accuracy of which, of course, we cannot vouch) the words attributed to Manning are not, nor do they pretend to be, a statement of Catholic doctrine.

The Rev. Mr. Gibb, for instance, makes Cardinal Manning, speaking on behalf of the Pope, say the following words: ‘I acknowledge no civil power.’ Now this statement is (a) absurdly contrary to fact; (b) it is untrue in point of doctrine; and (c) it is nowhere to be found in the report. On the contrary (d), Manning, according to the report (p. 601), said:

The civil Society or civil power was a thing sacred in itself. It came from God. It had God as its author, and it most be treated with great veneration. It ia sustained by authority, obedience, and equality–the three laws of the human family, which b«gan with the first family–namely, the parental authority, the filial obedience, the fraternal equality. These three laws existed in human society. God was the author of them, and when families multiplied and combined into races, nations, and States, these three laws, which were domestic and private in the beginning, assumed the public and recognised character of what they called constitutions and kingdoms, from which came monarchies, empires, and civil order throughout the world. The sovereign authority which governed mankind was derived not from the consent of men, bargaining and bartering, and transacting and compromising together as it were in a market-place, but as derived from God Himself, and immediately given to human society. But the particular form in which society may be cast, and the particular person or prince, be it one or many, who bears the sovereign power, come not immediately from God, but mediately from human society. It was of this that St. Paul spoke [p. 602] when he said: ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ though he was then speaking of a heathen Emperor. ‘For every power is of God. He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and he that resisteth shall receive to himielf damnation. St. Paul says this of the civil society or political order of the world–of the Roman Empire, persecuting and pagan, as it then was.

And yet Manning is made, a little lower down in the very same discourse, to attribute to the Pope the false and un-Catholic statement: ‘I acknowledge no civil power!’

‘I acknowledge no civil Power,’ Manning is made to say, voicing what he conceives to be the opinion of the Pope. But Manning says no such thing. He says ‘I acknowledge no civil Superior [which is quite a different thing], I am the subject of no prince.’ In other words, the Pope, who is the head, in spiritual matters, of 250,000,000 Christians, is, by virtue of his office, free from civil subjection, and will not be the tool or puppet or hired man of any political ruler. And this, in brief, is the substance of his answer to those who call upon him to become the obedient subject and servant of the House of Savoy. ‘You ask me,’ Manning makes him say, ‘to abdicate, to renounce my supreme authority. You tell me I ought to submit to the civil power, that I am the subject of the King of Italy, and from him I am to receive instructions as to the way I should exercise my supreme power.’ The concocted statement as to the repudiation of the civil power by the Pope was set forth by the Rev. Mr. Gibb as Catholic doctrine, and our denial of the truth of his assertion was, at least by implication, denounced as an act of heresy. But, as a matter of fact, there is no question or statement of Catholic doctrine in the words reported as used by Manning, which are, in effect, merely a variant on what so strong a Protestant as Lord Brougham said in the British House of Lords when Pius IX. was an exile at Gaeta: ‘Stripped of that secular dominion [the independent temporal power], he [the Pope] would become the slave, now of one Power, now of another: one day the slave of Spain, another of Austria, another of France…. His temporal power is an European question, not a local or religious one; and the Pope’s authority should be maintained for the sake of the peace and the interests of Europe.’

Cardinal Manning was also represented by the Rev. Mr. Gibb as to putting into the mouth of the Pope the statement that he (the Pope) is ‘the supreme judge and director of the consciences of men,’ and the ‘last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.’ And this, too, is set forth as a Catholic doctrine, which it would be heresy to deny. But (a) the quotation, as given, makes the Pope claim to be absolutely the highest judge in matters of conscience and right and wrong–even the Almighty Himself not being excepted; for there is no limiting or qualifying word or phrase. And this, so far from being ‘Catholic doctrine,’ is rank blasphemy. But (b) the report attributes no such sweeping statement to Manning : it simply makes the Pope claim to be in these matters the supreme or highest judge ‘On Earth.’ It is unnecessary to point out, even to persons of the most meagre understandstanding, what worlds apart is the statement attributed to Manning in the Tablet report, and that which is credited to him by the Rev. Mr. Gibb and his Orange and other ‘authorities.’ The suppression of the two vital words referred to above (‘on earth’) is rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that, on page 602, 22nd and following lines of the report, the position of the Pope is expressly stated to be, not that of one who is absolutely supreme, but that of the vicar, delegate, and representative of Another, and that his teaching and executive authority is not direct but derived, and is for ‘the Christian society’ which Christ founded ‘on earth.’ (c) We are unable to say whether Manning really used the words ‘supreme judge on earth,’ etc., in the connection given in the report. The terms there given are not happily selected, but we are not concerned, in any case, to defend them. They are by no means couched in the precise and careful language of Manning’s works, and represent, at worst, one of those inexact oratorical statements such as slip with painful frequency from the lips of some of our critics, even when they speak–as the Rev. Mr. Gibb did–with copious notes and plenteous ‘extracts’ at hand. We suppose that even a learned Catholic prelate, speaking–as Manning did, in the fiery midst of a period of anti-papal religious and political storm and fury–may not unreasonably plead, as did the Rev. Mr. Gibb, that ‘in the heat of public utterance,’ he might ‘overstate his case’ and feel called upon to suggest that his audience ‘make a liberal reduction’ for ‘the fervor of the platform.’ But it is not true, as alleged by the Rev. Mr. Gibb, that Manning’s reported words are, or profess to be, statements of ‘Catholic doctrine.’

(d) In addition to the grievous manipulations of the text mentioned above, the extract-rigger on whom the Rev. Mr. Gibb relies with a faith that is so simple and childlike, adds one other word to the ‘Manning extract’ that is not contained in the Tablet report, he subtracts three, and he alters no fewer than six! All this violence, be it noted, is done in one sentence of the report, which (as already stated) is at the same time broken up into three. The addition, subtraction, etc., last mentioned do not materially affect the sense of the extract, but they serve, in their way, to further emphasise the reckless manner in which the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s vaunted ‘authorities’ are prepared to twist quotations to suit their turn. (e) Another curious instance of controversial ‘accuracy and scholarship’ is furnished by the concluding sentence of the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s ‘Manning extract,’ already quoted in a footnote to the present paragraphs.

It runs as follows: ‘Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’ This, as already stated, is a mistranslation of the concluding sentence of the Bull Unam Sanctam. It is given, within the same quotation marks, as a portion of the Tablet report of Manning’s utterance. But no such words are found either in that or any other part of the Tablet report. They are simply flung in as a make-weight.

We are sorry for those of the extreme section of our fellow-colonists who have of late thought fit to make apparently concerted attacks upon us in Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington. The weapons which they employed were boomerangs which have returned and wounded the throwers. The wholesale scale on which sham and ‘faked’ and garbled and concocted ‘quotations’ have of late been used against Catholics in these countries tends to burn into our minds the conviction that the less educated and more violent class of anti-Catholic controversialists hold themselves to be dispensed from the ordinary obligations of truth and charity. We shall be glad to hear what explanation or defence the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s Orange ‘authorities’ have to make for their mutilation of the report of Manning’s discourse. As a matter of elementary fair-play, the columns of this paper are, of course, open to him or them, or to any responsible persons for such reply as they may desire to make. The vogue which the ‘Manning extract’ has of late acquired in these countries, in the mouths of our more violent assailants, is our apology for dealing with it at what may seem inordinate length. Our Catholic readers and our Catholic exchanges everywhere would do well to pigeonhole these paragraphs. The ‘Manning extract’ has proved itself a highly appreciated addition to the long list of Artful Dodger ‘quotations’ that constitute the chief stock-in-trade of the less instructed assailants of the Old Church. It is sure to go far afield, and, even after it has been fully exposed, it will be heard of again–for a period. It is a way that these ‘quotations’ have. When a branch was lopped off Virgil’s inexhaustible tree, another sprung up in its place :

Uno avulso, non deficit alter
Aureus, et simili frondescit virga metallo.

But pollard-willow or spreading broom or Californian thistle or Virgil’s tree–they all give way at last to the patient chip-chipchop of the polished steel. Prompt and repeated exposure, plus the spread of education and training in exact methods of research will, in time, strew the path of the anti-Catholic quotation rigger with so many thorns and spikes and sharpened nails (with inverted divisors) that there will be very few to travel by it. And the cause of truth and peace and religion will be greatly served thereby.

Footnote 1: The full ‘Manning extract,’ as given by the Rev. Mr. Gibb at an Orange demonstration in Dunedin, is as follows:–‘In the Tablet of the 9th October, 1864, the late Cardinal Manning, speaking in the name of the Pope, is reportod thus: “I acknowledge no civil power. I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this: I claim to be the supreme judge, and director of the consciences of men–of the peasants that till the field and of the prince that sits upon the throne, of the household that lives in privacy and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdoms. I am sole last supreme judge of what is right and wrong. Moreover we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”’

Footnote 2: [Transcriber’s note: I was unable to locate the footnote marker in the main text.] The Rev. J. P. Lilley, a Presbyterian clergyman of Arbroath, was cited by the Rev Mr. Gibb as evidence in support of the notorious ‘Manning extract’ quoted in another footnote to these paragraphs. But (1) in so far as the Rev. Mr. Lilley is evidence at all in this matter, he is evidence against the Rev. Mr. Gibb, for, on p. 235, of his Principles of Protestantism (T. and J. Clarke, 1898–the same edition to which the Rev. Mr. Gibb refers us) the Arbroath clergyman quotes Manning as follows: ‘Speaking in the name of the Pope, Cardinal Manning said: “I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince; and I claim more than this: I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of man; I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.”’ (The italics are ours.) Such is Lilley’s quotation in full. The most superficial comparison between this and the extract given by the Rev. Mr Gibb will show how widely different they are, not merely in form, but in meaning. (2) Lilley, at least, did not (as reference to the italicised words will show) garble and alter the meaning of the reported utterances of Manning in the wholesale and shameless fashion that the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s other ‘authorities’ did. But (a) he tore the words from their proper context: (b) he omitted, from the very middle of the extract–and without the smallest indication of such admission–no fewer than thirty three words: (c) he referred this mutilated extract to ‘Sermon, Tablet, October 9, 1864,’ which fell on a Sunday, and no Tablet, as we have shown, was published on that date. The Rev. Mr. Gibb vouched for ‘the accuracy and scholarship’ of the Rev. Mr. Lilley. But it seems clear that the Rev. Mr. Lilley’s ideas of accuracy and scholarship either did not rise to the level of consulting the Tablet or of quoting it correctly. We have found his book fairly swarming in places with inaccuracies. Here is one which occurs a few lines above his version of the ‘Manning extract’: ‘By the constitution of the Church of Rome, the Pope is made the absolute lord of the individual mind and conscience.’ (The italics are ours.) As a matter of fact ‘the constitution of the Church of Rome’ does no such thing. The right of absolute lordship over subjects is correlated by the duty of absolute obedience on their part, and the most elementary acquaintance with Catholic teaching on this subject and on the papal prerogatives would have prevented the ‘accurate’ and ‘scholarly’ Mr. Lilley from making a statement so absurd in itself and so directly opposed to fact.

I note that the erroneous Oct. 9, 1864 date is still attached to the fake quotation, which is one of the points that leads me to think the author of the article above has in mind the very list of allegations that are the topic of this web page. Sadly, the anti-Catholic quotation rigger is still alive and well.

Addendum: Out of curiosity, I went looking for places that use this false quotation. It appears in Charles Chiniquy’s alleged memoirs. More surprisingly, perhaps, Upton Sinclair uses it in his The Profits of Religion an Essay in Economic Interpretation. It shows up in several books written in support of Freemasonry. And, of course, it appears here and there on anti-Catholic websites. It does appear that this quotation is not used as frequently as some of the others on the list.

Pope (St.) Nicholas I, first entry

This alleged quotation is again no quotation at all. It is taken from John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 4, and as far as I can tell contains no authentic papal statements whatsoever. Foxe was attempting to show what the list compilers are attempting to show–that the popes have taken upon themselves the place of God. He did this by creating a fictitious speech from a fictitious pope setting out all his claims. The “speech” is a series of quotations from various documents either about the papacy or by popes themselves, interspersed with what Foxe thinks the popes were thinking. It is somewhat easier to follow in his original than it is here; the person who compiled the extract for the list either didn’t notice what Foxe had done, or didn’t care. All the distinctions are gone, along with most of the footnotes.

And if we take apart the pieces of the alleged quotation, what do we find?

“I am in all and above all” are Foxe’s own words, put in the mouth of his speaker.

The next part (“so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory,”) is not from a pope at all–here, Foxe is selecting quotations from other writers speaking about the pope, through the artifice of having his fictional mouthpiece pope speak of them with approval. I can’t find the original reference (Hostensius?), so I can’t provide the missing context, nor even check for accuracy of translation.

Likewise, “and I am able to do almost all that God can do” is not from a pope but from some other document speaking of the papacy. Again, I can’t locate the “Summa casuum fratris Baptista”, so I can’t provide context or check the translation.

We now switch to the part that is quoting actual papal documents (to his [slight] credit, it’s not Foxe’s fault that the distinction was lost–he makes it clear that he’s switching).

“… Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God?” It’s amazing what an ellipsis will hide. The context of this quote can actually be guessed from Foxe’s reference, a decretal from Pope Gregory on transferring bishops. (Note that this is not the reference given in the list. More on that reference at the end of this section!) There was (and is) a train of thought in the Church that sees a bishop’s relationship to his diocese as analogous to marriage–not the same as, but related to. Gregory is arguing here that he does have the power to move bishops, but only because he acts with divine authority. To top it all off, Gregory never said any of the material quoted at the beginning of this paragraph. That’s Foxe putting words into the mouth of his fictitious pope.

As is this: “Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” No pope said that. It’s Foxe’s own commentary on Pope St. Nicholas I’s releasing men from oaths made under pressure while in captivity.

In summary:
Actual papal words quoted: 0.
Words quoted from actual Catholic documents: Few.
Stuff Foxe made up: Most of it.

And, ironically enough, that one reference we’re given in the quotation as it stands in the list? It refers to a passage in Foxe’s book that has dropped entirely out of the quotation as it now stands.

Lord God the Pope?

There’s an excellent web page dealing with this claim. To summarize that page: the original edition of the Extravagantes doesn’t contain that passage at all; it appears (allegedly; I have not seen a copy) in an edition printed 300 years later. The passage in question is in a gloss (commentary), not in the main text itself, so even if it were authentic, it would not have the force of law. And, finally, even if the phrase were in Canon Law, it would have no doctrinal force. Canon Law is not intended to present the teachings of the Church and does not do so definitively, though it sometimes repeats those teachings to give context to the canons. So all we have here is a quotation of unknown provenance, added to the text at a later date, that would prove nothing at all even if it had been authentic.

Fr. Periera was an 18th Century Spanish priest. I have not seen a copy of his work either, and the quotation given from it is originally taken from a highly polemical source. I hope the reader will understand by this point if I do not trust quotations taken from such a source. I do not know why Fr. Periera wrote what he is said to have written, nor in what context. But the opinion of one person, even if accurately related (which I doubt), proves nothing.

This, by the way, is easily the most popular of these quotes on the web. Google returns over 7,000 hits for “lord god the pope”.

Pope St. Nicholas I, second entry

The actual Latin text of this entry read:

Satis evidenter ostenditur a saeculari potestate nec solvi prosus nec ligari pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constantio Deum appellatum, cum nec posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est.

I translate that as:

It is shown clearly enough that the pontiff, who was called “God” by the pious prince Constantine, is neither loosened nor bound in any way by secular power, since it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men either.

The phrase “who being God,” as the original quotation in the list gives it, is a bad translation; one must twist the second clause (“quem constat …”) pretty heavily to get that reading. Pope St. Nicholas is simply saying that secular powers cannot control the pope, who has his authority from God. The quotation from Constantine (which I have not been able to locate for further context) is perhaps meant to show that one of the greatest emperors deferred to the power of the Church.

Innocent III

The issue about which Pope Innocent III was writing was again the transferring of bishops from diocese to diocese, discussed under the John Foxe pastiche above. The pope is claiming he has the authority to do this not merely as a man and by human authority, but as God’s representative. In other words, it’s a limited claim, not a universal one. No Catholic should be ashamed of a pope’s claim to govern in ecclesial matters with authority entrusted to him by God. That does not make the Pope God; it does not entitle him to worship; it does not take away his humanity; it says nothing more than does Luke 10:16

Lateran V

The list simply says “the Lateran Council”. There were five of them; the one in question must have been the fifth, which was indeed convoked by Pope Julius II, though he died not long after it began meeting.

The quotation is accurate but incomplete. I no longer have ready access to the book in which I found it (an account of the Council that includes not just a summary of the debates and speeches, but the speeches themselves); fortunately, I still have a copy of the relevant portion of this speech:

Ad te igitur supplex tamquam ad verum principem, protectorem, Petrum et sponsum accedo, quem oro, obsecro et obrestor, si quae corporis sunt, temporanea iura respiciunt, armis curasti, nunc quae ad cuiusque animum pertinent, non armis, sed sanctissimis legibus cura. Id namque lingue facilius agere poteris, quam quae hactenus egisti. Cura, inquam, pater beatissime, ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat et pulcritudo. Cura, ut grex tibi commissos optimis ac spiritualibus alimentis alatur et vivat. Cura, ut valetudo haec quae totum terrarum orbem invisat, abicedat. Cura, ut fluctanti naviculae, in alto a diris agitatae ventis salutis portus illuceat. Cura ne fruges cuius es cultor, prae nimia ariditate sicceiact. Cura, ut ovile unum fiat, quod modo est in partes divisum. Cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, et vitam et spiritum non amittamus. Tu enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.

The quotation given in the list covers only the last two sentences of the above. Here’s how the whole paragraph reads:

Therefore I a beggar come to you as to a true prince, protector, Peter [or Rock], and spouse, whom I pray, I beseech and I [? This word is not in my dictionary; I assume it’s a synonymn for the others], if those things which are of the body they provide for with temporal laws, and guard them with arms, now of those things that pertain in any way to the soul, you tend not with arms, but with the most holy laws. So much you are able to do more easily by the tongue than you have already done with arms. Therefore, most blessed father, take care so that beauty and attractiveness may return to the forms of your spouse. Take care so that the flock entrusted to you may be fed with the best spiritual food, and live. Take care so that good health may watch over the whole world, not depart. Take care so a port of safety may shine upon the wave-tossed boats, tossed about in the deeps by the agitation of fierce winds. Take care lest the crops whose farmer you are wither on account of excessive dryness. Take care, so that the sheepfold may be one, for it is now as if divided in parts. In short, take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which you have given us. For you are our shepherd, you are our physician, you are our governor, you are our farmer, you are in short another God on earth.

In other words … it’s not a compliment. The speaker is chiding Julius for caring too much about other things. He’s not flattering him. He’s reminding him of the responsibilities he has to take care of souls by ruling and guiding the Church justly, a responsibility that belongs to Julius because he has the place of God on earth insofar as God has entrusted the care of souls to him. It’s not flattery. It’s not a call to worship. I don’t imagine that Julius was all that happy to hear it.

The New York Catechism

The only answer I have to make to the alleged quotation from this source is if there is a Catholic “New York Catechism”, I have not been able to find it, nor any information about it. The only references I have been able to find to a document under the name “New York Catechism” talk about something prepared by an Episcopal bishop of New York, in an era when Catholicism was not at all popular. If the quotation is from that book and is authentic, it is most likely simply anti-Catholic propaganda. Absent any indication that there is or ever was something called the “New York Catechism” published under the auspices of any Catholic group, there is no way to assess this claim further, except to note that a claim based on a work that no one knows anything about is most unfirmly based.

Summary

Of the seven items in the list:

• One (#3) is almost entirely the words of John Foxe, and therefore not attributable to a pope or to Catholics at all;
• One (#7) is a complete distortion of what was originally said;
• One (#5) is a late addition of unknown origin to a text of no doctrinal weight anyhow;
• One (#4) is quoted from I-know-not-where, having no useful reference;
• One (#6) is an egregious mistranslation;
• One (#1) does not claim that the Pope is God, but simply that he is the representative of God on earth, and thus make no claim to divine prerogatives.
• And one (#2) is actually a rebuke to the pope (delivered with the utmost respect).

I hope that these responses will at least be of use to Catholics who find themselves challenged by this list, and I hope moreover that open-minded inquirers who came here for whatever reason will discover that, whatever arguments might be brought against Catholicism, honesty will not permit the contents of the list to be among them.

Know the Truth – Primacy of Peter

EXCHANGES WITH ANOTHER ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/02/exchanges-with-another-anonymous.html

A friend and fellow Catholic apologist from Catholic Faith Defenders – Cebu inquired about my opinion on ‘The Woman Clothed with the Sun’ of Revelation 12: 1. While we were exchanging ideas about it I remember the exchange I had with another Anonymous Evangelical rejecting that the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary of Nazareth — the Mother of Jesus. I decided to take the exchange from the comment section and bring it up into the main post to have a life of its own. I also added from the original response since the original answers were done in haste to respond to immediate assaults on the Faith then. The original exchange can be found in the post entitled: THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY. The words of the Evangelical is in Red while mine is in Blue:

Anonymous said… Jer 7:17 See you not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? says the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the shame of their own faces?Jer 7:20 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD; Behold, my anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched. August 24, 2008 11:42 AM

Anonymous said… And a great sign was seen in the heavens, a woman having been clothed with the sun, and the moon was underneath her feet; and on her head a crown of twelve stars;(Ref. Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.Note: . This sign is referring to Israel and is a reference to Josephs’ dream, but, accept for having eleven stars, this has twelve which would include Joseph.Rev12:5 And she bore a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron staff. And her child was caught away to God, and to His throne. (Ref. Rev. 2:27 Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.)

Note: This is the ascension of Christ. This scripture passage goes back with more details in v. 7-14 Rev12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place, it having been prepared from God, that there they might nourish her a thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Note: Rev. 12:5-10 is represented as the first seal, the white horse. This verse is telling of the Jesus’ victory on the cross. I am referring this to when the Messiah shall be cut off in the last week in Daniels seventy weeks as told in Dan. 9:25-27. Now, the thousand two hundred and sixty days in this verse is the first half of the seven years when God will finish His dealing with Israel and graft them back into the Olive Tree and Rapture the Israel of God to Himself as read in Rev. 7: then His wrath is poured out. I will Spell these verses out for better understanding to you, the reader. August 24, 2008 11:56 AM

Anonymous said… ” The queenship Of The Blessed Virgin Mary”Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Mary had children after Jesus was born that means she did not remain a virgin. August 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To post No. 1* The Queen of Heaven condemned in Jeremiah is not Mary of Nazareth but the pagan goddess ISHTAR or ASTARTE, a Near-Eastern goddess of Fertility. Just look at the photo inset above showing the Immoral Astarte. Definitely we do not honor that demon.

We, Catholics refer to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as our Queen BECAUSE JESUS IS THE KING OF KINGS – the last in the Davidic Kingdom. In all Monarchy culture, the Mother of the King is always referred to as THE QUEEN-MOTHER. Mary is the Queen-Mother of the Kingdom of Jesus her Son.

Your argument will only be effective if you can prove that Jer 7:17 refers to Mary of Nazareth. Years before the coming of the prophet Jeremiah, the Psalmist already prophesied that the Messiah will have a Queen: “upon thy right hand the queen in gold of Ophir.” [Psalm 45:9]If you deny that the King being referred to in Psalm 45 is not the Messiah-King then you have to show who and you have to tell me who is the person referred to therein as queen. DENIAL OF THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY IS DENIAL OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP; DECLARATION OF MARY’S QUEENSHIP IS A PROCLAMATION OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To Post No. 2The Catholic Church teaches that Revelation 12:1 can be interpreted in 3 different manners and all of them correct:

1. It can be interpreted as Israel, like the one you described and explained.

2. It can be interpreted as the Church with the 12 stars symbolizing the 12 Apostles who were the foundation stones of the Church [Rev 22:14]. But, Israel and the Church can only be analogical interpretation of the text. The literal interpretation refers to

3. MARY! Because in Rev 12:5 it says that the Woman gave birth to Christ. Yes, the rod of iron refers to the Ascension of Jesus. However, that is not the point. The point is WHO IS THE WOMAN WHO LITERALLY AND PHYSICALLY GAVE BIRTH TO THE KING WHO WILL RULE THE WORLD WITH A ROD OF IRON? If you are saying that the rod of iron refers to Jesus’ Ascension then the Male-Child is JESUS. Then, the one who gave birth to Jesus is Mary. WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS? The 12 stars interpreted as the 12 Apostles is also appropriate for Mary because after the Ascension of Jesus, Mary – the Mother of Jesus – stayed with the Apostles: “And when they were come in, they went into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren” [Acts 1:14].

Rev 12 also refers to the woman as someone who fled to the desert. WHEN DID ISRAEL MOVED TO FLEE TO THE DESERT? ISRAEL AS A COUNTRY WAS AND IS IMMOVABLE. But, Mary went to Egypt – a land famous for deserts because the – together with the child Jesus and Joseph in order to escape the persecution of the evil monarch, Herod [Matthew 2:14-15]. So, the prophecy applies only analogically or metaphorically to Israel but more literally to Mary. Just like the country of our birth; I call the Philippines ‘Inang Bayan‘ [Mother Land] but my real mother is not my country but the woman who gave me birth biologically. The wife of my father is my real mother. But, it is also correct to refer to my nation as my mother yet it is only appropriate as a figure of speech. Also, Jesus refers to Mary in the Gospel of John as WOMAN [John 2:4; 19:26]. Since Revelation is also attributed to John then it is clear that Mary is THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN. Let the readers decide who is interpreting the Bible correctly.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To post no. 3 “Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Mary had children after Jesus was born that means she did not remain a virgin.”

1. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? ANSWER: NONE! NADA! In Russian NYET NYET!

It is nowhere stated in the Bible that Mary became pregnant again and gave birth to other children again. In fact in Mark 6:3 the Evangelist wrote THE SON OF MARY when referring to Jesus — not SONS OF MARY. Jesus is the one and only Son of Mary.

2. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY GAVE BIRTH TO ANOTHER CHILDREN OTHER THAN JESUS? ANSWER: NONE! NADA! NYET NYET!

3. Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 refer to Mary as VIRGIN. QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?ANSWER: NONE! NADA! NYET NYET!*

The New Testament is not written in Filipino or English but in Greek. The word used in Greek is ADELPHOI. The word adelphoi is the plural form of adelphos. It does not mean simply as biological siblings but it also refers to relatives and kins: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my BRETHREN, my KINSMEN according to the FLESH” [Romans 9:3]* Also, the Bible for your information refers to another Mary as the MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES: “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” [Mt 27:56] This is also proven by St. Mark in Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1. * In John 19:25 the Evangelist reported that on the foot of the Cross there was Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas who was with Mary Magdalene. Then, the Mary mother of James and Joses cannot be Mary the Mother of Jesus but another woman, most probably a relative, who is also known as Mary the wife of Clopas.

Please answer my questions above. Much more, please identify yourself. Do not hide your identity. It doesn’t speak well of you. If you wish to exchange ideas with us, it is Ok but please be gentleman or be a lady. It is also very nice for me to know your religious affiliation.Thank you for visiting this blog.

Anonymous said… Hello,I am a filipino too and from your town also and I am a lady. I don’t have a religion but a relationship with Jesus. I praise God He saved me from the wrath of God.My God rules and not ruled by his mother, My God is the creator of all things. My God is the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is the God of the living and not of the DEAD.and My God is no longer on the cross.Do not form the scripture to your own religion but let the scripture form you and your theologyThe bible is very clear and I believe I know the truth,Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. This is very clear the they are talking about JESUS and his mother was mary.WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?so you mean to say that joseph never slept with his wife?poor joseph.WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS?Jesus is an Isrealite and Israel is reffered to a woman, and it’s been reffered in the old testament many timesWhy is it that your religion put Mary up in the pedestal and not Jesus the creator, Paul nor Peter did not even mentioned her on their epistles but only Jesus whom they lifted up and worship,I believed that your religion got it wrong about Peter as the first Pope, Peter was never a Roman but Paul was an Israelite but a Roman citizen. and Peter was married and the bible can prove it. Paul was never married, He has more qualifications than Peter. why wasn’t Paul the first pope. Do you have an assurance of going to heaven or of your salvation?I know that I cannot change what you believed but I know that God can change you. Do not believe a LIE. August 25, 2008 5:34 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… I am glad to know that you are a lady and from the same town. If you want we can meet and chat personally about our faith. And, I am wondering why you are afraid to reveal your identity, your name. Hope you are not ashamed of yourself or your name or your God or your church. Mine is posted in this blog together with my genuine photo. The faith must not be hidden but must be proclaimed on the rooftop. How can you proclaim it on rooftop if you are hidden?

I find it contradictory that you profess in Jesus yet claiming that you don’t have religion. That is a common lie among Born Again people who used to roam around houses and preach in the buses. They claim not to have a religion but in reality they have. Please don’t be afraid of your religious affiliations. The statement usually propagated that “religion is not necessary” is an invention that is not supported by the Bible. Perhaps, you can quote a chapter and verse for that. I will stand corrected if you can find a Biblical support. Your claim that you don’t have a religion also shows that you are ‘lying’ because it is obvious that you are Born Again or an Evangelical or a Protestant. You are shameless in your lie just to deceive the Catholics and lure them into your fellowship.

It appears to me that you are not aware of genuine Catholic doctrines. Your knowledge is superficial and biased with anti-Catholic mentality.

1. I’m glad to know that you praise God and that He saves you. Well, if you are not aware of it we also praise God and He is also our Savior and He saves us too. If you are thinking that you are the only one praising God then you are deceiving yourself.

2. So, your God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Congratulations! But, our God is the same God. My God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do you know my baptismal name. IT IS ABRAHAM! Our God is the God of the Patriarchs. That is why if you will visit the Holy Land, the oldest Christian Churches in Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Capernaum are owned by the Catholic Church not by Born Again or Protestants.

3. Your God is the God of the living not of the Dead. Well, who told you that our God is the God of the dead. We Catholics are worshipping the One Living God who is Eternal and Unbegotten. We are living worshippers of 1.3 billion faithful. We are more living than your faith affiliation multiplied a hundred times over.

4. Your God is no longer on the Cross. So, you mean to say our God is still on the Cross. Ha,ha,ha… You know the best group that proclaims the Resurrection of Jesus is the Catholic Church. We have Sunday worship weekly because we are proclaiming weekly and daily the Resurrection of Jesus. Besides, Pope Gregory was the one who established the Gregorian Calendar wherein annually the Solemnity of Easter is being celebrated for several weeks. I know that Protestants and Evangelicals are celebrating Christmas and Easter following the dates established by the Catholic Church. Your fellowhips were not yet invented and registered in the Security and Exchange Commissions yet we are already proclaiming the Risen Christ as our Lord and Savior. Don’t invent our doctrines, please.

We have a Cross, because the Bible teaches us that we should not be enemies of the Cross of Christ: “for many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping that they are THE ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST, whose end is destruction…” [Philippians 3:18-19 KJV]. WE CATHOLICS ARE NOT ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST. HOW ABOUT YOU? ARE YOU A FRIEND OR AN ENEMY OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST? Also, St. Paul encourages the believers to glory in the Cross of Christ: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in THE CROSS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST…” [Galatians 6:12-16 KJV]. That’s the reason why we Catholics are fond of the Cross because it reminds us that the Risen Lord died on the Cross for our Salvation. Obviously you are not being faithful to the

5. “Do not form the scripture to your own religion but let the scripture form you and your theologyThe bible is very clear and I believe I know the truth,Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. This is very clear the they are talking about JESUS and his mother was mary.”I have already refuted that above. The word used in Greek does not refer exclusively to biological siblings. The word used by the Evangelists was ADELPHOS and ADELPHOI which are used in the Bible several times with different meanings:

[a] Romans 9:3 St. Paul used it for kinsmen.

[b] Genesis 13:8 Abraham called Lot ‘brother’ even if he is actually his nephew.

If you want to know the truth read the Sacred Scripture properly and not be biased by anti-Catholic mentality. It is obvious that your position is wrong because you are insisting that these brethren of the Lord are ‘biological brothers’. It is very clear in the text that there is no mentioned of these people being biological brothers of Jesus. In fact, the mother of James and Joses is another Mary. Mary of Nazareth is always being referred to as the Mother of Jesus while there is another Mary being called the mother of James and Joses [Matthew 27:56/ Mark 15:40/ Mark 16:1 KJV]. The fact that the Bible repeatedly mentions another Mary as the mother of James and Joses, it destroys your argument.

6. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?so you mean to say that joseph never slept with his wife? poor joseph.

You are basing your judgment on presumption. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JOSEPH HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH MARY? Don’t invent things, please. The relationship between Mary and Joseph is not ordinary but extraordianary. He married her primarily because he wanted to preserve her honor and to protect the Child. I understand that your faith is American invented. It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex. But Joseph is not sex-crazed. He is a just man [Matthew 1:19 KJV]. Even Jesus and St. Paul didn’t marry. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue.

7. “WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS?Jesus is an Isrealite and Israel is reffered to a woman, and it’s been reffered in the old testament many times”

Is this your answer? Are you not ashamed of this answer to the question that I raised. WHERE CAN YOU FIND A PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS IS ISRAEL? The Bible is categorical that it was Mary who gave birth to Jesus, NOT ISRAEL [Luke 2:1-7].You are twisting the Word of God to avoid Mary yet that is already explicit, categorical and direct statement. Palpak ang Israel interpretation mo and yet you do not admit it. SINO BA ANG NAGLIHI AT NAGBUNTIS KAY JESUS? SINO? SINO? SINO? ANG ISRAEL BA O SI MARIA? Let our readers decide!

Also your insistence on Israel being referred to as a Woman smack of ignorance because MARY TOO IS REFERRED IN THE BIBLE AS A ‘WOMAN’ [Genesis 3:15/ John 2:4/ John 19:26]. That is why the Catholic Church is very intelligent in teaching that both Mary and Israel fits the verse but if you will pit Mary and Israel against each other then you have to show me that Israel gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is born in Israel but it was Mary who gave birth to Him. Read your Bible carefully please.

8. “Why is it that your religion put Mary up in the pedestal and not Jesus the creator, Paul nor Peter did not even mentioned her on their epistles but only Jesus whom they lifted up and worship,”ANOTHER DISTORTION. Read carefully the post once again. JESUS IS OUR KING, JESUS IS OUR MESSIAH, JESUS IS OUR GOD. Mary is being honored by Catholics because she is the woman chosen by God to be the Mother of the Messiah. She is the Mother of the Lord [Luke 1:43]. We simply honor Mary because God honors her in the Bible. Mary is honored in the Bible. THE BIBLE CALLS MARY THE HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Luke 1:28]. She is blessed among women. It means she is more blessed than you, your mother, the wife of your pastor, the mother of your pastor, etc. Mary is highly favored of God. If she is ‘favored by God’ of course she is also ‘favored’ by Catholics. IN YOUR RELIGION YOU ARE CALLING PEOPLE ‘EVANGELISTS’. Evangelist Almeda, Evangelist Villanueva, etc. Why do you honor people who are not even mentioned in the Bible? Mary is much, much better than the people you are honoring. Mary is nothing in comparison to Jesus because Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of lords. That is our position. For you to say that we put Mary above Jesus is a distortion of our Catholic Faith. You are attacking a caricature that you yourself had invented. That’s not Catholic. The official doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church is published in the book THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Please read it and if you want to question any provision in it then I am here explain our side. Please present our real Catholic teachings not your own teaching about the Catholic Faith.

9. “I believed that your religion got it wrong about Peter as the first Pope, Peter was never a Roman but Paul was an Israelite but a Roman citizen.”Another mistake. WE ARE NOT TEACHING THAT PETER IS A ROMAN. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? It is not Catholic teaching that Peter is a Roman. Being Pope doesn’t depend on Roman citizenship. Our present Pope is German while the previous one was Polish. We know that Peter is a Jew not a Roman because the House of Peter in Capernaum is now a Catholic shrine. Visit the Holy Land in the Internet to check. Peter is the first Pope because he is the leader of the Church. It is on him that the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven were entrusted [Matthew 16:18-19]. Instead of following your Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Eddie Villanueva, Almeda, etc. We follow the leadership of Peter. Ours is more Biblical, isn’t it?

10. “and Peter was married and the bible can prove it.” Peter is married but our Lord and Savior is not Peter but Jesus. Jesus is never married. Peter is married but he left his wife for the sake of the Kingdom: “Then Peter said, Lo, WE HAVE LEFT ALL and followed thee. And he [Jesus] said to them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left HOUSE, or parents, or brethren, or WIFE, or CHILDREN, FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD’S SAKE, WHO SHALL NOT RECEIVE MANIFOLD MORE IN THIS PRESENT TIME, AND IN THE WORLD TO COME LIFE EVERLASTING” [Luke 18:28-30 KJV]. St. Paul was never married. St. John was never married. How about Andrew, James, Jude, Bartholomew, etc.? WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU FIND THAT THEY ARE MARRIED? Chapters and verses, please!

That’s the problem with you Born Again people, you just read that Peter is married then you succumbed to lust. You have forgotten that the Messiah is a male virgin and that 99% of his Apostles are not married at all. The Catholic Church is more faithful to the Bible.

11. “Paul was never married, He has more qualifications than Peter. why wasn’t Paul the first pope.” Glad to learn that you are aware that Paul is unmarried.

God doesn’t judge according to human standard. Yes, Paul is more educated, more intelligent than Peter and the other apostles because he was a rabbi and a former student of the philosopher Gamaliel but Jesus didn’t entrust to him the Keys of the Kingdom. He was not the first among the Apostles. But, for us Catholics we both honor and love Sts. Peter and Paul equally. Being first Pope is a mere responsibility given by God but they are both great Apostles and faithful witness of the Gospel in heroic degree. That is why in Catholic Calendar they have the same feast day. The Catholic Church teaches us not to reject any of them because they both deserve our gratitude. We both built great monuments in honor of these two champions of our faith. These monuments are Basilicas built over their tombs in Rome.

12. Do you have an assurance of going to heaven or of your salvation? Once again don’t be presumptuous. Mary is more worthy of heaven than you. Yet, you are rejecting her.The doctrine of OSAS [Once Saved will Always be Saved] is not in the Bible. May be you can find it for me. Chapter and verse please?

Now, if you will ask me if I am saved, my answer is Yes I am! Because Jesus died for me on the Cross and He gave up his life for my salvation. His salvation is not only for you and your tiny fellowship but for all believers like us. JESUS IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR TOO IF YOU DON’T KNOW.However, since I am still alive I have to exert effort to be faithful to Jesus in my daily life and activities. Because NOT EVERYONE WHO CALLS HIM LORD, LORD WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BUT ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN [Matthew 7:21]. So, it is not enough to consider Jesus as your Lord and Savior you have to ‘do’ the will of your father in heaven. Hope you have read that passage. It’s Jesus who said it. Your Lord, and mine too.

13. “I know that I cannot change what you believed but I know that God can change you. Do not believe a LIE.”I do not believe a LIE and that is the reason why I am Catholic. I do not believe the lie that we Catholics are worshipping Mary because the Bible itself says that Mary will be called Blessed by all generations [Luke 1:48]. That prophecy is fulfilled not in your faith affiliations but in mine.

I do not believe your lie that you don’t have a religion because I am aware that you are saying that only to attract me to your self-invented religion.

I am firmly convinced that our faith is more Biblical than yours.

Anonymous said… the Queen of Heaven originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship. We read in Jeremiah about the Babylonian Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). Jeremiah 7:18 plainly states that God hates idolatry and it provokes Him to anger. Why would God allow Mary to be called a queen of heaven if He was angry about it. Psa 45:9 Kings’ daughters were among your honorable women: at your right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophi Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and that she lived a sinless life. Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary never claimed to be sinless- she saw herself as needing a SaviorRoman Catholics made Mary as a co-redemptrix, Jesus is the redeemer and there is nothing in the bible says Mary was the co-mediatorJoh 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. In 1923,Pope Ius XV’s(1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ and that with Him, she redeemed the human race.And Pope Pius XII officially designated mary the “Queen of the World.”Roman Catholicism has taken the mother of Jesus and reinvented her ans ascribed to her things she would never have wanted.She steemed her son, she loved God’s Word, she was a servant and the most wonderful woman who ever lived.But she would be appalled at what Roman Catholicism has done to her, She never spoke of purgatory,of indulgences, of her redeeming souls,of being a co-redemptrix or co-mediator.These are inventions and traditions of men; which her son warned us about in His Word.1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, this to be a testimony at the proper time.Calling the Pope as the Holy Father is an abomination to God,where in the bibles says that the pope is holy father”For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882vICAR(LATIN) OF CHRIST- Anti(Greek)of Christanti- christ -a prepostion signifying against,opposite, contrary, IN PLACE OF Or A substitute”We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).” POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.2Th 2:4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God August 28, 2008 11:29 AM

Anonymous said… QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? Matthew13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mark6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It’s identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we’re going to say that word Brother doesn’t really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn’t really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it’s the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that the children are of the same mother are meant.I understand that your faith is American invented. MY FAITH IS INVENTED WRIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex.I DON’T HAVE THIS MENTALITY, SEX IS GOOD, GOD CREATED SEX.IT IS ONLY GOOD INSIDE MARRIAGE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS A SIN.But Joseph is not sex-crazed. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS A SEX-CRAZED. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue. SEX IS NOT EVIL EITHER WHEN ITS DONE INSIDE MARRIAGE.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – 1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 1 Timothy4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 1 Corinthians9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary is the mother of God. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she’d be God.] Psalm93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Philippians2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:CATHOLIC TRADITION – Pope called Holy Father. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name John17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Purgatory, nuns, popes. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close. NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. Exodus20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…CATHOLIC TRADITION – The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. Hebrews10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. John19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 1 Corinthians11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).CATHOLIC TRADITION – Saved, in part, by good works. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. I John1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 16:31b…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Romans3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”? The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 1 Corinthians3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?CATHOLIC TRADITION – Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. I John1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us…. 1 Timothy2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]; I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. August 28, 2008 12:37 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said…

TO POST NO. 9

1. So after long days of silence you are back. And once again you are still hiding your identity and your religious affiliations. I guess you are ashamed of your own beliefs. You are attacking our faith while hiding your own so that you are free to criticise while protected from our own scrutiny of your faith. What a treacherous attitude. That is a pagan attitude. That was the same style of Lucifer, hiding in the form of Snake to lure our first parents.

2. “the Queen of Heaven originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship.”The queen of heaven of the Babylonians originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship. But, the Christian ‘Queen of Heaven’ belief originated from the Judaeo-Christian concept of the Kingship of the Messiah and the Queen-Mother of Biblical culture. You are confusing the two. You are fond of distortions, I see. Rev. 12:1 presents a Woman Crowned as Queen and she is in Heaven. She is not God but the mother of the Messiah. The Catholic Church, following the Bible, honors the Mother of the Messiah as Queen of Heaven.

3. “We read in Jeremiah about the Babylonian Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). Jeremiah 7:18 plainly states that God hates idolatry and it provokes Him to anger.” We hate Idolatry too that is why it is prohibited for us to worship Mary. Also, if you are not aware, the Church who destroyed the Temples of the Pagan goddesses such as Astarte, Diana, Artemis, Hera and others was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was the one who defeated the Hellenistic and Roman Empire and submit them to Christian Faith.

Since you have started quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where can you find there the command or the teaching that we Catholics must or are worshipping Mary?

4. “Why would God allow Mary to be called a queen of heaven if He was angry about it. Psalm 45:9 Kings’ daughters were among your honorable women: at your right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir” Don’t be presumptous again. You are claiming to be a spokesperson of God yet you are distorting the Sacred Word of God. Rev. 12:1 shows that there is a Woman Crowned as Queen in Heaven. We are basing our belief on a Sign from Heaven and that is Divine Sign. For sure that Queen is not the pagan queen mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah. You are confusing the two.

How dare you claim that God is angry on calling Mary ‘Queen of Heaven’. Where can you find that in the Bible? On the contrary, Mary is the HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Luke 1:28]. God will be happy to bestow honor to His favorite creature. The favorite of God is also the favorite of Catholics, yet she is hated by Born Again. How nice isn’t it? You have something in common with Satan.

Psalm 45:9 is a prophecy that during the kingship of the Messiah, the Queen shall stand on His right hand. Jesus’ Kingship was initiated during his Nativity and the woman on His side was Mary, then in the first miracle at Cana and the woman on His side was Mary, then on the Cross and the woman on His side was Mary. Mary is the Queen standing on the side of the Messiah-King.

5. “Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and that she lived a sinless life. Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary never claimed to be sinless- she saw herself as needing a Savior”

So, you are escalating the discussion ha. You are jumping from one topic to another. We consider Mary as sinless because of the following Biblical passages:

[a] Genesis 3:15 The ‘Woman’ whose Seed will crush the Ancient Serpent will be in perpetual enmity with Satan. Since Mary is the Mother of the Messiah who destroyed Satan, Mary the Mother of the Messiah is in perpetual enmity with Satan. Thus, Satan has never enslaved Mary because she is protected by the grace of the Messiah. Just like the Woman in Rev. 12 whom Satan did everything to destroy yet he repeatedly failed because she is protected by God. I am wondering why you are so against Mary, just like the Serpent-Dragon. Are you not ashamed of that. You are on the side of the Ancient Serpent in being anti-Mary. Your opposition against Mary is full of venom. You have become an agent of the Serpent.

[b] Luke 1:28 Mary is ‘highly favored‘. In original Greek it is ‘Kaire Kecharitomene‘. The root word is ‘Charis’ = Grace. Mary is a woman filled with God’s grace. Thus, the more proper translation is ‘Hail, Full of Grace!‘ If Mary is already full of Grace, then there is no room for sin in her.

[c] Luke 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. This passage support our position not yours. Imagine, she was still alive and Jesus was not yet crucified yet it is already declared Biblically under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Mary already received Salvation from God. So, if there is one who is worthy of Salvation and of Sanctification it is Mary, not you or your cohorts. You are claiming Salvation for yourself yet it is not stated in the Bible. Mary’s salvation is announced in the Bible. But not yours!

6. “Roman Catholics made Mary as a co-redemptrix, Jesus is the redeemer and there is nothing in the bible says Mary was the co-mediator. Joh 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” Distortion again. The prefix “Co” there doesn’t mean Co-Equal but “Cooperator”. It means that she cooperated in God’s plan of Salvation.

Lk 1:26-27 before the Messiah was born to start God’s plan of Salvation, He sent the Angel Gabriel not to you or to your mother or to your pastor but to Mary.

Lk 1:38 Mary as a servant of God accepted the mission to be the Mother of the Messiah.

She didn’t refuse but ‘co’-operated with God’s plan.

Jn 2:1-11 Jesus declared that His time was not yet come but because of Mary’s request or prayer to Jesus, the Lord started the Plan of Salvation earlier. If Mary was not a Woman of Faith, salvation would have come later.

The teaching of human participation in Salvation is very Biblical but unfortunately you seem blind to it:

James 5:20 Whoever turns a sinner from error of his ways will SAVE him and cover a multitude of sins.

Jude 22-23 Be merciful to those who doubt… and SAVE THEM. [New International Version]

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME.

1 Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this THOU SHALT BOTH SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE. [Mary did this Lk 1:38, 45].

The concept of human participation in Salvation doesn’t diminish the Saving Power of Christ instead makes it more glorious through human cooperation.

7. In 1923, Pope Ius XV’s(1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated mary the “Queen of the World.” You are distorting the text of the Pope. This concept is based on Biblical teaching:

2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain THE SALVATION THAT IS IN CHRIST JESUS, with eternal glory. [Mary as the Pope said endured a lot of suffering and pain for Jesus. That suffering just like that of St. Paul obtained Salvation for others but of course, JESUS IS THE ONLY ONE GIVING THAT SALVATION because He is the only Lord and Savior].

In 2 Tim 2:11-12 St. Paul further explained: “If we died with him, we will also live with him: if we endure, we will also reign with him.” [Mary was not afraid to die with Christ. The Apostles run away but not her. She was there at the foot of the Cross. She endured the pain of a Mother seeing her Son slowly dying through tortured wounds. Thus, she is reigning with Christ as shown in Rev 12:1]

Now, tell me if Mary is not worthy to reign with Christ.

In Ang Biblia 2 Tim 2:12 was translated ‘mangaghahari tayong kasama niya’. So, this is Biblical words using Kingdom terminologies. Your faith is lacking in Biblical Kingdom terminologies.

8. “Roman Catholicism has taken the mother of Jesus and reinvented her ans ascribed to her things she would never have wanted.She steemed her son, she loved God’s Word, she was a servant and the most wonderful woman who ever lived.But she would be appalled at what Roman Catholicism has done to her, She never spoke of purgatory,of indulgences, of her redeeming souls,of being a co-redemptrix or co-mediator.” Once again, you are becoming presumptous. Earlier you are presenting yourself as a spokesperson of God now you are presenting yourself as the spokesperson of Mary. Yes, Mary is a simple Woman yet that is exactly the reason why she was honored by God. The humble shall be exalted. God had exalted Mary and so does the Catholic Church. On the contrary, in a Luciferian move the Born Again wanted to ignore Mary.

9. These are inventions and traditions of men; which her son warned us about in His Word. TELL ME YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS. TELL ME WHERE DO YOU GO FOR WORSHIP. TELL ME WHO YOUR PASTOR IS AND I WILL ENNUMERATE TO YOU YOUR INVENTIONS. You have the gall to accuse us of inventions because you are hiding your identity and your own church. Treacherous snake.

The Kingdom of the Messiah with its King and Queen-Mother is not the tradition of men but Biblical Tradition.

10. “1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, this to be a testimony at the proper time.”IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT VERSE WHY IS IT THAT YOU ARE PRAYING FOR ANOTHER PERSON. WHY DO YOU HAVE A PASTOR? So, you are committing the same mistake because you need another person for your faith.

You are deceiving our readers yet in doing so you have revealed what you are.

11. Calling the Pope as the Holy Father is an abomination to God,where in the bibles says that the pope is holy father WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT CALLING THE POPE AS HOLY FATHER IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD? You are inventing. There are hundreds of passages in the Bible calling men ‘father’.”For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

12. “vICAR(LATIN) OF CHRIST- Anti(Greek)of Christanti- christ -a prepostion signifying against,opposite, contrary, IN PLACE OF Or A substitute”

PLEASE DON’T SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY IN THE INTERNET WHERE THOUSANDS WILL READ HOW STUPID YOU ARE. VICAR IS ENGLISH. THE LATIN OF VICAR IS ‘VICARIUS’ WHICH MEANS REPRESENTATIVE OR A DEPUTY OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE IN CHARGE. IT IS BLATANT DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC TO CLAIM THAT VICAR IS ‘ANTI’ IN GREEK. THE PREFIX ‘ANTI’ IS BOTH LATIN AND GREEK BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VICAR.YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CLEAR BLUNDER SHOWING YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH LATIN AND GREEK. STUDY PLEASE! OR YOU ARE DECEIVING PEOPLE INTENTIONALLY.

DECEPTION IS AN ACT PROPER OF THE ANTI-CHRIST BECAUSE SATAN IS ‘THE DECEIVER’.

13. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).” POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.2Th 2:4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God”

Once again a distorted quotation. Jesus apointed leaders in the Church and having Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons is necessary for Salvation. Just like there are successors to the Apostles, there is a successor to the head of the Apostles – Peter. That we call Pope. The Power of the Keys given in Mt 16-18-19 is not only limited to Peter but for all believers of all time. The Pope is not God but the leader of the Universal Church. He is a wordwide pastor. Jesus appointed men to be leaders of the Church and had chosen them personally. You yourself have pastors and leaders. If you reject the Pope why do you have his equivalents.

I WARN YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF. BECAUSE YOU ARE ATTACKING OUR FAITH TRECHEROUSLY. IF YOU WILL CONTINUOUSLY REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN I WILL ERASE YOUR FUTURE MESSAGES. I AM WILLING TO DEBATE BUT LET US LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELDS.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… TO POST NO. 10

1.”QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN? Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

Nowhere in that passage does it says that Joseph had sexual union with Mary. The word UNTIL im Mt 1:25 is the Greek HEOS HOU. It simply signifies that prior to the Nativity of Jesus no sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph had happened. Yet, it doesn’t assure that there is sexual intercouse that occured later. Here are some examples of Biblical use of UNTIL or HEOS HOU:

2 Samuel 6:2 “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.” [You mean to say she had a child after her death?]

1 Corinthians 15:25/Ps 110:1 “For he must reign UNTIL he put all enemies under his feet.” [Does it mean that he was no longer reigning when all enemies were put under his feet?]

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, UNTIL all be fulfilled.” [So, does it mean when all laws have been fulfilled one tittle of the law will pass away?]

You see, the word UNTIL is not a proof that something had happened afterward between Mary and Joseph.

2. “WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It’s identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we’re going to say that word Brother doesn’t really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn’t really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it’s the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that the children are of the same mother are meant.

I already explained that in Hebrew culture relatives and kinsmen are called brothers and sisters. It was shown that Mary the Mother of Jesus is not the same Mary the Mother of James and Joses. All the rest are mere presupposition. What you are quoting are not solid evidence that these people are truly biological siblings of the Lord.

First, it is nowhere stated in the texts that they are biological siblings of Jesus.

Second, only Jesus was referred as the Son of Mary. It is a stretch of imagination to claim that these James and Judas and Joses are biological family of Jesus because it was not stated as such.

Third, I do not trust those who speak because they are enemies and non-believers of Jesus. Your teaching concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doesn’t come from Prophets and Apostles but from words quoted from the mouth of the ENEMIES OF JESUS. Your position is Satanic.

3. “I understand that your faith is American invented. MY FAITH IS INVENTED WRIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex.I DON’T HAVE THIS MENTALITY, SEX IS GOOD, GOD CREATED SEX.IT IS ONLY GOOD INSIDE MARRIAGE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS A SIN.But Joseph is not sex-crazed. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS A SEX-CRAZED. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue.SEX IS NOT EVIL EITHER WHEN ITS DONE INSIDE MARRIAGE.”

Yes, but it is nowhere stated in the Bible that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary. The teaching that Mary had other children appeared only in the 4th century when Helvidius invented that doctrine based on wrong interpretation of the Scriptures.

Sex is good inside marriage that’s true but VIRGINITY TOO IS GOOD. So, why is this Born Again so against the chastity and virginity of Joseph and Mary. Imagine, she even exclaimed ‘poor Joseph’ to the idea that Joseph didn’t sleep with his wife. That is a Sex-Crazed mentality. If the Born Again and the Evangelicals cannot control their lust they should refrain from thinking that Mary and Joseph are like them in that weakness.

4. “CATHOLIC TRADITION – Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

SO WHAT DO YOU CALL THE HUSBAND OF YOUR MOTHER, THEN? A DOG? There are so many passages in the Bible calling men ‘father’:

Judges 17:9-10 Micah told a Levite: “Be to me a FATHER and a PRIEST.”

Genesis 17:5 Abraham was made the FATHER of many nations.

Exodus 20:12 Honour your FATHER and your mother. [Lk 18:20]

1 Samuel 23:11 David called King Saul ‘father’.

2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah ‘my father’ 2x

Acts 7 St. Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit yet he called people ‘fathers’ 18x.

Philippians 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the FATHER, he [Timothy] hath served with me in the gospel.

1 Corinthians 4:14-16 …I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Therefore I urge you, be imitators of me. [New International Version]

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder [Presbyteros, priest], but entreat him as a FATHER.

4. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – 1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 1 Timothy4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 1 Corinthians9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

DON’T DECEIVE PEOPLE. WE CATHOLICS ARE NOT PROHIBITING MARRIAGE. IN FACT, WE HAVE MORE MARRIAGES THAN YOUR FELLOWSHIPS. YOUR MARRIAGES ARE NOTHING IN COMPARISON TO THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC MARRIAGES WE ARE DOING.

Who prohibits marriages? My parents are married and so are my uncles and aunts. Actually, our teaching is similar to that of Saint Paul. IF YOU WANT TO MARRY SO GET MARRIED. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET MARRIED AND BE PRIEST SO BE IT. Our doctrine is based on Biblical understanding that Jesus and the Kingdom of God must be priority over family:

Matthew 10:37 Jesus must be loved more than father, mother, son or daughter.

Matthew 19:12 Some renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven [NIV]

Luke 18:28-30 Yes, I agree with you that Peter has a wife but he left ALL when he followed Jesus.

REVELATION 14:4 THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE NOT DEFILED WITH WOMEN; FOR THEY ARE VIRGINS. THESE ARE THEY WHICH FOLLOW THE LAMB WHITHERSOEVER HE GOETH. THESE WERE REDEEMED FROM AMONG MEN, BEING THE FIRST FRUITS UNTO GOD AND TO THE LAMB. [Who are these virgin males who are in heaven? Are they Catholic priests or Protestant pastors?]

Clearly, male virginity is not being condemned in the Bible but being honored. Read your Bible carerfully. WE HAVE MORE MARRIAGES THAN YOU. I myself have license to marry and I am marrying Catholics, a lot of them.

5. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary is the mother of God. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE EARTHLY JESUS ONLY? Luke 1:43 “And whence is this come to me, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?“

MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE LORD! What is the Lord? Is He God or Man? or God-Man?

If the son is a King, the Mother is the Mother of the King.

If the son is a Messiah, the Mother is the Mother of the Messiah.

If the Son is God, the Mother is the Mother of God.

The mother of the president is the Mother of the President even if she is not a president. Simple Logic.

6. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she’d be God.] Psalm93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Philippians2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

WE DO NOT DENY THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. YOUR NEWLY INVENTED RELIGION WAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED WE WERE ALREADY DEFENDING THE DIVINITY OF JESUS AGAINST THE ARIANS IN THE 3RD-4TH CENTURY.

You yourself is calling Jesus as your Lord and God, yet you deny Mary as Mother of God. We are not claiming that God as God has a Mother but the Bible attests that when God became Man in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth He was born of Mary. Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate God — JESUS CHRIST!

7. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Pope called Holy Father. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name John17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Your knowledge of the Bible is very superficial. It is true that God is the Father of all but contrary to your claim God allowed us to call men Father. He Himself called people ‘father’ and He Himself shared His Holiness to people and things. So that calling people or things ‘Holy’ or “Father’ is not contrary to the Honor of God.

2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah ‘my father’ not only once but twice.

2 Kings 13:14 King Joash of Israel called the prophet Elisha ‘my father’ twice also.

Genesis 45:8 Joseph the Prime Minister of Egypt was made by God ‘father’

Isaiah 22:21 The Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom is prophesied to become ‘a father to the inhabitants of Israel’.

* The word Pope is the English version of the word ‘Papa’ which means ‘Father’. He is called as such because the Office of Peter and his successor is the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:21.

WHY WAS IT CALLED ‘HOLY’? BECAUSE IT IS AN OFFICE ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. [cf. MATTHEW 16:18-19]. Is it wrong to refer to people or things as ‘holy’. The Bible says NO! Look at these:

Leviticus 21:8 The priest who offered the Bread of God is ‘holy’ [The Pope is a Priest who offers the Bread of God]

Deuteronomy 26:19 You will be a ‘holy people’ [All members of the People of God are holy then]

Acts 3:21 “Holy prophets” [The Pope is a prophet for us just like the pastors and evanglists and ministers in the Protestants]

Luke 2:23 “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called HOLY TO THE LORD.”

Exodus 3:5 The place you are standing is a “holy ground”.

Exodus 30:25 “holy oil”

1 Chronicles 23:28 “All holy things”

1 Chronicles 23:32 “holy place”

Matthew 27:53 “holy city”

Leviticus 8:9 “holy crown’

Leviticus 16:4 “holy garments”

Leviticus 2:3, 10 “most holy of the offerings”

Number 5:17 “holy water”

1 Kings 6:16 “Most holy place”

Psalm 99:9 “worship at His holy hill”

8. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Purgatory, nuns, popes. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. Proverbs30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close.

You are pretending to be faithful to the Bible but in fact you are teaching a lot of things contrary to it or not found in it:

1. Where can you find in the Bible your Dogma of SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE AS THE AUTHORITY IN FAITH?

2. Where can you find in the Bible your Dogma of SOLA FIDE or FAITH ALONE for Justification and Salvation?

3. Where can you find in the Bible your OSAS ‘Once Saved will Always be Saved’?

4. Where can you find in the Bible your doctrine of Rapture?

5. Where can you find in the Bible that your dogma of TITHING must be obligatory for Christians?

6. Where can you find in the Bible that Women can be pastors?

7. Where in the Bible can you find that the Musical Band can be used in worship?

Your claim that the believers doesn’t need a Pope is a stupid statement. Because it is never stated in the Sacred Scriptures that matters of Faith and Morals are determined by mere reading of the Bible. In Acts 15 when St. Paul and St. Barnabas were being disobeyed by the Jewish-Christians they went to Jerusalem and St. Peter decided with finality the issue without reading any Biblical text. The authority in the Church is given to persons because the Book cannot interpret itself [cf. Matthew 16:18-19/ 18:18].

Concerning the nuns, it is very obvious that Jesus was taking of the 10 Virgins while St. Paul admonishes the female virgins [1 Corinthians 7:8]. Do you think that all women in the early Church are non-Virgins? Then you are deceived. These are the first nuns in the history of the Church. Just like during the time of St. Paul they are still wearing their veils until now as a sign of their consecration of virginity to Christ.

9. NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

You will go there. You will go to Purgatory if not directly to Hell. You will not be able to enter heaven straight because your FAITH ALONE, BIBLE ALONE AND ONCE SAVED WILL ALWAYS BE SAVED are not in the Bible and therefore you will be answerable to God for them, for deceiving other people and deceiving yourself. The Doctrine of Purgatory is actually proclaiming that Christ is the one purifying our sins. The word Purgatory alone proves that:

“Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making PURGATION OF SINS, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high” [Hebrew 1:3 Douay-Rheims]

Try to read it in Latin:

Heb 1:3 “qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae PURGATIONEM PECCATORUM faciens sedit ad dexteram Maiestatis in excelsi”

It is nowhere stated in the Bible that only Heaven and Hell exists:

Rev 5:3 “And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it” [cf. Philippians 2:10]

Who are these souls who have the right to try opening the Scrool of Life? For sure the spirits of demons and the damned in Hell are not part of them. These are souls in Heaven, the souls of the human beings on earth and the souls in Purgatory. In fact Revelation 5:13 speaks of creatures under the earth who are singing the Honor of Christ. For sure these are not referring to minerals and worms under the soils.

Concerning Hebrew 9:27 we believe that that is why we believe that the souls in heaven are alive and saved like that of Peter and Paul, the other Apostles and the holy ones of God. However, you have forgotten that there is also judgment in the after life. The Lord Jesus speaks of forgiveness in the world to come [Matthew 12:32] and St. Peter supported it by declaring that the Gospel is preached to the dead for their judgment [1 Peter 4:6].

10. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. Exodus20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…

God is a jealous God but He is not stupid like you. He prohibited Idolatry and so the Catholic Church prohibits it as well. What you are not teaching is that God commanded Images to be made for His Glory in the Temple. There is no need for me to repeat it here. You can visit my presentation of Sacred Images in this Blog.

11. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. Hebrews10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. John19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 1 Corinthians11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).

You are making me laugh. Imagine, you rightly stated that the bread is turning into the Body and Blood of Jesus according to our Catholic faith then in order to disprove it you quoted Hebrew stating that Jesus died only once. How can the ‘once and for all’ death of Jesus disprove the Transubstantation? When in fact, we Catholics are also teaching that Jesus died once and for all. From what devil did you get that Jesus is dying again according to Catholic theology?

Why do we have the Mass? Because Jesus commanded His apostles to DO THE LAST SUPPER AGAIN. Let us see the testimony of St. Paul:

1 Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

St. Paul says that he received it and now he is passing it to his followers. Well, exactly as the generations of Catholic do. The Born Again do not have it or they are simply making a caricature of it by using Grape Juice and Biscuits. Nakakahiya kayo di ba?

1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

JESUS SAID ‘THIS IS MY BODY’… It’s not ‘This is the symbol of my body’ but THIS IS MY BODY. That’s categorical and declarative. You are denying the very words of Jesus and testified by St. Paul. This is Catholic Theology word for word in the Bible.

1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

This is the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of Psalm 116:12-13 “What shall I render the Lord for all His goodness to me? I will take THE CUP OF SALVATION, and call upon the name of the Lord.” The Lord has given us a new covenant in His Blood, right in that very Cup. That is a Sacred Cup because it contains the Blood of the Divine Master.

1 Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

You cut it here to make it appear that your theology is supported eh. But the next passage destroys your position.

1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Those who will take the Eucharist unworthily are sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Why? Because those are no longer ordinary bread and wine they transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord substantially.

1 Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 1 Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Exactly as the Catholics do. We examine our conscience and ask for forgiveness of our sins before the Eucharistic Meal in order not to commit sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

12. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Saved, in part, by good works. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. I John1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 16:31b…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Romans3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”? The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.

With all the passages that you have cited not one is saying that Salvation or Justification is by Faith Alone. None. Your doctrine, your dogma of Sola Fide is unbiblical and therefore by your standard, SATANIC. MAN-MADE. BY YOUR OWN STANDARD WILL BE ENOUGH TO BRING YOU TO HELL because you are following a mere doctrine of man.

What is the teaching of Jesus concerning Salvation?

Matthew 7:21-27 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

James 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Man is justified NOT BY FAITH ALONE but also by Good Works. So, it must be Faith & Good Works. Faith alone is dead so that is the reason why the advocates of this erroneous dogma are deceiving themselves.

13. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 1 Corinthians3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Definitely, you are not equal with Peter. In humanity, yes but not in sanctify of life that he lived after he became totally converted to Jesus. To claim that Peter is just like you is too abominable to accept. We do not even know who you are. For what we know you can be a demon in disguise.

Peter was chosen by Jesus and it was to him that Jesus entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven. He was weak during the earthly life of Jesus but after then he became a courageous leader of the Church.

Jesus callled Peter Satan but Jesus also promised him that he will be protected from Satan twice [Matthew 16:19 and Luke 22:31-32]. Jesus entrusted to him the authority of a lead Shepherd to represent Him the Chief Shepherd [John 21:15-17].

After Jesus’ Ascension Peter’s leadership was unequalled by any apostles. He faced the Sanhedrin as the leader of all believers. He decided by his lonesome self the successor to Judas and decided to baptized the Gentiles. He became so powerful spiritually that he can witheld the Holy Spirit from the evil ones and his mere shadow can cure people. Of course those miracles were done by the Lord Jesus.

Downgrading the Blessed Peter the Apostle will speak ill of you because you are honoring your weak, sinful and self-proclaimed pastors while rejecting the one chosen by the Lord Jesus Himself.

14. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. * WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE? THAT WE HAVE TO CONFESS OUR SINS TO GOD ALONE? YOU ARE INVENTING! John 20:22-23 And when he said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE REMIT THEY ARE REMITTED UNTO THEM, AND WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED. [So, the power to forgive sins was given to the leaders of the Church, to human persons.] HOW COME YOUR PASTORS DON’T HAVE THIS POWER? BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKES!

I John1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us….

1 Timothy2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

We also confess our sins to God but Jesus Himself has taught us to go to the Church authority on matters of sins. In Matthew 18:15-18 Jesus taught us to settle our disputes and sins personally if possible, if we cannot solve it then we ask help from others and if it is still persistent we have to bring it to the Church. So, the highest authority on earth on matters of sins and reconciliation is the Church Authority. This is the will of God.

SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU HAVE RAISED HAVE BEEN ANSWERED HERE AND IN THE PREVIOUS POST.YOU ARE NOT ATTACKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. YOU ARE ATTACKING A CARICATURE OF YOUR OWN INVENTION. ONCE AGAIN, I REPEAT. YOU ARE AFRAID TO REVEAL YOUR IDENTITY AND YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID THAT YOUR TEACHINGS CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PRESENT YOURSELF AND I ALLOWED YOUR POSTS WITHOUT CUT WHATSOEVER. NOW, IF YOU WILL CONTINUE BEING ANONYMOUS YOUR PRECEEDING POSTS WILL BE DELETED BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY ATTACKING WITHOUT SHOWING YOURSELF. AS YOU WANT TO QUESTION MY FAITH, I ALSO WANT TO QUESTION YOURS. I WANT TO SEE IF IT IS BIBLICAL.

THE SIGN OF THE BEAST

By Fr. Abe Arganiosa

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/09/sign-of-beast.html

Bro. Franz Luigi Lugena with Fr. Abe Arganiosa in The Splendor of the Church TV program discussing the issue: THE SIGN OF THE BEAST

Last August 24, 2008 our program received a text message from Mr. Jerry of Casiguran requesting us to discuss the ‘Mark of the Beast‘ from the Book of Revelation. He states that it is frequently presented in the Hope Channel and is eager to know the answer of the Catholic Church. As a response we decided to dedicate our next program on the topic. What is presented here is a mere portion of what we discussed on air but we hope to provide the basic answer to our readers.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURE:

“This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.” [Revelation 13:18 New International Version]

• Based on the above citation the Mark of the Beast corresponds to a man’s number or the number corresponds to the name of a human person.

Among the anti-Catholic religious groups, there are two very prominent in accusing the Catholic Church of being the anti-Christ by associating to the Church Rev. 13:18 particularly to the Pope. These two are the IGLESIA NI CRISTO [INC] and SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST [SDA]. They claim that:

• The Pope is the Beast because of the Papal Title Vicarius Filii Dei which corresponds to the number 666 when their Roman numerals are counted:

VICARIUS FILII DEI

V = 5

I = 1

C = 100

A

R

I = 1

V = 5

S

F

I = 1

L = 50

I = 1

I = 1

D = 500

E

I = 1

__________

TOTAL 666

• As a proof they claim that the title Vicarius Filii Dei is written in the tiara of the Pope.

When Catholic apologists demand that they show proofs of this claim, specially that of the Pope wearing a Tiara with inscription: Vicarius Filli Dei, they presented these two bogus drawings which only fools shall accept as evidence:

CATHOLIC ANSWER:

• The Book of Revelation refers to a name of a person, not a Title. • Vicarius Filii Dei is never a Papal Title but VICARIUS CHRISTI. • None of the Papal Tiaras bear the words: Vicarius Filii Dei. To prove our assertion here are one fresco and numerous genuine photographs of the recent Popes wearing various Tiaras. Not a single tiara contain their self-invented Title:

Pope Innocent III [1198-1216] Blessed Pope John XXIII [1958-1963]

WIKIPEDIA:

•”Vicarius Filii Dei” is, in fact, not one of the pope’s titles, though the Donation of Constantine (a medieval document forged in the name of the Emperor to legitimate the temporal power of popes) does use it to refer to Saint Peter specifically. [Note: If vicarius filii dei is truly the sign of the anti-Christ then the anti-Christ will be St. Peter. This is preposterous. Because it will mean the Holy Spirit descended on the Anti-Christ during Pentecost and that 2 Epistles on the Bible bears the name of the Anti-Christ.]

Blessed John XXIII

Blessed John XXIII

Pope Paul VI [1963-1978]

Pope Paul VI

WIKIPEDIA:

• Four sources are sometimes given to back up the claim, including two witnesses who claimed to have seen Pope Gregory XVI wearing a tiara with Vicarius Filii Dei on it in 1832 and 1845, the purported existence of a photograph of an early twentieth century papal funeral showing a tiara with the writing, and the assertion that the tiara with the writing was used to crown Eugenio Pacelli as Pope Pius XII in 1939.

Venerable Pope Pius XII [1939-1958]

Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII in Sedia Gestatoria & with the Tiara

WIKIPEDIA:

•None of the claims holds up to scrutiny. One of the occasions where the Pope was “seen” wearing the tiara was supposedly during a Pontifical High Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. In fact popes never wore tiaras during Mass. It was never used as a liturgical item. In addition the tiara used for Pius XII’s coronation in 1939 could not have been worn by Gregory XVI as it was manufactured thirty-one years after Gregory’s death. All the tiaras potentially worn by Gregory still exist; none have writing, nor does the tiara worn by Pius in 1939.

WIKIPEDIA:

•Finally, no evidence as to the existence of the supposed photograph has been produced, nor is it credible that a black and white photograph, taken from a distance inside a darkened St. Peter’s Basilica, in the absence of modern photographic technology or even zoom lenses, could have picked up writing on a far-away tiara, had such writing existed. A photograph of a tiara supposedly on the High Altar behind the coffin of Pope Pius X, at his canonization in 1954 decades after the supposed original photograph, could not see the jewels on the tiara, much less any supposed writing.

The Tiara of the Servant of God Pope VI on display at Immaculate Conception Basilica museum in Washington DC

WIKIPEDIA:

• Contrary to claims of a cover-up, all tiaras manufactured since 1800 still exist and are on public display, with a number being sent around the world as part of the Saint Peter and The Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes exhibition which visited the United States in 2005. Only a handful, notably the Belgian Tiara of 1871 and the Gold Tiara of 1903, have any writing at all. The 1871 tiara’s inscription is not Vicarius Filii Dei or anything that could be confused with it, but CHRISTI VICARIO – IN TERRA – REGUM (To the earthly Vicar of Christ).

Pope Leo XIII [1878-1903]

Pope Leo XIII

WIKIPEDIA:

•Many historians, academics and mainstream religious leaders view the story as a classic anti-Catholic myth, a story for which no evidence has been found. Even some Seventh-day Adventist scholars no longer support the view that the “666” of Revelation relates to any inscription on a papal tiara.

WHO IS THE BEAST?

•Nero – Scholars who believe that the Book of Revelation refers to historical people and events argue that the number represents Nero. In Hebrew gematria, every letter has a corresponding number. Summing these numbers gives a numeric value to a word or name. The Greek spelling, “Neron Caesar,” transliterates into Hebrew as “נרון קסר” or “nrwn qsr”:

Resh = 200

Samekh = 60

Qoph = 100

Nun = 50

vav = 6

Resh = 200

Nun = 50

______________

TOTAL 666

Pope Pius XI [1922-1939]

• DOMITIAN The German Protestant theologian Ethelbert Stauffer, arguing that gematria had been the most popular form of numerology not only among Jews but also in the Graeco-Roman world, conceived a Greek gematrical procedure to explain the number 666. Judging from the precise information that the Book of Revelation gives about the person behind the number 666, Stauffer concluded that the “beast” can in general only refer to a Roman emperor and that this Emperor must be Domitian, because he had reigned during the proposed time of origin of the Apocalypse and supposedly was called “The Beast” as a “secret derisive nickname” by Romans, Greek, Christians and Jews.

Α = 1

Κ = 20

Α = 1

I= 10

Δ = 4

Ο = 70

M = 40

Ε = 5

Τ = 300

Σ = 200

Ε = 5

Β = 2

Γ = 3

E = 5

____________

TOTAL 666

Pope Saint Pius X [1903-1914]

THE PROBLEM OF THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO:

* The INC must have realized that their attacks had boomeranged on them because nowadays there are many calculations of the name FELIX YSAGUN MANALO that sums to the number 666. On the part of Catholic Apologists, it is not the official doctrine of the Catholic Church that Felix Manalo or Ellen Gould White are Anti-Christs. However, we are showing their followers calculations of their founders’ names in order to show the ridiculous nature of their accusations against the Catholic Church especially to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

•FELIX [5 letters] because Felix is Latin but if it is translated to Tagalog: PELIKS = 6 letters]

•YSAGUN [6 letters]

•MANALO [6 letters]

= 666 ERAÑO GUZMAN MANALO [translated to Filipino] IRANYO GUSMAN MANALO

IRANYO: 6 Letters

GUSMAN: 6 Letters

MANALO: 6 Letters

_________________

666

•The Founder of SDA

ELLEN GOULD WHITE

E

L = 50

L = 50

E

N

G

O

V = 5

L = 50

D = 500

W [V + V] = 10

H

I = 1

T

E

______________

TOTAL 666

IN ONE OF THE BLOGS LISTED IN OUR LINKS ENTITLED PASUGO BLOGSPOT OR SAVINGTHE RAINFORESTS THE BLOGGER GAVE US A MORE SCHOLARLY CALCULATION OF THE NAME OF FELIX MANALO USING THE GREEK AND ROMAN NUMERIC VALUE. We were not able to present this calculation on TV because I only learned of SAVING THE RAINFORESTS the first week of September.

Here are the calculations:

Using the numeric value as listed in the photo text above:

FELIX in Greek: 605

FELIX in Roman: 61

605 + 61 = 666

YSAGUN in Greek: 660

ISAGUN in Roman: 6

660 + 6 = 666

SUMMARY:

• Year INC was founded: 1914

• Ysagun [in Roman]: 6

• Manalo [in Greek]: 192

• Manalo [in Roman]: 1050

TOTAL 1914 – (6 + 192 + 1050)

1914 – 1248 = 666

The live telecast of The Splendor of the Church as seen inside the Control Room

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #5

New comment on your post #210 “Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #4”
Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.134.239 , bas2-windsor12-1088718575.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.134.239
Comment:

Black: -Henri Arganda (New Comments)

Red: -Henri’s Old Replies

Blue: -G-one Paisones’ Old Reply

Green:-G-one Paisones (New Reply)

Other colors– For emphasizing

HENRY:

yril of Alexandria c.376–444, bishop. Traditionally regarded as the most outstanding theologian of Alexandria, Cyril presented against Nestorius of Constantinople the classical doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ based on the work of Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Little is known of his early life. He was born at Alexandria and first became known as a young priest who was the nephew of the patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus, whom he succeeded in 412. His intransigent vigour was soon expressed in attacks on the Novatians, the Neoplatonists, the Jews, and the imperial governor Orestes. The latter was believed to have been influenced by the philosopher Hypatia against him: Cyril’s followers lynched her without his knowledge. His controversy with Nestorius was the most important of his life. The different exegetical traditions of Constantinople and Alexandria, sharpened by rivalry between

the two sees for pre-eminence, embittered the quarrel. Nestorius was believed to have

taught that there were two distinct persons in Christ who were joined by a merely moral union: consequently the Blessed Virgin Mary should not be called Theotokos or Mother of God. Cyril certainly and Nestorius probably appealed for support to Pope Celestine, who, after examining the question in a council at Rome, condemned Nestorius’ teaching, excommunicated and deposed him unless he retracted, and appointed Cyril to carry out the sentence. Nestorius refused to submit; the Council of Ephesus (431) was summoned; 200 bishops took part. Cyril presided and condemned Nestorius, who refused to appear, before the arrival of the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. They in their turn condemned Cyril first but later reached agreement with him. The emperor upheld the condemnation of Nestorius and the word Theotokos became a touchstone of orthodoxy. The precision, accuracy, and skill of Cyril as a theologian has often been remarked, but his intransigence and even misunderstanding of his opponents’ thought is often criticized by modern scholars. Traditionally he was regarded as the fearlessly outspoken champion of orthodox thought on the Person of Christ. In addition to this, his writings contain some fine passages on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the place of Mary in the Incarnation. His works include sermons and letters besides more formal theological treatises. As the moving spirit of the third Ecumenical Council of the Church he is of great importance in the development of Christian Doctrine. His feast in the East is 9 June, in the West 27 June. He was declared a Doctor of the Church by Leo XIII in 1882.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Origen and Origenism
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z … no errors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture (Commentary on John X.3) …
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

Ambrose: Introduction

Saint Ambrose (born 337 or 339) was bishop of Milan from 374 until his death in 397, during a time when the church was engaged in simultaneous struggles against the external enemy of paganism and the internal enemy of Arianism. Ambrose played a key role in both, opposing the attempts of the party of Symmachus to restore the Altar of Victory to the Senate (see EPISTULAE 72 and 73 [17 and 18]) and of the Arians to take over the Basilica Portiana of Milan (see Epistulae 76 [20] and 75A [21a] [= Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis]; in his VITA SANCTI WILLIBRORDI [MGH SRM 7.139], ALCUIN praises Ambrose as the defender of Milan.) Ambrose’s vigorous defense of the prerogatives of the Church in spiritual matters led to conflicts even with orthodox emperors; his imposition of public penance upon Theodosius I for the massacre at Thessalonica (see Epistula extra collectionem 11 [51]; PAULINUS OF MILAN, VITA AMBROSII XXIV; see AMBROSIUS under ACTA SANCTORUM; ed. Pellegrino 1961) made a profound impression upon contemporaries and was recounted admiringly by many medieval writers. ÆLFRIC’s version of the story, in an addition to CATHOLIC HOMILIES II.xxxiii (ÆHom 27, B1.4.27, ed. EETS OS 260.762-69) is based upon THEODORET, HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA TRIPARTITA

Scholarly Critiques of Irenaeus’ Writings

Debate Over Originality of Writings One classic debate over Irenaeus’ writngs was framed by Friedrich Loofs. In the early 20th century Loofs suggested that Theophilus of Antioch was the source of Irenaeus’ writings, not Irenaeus himself.[8] F.R.M. Hitchcock, in his article “Loof’s Theory of Theophilus of Antioch as a source of Irenaeus”[9] has shown some of the weaknesses of Loofs’ study. He acknowledges that some writings from a different context are apparent at some points of Irenaeus’ work but that this does not prove Loofs theory. An example is in Adversus haereses 3. 22. 1, where Irenaeus makes use of an anti-Ebionite argument that proves that Christ was born of a virgin in order to argue against the Gnostics that Christ had a human origin. There have been a slew of other academics who have taken positions on both sides of the issue, with the general appearance of the unity and validity of Irenaeus’ work being favored.[10]

Uses of the Writings of Irenaeus Irenaeus’ writings, as have many other church fathers, have been used by a variety of scholars to support a myriad of contemporary and historical heretical positions. One particular theological position that has been skewed is Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation. M.C. Steenberg has pressed the concept of the recapitulation of Christ into a Roman Catholic Mariology. Arguing against the possibility that Irenaeus is driven primarily by aesthetic concerns, the author posits a reading of Irenaeus that finds in Mary’s person an integral and essential component of a theologically coherent system of personal and social recapitulation.[11] This style of tainting the works of the church fathers is both unworthy scholarship and dangerous to the uninformed reader

**Thus we find from this passage also, that there was in Christ a fleshly body, such as was able to endure the cross. “When, therefore, He came and preached peace to them that were near and to them which were afar off,” we both obtained “access to the Father,” being “now no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (even of Him from whom, as we have shown above, we were aliens, and placed far off), “built upon the foundation of the apostles”(12)–(the apostle added), “and the prophets;” these words, however, the heretic erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His Church not only apostles, but prophets also. He feared, no doubt, that our building was to stand in Christ upon the foundation of the ancient prophets,(13) since the apostle himself never fails to build us up everywhere with (the words of) the prophets. For whence did he learn to call Christ “the chief corner-stone,”(14) but from the figure given him in the Psalm: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head (stone) of the corner?”” THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION — (REST OF BOOK V) -CHAP.XVII

HENRY: NAPANSIN SANA NG MGA MAMBABASA KUNG SINO ITONG MGA GINAMIT NI PAISONES NA MGA CHURCH PADER KUNO,MGA KATOLIKO YAN…

G-ONE: hahaha, joker pala itong si brother Henry akalain mo pa naman na ipapabasa pa ng mga bumabasa kung sino ang tinutukoy na mga Church Pader…. Hehehe, salamat sa iyo Henry Arganda; at sa mga bumabasa, paki basa lang po ng mga isinulat ni Henry Arganda regarding sa mga Church Pader.

HENRY: PANSININ NYO PO ANG SAGOT NI PAISONES SA PAHAYAG KO NA SI CRISTO ANG PETRA ..IBA ANG SAGOT NYA DI NYA KAYANG PASUBALI-AN…(NASA BABA PO ANG PAHAYAG KO)ANG SINAGOT NYA AY PATOTOO NG DATING PROTESTANTE..NA BUMALIK…SA MALAKING KAMALI-AN.

G-ONE: PANSININ PO NINYO ANG MENSAHI NI HENRY ARGANDA, IBA DAW ANG SAGOT KO? SIGURO WALA NGA TALAGANG ALAM SI HENRY ARGANDA SA ARGUMENTATION; EH BAKIT BA AKO SASAGOT HINDI AKO TINATANONG? Ang mga comments sa baba ng kanyang mensahi ay isa ring Burden of Rebuttal ko laban sa kanya. At naipaliwanag na natin sa previous post (reply#2) natin laban kay Henry Arganda ang mga contention natin hinggil sa Matt. 16:18 na si Pedro ang batong pinag-uusapan. For the sake of arguments ito ang mga sumusunod na contention natin:

Narito ang mga punto natin:

1.) Sa Matt. 16 ang linguahe na isinulat dito ay ang Greek; pero ang linguahing sinalita o ginamit ng Panginoon Jesus at nang mga apostol ay ang Aramaic.Ang BarJonah ay salitang Aramaic na ibig sabihin ay “son of Jonah”.Majority po ng mga scholar ay naniniwala na ang madalas na wikain ng Panginoong Jesus ay ang Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

Kaya ang Matt. 16:18 na PETROS sa pagkasulat, peru ang ibinigkas talaga ng Panginoong Jesus ay KEPHA.Pariho lang po ang kahulugan ng PETROS (in Greek) sa KEPHA (in Aramaic) – “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter f ). John 1:42 (TNIV)” at nasa footnote ng Today’s New International Version (TNIV) na ang CEPHAS ay Aramaic.

Kaya sa Aramaic Bible ay walang pinag-iba ang Pedro sa Bato. Pawang KEPHA po ang Aramaic word ng Pedro at Bato dahil ang ibig sabihin ng Pedro ay Bato:

Therefore sa Matt. 16:18 ang Batong pinagtatayoan ng Iglesia ay si San Pedro.

2.) Sa Matt. 16:18 ang Greek construction na “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”).

Sa Matt. 16:18 ang phrase na “on this rock” ay reperido kay Pedro. Catholic believes that other apostles are also foundation of the church and Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20) but in Matt. 16:18 the only reference on the phrase “on this rock” is for Saint Peter.

3.) Matt. 16:18-19 This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom). (http://www.scripturecatholic.com)

HENRY: MR. PAISONES ITO NAMAN ANG SAGOT KO DYAN SA NAGPAYOTOO YANG …IYAN KARANIWANG KATOLIKO ITONG AKIN AY MGA RANKING ITO SA KATOLIKO’

G-ONE: Mr. Arganda Henry wala ka bang logic? Kung tatanungin ka, hindi ka sumasagot; pag hindi naman tinatanong, ikaw naman ay sasagot. Wala po tayong problema kahit ranking pa Katoliko yan dahil sa inihula sa Biblia yan. Act 20:30 (TNIV) “Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” kaya po natupad po ang hula ng Biblia hingil sa mga bulaang propeta. TAKE NOTE PO MGA KAPATID: (Gawa 20:30) Ang mga bulaang propeta ay galing mismo sa tunay na Iglesia! Eh saan ba nanggaling si Martin Luther? Si Felix Manalo? (ewan ko lang kay Feriol?). Kaya po mga kapatid hindi nakapagtataka na may ilang mga ranking na mga Katoliko noon na hindi sang-ayon sa ilang mga Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica. <ang isa sa mga example ni Henry ay niyakap ang paniniwalang nasa katotohanan at bumalik sa union ng Catholic Church>

HENRY: Roman Catholic Faith Examined!
Was Peter the first Pope?
Catholics say Yes! Truth says No!

G-ONE: Another fallacious argument of Henry Arganda. This fallacy is called fallacy of presumption. This type of fallacy of presumption is called petitio principii.

Fallacies of Presumption– are those arise when the disputant assumes, without presenting evidence or argument, the truth of the conclusion which it is his duty to prove. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Petitio Principii– in this fallacy of presumption, the arguer assumes the truth of the proposition which is in essence the same as the conclusion which he seeks to establish. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Henry patunayan mo muna na ikaw ay tama, kaya nga tayo nag argue diba, wag kang basta-bastang mag conclude sa mga argumento mong hindi mo pa napapatunayan.

HENRY: Papal Infallibility
Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

We Speak truth in LOVE
Tell us of if we have misrepresented Catholic Faith
Papal Infallibility

G-ONE:

We speak the wholeness of truth and love.

HENRY:

From the past and present, here are some things that have been said about papal infallibility by Catholics themselves:

G-ONE:

Below are the Catholics who denied the Papal infallibility. But it does not mean that they are correct on the certain point; for example Bishop Joseph Strossmayer once denied the Papal infallibility but later on he repeatedly proclaimed his submission to the pope, as in his pastoral letter of 28 February, 1881, on Sts. Cyril and Methodius, expressing his devotion to the papal see at times in extravagant language. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm)

HENRY: “Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of Scripture or evident reason (for I do not believe either Pope or councils alone, since it is certain that they have both erred frequently and contradicted themselves)…I neither can nor wish to revoke anything.” (This was said by Martin Luther at Worms in 1521 while still a Catholic priest).

G-ONE: Martin Luther is the father of Protestantism so it is natural for here that he is against of some doctrine of Catholic Church “because he is the false prophet according to the Bible” <the color Dark Red statement is my personal opinion only and it is not the stand of Catholic Faith Defenders and the Catholic Church>

HENRY:

“No enlightened Catholic holds the pope’s infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of do.” (This was said by Bishop John Purcell in the Campbell-Purcell Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion in 1837. The Debate was later printed in a book and Bishop’s Purcell’s statement is found on page 27. He made his remark before papal infallibility was decreed by the Vatican Council in 1870 to be an article of faith).

G-ONE:

As I read that book “A DEBATE ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION”, in my overall observation of the debate, Bishop John Purcell wins against ALEXANDER CAMPBELL in various topics (majority of the topic) they had debated. It is true that Bishop Purcell said the above statements, BUT this debate happens before Vatican Council in 1870 defines papal infallibility. In the climax of the debate, Bishop Purcell also said in his contention that “Catholics hold that infallibility was promised” to the church by Jesus Christ. Its testimony is heard in a general council, or in the pope’s decision in which all assent. The church can subsist without a general council. General councils are not essential though frequently of use, because, though we all believe without exception, that the pope’s decision, in which, after it has been duly made known, all the bishops of the Catholic world acquiesce, is infallible, still the decision of a general council declares in a more impressive and solemn, though not more authentic, manner, the belief of the Catholic world on the contested doctrine, and thus more effectually proscribes the contrary error”. (A DEBATE ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION Between ALEXANDER CAMPBELL of Bethany, Virginia, and the RT. REV. JOHN B. PURCELL, Bishop of Cincinnati; PAGE 172)

The above statement of Bishop Purcell seem favoring on infallibility of the council of Bishop not to the Pope alone. But in Church History, in the fourth session the question of Papal Infallibility occupied the attention of the Council. The members were divided into two parties. The great majority favored a definition of the doctrine as the best bulwark against the inroads of Rationalism. A considerable minority, consisting chiefly of bishops from countries of mixed religious population- France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, North America- were opposed to a formal definition, not because they were opposed to the doctrine it self, but because they feared “that such a definition, at such time, would have the effect of driving away many who were in sympathy with Catholicism and might also lead to new schism in the Church.” When the final vote was taken on July 18, 1870, only two bishops- one from Naples and one from the United States- voted against the definition. (Church History by John J. Laux, Page 541-542)

So there are many possibilities that Bishop Purcell might favor the definition of Papal Infallibility.

HENRY:

“Therefore, to resume, I establish: (1) That Jesus has given to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter. (2) That the apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the church. (3) That St. Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were pope…I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate.” (This, along with many arguments against papal infallibility, was said by Bishop Joseph Strossmayer in his speech before the Vatican Council in 1870).

G-ONE:

Joseph Georg Strossmayer–(Josip Juraj), Bishop of Diakovár [Djakovo], born at Essegg [Osijek] in Croatia-Slavonia, 4 February, 1815; died 8 April, 1905. He came from a family of German peasants who had immigrated into Croatia. After attending the gymnasium of his native town, he studied theology in the seminary at Diakovár and the higher seminary at Budapest, where he obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy when only twenty years of age. In 1838 he was ordained priest and was for two years vicar at Peterwardein [Petrovaradin]. In 1840 he went to the Augustineum at Vienna; in 1842 obtained the degree of Doctor of Theology, and was then made professor at Diakovár. In 1847 he became court chaplain, prefect in the Augustineum and professor of canon law at the University of Vienna. On 18 November, 1849, he was appointed Bishop of Diakovár, and was consecrated on 8 September, 1850. At the same time he was Apostolic Administrator of Belgrade-Semendria in Serbia. In 1898 the pope conferred the pallium on him.

At the Vatican Council he was one of the most notable opponents of papal infallibility, and distinguished himself as a speaker. The pope praised Strossmayer’s “remarkably good Latin.” A speech in which he defended Protestantism made a great sensation. Afterwards another speech, delivered apparently on 2 June, 1870, was imputed to him. It is full of heresies and denies not only infallibility but also the primacy of the pope. The forger is said to have been a former Augustinian, a Mexican named Dr. José Agustín de Escudero. After the council Strossmayer maintained his opposition longer than all the other bishops and kept up a connection with Döllinger and Reinkens until October, 1871. Then he notified them that he intended to yield “at least outwardly”. Finally, on 26 December, 1872, he published thedecrees of the council in his official paper. At a later date he repeatedly proclaimed his submission to the pope, as in his pastoral letter of 28 February, 1881, on Sts. Cyril and Methodius, expressing his devotion to the papal see at times in extravagant language. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm)

HENRY:

“It has now become quite clear that the conception of continuity, authority, infallibility of the Church and the Church’s teaching, on which there has not been sufficient reflection, has led the Catholic Church into a dangerous tight corner.” (This, alone with other doubts regarding papal infallibility, was said by Hans Kung, a prominent Catholic theologian, in his book, “Infallibility, An Inquiry,” 1971).

G-ONE:

Küng studied theology and philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was ordained in 1954. He then continued his education in various European cities, including the Sorbonne in Paris. His doctoral thesis Justification. La doctrine de Karl Barth et une réflexion catholique, was published in English in 1964. It located a number of areas of agreement between Barthian and Catholic theologies of justification, concluding that the differences were not fundamental and did not warrant a division in the Church. (The book included a letter from Karl Barth, attesting that he agreed with Küng’s representation of his theology.) In this book Küng argues that Barth like Martin Luther overreacted against the Catholic Church, which despite its imperfections has been and remains the body of Christ.^[2]

In the late 1960s Küng became the first major Roman Catholic theologian after the late 19th century Old Catholic Church schism to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, in particular in his book Infallible? An Inquiry (1971). Consequently, on December 18, 1979, he was stripped of his licence to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian but carried on teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement (Emeritierung) in 1996. To this day he remains a persistent critic of papal authority, which he claims is man-made (and thus reversible) rather than instituted by God. He was not excommunicated though, and remains a Roman Catholic priest.

HENRY:

Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

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)

G-ONE:

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 Eliakim’s 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 God’s 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)?

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. Henry, do you agree with me that Peter is a priest according to the Bible?

The Pope’s 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.

HENRY:

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.”

G-ONE:

Catholics believe that the Pope is not an absolute God (Tandaman sa Pagtuong Katoliko by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 77). Therefore the assertion of Henry Arganda 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.

HENRY:

Some religionists today advocate that man is saved by faith only. However, there is only one passage in the entire Bible that has the words “faith” and “only” together and it says, “not by faith only” (James 2:24). 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.”

G-ONE:

Catholic speak that the Vicarship of the Pope is not to the extend that the Pope is equal to God, but Vicarship 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. Do you agree with me, Mr. Henry Arganda 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?

HENRY:

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.

G-ONE:

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.

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 4^th Watch PMCC which founded by Arsenio Feriol here in the Philippines.

The 4^th Watch PMCC founded by Arsenio Feriol is not the true church because Christ’ said that He will establish a church (Matt 16:18); Christ had done founding 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 the One, 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.” because the contention of Cardinal Gibbons above is base on the Bible and Apostolic tradition.

-The only wrong here is Henry Arganda because his exegesis on 1 Cor 3:11 is wrong or poorly Biblical scholarship and does not harmonize the entire Bible. Mr. Arganda I would like to recommend to you that before you interpret the verse of the Bible; study first the Hermeneutics.

HENRY:

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!

G-ONE:

-Take note that the Bible uses by Mr. Henry Arganda may be it is in Douay Rheims Bible, a Catholic Translation of the Bible. Catholic believes that Christ has the ultimate Primacy here on earth <e.g. power, head of the church, King of kings, etc> 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 Pope primacy over 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).

HENRY:

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 Christ’s 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.).

G-ONE:

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 <Christ> Resurrection our savior handed her <church> over to Peter to be shepherd (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and other apostles to propagate and govern her <church> (cf. Mt. 28:18 ff.). Her He erected 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 8)

Please take note that Henry Arganda uses a Catholic Bible translation- the Douay Rheims Bible. Catholic believe that all authority in heaven and earth has given by God (Mat 28:18), and Christ gives an authority to his disciples to preach the Good News (Mat 28:19), to make disciples <of Christ> of all nations (Mat 28:19), to teach them <all people> to obey everything had commanded by Him <Christ> (Mat 28:20), to forgive the sins of anyone their sins are forgiven; and <they disciples> 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 alone to Peter the keys of kingdom of Heaven (Mat 16:19), Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People < feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or all people of God> (John 21:15-17), and Christ appoint in strengthen and establish his brethren <all disciples of Christ> (Luke 22:32).

HENRY:

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.

G-ONE:

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 God’s reign is experience… 3. The kingdom is also God’s reign or rule… NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 333 <emphasize mine>

CHURCH– the English word derives from the Greek word kuriakos (belonging to the Lord), but it stands for another Greek word ekklesia (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 believers… It 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 <emphasize 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; hence making Peter the Bishop of the Bishops and the flock. Therefore Peter is the leader, superintendent and head of the church.

HEAD-(Heb. Ro’sh, Gr. Kephalē). The OT uses ro’sh 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

My question to you Mr. Arganda; Head is used to translate a word leader; is Peter a leader according to the Bible?

HENRY:

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 head–her husband, the church is subject to only one head–Christ. 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 sheep…I 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 shepherd–that’s one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd–that’s two!

G-ONE:

Henry Arganda, base on your contention above I have a question to you: Does Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my sheep”? If I could read in the Protestant Bible that Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my sheep”; do you agree with me that you are losing in our discussion? ANSWER MR. ARGANDA!

HENRY:

The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: “What part of the body is the Pope?” Also, “How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?”

One of the greatest arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. Notice the following:

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.’” (Luke 22:24-26).

G-ONE:

I do not know if Mr. Arganda is confuse, because he is using Luke 22:24-26. Take a look on the phrase “let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.” This verse clearly establish that Christ commission a chief on his flock as servant and if we continue to verse 32, Christ told Peter “strengthen and establish your brethren;” clearly in this verse Christ appoint Peter to become his chief as a servant. In the verse we can identify also the authority of Peter not as a political leader but a servant leader whose duty are establishing and strengthening his brothers and all Christ sheep.

HENRY:

The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal–the last night of the Lord’s earthly ministry–and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, “But not so with you.” Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

By David J. Riggs

G-ONE:

The contention of Mr. Arganda which he wrote in English is nice compare to his contention written in Tagalog. Mr. Arganda’s contention written in “Tagalog” had many illogical propositions, fallacious conclusions, invalid argumentation and faulty reasoning.

We have already countered the contention of Mr. Henry Arganda. Even the English contention of Henry is nice but in the counter-proposition of our burden of rebuttal we can easily distinguish that it is very weak and totally destroyed his arguments by presenting Biblical and valid evidence.

Our conclusion is that we had been proven that Christ gives the authority to His disciples and among disciples, Christ gives to Peter a higher authority.

HENRY: PANSININ PA NATIN ANG MGA MALING SAGOT NI PAISONES,

G-ONE- Bakit koba babaliin ang Gal. 2:9 eh nasa Biblia yan at kahit suriin mopa Mr. Arganda ang mga post ko laban sa saiyo, hindi ka makakahanap na kahit isang pangungusap na itinatanggi ko ang Gal. 2:9. Sa totoo nga e-pang support sa amin mga Catholic Faith Defender ang verse nayan.

**HENRY-SAMAKATUWID SANG-AYUN SYA,NA SI PEDRO AY ISA LANG SA HALIGI NG IGLESIA AT HINDI SYA PUNDASYUN,(TANONG LANG PAISONES SAN-AN NYO PINANGSUPPORT YANG VERSE NA YAN,IPAKITA MO NGA ANG ILANG SULAT NYO NA PINANGSUPPORT NYO YAN,NA SI PEDRO AY ISA SA MGA HALIGI NG IGLESIA(HINTAYIN KO AT NANG MGA READERS ANG SAGOT MO)

G-ONE: Makailang ulit na akong nagsabi at nag payo sa iyo Henry na mag-aral ka muna ng Argumentation at Logic kasi puro fallacious ang mga conclusion mo. Ang conclusion ni Bro Henry ay isang klase ng petitio principii (fallacy of presumption) na tinatawag na Assumptio Non-Probata.

Petitio Principii– in this fallacy of presumption, the arguer assumes the truth of the proposition which is in essence the same as the conclusion which he seeks to establish. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Assuptio Non-Probata- means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise. It arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as means of proving it. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Gal. 2:9 KJV “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

Hindi ibig sabihin na porke’t ang mga Apostoles ay Haligi hindi narin sila foundation. Ang haligi (pillar) po na pinag-uusapan sa Galatia 2:9 ay isang Biblical Expression:

PILLAR– …The word is also used figuratively (Song of Songs 3:6; 5:15; Jer. 1:18; Joel 2:30) The four NT uses of stylos (“pillar”) are figurative: a victorious Christian (Rev 3:12), the church (1 Tim 3:15), apostles (Gal 2:9), and an angel (Rev. 10:1). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 462

Peru ang mga Apostol rin po ay foundation:

Ephesians 2:20 (The Message)

19-22That’s plain enough, isn’t it? You’re no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You’re no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He’s using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he’s using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=65

Ephesians 2:20 (Contemporary English Version)

20You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.

Ephesians 2:20 (New International Reader’s Version)

20 You are a building that is built on the apostles and prophets. They are the foundation. Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone in the building.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=76

Ephesians 2:20 (Worldwide English (New Testament)

20God’s family is like a house and you are part of the building. The apostles and prophets are like the lower walls of the house and you are the building on this foundation. Jesus Christ is the big stone at the corner.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=73

Ephesians 2:20 (Tyndale Bible)

What a foundation you stand on now: the apostles and the prophets; and the cornerstone of the building is Jesus Christ himself!

Ephesians 2:20 (Magandang Balita Biblia)

Kayo’y itinayo rin sa Saligan ng mga Apostol at mga propeta, na ang batong panulukan ay si Cristo Jesus.

FOUNDATION– (Heb. Yasadh, to found, Gr. katabole, themelios). The word is used of the foundation of the earth (Job 38:4; Ps 78:69; Isa 24:18), the righteous (Prov 10:25 KJV), and as the basis of a person’s life (Luke 6:48), Christ (1 Cor 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), the proper use of wealth (1 Tim 6:17-19), and God’s truth (2 Tim 2:19). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.) Page 209

Kaya po napatunayan po natin na hindi contrary statement ang: mga apostol ay foundation at ang mga apostol ay haligi (pillar); puro po tama ang dalawa ayon sa ating mababasa sa Biblia.

Sa tanong ni Henry Arganda sa atin na: “SAN-AN NYO PINANGSUPPORT YANG VERSE NA YAN,IPAKITA MO NGA ANG ILANG SULAT NYO NA PINANGSUPPORT NYO YAN,NA SI PEDRO AY ISA SA MGA HALIGI NG IGLESIA?” Sa hindi ko pa ito sasagutin may clarifying questions ako sa iyo Mr. Henry: Ang ibig mo bang sabihin sa tanong mo ay sa mga Catholic books o sa internet lang? Asan sa dalawa?

**HENRY-PANSININ PA NATIN ANG MGA SAGOT NI PAISONES,ANG SABI NYA AY -”

G-ONE(ALYAS PAISONES) Malinaw po na ang ang Isa 28:16 ay Messianic Methapor at ito ay nangangahulugan sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo- sa pag tatag Niya sa kanyang Iglesia na hindi madadaig ng Kamatayan (Dan. 2:44, Matt. 16:18). Sa Isa. 28:16 hindi po ibig sabihin na hindi foundation ang mga apostol sapagkat ang pagiging ISANG bato ay sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo sa kanyang pagtatag ng tunay na Iglesia.

Ang ibis sabihin po sa Isa. 28:16 na “foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation” ay isang Messianic Methapor

Si Cristo lang ang syang nag tatag ng kanyang Iglesia at hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios sapagkat sabi ng Biblia “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isa. 28:16 KJV)

***HENRY-SA SAGOT MONG ITO PAISONES
pagiging ISANG bato ay sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo sa kanyang pagtatag ng tunay na Iglesia–
SAMAKATUWID INAAMIN NA NI PAISONES NA SI CRISTO ANG BATO SA MATEO 16:18,AYUN SA FOOTNOTE(SI CRISTO ANG PETRA)NARITO ANG FOOTNOTE NA GINAGAMIT NYA RIN MULA SA AMPLIFIED:Footnotes:

1. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)

***YAN MALIWANAG PAISONES NA TINANGGAP MO NA.. 1. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah,

G-ONE:

Fallacy na naman, nako itong si Mr. Arganda talagang walang alam sa Argumentation at Logic. Sinabi na natin sa kanya na si Cristo ay bato, peru sa Matt. 16:18 hindi si Cristo ang bato na pinag-uusapan jan. Narito ang mga dati kong reply:

Sa Bible hindi po dapat natin limitahan ang ating pang-unawa sa mga termino o mga salitang bumabasi sa SUBJECT ng mga ito dahil kalimitan ng mga TERMS na ito ay FIGURATIVE o BIBLICAL EXPRESSION.

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

-DIOS ay Bato (2 Sam. 22:2-3)

-Cristo ay Bato (1 Cor. 10:4)

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

-Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)

Para malaman ng lahat ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia ay ang mga ito:

Si Cristo ay ang espirituwal na BATO ng Iglesia (1 Cor. 10:4) “Yes, it is true that Christ is the leading cornerstone of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). Christ is himself, “the spiritual rock following them and the rock is Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). This is a metaphorical Biblical expression which means that Christ is really the spiritual head and leader. However, it is willed by the Lord that there must be a visible leader in his Church and that leader be his vicar. Therefore those texts from 1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:11 do not contradict the Catholic teaching that Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation. However, we cannot also go against Christ’s will to appoint a visible head for His Church.”

“And now I say to you: you are Peter (or rock) and on this rock I will build My church; and never will the powers of death overcome it” (Matt. 16:18). Remember that Christ was the one who changed the name Simon into Cephas (Jn. 1:42). Cephas in Aramaic means ROCK- or BEDROCK, not an ordinary small stone rolling on the ground. Even in Greek, the word CEPHAS comes from Kephalaion which means fundamental or foundation (GREEK – SPANISH dictionary, Mendizabal, Page 298) Even though foundation is also defined by other people as faith of Peter but what is faith if there is no person holding on to it?” (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59)

Si San Pedro ang pundasyon ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 “At tungkol sa ‘bato’ na ayaw kilalanin ng kaibigan mo (Numer Villanosa), sabihin mo sa kanyang wala siyang balita. Halos lahat ng mga dalubhasa sa Bibliyang Protestante ay tinitiyak na walang ibang batong binabanggit si Kristo sa Mt. 16:18 kundi si Pedro. Kasama rito si Alford, Bloomfield, Kiel, Marsch, Rosmuller, Seifert, Thompson, at Weiss at iba pa. Ang mga ito’y nagsunog ng kilay bilang bihasa at iskolar sa syensya ng Biblia at lahat sila’y nagpapatotoo na walang ibang batong binanggit si Kristo sa tekstong yaon (Matt. 16:18) kundi si Pedro.” (Paano Ninyo Sasagutin by Fr. Ben Carreon, Page 126) <Emphasis added>

Ang mga Apostol at mga profeta ang pundastion ng Iglesia at si Cristo mismo ang chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20). “The Catholic Church is apostolic because she was founded by Christ on the Apostles and in accordance with his divine will has always been and will always be governed by their lawful successors.” (Catholic Catechism By Fr. M. Guzman, Number 157, Page 39).

Sa Reply#2 ko pa ang nasa itaas na mga contention ko. Henry Arganda I am very sorry pero dapat ko nang itanong sa iyo ito: Henry Arganda tanga ka ba? O sadyang nagbubulag-bulagan kalang?

Ang fallacy po na ginamit ni Henry Arganda ay Fallacy of Composition.

Fallacy of Composition– consists of taking a group of words or phrase as a unit instead of taking them separately as it should be. (LOGIC- The Essentials of Deductive Reasoning By: Ramon B. Agapay- Page 193)

-Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica ay naniniwala na si Cristo ay bato pero hindi si Cristo ang pinag-uusapan diyan sa Matt. 16:18.

-Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica ay naniniwala na pinangalan ni Cristo si Simon na Pedro at ang kahulugan ng Pedro ay Bato; at si San Pedro ang pinag-uusapan sa Matt 16:18 na batong pagtatayuan ng iglesia.

Iwan ko lang bakit parating mali ang mga argumento ni Henry Arganda. Siguro ang isang dahilan ay ang pagiging ignorante niya sa Argumentation at Logic? Oh di kaya’y baka bulag na itong si Mr. Arganda dahil sa kapangyarihan ng Satanas ay bumabalot sa kanyang puso’t isipan? <The color Dark Red statement is my personal opinion only and it is not the stand of Catholic Faith Defenders and the Catholic Church>

***HENRY-NEXT NA MALING SAGOT NI PAISONES(BASAHIN MUNA NATIN ANG SAGOT O PAHAYAG NYA)

Si Cristo lang ang syang nag tatag ng kanyang Iglesia at hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios sapagkat sabi ng Biblia “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isa. 28:16 KJV)

****PANSININ NATIN ANG PAHAYAG NYA.. hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios..

TANONG PAISONES KUNG MABASA KO SA BIBLIA NA MAY SUGO NA NAGTAYO NA IGLESIA AAMININ MO NA MALI KA NA NAMAN,???SAGUTIN MO ITO HA HIHINTAYIN NAMIN!!!!

G-ONE:

Magandang tanong ito Mr. Henry Arganda. Ito ang gusto kong tanong!

Sa mga bumabasa, maganda po ang challenge ni Henry Arganda, pero SASADYAIN NATING HINDI SASAGUTIN ang tanong NIYA, dahil sa hindi niya pag sagot sa mga tanong ko sa kanya. Lahat ng mga tanong niya nasagutan ko at lahat ng mga ebedensya niya na giniba (destroy) ko, pero ang katanungan niyang ito (sa itaas) ay sadyang hindi natin sasagutin; sasagutin lang natin ito kung sasagot na siya sa mga tanong ko.

Mga kapatid (sa mga bumabasa) sa tanong ni Henry napakaganda ho niyan at pinaka gusto ko ang challenge na yan, pero sinabi ko na, na sasadyain kong hindi ito sasagutin para masagutan ni Henry Arganda ang mga tanong ko sa kanya. Henry Arganda nandaraya ka ba? Kung hindi ka nandadaya eh- sagutin mo yong tanong ko… OK?

***HENRY-NEXT NA TANONG KAY PAISONES!!!SA KANYANG SINABING ITO:Bakit po ba si San Pedro lang ang subject ni Cristo sa Matt. 16:18? -Sapagkat mas mataas pa ang Authority ni San Pedro kaysa sa ibang mga apostol

****TANONG PAISONES SAAN MABABASA SA BIBLIA NA MAS MATAAS PA ANG AUTHORITY NI SAN PEDRO KAYSA IBANG MGA APOSTOL??HINTAYIN NATIN..FOR THE MEANWHILE BASAHIN MO NATIN KUNG SAAN MATAAS SI PEDRO…
Ang Salita ng Diyos (SND)

Copyright © 1998 by Bibles International

1 Pedro 5:1 (Ang Salita ng Diyos)

1 Pedro 5
Sa mga Matanda at mga Kabataang Lalaki
1Ang mga matanda na nasa inyo ay pinagtatagubilinan ko bilang isa ring matanda na nakasaksi sa mga paghihirap ni Cristo at bilang kabahagi rin ng kaluwalhatiang ihahayag.

MATANDA LANG SYA…HA HA HA .AT BASAHIN NYO ANG GAL.2:9 KUNG MAS MATAAS SYA KAY JUAN AT SANTIAGO.

G-ONE:

May mababasa tayo sa Biblia na maiintindihan na si San Pedro ay may mataas na authority kaysa ibang mga apostol (May mababasa na maiintindihan pero hindi word-for-word). Nasagot ang tanong ni Henry Arganda member ng 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Feriol; iglesiang itinatag ng pangkaraniwang tao at hindi si Cristo ang nagtatag nito.

NOTICE: Ang mga tanong sa baba ay sa likha lang ng may akda at hindi kasali/kasama ang Catholic Faith Defenders Inc. at ang Santa Iglesia Catolica.

MGA TANONG KAY HENRY ARGANDA

1. Henry do you agree with me that Peter is a priest according to the Bible?

2. Do you agree with me, Mr. Henry Arganda 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?

3. Is Peter a leader according to the Bible?

4. Did Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my sheep”? If I could read in the Protestant Bible that Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my Flock”; do you agree with me that you are losing in our discussion?

5. Sabi mo Henry Arganda na hindi foundation ang mga Apostol, at dagdag mo pa na “yang ginamit mong jerusalem bible ay catholic translation..na apostles its foundation..ang maraming translation ay walang “its”dagdag ng katoliko yan..gamitin mo lahat ng biblia paisones;” eh kung mababasa ko ito sa Biblia:

Ephesians 2:20

19-22That’s plain enough, isn’t it? You’re no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You’re no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He’s using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he’s using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home.

Aaminin mo bang mali ka Henry Arganda?

Pag nabasa ko ito sa Biblia:

Ephesians 2:20

You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.

Aaminin mo bang sinungaling ka Mr Henry Arganda?

Pag nabasa ko ito sa Bibliyang protestante Henry Arganda:

Ephesians 2:20

20 You are a building that is built on the apostles and prophets. They are the foundation. Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone in the building.

Aaminin mo bang ikaw ang kampon ni satanas at hindi kaming mga Catholic Faith Defenders?

Pag nabasa ko ito sa Bibliyang Protestante Mr Henry Arganda:

Ephesians 2:20

What a foundation you stand on now: the apostles and the prophets; and the cornerstone of the building is Jesus Christ himself!

Aaminin mo bang ikaw ay talo na sa ating discussion?

SAGUTIN MO YAN HENRY ARGANDA!

6. Saan mababasa sa chapters at verses ng Biblia letra-4-letra at word-4-word na “MAY SUGO NA NAGTAYO NA IGLESIA liban kay Cristo?

7.Masagutan mo ba yong mga dati kong tanong, o hindi na???

8.Kung hindi mo masagutan ang mga tanong ko Henry Arganda payag kabang ikaw ay talo na sa ating discussion??

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #3

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #3

Author : henry arganda (IP: 67.68.15.139 , bas2-windsor12-1128533899.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=67.68.15.139

Black: -Henry Arganda (New Comments)

Red: -Henry’s Old Replies

Blue: -G-one Paisones’ Old Reply

Green:-G-one Paisones (New Reply)

Comment:
Henry:

#1.sa sagot mo paisones,sa amplipied..ang pinagbatayan mo ay ang footnote..ang footnote ba ay ang kahulugan ng verse..o dagdag ng nagsulat?ang footnote ay comment ng nagsulat ng aklat ..sa baba ang sagot ko dyan sa mali mong pakahulugan sa footnote.

G-one:

Ang punto po natin dito Henry Arganda na mali ka sa akala mo na ang ang petra sa Matt. 16:18 sa Amplified Bible ay si Cristo. Narito ang mga pahayag mo noon:

“well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ)pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato”

Ang mali mo sa iyong conclusion na ang Rock “petra” i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) dahil mismo sa footnote nang naturang Biblia ay: “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).

Ang mali mo ay ginamit mo ang Amplified Bible bilang ebedensya sa mga proposition mo peru ang masaklap hindi mo binasa ang footnote nito. Nidagdagan mo pa ang mali mo kasi sinabi mo na mali ang pagpakahulugan ko sa footnote sa Amplified Bible.

Mr. Arganda wag mo naming ipakahalata na wala ka talagang alam sa Biblia dahil kahit na ang grade school ay maiintindihan ang pahayag ng may akda (sa Amplified Bible) sa kanyang footnote: “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)”.

Henry:

#2na mali mo, “yung mga bible scholar na mga nagpatotoo,pinahayagan ba ng Dios”

?apostol ba sila Gal.1:11-12,ang apostol lang ang pinapahayagan ng Dios..kaya dapat ikaw paisones sa kabuuan ka ng Bible bumatay..hindi sa isang talata lang…

G-one:

Mapapansin po natin sa itaas ang fallacious statement ni Henry Arganda. Ginamamit ko lang ang Amplified Bible (Scholar) sa pag counter sa kanyang argumento, dahil ginamit niya ito (Amplified Bible) bilang ebedensya sa kanyan proposition. At ginamit ko rin ang Amplified Bible sa paggiba (destroy) sa kanyang proposition sa Matt. 16:18.

Mr. Arganda ang kabuohan ng Biblia at ng Apostolic Tradition (2 Tes. 2:15) ako nakabatay.

Henry:

#3 na mali mo!– ang hinahanap ko sayo na sagot mo dapat ay sa catholic dogma,na turo ba ng katoliko na lahat ng apostol at propeta ay pundasyun?ang ginamit mo ay ang sulat ni Soc fernandez ,san kinuha yun ni soc sa catholic dogma ?

G-one:

Hindi ba Henry Arganda napagkasunduan na natin via email (yahoo) ang mga hinanaing mo sa itaas (tungkol sa Catholic Dogma)? Hindi ko pwedi isulat dito ang napagkasunduan natin nahil bawal sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders ang adhominim. Pakatandaan mong nagkasundo na tayo hinggil sa bagay na ito. At kung magpupumilit ka; ikaw ang dapat mag pakita ng ebedensya na mali ang pahayag ko o contra ang pahayag ko sa Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Ginamit ko ang libro ni Bro. Socrates Fernandez bilang ebedensya na tinuturo sa Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na ang mga apostol at propeta ay pundasyun.

Henry:

ikaw na rin ang nagsabi na si Cristo ay spiritual na Foundation,,TANONG KO SI PEDRO BA AY LITERAL NA PUNDASYUN SAN MABABASA NA LITERAL FOUNDATION SYA.ANG PAGIGING BATO BA NI PEDRO AY LITIRAL NA BATO,?buti pa si pedro na lang ang sumagot…1 pet 2:5..ang lahat ng mga believers
ay spiritual stones hindi literal na gaya ng kamalian nitong si paisones..

G-one:

Ang sagot sa tanong mo ay si San Pedro ang foundation ng iglesia (Matt. 16:18, Efe. 2:20)! Kung binasa pa ni Henry ang reply#2 ko sa kanya, hindi na sya babangit ng katulad nito: “1 pet 2:5..ang lahat ng mga believers ay spiritual stones hindi literal na gaya ng kamalian nitong si paisones” dahil sinabi ko na: “Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)”

Narito ang naunang reply ko kay Henry Arganda:

Sa Bible hindi po dapat natin limitahan ang ating pang-unawa sa mga termino o mga salitang bumabasi sa SUBJECT ng mga ito dahil kalimitan ng mga TERMS na ito ay FIGURATIVE o BIBLICAL EXPRESSION.

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

-DIOS ay Bato (2 Sam. 22:2-3)

-Cristo ay Bato (1 Cor. 10:4)

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

-Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)

Henry:

si pedro ay bato lang sa pangalan.at di sya ang kinatatayuan ng iglesia..kay Cristo nakatayo.Epeso 2:22,babaguhin na naman yan ni Paisones parang si satanas gumamit ng salita..

G-one:

Akalain mo nga naman itong si Henry Arganda- para daw akong si satanas. Ehemm… Si Cristo ang nag pangalan kay Simon na “Kepha” dahil Siya (Cristo) ay mag tatag ng kaharian na hindi kalian man madadaig ng Kamatayan (Dan. 2:44) at itong kaharian na ito ay ang Iglesia (Mat. 16:18). Sinamahan at pinamunuan Nya ito (Ang Iglesia) ng Siya ay nabubuhay pa; nang Siya ay pumunta na sa Langit, itinalaga Niya sa Kanyang mga apostol ang mga Gawain bilang ambassador at Obispo (Mat. 28:19,Luke 10:16, Act. 1:20-25) at ang pangkalahatang Obispo sa mga Obispo -kay San Pedro (John 21:15-17). Kaya pinangalanang Kepha (John 1:42) ni Cristo si Simon sapagkat siya ang mag sibling tagapangalaga ng lahat ng kasapi ng Iglesia at Si Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia kasama na rito ang mga apostol at profeta (Efe. 2:20). Mr. Arganda hindi ko binago ang nakasulat sa Biblia, IKAW ang bumago sa pagkaintindi mo sa Biblia.

Ang mga sinaunang Cristiano ba sa kapanahunan ng 2^nd Century (pagkatapos ng kapanahonan ng mga Apostol) hanggang 10^th Century ay katulad ng pag-iisip ni Henry Arganda hingil kay Pedro at sa mga Apostol?

Hindi po sapagkat ang paniniwala ng mga Church Fathers po ay contrary sa exegesis ni Henry Arganda. Narito po ang pahayag ng mga Church Fathers atbp:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built

(Taken from ScriptureCatholic.com)

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

“[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372).

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.” Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).

”It was right indeed that he (Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches.” Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians, PL 17:344 (A.D. 384).

“Peter bore the person of the church.” Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430).

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles…he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” Wherefore where Peter is the Church is…” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397).

“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once…The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times ‘Lovest thou me?’ And he receive the world in charge…” Asterius, Homily 8 (A.D. 400).

“(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples.” John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church…” Maximus of Turin, Homily 63 (A.D. 408).

“…the most firm rock, who (Peter) from the principal Rock received a share of his virtue and his name.” Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, 2:28(A.D. 426).

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428).

“[B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“[B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took…And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See…to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore…believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:..” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442).

“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. ‘Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church.’” Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Peter is again called ‘the coryphaeus of the Apostles.’” Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25 (ante A.D. 468).

“The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel, ‘Thou art Peter…’” Pope Gelasius, Decree of Gelasium (A.D. 492).

“[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’…These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.’” Pope Hormisdas, Libellus professionis fidei, (A.D. 519).

“To Peter, that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth.” Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, 2:20 (A.D. 523).

“Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the ‘rock’, when the voice of the Truth says, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. To him again is said “When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.” Pope Gregory the Great, Epistle 40 (A.D. 604).

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636).

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680).

“A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).

“For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed my him; and to Peter also was committed the care of ‘feeding the sheep'(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven'(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to ‘build His Church’ (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that ‘the gates of Hell would not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:19).” Pope Pelagius II, Quod Ad Dilectionem (c. A.D. 685).

“’Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, ‘It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?’ He answered, ‘It is true O king!’ Then says he, ‘Can you show any such power given to your Columba?’ Colman answered, ‘None.’ Then added the king, “Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?’ They both answered, ‘We do.’” Venerable Bede, (A.D. 700), Ecclesiastical History, 3:5 (A.D. 700).

Link:

Henry:

yung mga protestanteng nag patotoo sa mat.16:18 mga mali din yun kasi may bahid pa ng mali ng katoliko yun kasi lumabas lang yun sa katoliko.

G-one:

Ewan ko kung nasa tamang pag-iisip si Henry Arganda. Mr. Arganda mag review ka nga ng Logic at Argumentation / Debate, dahil Fallacy of Non Sequitor ang mga contention mo. Fallacy of Non Sequitor– Ang ibig pong sabihin nito ay:

Fallacy –errors in reasoning (Logical Fallacies) & error in understanding (Rhetorical Fallacies). The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 92

Non Sequitor is a Latin term which means it does not follow. This is a fallacy, which arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and the effect. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 107)

Hindi porkit lumabas sa Katoliko (Libro ng Katoliko) eh mali na iyon. Ang may akda tulad ni Fr. Ben Carreon ay sumulat lamang sa mga factual evidence hinggil sa mga stand ng scholars na mga protestante. Hindi basta-basta sinulat lang niya (Fr. Ben Carreon) na walang ebedinsya. Hindi po na emplowensyahan ang mga scholars na mga protestanti (ng Santa Iglesia Catolica) sa kanilang stand na si Pedro ang foundation ng iglesia sa Matt. 16:18.

Henry:

sa iyong footnotes sa amplified,nag jump ka sa iyong conclusion na inaangkin na naglagay ng comment na si Pedro ang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia.Matthew 16 (Amplified Bible)

18And I tell you, you are [e]Peter [Greek, Petros–a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra–a [f]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the [g]infernal region) shall [h]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

Footnotes:

e. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).
Basahin mo ulit at unawain mo,…”or it may be…” nagpapahayag ng isang sugestion at hindi absolute conclusion na si pedro ang pagtatayuan

G-one:

Hindi nga absolute conclusion na si Pedro ang pagtatayuan sa Amplified Bible dahil sa conjunction na “OR” peru ipinahiwatig ng may akda (Amplified Bible) na “either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself –is the rock on which the church is built. Samakatuwid dalawa lang ang pinag-pipilian ng may akda at salungat ito sa pahayag mo na si Cristo ang “bato” sa Matt. 16:18 (nang ginamit mo ang Amplified Bible sa contention mo).

Henry:
Ginamit mo ang mga protestant bible scholar,

G-one:

Ginamit ko ang mga protestant bible scholars; at may factual evidence ako hingil dito.

Henry:

ito naman ang isinulat ni Lorraine Boettner,a Theologian,Roman Catholism p.105″The Rock” -Romanist quote(Matt.16:13-19) this verse with relish,and add their own interpretation to establish their claim for papal authority. But in the greek the word peter is Petros,a person, masculine, while the word “rock”,petra is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ’s deitythat Peter had just uttered–“Thou art the Christ,the Son of the Living God”
Using Peter’s name and making as it were,play upon words,Jesus said to Peter,”You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my church” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church.He meant that Peter had seen the basic,essential truth concerning His person,the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it.Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God.Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter.
Had Christ intended to say that the Church would be founded on Peter,it would have been ridiculous for him to have shifted to the feminine form of the word in the middle of the statement,saying,if we may translate literally and somewhat whimsically,”And I say unto thee, that thou art Mr.Rock and upon this,the Miss Rock,I will build my church.” Clearly it was upon the truth that Peter had expressed, the deity of Christ,and not upon weak, vascillating Peter,that the church would be founded.The greek Petros is commonly used of a movable stone,a mere pebble,as it were.But “petra” means immovable foundation, in this instance the basic truth that Peter had just confessed,the deity of Christ.And in fact that is the point of conflict in the churches today between evangelicals on the one hand and modernist or liberals on the other,whether the church is founded on a truly divine Christ as revealed in a fully trustworthy Bible,or whether it is essentially a social service and moral welfare
organization which recognizes Christ as an example, an outstandingly great and good man,but denies or ignores His deity.”

G-one:

Tungkol naman kay Lorraine Boettner masasabi nating itoy isang poor scholarship niya sapagkat sinabi niya na ang Petros ay kaiba sa petra dahil nga ang petros ay masculine at ang petra ay feminine peru pakakatandaan natin na ang vocal language na ginamit ni Jesu-Cristo sa panahon na ito (Mat. 16) ay ang Aramaic. Kaya nga tinawag ni Cristo si Simon na Kepha (John 1:42). Sa nasambit na natin sa Reply#2 kay Henry ang petros at petra ay walang pinagkakaiba sa Aramaic:

Sa Matt. 16 ang linguahe na isinulat dito ay ang Greek; pero ang linguahing sinalita o ginamit ng Panginoon Jesus at nang mga apostol ay ang Aramaic. Ang BarJonah ay salitang Aramaic na ibig sabihin ay “son of Jonah”. Majority po ng mga scholar ay naniniwala na ang madalas na wikain ng Panginoong Jesus ay ang Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

Kaya ang Matt. 16:18 na PETROS sa pagkasulat, peru ang ibinigkas talaga ng Panginoong Jesus ay KEPHA. Pariho lang po ang kahulugan ng PETROS (in Greek) sa KEPHA (in Aramaic) – “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter f ). John 1:42 (TNIV)” at nasa footnote ng Today’s New International Version (TNIV) na ang CEPHAS ay Aramaic.

Kaya sa Aramaic Bible ay walang pinag-iba ang Pedro sa Bato. Pawang KEPHA po ang Aramaic word ng Pedro at Bato dahil ang ibig sabihin ng Pedro ay Bato:

At ang mga bihasang protestante ay alam ang mga nasambit natin sa itaas:

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

---

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

---

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built…. The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

---

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho“. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha“…. Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre“; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

(At marami pang iba, please refer to Reply#2)

https://catholicfaithdefender.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/reply-from-henry-arganda-member-pmcc-4thwatch-2/

Henry:
Patunay yan paisones na hindi lahat ng protestants ay pareho ang paniwala,”may conflict” kung matino kang gumamit ng mga protestants schoolar or teologian,dapat lahat gagamitin mo.

G-one:

Henry Arganda alam kong hindi lahat ng mga protestant scholars ay may stand na si San Pedro ang Foundation sa Matt. 16:19. Kung matino ka Mr. Arganda at alam mo ang rules ng public discussion hindi kana mag komento ng tulad nito: “kung matino kang gumamit ng mga protestants schoolar or teologian,dapat lahat gagamitin mo”

Alam kong hindi lahat ng protestante ay nagkakasundo hinggil sa kanilang interpretation sa Biblia, kaya nga hindi nagkakaisa ang mga protestante sa kani-kanilang doctrina. Ang contention ko ay si San Pedro ang pinagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 at bilang suporta sa mga argumento ko isinulat ko ang mga protestanting pabor sa contention ko. Pakakaalaman natin na ang mga protestante ay tinawag na protestante sapagkat contra sila sa mga doctrina ng Santa Iglesia. Kaya ginamit ko ang mga protestante na pabor sa contention ko dahil ang nature ng protestante ay contrahin ang doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Henry:
-one: Para sa kalinawan ng lahat hindi po namin sinabi na si Pedro lamang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa BUONG BIBLIA. Napakasinungaling po nitong si Mr. Arganda. Mr. Arganda saan po nabasa na sinulat ko na si Pedro lang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa Buong Biblia? Ang sabi ko na si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible); hindi ko sinabing si Pedro LAMANG ang Foundation ng Iglesia na mababasa sa Buong Biblia. Para maintindihan ng lahat… Sa Matt. 16:18 si Pedro lamang ang tinutukoy na syang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia (kung sa Matt. 16:18 lamang ang pag-uusapan) peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).

Bingo!!!!!yan inamin mo na hindi lamang si pedro ang pundasyun ng iglesia kung ang biblia sa kabuuan ang pagbabatayan!!pero teka basahin natin ang isang sagot mo…

G-one:

FITA!!!!

Tulad ng nasambit ko na na hindi lamang si San Pedro ang foundation ng iglesia kung patungkol sa boung laman ng Biblia (Efe. 2:20) peru sa Matt. 16:18 si San Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia.

Henry:
G-one: Itong si Henry napakasinungaling, Hindi po doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na si Cristo ay hindi foundation; kaya nga ginamit po namin ang Efe. 2:20 dahil aral ng Iglesia Catolica yang verse na yan. Ang punto po naming dito na SA MATTHEW 16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYOAN NG KANYANG IGLESIA. Therefore Saint Peter is the Foundation of the Church in Matt. 16:18.

dito tayo sa jump conclucion mo…SA MAT.16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYUAN NG IGLESIA,.”THEREFORE MR.PAISONES KUNG HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA ,AY MARAMING BATO..???samakatuwid maraming bato sa mateo 16:18,si Cristo,si pedro,at ang mga alagad (kasama ni pedrong mga apostol)verse 13—

G-one:

Ang tanong ni Henry Arganda ay hindi malinaw “THEREFORE MR.PAISONES KUNG HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA ,AY MARAMING BATO..???– Baka ang tanong ni Henry ay ganito “THEREFORE MR.PAISONES KUNG HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA, ANG IGLESIA AY MARAMING BATO..???

Ang sagot po natin sa tanong ni Henry Arganda:

SA MAT.16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYUAN NG IGLESIA. At singular lang po ang ginamit rito na bato sa Matt. 16:18 na patungkol kay San Pedro.

PERU KUNG SA BOUNG BIBLIA HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG FUNDATION KUNG PATUNGKOL SA BUONG BIBLIA ANG PAG-UUSAPAN (Efe. 2:20).
Tingnan po natin ang argument ni Mr. Henry pagkatapos ng kanyang tanong:

samakatuwid maraming bato sa mateo 16:18,si Cristo,si pedro,at ang mga alagad (kasama ni pedrong mga apostol)verse 13—

Sa mababasa natin sa Matt. 16:18 isa (singular) lang ang batong pinag-uusapan rito- at ito ay si Pedro.

Henry:
sabi mo aral ng katoliko ang verse na yang sa efeso 2:20 –saan nga sa catholic dogma?wag si soc ang gamitin mo..yung official na aklat na Doktrina na katoliko…catholic dogma(doctrine)

G-one:

Hindi ba Henry Arganda napagkasunduan na natin via email (yahoo) ang mga hinanaing mo sa itaas (tungkol sa Catholic Dogma) suman-ayon ka muna sa napagkasunduan natin? Pagnabasa ko na ang Efe. 2:20 ay doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ayon sa Catholic dogma(doctrine) sang-ayon kaba sa napag kasunduan natin sa yahoo mail?

Henry Saan mababasa sa Catholic Dogma na hindi doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ang Efe. 2:20?

Henry:
samakatuwid paisones kung ang kabuuan ng biblia ang pagbabatayan ay mali ang unawa mo sa mat 16:18..na si pedro lamang ang pundasyun ng iglesia.tinatanggap mo ba ito?sagutin mo!

G-one:

Sa Matt. 16:18 ““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”. Upon this rock is singular and this refers to Saint Peter. Eph. 2:19-20 (Jerusalem Bible) So you are no longer aliens or foreign visitors: you are citizens like all the saints, and of God’s household. You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.

Pansinin po natin ang sentence na “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone” sa Jerusalem Bible. Sa Eph. 2:19 nakasaad po doon na “you are citizens like all the saints, and of God’s household” ibig sabihin po nito na kasapi naho tayo sa house ng Diyos. Ang house of God ay ang Iglesia po (1 Tim. 3:15 KJV “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”). We are part of the building (The Church) being built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-20).

Kaya hindi mali ang unawa ko sa Matt. 16:18 na si Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia; at sa buong Biblia pati narin ng mga apostol, mga porfeta at si Cristo (main corner stone) mismo ang foundation ng iglesia.

Henry:
G-paisones-said, peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).
sa sagot mong ito Paisones ay maraming pundasyun ang iglesia..KUNG MAY MABASA AKONG BERSIKULO NA ISA LANG ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA SI CRISTO LANG AAMININ MO BA NA FALSE CHURCH ANG KATOLIKO?

G-one:

Siguro ang nasa isipan ni Henry Arganda na gagamitin niya ay ang 1 Cor 3:11? Peru ganito po ang tamang interpretation sa 1 Cor. 3:11:

Sa pundation ng Tunay na Iglesia, hindi lamang si Pedro o mga apostol at mga propeta ang nag silbing pundasyon dito, bagkus nariyan si Cristo ang Batong Espiritwal(1 Cor. 10:4) na foundation din ng tunay na Iglesia (1 Cor 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60) dahil sasamahan nya ang Kanyang Iglesia hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Mat. 28:19-20) at hinding-hindi ito madadaig ng kamatayan (Matt. 16:18-19). Kaya hindi po contradict ang Matt. 16:18 at Eph. 2:20 sa 1 Cor. 3:11.

Ang ibig sabihin sa “for other foundation can no man lay” ito po yong mga itinatag na Iglesia na tao lamang ang nag tatag, at hindi si Cristo (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,”) -tulad na lamang ng 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Feriol dito sa Pilipinas.

Ang 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol ay hindi tunay na iglesia sapagkat ayon kay Cristo na Siya ay mag tatag ng Kanyang Iglesia (Matt. 16:18) at naitatag nya ito (Mat. 18:17) at sasamahan nya ito araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Matt. 28:19-20) kaya mula sa panahon ng Panginoon Jesu-Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyan NARITO PARIN ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA- AT ITO ANG SANTA, IGLESIA, CATOLICA, APOSTOLICA, ROMANA. Samantalang ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay wala pang isang daan taon itong itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol.

Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica lamang ang makapag-dugtong sa panahon ni Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyang panahon.

Henry:

G-one says-Sabi mo na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?

sagot Mr paisones wag kang maglalagay ng mga salitang di ko sinabi o sinulat makakasuhan ka nang libelo..saan ko sinabi na mali ang nakasulat sa efeso 2:20?ipakita mo nga? kung di mo maipakita Juan 8:44 ka…hihintayin ko ..

G-one:

Henry Arganda kung kakasuhan mo ako, maraming-maraming salamat sa iyo. At alam moba kung ano ang kasong libelo? Bro Henry, wagkang magmarunong, ika nga sa Cebuano: “Ayaw pagpatoo-too”; kasi hindi mo nga alam ang kasong libelo. Granting without admitting na pinaparatangan kita at hindi mo talaga sinulat (implicit & explicit) na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; then mag tanung ka sa abogado kung makakasuhan ba ako ng libelo… Assignment mo yan ha…..

Nang sabihin natin ni henry na: “Sabi mo na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?” –ito’y dahil sa kanyang sinulat (comment) sa amin, samakatuwid ang aking katanungan sa itaas ay basi narin sa kanyang komento sa amin; narito ang kanyang komento:

“o sige gamitin natin yung ginagamit nyo sa efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa ika nga mali pa rin kayo kasi sabi nyo si pedro lang ang pundasyun eh d2 mga apostol at mga propeta eh di marami nakuuu bakit paborito nyo si pedro lang mahina pundasyun nyo sa tao lang”

Malinaw na nakasaad sa Efe. 2:20 “…apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.” Peru ang sabi ni Henry ay: “…efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa…” Malinaw na sinabi ni Henry na mali raw na “pundasyun ay apostol” peru nang binasa natin ang Efe. 2:20 nakasaad roon na “…apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.” Kaya naitanong natin kay Henry na: ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?

Henry:

G-one At mali daw ang nakasulat sa Efe. 2:20 na ang mga Apostol ay pundation ng Iglesia. Nako itong si Mr. Arganda kahit mababasa na eh gilubag parin. Hindi po mali ang Efe. 2:20 ang mali po ay si Mr. Arganda.

Sagot paisones,hindi ko sinabi na mali ang efeso 2:20 -ang mali yang unawa mo,basahin mo pinutol mo na naman..nawala ang mga propeta,.ang nilagay mo ay ang mga apostol ay pundation ng iglesia…tingnan mo nga ang epeso 2:20 kung yan ang nakalagay?binago na naman parang si satanas ka gumamit ng talata…

G-one:

Hindi sinabi (explicitly) ni Henry na mali ang efeso 2:20 peru maiintindihan at mababasa (implicit) na sinabi niya na mali ang efeso 2:20 dahil sinabi niya na mali raw na “pundasyun ay apostol” peru nang binasa natin ang Efe. 2:20 nakasaad roon na “…apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.” Kaya naitanong natin kay Henry na: ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?

Dagdag pa ni Henry Arganda na mali daw ang unawa ko sa Efe. 2:20. Mga kapatid kayo na ang mag husga kung sino ang may maling pang-uunawa sa amin dalawa ni Henry Arganda (4^th Watch PMCC) at sa akin (G-one Paisones –Catholic Faith Defender)

Makapagbigay kaba ng Bible scholar na nagsasabing hindi foundation ang apostol sa Efe. 2:20? Pangalawang assignment mo na yan ha….

Sa rules ng argumentation kailang dapat nakatoon sa subject ang proposition ng Debator. Kaya paminsan minsan hindi na natin isinasali sa pagsulat ang “profeta” sa Efe. 2:20 para malinawan ang bumabasa, makuha nila ang punto natin (particularly sa pinag-uusapang topiko) at malaman nila ang katotohan.

Ang sumusunod ay ang mga Argumento:

Henry Arganda: (4^th Watch PMCC) – Sa Efe. 2:20 “Hindi foundation ang mga Apostolis” – (Ito po ay implicit basi narin sa mga comento ni Henry Arganda)

G-one Paisones (Catholic Faith Defender) – Sa Efe. 2:20 “Ang mga Apostolis ay foundation”

Kaya minsan hindi na natin naisama ang profeta sa mga argumento ko laban kay Henry.

Sumatotal hindi ko binago ang Biblia; alam ng bumabasa na hindi natin binago Efe. 2:20 dahil sa nasambit na natin sa itaas na ang mga apostol, mga porfeta at si Cristo (main corner stone) mismo ang foundation ng iglesia. Peru paminsan-minsan hindi na natin isinusulat ang mga profeta para maka-focust ang bumabasa sa topiko na pinag-dedebatihan.

Henry:

G-one question-Sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo?

oo sang ayun ako kami yun, hindi kayo yun.

G-one:

Check Mate!

Salamat sa pag sagot mo sa tanong ko. Peru napansin kong hindi mo sinagutan lahat ng tanong ko. Peru OK lang baka busy ka. Kung may Oras ka paki sagot naman ng mga tanong ko…. salamat…

Dahil sang-ayon ka na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo at sinabi mong hindi kayo (Catholic Church) yun; ang follow-up question ko sa iyo Henry Arganda (At pakisunod narin ng mga iba kong tanong) itong iglesia na ito; ito ba ay ang 4^th Watch PMCC?

Maraming salamat sa mga replies mo sa akin.

Regards.

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #2

Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.132.176 , bas2-windsor12-1088718000.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.132.176
Comment:
yang pagkakamali nyo ng turo o doctrina ay nangangahulugan yan na nailigaw nyo ang tao sa tamang unawa para kayong mga fareseo sa mat.23:15 ginagawang mamamayan ng impeyerno ang tao..isa pang pagkakamali nyo na d2 pa lang ay masasabi natin na talagang mali kayo ay si pedro ang itinuturo nyong Batong kinasasaligan ng iglesia..well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato..#kaya si cristo ang pundasyun ng iglesia..si pedro ay isa lang sa mga haligi Gal 2:9.si pedro rin ang tanungin natin ns sya mismo ang nagsabi na sya (cristo)ang bato acts 4:10–11 o di ba marunong pa kayo kay pedro baka naman lumusot pa kayo na sabihin nyo na iba ang head of the corner or corner stone sa foundation para di ka na makalusot mr.paisones isa lang ang ibig
sabihin nyan#..Isa.28:16 “therefore thus saith the Lord God behold i lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,a precious corner stone..a sure foundation.o ano baka mali si Isais nyan tigas kasi ng ulo nyo sinabi na ni pedro eh na si Cristo ang pundasyun ayaw nyo pang tanggapin o sige sagutin mo yan#..o sige gamitin natin yung ginagamit nyo sa efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa ika nga mali pa rin kayo kasi sabi nyo si pedro lang ang pundasyun eh d2 mga apostol at mga propeta eh di marami nakuuu bakit paborito nyo si pedro lang mahina pundasyun nyo sa tao lang.#.ang tamang unawa d2 ay ang mga apostol at ang mga propeta nakatayo sa pundasyun na si jesucristo dahil sila nga haligi Gal 2:9 san ba nakatayo ang haligi ?sagutin mo?tanungin pa natin si pablo kung sino ang pusdasyun ng iglesia?1 cor3:11- for other foundation can no man lay
than that is laid which is laid,which is laid jesus Christ..patunayan mo mr.paisones na si pedro ang pundasyun ayon sa biblia kapag napatunayan mo yan tunay kayong iglesia ang romano kung hindi sorry to say kayong lahat pa impeyerno dahil giba ang inyong pundasyun ..pag nagiba ang pundasyun lahat ng aral nyo mali na yan..hihintayin ko ang sagot mo.

——————#0#———————#0#————————-#0#———————–

-Replied by: Brod. G-one T. Paisones-

Sasagutin na naman po natin ang mga tira at pang aalipusta ni Brad Henry Arganda sa totoong Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo- ang Santa Iglesia Catolica. Tira ng tira si Henry Arganda sagot din tayo ng sagot sa mga tanong n’ya na may kahalong pang-aalipusta at fallacy.

Henry: “yang pagkakamali nyo ng turo o doctrina ay nangangahulugan yan na nailigaw nyo ang tao sa tamang unawa para kayong mga fareseo sa mat.23:15 ginagawang mamamayan ng impiyerno ang tao..isa pang pagkakamali nyo na dito pa lang ay masasabi natin na talagang mali kayo ay si pedro ang itinuturo nyong Batong kinasasaligan ng iglesia.”

G-one: “Eh tulad ng dati sasagutin natin si Brad Henry sa kanyang accusation sa ating mga Katoliko. Hindi po kami nag kamali Brad Henry Arganda, lahat ng mga allegation mo tungkol sa Santa Iglesia ay pawang walang ebidensya. Tulad ng nasabi ko na na “kung gusto mo ng isang maka Kristianong discussion hingil sa mga accusation mo laban sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders, kahit sa ano mang oras at kahit sa ano mang panahon ay handa po kaming ipagtangol ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica sa mga taong naninira at kumukotya sa Aral nito. I want to repeat again that we Catholic Faith Defenders are always ready in defending the Catholic Truth against its enemies in spiritual means.” Mag pasabi kalang kung saan dito sa Cebu at kalian ang gusto mo Henry Arganda.

Wala ngang logic ang mga reasoning mo Henry Arganda, tapos sasabihin mo na Impiyerno na kaming mga Catoliko. Conclusion mo pa lamang mali na; at ang mga argumento mo Henry ay pang elementary. Hindi ako naniniwala na lahat ng members ng 4^th Watch PMCC ay katulad mo Henry Arganda. Wag mo namang dungisan ang religion mo; mag bigay ka naman ng respeto. Kung sa tingin mo mali ang doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica at gusto mo itong wastuhin, bakit hindi ka makipag kita sa mga pari o di kaya’y sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders. Makipag dialogue ka sa amin sa maka Kristianong paraan. Hindi ka dapat basta-bastang tira ng tira na wala namang ebidensya. Eh para kang walang pinag-aralan d’yan kapatid. Kapatid na Henry alam kung mabuti kang tao, peru wag mo namang alipostahin ang paniniwala naming mga Katoliko dahil MALI ang paniniwala mo tungkol sa doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

———————————-

Henry: “well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ)pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato”

G-one: “Nag mamarunong nga naman itong si Henry Arganda, akalain nga naman na ginamit daw naming ang Amplified Bible… Bro Henry hindi mo kasi alam ang contexts ng Matt. 16:18 sa Greek eh…

Narito ang mga punto natin:

1.) Sa Matt. 16 ang linguahe na isinulat dito ay ang Greek; pero ang linguahing sinalita o ginamit ng Panginoon Jesus at nang mga apostol ay ang Aramaic. Ang BarJonah ay salitang Aramaic na ibig sabihin ay “son of Jonah”. Majority po ng mga scholar ay naniniwala na ang madalas na wikain ng Panginoong Jesus ay ang Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

Kaya ang Matt. 16:18 na PETROS sa pagkasulat, peru ang ibinigkas talaga ng Panginoong Jesus ay KEPHA. Pariho lang po ang kahulugan ng PETROS (in Greek) sa KEPHA (in Aramaic) – “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter f ). John 1:42 (TNIV)” at nasa footnote ng Today’s New International Version (TNIV) na ang CEPHAS ay Aramaic.

Kaya sa Aramaic Bible ay walang pinag-iba ang Pedro sa Bato. Pawang KEPHA po ang Aramaic word ng Pedro at Bato dahil ang ibig sabihin ng Pedro ay Bato:

Therefore sa Matt. 16:18 ang Batong pinagtatayoan ng Iglesia ay si San Pedro.

2.) Sa Matt. 16:18 ang Greek construction na “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”).

Kahit na ang mga Protestant Scholar ay nagsasabing si Pedro ang bato sa Matt. 16:18:

16:18 This rock (taute to petra) The nearest referent (for the pronoun “this”) in the context of Jesus’ statement is Peter, forming a wordplay on his name, Petros. While it is possible Jesus is referring to Peter’s confession of him as the Christ (v. 16), it seems more likely that Jesus is describing Peter and the other disciples’ future ministry as the foundation of the future church (cf. Eph. 2:20). As representative spokesman for the disciples, Peter was the first to preach to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10) the truth that salvation is through Jesus (cf. Acts 2:36; 10:36). [petra, houtos]

David K. Lowery, B.A, Th.M., Ph.D. is a Protestant scholar and Professor of New Testament Studies, at the Dallas Theological Seminary. : The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, copyright 2002, printed Victor Publishing, edited by Darrell L. Bock, Pg. 79

---

Matthew’s narrative built on Mark’s but intensified the paradox of Peter’s actions by stressing the greatness of his confession before Jesus’ devastating rebuke (Matthew 16:13-23). When Simon Peter confessed, Jesus pronounced an exultant blessing on him, not because he had figured out Jesus’ identity himself, but because God had revealed it to him. Then Jesus spoke of Simon’s identity by using a play on words, “You are Peter (Greek, petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church and the powers of death will not prevail against it.” Simon had been called Peter since he was first introduced in Matthew, but now the meaning of that name was revealed. He was the one through whom God revealed Jesus’ identity, and thus, strengthened by that confession, he had become the rock on which Jesus would build his community. Further, Jesus promised to him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” and whatever he bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. The words seem consciously enigmatic. Some Christians have taken them to mean that Peter was given authority over the Church as a whole; other Christians find this too broad an interpretation. In any event, Jesus’ words seem to foreshadow Peter’s role as a principal leader of the early Church.

Mysteries of the Bible, copyright 1988, printed by Reader’s Digest Association, Edited by Alma E. Guinness, pg.313

---

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14

---

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

---

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha“), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

---

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun…. The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

---

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho“. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha“…. Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre“; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

---

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.

“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

---

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

---

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

---

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

---

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built…. The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

Sa Matt. 16:18 ang phrase na “on this rock” ay reperido kay Pedro. Catholic believes that other apostles are also foundation of the church and Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20) but in Matt. 16:18 the only reference on the phrase “on this rock” is for Saint Peter.

3.) Matt. 16:18-19 This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom). (http://www.scripturecatholic.com)

Tungkol naman sa sinabi ni Bro Henry na ginamit natin ang amplified Bible; isa po itong haka-haka o isang panghuhula ni Henry Arganda. But im sorry Mr. Arganda Henry mali po ang panghuhula ninyo. Hindi po kami gumamit ng Amplified Bible para lang mapatunayan ko na si San Pedro ang Bato na pinag-uusapan sa Matt. 16:18 dahil wala pa po sa kamay ko ang ganong uri o version ng Biblia. At salamat sa iyo kapatid na Henry dahil sa information mo na ibinigay mo sa amin hingil sa Amplified Bible.

At salamat na mismo kay brad Henry dahil sa kanyang information na ibinigay sa atin na buko na natin ang pag sisinungalin nya para lang masiraan ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hinggil kay San Pedro. Ang sabi nya kasi “well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar.. means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato” –PERU ang katotohanan po, nang binasa ko po sa online ang footnote nang nasabing Amplified Bible (na inakala ni Henry na ginamit ko sa mga pagpapatotoo ko na si Pedro ay ang Bato) ang nakalagay doon ay Si Pedro or Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah is the rock on which the church is built. Narito ang boong minsahi sa Amplified Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=45

Matthew 16 (Amplified Bible)

18And I tell you, you are ^[e]Peter [Greek, Petros–a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra–a ^[f]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the ^[g]infernal region) shall ^[h]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

Footnotes:

e. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=45

Sa itaas malinaw na malinaw ang kamalian ni Henry Arganda dahil sabi nya na ang “Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar.. means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) Peru ang footnote nang nasabing Amplified Bible ay hindi naman pala. Kaya po nabuko po natin ang kamalian ni Henry Arganda.

———————————-

Henry: “kaya si cristo ang pundasyun ng iglesia..si pedro ay isa lang sa mga haligi Gal 2:9.si pedro rin ang tanungin natin na sya mismo ang nagsabi na sya (cristo)ang bato acts 4:10–11 o di ba marunong pa kayo kay pedro baka naman lumusot pa kayo na sabihin nyo na iba ang head of the corner or corner stone sa foundation para di ka na makalusot mr.paisones isa lang ang ibig sabihin nyan”

G-one: Wala po tayong problema sa nasambit ni Henry sa itaas na si Cristo ang pundasyon at bato sa Act. 4:10-11; si Cristo ang batong espiritwal 1 Cor. 10:4 (TNIV) “and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” Pero itinatag ng Panginoong Hesus Cristo ang Kanyang Iglesia kay Pedro Matt. 16:18, John 1:42; at sa mga Apostol at mga Propeta Efe. 2:20 (TNIV) “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

Ang pagkakamali lang po ni Henry Arganda ay ang conclusion nya’ng si Cristo ang bato sa Matt. 16:18, na wala pong ebidensya. Naniniwala po ang santa Iglesia Catolica na si Cristo ang Batong Espiritwal the Foundation of the Church (Defense Catholic Truth By Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60) peru hindi po si Cristo ang Bato na tinotukoy sa Matt. 16:18.

Sa Bible hindi po dapat natin limitahan ang ating pang-unawa sa mga termino o mga salitang bumabasi sa SUBJECT ng mga ito dahil kalimitan ng mga TERMS na ito ay FIGURATIVE o BIBLICAL EXPRESSION.

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

-DIOS ay Bato (2 Sam. 22:2-3)

-Cristo ay Bato (1 Cor. 10:4)

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

-Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)

“PASTOL”

-Cristo ay Pastol (John 10:11) (1 Ped. 2:25)

-Apostles & Church Leaders ay Pastol {implicit} (Act. 20:28)

-Pedro ay Pastol {implicit} (John 21:15-17)

“LION”

-Crito (Rev. 5:5)

-Judah (Gen 49:9 CEV)

-Devil like a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5:8)

Wala po akong dapat lusotan dahil ang Scripture na mismo ang nag papatunay na si Cristo ay ang Batong Espiritwal na pundasyon ng Iglesia (1 Cor. 10:4) (Defense Catholic Truth By Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59), at si Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42) (My Catholic Faith By Most Reverend Louis LaRavoire Morrow, Page 98) na syang pagtatayoan ni Cristo sa Kanyang Iglesia (Matt 16:18-19) (Paano Ninyo Sasagutin By Fr. Ben Carreon, Page 126-127) at ang mga apostol at propeta (Efe. 2:20) (Catechism for Filipino Catholic {Junior Edition}, Number 482, Page 163) (Catholic Catechism By Fr. M. Guzman, Number 157, Page 39).

———————————-

Henry: “Isa.28:16 “therefore thus saith the Lord God behold i lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,a precious corner stone..a sure foundation.o ano baka mali si Isais nyan tigas kasi ng ulo nyo sinabi na ni pedro eh na si Cristo ang pundasyun ayaw nyo pang tanggapin o sige sagutin mo yan”

G-one: Itong si Henry napakasinungaling, Hindi po doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na si Cristo ay hindi foundation; kaya nga ginamit po namin ang Efe. 2:20 dahil aral ng Iglesia Catolica yang verse na yan. Ang punto po naming dito na SA MATTHEW 16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYOAN NG KANYANG IGLESIA. Therefore Saint Peter is the Foundation of the Church in Matt. 16:18.

Para malaman ng lahat ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia ay ang mga ito:

Si Cristo ay ang espirituwal na BATO ng Iglesia (1 Cor. 10:4) “Yes, it is true that Christ is the leading cornerstone of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). Christ is himself, “the spiritual rock following them and the rock is Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). This is a metaphorical Biblical expression which means that Christ is really the spiritual head and leader. However, it is willed by the Lord that there must be a visible leader in his Church and that leader be his vicar. Therefore those texts from 1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:11 do not contradict the Catholic teaching that Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation. However, we cannot also go against Christ’s will to appoint a visible head for His Church.”

“And now I say to you: you are Peter (or rock) and on this rock I will build My church; and never will the powers of death overcome it” (Matt. 16:18). Remember that Christ was the one who changed the name Simon into Cephas (Jn. 1:42). Cephas in Aramaic means ROCK- or BEDROCK, not an ordinary small stone rolling on the ground. Even in Greek, the word CEPHAS comes from Kephalaion which means fundamental or foundation (GREEK – SPANISH dictionary, Mendizabal, Page 298) Even though foundation is also defined by other people as faith of Peter but what is faith if there is no person holding on to it?” (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59)

Si San Pedro ang pundasyon ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 “At tungkol sa ‘bato’ na ayaw kilalanin ng kaibigan mo (Numer Villanosa), sabihin mo sa kanyang wala siyang balita. Halos lahat ng mga dalubhasa sa Bibliyang Protestante ay tinitiyak na walang ibang batong binabanggit si Kristo sa Mt. 16:18 kundi si Pedro. Kasama rito si Alford, Bloomfield, Kiel, Marsch, Rosmuller, Seifert, Thompson, at Weiss at iba pa. Ang mga ito’y nagsunog ng kilay bilang bihasa at iskolar sa syensya ng Biblia at lahat sila’y nagpapatotoo na walang ibang batong binanggit si Kristo sa tekstong yaon (Matt. 16:18) kundi si Pedro.” (Paano Ninyo Sasagutin by Fr. Ben Carreon, Page 126) <Emphasis added>

Ang mga Apostol at mga profeta ang pundastion ng Iglesia at si Cristo mismo ang chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20). “The Catholic Church is apostolic because she was founded by Christ on the Apostles and in accordance with his divine will has always been and will always be governed by their lawful successors.” (Catholic Catechism By Fr. M. Guzman, Number 157, Page 39).

———————————-

Henry: “o sige gamitin natin yung ginagamit nyo sa efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa ika nga mali pa rin kayo kasi sabi nyo si pedro lang ang pundasyun eh d2 mga apostol at mga propeta eh di marami nakuuu bakit paborito nyo si pedro lang mahina pundasyun nyo sa tao lang”

G-one: Para sa kalinawan ng lahat hindi po namin sinabi na si Pedro lamang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa BUONG BIBLIA. Napakasinungaling po nitong si Mr. Arganda. Mr. Arganda saan po nabasa na sinulat ko na si Pedro lang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa Buong Biblia? Ang sabi ko na si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible); hindi ko sinabing si Pedro LAMANG ang Foundation ng Iglesia na mababasa sa Buong Biblia. Para maintindihan ng lahat… Sa Matt. 16:18 si Pedro lamang ang tinutukoy na syang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia (kung sa Matt. 16:18 lamang ang pag-uusapan) peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).

At mali daw ang nakasulat sa Efe. 2:20 na ang mga Apostol ay pundation ng Iglesia. Nako itong si Mr. Arganda kahit mababasa na eh gilubag parin. Hindi po mali ang Efe. 2:20 ang mali po ay si Mr. Arganda.

———————————-

Henry: “ang tamang unawa dito ay ang mga apostol at ang mga propeta nakatayo sa pundasyun na si jesucristo dahil sila nga haligi Gal 2:9 san ba nakatayo ang haligi ?sagutin mo?tanungin pa natin si pablo kung sino ang pusdasyun ng iglesia?1 cor3:11- for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is laid,which is laid jesus Christ..patunayan mo mr.paisones na si pedro ang pundasyun ayon sa biblia kapag napatunayan mo yan tunay kayong iglesia ang romano kung hindi sorry to say kayong lahat pa impeyerno dahil giba ang inyong pundasyun ..pag nagiba ang pundasyun lahat ng aral nyo mali na yan..hihintayin ko ang sagot mo.”

G-one: Sa pundation ng Tunay na Iglesia, hindi lamang si Pedro o mga apostol at mga propeta ang nag silbing pundasyon dito, bagkus nariyan si Cristo ang Batong Espiritwal(1 Cor. 10:4) na foundation din ng tunay na Iglesia (1 Cor 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60) dahil sasamahan nya ang Kanyang Iglesia hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Mat. 28:19-20) at hinding-hindi ito madadaig ng kamatayan (Matt. 16:18-19). Kaya hindi po contradict ang Matt. 16:18 at Eph. 2:20 sa 1 Cor. 3:11.

Ang ibig sabihin sa “for other foundation can no man lay” ito po yong mga itinatag na Iglesia na tao lamang ang nag tatag, at hindi si Cristo (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,”) -tulad na lamang ng 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Feriol dito sa Pilipinas.

Ang 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol ay hindi tunay na iglesia sapagkat ayon kay Cristo na Siya ay mag tatag ng Kanyang Iglesia (Matt. 16:18) at naitatag nya ito (Mat. 18:17) at sasamahan nya ito araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Matt. 28:19-20) kaya mula sa panahon ng Panginoon Jesu-Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyan NARITO PARIN ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA- AT ITO ANG SANTA, IGLESIA, CATOLICA, APOSTOLICA, ROMANA. Samantalang ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay wala pang isang daan taon itong itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol.

Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica lamang ang makapag-dugtong sa panahon ni Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyang panahon.

MGA TANONG PARA KAY HENRY ARGANDA

1. Si Pedro ba ay Bato?
2. Kung ang sagot mo ay Bato, ito ba ay malaking bato o maliit na bato?
3. Sabi mo na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?
4. Makapag bigay kaba ng Bible scholar na nagsasabing ang mga apostol ay hindi foundation dyan sa citas ng Efe. 2:20?
5. Sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo?
6. Kung hindi ka sang-ayon sa (#5); nag sisinungaling ba si Cristo ng Sabihin nya na sasamahan Niya ang kangyang Iglesia hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo(Matt. 16:18)?
7. Kung sang-ayon ka sa (#5); sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na Iglesia ay narito pa sa ating kasalukoyang panahon?
8. Kailan na itatag ang 4^th Watch PMCC?
9. Kung ang sagot mo sa (#8) ay 33 A.D.; may maipapakita kabang mga standard na mga referencia na nagpapatunay sa sagot mo?
10. Saan mababasa sa Biblia na ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)?
11. Saan mababasa sa standard na mga references na ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)??
12. Saan mababasa sa Biblia 4^th Watch PMCC (Sa Chapter at verses nito)?
13. Kailan mo ba ipapaharap sa akin yong proxy mo upang matuloy na ang debate nating hinggil kung sino ang tunay na Iglesiang Itinatag ni Cristo?

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #1

Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.132.176 , bas2-windsor12-1088718000.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.132.176
Comment:
sa sagot mo sa apostolic succession ginamit mo ang mga obispo ay ang kahalili ng mga apostol..ginamit ang sa gawa 1;20-bishopric ang bishopric ay office..sa tagalog ito ay “katunkulan”ang bishop ay overseer..ang pagkakamali mo ay pinagisa mo ang kahulugan..para patunayan na ang bishop of rome ay apostol din maling mali..ka dyan mr.paisones..dahil iba ang  bishop sa apostol ang apostol ay haligi ng iglesia Gal 2:9 isa lang dyan si pedro hindi sya pundasyun kundi haligi palagay ko naman alam mo ang pagkakaiba ng pundasyun at haligi he he .. ang bishop sa acts 20:28..ay mga elders sa church..mula yan sa context ng acts 20:17-hindi sila kahalili sapagkat wala kang mababasa sa biblia na sila (obispo)ay magiging kahalili..bigyan mo nga ako ng verse na ang obispo ayun sa biblia ang magiging kahalili ng mga apostol ..ito na lang ang tanggapin mo na magsusugo ang Dios ng mga apostol lucas 11:49..ang elders or bishop ay appointed lang ng mga kasamahan ng mga apostol..titus 1:5- hindi sinabi
ni cristo o ng mga apostol na silang mga obispo ang magiging kahalili nila kundi ang sabi nya magsusugo sya ng apostol ..ibig sabihin apostol pa rin ang haligi ng iglesia hindi elders o bishop naunawaan mo ba?sinabi ko na totoo lang ang apostolic succession kay judas at kay mattias..dahil ang pinaguusapan natin ay apostolic  yung sagot mo sa akin sa isa.22.15-21 hindi apostolic yun. yun nangyari na wag mong idamay yun di naman apostolic yun..pinatungkul mo yun kay pedro dahil may key din si ellacim..at si pedro ibibigay din ang susi mat16:19..ano itong key?not literal key but authority..dito rin sa verse na ito..ano mang iyong taliaan sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit..ang pagkakamali nyo ay kala nyo kay peter lang ngunit ang authority na ito ay sa lahat ng apostol..mat.18:18 basahin mo.at sa juan 20:23-24.bakit masyado ninyong itinatangi si pedro?

——————#0#———————#0#————————-#0#———————–

-Replied by: Brod. G-one T. Paisones-

Sagutin po natin ang mga reaction at accusation ni Bro. Henry Arganda tungkol sa post namin (https://catholicfaithdefender.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/tanong-galing-sa-member-ng-pmcc-4thwatch-henry-arganda/) na nag lalayong masagutan ang lahat ng mga tanong ng taos puso para maihatid sa buong madla ang tunay na aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica basi narin sa Katesismong, aklat Catoliko at sa higit sa lahat sa Biblia.

Ang sabi po ni Bro. Henry ay “sa sagot mo sa apostolic succession ginamit mo ang mga obispo ay ang kahalili ng mga apostol..ginamit ang sa gawa 1;20-bishopric ang bishopric ay office..sa tagalog ito ay “katunkulan”ang bishop ay overseer..ang pagkakamali mo ay pinagisa mo ang kahulugan..para patunayan na ang bishop of rome ay apostol din maling mali..ka dyan mr.paisones..”; kapatid na Henry hindi po ako nagkamali dahil hindi ko pinag-isa ang bishopric at ang bishop para mapatunayan lang namin na ang Bishop of Rome ay kahalili ni San Pedro. Kapatid na Henry, alam ko po ang pagkakaiba ng BISHOPRIC sa BISHOP; ang bishopric sa tagalog ay Katungkolan ng Obispo (Sa nasambit mo sa itaas; halatang hindi mo sinulat kung anong katungkulan ang BISHOPRIC) at ang Obispo ay ang nanunungkulan dito.

Narito po ang mga pahayag namin:

àsa Act 1:20 ating makikita na ang greek word na ἐπισκοπὴν ay ang apostles’ offices o ang office of the bishop.

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1984.htm

ST#1984. episkope (ep-is-kop-ay’) ἐπισκοπὴν, ἐπισκοπῆς – the office of a bishop (From episkeptomai; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian “episcopate” — the office of a “bishop”, bishoprick, visitation.)

With this clear evidence we can arrive with the correct conclusions that apostle’s office is office of a bishop and the office of a bishop is apostle’s office.

(https://catholicfaithdefender.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/tanong-galing-sa-member-ng-pmcc-4thwatch-henry-arganda/)

Kaya kapatid na Henry, paki basa po ng maigi ang post namin, para ho hindi po kayo basta-bastang gagawa ng mga accusation na puro walang proweba o ebidensya.

Para sa ating mambabasa, talakayin po natin ang Gawa 1:12-26

TAGALOG: Ang Dating Biblia (1905) http://adb.scripturetext.com/acts/1.htm

Gawa 1: 15 At nang mga araw na ito’y nagtindig si Pedro sa gitna ng mga kapatid, at nagsabi (at nangagkakatipon ang karamihang mga tao, na may isang daa’t dalawangpu), 16 Mga kapatid, kinakailangang matupad ang kasulatan, na nang una ay sinalita ng Espiritu Santo, sa pamamagitan ng bibig ni David tungkol kay Judas, na siyang pumatnugot sa nagsihuli kay Jesus. 17 Sapagka’t siya’y ibinilang sa atin, at siya’y tumanggap ng kaniyang bahagi sa ministeriong ito. 18 Kumuha nga ang taong ito ng isang parang sa pamamagitan ng ganti sa kaniyang katampalasanan; at sa pagpapatihulog ng patiwarik, ay pumutok siya sa gitna, at sumambulat ang lahat ng mga laman ng kaniyang tiyan. 19 At ito’y nahayag sa lahat ng mga nagsisitahan sa Jerusalem; ano pa’t tinawag ang parang na yaon sa kanilang wika na Aceldama, sa makatuwid baga’y, Ang parang ng Dugo.)

20 Sapagka’t nasusulat sa aklat ng Mga Awit, Bayaang mawalan nawa ng tao ang kaniyang tahanan, At huwag bayaang manahan doon ang sinoman; at, Bayaang kunin ng iba ang kaniyang katungkulan.

21 Sa mga taong ito nga na nangakisama sa atin sa buong panahon na ang Panginoong si Jesus ay pumapasok at lumalabas sa atin, 22 Magmula sa pagbautismo ni Juan, hanggang sa araw na siya’y tanggapin sa itaas mula sa atin, ay nararapat na ang isa sa mga ito’y maging saksi na kasama natin sa kaniyang pagkabuhay na maguli. 23 At kanilang ibinukod ang dalawa, si Jose na tinatawag na Barsabas, na pinamagatang Justo, at si Matias. 24 At sila’y nagsipanalangin, at nagsipagsabi, Ikaw, Panginoon, na nakatataho ng mga puso ng lahat ng mga tao, ay ipakilala mo kung alin sa dalawang ito ang iyong hinirang, 25 Upang tanggapin ang katungkulan sa ministeriong ito at pagkaapostol na kinahulugan ni Judas, upang siya’y makaparoon sa kaniyang sariling kalalagyan. 26 At sila’y pinagsapalaran nila; at nagkapalad si Matias; at siya’y ibinilang sa labingisang apostol.

CEBUANO: Ang Biblia (KJV in Cebuano Translation)

Gawa 1: 12-26 “Ug unya namauli sila sa Jerusalem gikan sa bungtod nga ginganlan ug Olivo nga duol sa Jerusalem, nga may gilay-on nga sama sa malakaw sa usa ka adlaw nga igpapahulay. 13Ug sa nakasulod na sila, misaka sila sa lawak sa itaas diin didto mag abutan sila si Pedro ug si Juan ug si Santiago ug si Andres, si Felipe ug si Tomas, si Bartolome ug si Mateo, si Santiago nga anak ni Alfeo, si Simon nga Zelote ug si Judas nga anak ni Santiago. 14Kini silang tanan nanagpadayon sa paghiusa sa pag-ampo, kauban sa mga babaye lakip kang Maria nga inahan ni Jesus, ug kauban sa iyang mga igsoong lalaki.

15Ug niadtong mga adlawa si Pedro mitindog taliwala sa kaigsoonan (dihay pundok sa mga usa ka gatus ug kaluhaan ka tawo), ug miingon kanila, 16“Mga igsoon, kinahanglan nga matuman gayud ang kasulatan nga gipamulong daan sa Espiritu Santo pinaagi sa baba ni David, mahitungod kang Judas nga nahimong magtotultol sa mga nanagdakop kang Jesus. 17Kay kadto siya nahiapil man kanamo ug nakabaton ug bahin niining maong pagpang-alagad. 18(Ug kini siya nakapanag-iyag usa ka luna nga yuta gumikan sa gisuhol kaniya sa iyang pagkadili matarung; ug sa pagkahulog niya nga nag una ang ulo, mibuto ang iyang tiyan ug nahurot pagkayagyag ang iyang tinai. 19Ug nahibaloan kini sa tanang nanagpuyo sa Jerusalem nga tungod niana kadtong yutaa ginganlan ug Akeldama sa ilang pinulongan, nga sa ato pa, Yuta nga Dugoon.` 20Kay sa basahon sa mga Salmo nahisulat kini nga nagaingon: `Ipahimong awaaw ang iyang yutang puloy-anan, ug ayaw na kini papuy-ig tawo;` ug `Ang iyang katungdanan ipakuha sa lain.` 21Busa, sa mga tawo nga among gikauban sulod sa tanang panahon nga ang Ginoong Jesus misulod ug migula sa among taliwala, 22sukad sa pagpangbautismo ni Juan hangtud sa adlaw sa pagbayaw kaniya gikan kanato—usa niining mga tawhana kinahanglan himoon nga uban kanamo saksi sa iyang pagkabanhaw.” 23Ug ilang gipaatubang ang duha ka tawo nga pagapilian, si Jose nga ginganlan ug Barsabas nga gianggaan ug Justo, ug si Matias. 24Ug nanag-ampo sila nga nag-ingon, “Ginoo, ikaw nga nasayud sa mga kasingkasing sa tanang tawo, ipasundayag kinsa niining duha ang imong gipili 25nga maoy mokuha sa dapit niining pagpang-alagad ug pagka-apostol nga gibiyaan ni Judas nga miadto sa iyang kaugalingong dapit.” 26Ug ilang giripahan sila, ug si Matias mao ang nahitungnan; ug siya naihap nga kauban sa napulog-usa ka mga apostoles.”

Pansinin po natin ang “Gawa 1:15” makikita natin dyan na si San Pedro ang nagsalita sa harap ng maraming Kristiano at mga Apostol. Bakit po ba? Kasi si San Pedro po ang:

PETER (Gr. Petros, rock) the most prominent of the 12 apostles in the Gospels and an outstanding leader in the early Christian church. NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 448

PETER, St (d. 64-67), chief of the 12 Apostles, brother of St. Andrew. He was originally called Simon but Jesus gave him the Aramaic name “KEPHA”, meaning rock, translated into Greek as “Petros”. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language (International Edition)- Page 751

Pansinin po natin ang “Gawa 1:16” makikita natin dyan na ipinahayag ni San Pedro na si Judas ang inihula ni David na siyang (Judas) pumatnugot sa nagsihuli kay Jesus. Narito po ang Karagdagang ebidensya sa pahayag natin:

Geneva Study Bible Commentary (http://bible.cc/acts/1-16.htm)

{7} Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

(7) Peter anticipates the offence that might be taken at the falling away of Judas the betrayer, showing that all things which happened to him were foretold by God.

Sa “Gawa 1:17” naman mapapansin natin na si Judas ay tumanggap ng kaniyang bahagi sa ministering (ministry) ito. Pakakatandaan po natin na ang MINISTRY ay ibig sabihin ay- “The act of ministering or serving (The Clergy)” –WEBSTER II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 171.

Tumungo naman po tayo sa “Gawa 1:20” -Bayaang kunin ng iba ang kaniyang katungkulan- Ito po ay naka basis a Salmo 109:8. Ang Katungkulan dyan ay mababasa sa Greek na ἐπισκοπὴν (EPISKOPEN) the office of a “bishop”http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1984.htm

Kahit na grade 6 alam kung sino ang nanunungkulan sa office of a Bishop- kundi ang Bishop din o Obispo.

Para sa karagdagang ebidensya na ang ἐπισκοπὴν ay office of a bishop:

The Greek New Testament Dictionary, Page 70: ἐπισκοπὴν , ἐπισκοπῆς f. visitation (of God’s presence among men); office; place of service; office of bishop (1 Tim. 3:1)

Si Judas po ang direct subject ng Gawa 1:20, kaya po si Judas ay may tungkulin office of bishop o panunungkulan bilang Obispo. Therefore si Judas ay Obispo.

Si Judas ay patay na at kailangan ang may humalili sa kanyang tungkulin bilang Obispo para may taga bantay ang kawan ng Diyos at taga gawa ng iniwan nyang (Judas) tungkulin.

Pansinin naman po natin ang “Gawa 1:25 Upang tanggapin ang katungkulan sa ministeriong ito at pagkaapostol na kinahulugan ni Judas…” Mapapansin po natin na ang katungkulan ni Judas ay tatanggapin ng kanyang kahalili sa katungkulan bilang isang minister (ministro) at apostol na iniwan ni Judas. Sa itatas na I-discuss na po natin na si Judas ay may tungkulin office of bishop o panunungkulan bilang Obispo (Gawa 1:20). Sa atin pong conclusion ay napakalinaw na ang katungkulan ng pagka Obispo ay katungkulan rin ng mga Apostol at ang katungkolan ng mga Apostol ay katungkulan rin ng mga Obispo dahil ang ang ibig sabihin ng Apostol at Opispo ay:

BISHOP =Gr. Episkopos, overseer- originally the principal officer of the local church, the other being the deacon or deacons (1 Tim, 3:1-7). The title elder or presbyter generally applied to the same man; “elder” referring to his age and dignity and “bishop” to his work of superintendence. As the church multiplied, the bishop of a larger church would be given special honor, and so gradually there grew up a hierarchy, all the way from presiding elders to bishops (over group of churches), then archbishop. (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 93)

APOSTLES Gr. Apostolos, messenger, envoy, ambassador). This title is used to describe various men in the NT. (1) Jesus himself is the ambassador of the Father (Heb. 3:1). (2) The twelve disciples were chosen and commissioned by Christ (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:14; 6:30; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10). These men (with Matthias replacing Judas) proclaimed the gospel and established churches…. (3). Paul was commission by the resurrected Christ to be the messenger of the gentiles… There are others called who are called “apostles” in NT. James, the brother of the Lord Jesus (Gal. 1:19, 2:9); Barnabas (Act 14:4, 14); Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7) and Silas (1 Thess. 2:6). (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 40)

Barnabus, Silvanus and Junias are given the title of Apotles later, but in derivative sense. They have a universal mission, given by Paul, to preach the gospel, and this seems to be the common trait of resemblance. Apotles also occur in the DIDACHE, 11:3-6, after which the term “Apotles” ceases to designate a special function. It is still used as general term for the prechers of the Gospel. (Intelligent Theology, Volume-2, Page 71, By: Piet Fransen, SJ)

Dahil sa pangako ng Panginoon na sasamahan Niya ang kanyang Iglesia hanggang sa katapusan ng mundo (Mat. 28:20); sinamahan at pinamunuan Nya ito ng Siya ay nabubuhay pa; nang Siya ay pumunta na sa Langit, itinalaga Niya sa Kanyang mga apostol ang mga Gawain bilang ambassador at Obispo (Mat. 28:19,Luke 10:16, Act. 1:20-25) at ang pangkalahatang Obispo sa mga Obispo kay San Pedro (John 21:15-17); nang namatay na lahat ang mga apostol, kung wala pong hahalili sa kanila e sino na ang mamamahala ng Iglesia? Therefore it is very reasonable that the apostles had successors to teach, care and overseer all God’s peoples.

Para maiintindihan ng maiigi ang nasa itaas, narito po ang ilang analogy at logic na sample po natin.

Analogy:

Ang namamahala ng office of the President ay ang Presidente.

Ang namamahala ng office of the bishop ay ang bishop o Obispo.

Logic:

Ang Obispo ay ang namamahala sa office of the bishop (Obispo)

But si Judas ay namahala sa office of the bishop = (Act 1:20-25)

Therefore si Judas ay Obispo

Si Judas a may kahalili = (Act 1:20-25)

But si Judas ay Apostol = (Mat 10:4)

Therefore ang Apostol ay may kahalili

Ang Apostol ay may kahalili (Base on Logical Reasoning sample #2)

But si Pedro ay Apostol = (Mat. 10:2)

Therefore si Pedro ay may kahalili.

Sa mga naibigay nating logical reasoning napakalinaw po na ang mga apostol ay may kahalili basi narin sa ating mga argumento at mga ebidensya na naaayon sa tamang logic and reality.

Sabi ni kapatid na Henry “dahil iba ang  bishop sa apostol ang apostol ay haligi ng iglesia Gal 2:9 isa lang dyan si pedro hindi sya pundasyun kundi haligi palagay ko naman alam mo ang pagkakaiba ng pundasyun at haligi he he .” Sa pakutyang reply ni brad Henry sa amin ho, nais ko pong makipag challenge sa kanya na “pag may nabasa ako na ang mga Apostol ay pundasyon (Isa na riyan si San Pedro); aaminin ba n’yang siya ay may kaunting kamalian?”

Ang mga Apostolis ay Pundasyon

Foundation of the Apostles

Eph. 2:20

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 2:20 Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4
ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
superaedificati super fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum ipso summo angulari lapide Christo Iesu

Efesios 2:20 Spanish: La Biblia de las Américas (©1997)
edificados sobre el fundamento de los apóstoles y profetas, siendo Cristo Jesús mismo la piedra angular,

King James Bible
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

American King James Version
And are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

American Standard Version
being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

Bible in Basic English
Resting on the base of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief keystone,

Douay-Rheims Bible
Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Darby Bible Translation
being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the corner-stone,

English Revised Version
being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone.

Tyndale New Testament
and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Iesus Christ being the head cornerstone,

Weymouth New Testament
You are a building which has been reared on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, the cornerstone being Christ Jesus Himself,

Webster’s Bible Translation
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;

World English Bible
being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone;

Young’s Literal Translation
being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner –stone

The Jerusalem Bible

Eph. 2:19-20 So you are no longer aliens or foreign visitors: you are citizens like all the saints, and of God’s household. You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.

Lahat po ng Bible translation ay nagsasabing “Foundation of the Apostles”, at kahit na sa Bible in Basic English ang foundation ay isinalin ng BASE meaning the lowest part ; bottom (WEBSTER II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 24.

Pansinin po natin ang sentence na “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone” sa Jerusalem Bible. Sa Eph. 2:19 nakasaad po doon na “you are citizens like all the saints, and of God’s household” ibig sabihin po nito na kasapi naho tayo sa house ng Diyos. Ang house of God ay ang Iglesia po (1 Tim. 3:15 KJV “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”). We are part of the building (The Church) being built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-20).

Sabi ni Brod. Henry “ang bishop sa acts 20:28..ay mga elders sa church..mula yan sa context ng acts 20:17-hindi sila kahalili sapagkat wala kang mababasa sa biblia na sila (obispo)ay magiging kahalili....” Ang Act 20:28 (KJV) “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (Bishop), to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (emphasize added). Ang paliwanag ko po dito Bro Henry na ang mga Obispo po ang taga pakain ng kawan, sila ang itinalaga ni Jesus Biblang kaplit Nya bilang Obispo. At ang lahat ng mga Obispo ay may Obispo na itinalaga ng Panginoon-ito Obispo na ito ay si San Pedro (John 21:15-17). Sa kadahilanang mamamatay po ang mga Obispo at si San Pedro, natural nalamang po na may humalili sa kanilang authority, office, at katungkulan sa kadahilanang:

Para po maintindihang maigi ng ating mambabasa ang ibig sabihin natin sa itaas narito ang karagdagang information:

Cristo lang ang nagtatag ng Kanyang iglisya -Mat. 16:18 “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.”

Naitatag N’ya sa kanyang kapanahonan ang Iglesia -Mat. 18:17 “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.”

Ang Iglesia ay Kanyang (Jesus Cristo) Katawan –Col. 1:18 “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Siya (Jesus Christ) ang manliligtas ng iglisya -Efe 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Itinayo Nya ang Iglesia sa saligan ng mga apostol -Efe 2:20 “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Sasamahan Nya hanggang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan(WALANG PUTOL NA SASAMAHAN NI JESUS ANG IGLESIA) -Mat. 28:20 “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Bibigyan Nya ng patnubay ang Iglesia magpasawalang hanggang -John14:16-17 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; {14:17} [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”

Espiritu Santo na magtuturo sa iglisya ng lahat ng bagay at magpapaalala ng lahat ng sinabi ni Cristo – John 14:26 “But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Therefore Ang tunay na iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo ay magpasahanggang sa ngayon ay narito pa at hindi ito kailan man tatalikod at mawawalang parang bula (Mat. 16:18) (Mat. 28:20) (Juan. 14:16-17, 26)

Kung wala pong hahalili sa mga apostol sino po ang mag aalaga, magpapakain, gagabay sa kawan ng Diyos?

Kaya po may kahalili ang mga apostol para po may mag-aalaga, magpapakain, gagabay, magtuturo sa Kawan ng Diyos.

Dagdag pa ni Bro Henry “bigyan mo nga ako ng verse na ang obispo ayun sa biblia ang magiging kahalili ng mga apostol”

Ang sagot natin dito ayon sa Biblia at Apostolic Traditon may mababasa po tayo at maiintindihan. Peru mas tatalakayin kopo rito ang Bibla.

Psalm 109:8 (KJV) Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.

Psalm 108:8 (Douay Rheims) “May His days be few: and his bishopric let another take”

Act 1:20 (KJV) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 1:20 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Strong’s Numbers
γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν, γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ ἔρημος καὶ μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν αὐτῇ, καί, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος.

Sa itaas ay ang “Gawa 1:20” sa Greek New Testament; pansinin po natin ang word na “ἐπισκοπὴν” (EPISKOPEN)- ang ibig sabihin po nito ay office of bishop (The Greek New Testament Dictionary, Page 70)

Ang katungkulan ni Judas bilang Obispo ay inilipat sa kanyang kahalili na si Matthias (Gawa 1:20-25). At logically ang kahahalili sa nanunungkolan sa office of the Bishop ay magiging Bishop (o Obispo) rin.

At may idadagdag paho tayo dito ang Matt. 16:18-19 at ang Isa. 22:21-22 peru sa ibaba nalang po natin i-discussed ang mga ito.

Sabi ni Brad Henry “ito na lang ang tanggapin mo na magsusugo ang Dios ng mga apostol lucas 11:49..ang elders or bishop ay appointed lang ng mga kasamahan ng mga apostol..titus 1:5- hindi sinabi ni cristo o ng mga apostol na silang mga obispo ang magiging kahalili nila kundi ang sabi nya magsusugo sya ng apostol .”

Brother Henry sa statement ayon po sa itaas ay para na rin kayong ginisa sa sarili ninyong mantika sapagkat ang sa Titus 1:5(KJV) “For this cause left I (Paul) thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I (Paul) had appointed thee: (emphasize added)”. Sa Titus 1:5 si San Pablo po ang nag direct (nag sugo) kay Titus na mag appoint ng elders sa lugar ng Crete para maging tagapagturo sa mga aral ng Diyos at magsilbing overseer sa mga kawan ng Diyos (Titus 1:7); ang Obispo ang itinalag ng Diyos upang taga pakain ng Iglesia (Titus 1:7). Sa panahong si Jesus ay kasama pa ng mga apostol, Sya ang ang nagsilbing pastol (taga pakain) sa kanyang mga karnero John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Itinalaga nya ang kanyang tungkulin bilang mga pastol sa mga apostol, at itinalaga Niya (Cristo) ang lahat ng kawan kay San Pedro (John 21:15-17). Peru ang lahat ng mga Apostol ay mamatay-eh natural na lamang po na may humalili sa kanilang gawain (Act.1:20-25; Mat. 16:18; Mat 18:18; 1 Tim. 3:1-2; Titus 1:7) sapagkat ang Iglesia ay hindi mawawala at hindi madadaig ng kamatayan (Mat. 16:18, Mat. 28:19-20; John 14:16, 26). Kung hindi mawawala ang Iglesia; hindi rin mawawala ang mga nagtuturo, nagpapakain Nito (Church) hanggang sa katapusan ng mundo (Dan. 2:44; Isa. 22:19-23; Mat. 16:18-19; Mat. 18:18; Act. 1:20-25).

At sa nasambit natin sa itaas na maiintindihan po natin na ang mga obispo ang kahalili ng mga apostol sapagkat ang apostol (Judas) ay may kahalili na si Matthias. At si Judas ay Obispo sapagkat sya ay ang namamahala sa office of the Bishop ἐπισκοπὴν (Act 1:20).Si Mathias ang humalili kay hudas. Therefore Mathias is also a Bishop.

Sambit rin ni Brad Henry “ibig sabihin apostol pa rin ang haligi ng iglesia hindi elders o bishop naunawaan mo ba?sinabi ko na totoo lang ang apostolic succession kay judas at kay mattias..dahil ang pinaguusapan natin ay apostolic  yung sagot mo sa akin sa isa.22.15-21 hindi apostolic yun. yun nangyari na wag mong idamay yun di naman apostolic yun..Pinatungkol mo yun kay pedro dahil may key din si ellacim..at si pedro ibibigay din ang susi mat16:19..ano itong key?not literal key but authority..dito rin sa verse na ito..ano mang iyong taliaan sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit..ang pagkakamali nyo ay kala nyo kay peter lang ngunit ang authority na ito ay sa lahat ng apostol..mat.18:18 basahin mo.at sa juan 20:23-24.bakit masyado ninyong itinatangi si pedro?”

Wala po tayong mababasa sa Biblia letra-4-letra na “na totoo lang ang apostolic succession kay judas at kay mattias” at lalong wala pong mababasa sa Biblia tungkol sa Founder ng PMMC 4thWatch. At kung binasa pa ng maigi ni Brad Henry, ang post namin hindi na sya mag komento sa amin na “hindi apostolic ang Isa. 22:15-22”; tatalakayin po natin dito ang Isa. 22:15-22 at Mat. 16:18-19

Ang Iglesia ay inihula na sa panahon ng Lumang Tipan na hindi mawawala (tatalikod o mamatay):

Dan. 2:44 “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” –Dito malinaw na nakasaad na ang Dios ay magtatayo ng isang Kaharian na hindi mawawala hanggang magpakailanman.

At sa panahon ni Jesu-Cristo nangyari ang inihula ni Daniel:

Mat. 16:18 “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. {16:19} And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.—Dito malinaw na ang hula sa Daniel 2:44 ang katuparan ay ang tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo na kahit ang kamatayan ay hindi ito kailan man madadaig ng kahit anung unos at kamatayan.

Si Pedro po ay Binigyan ng KEYS which are symbols of authority (At inamin ni brad Henry ito).

Sa Isa.22:21-22 “And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. {22:22} And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Ang KEY po dito ay katulad isang Rabinic Term na ibig sabihin ay AUTHORITY. Ano ba ang Authority?

Authority– (Gr. Exousia) The Legal and/or moral right to exercise of power, power that is rightly possessed. (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 61)

Exousia –authority, right, liberty; ability, capability; supernatural power; ruling power, government, official; jurisdiction (Act 5:4). (The Greek New Testament Dictionary, Page 65)

Ang Authority (Key) sa Isa. 22:21-22 ay ipinasa sa ibaà Si Shebna ay ang may hawak sa KEY at ipinasa ito kay Eliakim. Ito po ang magsilbing reference po natin sa tungkol sa hawak na KEYS ni San. Pedro.

Sa Mat. 16:18-19 si San Pedro ay may KEYS (Authority) –Ibig Sabihin nito na si San Pedro ay may kapangyarihan sa Iglesia, pamahalaan ang Iglesia at pamunuan ang buong Iglesia.

Sa nakita natin sa itaas; umamin na po si Brad Henry na ang ibig sabihin ng KEYS ay AUTHORITY. Dahil sa kanya pong statement ay para na hong idenepensa niya ang claim ng Catholic Church hingil sa Apostolic Succession. Sa madaling salita para hong iginisa po siya sa kanyang sariling mantika. Dahil ang Apostolic Succession ay ang pag-pasa ng Authority ng mga Apostol sa mga Obispo, at pagpasa ng Authority ni San Pedro sa Obispo ng Roma o ang Santo Papa My Catholic Faith (3^rd Edition Page 97); Catholic Catechism (Revised Edition) By: Fr. M. Gusman #142.

Sa Mat. 16:18-19 ang Authority o ang pamamahala diyan ay sa Iglesia.

Sa Isa. 22:21-22 ang Authority o ang pamamahala diyan ay sa old Davidic kingdom.

Ang Iglesia ang New Davidic Kingdom at si San Pedro ang itinalaga bilang isang pinuno dahil sya lang ang may hawak ng susi. Toong ang mga apostol ay may ay may kapangyarihang “binding and loosing” at doctrina ito ng Santa Iglesia Catolica. Wala pong basihan ang sinasabi ni brad Henry na “..dito rin sa verse na ito..ano mang iyong taliaan sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit..ang pagkakamali nyo ay kala nyo kay peter lang ngunit ang authority na ito ay sa lahat ng apostol..mat.18:18” WALA PONG DOCTRINA ANG SANTA IGLESIA NA SI SAN PEDRO LANG ANG MAY AUTHORITY. Ang pahayag ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ay lahat ng mga apostol ay may Authority pero si San Pedro lamang ang may hawak ng susi—ibig sabihin siya lang ang may kapangyarihang mag BIND sa nai-LOOSE ng mga Apostol; at mag LOOSE sa nai-BIND ng mga Apostol. Sa madaling salita ang Authority ni San Pedro ay mas makapangyarihan kaysa sa mga Apostol.

Tanong ni Brad Henry “bakit masyado ninyong itinatangi si pedro?” Itinatangi namin si San Pedro sapagkat ang siya ang may pinakamakapangyarihang authority (na bigay ni Cristo) kaysa sa mga Apostol. Narito ang mga Ibidensya:

Mat. 16:18-19. Si San Pedro lang ang may susi sa lahat ng mga Apostol. Siya ay may kapangyarihang mag BIND sa nai-LOOSE ng mga Apostol; at mag LOOSE sa nai-BIND ng mga Apostol.

John 21:15-17 “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. {21:16} He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. {21:17} He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. {21:18} Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not. {21:19} This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” –Si San Pedro ang itinalaga bilang pastol sa mga pastol at karnero; Obispo sa mga Obispo at kawan; tagabantay sa mga taga bantay at kawan at nag silbing leader (chief) sa mga leaders at members ng Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo.

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat: {22:32} But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” – Si San Pedro ang itinalaga ng Panginoong Jesu-Cristo para mag sibling tagapag patatag (strengthen) sa lahat ng mga Apostol.

PETER (Gr. Petros, rock) the most prominent of the 12 apostles in the Gospels and an outstanding leader in the early Christian church. NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 448

PETER, St (d. 64-67), chief of the 12 Apostles, brother of St. Andrew. He was originally called Simon but Jesus gave him the Aramaic name “KEPHA”, meaning rock, translated into Greek as “Petros”. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language (International Edition)- Page 751

Sa nasambit po natin sa itaas napatunayan po natin na ang mga Apostol ay may kahalili sa kanilang Authority, at ito ay ang mga Obispo.

Napatunayan rin natin na si San Pedro ang may mas pinaka mataas na Authority na bigay ng Diyos.

Ang lahat ng katanungan at accusation na itinira ni brad Henry sa Santa Iglesia Catolica ay nasagot po lahat.

Coming soon: Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #2

Tanong Galing sa Member ng PMCC 4thwatch (Henry Arganda )

Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.73.5 , bas2-windsor12-1088702725.dsl.bell.ca)

E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca

URL : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com

Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.73.5

Comment:

pag aralan nyo ito rc faith defenders para hindi kayo matuloy sa impiyerno..hindi sa pamamagitan ng succession ang general na patakaran ng Dios..tanungin natin si pedro mismo kung sa pamamagitan ng pag halili ng katungkulan basahin nyo acts 2.38-39 –tatawagin maging ilan man ..pag tinawag ibibigay ang kaloob ng Holy spirit..isa sa kaloob ng Holy spirit ay pagka apostol efeso 4:11..kaya sabi ni pablo sa roma 1:1 ay “si pablo na tinawag na maging apostol”pangutana..sinabi ba ni pablo na successor ako ni kulas???hindi..pagisipan nyong mabuti..ang papa sa roma hindi nya sinabing tinawag sya alam nyo na kung papaano nagiging papa diba??? Usurpation of authority yang ginawa nyo or nya..kami ang may buhay na apostol na tinawag ..patunayan nyo ayun sa biblia na ang Dios hindi na tatawag o magsusugo asa ang verse??? kami may patunay lucas 11:49..kaya kami ang nasa tunay na iglesia.

ang apostolic succession ay totoo lang kay judas at kay mattias sa acts 1.22-26,si judas kaya may successor dahil sya ay inihula sa lumang tipan (verse 20..pangutana si pedro ba inihula na may kukuha ng kanyang katungkulan..asa ang versikulo?tubaga ninyo..next question?kung matuod na kihanglan gayud na dunay mupuli pag mamatay ang apostol kinsang napatay na apostol ang gipulihan ni pablo?hulaton ko ang tubag nyo???at dapat tanan na apostol karon naa pa asa man o kinsa man ang nagpuli kay mateo?tomas katong tanan na apostol asa man sila ???isa lang naman ang papa karon sila kadto damo man.ayaw kamo magsulti na lahi ang pagkaapostol ni pedro sa tanan..pareho lang sila (gal2.9.)kaya yang apostolic succession nyo ay hindi tunay..sorry to say imitation lang yan ..catholic defenders !!!hulaton ko ang tubag nyo.

-SINAGUTAN NI

Bro. G-one T. Paisones

Dear Brother Henry Arganda,

Magandang araw sa iyo, tungkol sa mga katanungan, objection at accusation mo hingil sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defender tungkol sa Apostolic Succession ay lubos naming ikinagagalak. Sasagutin po natin ponto-e-ponto ang mga nasambit mo sa itaas:

Sabi mo “pag aralan nyo ito rc faith defenders para hindi kayo matuloy sa impiyerno” Patawarin ninyo po ako brother Henry dahil ang pahayag po ninyo ay isang illogical statement na tinatawag na Fallacy of Presumption (‘Assumptio non Probata’ pa po itong pahayag mo na kaming mga Catholic Faith Defenders ay impiyerno na). At kung gusto mo ng isang maka Kristianong discussion hingil sa mga accusation mo laban sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders, kahit sa ano mang oras at kahit sa ano mang panahon ay handa po kaming ipagtangol ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica sa mga taong naninira at kumukotya sa Aral nito. I want to repeat again that we Catholic Faith Defenders are always ready in defending the Catholic Truth against its enemies in spiritual means.

Sa pahayag mo na “hindi sa pamamagitan ng succession ang general na patakaran ng Dios… Tanungin natin si pedro mismo kung sa pamamagitan ng pag halili ng katungkulan basahin nyo acts 2.38-39 –tatawagin maging ilan man ..pag tinawag ibibigay ang kaloob ng Holy spirit..isa sa kaloob ng Holy spirit ay pagka apostol efeso 4:11” Itoy hindi ko gaanong naiintindihan; ang ibig mo bang sabihin kapatid sa topic mo ay SUCCESSION versus APOSTOL NA TINAWAG? Kung ganon man ang ibig mong sabihin na SUCCESSION versus APOSTOL NA TINAWAG narito ang mga aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hingil sa Apostolic Succession at Apostol na Tinawag, na matatagpuan rin sa Biblia:

Apostolic Succession

My Catholic Faith (3^rd Edition Page 97) “Did Christ intend that this power should be exercise by Apostles alone? –No, Christ intended this power should be exercise also by their successors. (Lul 10:16 “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”) (John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; Mat. 16:18-19; Mat. 28:19-20)—Pakakatandaan natin na si Cristo ay nagtatag ng Iglesia upang maging tagapangalaga ng mga tupa nito, at nag talaga rin si Cristo nang tagapagbantay ng Tupa (Iglesia) na hahalili sa Kanya ((John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32) at itoy sasamahan Nya (Cristo) hanggang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan (Mat. 28:20) at bibigyan Nya ito ng patnubay(Juan. 14:16-17) at ang patnubay, ang Espiritu Santo na magtuturo sa iglisya ng lahat ng bagay at magpapaalala ng lahat ng sinabi ni Cristo (Juan. 14:26). Sa mga nabanggit natin sa itaas, kahit na grade 1 pa ay makaka conclude na ang leader (Bishop, elder, deacon) Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo ay may SUCCESSOR sapagkat ang kanyang mga tupa; mula nang maitatag at maibuklod Niya ang mga ito noong una at magmahanggang sa ngayon ay narito pa sa sanlibutan—Kaya may bantay parin sa mga tupa hanggang ngayon.

Apostol na Tinawag

Catholic Catechism (Revised Edition) By: Fr. M. Gusman #142 “Christ, as Head of his Church, gave the power to teach, to sanctify, and to rule the members of the church in His name to the Apostles, the first Bishop of the Church. (Act 1:20; Mat 16:18; Mat 28:19-20, Mat 10:2-5)

My Catholic Faith (3^rd Edition Page 97) “The Apostles: the first Bishop of the Church.”

Sa nasambit natin sa itaas dapat pakakatandaan natin na malinaw na turo ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na may kahalili ang mga Apostol—ito ay ang mga Obispo. Sapanahon natin ngayon at hanggang kataposan ng mundo may mga apostol (Obispo)- na tinatawag ang Dios sa pamamagitan ng pag ordina o ang pagpatong ng kamay. Samakatuwid baga’y ang mga humalili sa mga Apostol at bagong mga opisina (New offices of the Church) ng Iglesia ay ang mga Apostol na Tinawag ng Dios. Narito ang ating mga karagdagang ebidensya:

Act 1:22 (KJV1611) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Gawa 13:3 (Magandang Balita Biblia) “Pagkatapos nilang mag-ayuno at manalangin, ipinatong nila sa dalawa ang kanilang kamay at sila’y pinayaon.”

1 Tim 4:14 (Douay Rheims) “Neglect not the grace that is in thee which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of priesthood.”

NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 429 –ORDATION =in the JKV ordain is the translation of about 35 different Hebrew and Greek words. The word has many shades of meaning, chiefly four: 1. Set in order, arrange…2. bring into being…3.decree…4. set apart for an office or duty (Jer. 1:5, Mark 3:14, John 15:16, Act 14:23, 1 Tim. 2:7, Titus 1:5, Heb. 5:1,8:3). Ordination in the sense of getting aside offices or duty of the church for a certain work by the laying on of hands was practical in apostolic time (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6)

NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible Page 93 –BISHOP =Gr. Episkopos, overseer- originally the principal officer of the local church, the other being the deacon or deacons (1 Tim, 3:1-7). The title elder or presbyter generally applied to the same man; “elder” referring to his age and dignity and “bishop” to his work of superintendence. As the church multiplied, the bishop of a larger church would be given special honor, and so gradually there grew up a hierarchy, all the way from presiding elders to bishops (over group of churches), then archbishop.

Nasambit mo rin na “ang papa sa roma hindi nya sinabing tinawag sya alam nyo na kung papaano nagiging papa diba? Usurpation of authority yang ginawa nyo or nya..kami ang may buhay na apostol na tinawag” Ito ang comments ko sa iyo kapatid na Henry, wala ho tayong problema kung may Apostol kayo na buhay; OK? Peru ang tanong ay totoong Apostol bayan? Kami rin po sa Santa Iglesia Catolica ay may napakaraming buhay na mga Apostol-ang mga Obispo po namin (Apotles- but in derivative sense)-Intelligent Theology, Volume-2, Page 71, By: Piet Fransen, SJ. Pakatatandaan po natin na ang mga Apostol ay mga Obispo at ang kahalili ng mga Apostol ay ang Obispo. Narito po ang ating mga ebedensya:

Psalm 109:8 (KJV) Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.

Psalm 108:8 (Douay Rheims) “May His days be few: and his bishopric let another take.”

In Septuagint or the Greek Old Testament version the common version used by Apostles contains this:

It is parallel to Act 1:20 (KJV) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”

sa Act 1:20 ating makikita na ang greek word na ἐπισκοπὴν ay ang apostles’ offices o ang office of the bishop.

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1984.htm

ST#1984. episkope (ep-is-kop-ay’) ἐπισκοπὴν, ἐπισκοπῆς – the office of a bishop (From episkeptomai; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian “episcopate” — the office of a “bishop”, bishoprick, visitation.)

With this clear evidence we can arrive with the correct conclusions that apostle’s office is office of a bishop and the office of a bishop is apostle’s office.

Brother nasabi na “Usurpation of authority yang ginawa nyo or nya..kami ang may buhay na apostol na tinawag”; kapatid pwedi bang matunayan mo ang mga sinasabi mo? Another Fallacy of Assuptio non Probata.

Sabi mo pa “patunayan nyo ayun sa biblia na ang Dios hindi na tatawag o magsusugo asa ang verse?” Kapatid para sa kaalaman mo wala pong Doctrina ang Santa Iglesia Catolica na ang Dios hindi na tatawag o magsusugo ng mga Taong taga pamahala ng kanyang Iglesia sapagkat sabi Niya sa Mat. 28:19-20 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: {28:20} Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.” Dito po malinaw na sa panahon ni Kristo, hanggang sa ngayon at sa katapusan ng mundo ay may sinugo parin ang Dios na mga Taong gagawa ng Kanyang mithiin para maging isang instrumento Niya sa sangkataohan. Ito po ay walang putol na apostolic succession sapagkat hindi nagsisinungaling si Kristo ng sabihin Nya sa kanyang mga Apostol na Siya (Cristo) ay sasama sa kanila hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo. Eh kung naputol, tumalikod, pinatay-lahat at wala ng natira sa tunay na iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo, para naring sinasabi po natin na SINUNGALING si CRISTO.

Sabi mo pa brother Henry “kami may patunay lucas 11:49..kaya kami ang nasa tunay na iglesia.” Bro. Henry nang nabasa ko ang conclusion mo ay (Honestly) natawa po ako dahil ang statement po ninyo ay walang ka logic-logic (Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo ako sa nasambit ko na medyo may kasakitan).

Ito po brother Henry ay tinatawag na Fallacy of Non Sequitor– Ang ibig pong sabihin nito ay:

Fallacy –errors in reasoning (Logical Fallacies) & error in understanding (Rhetorical Fallacies). The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 92

Non Sequitor is a Latin term which means it does not follow. This is a fallacy, which arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and the effect. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 107)

Ito ang tanong mo “pangutana si pedro ba inihula na may kukuha ng kanyang katungkulan..asa ang versikulo?” Salamat sa magandang tanong mo at ang sagot sa magandang tanong mo ay maganda ring sagot. Ang sagot po natin direktaminte ay mayroon po tayong mababasa sa Biblia at Maiintindihan na ibibigay ang kapangyarihan (ng pamamahala) sa Iba at ito ang may susi sa bahay ni David (Isa.22:21-22). At sa panahon ni Cristo ay si San Pedro lang ang may hawak susi ng Kingdom of God (Mat 16:18) and this keys – the reference of the key of the house of David in Isa 22:21-22.

Para mas maintindihan ng ating mambabasa ang ating sagot narito ang karagdagang sagot:

Jer. 33:17 “For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel” –In this verse we can easily seen that David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” –Dito malinaw na nakasaad na ang Dios ay magtatayo ng isang Kaharian na hindi mawawala hanggang magpakailan man.

Mat. 16:18 “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. {16:19} And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.—Dito malinaw na ang hula sa Daniel 2:44 ang katuparan ay ang tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo na kahit ang kamatayan ay hindi ito kailan man madadaig, kaya natural na lamang po na may kahalili ang mga namamahala ng Tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Kristo (Pakakatandaan natin na si Pedro ang binigyan ni Cristo ng isang tungkolin na pamahalaan ang buong Iglesia sapagkat Sya (Cristo) ay pupunta sa Ama Juan 21:15-17).

<a href=”http://www.friendster.com/photos/28256155/1/576102759″><img border=”0″ src=”http://photos-p.friendster.com/photos/55/16/28256155/1_576102759l.jpg”/></a&gt;

Mat 28:19-20 Dito nakasaad na sasamahan ni Cristo ang kanyang Iglesia hanggang sa Kataposan ng mundo ditto malinaw na may mga tao Syang sasamahan sa anumang panahon. At pakakatandaan natin na ang itinatag ni Cristo na Iglesia ay may mga tagapamahala (1 Tim 4:14-16, 1 Tim 5:22, James 5:14-15, 1 Tim 3:1-2, Act 20:28). Kaya natural na lamang na may kahalili ang mga ito pag sila ay wala na (Act 1:20).

Isa.22:21-22 “And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. {22:22} And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” –Dito po napakalinaw na may kahalili si Shebna ito po ay si Eliakim.

Sabi mo pa brother Henry “apostolic succession ay totoo lang kay judas at kay mattias sa acts 1.22-26,si judas kaya may successor dahil sya ay inihula sa lumang tipan”

-Ang counter proposition ko po ditto ay hindi po totoong ang apostolic succession ay kay Judas lang at kay mattias WALA PO TAYONG MABABASA SA BIBLIA NA GANON. At Hindi po totoong si Judas lang ang may successor (ang reason mo na sya (Judas) ay hinulaan sa lumang tipan)-dahil sa Gawa 1:20 ang topic po dyan ay ang hahalili (successor) sa tanggapan (Office) iniwan. At ano naman ang masasabi mo sa Isa. 22:21-22?

Tanong mo “pangutana si pedro ba inihula na may kukuha ng kanyang katungkulan..asa ang versikulo?tubaga ninyo” Ang sagot natin ditto ay napaka simpli wala pong direktaminting hula sa Biblia na si San Pedro ay may kahalili PERU Madaling maiintindihan sa Biblia na Si San Pedro ay may Kahalili (Pakakatandaan na dapat ang Biblia ay Intindihin pag itoy babasahin Neh 8:8).

Sa Isa. 22:21-22 si Shebna ay maykahalili na si Eliakim, at mapapansin natin dito na ang Key of of the house of David is a rabbinic term which means- an authority.

Sa Mat 16:18 si San Pedro po ang tinalaan ng KEYS of KINGDOM of Heaven.

Ang Ibang tanong mo ay “kung matuod na kihanglan gayud na dunay mupuli pag mamatay ang apostol kinsang napatay na apostol ang gipulihan ni pablo?hulaton ko ang tubag nyo?” at dapat tanan na apostol karon naa pa asa man o kinsa man ang nagpuli kay mateo?tomas katong tanan na apostol asa man sila ???

Ang sagot po natin dito ay sa basihan natin na Biblia at ang Tradition ng mga Apostol ang Humalili sa kanilang lahat ay ang mga Obispo. Nasagot po ang tanong.

Para sa ating mambabasa atin pong isusulat ang mga Early Church Fathers tungkol sa kanilang patotoo hingil sa Apostolic Succession, focusing on Saint Peter (The First Bishop of Rome).

Church Fathers are the early and influential theologians and writers in the Christian Church, particularly those of the first five centuries of Christian history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers)

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

Clement the bishop of Rome… We learn from St. Irenaeus that Clement was the third bishop of Rome in succession from Peter. (Crossing the Tiber By: Stephen K. Ray, page 133)

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

St. Hegesippus – A writer of the second century, known to us almost exclusively from Eusebius, who tells us that he wrote in five books in the simplest style the true tradition of the Apostolic preaching. His work was entitled hypomnemata (Memoirs), and was written against the new heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07194a.htm)

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, say of himself, “When I was still a boy I saw you in Lower Asia in Polycarp’s company, when you where cutting a fine figure at the imperial court and wanted to be in favor with him. I have a cleaver recollection of events at that time than of recent happenings–what we have learn in childhood develops along with the mind and becomes a part of it….Eusebius, History of the Church ((Crossing the Tiber By: Stephen K. Ray, page 141)

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.” Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42 (A.D. 210). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew (post A.D. 244). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.” Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing… When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria…Linus …was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there…Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Lo! In these three successions, as in a mystery and a figure … Under the three pastors,–there were manifold shepherds” Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, The Bishops of Nisibis (Jacob, Babu, Valgesh), 13,14 (A.D. 350). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“[W]hile before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures … For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?” Athanasius, To Dracontius, Epistle 49 (A.D. 355). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“[B]elieve as we believe, we, who are, by succession from the blessed apostles, bishops; confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of God, and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness for thy numerous crimes.” Lucifer of Calaris, On St. Athanasius (A.D. 361). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“[W]e shall not recede from the faith … as once laid it continues even to this say, through the tradition of the fathers, according to the succession from the apostles, even to the discussion had at Nicea against the heresy which had, at that period, sprung up.” Hilary of Poitiers, History Fragment 7 (ante A.D. 367). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus … However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement…” Epiphanius, Panarion, 27:6 (A.D. 377). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“He [St. Athanasius] is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21:8 (A.D. 380). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“For they [Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 7:33 (A.D. 384). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“It has been ordained by the apostles and their successors, that nothing be read in the Catholic Church, except the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels.” Philastrius of Brescia, On Heresies (ante A.D. 387). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!’ For to Peter succeeded Linus, Clement…Damsus, Sircius, Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is too be found.” Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops; but if any one be ordained by one bishop, let him be deprived, both himself and he that ordained him. But if there be a necessity that he have only one to ordain him, because more bishops cannot come together, as in time of persecution, or for such like causes, let him bring the suffrage of permission from more bishops.” Apostolic Constitutions, 8:27 (A.D. 400). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known.” Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“‘To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons.” What is this? Were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, “Fulfill thy ministry,’ when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, ‘Lay hands hastily on no man.’ (1 Tim. v. 22.) And again, ‘Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.’ (1 Tim. iv. 14.) Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, ‘For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife’ (Tit. i. 5, 6); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, ‘For the Bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward, not self willed:’ (Tit. i. 7.)” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Phillipians, 1:1 (A.D. 404). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“And to Timothy he says: ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.’… For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.” Jerome, To Evangelus, Epistle 146:1 (ante A.D. 420). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession.” Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-432], To the Council of Ephesus, Epistle 18 (A.D. 431). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 6:15 (A.D. 434). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

“Moreover, with respect to a certain bishop who, as the aforesaid magnificent men have told us, is prevented by infirmity of the head from administering his office, we have written to our brother and fellow-bishop Etherius, that if he should have intervals of freedom from this infirmity, he should make petition, declaring that he is not competent to fill his own place, and requesting that another be ordained to his Church. For during the life of a bishop, whom not his own fault but sickness, withdraws from the administration of his office, the sacred canons by no means allow another to be ordained in his place. But, if he at no time recovers the exercise of a sound mind, a person should be sought adorned with good life and conversation, who may be able both to take charge of souls, and look with salutary control after the causes and interests of the same church; and he should be such as may succeed to the bishop’s place in case of his surviving him. But, if there are any to be promoted to a sacred order, or to any clerical ministry, we have ordained that the matter is to be reserved and announced to our aforesaid most reverend brother Etherius, provided it belong to his diocese, so that, enquiry having then been made, if the persons are subject to no fault which the sacred canons denounce, he himself may ordain them. Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Epistle 6 (A.D. 602). ). (Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com)

Nasagot po ang lahat ng Tanong. Maraming salamat po.