Catholic Faith Defender

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

Archive for the ‘Virgin Mary’ Category

RODIMUS APOLOGIZED, I ACCEPTED IT AS A CHRISTIAN!

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 16, 2009

RODIMUS APOLOGIZED, I ACCEPTED IT AS A CHRISTIAN!

By: Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/rodimus-apologized-i-accept-as.html

In an unexpected gesture Bro. Rodimus apologized on the issue of John 4:5 and John 1:1. Once apology is given the love of Christ urges us to accept it. It is a command of charity then to return love for love and from then on walk in the light of Peace. Let us praise the Lord, not because Bro. Rodimus apologized, but because His truth is setting us free. Truly, His great love is without end.
Here is the apology of Bro. Rodimus and followed by my own posted in his blog comment section:
Friday, March 13, 2009

An apology to all

After much consideration on the facts, I hereby admit that I stand corrected on John 4:5 and John 1:1 as well. The posts have been deleted.
Furthermore, I apologize to Defensores Fidei Foundation especially to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, and Mr. Cenon Bibe for the things I said about them. I was supposed to exchange information instead I ended up trash talking about yourselves. Please forgive my arrogance and sarcasm. So I therefore take back what I said.
I apologize to my colleagues for I went rogue and acted on my own. You don’t have to be held accountable for my actions.
I’m sorry, everyone.
1 comments:
Fr. Abe, CRS said…
DEAR BRO. RODIMUS,
GRACE AND PEACE!
ON MY PART, I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR CAUSING SO MUCH HURT TO YOUR HEART AND MIND. EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT KNOW YOUR PERSONAL IDENTITY I’M SURE YOU HAVE BEEN WOUNDED BY MY VERY STRONG REMARKS.NOW, AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE LET US BE CHRISTIAN TO EACH OTHER. I HOPE YOU ARE ACCEPTING MY OFFER TO STOP THE MANNER OF TREATING EACH OTHER AND LET US BE WORTHY TO BE CALLED ‘CHILDREN OF GOD’.VERY EARLY THIS MORNING, ABOUT 12:10AM I RECEIVED A TEXT FROM MR. HENRY SY, THE PRESIDENT OF DEFENSORES FIDEI, AND HE ADMONISHED ME TO BE MORE CHARITABLE TO YOU. I PROMISED HIM THAT I WILL OBEY HIS DIRECTION SINCE I HAVE TO SHOW EXAMPLE OF OBEDIENCE TO OUR LEADERSHIP.BROTHER, THE CATHOLICS ARE ALSO BIBLE CHRISTIANS. AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR EXCHANGES AND IN YOUR FORUM WE ARE USING THE SAME BIBLICAL TEXTS AND WE SIMPLY DIFFER IN INTERPRETING THEM. I HOPE YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW ON CATHOLICISM BEING UNBIBLICAL.MAY THE GOD OF PEACE REIGN IN OUR HEARTS.
N.B.: I capitalized my message for stressing my points and not for any emotional outburst. He,he,he…
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Rev. Fr. Abe P. Arganiosa, CRS

March 13, 2009 6:26 PM

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | 4 Comments »

EXCHANGES WITH ANOTHER ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 13, 2009

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 1:43And 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.

Posted in Apologetics-General, Apologetics-Pope, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, Holy Matrimony, Q & A, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | 8 Comments »

RIDICULOUS ANSWERS OF THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 12, 2009

RIDICULOUS ANSWERS OF THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS By Atty. Marwil Llasos

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/ridiculous-answers-of-bereans.html

Madonna and Child by Michelangelo

Little learning is a dangerous thing. This adage is once again proven true by the way the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans) answers questions. They showed their limited capacity for higher level thinking and demonstrated beyond any iota of doubt their Biblical illiteracy. Eliseo Soriano and his co-horts will surely have a run for their money!

In the Berean’s rebuttal to my article on perpetual virginity, its moderator, official spokesperson and representative named GERALD a.k.a. RODIMUS magnificently displayed the Bereans’ sloppy research and shallow reasoning.

Below is our exchange. Rodimus’ words are in red while mine are in black. Blue stands for the words I used in my past article. I ask the reader to judge who presents more substantial arguments and who displays little learning.

Atty. Llasos further attempted to refute my consideration of Matthew 13:55 as comprehensive by saying:

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.

While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children?

In my refutation of Rodimus’ supposition that Matthew 13:55 as “comprehensive” in proving that Mary had other children, I did raise the issue of the use of the definite article “the” as an added proof that “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.”

I mentioned the use of “the” in Mark 6:3 merely as one of the cumulative evidence for the Catholic position that Jesus is Mary’s only Child. I don’t rest my case on that argument alone; I pointed out its significance. As Rodimus himself admitted, “the article ‘the’ can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences.” Yes, but its significance cannot be discounted.

I believe that “Jesus’ unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.”

My view that the perpetual virginity of Mary points to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ finds support from formidable authors of impeccable credentials. Rodimus cannot hold a candle beside these scholars because his credentials, if any, are light years away from those of evangelical Prof. Tim Perry and (formerly) Protestant Jaroslav Pelikan.

Prof Tim Perry is on record as saying that “Like her virginity ante partum and in partu, Mary’s post partum virginity’s most powerful support derives from the uniqueness of Jesus” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 282]. He concluded that “[i]n the divine economy, the corollary of the ontological description ‘only begotten God’ is ‘ever-virgin’ (aeiparthenos; semper virgo)” [ibid, p. 283].

For Jaroslav Pelikan, “the eternal begetting of the second person of the holy Trinity should be mirrored in his incarnate life: “He [is] the single and only begotten Son of God [and] also the single and only begotten Son of Mary” [Jaroslav Pelikan, “Most Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” in Mary: Mother of God, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 8].

That Jesus is the only Child of the Blessed Virgin Mary is underscored by the fact that He is always referred to as “THE” Son of Mary. The article “the” [“ho” – the Greek letter o’ (o with the iota subscript)] is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” For instance, ho theos refers to the oneness or unicity of God: there is only one God. Thus, ho huios means that Jesus is the only Son of Mary just as He is the only Son of God.

Let us now consider the Bible verses we cited. I used Mark 6:3 while Rodimus used John 4:5.

Mark 6:3 is rendered in Greek (Romanized, for easy reading) “ouch houtos estin ho tektOn ho huios tEs marias kai erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

In John 4:5 where Joseph is mentioned to be “the Son” of Jacob is rendered differently: “adelphos iakObou kai iOsEtos kai iouda kai simOnos kai ouk eisin hai adelphai autou hOde pros hEmas kai eskandalizonto en auto.”

I don’t think I clearly saw “ho huious” in John 4:5 in reference to Joseph “the son” of Jacob which Rodimus used to counter my use of Mark 6:3 (which clearly mentions “ho huios”). In the New International Version, evangelicals’ favorite translation, John 4:5 is rendered: “So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.” I also didn’t see the expression Joseph “the son” of Jacob. So also in the Revised Standard Version, the expression “the son” of Jacob is conspicuously absent: “So he came to a city in Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.”

Moreover, Jesus was referred as “a son” in Luke 1:31 and not “your only child,” so why not conclude Mary has other children subsequent to Christ?

Here’s where the Bereans’ little learning is most dangerous!

Let’s read Luke 1:31: “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”

Note that in the verse above, the expression “Jesus, the son of Mary” is not used. The obvious sense that Luke 1:31 conveys is that the angel is announcing to Mary that she is giving birth to a SON, not a DAUGHTER! [Cf. Rev. 12:5 – She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”] So, Mary is going to give birth to a son, meaning a male child – and not a daughter or a female child!

Also, since Mary is giving birth to a son, it means that she’s not giving birth to a twin, a triplet or a quadruplet but just a son!

Notice how ridiculous the Bereans argue! I really couldn’t help myself but to laugh out loud with the Bereans’ pathetic argumentation. They are so desperate that they don’t realize that they are making a fool out of themselves! They have made themselves into a laughingstock!

When will you ever learn? When will you ever learn?

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | Leave a Comment »

THE LATEST NEWS ON RODIMUS THE COWARD

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 12, 2009

THE LATEST NEWS ON RODIMUS THE COWARD

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/latest-news-on-rodimus-coward.html

St. Paul courageously preached the Faith without having any mask on his face and identity… right Rodimus?

Atty. Marwil Llasos intensified his bombardment of RODIMUS THE COWARD, one of the moderators of the Berean Forum. It is very interesting to note that after severe beating from Bro. Cenon Bibe right in his own Blog and the siege of Bro. Mars this Rodimus, the cowardly heretic, hid himself for a week.
The reason is, first, to avoid the shame handed on his ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE due to his obsessive use of ROBOTIC, i.e., ARTIFICIAL, a.k.a., FAKE IDENTITY which serves as his MASK and DEFENSE MECHANISM. Second, to avoid another shame for his failure to prove that the meaning of ADELPHOI is limited to ‘Uterine Brothers’. Third, DUE TO EXCESSIVE FEAR CAUSED BY THE CHALLENGE ISSUED BY ATTY. MARS FOR ONE ON ONE, FACE TO FACE, PUBLIC DEBATE. It is interesting that when Bro. Jub Alabastro of Catholic Faith Defenders – Davao questioned Rodimus the Coward if he will accept debate challenge, the cowardly heretic responded cunningly like a serpent. He said that he is willing to face anyone at the right time and right circumstances. Of course, it means that he doesn’t want to face anybody because HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DETERMINE THE RIGHT TIME AND THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES that he himself will set. He,he,he… To prove my point when Bro. Jub tried to clarify the matter true enough to his COWARDLY NATURE the Fake Robot was silent for more than a week. Ha,ha,ha…
Yesterday, he re-appeared… at last… after deafening silence and non-existence. Instead of answering the issue at bar RODIMUS THE COWARD RETREATED FROM THE TOPIC OF PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY. Instead, he entered into the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION issue with a very clumsy reasoning on Tertulian. OBVIOUSLY, THE REPUTATION OF THIS RODIMUS THE COWARD AND HIS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ARE CRUMBLING LIKE CRACKERS THAT THEY ARE USING DURING THEIR BREAKING OF THE BREAD FELLOWSHIP TOGETHER WITH GRAPE JUICE WHICH IS A FAKE REPLACEMENT FOR THE GRAPE WINE USED BY THE LORD IN LAST SUPPER.
Another very intersting fact is that this cowardly heretic claims to be an Accountant… with his reasoning it’s doubtful. And, he claims that he started getting involved in Apologetics since high school by answering his English teacher who is a devout Roman Catholic: “I have been involved in apologetics since high school. It all started when I reasoned with a teacher in English who is a very devout Roman Catholic. I had limited resources at that time. But as the years went by, God used men with wisdom to train me to defend the faith. Here I am now in the spiritual battleground defending Biblical Christianity and refuting false religions. ” For sure the Catholic teacher must be very happy now because the student who used to reason with him or her with courage in front of the class is now a CERTIFIED AND AUDITED COWARD!!! How about those ‘men with wisdom’ who trained him to defend he faith? Are they happy now that their protege is so cowardly? Or may be they are the one who taught him to attack the faith of others while hiding his identity. Most probably he got this treachery, this cunning-serpentine technique from his mentors. Very probable! Isn’t it?
Another development is that FELLOW BEREANS ARE DUMPING THIS RODIMUS THE COWARD like a rotten potato… I mean ‘Bagoong‘… ‘Bagoong Isda‘. It is clearly manifested by the fact that none of his so-called cohorts are nowhere in sight to argue with him and cross swords with Catholic Apologists side by side with their cowardly colleague. I was informed by very reliable sources that his fellow Berean moderator named Justyn [whom I was told is a very charitable man… Praise the Lord… if it is true] stated that: “He doesn’t belong to the same Church with Rodimus!” It means that the Faith and Church affiliations of the Bereans are different. They are divided by Faith and are lacking Ecclesial Unity. Anyway this is not big news just by analyzing their reasoning in various posts of their forum it is discernible that they belong to different and competing branches of Protestantism.
Rodimus the Coward should have imitated the attitude of Justyn who is not attacking the Catholic Faith bigotedly. Much more he has the courage to face our leaders in a man-like manner. He appeared in person and dialogue in person. In return we accord him with respect proper for a person and a brother in Christ. But if one will use a MASK and intensely attack our faith in an ungetlemanly manner… ho, ho, ho… he’d better use the face and the identity of his pet dog.

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

BRO. CENON BIBE MAKING A MINCE MEAT OUT OF RODIMUS THE COWARD

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 10, 2009

BRO. CENON BIBE MAKING A MINCE MEAT OUT OF RODIMUS THE COWARD

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/bro-cenon-bibe-making-mince-meat-out-of.html

Ever since Rodimus the Coward of the Bereans intensified his attack against the Catholic Faith and the Catholic apologetic group Defensores Fidei Foundation he found himself under heavy bombardment from various Catholic apologists. What incensed us is the fact that this Rodimus [I am not sure what he is. He claims to be a Robot so I consider him as ARTIFICIAL HUMAN BEING] issues terrible claims to the point of distorting historical truths and Biblical scholarships and is not ashamed of them because he is wearing a MASK.
Like a Demon who appears and disappears this Rodimus must be held accountable for the lies and distortions he is presenting on the net. I have slapped his artificial face on this Blog, Atty. Marwil Llasos brilliantly showed his ignorance and stupidities and here Bro. Cenon will show you his shallowness.
This exchange happened right in Rodimus’ own Blog.

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… I am not surprised by what RODIMUS did. I know of many “evangelicals” who also insist on seeing contradictions where there are none.
Why do they do such a thing?
What I have seen is that such evangelicals are so desperate to find fault in the Catholic Church that they invent discrepancies and attribute these to Catholics … in this case, to Catholic apologists.
And that has led me to seriously question the integrity of such so-called evangelicals: Who are they serving?
By creating lies just so they could attack it with more lies, do they serve the God of truth? Are they guided by the Spirit of Truth? Or are they just showing who their real father is?
Again, I am no longer surprised. February 15, 2009 3:17 AM

Rodimus said… Thanks Atty. Llasos for your response. You don’t have to post it all like that, you could just inform me that you have posted your response to your blog. I shall try to respond within the week if time permits.
Thanks also Mr. Bibe for your comment. I understand that you have to say things like that. It must really hurt when someone like me is able to pierce your “invunerable” defense. February 15, 2009 5:01 PM

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… I’m sorry if I had to be honest about how things are with some of you so-called evangelicals.

I know it hurts when you are confronted with the truth which Atty Llasos has detailed above.
Isn’t that the reason why evangelicals like you hide behind pseudonyms? You cannot show your faces where your claims and arguments are.
We Catholics put our names and faces on our beliefs because we are confident that these are incontrovertible. Unlike you so-called Bereans who must be so ashamed of your lies and concoctions that you dig a hole and bury yourself in it. But I don’t blame you for wanting to hide behind false identities. Sabi nga sa Pilipino, Mahihiya rin ako dahil sa mga ginagawa n’yo.
I know you know that.

The truth hurts, Mr. Bibe. But it can set you free. February 15, 2009 11:50 PM

I wish you could say the same for what you believe in.
Please do not think that I am just out to criticize you in regard to the fact that what you believe is not worth having your name on it. I think that reality is already fairly obvious.
What I am pointing out at the risk of stating the obvious is that it is only so convenient for someone hiding behind a fake name to concoct false claims against others.
You want to attribute adhominem to me?
How about striking someone who is out in the open while you hide in the dark? What do you call that?
Maybe what I am asking of you, Rodimus, is to be fair and honest enough to identify yourself while you make all your accusations.
In that way, we could respond to a real human being and not a ghost.
Your codename is indeed the least of my worries. What perturbs me is the fact that you have the tenacity to attack Catholics while you are safely curled up in your dark, tiny hole.
Yes, the truth like God made the heavens and the earth does not become false just because someone like you throws it around in an effort to make yourself look credible. Even the devil used scripture to make himself sound sane.
Show yourself and prove to us that you are ready and willing to engage in an honest to goodness discussion of your issues.
You mentioned something about the truth. What truth is that? The fact that you can’t refute our arguments so you resort to inventions and made up “contradictions?”That is the truth that you have to deal with, Rodimus; the truth that all you have are cooked up claims and nothing more.
You said it: The truth hurts. But it can set you free. February 16, 2009 10:09 AM

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Excuse me, Rodimus. Is there anything wrong with your blog site?
I tried to see if new comments were added to your insistence that Atty. Marwil Llasos and Mr. Evert contradicted one another but I couldn’t find all the comments.
I am particularly worried about the complete and unedited response of Atty Llasos to your accusation. You only cited excerpts above. I think Atty Llasos–and all others who commented on your claims–deserve to have our reactions read. Don’t you?
What happened, Rodimus?
I hope everything is all right.
I am worried that the missing comments would lead people to believe that you deliberately removed the comments to hide the truth from readers of your blog. We wouldn’t want that would we?
In my reactions, I asked that you be transparent. I hope the seeming loss of the comments would not lead people to think that you are deliberately hiding something.Your credebility and that of your supposed ministry may be at stake if the comments are not restored soon.

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Now, please allow me to share some thoughts on this issue.
First of all, is it my understanding that you are insisting that the word “brothers” (greek adelphoi)in Mt 13:55 means ONLY ONE THING? And that is BLOOD BROTHERS?
If that is your case then may I suggest you consult a Greek dictionary.
Strong’s Number 80 gives this meaning for ADELPHOS:
1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
a. his brothers by blood
b. all men
c. apostles
d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
A simple reading of these definitions (take note MORE THAN ONE) of ADELPHOS (plural ADELPHOI) will tell you that BLOOD BROTHER is NOT the ONLY MEANING of the word.
Now, unless you can prove that the use of ADELPHOI in Mt 13:55 means ONE AND ONLY THING, which is BLOOD BROTHER, then your insistence on that meaning is FLIMSY.
If you can show any other verse to support your claim, then please do so. Otherwise, you are relying only on your gravely limited knowledge and understanding of ADELPHOI (ADELPHOS).
On the other hand, the Catholic positions provided by Atty Llasos and Mr. Evert only explain the wide range of meanings of the word.
Now, Biblical evidence strongly supports the Catholic position.
Why?
As Atty Llasos already pointed out, other verses identify some of the “brothers” mentioned in Mt 13:55 as NOT the CHILDREN of MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS but that of ANOTHER MARY.
The KJV (the favorite translation of many non-Catholics) states of Mt 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?” (emphasis mine)
In Mt 27:56 of the KJV again, it again mentions JAMES and JOSES.
The KJV says, “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES and JOSES, and the mother of Zebedees children.”
Who are they?
They are the SONS of another MARY.
What Mary? Is she the “wife” of Joseph?
Here is what John 19:25 says: “Mary the WIFE of CLOPAS.”
You claim to be a CPA. Maybe you can add 1 and 1 together to get 2. Right?
Meaning, the James and Joses mentioned as “brothers” (ADELPHOI) of Jesus in Mt 13:55 are NOT the SONS of MARY the mother of Jesus but SONS of ANOTHER MARY. Thus, they are NOT BLOOD BROTHERS of JESUS as you insist.
I think that is quite simple enough and one need not be a CPA to understand that.

Rodimus said… Good afternoon Mr. Bibe,
You said:”I am worried that the missing comments would lead people to believe that you deliberately removed the comments to hide the truth from readers of your blog. We wouldn’t want that would we?”
As far as I know that before this new comment there were already 12 comments posted. Two here and 10 in the other article. I don’t know what other comments you are talking about. But if you’re going to imply that I deleted them then the burden of proof belongs to my accusers.
They are free to comment anytime.
In your next comment you said:”First of all, is it my understanding that you are insisting that the word “brothers” (greek adelphoi)in Mt 13:55 means ONLY ONE THING? And that is BLOOD BROTHERS?”
My answer is please read the article agains specially the ones colored green where I mentioned the word CONTEXT.
As to James and Joses, you know it does not necessarily follow that similar names refer to the same person. If you were to say the name Gloria to an American, what are the odds that he will point you to our President Arroyo and not Gloria Estefan or Gloria Gaynor?

As to your response to my other comment, you did mention the word “context” in your post but did not SHOW the context.
There is a vast difference between saying one thing and actually showing it.
And now that you’ve mentioned it, could you please show the context which would support your assumption that the use of the word “adelphoi” in Mt13:55 is limited to ONE AND ONLY THING: BLOOD BROTHERS.
Maybe you would appeal to your response to Atty Marwil.
In your rebuttal, you asked why the neighbor of Jesus did not mention the parents of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” if they indeed were sons of another woman other than the Virgin Mary.
I guess you made a valid question, but one that shows your lack of knowledge or understanding of the BIGGER CONTEXT of Mt13:55.
In case you or some of your readers do not know, Mt13:55 is only a PART of a bigger body of writing–the entire Gospel written by Matthew. And in another part of his account, Matthew identified the MOTHER of James and Joses.
And according to Matthew, in chapter 27:56, they are the sons of ANOTHER MARY and NOT the VIRGIN MARY.
Then again, your defense is that “it does not necessarily follow that similar names refer to the same person.”
Your assumption may be valid if you are referring to people in general and to a vast and wide context, like in your analogy where someone were to mention a “Gloria” to an American.
Of course, the American–not knowing the CONTEXT of your mentioning “Gloria”–could easily think of any Gloria that she knows.
But your assumption simply can not apply to the Gospel of Matthew, where the CONTEXT is CLEAR and RESTRICTED.What is the CONTEXT of the mentioning of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas?
It is the NARRATION or STORY about JESUS, who Matthew is introducing to the readers of his Gospel.
Now, why did Matthew mention the “brothers” (adelphoi) of Jesus? Was it to describe his family tree?
No. What Matthew only wanted to show was that people or his neighbors knew his relatives. And for that purpose, Matthew did not need to mention all the members of his relative’s family. He only needed to state a few or them, like “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
So, to mention the relatives of Jesus without naming their parents is totally logical.
Why? Do you always mention the names of your aunts and uncles whenever you tell people about your cousins who are their children?
Of course not! Not unless the parents are really that important to what you are saying.
But as I have already pointed out, Matthew was not really interested in giving the entire family trees of the relatives of Jesus.
When Matthew pointed out that Jesus was the carpenter’s son and that His mother was Mary, that completely established the family of Jesus. Matthew no longer needed to mention his siblings if indeed He had any but which He did not have.
The mention of is relatives “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” was aimed at establishing the place from where He came from, or as how Atty Marwil put it, His kibbutz.
Now, another reason why Matthew mentioned the names of his relatives, James and Joses in particular, was because he was going to use them later on in his narrative to introduce another character in the story–the OTHER MARY.
In Mt13:55, Matthew introduced James and Joses as the relatives of Jesus.
Later, in Mt27:56, Matthew used them to introduce another relative of Jesus, the OTHER MARY, James and Joses’s mother, who was also near the cross.
In other words, Matthew used James and Joses as a link to the OTHER MARY.
That is a technique used by writers which other people, even CPA’s, would most likely understand. I am just not sure if you could.
Now, what would be illogical is if you are right in saying that the James and Joses in Mt27:56 are not the same ones in Mt13:55.
Why would Matthew mention another set of James and Joses from out of the blue? What would be the point if he did that?
If you are right, then the James and Joses in Mt27:56 would be totally irrelevant. In fact, even the OTHER MARY mentioned in the verse would also be totally irrelevant.
They would not have any value to the narrative and would only be a waste of ink and space. And Matthew’s mention of them, Rodimus, would be totally illogical.
But since the Gospel, which is guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, is logical, it is clear that the James and Joses in Mt13:55 are the same ones in Mt27:56 who are the sons of ANOTHER MARY and NOT of the VIRGIN MARY.
By that, your assumption against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based on your reading of Mt13:55 falls flat on its face.

Rodimus said… CB: What is the CONTEXT of the mentioning of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas?

Rodimus: I’m very sure that in the context of Matthew 13:55 Jesus was in his HOMETOWN. So when you are in your hometown what is the probability that you are living with someone you do not know?
CB: What Matthew only wanted to show was that people or his neighbors knew his relatives. And for that purpose, Matthew did not need to mention all the members of his relative’s family. He only needed to state a few or them, like “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
Rodimus: What theory is going to support you on that? At least, mine came from experience and common sense. You can limit your narration in your closest family (parents and sibling). But if you extend it to your relatives, don’t you think that the uncle and aunt are more senior than your cousins?
CB: Now, another reason why Matthew mentioned the names of his relatives, James and Joses in particular, was because he was going to use them later on in his narrative to introduce another character in the story–the OTHER MARY.
Rodimus: Is that so? Then tell me, how was it possible that the Catholic Encyclopedia was able to provide a sibling relationship for Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene whereas the Bible does not mention who their parents are?
Furthermore, if James was a son of another Mary, why was he still addressed by Paul in Galatians as the brother of the Lord if Paul knew that he wasn’t Virgin Mary’s son? Aren’t the apostles also brothers of Christ, so why was James singled out? Of all the relationship he could use such as suggenis of the Lord, son of the Virgin’s sister, son of Mary’s sister just like Matthew said, Paul opted a more undefined relationship: adelphos of the Lord.
You know, when theories are inconsistent like the ones you’re giving it is an indicator of fraud. And we know very well that God cannot author fraud. February 21, 2009 5:43 PM

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… You’re rebuttal is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

1. You said, “I’m very sure that in the context of Matthew 13:55 Jesus was in his HOMETOWN. So when you are in your hometown WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT YOU ARE LIVING WITH SOMEONE YOU DO NOT KNOW? (emphasis mine)
With that, Rodimus, you are saying that the NEIGHBOR who made the statement ALREADY KNEW EVERYONE ELSE: the PARENTS and the COUSINS or RELATIVES.
You are then CONTRADICTING YOURSELF when you said that the NAMES of the PARENTS of James, Joses, Simon and Judas should have been mentioned.
If you are correct that EVERYONE KNEW EVERYONE ELSE in the HOMETOWN of JESUS, that REMOVES the NEED for the neighbor to mention the PARENTS of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
Why state the obvious? Right?
And thus, YOU SUPPORT my stand that the neighbor NO LONGER NEEDED to MENTION the NAMES of the PARENTS of the RELATIVES.
THAT is COMMON SENSE. Your assertion that the PARENTS should have also been mentioned GOES AGAINST COMMON SENSE and is even CONTRARY to COMMON PRACTICE.
Why? Do you usually do a ROLL CALL of your RELATIVES’ ENTIRE FAMILY when you introduce one of their members?
People always tend to SIMPLIFY things. They will NOT MENTION the ENTIRE FAMILY when it is enough to mention one or a few known members of that family.
Where is it COMMON PRACTICE (your EXPERIENCE) that PARENTS should ALWAYS be NAMED FIRST before the CHILDREN are mentioned in a conversation? That is simply NOT COMMON SENSE as you claim.
You mention the parents if they are RELEVANT in the conversation. But if you are introducing the relatives of a person, the mention of ANY KNOWN RELATIVE or RELATIVES is sufficient.
And that is what the “neighbor” did when he was quoted in Mt13:55.
Lastly, on this point, your statement of the context of Mt13:55 DOES NOT SUPPORT your claim that “adelphoi” only meant BLOOD BROTHERS in the verse.
Your statement even betrays your assumption that adelphoi only meant BLOOD BROTHERS.
If the neighbor already knew the entire family of Jesus, it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters. The mention of His parents was enough to establish his FAMILY.
Instead, it was more logical to name the RELATIVES of JESUS in order to place Him in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.
So, you said it: “When theories are INCONSISTENT … it is an indicator of FRAUD. And we know very well that God cannot author fraud.”
Now, everybody knows where your getting your theories.
2. You asked, “How was it possible that the Catholic Encyclopedia was able to provide a sibling relationship for Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene whereas the Bible does not mention who their parents are?”
How did the Catholic Encyclopedia determine that Lazarus, Martha and Mary are siblings? Because the BIBLE SAID SO in John 11:1-2.
Jn 11:1 says Mary and Martha are SISTERS. Verse 2 says Lazarus is the BROTHER of Mary.
You claim to be a CPA. Maybe you can add these things up.
If Mary and Martha are sisters, and Lazarus is the brother of Mary, then Lazarus is also the brother of Martha.
John did not need to mention their parents because the narration is already very clear as to their relationship.
The CONTEXT is clear that they are CHILDREN of the SAME PARENTS. There is no circumstance that will confuse them as cousins or merely relatives.
In fact, there is no other reference in the Bible that would show that they are not siblings. Unlike the case of James and Joses who were identified as the sons of ANOTHER MARY.
3. Why was James still addressed by Paul as “the brother of the Lord”?
Why? Did James cease to become a relative of Jesus to disqualify him to be called “brother” of the Lord? I don’t think so.
May I remind you of the meaning of “adelphoi.” It does not only refer to BLOOD BROTHER but to RELATIVES and even TOWNSMATES, among others.
So, there is little weight in your question. I would even think that you are only trying to confuse yourself as to something already very clear and established.
And now that you mentioned it, is James really another son of the Virgin Mary?
No. Should you not know, Mt13:55 has a parallel in Mark, Mk6:3.
In Mk6:3, Jesus is referred to as “THE SON of Mary.”
Take note of the DEFINITE ARTICLE “THE.”
DEFINITE ARTICLES refer to a particular noun.
So, when the DEFINITE ARTICLE was used to refer to Jesus as THE SON of Mary, that means that JESUS is THE ONLY SON of Mary.
That fact is make clearer when “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” are then mentioned.
Had James, Joses, Simon and Judas been sons of the Virgin Mary as well, then the DEFINITE ARTICLE on Jesus would be WRONG. Mark should have just said that Jesus was “A SON of Mary” and His (blood) brothers are …
Now, unless you want to accuse Mark and the Holy Spirit of “misleading” people, there is no way for you to understand mk6:3 except to agree that Jesus is THE ONLY SON of Mary.
So, you see, Rodimus, your objections to the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY do not have any legs to stand on.
That is why many non-Catholics are resorting to inventions in their vain attempt to disprove a well-established truth.
Rodimus said… CB: If you are correct that EVERYONE KNEW EVERYONE ELSE in the HOMETOWN of JESUS, that REMOVES the NEED for the neighbor to mention the PARENTS of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
Rodimus: What contradiction? All I am saying here is that when you are in your hometown you’re living someone you know very well. And with that attempted rebuttal of yours it sounds childish. If there is no need to mention the parents of James, Joses, etc. then neither should we mention Joseph and Mary. The neighbor should a have said, “Hey, this is Jesus, period.”
CB: If the neighbor already knew the entire family of Jesus, it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters. The mention of His parents was enough to establish his FAMILY.
Rodimus: Okay so why did the neighbor mentioned other people?
CB: If Mary and Martha are sisters, and Lazarus is the brother of Mary, then Lazarus is also the brother of Martha.John did not need to mention their parents because the narration is already very clear as to their relationship.
Rodimus: Thank you for telling me that the Roman Catholic apologists like you are using double standards. The only words that made you conclude that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary are siblings are the words adelphos and adelphi – nothing more. You did not do the same with James, Joses, etc. who are in the same hometown. Thanks for admitting your double standard.
CB: May I remind you of the meaning of “adelphoi.” It does not only refer to BLOOD BROTHER but to RELATIVES and even TOWNSMATES, among others.
Rodimus: Shall I apply that against Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdalene? Ooops! You exposed your biases.
CB: So, when the DEFINITE ARTICLE was used to refer to Jesus as THE SON of Mary, that means that JESUS is THE ONLY SON of Mary.
Rodimus: Read my article again:
While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children? Moreover, Jesus was referred as “a son” in Luke 1:31 and not “your only child”, so why not conclude Mary has other children subsequent to Christ?
If I were you Mr. Bibe, stop making up spurious theories. You’re only making it obvious that Roman Catholic arguments are self-serving and inconsistent. February 25, 2009 9:44 PM

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Childish, Rodimus?
Your attempt at a rebuttal is what’s childish.
You said, “If there is no need to mention the parents of James, Joses, etc. then NEITHER SHOULD WE MENTION JOSEPH AND MARY. The neighbor should have said, “Hey, this is Jesus, period.” (emphasis mine)
In your vain attempt to respond you turned a blind eye or pretended not to read my explanation on why the neighbor mentioned the parents of Jesus.
I said, “You mention the parents if they are RELEVANT in the conversation.”
In the case of introducing the FAMILY of Jesus, the names of the parents of Jesus was not only relevant but necessary.
Thus I also said, “The mention of His parents was enough to establish his FAMILY.”
And, “it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters.”
Why did the neighbor not say “Hey, this is Jesus, period”?
In Hebrew, the name Yashua o Yeshua (Jesus) was quite common and thus it had to be made clear “which” Yashua was being referred to.
And how did people do that?
By mentioning their parents. Again, that explains why it was necessary to mention the parents of Jesus.
Anyone familiar with the Bible most probably knows that. For children were more often intoduced by stating who their parents were. For example, Mt1:1, “Jesus Chritst the son of David, the son of Abraham;” or Mt4:21, “James the son of Zebedee;” or Mt 16:18, “Simon son of Jonah.”
Now, why was it not necessary to mention in Mt13:55 the parents of James, Joses, Simon and Judas?
I already answered that.I said, “It was more logical to name the RELATIVES of JESUS in order to place Him in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.”
And as I have already pointed out, the MOTHER of James and Joses was indeed identified: She was the OTHER MARY and NOT the VIRGIN MARY.
So, the concerns that you have raised have so far been addressed already.
It is apparent that your defense and rebuttal rest on pretending not to read what I already stated and on repeating claims that have already been belied.
Why is that, Rodimus? I hope you are not a disciple of Dr. Joseph Goebels–Hitler’s propagandist–who believed that repeating a lie often enough will make people believe it to be the truth.
2. Double standard, Rodimus?
Again, you simply ignored my explanation on how we Catholics established that Mary, Martha and Lazarus are BLOOD BROTHERS and SISTERS.
And again, you are imputing malice where there is none.
But I am glad, Rodimus, because people who reading our exchange are seeing more clearly how desperate and futile your claims are.
The point on the use of “adelphoi” and “adelphai” has already been well explained in my rebuttal.
It referred to RELATIVES on Jesus in Mt13:55 because the CONTEXT points to that meaning. It referred to BLOOD SISTERS and BROTHER in the case of Mary, Martha and Lazarus because the CONTEXT point that out.
So, contrary to what you’re imagining, there are no double standards there and no biases. You simply just cannot accept simple facts.
3. Now, here is one clear indication of deception on your part.
You pointed to Lk1:31 where you said that Jesus was referred to “a son.”
Does the verse actually claim that Jesus was “a son” AMONG MANY?
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Here is what the verse says in the KJV: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth A SON, and shalt call his name JESUS.”
Where does it say there that Jesus will be “a son” AMONG MANY?
NOWHERE, but ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION and in your FALSE CLAIMS.
I say you attempt to deceive because you are using Lk1:31 OUT OF CONTEXT.
The verse does not point to Jesus as “as son” AMONG MANY, but it is only stating a FACT that MARY will be bearing ONLY ONE SON–JESUS CHRIST.
And taken in the proper context, Lk1:31 even supports our stand that JESUS was an ONLY SON. The verse did not make any reference to any other sons that Mary would be having.
So, the truth about the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY remains unshaken.
I hope that you would read your advice: STOP MAKING SPURIOUS THEORIES.
You cannot and will not be able to debunk the CATHOLIC CHURCH’S belief in the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY, not even if you resort to LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. February 26, 2009 10:14 PM

Rodimus said… CB: And, “it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters.”I said, “It was more logical to name the RELATIVES of JESUS in order to place Him in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.”
Rodimus: I think with those statements you are showing your bigotry. Isn’t mentioning your brothers and sisters before your relatives already places you in a BIGGER community? And why it isn’t practical? If I tell about Kris Aquino, I’d mention Noynoy first before her cousins Mikee and Jackie. This is not only practical, it is also called COMMON SENSE.
CB: It referred to RELATIVES on Jesus in Mt13:55 because the CONTEXT points to that meaning. It referred to BLOOD SISTERS and BROTHER in the case of Mary, Martha and Lazarus because the CONTEXT point that out.
Rodimus: They used the same Greek words: Adelphos and Adelphi. The word hometown is mentioned in both scenarios. The only difference is the parents of Lazarus, Martha, and Magdalene aren’t mentioned. And you still think they are different? You’re not being honest here.
CB: The verse does not point to Jesus as “as son” AMONG MANY, but it is only stating a FACT that MARY will be bearing ONLY ONE SON–JESUS CHRIST.
Rodimus: Try a different lie, Mr. Bibe cause that’s not working. If angel Gabriel knew that Mary is perpetually a virgin he would have said “Your only child.” The mere fact he said “a son” it raises the probablity that he is one among many.
CB: You cannot and will not be able to debunk the CATHOLIC CHURCH’S belief in the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY, not even if you resort to LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.
Rodimus: You won’t be able to debunk the Bible, Mr. Bibe. So I suggest you follow God’s written word instead of your Magisterium. February 27, 2009 2:13 AM

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Bigotry, Rodimus?
How does mentioning the cousins or relatives of a person being introduced constitute bigotry?
It is becoming more and more obvious why you Bereans keep on cowering away from a formal debate with Catholic Defenders. You know very well that your assertions are shallow.
Now, to your rebuttal. How does naming one’s brothers and sisters put one in the BIGGER COMMUNITY? How does that place someone OUTSIDE of his IMMEDIATE FAMILY?
Excuse me but I find your reasoning quite nonsensical and desperate.
If I say that Kris Aquino is the daughter of Cory and Benigno Aquino, does that not explicitly identify Kris as to her family?
After stating that Kris is the daughter of Cory and Ninoy, do I still need to name all of her brothers and sisters?
Again, that would be stating the obvious and stating the obvious does not make for common sense. By stating the obvious, you even insult the intelligence of your audience.
And mentioning all the members of Kris’s immediate family does not place her in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.
To put Kris in the BIGGER COMMUNITY, I could mention that she is the cousin of Mikee Cojuangco who is the husband of Dodot Jaworski.
THAT would put Kris in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.
So, I’m really sorry for finding your reasoning hilarious.
2. You again repeat your FALSE ASSERTION that just because the words “adelphoi” and “adelpai” were used to refer to Mary, Martha and Lazarus, that necessarily makes James, Joses, Simon and Judas as the BLOOD BROTHERS of Jesus.
So, I will have to remind you again that “adelphoi” and “adelphai” have a WIDE RANGE of MEANINGS that may include BLOOD BROTHERS, RELATIVES, and even TOWNMATES.
And as I have already shown, the MEANING of the words “adelphoi” and “adelphai” can be gleaned from the CONTEXT in which it is used.
I am sorry to say that you have been strenuously trying to avoid the context of Mt13:55 and John 11:1-2 just to insist on your FALSE ASSUMPTION, which you again repeated.
As I already said, REPEATING a LIE or a FALSE STATEMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Goebels, the Nazi propagandist, was one other person who insisted on repeating a FALSE STATEMENT in the hope that some half-awake reader would believe that it is true.
And what is this assertion of yours that “adelphoi” and “adelphai” are necessarily BLOOD BROTHERS just because their hometown is mentioned? Where did you get that?
Could you cite one authority in the Greek language that says that “The mention of the hometown means adelphoi and adelphai are BLOOD BROTHERS.”
You better re-read your advice about making making SPURIOUS THEORIES and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS, because you are right in the center of it.
3. You said, “The mere fact he said “a son” it raises the probablity that he is one among many.
What? And where did you get that one?
I’m sure there are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of mothers who have been told the they would be “having A SON” but NEVER had ANY OTHER CHILDREN except for that one.Your INVENTIONS are really incredible, Rodimus.
Your have a very fertile imagination.
And yet you have the guts to say that I am lying?
I am only very happy that our discussion is documented. People are getting to know you–and the Bereans–better and better with every exchange.
4. Are you the Bible, Rodimus? Are your FALSE CLAIMS, FALSE ASSERTIONS, and FALSE ASSUMPTIONS even worth being mentioned together with scripture?
I’m sorry to say that your LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS are on opposite sides with the Bible.
If there is one who is NOT FOLLOWING and who is even contradicting the BIBLE, that is YOU, RODIMUS.
You and your Berean friends have no fear nor shame in TWISTING and DISTORTING the WORD OF GOD just to make it suit your preposterous and ridiculous objections to the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY.
No wonder you and your Berean hoard are so ashamed to put your names and faces on your claims.
I repeat, Rodimus. You and your Berean bunch cannot and will not be able to debunk the CATHOLIC CHURCH’S belief in the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY, not even if you resort to LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.

After this response from Bro. Cenon true enough the Cowardly Rodimus was silent for more than a week and when he appeared he changed topic and no answer here at all. WELL DONE RODIMUS THE COWARD!

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

THE BEREANS ARE NEITHER HERE NOR THERE by Atty. Marwil Llasos

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 9, 2009

THE BEREANS ARE NEITHER HERE NOR THERE

by Atty. Marwil Llasos

Link:http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-are-neither-here-nor-there-by.html

Madonna and Child with Prayer Book

BEREANS ARE NEITHER HERE NOR THERE!!!
A perennial source of embarrassment for many modern-day Protestants, evangelicals included, is when they are confronted with a question on how come they do not believe the same doctrines that the reformers taught, asserted and defended.

One such doctrine is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Catholics defend this belief in solidarity with the early church and virtually the whole of orthodox Christendom throughout the ages. Mary’s perpetual virginity is held by the Eastern Orthodox, many Anglicans and Lutherans. Moreover, the founding fathers of Protestantism like Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, among others.

In my reply to the blog of a faceless, anonymous and amateur “apologist” from a rag-tag aggrupation of evangelicals from various “faith traditions” – the so-called “Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry” – I raised the following:
“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?

The answer that I got from the Bereans is neither here nor there. Their somewhat discombobulated reply miserably failed to answer the issues head-on. As is typical of their argumentation, the Bereans skirted the issue. This is the evasive reply of Rodimus of the Bereans –

Now, Atty. Llasos presented historical evidences that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was believed even by the Reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. While it may be true that these Reformers believed Mary’s perpetual virginity, one has to consider their circumstances during their time. These men were reforming a 1,200 year old church from which they came (I say 1,200 year old church because I believe that the Church of Rome was founded only after 300AD and the reformation occurred after 1500AD). The focus of the Reformers was on the Lord Jesus Christ. They made sure that Christ was the one deified and not Mary. The process of changing wasn’t overnight and the task of reforming may have been extended to their successors.

Excuse me? This response is no response at all. It is simply not responsive to the questions I squarely raised. It’s like asking Rodimus “How are you?” and his reply is “I’m seven years old.” Can you beat that?

Before we analyze the totally flawed rationalization of the Bereans, let me remind you that I brought up issue of the reformers’ belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity in the light of Rodimus sweeping and unfounded accusation. He said: “the Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them.” So, my challenge to him was to identify who are these desperate Roman Catholics who concocted the “spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and when did these desperate Roman Catholics concoct the “spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity. These questions were sadly not answered. The accountant cannot account for an answer.

Thus, if indeed it is true that “desperate Roman Catholics” concocted the spurious theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary, as Rodimus would have us believe, how come the early church fathers believed in it (to think that, according to Rodimus, there was no “Roman Church” before 300AD)? More so, the Protestant reformers also believed and defended it. Can Rodimus account for that?

He can’t. Notice the evasive answer that he gave. I also raised these questions:

These Reformers read the same Bible as Rodimus and other evangelicals read. How come they had a different conclusion?

Why do modern day Protestants 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?

Why is there contradiction between 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 Rodimus crowing about?

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind… Let us now analyze the ratiocination of the Bereans:

Now, Atty. Llasos presented historical evidences (sic) that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was believed even by the Reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Notice how Rodimus misappreciated the issues I raised. I did not merely raise historical evidence (which Rodimus by the way did not refute), I raised categorical questions. These were not answered.

While it may be true that these Reformers believed Mary’s perpetual virginity, one has to consider their circumstances during their time.

This is also not responsive to any of the questions. Rodimus skirted the issues. Note that Rodimus tried to explain away the faith of the reformers by appealing to the “circumstances during their time.” What were these circumstances? Rodimus said:

These men were reforming a 1,200 year old church from which they came (I say 1,200 year old church because I believe that the Church of Rome was founded only after 300AD and the reformation occurred after 1500AD).

This is where the Bereans display their utmost ignorance of church history. What 1,2000 year old church? Notice that Rodimus merely expressed his “belief” that the “Church of Rome” was founded only after 300AD. Hello? What’s your proof? The Bereans call themselves the Bereans “Apologetics and Research Ministry.” Is this the quality of their research? Is this the best that the Bereans have to offer? Pure guesswork!

Let’s press the Bereans to back up their unfounded assertions with solid and credible evidence. Can Rodimus tell us who founded the Church of Rome and when exactly the Church of Rome founded?

The focus of the Reformers was on the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is again an unfounded allegation. Aside from the bare assertion, Rodimus offered no exact quotes from the Reformers that their focus in teaching the perpetual virginity was on the Lord Jesus Christ (see: my quotes above).
Nevertheless, the Bereans’ ignorance of Catholic teaching is all too apparent. For us Catholics, Mary’s perpetual virginity is not much about her but about Him.
Rodimus is woefully incompetent to tell us Catholics what we believe. As a cradle evangelical, Rodimus is unqualified by any to pose as an expert on the Catholic faith.

As a Catholic apologist and Marian lecturer, I think that I am in a much better position than Rodimus or any of the Bereans to state what we Catholics believe regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity and why. I have consistently pointed out in my writings and lectures that: “The Catholic Church emphatically affirms the truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity because it is a corollary truth to the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. It is intended to safeguard the virginal conception of Jesus Christ which is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The Virgin Birth points out the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mary’s perpetual virginity is a sign of that uniqueness. Hence, God’s wisdom decreed Mary’s perpetual virginity to safeguard the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. An only child was unusual during the time of Christ. If Jesus were not the only child of Mary, His birth would not appear miraculous. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, the people of His time would always suspect that He was born the normal way.”

Likewise, I had occasion to state: “Jesus’ unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man. It is also further affirmation of the holiness and Deity of Jesus. It would not have been fitting for the womb which bore the Savior to bring sinners into the world (which any hypothetical child of Joseph and Mary would have been). As the ancient Ark of the Covenant was consecrated for sacred use, so the New Ark could not be defiled by common usage.

Moreover:Jesus’ unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.

An early church father, Theodotus of Ancyra (d. before 446 AD), saw the perpetual virginity of Mary as proof of the divinity of her Son. He said:

No mother of a man has ever remained a virgin. Have you seen how this birth offers us a twofold consideration regarding the One who is born? If he had been born like us, he would have been a man, but if he kept his Mother a virgin, it is clear, for those who know how to think, that the One who is born is God” [Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 2, cited in Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, California: Ignatius, 1999) pp. 262-263].

Simply, the focus of the Catholic Church in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity is on Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and not on Mary herself. They made sure that Christ was the one deified and not Mary.

This is an old, old regurgitated lie! Catholics don’t deify Mary, period. Rodimus again did not bother to present proof that in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity, we are making her a goddess. I challenge Rodimus to give us some quotes from official Catholic sources that teach that Mary’s perpetual virginity makes her a goddess.

Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry, in assessing the patristic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity, states: “It is in these christological and soteriological contexts that Mary’s virginity – whether ante partum, in partu or post partum – arises” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 150].

Pope Leo the Great (ca. 400-461) affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity in its incarnational context in his letter to the Bishop of Constantinople:

He was truly conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of his Virgin Mother, who bore him while preserving her virginity just as, preserving her virginity, she conceived him … Fecundity was given to the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, but the reality was taken from her body … He was born in a “new type of birth” in that undefiled virginity experienced no concupiscence, yet supplied the material for the flesh. From the Mother the Lord took his nature, but no fault; and the Lord Jesus Christ, born from a virgins womb, does not have a nature different from ours just because his birth was an unusual one” [Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 22: 25 December 441; quoted in Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 159].

In the quotation I gave above, Theodotus of Ancyra underscored the Lord’s divinity when he defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. In no way did he deify Mary. That’s our Catholic faith. Sadly, the Bereans are like ostriches who bury their heads in the sand. They don’t see the real score. Their anti-Catholic prejudice and bias have blinded them no end. I pray for God’s grace alone to penetrate their opaque minds.

MORE: I asked Rodimus the question that if 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. Rodimus cannot categorically say if the Reformers were heretics in believing the perpetual virginity of Mary. All Rodimus could say is that the focus of the reformers was on Christ and not on Mary and they made sure that Christ was “deified” and not Mary.

It is thus clear that for Rodimus and the Bereans, the issue is not Mary’s perpetual virginity per se but the motive, reason or intent for such a belief. It would thus seem that for Rodimus, it is alright for you to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity as long as you focus on Christ and not on Mary and as long as you deify Christ and not Mary.

So why is Rodimus especially hard on us Catholics who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity when, as I have explained, the focus of our belief that Mary is ever-virgin is her Son Jesus Christ. In teaching and believing the perpetual virginity of Mary, we Catholics in no way make her a goddess or a member of the Godhead.

Rodimus’ and the Bereans double standard explains their implacable hatred for Catholicism. Their hardcore hatred for all things Catholic has clouded their rational judgment.

If the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity per se is not heresy, Rodimus has absolutely nothing to crow about Catholics who believe that teaching.
The process of changing wasn’t overnight and the task of reforming may have been extended to their successors.

That’s not reform. It is a REGRESSION! The belief that Mary had other children, which modern evangelicals now believe contrary to the unanimous voice of Christianity up until the reformation, is a drawback to the belief of heretical individuals and sects like Helvidius, Jovinian, the Antidicomarianites, Ebionites, certain Arians, Eudocius and Eunomius [Cf. Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church [San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1999] pp. 122-123].

And so, my question remains hanging in the air: “Why did the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, teach the heretics the truth which He did not teach mainstream and orthodox Christians?”

May I add: “Why did the Holy Spirit teach to the evangelicals of today what He taught to the heretics of yesterday?”

And by the way, of the THOUSANDS of Protestant groups’ who are the successors of the reformers? Many Lutherans (Martin Luther’s successors) and Anglicans believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Were they not touched by the so-called on-going reform?

The accountant miserably failed to account for the following:

1. The Reformers read the same Bible as Rodimus and other evangelicals read. How come they had a different conclusion?

2. Why do modern day Protestants 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?

3. Why is there contradiction between the position of the Reformers and modern evangelicals?

4. 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.

5. If the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is not heresy, then what is Rodimus crowing about?

The accountant has clearly settled for something unbalanced. The “apologetics auditor,” after having been audited, has been weighed but found wanting.

[Note: more on the other issues]

Posted in Bereans, Converts, Doctrinal Comparison, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | Leave a Comment »

FALSE AND SELF-SERVING CONCLUSIONS OF RODIMUS FALL FLAT ON HIS FACE by Atty. Marwil Llasos

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 9, 2009

FALSE AND SELF-SERVING CONCLUSIONS OF RODIMUS FALL FLAT ON HIS FACE by Atty. Marwil Llasos

Link:http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/false-and-self-serving-conclusions-of.html

FALSE AND SELF-SERVING CONCLUSIONS OF RODIMUS FALL FLAT ON HIS FACE!!!
“Theories concocted by men often lead to inconsistencies when it tested. Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55-56 has stated this to be so. Sadly, Roman Catholics offer different perspectives on the verse which lead to complications. The Bible was not meant to adjust to the desires of men, but men should adjust themselves to the Bible. If we only let the Bible speak for itself, Roman Catholics would renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.”
Thus saith Rodimus!
We shall analyze this conclusion if it holds up to Biblical scrutiny, church history, logic and plain common sense.

“Theories concocted by men often lead to inconsistencies when it tested.”

Rodimus is fond of generalization. Until now, he cannot tell us who precisely were these men who “concocted” the teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Rodimus cannot name names. He is long on sweeping allegations but short on specifics. On the other hand, evangelical writer and scholar, Prof. Tim Perry states –

“There is more to the creedal affirmation that Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary than the virginal conception. It entails that Mary’s virginity is in some sense ongoing. Not only was she a virgin, but she remains one. This is the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but she remains one. This is the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Traditionally, this has been explained in terms of three chronological moments: Mary was virgin at the time of Christ’s conception (virginity ante partum), remained a virgin in the act of giving birth (virginity in partu) and persisted in virginity thereafter (virginity post partum). This belief is both ancient and catholic, not only spanning East and West but also was, until the last two hundreds of years or so, broadly accepted by Protestant Christians [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 280-282].

Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55-56 has stated this to be so.

This is just Rodimus’ personal opinion. Nowhere in the Bible can we find a verse that says that Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Rodimus’ reliance on Matthew 13:55-56 to prove that Mary had other children is misplaced. The verse doesn’t say that Mary is the mother of Jesus’ brothers. If Matthew wanted to convey the astounding truth that Mary had other children, he could have done so.

Rodimus can keep his opinion for himself. There are evangelicals who don’t share his view that Matthew 13:55-56 as fool-proof basis for the proposition that Mary had other children.

Evangelical David Gustafson, in his debate with Catholic Dwight Longenecker admitted: “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 69].

If the Gospel account in Matthew 13:55 is not absolutely decisive on whether Mary had other children, then what is?

I raised the challenge before and I raise it again: Rodimus should show me verses in the Bible that say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus” and “Mary is the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.”

Matthew 13:55 just won’t do. More on this later.

Sadly, Roman Catholics offer different perspectives on the verse which lead to complications.

Complications exist only in the bigoted mind of Rodimus. The opacity of his anti-Catholic thinking prevents him to see the light. He has already made up his mind. So, no matter what perspective we offer, Rodimus would just simply brush it aside because he is cocky sure of his own position (which other evangelicals do not share).

We have explained to the point of being trite that our perspectives on Matthew 13:55-56 are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory. Truth, no matter from which perspective you look at it, remains truth simply because truth is indivisible. We Catholics look at every possible angle, consider every possible argument and traverse every possible channel. We may not always necessarily agree on each other’s reasoning, but we do agree in the result. We know how to distinguish what is essential from the non-essential. In the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, even if we explore each and every possible argument on the issue, we do concur in the result, i.e., that the so-called brothers of Jesus Christ in Matthew 13:55-56 are not Mary’s children.

Rodimus must remove the hardened mote in his eyes. He should look around his own backyard to see the unfortunate divisions and glaring contradictions there. If Rodimus succeeds in cleaning up his own backyard, then he can perhaps train his guns again on the Catholic Church.

“You therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (Rom. 2:1).

“So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? (Rom. 3:3).

The Bible was not meant to adjust to the desires of men, but men should adjust themselves to the Bible.

This is plain sloganeering. Nevertheless, I do agree with it. That’s why I firmly believe that Rodimus must adjust himself to the Bible and not the Bible to himself.
So much of Rodimus’ speculations, assumptions and conclusions are not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.

If we only let the Bible speak for itself, Roman Catholics would renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.”

We do let the Bible speak for itself. It doesn’t say that Mary had other children. Neither does it say that the so-called brothers of Jesus are Mary’s children. Rodimus continues to stifle the voice of the Bible by insisting on his erroneous conclusions.

For over two thousand years, we let the Bible speak for itself on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Thus, Protestant Reformers even after cooking up sola scriptura did not renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Neither can we.

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Virgin Mary | 1 Comment »

VIRGINITAS IN PARTU: A DEFENSE AGAINST A MODERN HELVIDIUS

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009

VIRGINITAS IN PARTU: A DEFENSE AGAINST A MODERN HELVIDIUS

By: Atty. Marwil Llasos

Link: http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

I opened my email only yesterday (11 January 2009 – Sunday). It is quite unfortunate that I missed the action – so to speak.

So much ink has been spilled by my post on the issue of Virginitas in Partu. I am grateful to Fr. Abe for calling my post “brilliant.” However, it did not seem to be so to at least a single soul named “Fuschia” (not his real name, to protect his identity. Hereafter, I will rerfer to him as “F” for brevity).

Expulsion

I learned lately that F had already been expelled from this group. I am sad that this had to happen. This extreme disciplinary measure had to be done, after much prayer and discernment, to protect the faith of the other members of the group who may have been scandalized by the clearly heterodox views of F.

While F’s heretical views may be refuted (as have been done by some members of this group, including Fr. A), what I find appalling is his disrespect, if not contempt, to an ordained minister of God. I am referring to F’s unwarranted attacks on Fr. A This we cannot allow.

Man’s “ontological” equality with God?

I have been monitoring F’s post in the past. While I credited him with the benefit of the doubt, I must confess that I was concerned with the novelty – nay, heresy – of his positions. For instance, he claimed that man is “ontologically” equal to God. Well, I may not be a philosopher but I know fully well that such claim is absurd and dead wrong. The claim that man can be equal to God, ontological or otherwise, is nothing but satanic presumption. The view that man can be equal to God was first expressed by the infernal serpent in the Garden of Eden. The tempter hissed: “You shall be like God” (Gen. 3:4). When man believed that canard, look what happened! Indeed, to say that man is equal to God, albeit ontologically, still blurs the distinction between the creature and the Creator. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot repackage the diabolical lie by merely coating it with high-sounding philosophical terminology.

Heresies

F’s heresies are alarming. First, he denied Mary’s title of Mother of God. That made him a Nestorian heretic. Instead of immediately recanting his Nestorian belief, he tarried until the opposition was already overwhelming. He went at great lengths justifying his proffered formula that Mary should best be called “Mother of Jesus our God” instead of what the Council Fathers decreed at Ephesus : Theotokos. Fortunately, F recanted – grudgingly.

And – ooops, he did again! This time he questioned the in partu virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What disgusted me most was the way in which he justified his denial of this aspect of the dogma of perpetual virginity. As Fr. A ably demonstrated, F. went to the extent of falsifying or misrepresenting Ludwig Ott just to lend credence to his clearly erroneous view. For questioning Mary’s perpetual virginity, specifically Mary’s virginity in partu, F is clearly in league with the heresiarch Helvidius.

The decision to expel F from the group is in accord with St. Paul ’s admonition: “He who is a heretic, after a first or second admonition, reject!” (Titus 3:10). F had all the opportunity to retract his errors and retrace his steps, but his pride, I believe, stood in the way. It is not yet too late for him to repent, though. And I ask God to flood F with His grace. I offer my prayers to the Blessed Virgin in reparation for F’s blasphemous remarks against Our Blessed Mother, Virgo Castissima.

Virginitas in partu

Since I was the one who posted an article on Mary’s virginitas in partu, and in effect triggered the maelstrom that followed, I am impelled by what I perceive to be my duty to end the controversy. Allow me to add my two cents worth in this issue.

Prefatorily, I must commend applaud for Fr. A for his spirited and vigorous, yet charitable defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He led the defense through completion, almost single-handedly. I wish I was with him. As I said, I missed the action because I just opened my email yesterday. Since I have always considered myself the Knight of Mary, I deem it imperative to answer some of F’s claims since he addresses his post specifically to me and Fr. A However, I will not repeat what Fr. A had already stated.

How many Marian dogmas are there?

All of us are aware that there are only four Marian dogmas. These are –

1. Divine Maternity
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. The Assumption

As F would have it, the Mary’s virginitas ante partum, in partu and post partum should be treated as three separate dogmas. So how many Marian dogma’s would there be? 4 + 3 = 7? If F would count the Marian dogmas, it would appear –

1. Divine Maternity
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Virginitas ante partum
4. Virginitas in partu
5. Virginitas post partum
6. Immaculate Conception
7. The Assumption

Of course, that doesn’t make sense. You and I know that there is such a thing as the proposed Fifth Marian Dogma – Mary as Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix and Advocate of the People of God. If Red is right, then the proposed dogma would be the Eighth.

Levity aside, there are just Four Marian dogmas. Virginitas ante partum, in partu and post partum, while each of which are de fide, are mere components or facets of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Marian scholar, Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins states: “It is the Catholic Church’s perennial belief in the three facets of this mystery which immediately touch upon the role of Our Lady that is the specific object fact that she was a virgin before (ante partum), during (in partu) and after the birth of Christ (post partum)” [Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, in Mariology: A guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Mark I. Miravalle, ed. (Goleta: CA, Queenship Publishing, 2007) p. 277]

Understanding virginitas in partum

F’s comments revolved around the difficulty of how Mary’s virginity could remain intact in childbirth. As is F’s wont, he quoted theologians who question, if not assail, Our Blessed Mother’s in partu virginity. All of us are aware of what stripe F’s favorite theologians are – modernists, liberals and materialists. These are the destructive termites in the house of God.

I wish to state that the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a datum of Divine Revelation; hence, it must be studied using the tools of theology and not gynecology. I mentioned in my previous post that “those who cannot accept Mary’s virginity in partu are thinking in purely human terms. They are trying to explain away the mystery by way of their limited human understanding. They thus rob Divine Revelation of its content.” Then I quoted Isaiah 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.”
I find it amusing that there are people who have great difficulty in accepting a lesser miracle, i.e., how the Mother of the Savior remained a virgin at childbirth? The greater miracle is how can a virgin be pregnant without the aid of a man? If we can accept the greater miracle, then there is no rhyme or reason why we cannot accept the lesser one. To question how Mary remained a virgin in childbirth is to question the omnipotence of God. “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
Personally, I still grapple with the dogmas and the doctrines of the Church. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Good Lord for revealing to me through His Church the truths of our holy faith. Oftentimes, the Church merely defines the ultimate truth (for example, Mary is a perpetual virgin before, during and after the birth of her Son Jesus Christ) without giving us the details. When Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, he merely said that at the completion of her earthly life, the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory without settling the question of whether or not the Blessed Mother died. The Church tells us what without telling us how.
The Incarnation, the Virgin Birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity, are God’s initiative, not man’s. These are spiritual things that are spiritually discerned. The Apostle Paul reminds us: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural (sensual) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:12-14, NKJV). Notice that only the natural (or the sensual) man that do not receive the things of the Spirit. Tell that to the Modernists and Liberals.

Indeed, God’s truths would always remain a mystery for us. Confronted with these sublime and saving truths, I couldn’t help it but be awed and prostrate myself to thank and worship the God who reveals them.

The late Holy Father John Paul II the Great says in his discourse at Capua on May 24, 1992 –
“The theologian must approach the mystery of Mary’s fruitful virginity with a deep sense of veneration for God’s free, holy and sovereign action. Reading through the writings of the holy Fathers and the liturgical texts we notice that few of the saving mysteries have caused so much amazement, admiration or praise as the Incarnation of God’s Son in Mary’s virginal womb.



The theologian, however, who approaches the mystery of Mary’s virginity with a heart full of faith and adoring respect, does not thereby forego the duty of studying the data of Revelation and showing their harmony and interrelationship; rather, following the Spirit … he puts himself in the great and fruitful theological tradition of fides querens intellectum.
When theological reflection becomes a moment of doxology and latria, the mystery of Mary’s virginity is disclosed, allowing one to catch a glimpse of other aspects and other depths” [AAS 85 (1993) 664, quoted in Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, in Mariology: A guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Mark I. Miravalle, ed. (Goleta: CA, Queenship Publishing, 2007) p. 282].

Biblical texts

In my post on the virginitas in partu, I cited prophetic text of Isaiah 7:14 and its fulfillment text in Matthew 1:23: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” I contented that these texts clearly prove not only Mary’s ante partum virginity but also her in partu virginity. I concluded that these verses – a prophetic text and a fulfillment text – tell us that the virgin shall be a virgin not only in conceiving her child but also a virgin in giving birth to her son.

F, citing his usual sources, concluded that there are no explicit nor implicit verses to support Mary’s in partu virginity! I will let Mariologist Dr. Mark Miravalle answer that point –

“Scripture implicitly affirms Mary’s virgin birthing of Our Lord in the great prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. The prophecy foretells that a virgin, beyond conceiving, will also bear a Son as a virgin: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” Therefore, it is not only a virgin’s conception, but also a virgin birth alluded to in Isaiah 7:14” [Mark I. Miravalle, Introduction to Mary ( Goleta , CA : Queenship Publishing, 2006) p. 58].

Church Fathers

Without shred of proof, F further contended that no Church Father ever cited the Bible verses I mentioned.

Justin Martyr, as far as I know, is a Church Father. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he discussed Isaiah 7:14 to defend the Virgin Birth.

I also cited John 1:13 using the alternative rendering footnoted in the New Jerusalem Bible in relation to Mary’s virginity in partu. “Who was born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God Himself.” Exegete and Marian scholar Ignace de la Potterie, S.J., rendered it –
He is born not of blood(s),
nor of the will of the flesh
nor of the will of man,
but he was begotten of God.
[See Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant (Staten Island, NY: St. Paul’s, 1992) p. 136].
De la Potterie, following the doctoral thesis of Peter Horftrichter, sees a scriptural indication for John 1:13 (above) for the virginitas in partu, the virginity of the birthing of Jesus. De la Potterie proved his rendering of John 1:13 by pointing out that “all the texts from the second century witnessing to our passage have the singular. An in addition, it is interesting to notice that all these witnesses, when they are localized geographically, are not concentrated in one area, but are diffused over the Mediterranean basin: in Asia Minor, most likely in Palestine (Justin), at Rome (Hippolytus), in Gaul (Irenaeus), in Northern Africa (Tertullian), and at Alexandria in Egypt. That is a very important fact because it demonstrates that it demonstrates that in the second century, during a time in which rapid means of communication did not yet exist, this text was universally read only in the singular. And this within one century of the composition of the Fourth Gospel!” [Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant (Staten Island, NY: St. Paul’s, 1992) p. 137].



De la Potterie, following the doctoral thesis of, Peter Horftrichter argues that “in several Old Testament texts and later in Jewish tradition, the word “blood” also used in the plural for the loss of blood which is linked with a woman’s period; that is with menstruation and childbirth, hence of a birth.” Thus, “in the context for the laws of purification it signifies that Jesus, in being born, did not cause an effusion of blood in his mother; in other words, at the birth of Jesus there would not have taken place any shedding of blood. There would then be here a scriptural indication for what the theologians have in mind when they speak of the “virginitas in partu,” the virginity of the birthing of Jesus” [Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant (Staten Island, NY: St. Paul’s, 1992) p. 148-149].

CONCLUSION

To deny the dogma of perpetual virginity of Mary in any of its components or facets makes one a heretic which incurs the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.

To the early Church Fathers the contrary doctrine was called “madness and blasphemy” (Gennadius, De dogm. eccl., lxix), “madness” (Origen, in Luc., h, vii), “sacrilege” (St. Ambrose, De instit. virg., V, xxxv), “impiety and smacking of atheism” (Philostorgius, VI, 2), “perfidy” (St. Bede, hom. v, and xxii), “perfidy of the Jews” (Pope Siricius, ep. ix, 3), and “heresy” (St. Augustine, De Hær. h., lvi).

St. Jerome had the most colorful words for the opponents of 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!” (Adversus Helvidium). If St. Jerome were still alive and would write a treatise against F and his theologians, I wonder if he would also call each of them an “ignorant boor.” Without meaning to offend our dear brother F, I was just wondering…

I wish to end by pointing to the lot of A. Mitterer, the theologian quoted by F with gusto. Dr. Albert Mitterer’s 1952 study Dogma und Biologie which questioned Our Lady’s physical integrity and the absence of pain resulted in a monitum issued by the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) stating that “theological works are being published in which the delicate question of Mary’s virginity in partu is treated with a deplorable crudeness of expression and, what is more serious, in flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church and to the sense of respect the faithful have and thus prohibiting the publication of such dissertation in the future. Mitterer’s work is condemned!

Red can opt to stay on the side of Helvidius, or of Mitterer and his favorite theologians. We at apologia should stay on the side of Our Holy Mother the Church. As defenders of the faith, we can do no less. We should be part of the solution, not the problem.

The Church understands Mary’s virginity during the birth of Christ as an absence of any physical injury or violation to Mary’s virginal seal through a special divine action of the all-powerful God. This divine act would safeguard Mary’s physical virginity which is both a symbol and part of her perfect, overall virginity; a virginity both internal and external, of soul and of body.

The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the “miraculous birth” of Jesus that resulted in no injury to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s physical integrity. St. Augustine stated that “it is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity” (Sermo 189, No. 2; PL 38, 1005).

Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas defended the miraculous and painless nature of Christ’s birth (ST, III, Q. 28, a. 2).

The Magisterium of the Church teaches it in no unmistakable terms. Pope St. Leo the Great in his famous Tome to Flavian made it clear that Mary’s physical virginity was protected in the process of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ: “Mary brought Him forth, with her virginity untouched, as with her virginity untouched she conceived Him” (Enchiridium Patristicum 2182).

Pope Paul IV, in Cum quorumdam hominum, admonished all who deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary “did not retain her virginity intact before the birth, in the birth, and perpetually after the birth.”

The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) continued the succession of papal and conciliar teaching on how Jesus was born without injuring Our Lady’s virginity and without any experience of pain:

“For in a way wonderful beyond expression or conception, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity. As he afterwards went forth from the sepulcher while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled, although “the doors were closed” (Jn. 20:19), or, not to depart from natural events which we witness every day, as the rays of the sun penetrate the substance of glass without breaking or injuring it in the least: so, but in a more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from His Mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity …

To Eve it was said: “in pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen/ 3:16). Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”

Vatican II reiterates the traditional teaching of the Church: “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception … then also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it … (LG, No. 57).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies that “the deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man” (CCC No. 499).

PRAYER

I end this rejoinder with a prayer I borrow from St. Jerome , the great defender of Mary’s perpetual virginity:

“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).

Santa Virgen de las virgenes, ruega por nosotros!
Madre purisima, ruega por nosotros!
Madre castisima, ruega por nosotros!
Madre virginal, ruega por nosotros!
Madre sin mancha, ruega por nosotros!
Madre inmaculada, ruega por nosotros!
Ave Maria purisima, sin pecado concebida!
Viva Jesus y Maria!
Viva la Virgen!
Viva Señor San Jose!

Posted in Virgin Mary | 2 Comments »

CATHOLIC ANSWERS VERSUS DEFENSORES FIDEI?

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009

CATHOLIC ANSWERS VERSUS DEFENSORES FIDEI?
Bro. Marwil N. Llasos’ Reply to Rodimus of the Bereans

Link: http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/02/catholic-answers-versus-defensores.html

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 »

Sino Ba ang Babae sa Revelation 12?

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on January 22, 2009

Sino Ba ang Babae sa Revelation 12?

Author : jason abalos (IP: 203.84.172.254 , acl1-1552bts.gw.smartbro.net)
E-mail : jokring@yahoo.com
URL    : http://jokring@yahoo.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=203.84.172.254
Comment:
May tanong po ako..

Sa isang aklat na isinulat ng PARI by ALBER HUNNI page.59

” The epistles has taken from the apocalips,a woman surrounded by the sons splender who is wearing a crown by the twelve star and the moon beniete her feet.Appears to saint john avoice announce that is hour salvation of the kingdom of jesus christ,The application to the IMMACULATE VIRGIN of LORDES is clear.

So Maliwanag.. Na sabi ng PARI nio na TURO ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA na si VIRGIN MARRY ang BABAE sa Apocalipsis 12:1.”

Anu nmn ang sinasabi ng catholic bible sa DOUAY RHIMES VERSION sa {FOOTNOTE} ng APOCALIPSIS 12:1 ganito ang sabi…

A woman,this WOMAN is NOT the BLESSED VIRGIN!

Ngayon alin po jan ang 22o? ang sabi ng pari sa aklat nio na virgin marry ang bab sa revlation 12:1

o sa catholic bible ng douay rhimes version na hindi raw si virgin marry ang babae sa revation 12:!?

pakisagot po..

SINAGUTAN NI BRO. G-ONE PAISONES

Dear Bro. Jason,

Salamat sa comento mo sa amin, naway ang Dios ay gagabay sa iyo at sa iyong pamilya sa mga pag-araw araw na Gawain.

Sa hindi pa natin sagutin ang tanong mo, dapat malaman natin kung ano ang Book of Revelation o Apocalypse. Narito ang mga sumusunod na pahayag hinggil sa Book of Revelation:

NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil. Page 504-505 (emphasis added) -REVELATION, BOOK OF THE (Gr. Apokalypsis, an unveiling). Sometimes called the Apocalypse. This is the last book of the Bible and the only book of NT that is exclusively prophetic in character.

There are four main schools of interpretation:

  1. Pretest- holds that Revelation is simply a picture of conditions prevalent in the Roman Empire in the late first century, cast in the form of vision and prophecy to conceal its meaning from hostile pagan.
  2. Historical view contends that the book represents in symbolic form the entire course of church history from the time of writing to the final consummation, and that the mystical figures describe in it can be identified with human events in history.
  3. Futurist- on the basis of the threefold division given in Revelation 1:19, suggests that “what you have seen” refers to the immediate environment of the seer and vision of Christ (1”9-19), “what is now” denotes the churches of Asia or the church age they symbolize (2:1-3:22), and “what will take later” relates to those events that will attend the return of Christ and the establishment of the city of God.
  4. Idealist or Symbolic school treats Revelation as purely a dramatic picture of the conflict of good and evil.

The New Jerome Bible Handbook, Page 310. The Apocalypse (Revelation) narrates extraordinary visions that concern things normally unseen and unheard by human beings. It is unique in the New Testament, but not the ancient world… The Revelation has two focuses: Secrets of the cosmos and secret of the future. Secrets are revealed in order to present a particular interpretation of the times and to persuade the hearers or readers to think and live in a certain way.

Sa nasambit natin sa itaas, mapapansin natin na ang Revelation ay may maraming interpretations batay na rin sa bumabasa.

Atin pong talakayin ang Revelation Chapter 12 na basihan sa iyong katanungan.

Kay ALBER HUNNI is Santa Maria ang Rev. 12:1; sa DOUAY RHIMES VERSION (St. Joseph Edition) < CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION> hindi si Santa Maria ang Revelation 12. Makikita po natin na para pong contradict ang statement ng dalawa (o masasabi ng iba na contrary talaga ang dalawa). Peru bakit po sinabi natin na parang contradict ang dalawa? Narito ang kasagutan:

Dapat nating malaman na ang Revelation 12:1 ay isang fusion imagery o ang topiko ng Revelation ay may maraming kahulugan at nakadependi ito sa History, Phrase, Sentence, Context, at Interpretation ng mambabasa (Ang reference ay nasa itaas).

Narito ang nakasaad sa Rev. 12:1-2 (KJV) “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: {12:2} And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.”

Ang interpretation ng dalubhasa sa Biblia tungkol sa woman ng Rev. 12:1 ay:

1. Israel = Mic. 4:9-10; Isa. 66:7; Gen. 37:9–11

2. Eve = she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus. (from James Akin of Catholic Answer)

3. Church = because, as Rev. 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians. from James Akin of Catholic Answer)

4. Mary (Mother of Jesus) = Revelation 11:19- 12:1 it is Mary the Ark of New Covenant

Narito ang mga sumusonod na references:

Holy Bible- Douay Rheims Version, Page 295 –Apocalypse 12:1 Footnote -“A woman. The Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady. The church with the sun, that is, with Christ. She hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet: and the twelve stars with which she is crown, are the twelve apostles: She is in labor and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions.

The New Testament of the New American Bible, Page 626– Revelation 12: 1f. 4-6 Notes: “The Woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the starts symbolized God’s people in the Old and New Testament; Gn 37, 9f. The Israel of old gave birth to Messiah (v 5) and then became the New Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (vv 6:13-17).

Biblia sa Kristohanong Katilingban (Christian Community Bible) Page 485– Revelation 12 Notes: “Ang babaye nagpasabot sa katawhan nga mitabang sa plano sa Diyos, si Maria nga nanganak kang Jesus; siya ang simbahan nga “mikagiw sa disyerto”, sa ato pa, nagkinabuhing espirituhanong layo sa kalibutan, apan giamoma sa pulong sa Diyos panahon sa panglutos. TAGALOG: “Ang babae (ibigsabihin) ay ang mamamayang tomulong sa plano ng Diyos, Si Maria na nagluwal kay Jesus; siya ang simbahan na pumunta (tumongo) sa disyerto, ibigsabihin ay nabubuhay sa espiritual (spiritual way of living) na malayo sa pansanlibutan na buhay (masasamang bagay), peru inaalagaan ng Diyos sa panahon ng kagipitan.”

Revelation a Divine Message of Hope by: Fr. Bruce Vawter, CM. ((Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus Supreme Council, New Haven CT 06521-1971)) – (Imprimatur John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford) Page 44 à “The first sign is “a woman clothed with the sun; with the moon beneath her feet and the twelve starts in a crown about her head. As we see from the complete description of this woman (12:1-2, 5-6), she is both the Church and the Mother of the Messiah. The Church is presented both glorified and in her period of trial, all at once… The Child to whom the woman gives birth in v.5 is certainly Jesus, as He is describe in the messianic language of Psalm 2:9.

Conclusion:

Kaya kung ang buong chapter sa Revelation 12 ang pagbabatayan natin iyan po ay hindi kay Santa Maria lamang nakabasi o nakatoon peru kung pagbabasihan natin ang Literal na ina ni Cristo na nag panganak sa kanya hindi rin mali na e-apply natin ang Revelation 12:1 kay Santa Maria.

Ngayon alin po jan ang totoo? ang sabi ng pari sa aklat nio na virgin mary ang bab sa revelation 12:1
o sa catholic bible ng douay rhimes version na hindi raw si virgin marry ang babae sa revelation 12:!?

Alin ba ang totoo sa dalawa ang Pari ba (ALBER HUNNI) o ang CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION? Pareho pong totoo ang dalawa SAPAGKAT KUNG TATAPOSIN LANG NATIN ANG PAGBASA SA FOOTNOTE NG CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION GANITO ANG NAKALAGAY:

CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION, PAGE 272- REVELATION 12:1 FOOTENOTE: A woman: this woman is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophesy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory clothe her, the moon is beneath her feet, she is crowned with a crown of twelve stars, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By accommodation the church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.

Samakatuwid nais ng may akda ng CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY VERSION na hindi lamang dapat nakatoon ang pagkakaintindi (ng mga Katoliko) sa Revelation 12:1 kay Santa Maria sapagkat ang pinag-uusapan na “BABAE” sa boung chapter 12 ng Revelation ay hindi ni SANTA MARIA naka sentro.

Nasagutan po ang inyong tanong.

Salamat

Posted in Apologetics-Tagalog, Virgin Mary | 31 Comments »