Catholic Faith Defender

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


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 23, 2009


By Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS.


Madonna and Child

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

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Church is the defender of life in Conception,

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

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

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

the Catholic Church is the caretaker of the abandoned,

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

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

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

My suggestion for you is BE REAL.

Now let me address you latest mail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #111 (Sola Scriptura)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 23, 2009


Topic: Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #111

General Comments



I want to thank all of you who showed up for my talk in Dixon, CA, this past weekend – I enjoyed seeing each and every one of you…I appreciate you being there. One very unexpected result of my time in Dixon is that someone who was in the audience has offered to cover the expenses for getting my talks recorded into Spanish! So, we are moving ahead immediately with that project. If all goes well, maybe we can start turning out Spanish language tapes within a few months.

I’ll be at St. John the Evangelist in Borger, TX – outside of Amarillo – on Feb 27th and 28th. For more info, call the parish.

For those who have asked, the Bible quotes that I am using in my book come from the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) unless otherwise noted. That fact will be in the front of the book when published.


Below is the first half of Chapter 3 of my book – the chapter on Sola Scriptura. I should have the 2nd half out next week; although, since next week is a travel week, there is the possibility of a delay, but I’ll do my best.

This half covers the logical and historical perspectives on Sola Scriptura, while the next issue will cover the scriptural perspective on Sola Scriptura.


Chapter 3Sola Scriptura

There are two basic doctrines that separate Catholic Christians from most Protestant Christians. Those two being: Sola Scriptura – which means Scripture Alone; and Sola Fide – which means Faith Alone. There are other doctrines that separate us as well, but these are the two most fundamental ones. While I have come across Protestants who do not believe in the doctrine of Sola Fide, I have yet to come across any who do not believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That’s not to say there aren’t any, I’m just saying that I haven’t run into any.

So, near as I can tell, this doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the one doctrine that all, or almost all, Protestants believe in.

First, let me define the term “Sola Scriptura”, as I understand it, so that you know exactly what I mean when I use the term. It is simply this: The Bi ble is the sole authority that one needs when it comes to deciding what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. That is not to say that one cannot learn things from sources other than the Bible, but these other sources are not infallible, as is the Bible, and do not carry the binding authority that the Bible does.

In other words, the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. If it’s not in the Bible, then I, as a Christian, am not bound to believe it. This definition of Sola Scriptura is not something of my own making, but is based on what I have been told by the many Protestants I have discussed this particular doctrine with.

Using that definition as a basis for this chapter, I wish to examine this doctrine from several different angles, ask some questions about it, and contrast it with Catholic teaching. And speaking of Catholic teaching, I want to say at the outset that Catholics hold the Bible in the highest possible regard. We believe it is the Holy Spirit–inspired, inerrant Word of God. The Scriptures are central to Catholic Christian belief and practice.

Having said that, however, we do not believe in the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura – the doctrine that Scripture “alone” is the sole rule of faith for the Christian; we believe rather in Sola Dei Verbum – the Word of God alone. For Catholics, the Word of God consists in not just Sacred Scripture, but in Sacred Tradition as well. Which is exactly what the Bible tells us, as I will show later in this chapter.

I will examine this doctrine of Sola Scriptura from three different perspectives – logical, historical, and scriptural – and show that it fails the test in all three of these areas. What you may occasionally run into, as I have in the past, is that there are those who immediately dismiss the first two perspectives, since they believe Scripture alone is sufficient to decide the issu e. In that instance, I simply remind them that God gave us our minds and He told us that we must love Him with all of our mind, as well as our heart (Matt 22:37). In addition, we see from 1 Cor 12, that wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the Spirit, and in Isaiah 1:18, the Lord says, “Come, let us reason together.” Logic, sound logic, is of God.

Also, God is the Lord of history. What happened in history, particularly in Christian history, is very important for us to know. The early Christians are important witnesses as to what Christianity was in their time, and thus to what it ought to be in our time. So to simply dismiss logic and history out–of–hand as not being important perspectives to consider when it comes to Christian teaching and practice, is to dismiss the God Who gave us our brains and told us to use them in loving Him, and to dismiss the testimony of those who gave their lives to defend and pass on the Faith that we hold so dear. So I will start with logic and history, then move on to Scripture.

The Perspective Provided by Logic:

All Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, consider the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God. The question that needs to be asked, however, is: Why? Why do we believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? What authority do we rely upon for our belief that the Bible is what we believe it to be? Where did the Bible come from? Most people never consider these questions. They merely take it for granted that the Bible is what they believe it to be. But the fact is, everyone who believes the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, relies on some authority for their beliefs about the Bible.

So what authority do they rely upon? Is it the Bible? Well, for those who believe that the Bible is the sole binding authority for the Christian – those who believe in Sola Scriptura – it must be the authority of the Bible that Christians rely on for their belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. After all, the Bible is the sole authority for them in matters of Christian belief and practice.

But this presents a little bit of a problem. There is a logical inconsistency here. We cannot believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, based solely on the authority of the Bible. Why not? Three reasons:

1) The Bible cannot bear witness to itself. There are a number of writings that claim inspiration from God, but we don’t accept them as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, just because they claim to be. The Koran being one very obvious example of this. If we should believe something is what it says it is, simply because it says it, then we should accept the Koran as the word of God. But, we don’t, do we?

If I had written in the Foreword that this book is inspired of God, does that mean it is simply because it was writt en down in this book? Of course not! Just so, we cannot accept the Bible as the Word of God based solely upon the witness of the Bible. As Jesus Himself said, “If I bear witness to Myself, My testimony is not true,” (John 5:31).

2) The Bible never claims that it is the sole, infallible, authoritative source for all matters pertaining to Christian belief and practice, as I will explore show in the following pages when discussing the perspective from Scripture.

3) We can’t even be sure of what the Bible is if we rely on the authority of Scripture “alone” in matters of Christian belief and practice.

Let me explain why I say that. You see, the Bible wasn’t put together as we have it today for more than 300 years after the death of Christ. One of the problems in putting the Bible together was that there was a lot of disagreement, among Christians, over what should and should not be considered inspired Scripture. There were a l ot of books back then that people were saying were inspired; yet, these books did not end up in the Bible as we have it today. Books such as the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, the Letter of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and several more.

There were also several books that did end up in our Bible that a lot of Christians were saying were not inspired and should not be considered as part of Scripture – books such as Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and others.

In other words, there was a fair amount of dispute among Christians, over just what was and what was not inspired Scripture. So, how did they settle the disputes? Well, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you just look in the Bible to find the authoritative answer to any question regarding the Christian faith. So, did they consult the Bible to find out what books should be in the Bible? Obviously not – they couldn’t! There was no Bible to consult because the content of the Bible was what the disputes were over.

So the question is: How does someone who believes in Sola Scriptura go about deciding a dispute as to which books should and should not be considered Scripture? You cannot consult the Bible for an answer, because the Bible is what the dispute is over. And, even if you consulted the non–disputed books of the Bible, that still wouldn’t help you because there is no list in any book of the Bible that tells us which books should be in the Bible.

Which means in order to decide one of the most fundamental issues of Christianity – which books should and should not be in the Bible – which books are and are not inspired Scripture – some authority outside of the Bible had to be relied upon.

Again, a big problem for those who believe that the Bible is the sole binding authority in matters of faith and morals is that the Bible doesn’t tell us whi ch books should be in the Bible! There is no list – in the Bible – of which books should be – in the Bible. Some person, or group of persons, had to decide which books were, and which books were not, inspired Scripture. Think about it, folks. In order to know which books should and should not be inside the Bible, we have to rely on some authority outside of the Bible to tell us. Yet, the belief in Sola Scriptura states that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of Christian belief and practice.

Which presents a logical dilemma. The question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, as the question of where matter came from presents to those who believe in evolution, yet do not believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe the matter used in evolution came from somewhere. But, if there is no God, then where did matter come from? Big problem. If you believe in Sol a Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible – as to which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But, if there is no binding authority outside of the Bible, then where did this authoritative decision come from? Big problem.

In other words, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you believe in something that is logically inconsistent. You believe the Bible is the sole authority in deciding Christian belief and practice; yet, you believe in a binding authority – whether you realize it or not – outside of the Bible which gave us the Bible in the first place. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the sole authority in matters of faith and morals. There is some authority outside of the Bible that we have to have in order to have the Bible in the first place!

I would like to add that as a Catholic I believe – and historical documentation backs up my belie f – it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together as we have it today. There are many Protestants who disagree with me on that, but whether you agree that it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together or not, you have to agree that someone did. Someone with binding authority on Christians decided the disputes about which books should and should not be in what we now call the Bible. The Bible was not consulted in order to determine the question of which books should and should not be in the Bible.

In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the test of logic.

When I’ve used this line of reasoning with Sola Scriptura believers in the past, I have received several different responses. One such response is: “God put the Bible together – He gave it to us.” Yes, He did. Catholics believe that God is the primary Author of Scripture. The question remains, however, as to exactly how God put the Bible together. Did H e do it all by Himself and then the Bible just dropped down out of Heaven one day and all the people on the Earth heard a voice that said, “Here it is – read it for yourselves?”

Or, did He first use human beings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to write the Scriptures, and then He used human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit, to authoritatively decide the disputes as to which books were and were not written by Him? All Christians agree that He used human beings to write the Scriptures, so it’s logical to assume that He also used human beings to authoritatively decide the disputes regarding Scriptures. The question is, which human beings did He use to decide these disputes? Sola Scriptura believers ultimately have no answer for this question.

Another response I have received when using this line of reasoning is this: “We rely on the witness of the early Christians for our knowledge of what books should and should not be in the Bible.R 21; Do you know what we Catholics call the “witness of the early Christians?” Tradition. That’s a word that Protestants will not use, however, when discussing their religious beliefs. All of their beliefs, they claim, come straight from the Bible and only from the Bible. Yet, when discussing where their beliefs about the Bible came from, they inevitably have to conclude that they came from tradition – whether they use the actual word, “tradition,” or not.

Also, if they respond that they rely on the witness of the early Christians for their knowledge of what is and is not Scripture, then one needs to ask how they know what the witness of the early Christians was. Is the witness of the early Christians on this matter written in the Bible? No. In other words, their knowledge of the witness of the early Christians comes from extra–biblical sources, also known as – tradition. They cannot get away from that word – traditi on – no matter how hard they try.

Questions to Ask:

1) Where did the Bible come from?

2) What authority do we rely on for our belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?

3) Is there a list of books in the Bible, which tells us which books should be in the Bible?

4) What authority decided the disputes among Christians as to which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture?

5) What authority prevents me from disagreeing with the canon of Scripture as we currently have it and putting my own Bible together?

Strategy: By asking these questions you are using the “How to be Offensive (Aw–fensive) Without Being Offensive (Uh–fensive) strategy, which is all about asking questions. Ask these questions and keep asking them over and over until you actually get answers to the questions. And, if the answer you get involves “tradition,& #8221; whether they use that particular word or not, make sure you point that out.

The Perspective Provided by History:

What does the perspective of history tell us in regards to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura…the belief in the Bible as the sole rule of faith for Christians?

Well, the main thing the perspective of history tells us is that the early Christians did not believe in this doctrine. We know that because there was no Bible, as we have it now, for them to consult as their authoritative guide in questions of Christian teaching and practice. As previously mentioned, the Bible did not come together as the document that we now call “the Bible” for more than three hundred years after the death of Christ. Plus, the first book of the New Testament was not written for at least ten years or more after the death of Christ. So, for at least ten years, Christians were having to decide questions of doctrine and practice without a single book of the New Testament to consult.

Furthermore, the last book of the New Testament wasn’t written for at least forty, and probably more likely sixty years or more, after the death of Christ. Also, because of the state of transportation and communication in the world of the 1st century, it could take a while before a particular Christian community received a copy of this or that book of the New Testament – which were all written as individual books and letters at different times, in different places, and addressed to different people. In other words, the early Christians went many decades without even the possibility of being able to use the Bible as the sole source of authority in matters of Christian teaching and practice. Which means they could not, and did not, believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

The question is, though, without a Bible as their sole authoritative source for their beliefs, to what, or whom, did the early Christians turn for authoritative decisions on matters of faith…on matters of doctrine? Who decided doctrinal disputes when they arose between Christians if there was no Bible to consult? Who? Well, as I’ll show in a moment, from the Bible, it was the leaders of the Church who made binding decisions in matters of doctrinal disputes. So, again, we see a binding authority, outside of Scripture, that was relied upon by the early Christians.

Another part of the historical perspective is this: When Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church, and started teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it was around the year 1520. By the year 1600, it is said there were more than two hundred Protestant denominations. By the year 1900, it is estimated the number of denominations was almost a thousand. And, now, in the year 2009, there are estimated to be more than thirty thousand or more Protestant denominations! Each denomination claims to be based on the Bible alone, and most claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit; yet, none of them have the exact same body of doctrine, and many, many of them have doctrines that absolutely contradict one another.

How can that be? Can the Holy Spirit – which is supposed to lead us unto all truth – can this same Holy Spirit lead different people into different doctrines – doctrines that contradict each other? No. In other words, the historical perspective shows that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura tends towards division within the Body of Christ. The lesson of history teaches us that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has done nothing but divide the Body of Christ.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the test of history.

There are generally two arguments that I’ve heard in response to this historical perspective. The first goes something like this: “Of course, the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura before the New Testament was written. Sola Scriptu ra was not ‘operational’ during periods of enscripturation – in other words, during the period when new revelation was being given. But, after revelation was complete, then the principle of Sola Scriptura became operational.”

There are several problems with this response, however. First, how did the early Christians know the period of “enscripturation” was over? Who told them? What authority said to the early Christians, “The period of enscripturation is now over; therefore, the era of Sola Scriptura has started?” When exactly was the period of enscripturation over, and how do we know? Does the Bible tell us, or would that be something that Sola Scriptura believers know from…tradition?

Furthermore, where in the Bible does it tell us that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura will become “operational” after the period of enscripturation is over? Or is that also something Sola Scriptura believers know from& #8230;tradition? When exactly did the authority that the leaders of the early Church had, which is clearly displayed in the pages of Scripture, give way to the authority of each individual reading the Bible on their own to decide between true and false doctrine? And who told everyone that they no longer had to listen to their Church leaders in regard to doctrinal disputes, that they only had to pick up their Bible and read it for themselves?

In other words, this argument about Sola Scriptura not being “operational” during periods of “enscripturation” is an argument not found in the Bible – which makes it a tradition – and it is an argument that simply cannot hold up under any level of scrutiny.

The other argument I hear to counter the historical perspective is this: “There are as many divisions within the Catholic Church as there are within Protestantism.” The point being that one cannot, therefore, pin the blame fo r the divisions within Protestantism on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, seeing as how there are just as many divisions within Catholicism, and Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura.

This argument does not hold, however, because there is a fundamental difference between the divisions within Protestantism and the division within the Catholic Church. Each division within Protestantism has its own particular “official” set of beliefs and practices. These differing sets of beliefs and practices from one denomination to another are generally viewed within Protestantism as being acceptable. If a Baptist disagrees with a Methodist who disagrees with a Presbyterian who disagrees with an Episcopalian on doctrinal matters…well, that’s all okay. There are thousands of sets of beliefs, all of which are generally accepted as legitimate within Protestantism itself.

Not so in the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, there is one, and only one, se t of beliefs that is recognized as “official” Church teaching, and everyone knows it. There actually is just one division within the Church – between those who accept Church teaching in its entirety, and those who do not.

The historical argument that links Sola Scriptura to the divisions within Protestantism is valid, therefore, because the thousands of different belief sets – from which the divisions stem – are a result of each individual reading Scripture on their own to decide what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine. For every “new” interpretation of Scripture that someone comes up with, you have the possibility of a new denomination forming.

Questions to Ask:

1) Did the early Christians believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

2) When there was a doctrinal dispute in early Christianity, did they simply consult the Bible to decide the dispute?

3) Is it possible that the Holy Spirit is guiding some Christians into beliefs that contradict the beliefs He is guiding other Christians into? If not, how do we tell which Christians are really guided by the Holy Spirit and which ones are not? How do we tell which Christians are really interpreting the Bible correctly and which ones are not?

4) Has the doctrine of Sola Scriptura proven historically to be a unifying factor or a dividing factor within the Body of Christ?

Strategy: Again, this is essentially the “How to be Offensive (Aw–fensive) Without Being Offensive (Uh–fensive) strategy – asking questions.  Since we’re not in Scripture here, there is no need for the “It’s the Principle of the Thing,” or the “But That’s My Interpretation!” strategies.  The ”Ignorant Catholic” strategy could come into play at any time, whether you̵ 7;re talking about Scripture or not, so just always remember: if you’re asked a question you don’t know the answer to, respond with: “I don’t know, but I’ll find out and get back to you.”

In Conclusion

As always, all comments, edits, spelling and grammar corrections, etc. are welcomed and will be read and considered.

Hope you have a great weekend!

Posted in Bible, Sola Scriptura, Strategy (Apologetics), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | Leave a Comment »

Pope Benedict strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 19, 2009

Pope Benedict / Speaker Nancy Pelosi

.- House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s photo-op with Pope Benedict XVI turned sour when the Pontiff used the 15-minute meeting to reaffirm the teachings of the Catholic Church on the right to life and the duty to protect the unborn.

No photo of Nancy Pelosi and the Pope will be forthcoming, since the meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room in the Vatican just after the Pope’s weekly public audience.

Immediately after the meeting, the Holy See’s press office released a statement saying, “following the general audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.”

“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

A significant number of Catholic and pro-life organizations expressed concern over how Pelosi would use the meeting with Pope Benedict to further her position that it is possible to be Catholic and pro-abortion.

Last August, Pelosi was rebuked by several U.S. bishops for attempting to theologically justify her position during an interview with “Meet the Press.”

On Tuesday, Jon O’Brien, president of “Catholics for Choice,” a small, well-funded organization that provides theological arguments to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, told The Hill that today’s visit between the Speaker and Pope Benedict would be an opportunity to highlight that one can be pro-choice and Catholic, and that there are much bigger issues out there to discuss, such as the fate of the poor in the global economic downturn.

“That would be a real conversation about choice, instead of this micro-obsession with abortion,” O’Brien said.

Nevertheless, according to the Holy See’s statement, the Pope spent the whole 15 minute conversation talking with Pelosi about the right to life and the need to defend the unborn.

A spokesman for Pelosi, who is now headed to Southern Italy as part of her Italian tour, said she would issue a statement later in the day regarding her meeting with the Pope.

Posted in Abortion, Moral Issue | Leave a Comment »

“ABORTION Dialogue”

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 18, 2009



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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 17, 2009




Amang nasa langit, ang iyong Anak na si Hesu-Kristo na aming Panginoon ay nagpamalas sa amin ng kanyang pag-ibig sa pamamagitan ng paglilingkod sa mga nangangailangan.
Hinihiling ko po aking Ama na ako’y iyong tulungan sa aking paglilingkod sa Iyo at ng Iyong Bayan.
Buksan N’yo po ang aking bibig upang magpuri sa Iyo. Buksan N’yo po ang aking tenga upang makinig sa Iyong mga salita. Buksan N’yo po ang aking kamay upang maisakatuparan ko ng buong husay ang aking paglilingkod sa iyong dambana.
Alisin N’yo po sa aking puso’t isipan ang kahit anu mang nakakagambalang isipin.
Tulungan N’yo po akong makapaglingkod ng taimtim sa Banal mong Dambana, ng sa gayon ako’y makapagbigay galang, pagpupugay, pagsamba at papuri sa Iyo, ngayon at magpakailan man. Amen.


Panginoong Hesus, maraming salamat po sa pagkakataong ipinagkaloob N’yo sa akin upang ako’y makapaglingkod sa Banal na Misa. Ang aking puso ay puno ng kagalakan at kapayapaan, dahil sa biyayang ito. nawa’y lalo kong mapagbuti ang aking paglilingkod sa susunod na pagkakataon. Nawa’y ang Banal na Espiritu ay maging gabay kong lagi, upang ako ay maging karapatdapat sa iyong pag-ibig sa pamamagitan ng grasya ng Amang nasa langit. Amen.

Posted in Misa, Pagdasal | 5 Comments »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009


By: Atty. Marwil Llasos


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).


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.


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].


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).


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 »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009



Can I take a Look at your Face Pastor Berean?

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

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

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

Anonymous said…


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


Propeta Elias

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

Posted in Bereans, Debate | Leave a Comment »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beware of the company you keep, RODIMUS.

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

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

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

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

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

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

John Calvin (1509-1564):

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

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531):

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

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

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

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

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

CEBU TRIP, Part 15 Young Catholic Faith Defenders in Casa Miani Cebu

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009

CEBU TRIP, Part 15 Young Catholic Faith Defenders in Casa Miani Cebu


St. Jerome Emiliani with Mother of the Orphans

As we celebrate today the feast of St. Jerome Emiliani I hereby close the thread about CASA MIANI ARVEDI-BUSCHINI. I have shown you almost all its parts, inside ad outside. You have visited its gardens and behold its flowers. Moreover I have provided you with the brief explanations of its purpose and spirit. It’s root in the Love of God and the Charity of Christ. Then the link between Christ and St. Jerome Emiliani who tried to live the Gospel through life of Charity and Sacrifice for the sake of the poor, the sick, the converted prostitudes and the orphans and the needy children became the charism that permeated the live of the Somascan Fathers and Brothers all over the world.

His Eminence Ricardo Cardinal with Pope Benedict XVI

Moreover, there is another aspect on the life of St. Jerome that is not yet fully highlighted. That St. Jerome Emiliani is one of the 16th century saints who helped the Pope in countering the Reformation offensive of the Protestants. He countered it by teaching Catechism to the People and in doing so he helped the Italians remain faithful to the Holy Mother Church and deepened the knowledge of the people of the Word of God.

Brothers G-One Paisones of Catholic Faith Defender Cebu and Bro. Ryan Mejillano CFD Davao

It is therefore fitting that young Defenders of the Catholic faith found themselves at home in the House of St. Jerome Emiliani [Casa Miani] and were delighted to feel the presence of the same Spirit present therein. It is also touching to see this photo of the saintly Archbishop of Cebu Ricardo Cardinal Vidal manifesting his loyalty to the Vicar of Christ. We Somascans do the same and may our lay faithful be active in their defense of the faith as these two young gentlemen.
G-One Paisones and Fr. Abe, CRS

With Augustian Recoletos Sisters and one of our Boys
Fr. Abe explains to G-One the meaning and significance for the Somascan of their Novitiate Cross. We are being given each when we entered the Novitiate and that Cross becomes our companion and guide and protection throughout our life.
Bro. G-One carrying the Bibles used by Fr. Abe for Apologetic purpose

Bro. Ryan inside the Dormitory of the Casa Miani

Fr. Abe with G-One before the Holy Mass

Fr. Abe calling the children to prepare for a camera shots
The House Blessing with Mr. and Mrs. Giovanni & Luciana Arvedi
The Bishop recitest the prayer of blessing

Bishop John Du with the Sisters and Bro. Ryan

now with G-One

Bro. Ryan with the Sisters

Bro. G-One with the Sisters

Having a good laugh with Bishop John Du and Bro. Ryan
with Fr. Lino Juta, CRS my superior

Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, How to Help others become Catholic | 2 Comments »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 16, 2009



Fr. Abe in Catholi Faith Defenders Radio Program in Davao City

I have reported in this Blog that during my stay in Davao last October 2008 the CFD members invited me to join them in their Radio Program. It came out that I was the lone guest that night and I have to answer live questions coming from the listeners from about 6 provinces of Mindanao. There were many questions that night because it is very rare that a Catholic priest is appearing on air to receive direct questions from the Audience. Due to time constraint and the large number of arriving questions many answers here were direct answers that need refining and more thought of answers now. But, I still believe that those who are interested and are new in Apologetics can still learn something from this.

The organizers were able to record the said program and they gave me a copy of the audio CD. My young partner here in Sorsogon, Bro. Franz Luigi Lugena uploaded it in the Internet so that now it can be listened to by more people the world over. The language though is Filipino and Visaya.

Here is the link:

Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, MP3 Apologetics | Leave a Comment »