Catholic Apologetic Site for Filipinos

  • Thread starter Thread starter kat_holos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, in the first place I will not react if you just let the repost I gave flow by. It will serve true Filipino Catholics to pause a bit and say, “True, we must not stand for one but as an inspired scripture we must let the scripture fulfill itself.” The scriptures are higher than our intellects for it is the word of God. We ought to be SERVANTS of the scriptures, not its MASTER!

CCC Says: “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.” (CCC pp110). See, we cannot directly claim any prophecy in what we think it is. Let the Protestants say what they want. It’s their livelihood, anyway. If you’re helping our fellow countrymen you’re helping only the well-informed and those who care to reach the ends of this thread.

Putting the scriptures under your control and in your own sphere of interpretion makes us no different with the Bible babblers in the street and in the plaza or in the vintage Freedom Park! What the CFD must do now is not interpreting scripture in the old CFD way but in the truly Catholic way.

Mind you, I am not reacting to the stand of the both of you. I am just posting a caution to the Filipino catholics that you serve, in order for them not to be BIBLE MASTERS. We must be slaves of the scriptures always. I can’t believe that you reacted unto mine even if I do not DIRECTLY oppose you, did I?.

You must never care even if I am a pal of our National president. I told you the truth to prove that I am a fellow CFD and not to intimidate you. We are brothers. What I am doing now is reprimanding you in a true Christian way, I am reprimanding you to your face. I know you’re greater than me, and you’ll always be. I am a convert and you must be born catholic, you have greater spiritual merits than me as I had converted from Protestantism. But like St Paul, reprimanding St. Peter, I have the Christian duty to react if something goes wrong.

Ave Maria!
 
gookykookypig said:
Well, in the first place I will not react if you just let the repost I gave flow by. It will serve true Filipino Catholics to pause a bit and say, “True, we must not stand for one but as an inspired scripture we must let the scripture fulfill itself.” The scriptures are higher than our intellects for it is the word of God. We ought to be SERVANTS of the scriptures, not its MASTER!

CCC Says: “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.” (CCC pp110). See, we cannot directly claim any prophecy in what we think it is. Let the Protestants say what they want. It’s their livelihood, anyway. If you’re helping our fellow countrymen you’re helping only the well-informed and those who care to reach the ends of this thread.

Putting the scriptures under your control and in your own sphere of interpretion makes us no different with the Bible babblers in the street and in the plaza or in the vintage Freedom Park! What the CFD must do now is not interpreting scripture in the old CFD way but in the truly Catholic way.

Mind you, I am not reacting to the stand of the both of you. I am just posting a caution to the Filipino catholics that you serve, in order for them not to be BIBLE MASTERS. We must be slaves of the scriptures always. I can’t believe that you reacted unto mine even if I do not DIRECTLY oppose you, did I?.

You must never care even if I am a pal of our National president. I told you the truth to prove that I am a fellow CFD and not to intimidate you. We are brothers. What I am doing now is reprimanding you in a true Christian way, I am reprimanding you to your face. I know you’re greater than me, and you’ll always be. I am a convert and you must be born catholic, you have greater spiritual merits than me as I had converted from Protestantism. But like St Paul, reprimanding St. Peter, I have the Christian duty to react if something goes wrong.

Ave Maria!
Click to expand...
We are not ignorants of the things you are citing here. As I see it you are a ksp (kulang sa pansin). This is not a bible study or seminar for catholics only, not all participating here are catholics. Michael Francis , the Moderator, told us to respect each other’s opinion. You better stop reminding us of what you know about the CCC, we knew that before you became a catholic. So, stop it, if that’s the only way we could be silenced here. Okay?
 
Joero said:
The rulers of the Romans during that time were : Julius Caesar (although he was assassinated), Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otto, Vitellius, Vespasian, etc.and so on and so forth… Galba, Otto and Vitellius died in few months during their reign. Some historians said that they were murdered
Click to expand...
Somebody asked me why did Julius Caesar was among the emperors you mentioned , when in fact Julius was never been an emperor. Emperial reigns started with Emperor Augustus?
 
Lapulapu said:
Somebody asked me why did Julius Caesar was among the emperors you mentioned , when in fact Julius was never been an emperor. Emperial reigns started with Emperor Augustus?
Click to expand...
History tells us that Rome was formerly a Republic.It was dominated by the Roman nobles known as “Patricians”. The Patricians would elect a Consul every year to head the Republic with a Senate, composed of nobles, as a law making body. Biblical reference can also be traced in 1 Macc. 8: 16 “Each year they entrusted to one man the responsibility of governing them and controlling their whole territory. Everyone obeyed this one man, and there was no envy or jealousy among them.”
Yes, that’s true that he never became an emperor but his struggle for power could have made him one of them, if he was not assassinated. Here is a quotation from one source.

“Julius Caesar was powerful enough to have himself made dictator for life in 44 B.C. He planned to use his power to put through many much-needed reforms. He thought of himself as a person of high destiny and lived with pomp and ceremony. Sixty senators joined in a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar at a meeting of the Senate on the 15th, or the Ides, of March in 44 BC. In the group was Caesar’s friend Brutus. Caesar disregarded the warning of his wife and went to the Senate chamber. As he entered, he was surrounded by the conspirators. They drew their daggers and attacked at the signal. At first Caesar tried to defend himself but he saw Brutus with a dagger, he gave up the struggle, saying, “Et tu, Brute?” (You too, Brutus?). He fell dead at the foot of Pompey’s statue.”
 
Guys, a serious charge is posted by a certain Iglesia ni Cristo member here at his website Resbak.com

How can we confront them?😦
 
churchdefender said:
Guys, a serious charge is posted by a certain Iglesia ni Cristo member here at his website Resbak.com

How can we confront them?😦
Click to expand...
I would just give you a little of what I know.

In one of the Gospel’s book, the Gospel of John the Apostle, there were people who did not believe that Jesus Christ was God. In John 10: 33 it says “ We do not want to stone you because of any good deeds, but because of your blasphemy! You are only a man, but you are trying to make yourself God! “

Let’s leave that particular portion for a while and let’s verify the passages of scriptures if Jesus Christ had spoken explicitly or implicitly that He is God.
In Rev. 21: 7 it says “ Those who win the victory will receive this from me: I will be their God, and they will be my children. “
Who spoke these words? Was it the God the Father or Jesus Christ? Because in Rev. 3: 21 it says “ To those who win the victory I will give the right to sit beside me on my throne, just as I have been victorious and now sit by my Father on His throne. “
Before Rev. 21: 7 was quoted above, verse 6 says And he said, “ It is done! I am the first and the last , the beginning and the end…”]. Who spoke these words? Let’s find out! In Rev 22: 12 – 13 it says “ Listen!” says Jesus, “ I am coming soon! I will bring my rewards with me, to give to each one according to what he has done. I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”]

It is now clear that Jesus Christ explicitly said that He is God!

Here is another scriptural passage spoken by Jesus Christ. In John 13: 13 it says “ You call me Teacher and Lord, and it is right that you do so, because that is what I am. “
Let us see what is the testimony of God the Father about His son. In Heb. 1; 8 it says “ About the Son, however, God said: ‘Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever!..” and in verse 10, it says “ He also said, ‘ You, Lord, in the beginning created the earth, and with your own hands you made the heavens.’ “
So, the word “ Lord “ spoken by Jesus Christ in John 13: 13 means none other but the Lord God, the creator. In Psalms 118: 27 it says “ The Lord is God…”

Back to the first stanza where I leaved for a while. Let us see what Jesus Christ said to those people who do not believe Him that He is God.
In John 8: 42 Jesus said “ If God really were your Father, you would love me, because I came from God and now I am here…” in verse 44 Jesus said “ You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father’s desires…”
 
Here are the published Pasugo magazines by the INCs in different dates that are contradicting with each other.

Pasugo Magasin, April 1955 pp. 36. “ The truth – the church built by Christ is the true church. There can be no other else. It began in Jerusalem.”

Pasugo Magasin, September – October 1988 pp. 14. “ The Church of Christ that started in the Philippines will reach the West.”

( Note the contradictory statements. The former Pasugo Magazine states that the church built by Christ began in Jerusalem and the latter states that it started in the Philippines. )

Pasugo Magasin, March – April 1984 pp. 14. “Christ, therefore, is the foumder of his church, the true church. Hence, a church established by any other founder means a bogus or false church.”

Pasugo Magasin, May 1997 pp. 11. “ Way back on July 27, 1914, the Church of Christ was registered with the Philippine government. The registration papers state among other things that Brother Felix Y. Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo.”

( Note the contradictory statements of the two magazines. It explicitly means that the Iglesia ni Cristo is a bogus church. )

Here is the GOOD NEWS !!!

Pasugo Magasin, July – August 1988 pp. 6. “ Even secular history shows a direct time link between the Catholic Church and the Apostles, leading to the conclusion that the true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”
 
tO all Catholic Faith Defenders.

im very hapy that I saw all of you here…

im inviting you to our group in friendster lots of heretics there… hehehe!

like Iglesia ni Cristo(Manalo), Ang Dating Daan (ADD of Soriano) & Baptist.

here’s the link of our group.

friendster.com/group/tabmain.php?gid=824631 ------- a protestant group who attacking the Mother Church

friendster.com/group/tabmain.php?gid=1230775 ------- a Catholic group but the owner is an INC member

friendster.com/group/tabmain.php?gid=207012 ------- a Iglesia ni Cristo group who also attack our Mother Church

hope you would join. beCoz in said group there were only 5 defenders of our Catholic Faith and Im one of those 5 defenders.

see you
 
Lapulapu said:
Here are the published Pasugo magazines by the INCs in different dates that are contradicting with each other.

Pasugo Magasin, April 1955 pp. 36. “ The truth – the church built by Christ is the true church. There can be no other else. It began in Jerusalem.”

Pasugo Magasin, September – October 1988 pp. 14. “ The Church of Christ that started in the Philippines will reach the West.”

( Note the contradictory statements. The former Pasugo Magazine states that the church built by Christ began in Jerusalem and the latter states that it started in the Philippines. )

Pasugo Magasin, March – April 1984 pp. 14. “Christ, therefore, is the foumder of his church, the true church. Hence, a church established by any other founder means a bogus or false church.”

Pasugo Magasin, May 1997 pp. 11. “ Way back on July 27, 1914, the Church of Christ was registered with the Philippine government. The registration papers state among other things that Brother Felix Y. Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo.”

( Note the contradictory statements of the two magazines. It explicitly means that the Iglesia ni Cristo is a bogus church. )

Here is the GOOD NEWS !!!

Pasugo Magasin, July – August 1988 pp. 6. “ Even secular history shows a direct time link between the Catholic Church and the Apostles, leading to the conclusion that the true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...
Your previous post as a reply to someone just vanished to oblivion because you violated the forum’s rules. Your reply was very nice, especially for those who love apologetics but you let yourself carried away by your emotion emanating from someone who posted something that flared you up.
 
Joero said:
Your previous post as a reply to someone just vanished to oblivion because you violated the forum’s rules. Your reply was very nice, especially for those who love apologetics but you let yourself carried away by your emotion emanating from someone who posted something that flared you up.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I admit that I was wrong. 😊
 
Here is my question for all catholics here!

Are we, laymen, not allowed to interpret biblical passages?
I know some of the answers with regard to this, but I just would like to know if, maybe, what I have known were already covered by some encyclicals by the recent Popes. Please!
 
I have my blog at catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com I am critical of the Iglesia ni Cristo not because they are members of a cult but because they have strange teachings such that Felix Manalo was an angel while Christ was a man only. Where is that in the Bible?

And I am just wondering why a multi-million dollar sect have no official website? Is there something they really dont want us to read? That’s the reason a KSP member has been following my posts, who cares. his website is full of hatred and not even one single doctrine of INC had he explained with sense… (his website is resbak.com)

See for yourself how he bash the Catholic Church’s doctrines and attacks my personality to explain his side.

Let’s pray for him, he was a former Catholic as he was saying in onother forum where personal insult is allowed.!:rolleyes:
 
Lapulapu said:
Here is my question for all catholics here!

Are we, laymen, not allowed to interpret biblical passages?
I know some of the answers with regard to this, but I just would like to know if, maybe, what I have known were already covered by some encyclicals by the recent Popes. Please!
Click to expand...
As Catholics, what I know is that we are prohibited from personal interpretation of the Holy Word. The Bible is not for us to interpret but to guide us to the right path, in the light of the Magisterium of the Church which is deeply rooted to the Scripture and Tradition.

If in doubt about certain passages, there are good commentaries in the NAB version or you may buy the Jerome Biblical commentary for a better understanding of each verse of the Bible covering from OT to NT.

It’s a bit expensive but it’s worth it.
 
In order that one would not think that my own statements are not conforming with the statements of others, it would be better and quite beneficial to quote from a reliable source rather than make my own.
This is a part and parcel of a quotation extracted from NJBC (New Jerome Biblical Commentary.)

“ There persists among both Catholics and Protestants wrong image that, while Protestants have many interpretations of Scripture, Catholic have only one, dictated by church authorities. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has never clearly pronounced on what a passage meant to the biblical author who penned it or to the audience who first read it is overlooked. Accordingly it is important to have a volume such as this which enables readers of all religious persuasions to see a representative group of Catholic scholars at work – not the isolated and allegedly liberal few, but almost seventy contributors who have taught Bible in every sort of university, college and seminary in the United States, Canada, and abroad. They exemplify the range of exegetical variation to be found in any community of scholars. The scientific methods and the struggle for objectivity would be no different were the commentary written by scholars of mixed religious background.

Another reason for the decision to invite only Catholics stems from the situation of the post –Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. Authorities of our church, as its their duty, have demonstrated vigilance in investigating possible aberrations in doctrine. Several corrections of Catholic theologians have been well publicized . Many non-Catholics are not aware of papal encouragement for modern biblical studies or of affirmations by the highest authorities that there can be no return to the repressive attitudes of the early twentieth century. Accordingly they frequently ask their Catholic colleagues whether there have been signs of a repression of the biblical movement or instances of chastisement of biblical scholars by Roman offices. Ultraconservative Catholics who never accepted the changes inaugurated by Pope Pius XII and ratified by the Council have publicly expressed the hope that such a suppression would come. It remains important, therefore, to demonstrate through a critical commentary written entirely by Catholics that the ongoing freedom of biblical research is accepted within the church. That there is no atmosphere of reaction against biblical studies or oppressive scrutiny of biblical scholars is a testimony not only to continuing ecclesiastical support for the movement but also to the responsibility demonstrated for half a century by Catholic biblical scholars who employ modern methods. If overall the conclusions reached by Catholic biblical scholars have not offensively challenged doctrine, that is because they themselves have found the interplay between faith and free biblical research enriching on both sides, rather than antagonistic.”
 
Joero said:
In order that one would not think that my own statements are not conforming with the statements of others, it would be better and quite beneficial to quote from a reliable source rather than make my own.
This is a part and parcel of a quotation extracted from NJBC (New Jerome Biblical Commentary.)

“ There persists among both Catholics and Protestants wrong image that, while Protestants have many interpretations of Scripture, Catholic have only one, dictated by church authorities. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has never clearly pronounced on what a passage meant to the biblical author who penned it or to the audience who first read it is overlooked. Accordingly it is important to have a volume such as this which enables readers of all religious persuasions to see a representative group of Catholic scholars at work – not the isolated and allegedly liberal few, but almost seventy contributors who have taught Bible in every sort of university, college and seminary in the United States, Canada, and abroad. They exemplify the range of exegetical variation to be found in any community of scholars. The scientific methods and the struggle for objectivity would be no different were the commentary written by scholars of mixed religious background.

Another reason for the decision to invite only Catholics stems from the situation of the post –Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. Authorities of our church, as its their duty, have demonstrated vigilance in investigating possible aberrations in doctrine. Several corrections of Catholic theologians have been well publicized . Many non-Catholics are not aware of papal encouragement for modern biblical studies or of affirmations by the highest authorities that there can be no return to the repressive attitudes of the early twentieth century. Accordingly they frequently ask their Catholic colleagues whether there have been signs of a repression of the biblical movement or instances of chastisement of biblical scholars by Roman offices. Ultraconservative Catholics who never accepted the changes inaugurated by Pope Pius XII and ratified by the Council have publicly expressed the hope that such a suppression would come. It remains important, therefore, to demonstrate through a critical commentary written entirely by Catholics that the ongoing freedom of biblical research is accepted within the church. That there is no atmosphere of reaction against biblical studies or oppressive scrutiny of biblical scholars is a testimony not only to continuing ecclesiastical support for the movement but also to the responsibility demonstrated for half a century by Catholic biblical scholars who employ modern methods. If overall the conclusions reached by Catholic biblical scholars have not offensively challenged doctrine, that is because they themselves have found the interplay between faith and free biblical research enriching on both sides, rather than antagonistic.”
Click to expand...
Good for you because you have that NJBC! Can you share with us the specifics, I mean the rules in interpreting scriptural passages?🙂
 
Lapulapu said:
Good for you because you have that NJBC! Can you share with us the specifics, I mean the rules in interpreting scriptural passages?🙂
Click to expand...
Lapulapu, I think we as Catholics are not suppose to interpret the Holy Scripture from our own understanding rather it should be understood in the light of the teachings of the Church which came from the Deposits of Faith i.e, Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterium.

God bless.
 
Lapulapu said:
Here is my question for all catholics here!

Are we, laymen, not allowed to interpret biblical passages?
I know some of the answers with regard to this, but I just would like to know if, maybe, what I have known were already covered by some encyclicals by the recent Popes. Please!
Click to expand...
In almost every Roman document pertaining to scriptural studies there has been a statement about interpreting Scripture in loyalty to the mind of the Fathers and Doctors of the church. Catholic exegetes teaching in seminaries were annually sworn to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The 1964 Instruction of the Roman PBC (Pontifical Biblical Commission) continues the insistence : “Let the Catholic exegete, following the guidance of the church, derive profit from all the earlier interpreters, especially the holy Fathers and Doctors of the church.”

First of all, the area in which patristic authority is strongest is that of the dogmatic implications of Scripture, not that of literal exegesis. Church’s insistence on the exegetical authority of the Fathers reflects her desire that Catholic exegetes should not forget the dogmatic heritage that comes to them from tradition. In the question of the binding church interpretation of scripture, however, we must be careful that we do not oversimplify the Catholic position. A preliminary caution concerns how the church has spoken. One must distinguish between truly dogmatic statements and other affirmations that are not on the same level. Examples of the latter include: (1) Prudential decisions made for the common good but which are not infallible guides to truth. For instance, between 1905 and 1915 the Roman PBC (Pontifical Biblical Commission) issued a series of directives about scripture. Today, with the approval of the same PBC, most of these directives are regarded as passe by Catholic scholars. (2) Affirmations that use of Scripture only as illustrations. The church has the power to determine infallibly the meaning of Scripture in matters of faith and morals. The church claims no absolute or direct authority over matters of biblical authorship, geography, chronology, and many issues of historicity. For that reason the church has not made any dogmatic pronouncements in these areas. The church has not commented officially on what a passage does or does not mean.

On your question whether we , laymen , are not allowed to interpret scriptural passages! Why not? One should observe the above precautions. Here is the encouragement by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI , on Jan. 27, 1988 in NYC.

christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm
 
Hello everyone. I’m just curious if anyone knows where to get the pamplets and prayerbooks that come from the Philippines. My relatives have a bunch of them but they were mostly given as gifts and they don’t know where to buy them. They are small and slim and usually made with clear covers. We have a few on the rosary as well as one on San Roque and Our Lady of Manaoag. I’ve tried searching on the internet but haven’t had any luck so far.
 
Not only a matter of resolution between those who profess unorthodox views, it should be atleast appropriate to invest such in order to maintain a strong Catholic herein.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top