Catholic Faith Defender

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

Archive for the ‘Debate’ Category


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 23, 2009


By Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS.


Madonna and Child

“O Blessed Mother please intercede to God Most High to destroy the evil of Abortion in the world. May St. Michael, the Prince of the Heavenly Host, thrust into hell Lucifer and all the evil spirits promoting the murder of children in the womb of their mothers. Amen.”

My regular readers have noticed and are aware of my exchanges with an Anonymous who claims to be a priest yet in favor of Abortion or what we call ‘Killing of Innocent Children in the Womb’. What a treachery against Life, against the Church… against God the Author of Life. For those who were not aware of the full exchange you can read them here:
As you can see, I didn’t mince words dealing with the Evil of Abortion. I call a spade, a spade. Supporting Abortion among the baptized is treachery to the Catholic Faith. The exchange is running long and the latest one from him requires point by point rebuttal because it is full of distortions of facts. His e-mail will be in Red while mine is Blue:

So, it appears to me that you are abandoning the discussion on Abortion and escalating the exchange into several other topics. Well, glad that you brought them out. But before going point by point in your last message let me return to the previous one wherein there is a line that requires clarification:

“This is the typical Catholic position: life is sacred when in the womb, and then it is not so sacred anymore. “

It is quite obvious that your Modern Prophets such as Kung, Sobrino, Curran, Haight and Boff have blinded not only your Catholic Faith but also your natural vision. Look at these:

The Catholic Church is the defender of life in Conception,

The Catholic Church is the defender of Life during the Pregnancies,

the Catholic Church is the defender of life of the Orphans and the Needy,

the Catholic Church is the keeper of the lepers and the sick,

the Catholic Church is the caretaker of the abandoned,

the Catholic Church is the defender of life against Death Penalty,

the Catholic Church is the defender of life against killing the Sick and the Elderly such as in Euthanasia

The Catholic Church serves, protects, defends, promotes life from Conception to Natural Death, from Womb to Tomb… So, your statement is filled with lies. I expect that statement to come from enemies of the Church such as the Communists and the Atheists but not from a so-called Catholic like you. May be you are a fake. You seem to be ignorant of the activities of your Church. In the Philippines alone there are more houses for charities owned by the Catholic Church than by the government. In India even if majority is Hindu the Catholic Church is highly respected because of the works of charities for life through the hands of Her missionaries.

My suggestion for you is BE REAL.

Now let me address you latest mail:

Anonymous said… Dear Abe, sorry for not replying earlier, but I was busy studying your founder. I think he was a free man and he was not afraid to think with his own brain.

Thank you very much for studying the life of our Founder St. Jerome Emiliani. Indeed, he was a free man. Freed by God through the intercession of Mary. Freed from his sins and pride and earthly glory and became a man of God, defender and protector of the weak children. He found his freedom in God, in devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and in fidelity to the Catholic Church. HE DIDN’T BECOME A TRAITOR CATHOLIC.

I agree that he was not afraid to think with his own brain but he never allowed his brain to be contaminated by heresies and immoral thoughts of RIPPING THE BABIES OUT OF THEIR MOTHERS’ WOMBS. His brain was firmly founded on the Truth of the Catholic Faith. He was one of the saints who strengthened the Church during time of wars and countered the rise of Reformation in Europe.

For example, in his prayer he writes: ” Our dear father, our Lord Jesus Christ”. It seems to me that he was not afraid to use his brain and to think out of the box.

It seems that you are ignorant of Biblical Imagery that is why you don’t know the origin of that Opening Line in the Prayer of St. Jerome Emiliani. You thought that it is unconventional when in fact it is Biblical and Liturgical because St. Jerome’s spirituality is focused on Jesus as the perfect image of the ‘Fatherhood of God’. Actually, the Biblical root of that prayer is found in one of the most beautiful and most famous Messianic Prophecy read all over the world as First Reading during Christmas Day — Isaiah 9:6 “For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.” [Douay-Rheim Version]

St. Jerome did think out of the box but he never went too far as to spouse heresies and immoral teachings. He valued human life so much that he died serving it. He died early because he was serving the sick and was burying the corpse of the dead lying on the streets at the time when Alcohol and Anti Bacteria medicines were not yet discovered. He contacted the desease himself and died calling the name of Jesus.

To claim that St. Jerome will advocate the pagan Abortion is like dreaming of imprisoning the wind. It is not just a stretch of imagination it is delusional. Your modern prophets attack the Pope and the Church but St. Jerome served God, the Church and the Pope with all his heart and strength until death.

On the other hand, you, a follower of St. Jerome, are afraid to think with your brain and keep quoting the Vatican to justify your positions and ideas.

I reject your beloved Abortion because it is EVIL. It is MURDER. It is KILLING OF INNOCENT. I take that position as a human being and as a NATURAL REACTION of Living Beings such as dogs, chicken, birds, pelican and many others. Your position is unworthy even on the level of Animality. May I ask you? Why do Bears protect their young? Did they learn it from the Vatican? How about the dogs? Are all the dogs of the world Vatican trained? How about the chicken? Are they Vatican educated? Your position is Un-Animal, Inhuman, UnChristian and Un-Catholic.

You don’t like me to quote the Vatican to justify my positions and ideas. How about you? You are clinging to the names of Sobrino, Kung, Curran, Haight et al for your position and ideas so you are a puppet of these heretics. You are afraid to use your own brain, your own Catholic Faith, your own Christianity even your own Animality because you have become a slave to the thoughts of your modern day prophets who are traitors to the Pope and to the Church and to the teachings of Christ. You are willing to abandon your Church and your Pope in order to sell your soul to the likes of Kung and Curran. I’d rather practice Kung-Fu and dance the Curacha rather than be with those demons.

I am not ashamed of quoting the Vatican because since the early life of the Church, the Bishop of Rome is considered as the ‘presider in charity’ in the Universal Church. Disputes in matters of Faith and Morals were always brought to the Bishop of Rome for definitive decisions. Besides, I find the arguments of the Popes as more reasonable and more faithful to teaching of the Jesus of Nazareth and of the Apostles and of the Prophets than your so-called modern prophets. If the Vatican will advocate Abortion like you do, then I will renounce it too. Thanks be to God, the Lord Jesus has promised special protection for the Blessed Peter: “The Gate of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It”. You must have forgotten how we started this exchanges you reacted to my post about Obama. So, you love Obama more than the Pope. You prefer Washington than Rome. Your faith is political based not religious based. I chose Rome over Washington because it is the Church of Peter and Paul.

Then, it seems tho me that he was very open to lay people.

Of course he is open to lay people because St. Jerome Emiliani is a LAYMAN. He was never ordained a priest, contrary to some biography appearing on the internet. He remained a lay person throughout his life. He was the founder and head of the Order during his lifetime even though there were priests members then. But, he respected the authority of priests under him especially their God-given authority on the Sacraments, and on their part the priests, some of whom were former Nobles like Jerome who left the life of grandeur, respected Jerome’s administrative authority.

In our Church women are still treated as second class citizens…

May be in your church but not in THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Women are honored and respected and treated with love and care in ‘OUR’ CHURCH.

The highest honor given to a human being after Jesus the God-Man is bestowed on a Woman — MARY OF NAZARETH — The Virgin who conceived and gave birth to the Messiah. All Catholic males, priests or lay, are bowing before her and calling her name in praise — Ave Maria! Hail, Mary full of grace! The fullness of grace is given to a woman. Imagine the male priests, monks, altar servers, soldiers are all kneeling with Rosaries in hand reciting Hail Mary countless of times. The Catholic Church commissioned the greatest artists such as painters of the calibre of Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, Fra Angelico to depict her in arts while the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi depicted her life in music. Other Christian groups have nothing to compare with that. They are bereft of honor for the greatest of all women.

Not only Mary the Mother of Jesus. The Catholic Church contrary to the claims of Dan Brown honors Mary Magdalene after Mary of Nazareth. She is also depicted in Arts, streets and cities and municipalities in Catholic Countries such as the Philippines are named after her, her feast is celebrated with joy and expressions of love. Churches were built in her honor – chapels, oratories, basilicas of great beauties were founded to honor the first witness of the Resurrection.

The number of female saints are too numerous to be counted. Our Catholic women saints were great writers, theologians and mystics such as St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Therese of the Child Jesus. All great saints, all declared Doctors of the Church. Other Christian groups never honored their women in such a sublime way, elevating them to the honors of the Altar. St. Catherine of Siena was even castigating, reprimanding the Pope of her time but she was also respectful of his authority or that of the priests.

You might claim that Catholic women are not given enough leadership than their Protestant counterparts. O no, that is a misimpression. Catholic Women are more powerful than their Protestant counterparts. The Abbess and the Mother General of the Religious Orders like Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her successors are top CEOs of their Congregations, Monasteries and Orders many of which own and run several Universities, Colleges, Hospitals, Orphanages, Leprosarium, Home for the Aged, etc. Almost all these Orders and Congregations are international. They are very influential and well respected in the Church and in the Society. Here in the Philippines the Assumption College of the Assumption Sisters have produced the two female presidents of the Republic of the Philippines while the Protestant U.S.A. has none.

The number of Catholic female theologians are also as numerous as those of the Protestants. The lay Catholic women are also prominent leaders in the organizations in the Church. My sister himself was a former president of the Parish Pastoral Council and during her tenure [even until now that she relinquished the office] she was respected by the priests and the males in the parish. At home, my mother was respected very much and was never treated as second class citizen.

I grew up in Catholic schools and women are always treated with respect. Any boy who showed disrespect to the girls automatically talked to seriously by the adviser teacher and the guidance counsellor. Respect of women were instilled in our hearts and mind and I don’t know who taught you that line that women are second class citizens in our Church. May be we do not belong to the same Church. Well, since I’m not anonymous and truly a certified Catholic priest, may be you are not a priest or not Catholic at all.

To add, in our Somascan School in Sorsogon — the Aemilianum College — the High School principal is a woman who is with us for the past 20 years. She is loved and respected by all. When she commands, all of us including the priests obey. And in College Department, the Dean is another woman. A prominent Doctor of Education, a well respected lady in the school and in the society. It’s the same. When she gives order we all obey.

and they are denied of the gift of PRIESTHOOD. Why? Just because the Vatican says so!!!!!Please, let us be open to the gifts of the Spirit and value the ingenuity of the feminine spirit.

Are you crazy? You are showing ignorance of the Catholic Church reasons why women cannot be ordained as priests. WOMEN CANNOT BE ORDAINED PRIESTS BECAUSE JESUS ORDAINED ONLY MALES TO THE HIERARCHY OF THE APOSTLES. And, when the Apostles were spreading the faith, they chose only males to be their successors and this is unbroken for two thousand years. The Pope says that HE HAS NO POWER TO VIOLATE THE DECISION OF CHRIST THE LORD. Mary of Nazareth, Mary of Magdala, Mary and Martha of Bethany, etc. were also leaders of the Church but not as priests. MARY OF NAZARETH, IN FACT, WAS HIGHER THAN THE APOSTLES IN DIGNITY, HONOR AND IN SANCTITY BUT THE LORD JESUS DIDN’T GIVE HER THE AUTHORITY OF PRIESTHOOD.

If you want to blame someone for the decision blame Jesus not the Vatican. You are barking on the wrong tree. You can also blame God because in the Old Testament the priests of the surrounding countries include women but the Order of Melchizedek and the Order of Aaron that He established in Israel was ALL MALES. In the New Testament, Jesus assumed the Order of Melchizedek and it is also ALL MALES. So, to choose female priesthood is to diverse into pagan culture. I want to remain in the Judaeo-Christian Faith while you prefer the pagan way.

What is wrong if women cannot be priests? They can be nuns and Catholic males cannot become nuns as well no matter what. What the males can possess the females can’t while what the female can possess the males can’t as well. Each one must recognize their gifts. The gift of priesthood was not offered by Christ to women, that’s not Vatican invention. The female priesthood is pagan invention and Canterbury invention. I prefer the Vatican than the paganized Canterbury.

If a woman wants to have male genital that’s delusional. If she insists she can have it but its artificial and fake. If a man wants a female organ its delusional. If he insists then he can cut his own away and be broken to get his wish but its artificial and fake. The priesthood of women is fake and artificial and so is the nunship of men.

Look at the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches when they accepted female priesthood the more they lost their followers. Giving in to the desires of some to the detriment of the True Faith is the road to destruction. Thanks be to God the Catholic Church is steadfast as a Rock.

O, the ingenuity of the feminine spirit is more uplifted in the Catholic Church. Give me a name of a prominent female Protestant religious leader and I will compare her to the best Catholic female leader we have. Let us see who has more prominence, more social relevance and more internationally renown and more influential. Let us compare. I will give you two samples: Mother Teresa of Calcutta [the saint of the gutter] and Mother Angelica of Alabama [the only religious leader who built a Telecommunication Empire – The EWTN – out of car garage of her convent].

Lastly, your exegesis is a little bit poor and still follows the teaching of Vatican I (1870).

Well, I know that my exegesis is poor because I am not rich and anyway I do not pretend to be an Exegete. This blog is not made for scholarly articles but for simple people. So, your criteria is out of touch with reality. You are giving me a criteria that I never claimed for my works in this Blog. What I have here are simple reflections of life and the apologetic articles I’ve been posting here are for those who are seeking basic Biblical support of the Catholic Faith. If you want something deeper then read the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA freely given in the net or read the articles on EWTN Library or in Catholic Answers. This Blog is not for the learned but for the simple. If you are not aware there is also a free Summa Theologiae in the web you can enjoy it till Kingdom come.

If my exegesis is poor yours is horrible and miserable. Imagining proof of Abortion in Mark 14,21 “Better for that man if he had never been born” that could tell us that even Jesus was open to a possible “pro-choice” position is taxing my mind. You have forgotten the fact that Jesus allowed Judas to be born. Your conclusion is hallucinatory while my position is based on concrete reality.

So, you are no longer following the Vatican I. You are a heretic after all. A Catholic must accept the documents of ALL 21 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. Where did you get the idea that Vatican I must not be followed, from your prophets? I follow Vatican II and Vatican I and Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople, Florence, Lateran, etc. and I abhor your Modern Prophets. There is never any statement in Vatican II stating that Vatican I must be discarded. Once again your heretical mentors have deceived you.

The Greek language has 2 different words for Brother and Cousin, but the evangelist chooses the word “Brother”. It is clear “why”. Because Jesus had some brothers and sister and they were known at the time of Jesus.

O, another heresy here. You are denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The heresy of Helvidius. He,he,he… Heresy begets heresies… As I thought you are not a real Catholic priest and you are not a real Catholic. I think you are one of the Berean Cowards, eh. Pretending to be one of ours. Like the Devil working in the shadows you preferred to work in the dark. This could be RODIMUS THE COWARD himself doubly incognito.

Concerning the word “brothers” of Jesus. Well, don’t forget the fact that the Apostles were Jews. Even though they were writing in Greek their culture and mentality were Jewish. In Hebrew and Aramaic language used by Jesus and the Apostles there were no word for cousins. Cousins were called “Brothers and Sisters”. Well, you can argue that the New Testament is not written in Hebrew and Aramaic but in Greek. Fine. But, SORRY FOR YOU because even in Greek it was explained by St. Paul that ADELPHOI [Brothers] is not exclusive of siblings but also referring to KINSMEN or RELATIVES:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. ” [Romans 9:3 English Standard Version]

Greek Original: ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμα ειναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν αδελφῶν μου, τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα…

Look at the original Greek. The word used for brothers is ADELPHON and for kinsmen SUGGENON KATA SARKA. St. Paul speaks of his brothers who are not his siblings but Kinsmen — they are relatives according to the flesh.

If you will study the use of Adelphos or Adelphoi in Greek Bible you will find that it is used about 9 or 12 times with other meanings beside blood brethren.

Moreover, this is not against the profession of Faith that defines our Catholicity. I keep praying for you and your Major Superiors. May St. Jerome enlighten and open your heart!!!!

Thank you once again for your prayers. If you mean St. Jerome enlightening me to be pro-Abortion. You are hallucinating. The wrath of God will come upon those who are murdering children especially innocent children in the womb. Their innocent blood spilled on the ground cry out to heaven for Justice like the blood of Abel. Instead, St. Jerome is praying for your conversion to the Truth.



Posted in Abortion, Debate, Moral Issue, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | 1 Comment »

“ABORTION Dialogue”

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 18, 2009



All the Animals shown above are protected by laws of the United States except the Human Child in the Womb. This is essentially incompatible with the Catholic Faith. [The photo is taken from the Blog of Steve Ray.]
Last week I received a message in the comment section about my earlier post on the Victory of Life and of the Sanctity of Marriage:
The sender seemed to be a priest yet decided to remain anonymous. Here is the messages exchange between us:
Anonymous said… Dear Father Abe,I think Barack Obama is a great president and we don’t have to judge him just because of the issue of the abortion. The mystery of life is greater than that. I thank God every day when I celebrate Mass that he was chosen to guide and enlighten the American people. May God Bless Obama and America. February 3, 2009 8:15 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… Dear Anonymous,Based on your letter you are a priest. Are you a Catholic priest?Now, I am not judging Barrack Obama. I am one of those who rejoiced with his election as the First Black President of the most powerful nation on earth. I recognize what is good with Obama but I also have to reject what is not good in him.On the other hand, ABORTION IS EVIL BECAUSE IT IS A MURDER OF INNOCENT AND HELPLESS CHILDREN. It is barbaric and inhuman. It’s not even worthy on the level of the animals because Chicken, Eagles, Dogs, etc. are protective of their young. Therefore, your claim that the Mystery of Life is greater than Abortion doesn’t hold water. The Mystery of Life is that GOD GIVES LIFE. He doesn’t kill. Abortion is evil because it destroys life at its initial stage. It is equal with the brutality of Herod.YOUR POSITION IS NOT CATHOLIC. IF YOU ARE A ROMAN CATHOLIC BY HOLDING THAT VIEW ON ABORTION YOU ARE A TRAITOR TO THE MEREST CHILDREN AND A TRAITOR TO THE OFFICIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS THE FIRST RIGHT OF MAN. BY DESTROYING THAT RIGHT WHAT WILL BECOME OF US? WE HAVE RIGHTS FOR MONKEYS, FOR PETS, FOR COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS EVEN GIVING THEM LEGAL PERSONALITIES. I CANNOT IN CONSCIENCE AND IN FAITH ACCEPT ABORTION. IT IS INHUMAN, UNBIBLICAL, UNCHRISTIAN, UNCATHOLIC AND UNANIMAL. February 3, 2009 9:19 AM

Anonymous said… Dear Father, you call me a traitor and you want to be a “Defensor Fidei”. However, you like Harry Potter and in this way you don’t follow the teachings of our beloved Pope Benedict xvi as he wrote 6 years ago:Vatican CityMarch 7, 2003 Esteemed and dear Ms. Kuby!Many thanks for your kind letter of February 20th and the informative book which you sent me in the same mail. It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.I would like to suggest that you write to Mr. Peter Fleetwood, (Pontifical Council of Culture, Piazza S. Calisto 16, I00153 Rome) directly and to send him your book.Sincere Greetings and Blessings,+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger February 8, 2009 12:33 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… Dear Anonymous,SO, you are accepting the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger on Harry Potter yet you are favoring ABORTION which is condemned by all Popes in numerous OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH. In my presentation of Harry Potter, I categorically expressed the evil of Sorcery and Witchcraft and Superstitious Beliefs and Divinations as contrary to the CAtholic Faith. I simply read the Harry Potter in the perspective of a story based on struggle between Good and Evil just like the Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings.However, your support of ABORTION IS INTRINSICALLY EVIL AND THAT IS DIRECT TREACHERY AGAINST THE FAITH. If the Holy Father or the Holy See will release an official declaration or an Encyclical prohibiting the Harry Potter novels then I will burn all of them in obedience to the Vicar of Christ.ABORTION IS UNACCEPTABLE IN THE CHURCH and it is unacceptable here. You see, you cannot even give your identity because it will put you into the attention of the hierarchy of the Church.You are seeing a feeble in the Harry Potter but the huge mountain of Abortion you are denying.Im not angry at you personally but I am simply surprised that Abortion has found a refuge in you. I hope and pray that you are not one of its proponents.I didn’t call you a traitor. I simply stated that as a Roman Catholic one is a traitor if he holds Abortion. Now, do you support Abortion? If you do not then you are not a traitor. If you do then you are a traitor. If you want to see all the Biblical citations and Patristics and Papal teachings against abortions then read EVANGELIUM VITAE [THE GOSPEL OF LIFE] — the Encyclical of POPE JOHN PAUL THE GREAT.I do hope that you are a faithful Catholic. Let us join hands in combatting the evil of Abortion and let us join hands combatting the evil of witchcraft and sorcery. February 8, 2009 10:35 AM

Anonymous said… Dear father, why do we base our faith and catholicity on one issue, such as abortion.It was never the test case for orthodox belief or morality till very recently. The Church settled the fundamentals of faith early on with the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed. Those were the agreed upon test questions. They were the bottom line for the first 2000 years. When and why did that change so that I am called a “Traitor”? February 9, 2009 9:15 AM
Dear Anonymous,

The Deposit of the Faith is composed of Faith and Morals. The articles of Faith are contained in the 12 major Articles in Nicene Creed. The Moral Teachings of the Church are based on the 10 Commandments and elucidated further by Sacred Scriptures, Apostolic Witness, Patristic Sources and the Magisterial Teachings of the Popes throughout the centuries.
“You shall not procure ABORTION, nor destroy a new-born child.” [Didache #2]
“Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born. Thou shalt not withhold thy hand from thy son or daughter, but from their youth thou shalt teach them the fear of God.” [Epistle of Barnabas 19:5]
If a woman conceives in adultery and then has an abortion, she may not commune again, even as death approaches, because she has sinned twice.” [Council of Elvira c. 306 Canon #63]
This command from some of the earliest documents of the Church arising from Apostolic Era and the succeeding centuries is absolutely based on Sacred Scriptures. Killing of Innocent Child in the womb is a violation of the Divine Command ‘You shall not kill’. From Old Testament this is already clear:
Ex 21:22-25 22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a Miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Imagine that. How much more the intentional killing of the child in the womb. The declaration of love, blessing and protection of the unborn is superflously given in the Sacred Scriptures that only those who reject the authority of the Word of God and the Official Interpretation of the Church will teach the contrary:
Psalm 22:10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God. [It is obvious that the God of the Children in the Womb and the god of the pro Abortion is different.]
Psalm 71:6 From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother’s womb. I will ever praise you. [How about changing it to ‘From my mother’s womb you aborted me intentionally’ against the will of my God who loves me.]
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. [How about ‘While my God was knitting me in the womb you murdered me, killed me with clinical instruments’]
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. [Obviously the child in the womb is the weakest human person.]
Isaiah 44:2 This is what the LORD says— He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. [The Lord is forming in the womb the abortionists kill what the Lord is forming.]
Isaiah 49:1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. [There are people who are worst than animals who forget the child in the womb.]
Jeremiah 1:4-5 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. [The abortionists mush have killed future prophets, doctors, teachers, priests and nuns and even saints in the babies they aborted.]


Luke 1:15 For he [St. John the Baptist] shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. [The grace of God is given to human person beginning from the mother’s womb.]
Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. [The child John the Baptist honored the presence of the Lord Jesus even from his mother’s womb. Every pregnant woman when checked by the doctor is found having a living being pulsating inside their womb.]
The Word of God is solid in its defense of the Dignity and Value of human life from Conception to Natural Death. This is proclaimed by the Patriarchs and Prophets and by Apostles and Evangelists. As St. Paul testified:
Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, [a] and who called me by his grace [Footnotes: Galatians 1:15 Greek set me apart from my mother’s womb]
The entire Sacred Scriptures cry out to each one of us to love, protect, defend and serve life. The first destroyer of life is Abortion and therefore there is no middle ground in this case. We either take the side of Life by rejecting it or we take the side of Evil by supporting it.
Dear Anonymous, you keep on insisting that I called you a ‘Traitor’. Please read our exchanges carefully. I didn’t refer to your person as a traitor, how can I? I do not even know your name. How can I pinpoint on someone whose identity is hidden in the dark. There are so many people sending messages here anonymously. I respect them but I do not hesitate to oppose or argue on something that is contrary to the Faith. Abortion is essentially contrary to the Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church. I refer to those who are advocating Abortion as traitors and have invited you to join us opposing it. Instead, of accepting my invitation you appear to be upset that I called you a ‘Traitor’. Well, IF INDEED YOU ARE A CATHOLIC PRIEST and PRO ABORTION I REALLY WANT TO CALL YOU A TRAITOR. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL AND MAY THE SOULS OF THE MURDERED-ABORTED CHILDREN INTERCEDE FOR YOUR SOUL BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF GOD.
If you will read the Introduction of the Gospel, it is a proclaimation of the Birth of a Child by whom Salvation comes. The Angels and the Saints rejoiced at His Birth and since then it has created Glad Tidings to all People of Good Will. Then the forces of evil works so hard to destroy and kill that Child. The last Book of the Bible, The Book of Revelation declares that the Red Dragon who is Satan was trying with all his might to devour the Child in the Womb of the Woman Clothed with the Sun [Rev 12:4] but God worked miracles to protect the Child and His Mother Mary. That DRAGON is the progenitor of Abortion. It came from Satan [Rev 12:9] the Deceiver of Mankind, the ancient Serpent who poisoned our First Parents. The Abortionists are agents of death and the supporters of such evil are the same whether they are aware of it or not. Abortion is evil and we cannot accept it. That is the reason why the most beloved icon in the Catholic Church is that of Madonna and Child. The Lord of Life gave us Salvation because He became a Child and that the Blessed Mother accepted Him in love as her Son.
It is true that Abortion is only one of the issues in Faith and Morals but it is Essential. That is why those who procure Abortions and participated in its realization automatically earn Latae Sententiae Excommunication.
ARE YOU REALLY A CATHOLIC PRIEST? I have a strong doubt if you really are because you seem to be ignorant of the reasons of the Church against Abortion. To say that it is simply a recent issue smacks of basic ignorance that is unworthy of any Catholic priests all of whom studied Catholic Ethics and Morally for several years.
I want to conclude this post with this powerful words:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority … to defend the lives of the innocent … among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates … do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven (POPE PIUS XI, Casti Connubii No. 67).


Posted in Abortion, Debate, Moral Issue | 4 Comments »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009



Can I take a Look at your Face Pastor Berean?

Few days ago I posted about the visit Bro. Franz and I made as a courtesy to Bro. Henry Siy, the Chairman of Defensores and Bro. Marwil Llasos. I mentioned that the Berean Pastors are refusing to accept the CHALLENGE OF CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS TO DEBATE THEM IN PUBLIC. Well, actually this is what I wrote:

“The two informed us that personal communications are on-going between the Berean pastors and our apologists. We have offered them the challenge for public debates but they politely declined. They also refused to defend in public the books of Anthony Pezzota despite the fact that it is in their recommended list. As usual Bro. Mars regaled us with his wit and humor against the enemies of the faith.”

That small paragraph seems to have incensed the Bereans… [well, they do not use Incense… that is exclusive to the Angels in the Book of Revelation and the Roman Catholic Church acolytes]. It earned their attention to the point that they called the Prophet Elijah from his chariot of fire in Heaven and sent him back to earth to visit this Blog. That Prophet if indeed he is the real Elijah appeared to be harmless. Here is his message:

Anonymous said…


I am a moderator in the Bereans forum.. I just wanna ask coz you said here..[quote]The two informed us that personal communications are on-going between the Berean pastors and our apologists.[/quote]May I ask who are the Berean pastors that you are sayin? Just askin…


Propeta Elias

Confronted by an alleged Prophet I decided to summon the Patriarch Abraham the Justified One in order to respond on my behalf. Here is the answer of the Venerable Ancestor:
Hi to you too,
Grace and Peace be upon you.
Thank you very much for visiting our blog.
Concerning the names of your pastors in direct communication with the Defensores leaders I don’t think that it is proper for me to reveal their name in public because they are not personally communicating with me. Therefore, I suggest that you ask your pastors who among them are discussing with our apologists. Or you can direct the question to our Defensores Fidei chairman Bro. Henry Siy. For sure you have his address and contact number or e-mail.
My latest news is that your pastors refused the challenge for a formal debate.
The challenge of Atty. Llasos to the Berean pastors to defend in public the anti-Marian attacks of Anthony Pezzota is public. It was posted in his blog and in mine and in many other sites. If ever you wish to accept that challenge we will be very glad. The debate topic is not limited to Marian doctrines, it could be your cherished Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura or OSAS, etc.
Besides Bro. Mars, the Catholic Faith Defenders of Cebu and Davao are also eager to debate you and your company in the public plaza of the said cities.
Another reason why I don’t want to reveal the names of your pastors publicly because your company seems to be comfortable being incognito. Unlike our apologists whose faces and identity are revealed in public. Very interesting isn’t it?
We are praying for the day that just like James White and Walter Martin, the Berean pastors will have the courage to debate their Catholic counterparts in public plazas or in front of the camera in a face to face encounter.
Anyway, we respect your decision to remain anonymous and to refuse formal debates. It’s your choice. Just inform us if you are ready. Bro. El Cid is awaiting your reply with bated breath.
Patriarch Abraham
Since then I haven’t heard again from Prophet Elijah. I supposed that he returned to heaven with a chariot of fire leaving behind his cloak to the Prophet Elisha. But, no Elisha appeared as well instead I was informed by KAPATAS that a certain Rodimus posted in the Berean Forum entitled Fr. Abe Arganiosa’s Inaccuracy.
What a very Prophetic Act from the Bereans. If my message is inaccurate I expect their ‘honorable’ and ‘justified’ and ‘saved’ and ‘predestined’ prophets or mercinaries to respond in my Blog and settle the score here. If ever there is something wrong with what I have written then I can correct or their comments and explanations in the comment section will suffice. Instead they made a topic out of me in their Forum. Muchas Gracias!
There are some points I want to clarify on this matter:
1. Now, since our Blog is being read by Catholic Apologists I have received a lot of information from several Catholic Apologists who sent FORMAL LETTERS OF DEBATE CHALLENGE TO RODIMUS AND HIS COHORTS FOR A ONE ON ONE, FACE TO FACE MEET YET NOT A SINGLE LETTER HAS BEEN ANSWERED. The Challenge of Bro. Mars is only a tip of a Rock Mountain called Petros. Prof. Rey Entila of Catholic Faith Defender sent a formal letter as well through Rodimus’ pastor in Davao but NO ANSWER. Then, Bro. Ryan Mejillano the young, topnotch debater of Catholic Faith Defender in Davao went to the Office of Pastor Jurem in Davao personally but NO RESPONSE at all. Pastor Jurem didn’t even appear to meet our apologist
I remember that during the 80’s the Evangelicals were so courageous. They were issuing challenges left and right. And many Catholics were left helpless against their vicious attacks. Now, it seems that they have lost their courage. Is this Fear or simply Cowardice?
2. ARE THE BEREANS EVANGELICALS? Because as far as I know Christians are not hiding anytime, anywhere. The Catholics in Baghdad, in China and in Africa are proudly proclaiming their faith in public and the same thing for our Apologists here in the Philippines. Our names, addresses and photos are there for everybody to see and to enjoy. For instance, I do not even know who is Rodimus. Is it a bird, a plane, a food, an animal or what? Are his posts in the Bereans really a work of a single person or a collective effort of a group of pastors. The reason for their hiding of identity is pathetic. They simply declare to others that they are afraid for their lives or afraid of their evil doings to be unearthed or afraid to be taken into task for what they have written.
3. The apparent disunity in the Bereans. Once I read a post there claiming that they are united with each other. Then when Bro. El Cid debated them in a post where they attacked the sinful acts of priests, he fought back and pointed to the more numerous and officially upheld immoralities of their pastors. In order to save their hide from shame The Bereans ‘disowned’ their fellow Baptists and fellow Evangelicals.
The same is happening now with Pezzota. They have recommended the books of Anthony Pezzota, now that they are under attack they don’t want to defend them. They are finger pointing for the one responsible.
They have reasons to be weary. In the United States Dr. Walter Martin lost credebility after his series of debates with Fr. Pacwa while James White is getting older and weaker after debating about 30 of our Catholic Apologists while he seems to be alone on their side. Those who are debating him are mostly top notch pastors converted to the Catholic Church. And our list of Apologists in line ready to debate White is too long for this post.
That post of Rodimus is actually a tranquilizer to lessen his shame that Challenges are proliferating on the nets yet he is avoiding them all. He wants to save face in front of his readers in order to regain some dignity despite the obvious refusal to take on the Catholic Challenge. He prefers the forum style of debate wherein his ingenuity for ‘copy-paste’ is being used to the full. Nakakahiya.
Rodimus is lying when he denied that the Berean Pastors and DFF Apologists are in communication because he himself wrote in their forum that their Justyn met with DFF. And I have proofs that Rodimus himself is exchanging messages with Bro. Carlos Antonio Palad on Sola Scriptura and exchanging e-mails even with Bro. Mars on Marian issues. These are already two Bereans and two DFF apologists so I am justified of my use of plural form when referring about communication between apologists of both sides.
And it is equally true that Rodimus and the other Bereans are refusing to take the formal Challenges of Catholic Apologists for a one on one, face to face debate. If this claim is inaccurate then where is their official announcement of acceptance of the said challenges? Nothing in English. Nada in Spanish. In Russian NYET NYET!

Posted in Bereans, Debate | Leave a Comment »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos’ Reply to Rodimus of the Bereans


It all started when I posted in my blog a critique of Chapter 11 of Dr. Anthony Pezzotta’s Truth Encounter. After some time, I learned that the evangelical Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans) disclaimed that it is endorsing Dr. Pezzotta’s book. This disclaimer was published in the Bereans forum. Also, one of the moderators of the Bereans informed me through email that his group is not endorsing Dr. Pezzotta’s book against Roman Catholicism. This disclaimer from the Bereans meant a little victory for this Catholic apologist. I realized that Dr. Pezzotta is virtually alone in his fight against the Catholic Church considering that his brothers in the Bereans do not even take up his cudgels.

However, the same moderator of the Bereans, one who hides behind the pseudonym RODIMUS, raised some questions regarding the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I welcomed his email with delight as in fact I told him that I was delighted to receive an email from him. Despite my initial hesitation to respond to his email because his true identity was shrouded in utmost secrecy, I replied to his email by acknowledging it and honored him as a “brother.” In that email, he specifically told me to take my time in answering back. So I did. That was how much I trusted this Christian brother. I never had any reason to doubt his word. I accorded him full faith and credit. In the first place, he seemed to be very respectful and nice.

I was genuinely sincere when I told him that I was delighted to receive his email. I told myself that finally I would have a dialogue partner who may be reasonable, fair and a sincere seeker for the truth. What I had in mind was entering into an honest and scholarly dialogue with an evangelical friend. That way, I believed that we would be raising the standard of apologetics in this country – far different from what the ADD and INC are doing.

My idea was to imitate the exchanges between MR. DWIGHT LONGENECKER (Catholic) and MR. DAVID GUSTAFSON (Evangelical). Theirs was a friendly debate – sans the acrimony and rancor that are usually noticed in religious discussions. The antagonists in fact published their discussion. The output was the book Mary: A Catholic Evangelical Debate published by Brazos Press in 2003. I purchased that book immediately after I received the email from RODIMUS. I intended to pattern our discussion to the style and manner of those two respected gentlemen. Mr. J.I. Packer, an evangelical who wrote a Foreword in the book says –

“I liked this book, and commend it, for several reasons.

First of all, I appreciated its tone. It is a fine example of a literary form that is deservedly popular nowadays in Christian circles, namely the friendly debate. In debates of this kind, which are more than formal dialogues or informal chat while remaining less than all-out war, empathy moderates argument, the significance of positions to their protagonists is probed, and the verdict that each is partly right and partly wrong becomes possible. Such interaction gets readers further faster than old-fashioned polemics can do, and this is doubly so when, as here, questions are set at key points to draw them into the conversation on their own account. Full marks, then, for attitude and angle. And the exchange itself is well-informed, fair-minded, and clearheaded. Full marks again” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 13].

I also purchased the book Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) by Tim Perry. I like Prof. Tim Perry and his book a lot. Although I disagree with him on so many points, I respect his honesty and scholarship. Prof. Tim Perry’s credentials are by any standards superior to RODIMUS. Prof. Perry is an Associate of Theology in Providence Collge (Manitoba, Canada), columnist for Faith Today and a published author.

I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position. My sense of justice and fairness as a human rights lawyer cannot permit anything less.

Sadly, my romantic notion of a beautiful and amicable discourse vanished in thin air. I was jolted by a rude reality check.

This happened last February 6, 2009 when I again received an email from the same Bereans moderator, RODIMUS. He sent me another query regarding the position of Mr. Jason Evert of Catholic Answers. He nicely told me that he was not following up on my answer but was just giving another question.

Little did I suspect that, while not yet waiting for my answer (in fact even before he emailed me his question) RODIMUS already posted in his blog an article with a very catchy title: CATHOLIC ANSWERS VERSUS DEFENSORES FIDEI. The impression he was obviously trying to convey is that the two Catholic apologetics organizations, one in the U.S. and the other in the Philippines, are opposed to each other. He said: “However, I have noted conflicting positions from two Roman Catholic apologists. One is from the USA, Jason Evert, a writer of Catholic Answers. And the other is Atty. Marwil Llasos, a resource person for Mariology of the Defensores Fidei Foundation in the Philippines.” RODIMUS also concluded: “The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many.”

To be honest, I was hurt, nay, felt betrayed. All the while I thought that he would wait for my response before he would post anything. I was wrong. It turned out that even before he got my answer, he already made his mind and posted in his blog his accusations and conclusions against me and Defensores Fidei Foundation of which I am a member, the Catholic Church, and more importantly, the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity.

I felt bad by this “sneak attack,” if I may call it that. I was not upset by his accusations because I know in my heart of hearts that I can answer them. What I resent was the manner by which he wanted to deliver his point or message across. Upon reading his blog, I posted a comment there reminding him of his promise: “I remember you said that I can take my time and you will wait for my response patiently. I am holding on to that assurance from you. However, I didn’t know that you already posted the issue here in your blog.”

I also pleaded to his readers to suspend their judgment before I have responded to the issues raised by RODIMUS. I wrote: “To those who may have read your blog, may I appeal that they withold their judgment before I have given my piece.” For good measure, I quoted Proverbs 18:13 from God’s Word Translation that says: “Whoever gives an answer before he listens is stupid and shameful.”

Sadly, the actuations of RODIMUS reminded me of what the Japanese Empire did at the outbreak of WWII. While Japanese ambassadors were talking peace and professing friendship at Washington, DC, the Japs were already attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. That prompted US President Franklin D. Roosevelt denounced such perfidious and cowardly attack: “This is a day of infamy.”

I believe that what RODIMUS did was rather perfidious and sly. I don’t expect it from the hands of a Christian brother. With all due respect, I found it to be un-Christian. Last time I checked the Sacred Scriptures which we both profess to be the Word of God, treachery is not one of the Christian virtues. I was really very much disappointed.

At any rate, let me respond briefly to the attacks of the Berean’s RODIMUS.

My initial impression of RODIMUSarticle is that it is more polemical rather than scholarly. It is even amateurish and puerile, to say the least.

The first tactic that I noticed is the classic Divide and Conquer Tactic. RODIMUS skillfully made it appear that the US-based CATHOLIC ANSWERS and our very own DEFENSORES FIDEI contradict each other’s position. Nothing can be farther than the truth. As I will explain, the supposed contradiction is more apparent rather than real.

I understand why RODIMUS employed that tactic. Misery loves company. I think that he is privy to the divisions, if not contradictions, extant in evangelicalism that he is now trying with all his might to prove that Catholics are also divided as the evangelicals are. This is the case of the pot calling the kettle black.

RODIMUS harped on Mr. Evert’s caveat: “Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: ‘Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.’ That’s not the Catholic position.” He pitted Mr. Everet’s statement to my argument that James, Joses, Judas and Simon mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Mathew 13:55-56 are the “brothers” of Jesus because they are His “cousins.”

I noticed that RODIMUS was only interested in my conclusion. He did not even bother to contest, much less refute, the premises on which I predicated my conclusion. It seems to me that my friend’s desire is merely to involve me in contradiction.

As I stated earlier, the contradiction in the mind of my good friend RODIMUS is only apparent rather than real. Mr. Evert merely stated his conclusion that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are actually His cousins. It simply means that the Lord’s brothers should not always be taken to mean as His cousins simply because the word “brother” in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic have a more encompassing meaning. The Bible offers various meanings to “brothers” which cannot be restricted to siblings alone. Thus, it is equally true that it is not the official position of the Catholic Church that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus may not be His “cousins.” May I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church –

“Against this doctrine [of perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.” [par. 500, Catechism of the Catholic Church (Manila: ECCE Word and Life Publications, 1994) p. 124]. (emphasis added)

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Everet is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.” The Church’s canon law as well as our own Family Code prohibits marriage between cousins up to a certain degree because of the close blood relationship that exists between them. Thus, as far as I’m concerned, my cousins are my close relatives. I just don’t know if RODIMUS considers his cousins as distant relatives.

Again, let us read Mr. Evert’s statement –

“Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: “Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.” That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

RODIMUS made a serious misreading of Mr. Evert’s statement. RODIMUS claims that Mr. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ’s cousins; it’s a misconceptionRODIMUS.” RODIMUS’ conclusion is not accurate. He clearly misrepresents Mr. Evert’s view. Mr. Evert did not categorically say, as RODIMUS would have us believe, that Jesus brothers are not His cousins. In fact, all that Mr. Evert is saying is that “we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins.” Furthermore, Mr. Evert theoretically argued that “the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would have not been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins.” Finally, Mr. Evert pointerd out: “If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”
Mr. Evert and I are in full agreement that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are not the children of Mary. Mr. Evert was categorical: “All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary.” Where’s the contradiction there? In my critique of Dr. Pezzotta, I also mentioned that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not said to be the “children of Mary.”

RODIMUS never realized that the arguments in support of Catholic teachings constitute a vast arsenal. There are many weapons in that arsenal. Catholic apologists may choose the weapon that best suits them. There are so many ways to skin a cat.

What is necessary in this discussion is that Catholics, apologist or not, agree on essential things. It’s enough that we are united in our belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The thesis to be proven, which the Church affirms and both I and Mr. Evert are unanimous about, is that the so-called “brothers” of Our Lord are not the children of Mary. There is so much room for argumentation on how one arrives at that conclusion. As I said, we are free to choose from our arsenal the weapon that best suits us.

In disputations, there is such a thing as “alternative argumentation.” This is case where we argue “assuming ex gratia argumenti” or “assuming arguendo.” In English, it goes something like “granting for the sake of argument” or “granting without admitting.” This is a valid form of argumentation.

That is what Mr. Evert and I precisely did! We presented alternative arguments. These alternative arguments in no way compromise the thesis that the “brothers” of the Lord were not children of Mary.

I don’t know what makes it difficult for RODIMUS to see that. Maybe, his anti-Catholic bigotry already clouded his thinking which I hope not.
Notice how Mr. Evert constructed his argument:

1. The Church affirms that they were not children of Mary;
2. We can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins;
3. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage;
4. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins.
5. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation.
6. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

It is clear that Mr. Evert used alternative arguments as can be noticed in the words he employed: “could have been;” “probably would not have been,” “if even” (or “even if” – i.e., “assuming for the sake of argument”).

Thus said, the sweeping and hasty conclusion of RODIMUS that “The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many,” is utterly baseless. It has no leg to stand on.

Without having proven anything, RODIMUS categorically concluded that Mary had other children aside from Jesus. He said: “They (sic) way I see it, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is impossible to be proven because the New Testament has many verses that proves that Mary had other children after giving birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55 and 56 is very comprehensive about it.”

This is assumptio non probata. RODIMUS claims that Mary’s perpetual virginity is impossible to be proven because the New Testament has many verses that proves (sic) that Mary had other children after giving birth of Christ. What are these many verses? RODIMUS mentioned only Matthew 13:55-56 which is allegedly “very comprehensive about it.”

I’m sorry to state that RODIMUS statement that Mary had other children is an UNBIBLICAL assertion. Now I want RODIMUS to show me only two (2) verses in the Bible to prove his point:

(1) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”
(2) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”

Not unless RODIMUS can show these two verses, he has failed to debunk the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I have other questions to ask but I will reserve them in some future time. It would suffice for the moment for RODIMUS to give me these two verses.

RODIMUS reliance on Matthew 13:55-56 as the supposedly “very comprehensive” verse that proves that Mary had other children is misplaced. The verse does not say say that the “brothers” of Jesus are the children of Mary. In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

Without any shred of proof acceptable to the reasonable mind, RODIMUS concluded that the “the Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them.” This brazen accusation holds no water.

Who are these desperate Roman Catholics who concocted the “spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

When did these desperate Roman Catholics concoct the spurious “spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

I want RODIMUS or any of his colleagues in the Bereans to tell me the exact day, month and year when the Catholic Church concocted the “theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Exodus 23:1 says: >“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”

I am also bothered by RODIMUS fixation on the Catholic Church as though it is the only church that teaches Mary’s perpetual virginity. It creates the impression that only Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. My friend must have forgotten that there are also such things as the Orthodox churches who believe the same dogma as we Catholics do.

I studied the history of the early Church and I found out that we Catholics who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity are in good company. Early Christians, we call them Church Fathers, believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. These men of learning and piety include Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius: Epiphanius of Salamis Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Leo I.

Jerome, the great Scripture scholar, stingingly rebuked Helvidius in a treatise on Mary’s perpetual virginity: “I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarcely known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defending….! I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her Son was born” [St. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate Beatae Mariae adversus Helvidium. Migne, Patrology, PL 23, 183-206. For more excerpts on the topic, see: William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. II (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1979) 190-191].

On the other hand, I also found out that the early opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity were known as the Antidicomarianites. These were an Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400. They were so designated as the “opponents of Mary.” The other heretics who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity were the Ebionites. They were the first to maintain that Our Lord was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents. Later on, they modified it so as to teach that, although Our Lord was born of Mary through the Holy Spirit, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children (modern Protestants and evangelicals like RODIMUS follow this view). The sect denied the formula “ever-Virgin Mary” used in the Greek and Latin liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940). Certain Arians, Eudocius and Eunomius – all heretics! – were great supporters of the teaching. The sect attained its greatest development in Arabia towards the end of the fourth century, and the name Antidicomarianites was specifically applied to it by St. Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote vigorously against them in an interesting letter giving the history of the doctrine and presenting proofs of its falsity (St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Contra Haeres., lxxviii, 1033 sqq.). [Cf. Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1999) 122-123].

Beware of the company you keep, RODIMUS.

Why did the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, teach the heretics the truth which He did not teach mainstream and orthodox Christians?

Even the Reformers believed the “concocted spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. … Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

John Calvin (1509-1564):

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531):

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

These Reformers read the same Bible as RODIMUS and other evangelicals read. How come they had a different conclusion? In fact, my question to modern day Protestants is why they do not anymore believe in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, a doctrine which was asserted and defended even by their very own founders. The contradiction it seems lies in the position of the Reformers and modern evangelicals.

In believing Mary’s perpetual virginity, were the Reformers heretics? If so, Protestantism (and all its offshoots) was founded by heretics. If they were wrong on Mary’s perpetual virginity, they can be wrong on so many things.

If the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is not heresy, then what is my good friend and brother RODIMUS crowing about?

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | 1 Comment »

Challenge for Mr. Henry Arganda

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 3, 2009

Challenge for Mr. Henry Arganda

By Bro. G-one Paisones

Since we had been posting in our site many articles regarding apologetics, we also received many comments, questions, and even criticisms.

One of these critics is Mr. Henry Arganda whose affiliation is a member of fourth Watch Pentecostal Missionary Church Christ according to him. According to him, he is also a debater of the said Protestant cult.

Mr. Arganda, and I have a lot of exchanging Biblical dialogue (see: Mr. Arganda always attack the true church founded by Christ; he often ask many questions and sometimes make an ad Hominin arguments against the Catholic Faith Defenders.

As a member of the true Church Founded by Christ; I have been countering Mr. Henry Arganda’s contention; I already answered all his questions (except the one that Mr. Henry challenge me) and denied his ad hominim attacks against the Catholic Faith Defenders- with my logical and Biblical reasoning.

When I asked questions to Mr. Henry Arganda, he did not answer all the questions, instead he ask questions repeatedly.

The irony is that Mr. Henry Arganda tackles things, which I do not ask.

Mr. Arganda posted many comments to our site; those contain criticism and evil propaganda to attack the Catholic Church.

Since I could no longer prohibited Mr. Arganda’s comments to our site; —


The suggested Topics are:


“Resolve that the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ according to the Bible and standard references”

-I am (G-one Paisones) the one who present the affirmative side

-Henry Arganda presents the negative side

-Catholic Church Doctrine will not be included in this debate (It is the topic#2 of the propose public debate)


“Resolve that the Catholic Church’s doctrines are of Satan according to the Bible and standard references”

-Henry Arganda presents the affirmative side

-G-one Paisones presents the negative side


“Resolve that the 4th Watch Pentecostal Missionary Church Christ is the true church founded by Jesus Christ according to the Bible and Standard references”

-Henry Arganda presents the affirmative side

-G-one Paisones presents the negative side

As of now I could no longer accepts any proxies of Mr. Henry Arganda because in previous month he failed to do so.



Mr. Arganda if you hold the truth; then you must see me face-to-face in a formal public debate!

Posted in Debate | 10 Comments »

Justification By Faith Debate

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on January 7, 2009

Justification By Faith Debate

Robert Sungenis and James White debate the issue of Sola Fide. Are we justified by faith alone, or is it not by faith alone? Are works necessary for Salvation? What role does grace play?

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D.
President Catholic Apologetics International
Principal Apologist

Robert founded CAI in 1993. His 19 years growing up Catholic, 18 years through various Protestant denominations, and now a revert back to Catholicism, gives him a unique vantage point for Catholic apologetics.


James White, B.A., M.A., Th. D.

Director Alpha & Omega Ministries

White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.


Part 1 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 2 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 3 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 4 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 5 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 6 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 7 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 8 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 9 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 10 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 11 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 12 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 13 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 14 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 15 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 16 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 17 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 18 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 19 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 20 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 21 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 22 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 23 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 24 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Part 25 of 25 Justification By Faith – Sungenis vs White

Posted in Debate | Leave a Comment »

The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (debate) (Cebuano)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on January 7, 2009

The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (debate)

Bro. G-one with Atty. Bacalso VS Atheist/freethinker

“Debate live in Bombo Radyo Cebu”


Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, Debate, MP3 Visayan Apologetics | 1 Comment »

Catholic Faith Defenders Vs. Iglesia ni Cristo Debate

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on July 30, 2008


Catholic Faith Defenders Journal (January 1982) Page 32

(By: G-one Paisones CFD member)


Catholic Faith Defenders of the Philippines Inc.

Dipolog Chapter Dipolog City

Views and Comments on the CFD Public Debate with

The Iglesia ni Cristo and Rally at the ZN Cultural and

Sports Center, Dipolog City on December 12-13, 1981

Tema sa Debate

  1. Pamatud-an ko nga ang Iglesia ni Cristo nga giwale ug giparehistro ni Igsuon Felix Manalo sa tuig 1914 maoy matuod nga Iglesia nga gitukod ni Kristo ug pagaluwason sa adlaw sa paghukom sumala sa Biblia ug mga referencia.

(TAGALOG: Patutunayan ko na ang Iglesia ni Cristo na pinahayag (Preached) at pinarehistro (Registered) ni kapatid Felix Manalo sa taong 1914 ang tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo at ang ililigtas sa araw ng paghahatol ayon sa Biblia at mga referencia.)

2.Pamatud-an ko nga ang Santo Papa sa Roma mao ang mapintas nga mananap nga nagdala sa numero 666 sumala sa Biblia ug mga standard nga referencia.

(TAGALOG: Patutunayan ko na ang Santo Papa sa Roma ay ang mabangis na hayop na nagdadala ng numerong 666 ayon sa Biblia at mga standard na referencia.)


Affirmative Side

Iglesia ni Cristo Team

1. Bro. Mateo Liwanag

2. Bro. Avelino Tongol

3. Bro. Avelino Mosquida

4. Bro. Felizardo Pama

5. (Anonymous)

Negative Side

Catholic Faith Defenders Team

1. Bro. Socrates Fernandez

2. Bro. Marcelo Bacalso

3. Bro. Teofilo Tumulak

4. Bro. Alfonso Resuento

5. Bro. Luis Baquirquir



Atty. Josie Sar. Pacatang

Atty. Senen O. Angeles

(With tagalog translation)

Sa Sinugdanan sa Lantugi, nagtuo ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders nga by team ang paagi sa lantugi. Apan human sa unang stand sa Division Minister sa Iglesia ni Cristo- Mateo Liwanag, mipasiatab nga sa ikaduhang barog siya lang gihapon ang mosulti ug pakamangon kuno niya ang lima ka sakop sa Catholic Faith Defenders Team. Tungod niini, nakahukom ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders nga dili nalang usab ilisan si Bro. Atty Marcelo Bacalso sanglit man usab ang speaker sa Catholic Faith Defenders aron dili makaingon ang mga tawo nga gitabangan ang Ministro sa INC. Laktud nga pagkasulti, si Bro. Atty Bacalso ug si Bro. Mateo Liwanag lamang ang mga speaker hangtud natapus ang lantugi.


(TAGALOG: Sa panimula sa debate, naniwala ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders na by team ang debate. Pero pagkatapos sa unang tindig ng Division Minister ng INC-Mateo Liwanag, nangungutyang nasabing s’ya parin ang titindig sa ikalawang tindigan (stand) at pagagapangin daw nya ang limang kasapi ng Catholic Faith Defenders Team. Dahil dito, naka-deklara ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders na hindi nalang nila papalitan si Bro. Atty. Bacalso sapagkat sya ang naunang speaker sa panig ng Catholic Faith Defenders team para hindi makapagsabi ang mga tao na pinagtulungan ang ministro ng Iglesia ni Cristo. Sa madaling salita, si Bro. Atty. Bacalso at si Bro. Mateo Liwanag lamang ang mga speaker hanggang sa matapos ang debate.)


Aron gayod sa paghatag ng katin-awan sa atong mga kaigso-onan nga wala makasaksi sa maong lantugi among gipanlimbasogan pagpatik dinhi ang resulta kon nahimong sangputanan pinaagi sa nahipos nga mga pahayag kun komentaryo sa pipila ka mag tawo nga dili Katoliko aron maoy mohukom sa walay pagdapig sa usag-usa:


(TAGALOG: Para mabigyan ng malinaw na impormasyon ang ating mga kapatid na hindi naka saksi sa naturang debate aming pinag tyagaan ang pagsulat ditto sa resulta sapamamagitan ng pagkuha ng pahayag at komentaryo sa mga kapatid nating hindi Katoliko para huhusga ng walang kinakampihan sa bawat isa:)


EULOGIO BUSCA (United Church of Christ in the Philippines) – Dipolog City

“Una ko kadtong higayon nga nakadungog ug naka saksi nga ang mga Katoliko nanalipod pinaagi sa usa ka Formal Public Debate dinhi sa tibuok Mindanao ug nakadayeg ako sa mga Catholic Faith Defenders. Sa maong lantugi gisaksihan sa tulo ngadto sa upat ka libo ka mga tawo nga nagkalain-lain ang tinuhoan, ako moingon sa walay lipod-lipod sanglit dili man ako Katoliko nga ang Division Minister sa Iglesia ni Cristo nga si Mateo Liwanag wala gayud makapabarug ni makapamatuod sa duha ka tema nga gilantugian human dugmoka sa Catholic Faith Defenders ang iyang tanang argumento pinaagi sa mga kasaligan nga referencia nga gigamit ni Atty. Marcelo Bacalso.”

“Sa laing bahin, nakadayig usab ako sa kabugnaw ug tinaw nga manubag ni Bro. Socrates Fernadez sa mga pangutana nga gipasupot sa mga Sabadista sa panahon sa ilang rally. Akong namatikdan usab nga wala nay laing Iglesia ni Cristo nga mibalik aron sa pagpakita sa mga Katoliko human watas-watasa ang ilang banggiitang debater nga si Mateo Liwanag.”

(TAGALOG: Una palang akong nakarinig at naka saksi na ang mga Katoliko ay nag dedepensa sa pamamagitan ng isang Formal Public Debate dito sa buong pulo ng Mindanao at ako ay humanga sa Catholic Faith Defenders. Sa naturang debate nasaksihan sa tatlo hanggang apat na libong taong may ibat-ibang relihiyon o pananampalataya; ako ay nagsasabi na walang pinapanigan sapagkat hindi ako Katoliko na ang Division Minister ng Iglesia ni Cristo na si Mateo Liwanag hindi naka tindig o naka patunay sa dalawang tema ng debate pagkatapos nailampaso (Totally destroyed) ng Catholic Faith Defender ang lahat ng mga argumento(ni Mateo Liwanag) sapapagitan ng mga mapagkakatiwalaang referencia na ginamit ni Atty. Marcelo Bacalso.”

“Sa ibang banda, humanga ako sa magandang at malinaw na pagsagot ni Brad. Socrates Fernandez sa mga tanong sa kanya ng mga Sabadista sa panahon sa kanilang (CFD) rally. Napansin ko din na wala ng Iglesia ni Cristo na bumalik para pagpakita sa mga Katoliko pagkatapos ilampaso ang kanilang pinakamagaling na debater nasi Mateo Liwanag.”)

EMILIO BENGUA (Sabadista) Dipolog City (Was aired in DXDR sa kanilang programa 12/20/81)

“Nakadayeg ako sa kaligdong ug kabugnaw nga manubag ni Brad Soc Fernandez sa dihang ako nangutana sa ilang public rally niadtong December 13, 1981 didto sa ZN Cultural and Sports Center.

(TAGALOG: Humanga ako sa tama at totohanang pag sagot ni Brad Soc Fernandez ng akoy nag tanong sa kanya sa kanilang public rally noong December 13, 1981 doon sa ZN Cultural and Sports Center.”)

Posted in CFD Journal, Debate | 221 Comments »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on May 12, 2008

Debate between  Catholic Faith Defender (Davao City Chapter ) versus  LOUD CRY MINISTRY OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH

Theme: Resolves that Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ according to the Bible and Standard References.

Affirmative side: Bro.  John Diona (Catholic Faith Defender)

Negative side:  Bro.


Posted in Debate | 1 Comment »

Catholic Doctrinal Exposition/Religious Debete between Catholic and Islam

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on April 3, 2008

Catholic Doctrinal Exposition/Religious Debete between Catholic and Islam

A public debate held at Ozamiz City Public Market, last December 9, 2007, was challenged by Muslim preacher Muhammad Ali. The proposition was: Resolved, That Islam Religion can only be saved according to the Quran, Bible and Standard References. The Muslim Preacher Muhammad Ali defended the affirmtive side while Bro. Wendell Talibong, CFD National Vice President for external Affairs took the negative side. The Debate was aired in Dxdd AM.
In his introductory and first affirmative speech, Muslim preacher Muhammad Ali emphasized that only the Islam Religion can be saved. To prove his side from the Quran he cited Su.ah Al-Ma’idah 5:3; Surah Aal’mraam 3:67, and to prove from the Bible he quoted Matt.7:21.
During the Cross-examination, Muhammad Ali was confounded when confronted with a barraged of questions from Bro Wendell using the two versions of their Quran, and with their own Islamic books.
Brother Wendell’s rhetoric cross-examiniation to Muhammad Ali drew a big applause from the audience when he cited the Quran 2:62, states that the Christians who believed in God and did righteousness will have their reward with their Lord.
In the latter part of the debate, the Muslim preacher had the difficulty in answering the contradictions of thier Quran and books. He accepted that he was not prepared for the public debate although he challenged the Catholic Faith Defenders.
When Muhammad Ali cross-examined the negative side, the answers of Brother Wendell to the questions of Muhammad Ali were so enlightening as cited by the Quran 2:62 and Quran 5:82.
At this juncture, the moderator, Bro. Adam Amper instructed Muhammad Ali to ask more questions since he still had 5 minutes more to the alloted 15 minutes cross-examintion. But Muhammad Ali said the he had no more questions.

Posted in Debate | 1 Comment »