Quantcast
Channel: admin
Viewing all 3780 articles
Browse latest View live

FOUR SOUTH KOREANS RESCUED FROM BORN AGAIN PASTOR WHO DECEIVED THEM

$
0
0
Korean Pastor Roh Won-pyung

Korean Pastor Roh Won-pyung

4 abducted Koreans rescued in Davao City

Posted at 01/10/2015 6:04 PM

DAVAO CITY — Four Korean women, including a minor, were rescued from a fellow Korean pastor who took them from South Korea and brought them to Davao City, police said Saturday.

Operatives from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), along with personnel from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) and the Korean Embassy, went to a house on Mariner Street, Dona Vicenta Village in Davao City to rescue four Korean women allegedly kidnapped by a Korean pastor.

The suspect, Roh Won-pyung, allegedly brought the women from South Korea to Davao City last November 27, 2014.

According to Kim Hye-gyung, mother of three of the victims, Roh invited her daughters to go to Davao City to study English.

However, instead of studying, Roh encouraged the women to join his church as his followers. They were also allegedly instructed not to return to South Korea because there will be a war between South Korea and North Korea, and that it will be safer for them to stay in Davao City.

Kim also revealed that Roh left South Korea due to financial problems. He also allegedly owes the followers of his group, Antioch Church, a huge amount of money which was used to build a church.

Roh, however, denied the allegations, saying he did not force the women to go with him to the Philippines to do missionary work and learn English.

Authorities also discovered that Roh has been overstaying in the country.

Immigration officials are now working on the deportation of Roh and his companions.

Meanwhile, the victims’ parents have decided to file kidnapping charges against Roh in South Korea. report from Claire Cornelio, ABS-CBN News Southern Mindanao

SOURCE: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/01/10/15/4-abducted-koreans-rescued-davao-city


HILING NG INA NA MAKITA ANG NAWAWALANG ANAK PINAGKALOOB NG POONG NAZARENO

$
0
0

Devotee reunited with long-lost son at Black Nazarene Traslacio

January 9, 2015 2:36pm
B64oobCCMAAgkZF

A devotee of the Black Nazarene had her birthday wish granted on Friday when she was reunited with her long-lost son during the Traslacion in Manila.

Erlinda Dizon, a resident of Barangay Manggahan in Pasig City who turned 67 on Friday, saw son Alexander, 39, in the crowd of devotees, radio dzBB’s Sam Nielsen reported.

Mrs. Dizon said she saw Alexander, who went missing five months ago, in the crowd at the corner of Roxas Boulevard and Burgos Street.

A photo tweeted by dzBB’s Nielsen showed the mother and son taking a rest at the Planetarium shortly after their reunion.

 Nazareno Procession 2015 2

Alexander was wandering in the area when Mrs. Dizon saw him. He had reportedly suffered from memory loss and cannot talk.

Still, Mrs. Dizon identified him through birthmarks in his body. She also showed him some photos of him and some of his friends.

The report said Alexander nodded and laughed when he saw the photos.

Mrs. Dizon also said she had prayed Thursday night that she would see her son again. Joel Locsin/LBG, GMA News

SOURCE: 
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/401142/lifestyle/peopleandevents/devotee-reunited-with-long-lost-son-at-black-nazarene-traslacion

ANTI-NAZARENO EPAL NA BORN AGAIN PAUL CHRISTOPHER FACULIN DI MAKASAGOT SA CATHOLIC APOLOGIST

$
0
0

 

Hindi papatinag ang mga Deboto! Viva Nuestro Padre Jesus Nazareno!!!

Franz Tugadi [Video Owner]

“Habang ngpapahinga kami sa may pwesto namin malapit sa Manila City Hall bigla kming nagulat kala namin may away yun pla nagtatalo ang isang Deboto ng Nazareno at 2 Born again hiyawan ang mga deboto. You must watch it guys matalino ang deboto ng Nazareno”

You Tube copy. Better quality. Catholic Apologist Mharbert Canilang of Hagonoy, Bulacan repulsed the lies and deceits of Mr. Paul Christopher Faculin in front of the rejoicing crowd.

 

 

SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH:

TALAGANG HINDI KAYANG GAPIIN NG KASINUNGALINGAN NI SATANAS ANG KATOTOHANAN NI CRISTO. MABUHAY ANG POONG NAZARENO:

Mt 2:23 “At siya’y dumating at tumahan sa isang bayang tinatawag na Nazaret; upang maganap ang mga sinalita ng mga propeta, na siya’y tatawaging NAZARENO.”

 

ITO ANG LARAWAN NI FACULIN BAGO MAG TRASLACION:

10931452_776166865797981_2196870468080827341_n

 

ITO ANG NANGYARI KAY FACULIN  MATAPOS MAKAHARAP SI MANONG NA DEVOTO NG NAZARENO. SUPAPAL:

10917592_996465617035015_587584563_n

ITO NGAYON SI FACULIN MATAPOS MAKAHARAP ANG CATHOLIC APOLOGIST NG 100% KATOLIKONG PINOY: SI FACULIN NAGING ‘FACUNDO’ HA HA HA…

10421185_328719720662249_8930906613426904253_n 10931458_904863766214241_7879970330474448830_n

KELAN MAN HINDI MAAARING GAPIIN ANG KATOTOHANAN. ITO AY TULAD NG LEON NA KUSANG LUMALABAN AT GUMAGAPI SA KALABAN KAPAG PINAKAWALAN. NAGPUNTA SI FACULIN SA PROSISYON NG NAZARENO HANDA UPANG MANIRA HINIRAP SIYA NG MGA DEVOTO NA PAWISAN, PAGOD, AT HINDI HANDA SUBALIT MAGITING NA GINAPI ANG DALANG KASINUNGALINGAN NG MGA BORN-AGAIN LABAN SA POONG NAZARENO. VIVA JESUS NAZARENO!!! VIVA LA SANTA IGLESIA CATOLICA.

LASOG LASOG ANG PAKULO NI FACUNDO. HA HA HA… SI FACULIN NAGKA-KULILING, NATULILING SA RINDI NG KATOTOHANAN NG POONG NAZARENO. ITO ANG SINASABI NATIN NA KAPAG ANG MGA CATOLICO AY EMPOWERED BY APOLOGETICS HINDI SILA MALOLOKO NG MGA LOBONG NAGLILIBOT UPANG LAPAIN ANG MGA TUPA. THE LAMBS OF GOD SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE LION OF JUDAH: ANG POONG NAZARENO. VIVA VIVA VIVA!!!!

FEMALE EPISCOPALIAN BISHOP OF MARYLAND FACES MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE AND ARRESTED

$
0
0
This photo provided by the Baltimore Police Department shows Bishop Heather Cook. Maryland's second-highest ranking Episcopal leader and the first female bishop in her diocese was charged with drunken driving and manslaughter after fatally striking a cyclist in late December. Cook, 58, turned herself in to authorities Friday, Jan. 9, 2015, according to her attorney, David Irwin. Online court records show Cook's bail was set at $2.5 million. A trial is scheduled for Feb. 6. (AP Photo/ Baltimore Police Department)

This photo provided by the Baltimore Police Department shows Bishop Heather Cook. Maryland’s second-highest ranking Episcopal leader and the first female bishop in her diocese was charged with drunken driving and manslaughter after fatally striking a cyclist in late December. Cook, 58, turned herself in to authorities Friday, Jan. 9, 2015, according to her attorney, David Irwin. Online court records show Cook’s bail was set at $2.5 million. A trial is scheduled for Feb. 6. (AP Photo/ Baltimore Police Department)

 

Maryland bishop facing manslaughter charge in custody

Associated Press
 
BALTIMORE (AP) — In a spectacular fall from grace, Maryland’s second-highest ranking Episcopal leader and the first female bishop in her diocese was charged with drunken driving and manslaughter after fatally striking a cyclist in late December.
 

Heather Cook, 58, turned herself in to authorities Friday, according to her attorney, David Irwin. Online court records show Cook’s bail was set at $2.5 million. It was unclear late Friday whether she had posted bail. A trial is scheduled for Feb. 6.

The charges came less than a week after the national Episcopal Church opened an investigation into Cook, whose ties to the church span generations.

On Dec. 27, Cook struck and killed Tom Palermo, 41, while he was riding his bicycle. According to prosecutors, Cook left the scene for 30 minutes before returning, and registered a blood-alcohol content of .22 percent after the wreck. Palermo died of a head injury at a nearby hospital later that day.

Less than four months earlier, Cook was ordained as the diocese of Maryland’s first female bishop. She attended an Episcopal girls school and had served as a boarding school chaplain, an assistant at a parish in New York and a member of two diocesan staffs. Her father, also a priest, raised his family in the historic Old St. Paul’s Episcopal Church rectory in downtown Baltimore. According to Cook’s autobiographical statement, when she was ordained as a deacon, her father removed “the stole from around his own neck and placed it over mine.”

Cook’s father, like her, had a history of alcohol abuse. In 1977, the Rev. Halsey Cook told the Old St. Paul’s congregation in a sermon that he was an alcoholic suffering a relapse and seeking treatment, calling alcoholism “a rampant epidemic in our society” and a “fatal disease, not only of the body but of the mind and spirit,” according to an article that year in The Baltimore Sun.

Heather Cook, too, has had repeated problems with alcohol. In 2010, Cook was charged with drunken driving on Maryland’s Eastern Shore after registering a blood alcohol content of .27 percent. Police found wine, liquor and marijuana in her car. The drug charges were dropped after Cook pleaded guilty to the drunken driving offense, and she received probation.

Diocese of Maryland spokeswoman Sharon Tillman said those charges were disclosed to search committee members during a vetting process as the diocese searched for a new bishop. However, the information was not shared with those people — clergy and lay church members — who voted among four finalists.

The Right Rev. Eugene Taylor Sutton, bishop of the diocese, said in a statement Friday that the community is “heartbroken.”

“We cry for the Palermo family, our sister Heather and all in the community who are hurting,” Sutton said.

Antonio Gioia, the chief of the conviction-integrity unit for the office of Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, said Cook was not charged immediately to avoid the possibility of double jeopardy. If Cook had been given a traffic ticket, that might have prevented prosecutors from filing additional, more serious charges.

Prosecutors say Cook was texting on her cellphone when she veered and struck Palermo from behind in a residential neighborhood in northern Baltimore. The impact threw him onto the car’s hood and windshield, and he landed on a curb. Mosby said Cook went to her nearby home before returning. After she was taken to a police station, Cook was given a breath test, according to charging documents.

In addition to felony vehicular manslaughter, Cook was charged with criminal negligent manslaughter, failure to remain at the scene of an accident resulting in serious injury and death, using a text messaging device that resulted in an accident and three drunken driving charges. If convicted of all charges, Cook could face more than 20 years in prison.

SOURCE:

http://news.yahoo.com/bishop-faces-manslaughter-dui-charges-fatal-hit-run-163342929.html

THE BIBLICAL IMAGERIES PROVIDED BY GOD AND CATHOLIC SACRED IMAGES

$
0
0

10888720_376829219152968_1055340472165446796_n

God Himself even provided IMAGERY of Him in many passages in the Bible.

1) the Ancient of Days in his throne…
“His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and
its wheels were all ablaze”. [Daniel 7:9]

2)The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove [Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32]

3) Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of Fire [Acts 2:1–4]

4) Most importantly when God entered creation He revealed HIMSELF as a man who we can see & remember either through stories or through images. He revealed HIMSELF in the image of Christ:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” [Colossians 1:15]

1-4 are all images of God. If the Holy Spirit is seen as a dove arent we allowed to translate the word “dove” into the ACTUAL IMAGE OF A DOVE? If God is described as a mighty king in his throne arent we allowed to translate that into the actual image of a king in his throne? When God said he became MAN, arent we allowed to translate that into an IMAGE of Christ?

It is a simple issue actually. False gods are idols and their images are therefore idols because the images point to the one represented. However, not all images are idols for not all images point to a false god.

RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF THE RAPPLER ATHEIST ABOUT THE WEALTH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH By Fr. Chito Dimaranan, SDB

$
0
0
Don Bosco Center in Tondo, Manila... empowering the youth, helping the poor.

Don Bosco Center in Tondo, Manila… empowering the youth, helping the poor.

 

Of course, true to form, the R media outfit again comes out with a stale story that asks a question that has long been answered ad nauseam. “How much money does the Catholic Church have?” Again, too, true to form, all the anti-Church bashers come out in full force from the woodworks seconding the motion and throwing in their even more stale and lame arguments against the Church. The lowest form of intelligence is contradiction, and coming out with a story that begs all the questions, in my book, is even lower. Why, these writers who call themselves journalists whose best obras are nothing but a pack of innuendoes based on ill-digested questionable “data” and produce not solid journalism but propaganda, are nothing less than despicable.

These are some things I would like at least my friends to know … 1) The Catholic Church is monolithic only in terms of dogma and moral issues, and in the way it runs its own internal affairs, its governance. There is no central financial institution that “owns” the assets that really belong to the people who comprise the particular churches called dioceses. Therefore, to talk about the “riches” of the Catholic Church is not the same as talking about assets owned by multinational firms like Shell, Enron, Microsoft, Apple, and countless others. Whilst the Church at large owns assets like the buildings and works of art found in the Vatican, said assets are not translatable to cold cash, for one simple reason … they are a patrimony of the human family as a whole. The Church safeguards it, but in the name of the whole human family. No single Pope owned it solo. No single cardinal can do with it what he wants. 2) Every diocesan Bishop is sovereign in his own diocese. Whilst every diocese, again, owns assets, those same assets are just in the name of the corporation sole which is the Diocesan Bishop. Some dioceses are relatively well-to-do, but not rich. Most are poor and struggling, especially those in the rural areas. 3) It is stupid to count the buildings owned by religious orders and congregations and diocesan clergy in their schools, hospitals, orphanages and other mostly charitable institutions as “riches” at least in the way the world defines them. They are assets alright on paper, but they cannot be liquidated without doing immense and incalculable harm to the dependents they feed, clothe, and house, and/or educate or heal in clinics and hospitals. I speak for my own congregation. We have buildings and assets, and not one of them belongs to anyone of us. Again, they belong to the “corporation” that is the congregation, and we cannot sell those assets for pure personal gain without doing harm to the mission we do as educators. 4) Those who continue to harp on the number of hospitals that they impute mistakenly to the “Church” and interpret them as worldly assets do not have the faintest understanding of religious life and religious culture and its life of mission. The Church does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT build hospitals in the same way and motivation that MVP would build one. When businessmen build a hospital, that is called investment, meant to be for profit. But the shallow blanket condemnation of the Church building hospitals and schools for profit, show the utter ignorance of these haters and bashers of the issue of MISSION which is not equivalent to the token CSR (corporate social responsibility) of most for profit companies. When we religious and diocesan clergy build hospitals and schools, they are not primarily for profit, but to create legitimate sustainable works to be able to help those who otherwise cannot afford to pay for them. These propagandists and ignoramuses who love to perorate against the Catholic Church but gloss over other religious groups show nothing but their bias or hatred against the biggest charitable institution in the world.

It only means one thing … Their aim is really not to find out the truth and expose it, but to expose their own preconceived truth and their own brand of truth to mislead, and to sow doubt and confusion in the unsuspecting minds of people who take everything such fake journalists say, hook, line and sinker.

I notice one thing though … Those who comment in favor of what the fake journalist online journal called R are regularly reporting (almost on schedule, and timed for maximum readership on certain occasions), are most likely the same people, using the same stale arguments, designed not to ferret out truth or contribute to the search for truth, but to foster anger and defiance against the hand that probably fed them. (Yes, many were and are recipients of the largesse of the Church, but either without them knowing or they simply deny them). The negative comments are done by people, who, in the first place, already have an axe to grind against the Church for reasons best known to themselves. And they simply love to come out of the woodworks on occasions like now, when the Church occupies center stage in the hearts and minds of people, with the impending visit of the Pope.

N.B. Incidentally, I write from a school that has no assets to speak of, liquid or non-liquid. These ignoramuses always say we charge high tuition fees, but they never bother to ask how much of that goes to personnel and operations. To survive, I had, and still have to beg the help of Catholic friends who have the wherewithal and the know-how to help us keep afloat. And yes, we priests and brothers who run the school do not live off the non-existent fat of the land, but by the sweat of our brow, very literally, yes … including washing our own clothes and cooking our own meals on occasion, for one simple reason … we cannot afford personnel especially on holidays that are getting more and more by the year. I have no reason to complain, but I do have reason to rant against fake journalists like those of R who seem to be overfocused on their imaginative “riches” of the Catholic Church. Now, if they do real research, not based on hunches, they might want to tell us where those riches are, apart from the usual, stale, and old arguments like the paintings of Michelangelo and the few buildings in the tiny state called the Vatican.

This is meant, not as a rebuttal against people who already made up their mind, but for friends who, on account of such lies and misleading articles, are getting confused.

RELIGION OF THE TRUE CHRISTIANS IS IMPORTANT. WE ARE SAVED BY CHRIST THROUGH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION By Trebias Craig

$
0
0
Cathedral de Segovia, Spain

Cathedral de Segovia, Spain

 

Religion of true Christians is important. We are saved by Christ through the Christian religion.

The Church is important in the salvific plan of God. The Church implements the teachings of Christ in the form of doctrines and practices in the worship and service of God in order that men will be incorporated and are to be transformed in Christ or to be Christian from baptism. In other words, the Church founded by Christ (Matthew 16:16-18) was commanded by Himself to baptize and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) so that this Christian religion or Christianity will spread throughout the world. The Church and Christianity are inseparable. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ is the instrument of Christ for salvation.

Our blessed Lord alone saves but He wills it to establish the Church to minister the Christian religion. A fisherman can catch fish with his bare hands but he prefers to catch fish by a fishing rod. Christ is the fisherman and the Church ministering the Christian religion is the fishing rod. You can not tell a fisherman not to use a fishing rod just as you can not tell Christ not to use His Church. He would have not established it anyway in the first place if that is the case.

Jesus alone saves but saves through the Church. He chose men to be fishers of men not just fishing rods. Heed the words of Christ, And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Matthew 4:19

So the next time you say Christian religion is not important, think again. For if you reject those fishers of men Christ instituted, you reject Christ. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

CATHOLICS ‘SEEK THE FACE OF THE LORD’ AS DIRECTED BY GOD IN THE BIBLE By Teewee Diego

$
0
0

1013616_976902172323137_1080313791471376639_n

Born Again coward and proven to be ignorant of the Bible: PAUL CHRISTOPHER FACULIN

Born Again coward and proven to be ignorant of the Bible: PAUL CHRISTOPHER FACULIN

CATHOLICS HAVE THE FACE OF JESUS ….DEPICTED IN THEIR SACRED IMAGES AND ICONS…. PROTESTANT AND BORN AGAIN DO NOT RECOGNIZE HIS FACE, HOW CAN THEY BE HEALED.???

2 Chronicles 7:14
14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and “SEEK MY FACE” and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

COL 1:15FOR JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF THE UNSEEN GOD…

10917592_996465617035015_587584563_n


HOLY TRINITY ONE GOD NASA BIBLIA BA? By Ako Ay Katoliko

$
0
0
The Holy Trinity

The Holy Trinity

 

HOLY TRINITY —

Wala po bang Holy Trinity One God sa bibliya? —

Tingnan nga po natin kung wala talaga sa bibliya o hindi lang nila inuunawa.—

1.) Ang Diyos Ama ba wala sa bibliya? —
Siguro naman alam na alam nyo na may Diyos Ama pero maglagay tayo ng konting talata sa bibliya na may Dyos na lumikha ng tao. —

Gen. 2: 15-16 Kinuha ni Yawe-Diyos ang Tao at inilagay sa hardin ng Eden upang bungkalin at alagaan iyon. 16 Pagkatapos inutusan ng Diyos ang Tao: “Kanin mo ang bunga ng lahat ng puno sa hardin, —

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man, wearing our own image and likeness; LET US put him in command
of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and the cattle, and the whole earth, and all the creeping things that move on earth. —

2.) Ang Anak ng Diyos wala ba sa bibliya??? —

Lukas 1:35 At sumagot sa kanya ang anghel: Papanaog sa iyo ang Espiritu Santo at liliman ka ng kapangyarihan ng kataas taasan kaya magiging banal ang isisilang at tatawaging “Anak ng Diyos”. —

Hedreo 1:8 At sinasabi naman niya tungkol sa Anak: Magpakailanman ang iyong luklukan, “””O Diyos,””” at paghaharian ng katarungan ang iyong paghahari. —

http://biblos.com/hebrews/1-8.htm

Other Bible passages na Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus, ayon na din sa kanyang mga apostol. —

Tito 2:13 Hinihintay nga natin ang pinagpalang pag-asa: ang pagpapakita ng Luwalhati ng ating “DAKILANG DIYOS AT TAGAPAGLIGTAS” na si Jesucristo 14 Inialay niya ang sarili para sa atin upang tubusin tayo sa lahat ng kasalanan at dalisayin ang isang bayang pag-aari niya, bayang masigasig sa mabuting gawa. —

2Pedro 2:1 Bati ni Simeon Pedro, lingkod ng apostol ni Jesucristo, sa mga binanal ng ating ” DIYOS AT TAGAPAGLIGTAS ” na si Jesucristo nang tumanggap ng ating mahalagang pananamplataya. —

Roma 9:5 Sa kanila ang mga dakilang ninuno; at sa kanila rin ayon sa lahi ni Kristo na siya namang “”” DIYOS “”” na di saklaw ng anuman. Purihin siya magpakailanman. —

3.) Ang Diyos Espiritu Santo wala ba sa bibliya? —

Mateo 3:16-17 Matapos mabinyagan, umahon si Jesus mula sa tubig. At agad na nabuksan ang langit at nakita niya ang Espiritu ng Diyos na bumababang parang kalapati,papunta sa kanya. —

Gawa 10:44 Nagsasalita pa si Pedro nang bumaba ang Espiritu Santo sa lahat ng nakarinig sa Salita. Namangha ang mga Judiong mananampalataya na kasamang dumating ni Pedro at ibinigay rin pala sa mga dayuhan ang kaloob na Espiritu Santo! —

Acts 5:3-4, “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? …thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” —

1st Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS manifest in the
flesh, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” —

Dito po pagsama samahin na natin ang Banal na Santatlo o Holy Trinity, IISANG Diyos IISANG Pangalan. —

Mateo 28:19 Kaya humayo kayo at gawing mga alagad ang lahat ng bansa. Binyagan sila sa Ngalan ng Ama at ng Anak at ng Espiritu Santo. —

IISA ANG KANILANG PANGALAN AT HINDI MO YAN MAITATANGGI. —

Ano ang IISANG pangalan na ito???
ang Ama, ang Anak, at ang Espiritu Santo. —

Jn.3:5 Sumagot si Jesus: “Talagang talagang sinasabi ko sa iyo, walang makapapasok sa kaharian ng Diyos kung hindi siya isisilang mula sa tubig at Espiritu. ) —

Gal 4:6-7 Mga anak nga kayo kayat ipinadala ng Diyos ang Espiritu ng kanyang Anak sa ating mga puso, na tumatawag ng malakas: ” Abba, Ama!” 7 Hindi ka na alipin kundi anak; at kung anak, tagapagmana rin sa habag ng Diyos. —

Ano nga po ang mga nakalaang biyaya kapag nabautismuhan??? —

1.)Magiging anak ng Diyos. —
2.) Magiging tagapagmana ng habag ng Diyos. —
3.) At higit sa lahat makapapasok sa kaharian ng Diyos. —

Mahirap bang intindihin na ang Holy Trinity One God, ang One God One Name, ang One Name One baptism na yan ang nagbibigay ng mga biyayang ito —

Kung hindi, sana ang sinabi ng Panginoong jesus ay bautismuhan nyo sila sa Ngalan ng Ama lamang.at kung sasabihin naman nating Tatlong Diyos ay mali sapagkat maliwanag ang nasusulat “SA NGALAN” hindi “SA MGA PANGALAN” —

Sa Diyos may pakikipag-isa ang Tatlong Persona: Ang Ama, ang Anak, at ang iisang Espiritu nila —

Sinasabi nating iisang Espiritu, dahil nagpahayag siya. —

Ibibigay ng Ama sa inyo ang isang Tagapagtanggol (John 14:16) —

At ang tagapagtanggol na ipadadala ko (John 15:26). —

Ngayon, sinasabi niya: Mula sa akin siya tatanggap at magbabalita sa inyo; ang tanang sa Ama ay akin (John 16:15) —

Sa Ama nagmula ang Espiritu Santo at gayon din sa Anak dahil nakikibahagi sila sa iisang pagka-Diyos. —

Pagpalain tayong lahat ng Holy Trinity One God,,,ng One God One Name,,,ng One Name One Baptism na ito,,, —

Isang Bautismo sa Ngalan ng Ama at ng Anak at ng Espiritu Santo.

PAKIKIPAGTALASTASAN SA ISANG MANOLISTA HINGGIL SA BAUTISMO NG SANGGOL By Henrix Dacuma

$
0
0
Pope Francis administering Infant Baptism

Pope Francis administering Infant Baptism

 

Gilbert Solis:
INC

Ang SANGGOL ba nkakaintindi nb ng salita ng Diyos? Bakit kelangan binyagan sa tubig? Dapat naba silang tumanggap ng binyag? Kailangan sapat na ang kanyang edad para mabautismuhan, si Juan nagbautismo sa ilog Jordan sa mga taong nakakintindi na at may sapat na pag unawa. panahon ni Hesus lubog ang gamit hindi wisik. May tamang formula nang bautismo at yun ang bautismo ni Juan at hindi ang binyag na ginawa ng mga pari nyo.

[Ang SANGGOL ba nkakaintindi nb ng salita ng Diyos?]

ANG SANGGOL NG KATOLIKO OO NAKAK INTINDI NA NG SALITA NG DIOS.! PERO KUNG SANGGOL YAN NG INC HINDI IYAN MAKAKA INTINDI, INUTIL KASI.!

2 Timoteo 3:15 “At na mula sa PAGKASANGGOL ay alam mo na ang banal na mga KASULATAN, na makakapagparunong sayo ukol sa kaligtasan sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya may kaugnayan kay Kristo Jesus.

ABA AKALAIN MO NGA NAMAN SI TIMOTEO KAHIT SANGGOL PALANG EH ALAM NA NIYA ANG SALITA NG DIOS ABAY KATOLIKO YAN, KASI KUNG INC YAN MALAMANG INUTIL YAN.

[Bakit kelangan binyagan sa tubig?]

NATURAL DAPAT TUBIG. ALANGAN NAMAN IHI, SUKA, TOYO, MANTIKA, GRASA, GASOLINA O TUBIG KANAL ANG GAMITIN SA BINYAG.

SA AMIN ANG BINYAG NG MGA BATA AY NAPAKA ESPESYAL DAHIL ITO YUNG ARAW NA SILA AY MAGIGING KABAHAGI SA ISANG KATAWAN NI CRISTO. NGAYON KUNG SA INYO ANG MGA SANGGOL AY SA TINGIN NYO SISIW, IBON O KAMBING ABAY NARARAPAT LANG NA HINDI NGA BINYAGAN.

[Dapat naba silang tumanggap ng binyag? ]

KARAPAT-DAPAT NGA SILANG TUMANGGAP NG BINYAG.

BAGAMAN ANG BINYAG NI JUAN AY BINYAG NANG PAGSISISI

Marcos 1:4 “Dumating si Juan, na nagbabautismo sa ilang at ipinangaral ang bautismo ng pagsisisi sa ikapgpapatawad ng mga kasalan”

NGUNIT ANG BINYAG NAMAN NI JESUS AY HINDI LAMANG LIMITADO SA BINYAG NG PAGSISI KUNDI ANG KANYANG BINYAG AY PARA SA KALIGTASAN NG SANGKATAUHAN.

Marcos 16:16 “ Ang sumasampalataya at mabautismuhan ay maliligtas;. . .”

ANG SANGGOL BA TAO O HINDI?

SA AMIN KASI ANG SANGGOL AY TAO KAYA KARAPAT DAPAT NA SILAY MABINYAGAN DAHIL KASAMA SILA SA PAGLILIGTAS NG DIOS.

NGAYON KUNG ANG TINGIN NYO MGA INC SA MGA SANGGOL NYO AY HINDI TAO AT ITOY SISIW, KUTING, TUTA O UOD ABAY HINDI NGA DAPAT BINYAGAN.

Juan 3:5 “Sumagot si Jesus, Katotohan, katotohanang sinasabi ko sa iyo, maliban na ang tao’y ipanaganak ng tubig at ng Esperitu, ay hindi sya makakapasok sa kaharian ng Dios”

[Kailangan sapat na ang kanyang edad para mabautismuhan.]

SABI KO NGA ANG PAGLILIGTAS NG DIOS AY PARA SA LAHAT NG MGA TAO, MUSMOS MAN O MATANDA, DALAGA MAN O BINATA, MAY SAKIT MAN O WALA, KANO MAN O PINOY, NEGRO MAN O PUTI. AT KABILANG NGA DITO ANG MGA SANGGOL, SAPAGKAT ANG MGA SANGGOL AY TAO DIN.

KAYA ANG BINYAG NI JESUS AY HINDI LAMANG LIMITADO PARA SA PAGSISISI NG KASALANAN KUNDI ANG BINYAG NI JESUS AY PARA SA IKALILIGTAS NG SANGKATAUHAN.

[si Juan nagbautismo sa ilog Jordan sa mga taong nakakintindi na at may sapat na pag unawa. ]

Marcos 1:4 “Dumating si Juan, na nagbabautismo sa ilang at ipinangaral ang bautismo ng pagsisisi sa ikapgpapatawad ng mga kasalan”

ANG PAGBIBINYAG NA ITO NI JUAN AY TANDA NG KANYANG PAGHAHANDA SA PAGPARITO NG MANUNUBOS NA SI JESU CRISTO. KAYA ANG LAHAT NG KANYANG NABINYAGAN THAT TIME SA ILOG JORDAN AY PAWANG MGA MATATANDA NA SAPAGKAT ITO ANG KANYANG MISYON PARA IHANDA ANG MGA TAO SA PAGDATING NI JESUS.

[panahon ni Hesus lubog ang gamit hindi wisik ]

PANAHON DIN NI JESUS NUNG SINABI NYA NA ANG KANYANG BINYAG AY PARA DIN SA IKALILIGTAS NG SANGKATAUHAN. NARARAPAT NA ANG BINYAG AY IBIGAY DIN SA BAWAT TAO. KAYA NAMAN NAMIN BINIBINYAGAN ANG MGA SANGGOL SAPAGKAT SA AMIN ANG SANGGOL AY TAO. SA INYO TAO BA ANG SANGGOL?

AT KUNG PAGLULUBOG NGA ANG BATAYAN NG PAGBIBINYAG EHH BAKIT ANG MGA APOSTOL NAGBINYAG SA BAHAY, TULAD NI APOSTOL SAN PABLO AT SAN PEDRO.

1 Corinto 16:16 “at binabautismuhan ko rin naman ang sangbahayan ni Estefanas: maliban sa mga ito, di ko malaman kung may nabautismuhan akong iba pa.”

Gawa 16:33 “Sila ay kinuha niya sa oras ding iyon ng gabi. Hinugasan ang kanilang mga sugat. Kaagad ay binautismuhan siya at ang buo niyang sambahayan.”

IBIG BA SABIHIN MAY ILOG SA LOOB NG BAHAY?

[May tamang formula nang bautismo at yun ang bautismo ni Juan ]

HAHAHA YAN PALA ANG TURO SA INYO NG MINISTRO NYO. KAYA PALA KAYO MGA INUTIL SA MGA ARAL EHH. ANG BINYAG NI JUAN AY HINDI FORMULA, YAN AY PAMAMARAAN LANG NG KANYANG PAGBIBINYAG. ANG FORMULA AY ITO NA SIYANG SINUSUNOD NAMIN.

Mateo 28:19 “Kaya’t habang kayoy humahayo, gawin ninyong mga alagad ko ang mga tao sa lahat ng bansa. Bautismuhan ninyo sila sa pangalan ng AMA AT ANAK AT NG ESPERITU SANTO.

[at hindi ang binyag na ginawa ng mga pari nyo.]

ANG BINYAG NA GINAGAWA NG MGA PARI NAMIN AY ALINSUNOD SA FORMULA NA TURO NI JESUS. KAYO MGA INCM ANG HINDI SUMUSUNOD

ALLEGED CATHOLIC CHURCH WEALTH IS BASED ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES,MYTHS AND IGNORANCE By Aloysius Kayiwa

$
0
0
Mother Teresa was committed to the mission serving the poor and can teach lessons to misguided critics

Mother Teresa was committed to the mission serving the poor and can teach lessons to misguided critics

I write this as a friend of the Catholic Church in the Philippines and as a Church Militant.  This is a response to  a news outlet in the Philippine media by one online journalist,Ariel Rufo, who asked a completely misguided question about the Catholic Church wealth. Representatives of the secular world like this journalist, instead of belonging or observing the truth instead only note a passion for a reason and for freedom that they feel familiar and close to their most authentic inspirations. Reason is not to be confused with opinions generated by and infused with prejudice. I will respond to the general common allegation that “the CATHOLIC CHURCH IS VERY WEALTH” although i will try to break it down to Rufo’s claims.I hope this will go along way in helping to silence the innuendos and lies propagated by secular media critics like this journalist and anti-Catholics.

Ariel Rufo  started his article with this statement;

“It’s a puzzle that not even the Church hierarchy has figured out with certainty.”

Now this is a chap who wants us to believe in puzzles and thinks that an Institution that implemented a University system of Education would fail to know how to calculate her wealth. He is simply appealing to puzzle talk to spread his innuendos in a bid to attack the Catholic Church. Of course we know that over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been a magnet for legends, myths, and conspiracy theories such as that of the infamous (and completely fictitious) Pope Joan.

This is because the splendor the Catholic Church invites speculation as well as for the fact that the Catholic Church tends to excite strong passions, among both supporters and detractors,and all sorts of wild allegations that would not be taken seriously if attached to other
institutions.

One can’t always blame outside forces for the promotion of certain myths, though.Sometimes the Catholic Church leads with its chin, as it often has on its alleged “fantastic wealth.” But of course you do not need conspiracy theories from detractors to be dazzled by alleged Church wealth which has confused and disillusioned many like this ignorant journalist  who fails to see the connection between playing currency markets and following Jesus.

Reality is more prosaic.THE REAL TRUTH IS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT RICH IN THE SENSE OF THE WORLD. Vatican alone has annual budget of less than $300 million-which budget can hardly place it in the top 500 list of richest social institutions. For example look, Harvard University  has an annual budget of over $1.23 billion which means,as respected journalist John Allen Jr writes(The Myth of Vatican Wealth), it could run an equivalent of three Vaticans. Further as John Allen writes in his essay, this says nothing of the corporate world. Microsoft in 2002 spent $4.7 billion on research and development alone and has annual sales of $293 billion. On the scale of the world’s mammoth enterprises, the Vatican(i add the Catholic Church) doesn’t rate.

Well some deluded fellows will say that the Catholic Church dioceses sit on a pile of wealth-such as real estate and art work-that do not show up in their annual budget. Indeed, Rufo did nearly raise that in relation to the assets of the  Philippine Catholic Church. Sadly, he did not provide the worth of these assets. Instead he resorted to the use of blanket statements.Such statements do not prove that the Catholic Church is very wealth but fuel speculation and myths.Rather, you prove that by estimating how much can these cost and then compare the sum with the sum asset worth of other institutions and see the difference. Further, critics forget that these assets like art works are part of the artistic heritage of the world and can never be sold or borrowed. There is little evidence to suggest that Catholic Dioceses are sitting on hidden pile of Cash.

So what do we answer those who claim that the Catholic Church is wealth? I will give here an excerpt from Catholic Replies by James J. Drummey (C.R. Publications, 1995).

First of all, the Catholic Church is not wealthy in the usual sense of the word. Yes,the Church does have a worldwide network of churches, schools, convents,monasteries, hospitals, orphanages, and homes for the aged, the troubled, and the dying.But these physical structures are not used to make anyone rich; they are used to bring the teachings and love of God to the people of every nation. It costs a huge amount of money to maintain these buildings and operate the agencies and programs they house,and the universal Church, which exists to save souls, not to make a profit, runs a large deficit every year.

Second, while the Catholic Church does own many valuable books, works of art, and historical treasures, it serves only as a depository for them. It was the Church that saved these masterpieces from barbarian invaders centuries ago, and it is the Church that preserves them today for all to enjoy.

Third,in response to those who say that the Church should sell her assets and give to the poor- even if the Church did sell all these priceless artifacts and gave the money to the poor, the proceeds would provide hardly more than a day’s food to the millions of hungry people around the world. They would be hungry again the next day, but the marvelous treasures of our civilization would be in the hands of private individuals and no longer available to the public.

Fourth, we must bear in mind that no one has done more for the needy of the world than the Church, thanks to the tremendous generosity of millions of faithful Catholics.The Church does not have to apologize to anyone for failing to assist the least of our brothers and sisters.

Finally, did you ever wonder why those who want the Catholic Church to sell its treasures never make the same demand of governments, other religions or museums? Is it possible, as Bishop Fulton Sheen once suggested, that some of these critics don’t really care about the poor, but attack the Church because they don’t like its teachings against abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexual behavior, or some other issue? 

Rufo chose to lean on an ignorant position when he hinted  on the issue of financial mismanagement within the Church in the Philippines. He forgets that this issue is not limited to the Catholic Church alone. Can he really compare this to other Churches and tell us what he will find out?The lesson for him is that this is a universal and perennial concern in any Institution wherever human beings are involved with money.

Like Rufo, other critics contrast the splendor of Catholic art and architecture with the poverty and simplicity of Jesus Christ (Lk 9:58) and cite Christ’s admonition to the rich young man: “Go and sell everything you own and give the money to the poor!” (Lk 18:22). Yet when Mary took a pound of costly perfume and anointed Christ’s feet with it Judas’ grumbled, “We could get 300 denari for that perfume and give it to the poor” (Jn 12:5). Jesus corrected him saying, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me” (Jn 12:3-8). Christ also commended the poor widow who contributed to the Temple’s upkeep (Lk 21:2). Our Lord was not against the use of wealth and beautiful things to give glory to God. And an ornate church is a House of God, not a home for clergy, open to rich and poor alike. For the poor it may be the one place to which they can go to find refuge from their wretched environment(like how typhoon displaced people in the Philippines found refugee in Catholic Churches) and be lifted up by their surroundings into a sense of the beauty and majesty, reality and presence of God.

This tradition of splendor in church architecture and furnishings dates back to Old Testament times, when God commanded the Jews to build a magnificent Temple in Jerusalem (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 6-7). They used precious metals and other costly materials in the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple, and the furniture in the Temple. These materials included large quantities of gold, silver, bronze, fine linens, and acacia wood (see Ex. 25-31; 37-38). According to 1 Chronicles 22:14, David bequeathed to Solomon an accumulated wealth of 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver as financial resources towards the construction of the Temple. Since a talent was about 34 kilograms, taken literally, this would be 3.4 million kg of gold– or about 120 million ounces, which nearly as much as is currently in the United States depository in Fort Knox (147.2 million ounces)!

The Catholic Church has always used precious metals and other valuable materials in the construction of sacred vessels because they hold something infinitely more valuable than the original Temple and its contents – they hold the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. By giving our best to God we show our reverence and devotion to Him and remind ourselves that everything we have is a gift from Him. The good things of this world are meant to give glory to God and to help us in striving after His kingdom (cf. Mt. 6:33).

One can give glory to God by embracing evangelical poverty (the counsel our Lord gave to the rich young man that members of religious orders seek to follow) or by helping the less fortunate;but one can also give glory to God by using one’s talents to produce beautiful works of art or using other means to help raise the cultural level of society. The Catholic Church does all these things and more. Its patronage of the arts and sciences was instrumental in the development of Western civilization. As historian Paul Legutko of Stanford University notes the Catholic Church is “at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws, and institutions which constitute what we call Western civilization.”

These Church structures will need to be protected, cleaned and repaired when damaged. Doesn’t God want his House to be maintained and repaired? We read in Haggai 1:4-9;

“Is it time for you to dwell in ceiled houses, and this house lie desolate? And now thus saith the Lord of hosts: Set your hearts to consider your ways. You have sowed much, and brought in little: you have eaten, but have not had enough: you have drunk, but have not been filled with drink: you have clothed yourselves, but have not been warmed: and he that hath earned wages, put them into a bag with holes.

Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Set Your hearts upon your ways: Go up to the mountain, bring timber, and build the house: and it shall be acceptable to me, and I shall be glorified, saith the Lord. You have looked for more, and behold it became less, and you brought it home, and I blowed it away: why, saith the Lord of hosts? because my house is desolate, and you make haste every man to his own house.”

In the next verses, we read that God cursed the land until people obeyed the Lord and repaired His house. As Christians, we do not want to be lax when the House of the Lord gets damaged but rather it is our responsibility to repair it. Repairing these structures can cost a buck but the Church calls for donations to achieve this. This money does not belong to the Bishops and it is always accounted for.

Further, the alleged Church wealth is but assets that belong to individual parishes, dioceses and religious orders.The Pope does not touch anything on this. Again one can be property rich but cash poor which is true when applied to the Church. Her properties are the patrimony of the faithful. They are used to serve her religious and charitable purposes and not for the purpose of making profits or amassing wealth. A church building may be sitting on prime real estate but to the parishioners its value is intangible as their historical house of worship. Their concern is in maintaining not selling it, thus making Sunday contributions their chief measure of its solvency.

Not forgetting that the Catholic Church is the biggest Charitable Institution in the whole World-bigger than even the United Nations. It runs countless hospitals, schools,Universities, dispensaries, homes for the poor, Chronically ill, the disabled and other vulnerable group. Assistance is given to both Catholics and non-Catholics. In Uganda, for example, the Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services like Health and Education and it does this on not-for-profit basis.The money got from some of these services like provision of education and health services is not for enrichment but is used to pay staff salaries, procure equipment and provide support to the poor among others. Government alone can not do this while works of mercy are a necessary component of the gospel. The Church here is very poor that even one local Bishop warned Catholics who do not contribute to fundraising to join other religions since the Church has survived on fundraising from the time of the Apostles.

Yes, the Catholic Church owns estates and beautiful structures that can wow many but these are used in the preaching mission of the Church and are not for amassing wealth.They belong to all the faithful. To those who question Catholic Church wealth, why don’t you also question the wealth of Jews, Muslims,Buddhists, the Anglicans, Citizens of the Philippines and their state wealth? 

It is easy to expect others to sacrifice what you wouldn’t sacrifice. Questioning the wealth of the Catholic Church is an attack on the Church.The Catholic Church is not rich in sense of the world. There is no need to believe in conspiracy theories fueled by those who want to distract people from the Apostolic journey of the Pope Francis to the Philippines. May God have mercy on them!

INFOGRAPHICS ON THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH IN PREPARATION FOR POPE FRANCIS’ VISIT By UST-TPSF

$
0
0
UST Infographics on the Social Teaching of the Church in preparation for the Visit of Pope Francis

UST Infographics on the Social Teaching of the Church in preparation for the Visit of Pope Francis

 

HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS IMAGE. IT IS SATANIC? By Aloysius Kayiwa

$
0
0

pope-francis-paintingThis image is doing rounds in the internet and social media and is being admired by many including Catholics. It is pretty good piece of art but ridiculously imbedded with satanism. Many will lump me and say “this guy is hallucinating” but i know what am talking about. I guess many have never heard about subliminal images and you will shocked to find out that this is a subliminal image. Why this image contains subliminal images is known only to the artist who painted it but will pass unnoticed to the eyes of many including the eyes of the artist if he is not aware. I do not know if the artist is a Catholic and i suspect he was strongly influenced by Watch Tower Society art. Watch Tower art has been condemned as being subliminal with occult and satanic images inserted within-enabling viewers to pass the hidden images without their knowledge and making them connect with occult and satanism in the process. If you look at the above picture you will be excited but you are only excited about satanic images that are staring at you!

To begin with, what are subliminal images?

These should not to be considered the images we usually see in the sky. Ever looked in the clouds and attempted to ascertain shapes which resemble everyday objects or words? Some see animals or words, and some are able to see faces. In fact, one could look at just about anything and ascertain shapes or images. Some people think these are the subliminal images.

However, subliminal images are an entirely different matter. Something that is subliminal lies below the threshold of consciousness, something that is accepted in the back of your mind. A subliminal image or message is deliberately inserted to allow one to subconsciously connect with the subject matter, without even realizing it.

Some will say that it is easier to accept these images do not exist but completely dodge the question; why are there in first place? Fortunately for people like myself i take great effort in analyzing shapes or lines in an image that look unnatural, shapes and lines that interrupt the the logical shape or visual texture of the image.

I encourage everyone to observe these presentations below to find out this.For those who will not choose to,simply view the images and make your judgement.Then for those who will say “nothing in there…..why would the artist put them there?” perhaps for the same reason why musicians make Illuminati signs during their stage performances.Deliberate insertions of subliminal images or messages allows the victims to subconsciously connect with enticing subject matter, in turn becoming more attracted to the very origins of what made them think of it in the first place.

subliminalI circled red-that is exactly where the  satanic unsual shapes were inserted where as where i circled blue, i suspect there are other hidden images.

To start, the Pope’s pectoral crucifix is missing ! I think the the artist omitted it to lessen its power and give importance to the devil.The Pope’s crucifix is something that even a child can not forget when drawing.Any way, Jehovah’s Witness do not believe that Jesus died on the cross and the artist might have been influenced by this.

Look at the back of the animal.I guess you observe clearly you see an image on the leather strap crossed by a rope.This is what you will see if you observe clearly;

pope-francis-paintingOhhh! Its a scary demon with wide eyes.And who is it looking at?At the little child below in the right bottom corner who is pointing at it.See how cruel the artist is;

pope-francis-painting

You see?The Child is pointing at the demon and NOT the Pope! See how the artist promotes demonology! You disagree?Let us see the direction of the Child hand;

pope-francis-paintingYou see the black line? Any more disagreement now? This artist is ridiculous.

Let us see more unusual shapes.Look at the lady in front of the Pope in the above image.You don’t see anything wrong with her.But have you observed her sleeve?Do you see anything there?Let us see a cropped image of that point.

pope-francis-paintingYou see nothing.Right? But why is the color different in there? Don’t you see an image in there?The sleeve on the garment  in this image appears to have a monster-like profile. Have you ever seen wrinkles in clothes spell out images?Oh and do you see how the lady’s arm is cleverly position in your face?To make you connect with this monster! More evidence? Let us compare with Watch Tower art;

jahinsleeve2This image appears in the Watch Tower magazine of 15/2/2014 page 25. You see the artist was greatly influenced by Watch Tower art-which has been condemned for hidden imagery.The sleeve above has something like a name “JAH” . Ever seen wrinkles in clothes spell out names really?

Let us see another cruelty from this artist;

In the picture, we see water melons.Yes and even there is a man beside them smiling.Is he smiling because of the Pope or for some ulterior creature hidden within the water melon?Look;

Capture

Now there is a hidden image in there.It is a demon.The man  who smiles besides the melon is smiling because you are just getting connected to a demon.How cruel that can be!!! And why yellow color on the melon?Because with green allover, the demon would not be visible but with yellow it can easily be visible! Any doubt?

We go to the next;

pope-francis-paintingDo you see unsual images in there at the Pope’s sleeve.Please click on the image to enlarge and see well.See how the artist placed the unusual images in your face.At close imagination there is something like a greek god Pan. If we compare with Watch Tower art, we can get a clue.

paninhandThe image above appears in WTS Revelation Its Grand Climax is at hand page 159. Something in there is really similar to our picture above.

pope-francis-paintingThere is face yes! Notice the wrinkles in the sleeve and below the arm are not wrinkles at all, it is a face. Could this be the face of Pan, the Greek god who watches over flocks, forests, mountains, and all wild things? You want to know about this greek god?

The Greek god Pan

The Greek god Pan

So you want another doze of hidden imagery? Look;

pope-francis-painting

You see where there is a red circle something is peeping.There is something unusual in there which the girl is staring at.The girl is not even minding about the joy of the visit by the Pope. Rather her attention is fully focused on the unusual image.Let us crop that section and see;

pope-francis-paintingThe girl’s attention is focused on the strange animal peeping about the leg of the bull.The strange animal seems to have 4 legs. It is a demon.How cruel can this artist become by connecting children to demonology!!!!There is more subliminal imagery in there, just observe well as i did.

The images you have just seen are simply a fraction of the strange images and deviously placed within this image that many are appreciating. Though many may contest this, one thing must be kept in mind. After closer examination, it becomes apparent that there are many images and symbols integrated into the scene in the image.The artist will disagree but why are these images in there?We have seen them.I guess it is intentional.They are inserted to make people subconsciously connect with occult and satanism. I hope the small portion of examples provided are profoundly noticeable, clearly seen, and extremely detailed. Will the artist realize this and apologize? I pray he does so. Be not fooled brethren. Satan can appear in various ways.

WHY DO WE CALL JESUS ‘NUESTRO PADRE’ [Our Father] NAZARENO?

$
0
0

10917462_415013625321931_5719178486754619132_n

 

BAKIT NGA BA TINAWAG NA “Nuestro PADRE Jesus Nazareno” ANG BLACK NAZARENE?

BAKIT MAY “PADRE”?

John 14:11
11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
“For a child is born to us, a son is given us; the royal ornament is laid upon his shoulder, and his name is proclaimed: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting FATHER, Prince of Peace”” Isaiah 9:5 emphasis mine
Don’t you think this prophecy is fulfilled in calling Jesus, Nuestro Padre?
ISA SA MAGPAPAGULO NG KAISIPAN NG ATING MGA KAPANALIG ITO ACTUALLY. MARAMI NA AKONG NA ENCOUNTER NA KAPANALIG NATIN NA NANINIWALANG SI CRISTO DIN ANG AMA. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THE DISTINCT DIVINE PERSONS OF THE FATHER, SON JESUS AND HOLY SPIRIT PERO NAG ENDING SILA SA PAGTATANONG NA “kung ganun pala eh di 3 na ang Diyos natin”

MGA KATOLIKO PO ITO PERO HINDI ALAM ANG PAGKAKAIBA NG BAWAT PERSONA NG DIYOS. ANG ALAM NILA CHRIST IS ALSO THE FATHER.
IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CALL HIM “PADRE” BECAUSE JESUS IS GOD. HE IS OUR CREATOR. JESUS IS OUR LIFE AND OUR LIGHT [cf. John 1:1-4]. SO HE IS OUR FATHER. FATHERHOOD MEANS HE IS OUR ORIGIN. EVERYTHING CAME TO EXIST BECAUSE OF HIM AND FOR HIM AND THROUGH HIM.
SABI NG MGA MANOLISTANG PULPOL HINDI DAW PWEDENG I APPLY KAY JESUS YUNG ‘EVERLASTING FATHER’ OF ISAIAH 9:6 KASI HINDI NAMAN DAW TINAWAG NA AMA SI JESUS SA NEW TESTAMENT. BUT THEY ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT JESUS DECLARED HIS FATHERHOOD:
Mt 9:2 where some people brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a bed. When Jesus saw how much faith they had, he said to the paralyzed man, “Courage, MY SON! Your sins are forgiven.”
Mk 2:5 Seeing how much faith they had, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “MY SON, your sins are forgiven.”
JESUS IS FATHER BECAUSE HE IS GOD, HE IS THE CREATOR AND ORIGIN OF LIFE AND AS OUR BROTHERS RIGHTFULLY EXPRESSED HE IS OUR ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST. THAT WORD OF JESUS CALLING THE PARALYZED MAN ‘MY SON’ IS NOT ONLY EXCLUSIVE OF THAT ONE MAN. ALL OF US ARE PARALYZED BY SIN SO JESUS AS OUR HIGH PRIEST CALLS US TO BE STRONG WITH HIM WHO IS OUR ‘FATHER’. VIVA NUESTRO PADRE NAZARENO!!!
THE TITLE OF JESUS AS ‘FATHER’ MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE PERSON OF THE FATHER AS DISTINCT FROM THE PERSON OF THE SON. IT REFERS TO GODLY POWER AND ACTIVITY. THE THREE PERSONS ARE EQUAL IN DIVINITY AND IN POWER AND IN GLORY. SO THE FATHER, THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE EQUALLY ALMIGHTY, CREATOR, REDEEMER AND SANCTIFIER. JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR BUT THERE ARE PASSAGES REFERRING TO THE FATHER AS SAVIOR ALSO. JESUS IS THE ROCK BUT THERE ARE ALSO PASSAGES REFERRING TO GOD AS OUR ROCK OF STRENGTH. JESUS IS THE GOOD SHEPHERD BUT THERE ARE PASSAGES THAT TEH FATHER IS THE SHEPHERD OF THE PEOPLE. SO THE ROLE OF ‘BEGETTING’ AND ‘GENERATING’ AND ‘CREATING’ WHICH FLOWS FROM FATHERHOOD IS NOT EXCLUSIVE OF THE FATHER BUT ALSO THE ETERNAL ROLE OF THE SON FOR THEY SHARE THE SAME DIVINITY AND BEING.
NUESTRO PADRE SENYOR NAZARENO IS THE OFFICIAL TITLE. ANG ‘BLACK’ NAZARENE IS ONLY THE POPULAR NAME. THAT IS WHY THAT IS THE ONE BEING PROCLAIMED REPEATEDLY IN THE OFFICIAL HYMN AND IN THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS.

A PRAYER FOR POPE FRANCIS & HIS APOSTOLIC VISIT TO THE PHILIPPINES FROM AN AMERICAN CATHOLIC

$
0
0

10922464_10203096373280481_5891667626306288963_n

A prayer from me, an American Catholic brother in the One True Faith, please share; As our Holy Father prepares for his Apostolic trip to Sri Lanka and the Philippines, January 12-19th, let us pray a prayer I wrote up for this special occasion:

“O God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, our One Triune God! We ask You to protect our Holy Father, we ask You to make him a shining example of love, wisdom, and a key tool for the New Evangelization. We ask You Lord, to open up hearts to hear his message of Mercy and Compassion, and may we learn to live out our lives in the Joy of the Gospel as our Holy Father does, we pray for those he touches many affected by various types of disasters in people’s live’s and may he renew their faith in God and in Holy Mother Church. We ask these things through Christ our Lord. Amen.”


BORN AGAIN PASTOR OF POWELL VALLEY CHURCH IN OREGON ARRESTED FOR SODOMY AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE CASES

$
0
0

Pastor, former police officer accused of child sex crimes

GRESHAM, Ore. – An evangelical pastor and former police officer is facing more than 30 charges of sex crimes involving two children, one boy and one girl.

James Daniel Worley, 42, has been a senior pastor at Powell Valley Church in Gresham since 2012, according to the church’s website.

The indictment filed Dec. 16 in Deschutes County charges Worley with 37 counts, including two counts of rape, 20 counts of sexual abuse, 11 counts of sodomy, one count of attempted sodomy and three counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.

In the latter three counts, the documents state Worley “did unlawfully and knowingly induce (the victims) … to engage in sexually explicit conduct for a person to observe.”

According to the indictment, the alleged abuse occurred between Sept. 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004 while the children were under the ages of 14 and 12.

Deschutes County prosecutors would not reveal how Worley knew the alleged victims but did say they did not believe Worley was a pastor during the time of the alleged incidents. However, prosecutors told KATU they are concerned there are more victims.

Worley was booked into the Multnomah County Jail on Dec. 30, and on that day he posted a tweetthat reads, “Stormy weather has arrived. About to find out two-things: who our real friends are and how our God glorifies himself. #Psalm35 #GlorytoGod.”

Worley is active on social media as well as his blog, called Pastor Jamie’s Blog, where he spreads the message of Jesus and offers advice on how to lead better, more spiritual lives.

In one blog post he writes:

What kind of witness for Christ are you? Are you an effective one? Here’s a better question, do you feel that you share the love of Jesus for the world with the world in a valuable way? I’m going to go out on a limb, using only my personal experience in conversations with believers of all ages and maturities, and say that you’re either thinking, “no, not really.”

According to biography on the blog, Worley is married with four kids and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mississippi as well as a Master of Arts in Pastoral Studies from Multnomah Biblical Seminary in Portland, Oregon.

He writes that his favorite book is the Bible and that his passion is to “spend my life seeking the lost and equipping the found, all for God’s glory.”

The On Your Side Investigators went to Powell Valley church on Monday, but it was closed. Messages were not returned Monday.

Worley’s family declined to speak to a KATU reporter on Monday.

“It’s really devastating,” said Lily Prosch, a former member of the church. “Pastors are trusted individuals so why would you think to second guess a person like that?”

Prosch’s mother used to be a secretary at the church and she said her son still attends youth group there.

Prosch believed Worley also led prayer groups for youth at Sam Barlow High School in Gresham.

“That scares me,” Prosch said. “My son is a student at that school and I would hate to think that (Worley) would have any further access to my child.”

KATU left several messages for the Gresham-Barlow School District Monday. Messages were not immediately returned.

“If there is anybody else out there that was hurt by this man, please feel free to come forward and stand up for yourself and what happened, and say this isn’t right, and I’m not going to allow this to happen,” Prosch said.

Officer Worley: His “conduct was not a good faith error”

The On Your Side Investigators uncovered Worley used to be a police officer with the Tillamook Police Department.

He worked at the department from Sept. 1, 2005 to November 3, 2006 but his badge was revoked in 2007 for ongoing misconduct, according to City of Tillamook records obtained by the On Your Side Investigators.

“After considering the totality of circumstances, it appears that Worley violated agency policy, and was untruthful or deceptive on more than one occasion,” according to 2007 police review board meeting minutes.

The document states Worley engaged in “unethical writing of citations,” inappropriately responded to a restraining order, destroyed marijuana in the field, used the Internet excessively while on duty, created “sexually explicit advertisements,” and made unwanted sexual advances to a woman in a 911 dispatch center, among other things.

Worley went to the 911 center, which was against policy, and told a female dispatcher that he would “service her,” according to the police review board.

The dispatcher stated Worley came to the 911 center several times between June and November 2006. In part, the document states:

“Initially the conversations were friendly however between the months of August or September and November, Worley began to engage in sexual conversations with her. Examples of these conversations were when Worley offered to “service her” and she understood he meant this in a sexual manner because he would make reference to each of their genitalia in their conversations. Also, Worley told the female dispatcher he would please her as no man has pleased her. The female dispatcher understood that Worley meant this in a sexual manner because he would reference his male prowess.”

In her Affidavit, the female dispatcher stated that she would brush Worley off and change the subject. Also, at one point Worley apologized to her and discontinued his inappropriate behavior. The female dispatcher stated that she did not report this but other dispatchers who witnessed Worley’s behavior did share their concerns with other officers and perhaps supervisory staff.

In the meeting minutes, Worley asserts that he was “let go” without any explanation and that he had never been counseled or disciplined for any serious reason by the department. 

He added that he was poorly trained and not approached or redirected in any way by the employer. Worley also stated that he never purposefully compromised his integrity and character on duty.

Worley is in jail on $500,000 bond.

Unless he posts bail, the Deschutes County District Attorney’s office expects Worley to be transported back to Bend to face charges.

SOURCE:

http://www.katu.com/news/investigators/Pastor-former-police-officer-accused-of-child-sex-crimes-287596021.html

THE “ANTI-CATHOLIC’S BIBLE” REFUTED By Cyril of Ephesus

$
0
0

GE DIGITAL CAMERA

No anti-Catholics worth their salt should use this much discredited book as reference to attack the Church. (COE) 

 

The “Boettner List”: Fact or Fiction?
By: Wolseley
Anyone is free to reproduce the following material in any form, as long as the author is given full credit for the material reproduced.
“ROMANISM” REVISITED: A FACTUAL AND HISTORICAL REFUTATION OF THE “BOETTNER LIST”(Copyright 2003 by Wayne A. Ariss; all rights reserved.)

In the years since the Internet became a worldwide communications tool, many types of “bulletin board” have become popular. These are a type of forum where a topic is introduced, and others may “post” replies to the topic by typing their thoughts into the bulletin board’s online system, and clicking on the “reply to topic” button on their computer screen. Their reply will then appear below the previous post, often with highlighted quotations from preceding posts, and the discussion will progress, sometimes with dozens of people joining in.

Some of these bulletin boards, naturally, are Christian discussion boards, where Christians and others can discuss topics such as theology, eschatology, doctrine, current events, and so on, from various Christian perspectives. Inevitably, the old dichotomies between Catholics and Protestants will make their appearance in these discussions, and the doctrinal positions from both sides will be endlessly debated. On boards of a generic Christian nature, or on boards that are of a primarily Protestant makeup, Catholics and Catholic doctrine will often take quite a pounding from non-Catholics—but I can attest from personal experience that the major differences have little to do with what Catholics actually teach and believe, but misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and old canards which sometimes go all the way back to the 16th century.Having spent years now discussing topics on these Internet bulletin boards, I have seen various claims and charges leveled at the Catholic Church, sometimes over and over again. One of the most common sources for this material consists of a familiar “laundry list” of charges against Catholicism, which I have seen posted literally dozens of times—either in part or in whole—usually verbatim, and tossed out as “proof” of the errors of Catholicism. Although the author of this list is not often identified, anyone familiar with the material will immediately recognize it as the work of one of the 20th century’s premier anti-Catholic screedists, Loraine Boettner.

Boettner was born in Missouri in 1901, and graduated with a Master’s degree in Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1929. He held a variety of teaching positions around the country, and was an eminent and well-respected Reformed theologian; he died in 1990. Boettner wrote several books, including The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Studies in Theology, The Millennium, Immortality, and A Harmony of the Gospels. Unfortunately, what he seems to be the most remembered for was his 1962 book Roman Catholicism, published by the Reformed and Presbyterian Publishing Company of Philipsburg, New Jersey.

On pages 7, 8, and 9 of Roman Catholicism, Boettner included a “list” of claims against the Catholic Church—the very same “list” that is repeatedly posted, verbatim, on the Internet by those who disagree with Catholicism and who wish to point out its “errors”. Subtitled “Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions, and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1650 years”, the grouping contains 44 items running from 300 AD to 1950 AD, with the addition of one item from 1965 in subsequent printings. Thus we have the source of the infamous “Boettner List”, as it is sometimes known.

For each item, Boettner first spells out the “heresy” or “invention” he claims the Church concocted, which is then followed by the date when it supposedly appeared. My purpose in this treatise is to refute each one of the items on Boettner’s list, both by correcting Boettner when he misrepresents the material in his item, and by providing primary source documents—or of materials which quote the primary source documents—that give the actual date of the practice in question, and thereby illustrating that the practices Boettner condemns actually existed in the Church much earlier than he claims. They were not “invented” at very late dates—indeed, many of them existed from the Patristic Era, or at least much earlier than Boettner would have us believe.

This is not meant to be an all-encompassing treatise, nor is it meant to be a deep scholarly endeavor. It is merely meant to highlight the wild inaccuracies in Boettner’s chronology, and let the reader decide for him or herself whether a man who manages to miss the mark so many times has any credibility in other areas as well. I do not present this as a condemnation of Boettner, or of his Reformed theological works or viewpoints; I am concerned with Roman Catholicism alone, and the claims which he makes against the Catholic Church which he provides early on in the book. Whatever the merits of his other works may be, I hope to show that in Roman Catholicism, Boettner truly has little to say with any factual credibility.

I have employed a variety of sources, making heavy use of the old Catholic Encyclopedia; but not all of my sources are Catholic, and all of the works I have used contain further cites from other works in which the material may be found. It remains only for the reader to locate the references I have provided to corroborate my sources and to do his own research to prove, or attempt to disprove, my findings.

1. Prayers for the dead, began about….300 AD.The first Scriptural mention of prayers for the dead occurs in the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees, chapter 12, verses 39 through 46, in which Judas Maccabeus and his men pray for their fallen comrades, that God may forgive the sins of the dead men. 2 Maccabees was written sometime after 124 BC [1], which makes Boettner’s date more than 400 years off.

Examples of Christians offering supplication for the dead are found in grave scripts such as the Epitaph of Abercius, the Bishop of Hierapolis, written in 180 AD. On this grave marker, Abercius asks all who may read his marker to pray for him [2].

Other examples can be found in the works of the Christian apologist Tertullian, who lived approximately from 155 AD to 250 AD. In his work The Crown (211 AD), Tertullian mentions Christians offering sacrifices for the dead on the anniversary of their deaths [3], and makes a similar reference in his work Monogamy (213 AD), where he mentions widows offering prayers and sacrifices for their deceased husbands [4].

In even the very latest of these two examples, Boettner is still nearly a hundred years off.

[1] Introduction notes to the book of 2 Maccabees, New American Bible. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1969; pg 546.

[2] William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970, pg 78.

[3] Jurgens, pg 151.

[4] Jurgens, pg 158.

2. Making the sign of the cross….300.

Again we go back to Tertullian’s The Crown of 211 AD: “In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign” [5]. This makes Boettner’s date 89 years off.

[5] Jurgens, pg 151.

3. Wax candles, about….320.

The extant Roman record of the execution of Cyprian of Carthage (Acta Proconsularia) indicates that his funeral included the use of candles and torches; this occurred in September of 258, more than 60 years before Boettner’s date [6].

[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Candles”. New York: Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1907; pg 246.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, “Cyprian of Carthage”, pg 588.

Patrick Hamell, Handbook of Patrology. New York: Alba House, 1968; pg 75.

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

The veneration (or respect) paid to angels can be found in the First Apology of Justin Martyr (148 AD). In Chapter VI, he states that “the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him…we worship and adore” [7].

Likewise, Athenagoras of Athens wrote in Chapter X of theSupplication For the Christians (c.177 AD): “Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers”[8]. It will be noted in both these examples that Boettner is off by approximately 200 years.

The earliest reference to veneration of the saints can be found in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, a document dating from around 155 AD: “Christ we adore, because He is the Son of God. To the martyrs, on the other hand, we offer the love which is due to disciples and ministers of the Lord, on account of their unsurpassable devotion to their King and Lord” [9]. This again makes Boettner’s date 200 years off.

Insofar as images go, both Exodus 25:18 and Numbers 21:8 mention images being constructed at God’s command. Boettner apparently gets his date of 375 AD from Basil the Great, who writes in his treatise The Holy Spirit from that same year that honor paid to an image is honor paid to God Himself [10]. Basil appears to be merely offering adefinition of the use of images, however, since images go as far back as the late 2nd century; archaeological discoveries have revealed paintings on the walls of Roman catacombs depicting Christ, the saints, and scenes from Scripture, which gradually developed into frescoes, then mosaics, and finally bas-relief and statues [11]. Eusebius, who lived from 263 to 340 AD, described a statue he had personally seen, depicting Christ healing the woman of Caesarea Philippi (History of the Church, VII, xviii; 300-325 AD). All of these examples place Boettner anywhere from 50 to 200 years off the mark.

[7] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/2/

[8] ibid.

[9] Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings. New York: Penguin Books, 1968; pg 131.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1960; pp 318-319.

[10] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers. Volume 2, pg 18.

[11] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Catacombs”, pp 422-424.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, “Images”, pp 665-668.

5. The Mass, as a daily celebration….394.

The Mass, in the earliest years of the Church, appears to have been celebrated on Sunday only, but it was gradually extended to a daily celebration by the time of Augustine (d.430 AD). This, however, was by no means universal, being confined to specific geographical areas until the end of the 500’s AD. In some places, priests began to celebrate multiple daily Masses, until Pope Alexander II (d.1073) decreed that priests should content themselves with one or at the most two Masses, one being a requiem Mass, and then only if necessary [12]. What remains unclear is why Boettner felt this to be something sinister, to be labeled a heresy or an invention.

[12] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; “Bination”, pp 568-569.

6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term “Mother of God” first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus….431.

The Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431 AD, did indeed declare that Mary was the Mother of God. However, Mary bore this title long before Ephesus; Ignatius of Antioch states in his Epistle to the Ephesians (110 AD): “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan” [13]. Irenaeus of Lyons writes inAgainst Heresies (180-199 AD), “The Virgin Mary…being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” [14]. Finally Ephraim the Syrian (d.373 AD) composed a hymn with the words “This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity….and the handmaid and work of His wisdom became the Mother of God” [15]. In these three examples, Boettner is off by 321 years, 232 years, and 58 years, respectively.

[13] Jurgens, Vol. 1. pg 18.

[14] ibid., pg 101.

[15] ibid., pg 312.

7. Priests began to dress differently than laymen….500.Boettner here is half right. In the 6th century the manner of dress between clergy and laity was different; however, it wasn’t the clergy that changed and began dressing differently, it was the laity.

In the early years of the Church, clergy dressed no differently from the people around them, and indeed, priests were chastised for dressing in any manner that brought attention to themselves (letter of Pope Celestine to the bishops of Gaul, 428 AD; Council of Gangra, 340 AD). This seems to have remained the case up until the 500’s AD.

By then, the Western Roman Empire had collapsed, and the influx of northern Germanic tribesmen that came into Italy had begun to mix with the native Roman population. The clergy retained the common manner of dress that Romans had always worn—the long tunic and a toga or cloak; the laypeople, however, began to quickly adopt the style of dress of the Germans, being a short tunic, breeches, and a mantle.

A local council in Portugal in 572 and another in Germany in 742 mention clerical attire, but only insofar that clerics should be seemly attired and decently covered. The first actual indication of specific clerical dress comes in 875 AD, when Pope John VIII instructs the Archbishops of York and Canterbury to make sure that their clergy was wearing specific ecclesiastical attire. Universal enactments regarding clerical attire came in 1215, 1589, 1624, and finally 1725, when Pope Benedict XIII decreed that a cleric wearing lay garments was an infraction of the most serious order [16]. Boettner is thus off by a margin of 375 years in the earliest example.

[16] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4; “Costume, Clerical”. pp 419-420.

8. Extreme Unction….526.

Extreme Unction (or the Anointing of the Sick) is mentioned in the Epistle of James, 5:13-15, written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. In light of this fact, how Boettner came up with the idea that the Catholic Church “invented” it in 526 AD is a total mystery.

9. The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I….593.

The concept of sins being remitted after death is found in the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees, 12:38-46, which was probably written about 124 BC. This in itself makes Boettner more than 700 years off the mark, but the Catholic concept of Purgatory still pre-dates Boettner’s claim by hundreds of years; for further examples, see #1 of this list under “Prayers for the dead”.

10. Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I….600.

Latin was, of course, the language of the ruling culture in Western Europe at the time of Christianity’s inception, being the Roman Empire. As early as 180 AD, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs mentions that the Gospels and Epistles of Paul had been translated into Latin, and pagan Romans such as Arnobius dismissed such translations as being of a trivial, common, and vulgar form of Latin [17].

The de facto “official” language of the Church appears to have been Greek up until the 3rd century, when official Papal documents began appearing in Latin. This was probably due to the overwhelming majority of Christians being located in the eastern, or Greek-speaking, half of the Empire. Paul, for example, in the 16th chapter of Romans, greets more than twenty people by name, and only six of the names are Latin, the remainder being Greek. However, Latin began to slowly gain more usage, especially in the Roman provinces of Africa, and moving northward. By the 4th century, Jerome had translated the Scriptures into Latin, and the liturgy was being celebrated almost exclusively in Latin in the western parts of the Empire [18].

Although there is no exact date when Latin took precedence in the western Church, virtually all authorities agree that it was during the period from the early 3rd to late 4th centuries. That, along with the lack of evidence of a definitive decree from Gregory I stipulating the use of Latin in his liturgical reforms after 590, places Boettner in a chronological error of several hundred years.

[17] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9; “Latin, Ecclesiastical”, pg 20.

[18] Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia; “Latin”. Huntington, IN: OSV Publishing, Inc., 1991, pp 575-576.

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

The most complete ancient prayer which was addressed to Mary asked for her intercession in times of difficulty and danger; entitled Sub Tuum Praesidium, or “Under Your Protection”, it dates from approximately 250 AD, making Boettner’s date approximately 350 years off [19]. Besides this, Marian devotions flourished after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, nearly 200 years before Boettner’s date [20].

For prayers directed to saints and angels, see Number 4 above.

[19] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1993, pg 27.

[20] ibid., pg 28.

12. Title of Pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas….607.Boettner apparently wishes to give the impression that the office of Pope was invented by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas in 607, and conferred upon Boniface. The actual facts are not so simplistic.

To begin with, the title of the Bishop of Rome—Pontifex Maximus—is a term meaning “bridge-builder”, which the Popes inherited from governmental functionaries of the pagan Romans. “Pope” is merely a derivation of a Latin word meaning “father”; and use of that term for various clerics is also found in both the Orthodox and Coptic churches.

Tertullian, writing in his treatise Modesty (written in 220 AD), cites a quote from “a pontiff—sovereign, of course—that is, a bishop of bishops” [21]. This places use and understanding of the term 387 years before Boettner’s claim. Two other instances of the term in the definition of apatriarch are found applied to the Bishop of Carthage in 250 AD [22], and to the Bishop of Alexandria in 320 AD [23]. However, the Bishop of Rome was always held to be Head of the entire Church, (as attested to by Ignatius, Hermas, Dionysius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others).

Shortly before Boniface III was elected, a dispute had arisen about the way that Cyriacus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was using the term “ecumenical patriarch”; the manner in which Cyriacus was employing the title seemed to minimize the proper office of the Pope as universal head of the Church.

Once Boniface had been elected Pope, Emperor Phocas issued a decree—aimed directly at Cyriacus—which stipulated that the See of Rome was the head see of all the churches, and that the title “Universal Bishop” belonged only to the Bishop of Rome [24]. There was imperial precedent for this action, since Emperor Justinian (527-565 AD) had issued a similar acknowledgment some eighty years before [25].

The wrangling over jurisdiction between Rome and Constantinople would continue for another 400 years, and would eventually contribute to the final East-West schism in 1054 AD; but the examples provided here more than dispose of Boettner’s claim that the title of Pope was “invented” by the Byzantine Emperor in 607 AD.

[21] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 159.

[22] ibid., pg 227.

[23] ibid., pg 277.

[24] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; “Boniface III”. pg 600.

J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pg 68.

[25] ibid.

13. Kissing the pope’s foot, began with pope Constantine….709.

This is a practice which was absorbed from the Roman emperors; Roman court officials kissed the Emperor’s foot as a sign of respect for the head of the Empire. In like manner, kissing the foot of the Pope is a sign of respect for the head of the Christian Church, not the man himself—or, as Pope Innocent III described it, it is an act of “reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him Whose feet were kissed by the woman who was a sinner”.

Boettner is incorrect to say that the practice began with Pope Constantine, since there is at least one earlier extant example of Emperor Justin kissing the foot of Pope John I (523-526 AD) some 180 years before [26].

[26] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8; “Kiss”, pg 665.

14. Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks….750.

During the years 741 through 747, the Frankish kingdoms that had been the domain of Charles Martel were in a state of rapid change and upheaval. By 750, Pepin the Short was in a position to take charge of the kingdom and establish stability. However, having been educated by Christian monks, and being well acquainted with St. Boniface, Pepin sought advice from Pope Zacharias as to whether he should take charge of the kingdom or not.

Pope Zacharias replied that since Pepin held de facto power over the Franks, it was better, indeed, that he should take charge of the kingdom. This confirmation disposed of the last Merovingian claimant to the throne (Childeric III), and Pepin was crowned king and anointed as such (by Boniface, acting as the Pope’s representative) the next year as Soissons [27].

In light of this examination of Frankish history, it can be seen that Boettner essentially has his facts reversed: Pepin didn’t confer temporal power on the Pope; rather, the Pope confirmed the temporal power of Pepin.

[27] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11; “Pepin the Short”, pp 662-663.

Kelly, pg 90.

15. Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in….786.Boettner appears to get this date from the 2nd Council of Nicaea, even though he is off by one year (the council actually took place in 787). The council stipulated that the Cross should receive an “adoration of honor” [28}. However, the veneration of the Cross is mentioned as far back as 380 AD, in documents such as the Peregrinatio Etheriae, making Boettner’s claim 400 years off the mark [29].

Veneration of the relics of saints is mentioned much earlier than Boettner’s claim; The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, written in 155 AD, mentions that the bones of Polycarp, “more precious than costly gems and finer than gold”, were carefully gathered up after his execution, and put “in a suitable place” [30].

For more on veneration of images, see Number 4 above.

[28] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4; “Cross”, pg 524.

[29] ibid., pg 530.

[30] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 31.

16. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest….850.

The Apostolic Constitutions, a document dating back to the 5th century, attributes the use of holy water to the Apostle St. Matthew; likewise, two more ancient documents called the Pontifical of Serapion of Thmuis and the Testamentum Domini contain liturgical formulas for the blessing of both oil and water at Mass.

The Council of Constantinople in 691 AD makes mention of the blessing of holy water at each church at the beginning of each lunar month. In any event, Boettner is off by anywhere from 400 to 159 years, depending on the source cited [31].

[31] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7; “Holy Water”, pp 432-433.

17. Worship of St. Joseph….890.All Catholic saints are “worshiped”, of course, but only in the sense of dulia, or veneration, and not latria, the actual worship given only to God. In the case of St. Joseph, he was venerated by the Copts as early as the start of the 300’s AD; and an oratory was dedicated to him in a basilica erected by St. Helena around the same general time [32]. The apocryphal work The History of Joseph was widespread in the East from the 4th to the 7th centuries, although his cult was not widespread in the West until the 15th century, when his feast was introduced into the Roman calendar in 1479 [33].

In either event, Boettner has missed the mark by a margin of approximately 600 years in both directions.

[32] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, “Joseph”; pg 505.

[33] John J. Delaney, Dictionary of Saints. New York: Doubleday, 1980, pg 330.

18. College of Cardinals established….927.

At the Council of Rome, held in 499 AD, Pope Symmachus divided the City into various parochial units, each under the control of a priest known as a cardinale. Pope John VIII published a constitution between 873 and 882 which specifically mentions these cardinal priests, or presbyteri cardinales [34]. The office gradually developed into what we now have, meaning the body of higher clerics who meet to elect the next Pontiff upon the death of the reigning Pope; the actual term collegium comes into general use after 1150 AD [35]. The College of Cardinals was never so much an establishment as it was a development; but in any case, Boettner has again erred by anywhere from 200 to 500 years in either direction.

[34] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Cardinal”, pg 333.

[35] ibid., pg 340.

Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII….965.

The phrase “baptism” of bells has been in use for hundreds of years, but it was a “pop” usage, which was never instituted by the Church. The actual practice involved the blessing of the bell and application of holy water, the same way that the Church blesses any object which is devoted to the service of God, i.e., an altar, a church, sacred vessels, vestments, vehicles, etc. In no way is the blessing of a bell (or any other object) the same thing as the Sacrament of Baptism, in which a new child of Christ is washed clean of original sin.

The blessing of bells is mentioned in documents dating at least as far back as Egbert, Archbishop of York, in the mid-700’s AD; thus we see that Boettner is about 200 years off [36].

[36] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Bells”, pp 420-421.

20. Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John XV….995.

Since veneration of Christian martyrs is mentioned by Eusebius, Augustine, Cyprian, and Cyril of Alexandria (see also Number 4 above), not to mention the religious celebration of the day of St. Polycarp’s martyrdom (155 AD), the veneration of saints has been around since the earliest days of the Church. Usually the bishop of a specific diocese would promulgate the veneration of a local martyr; when this veneration was confirmed by the Pope, it then became universal [37].

The specific instance mentioned by Boettner here, however, was the canonization of St. Ulrich, the Bishop of Augsburg (890-973). Pope John XV announced the canonization—much in the same way that any local bishop might—at a synod held at the Lateran Palace on 31 January 993, and also published the same in a bull to the German and French bishops dated 3 February [38].

This is the first time that a Pope solemnly canonized a saint, so Boettner is half right; however, it is not the first instance of a saint being recognized as officially canonized, as we have seen, although this is clearly what Boettner meant to imply. The striking part is that even when Boettner is partially correct, he still can’t seem to get his dates right, since he states this event took place in 995, when it was actually 993, making him two years off the mark.

[37] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Beatification and Canonization”, pp 364-365.

[38] ibid., Vol. 8, “John XV”, pg 428.

21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent….998.

Fasting on Fridays is mentioned as far back as the Didache(140 AD) [39], thus rendering Boettner more than 800 years off the mark. As for the Lenten fast, Athanasius, writing in his Festal Letters of 331 AD, stated that the faithful should fast for 40 days during Lent [40]. This makes Boettner 667 years off the mark.

Canon

69 of theApostolic Canons, which pre-date 341 AD, admonishes bishops, clergy, and laity to fast during Lent; Canon 56 of the Trullan Synod of 692 AD contains similar regulations [41]. Here Boettner is anywhere from 657 years to 306 years off.

[39] Maxwell Staniforth (trans.), Early Christian Writings.Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1968, pg 194.

[40] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Lent”, pg 152.

[41] ibid., Vol. 5, “Fast”, pg 791.

22. The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Didache, written somewhere around 140 AD, mentions that Christians should assemble on the Lord’s Day for the Eucharist, but that they should confess their sins beforehand, so that their “sacrifice may be a pure one” [42]; this sacrificial language is echoed layer by both Ignatius and Irenaeus. Thus, Boettner’s “gradual development” occurred, rather precipitously, within 50 years of the death of the Apostle John, and not over a course of ten centuries as he implies.

As for obligatory attendance at Mass, the Council of Elvira in 300 AD decreed temporary excommunication as a corrective measure for anyone who missed Mass three weeks in a row [43], 700 years before Boettner’s date.

[42] Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, pg 197.

[43] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, “Sunday”, pg 335.

23. Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand)….1079.

Celibacy, of course, is mentioned as an ideal by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, although not as a mandatory injunction. Several early Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius appear to have viewed the practice favorably as well; but it was the local Council of Elvira in Spain (295-302 AD) where celibacy was first imposed on bishops, priests, and deacons. The practice was held as the ideal for clergy, but was adopted—or imposed—piecemeal in various locations until it was decreed Church-wide for all clergy by the 1st Lateran Council in 1123 [44]. Boettner is thus off by 700 years in the first instance and 40 years in the second.

In the case of Gregory VII, he did indeed seek to strengthen the practice of clerical celibacy, but it was in two Lenten synods in 1074 and 1075, not in 1079 as Boettner asserts [45]. The second of these synods forbade married priests from saying Mass and laypeople from attending Masses celebrated by married priests [46]. Boettner is thus still off the mark by a margin of four to five years.

[44] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Celibacy”, pp 483-486.

[45] Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pg 155.

[46] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, pg 486.

24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit….1090.

The Rosary had a long and slow development, going back to knots tied in cords and holes drilled in pieces of wood, both dating from the 300’s AD. The current prayer, and system of a crucifix and 59 beads, appears to be the result of the devotion as it was practiced in the 12th century; in this state of evolution, it was popularized by St. Dominic Guzman (1170-1221) and later by Alan de Rupe, around 1470 [47].

Peter the Hermit was one of the popular promoters of the 1st Crusade. Along with Walter the Penniless, he helped organize volunteers for the Crusade in 1096, and died in 1115, but there is no body of evidence indicating that he “invented” the Rosary devotion as it is presently known [48].

[47] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, “Rosary”, pp 184-186.

Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History.Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1995; “Rosary”, pg 733.

25. The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona….1184.

Although there were both ecclesiastical and secular investigative bodies and tribunals which dealt with various heresies throughout the first 1200 years of Christian history [49], the actual first Papal Inquisition was established by Gregory IX in 1233 to investigate the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies; this was under the auspices of the Pope, as distinguished from episcopal bodies under the control of diocesan bishops [50].

Boettner is off by nearly 50 years for the establishment of the Papal Inquisition, and he is likewise inaccurate in calling the convocation at Verona in 1184 a “council”; more properly, it was a synod, and while severe measures were pronounced against the Cathari, Waldensians, and Arnoldists, the synod was a cooperative measure between Pope Lucius III and Emperor Frederick I, rather than an established Inquisition of later years [51].

[49] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, “Inquisition”, pp 26-30.

[50] Stravinskas, OSV’s Catholic Encyclopedia,“Inquisition”, pg 512.

Kelly, Dictionary of Popes, pg 190.

[51] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Lucius III”, pg 412.

26. Sale of Indulgences….1190.

Indulgences, or the remission (through the ministry of the Church) of temporal punishment due for forgiven sins, was bestowed upon the Apostles by Christ in John 20:23, and was thereafter mentioned by Tertullian (Ad Martyres, c.200 AD), St. Cyprian (Letter to His Clergy, 250 AD), and St. Basil (Letter to Amphilochius), 374 AD), as well as the Councils of Ancyra (314 AD), Laodicea (320 AD), Nicaea (325 AD), and Arles (320 AD) [52]. The abuse of indulgences has popped up from time to time throughout Church history, and has been condemned by the Church. The English Council of Clovesho in 747 AD sternly rebuked those who tried to hire penitents to perform austerities for them by means of proxy, with the indulgence thus gained supposedly going to the client of the penitent [53].

Boettner neglects to specify where he gets his date of 1190, which he apparently pulls out of the air at random; even later in his own book (pages 262-267) he blithely skips over this specific date. He is, however, in the general ballpark—the 12th century was about the time that indulgence “sales” gained popularity. Pope Urban II granted a plenary indulgence to all participants of the 1st Crusade (1095), and after this, “sales” came into prominence, the monies thus gained being used for such projects as building churches, roads, and bridges, care for the poor and the ill, or education of the young. William of Auvergne, the Bishop of Paris (1228-1249) justified these actions as acts of Christian charity [54].

[52] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, “Indulgences”, pg 785.

[53] ibid., pg 786.

[54] H.R. Loyn, editor, The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1989; pg 1

27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III….1215.

As a concept, transubstantiation can be traced back at least to Tertullian, who states “He took bread, offered it to His disciples and made it into His body by saying, ‘This is My body'” (Against Marcion 212 AD); likewise Cyril of Jerusalem says “Once at Cana in Galilee by a mere nod He changed water into wine; should it now be incredible that He changes wine into blood?” (Catechetical Lectures [Mystagogic], 350 AD) [55].

As a term, transubstantiation was first used by the theologians Magister Roland about 1150, Stephen of Tournai about 1160, and Peter Comestor about 1170 [56]; this terminology was then used by the 1st Lateran Council in 1215, which is apparently where Boettner got his date from. As can be seen, however, Boettner is off by anywhere from 865 to 1003 years in the first instance, and anywhere from 45 to 65 years in the second.

[55] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp 381-382.

[56] ibid., pg 379.

28. Auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council….1215.

Cyprian of Carthage, in The Lapsed (251 AD) speaks of penitents “making confession of their crime”, and of “having their conscience purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest” [57]. Likewise, Ambrose, in Penance(387-390 AD) writes “Christ granted [the power of penance] to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests” [58]. From this, it can be seen that Innocent III certainly did not “institute” the practice of auricular confession to a priest; in fact, it existed 964 years before Boettner’s claim.

[57] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 218.

[58] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vil. 11, “Penance”, pg 620.

29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by pope Honorius III….1220.

The implication here, of course, is that Catholics worship a piece of bread. Catholics do not worship bread, they worship Jesus Christ, Whose flesh and blood the bread hasbeome. The fact that Christians considered the bread and wine to be transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ can be found as far back as Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote in his Epistle to the Romans (110 AD), “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ…and for drink I desire His Blood” [59].

As for the practice of perpetual adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the first recorded instance took place in 1226, although the practice did not become widespread until the 15th century [60]. From these examples it seems that Boettner erred more than 1000 years one way and about 200 years the other way.

[59] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 22.

[60] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, “Adoration”, pg 153.

30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden books by the Council of Valencia….1229.

The Index of Forbidden Books was a gradual development. The first general listing of proscribed books was under Pope Paul III in 1542. The Inquisition had an expanded list by 1559, which was intended to be world-wide, and was also the first list to bear the title “Index”. The “Index Tridentinus” was issued by the Council of Trent in 1564, and in 1571, Pope Pius V established a specific Congregation of the Index, which remained in effect until 1917 [61]. Since the earliest date for the formation of the Index is 1542, it would be rather difficult to place the Bible (or any other book, for that matter) on it in 1229, which is more than 300 years before the Index existed. This is Boettner’s first blunder.

The 1962 edition of Boettner’s tome opines that this proscription of the Bible took place at the Council of Valencia; however, as Karl Keating points out, there has never been a Catholic church council held in Valencia, Spain—neither local, regional, nor ecumenical. This is Boettner’s second blunder [62]. Keating likewise explains that even if there had been a council in Valencia, it couldn’t have been held in 1229, since in 1229, Valencia was under the control of the Muslims, who were extremely unlikely to allow a Christian church council to be held in their territory; a quick check of any encyclopedia or historical atlas will bear this out [63]. This is Boettner’s third blunder, and as may be seen, his chronology has completely missed the mark along with both his history and his geography.

[61] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Censorship of Books”, pg 521.

Stravinskas, OSV’s Catholic Encyclopedia, “Index of Forbidden Books”, pg 507.

[62] Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988; pg 45.

[63] The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Valencia”. New York: Viking Press, 1953; pg 1310.

Hammond Illustrated Family Atlas, Vol. 2; Map, “Europe, c.1200 AD”. Glen Cove, NY: Bobley Publishing Corporation, 1969; pg H-15.

31. The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, and English monk….1251.

Boettner finally has something right. The brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is, according to pious tradition, based on a vision had by Simon Stock in Cambridge, England, on July 16, 1251. In the vision, the Virgin Mary gave Simon a scapular, with the explanation that it was a “badge of her confraternity” [64].

Scapulars have always been associated with “third orders”, in which lay people affiliate themselves with one religious order or another, pledging themselves to live good Christian lives; so what Boettner found so awful about this remains a mystery.

However, Simon Stock’s vision falls into the category of “private revelation”, which means that even when approved by the Church, it is not a required belief of any Catholic by any means, remaining entirely the option of the individual believer. The so-called “scapular promise” given to Simon Stock is likewise nothing more than private revelation, and is certainly not a doctrine, much less a dogma, of the Church.

[64] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, “Scapular”, pg 511.

32. Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance….1414.

Instances of Holy Communion under the auspices of bread alone can be found as far back as the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century and the 2nd Council of Trullo in the 7th, both of which specified Communion under the species of bread alone during all fast days in Lent; this makes Boettner about 1000 years off in the earliest example [65]. After this, the gradual removal of the Sacred Blood from laypeople was introduced, apparently for a variety of reasons; one of them was the Church’s desire to reinforce the Church’s authority against heretics and the Reformers, who rejected the idea that Communion could be received under only one species. This idea they enforced on their own, apart from the authority of the Church [66]. Another reason was to prevent spillage of the Sacred Blood, and another was to abolish the practice of self-communication by means of intinction [67].

Constance did indeed impose restricting the Sacred Blood from laymen (not in 1414 as Boettner asserts, but a year later in 1415, at the 13th session of the council), but this was a reiteration of previous rulings, including the councils above, the monastic rule of Columbanus (in which the Blood was restricted from novices), and the Council of Lambeth in 1281. It was by no means a new, novel introduction [68].

[65] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, “Communion”, pg 177.

[66] ibid., pg 175.

[67] ibid., pg 178.

[68] ibid., pp 177-178.

33. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence….1439.As was mentioned in #1 and #9 of this list, the concept of Purgatory pre-dates the Catholic Church, and the doctrine has been around since the 2nd century; the assembled bishops at Florence merely defined the existing doctrine;they did not invent it.

34. The doctrine of the seven sacraments affirmed….1439.

Seven sacraments are mentioned by Peter Lombard (who died in 1164) in the fourth Book of Sentences; seven are likewise numbered by Otto of Bamberg in 1139; the Council of London in 1237; and the Council of Lyons in 1274, all of which pre-date Florence [69]. Boettner is thus off by 300 years in his claim of when the seven sacraments were affirmed.

[69] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, “Sacraments”, pp 299-300.

35. The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century)….1508.

If Boettner is asserting that the “Hail Mary” prayer was invented in 1508, that is nonsense, since the first part of the Hail Mary is found in Scripture; Luke 1:28 finds Gabriel saluting Mary with “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you”, followed by Luke 1:42, in which Elizabeth continues, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb”. The prayer remained thus until the 15th century, when the words “Jesus Christ, amen” came into common usage.

The prayer as we now know it first appears in the “Calendar of Shepherds”, which was published in France in 1493; a book written by Girolamo Savonarola in 1495 also contains the entire prayer as we know it, minus the word “us” [70]. Thus, Boettner is off by 15 years for the “first half” of his chronology for the end of the prayer, and by 65 years for the “second half”.

[70] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, “Hail Mary”, pp 111-112.

36. Jesuit order founded by Loyola….1534.

Ignatius Loyola did indeed found the Society of Jesus in 1534, although the Society did not receive Papal approbation until 1540. Why Boettner seems to feel that the Jesuit Order (as opposed to the Benedictines, Dominicans, Passionists, Franciscans, etc., whom he never mentions) is a “heresy” or an “invention” is puzzling, especially in light of the fact that his own Calvinist denomination did not exist prior to 1536.

37. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent….1545.

None other than the Apostle Paul warned about the importance of Tradition, or the oral teachings of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6); and he equated Tradition with written Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Trent re-confirmed the authority and equality of Apostolic Tradition with Scripture in the face of the Reformation, which denied the inspiration and authority of Tradition—along with every doctrine it contained which the Reformers disagreed with. The view of the early Christians, however, is borne out in texts such as these:

“What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (Irenaeus of Lyons; Against Heresies, 3,4,1; 180 AD) [71].

“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (Origen; Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Preface, 2; 220 AD) [72].

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force.” (Basil the Great; The Holy Spirit, 27,66; 375 AD) [73].

“It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.” (Epiphanius of Salamis; Against All Heresies, 61,6; 374 AD) [74].

These examples could be multiplied, but these few more than suffice to render Boettner’s idea that Trent “added” Tradition to the Church’s Deposit totally null; he again off by 1,365 years in the case of Irenaeus, and 1,171 years in the case of Epiphanius.

[71] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 91.

[72] ibid., pg 190.

[73] Jurgens, Vol. 2, pp 18-19.

[74] ibid., pg 73.

38. Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent….1546.

Canon 36 from the Council of Hippo (October 8, 393) lists the following Old Testament books:

“Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronominum, Iesu Nave (Joshua), Iudicum (Judges), Ruth, Regnorum libri quator (1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings), Paralipomenon libri duo (1 & 2 Chronicles), Iob, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), Duodecim libri prophetarum (the twelve minor prophets—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Esaias, Ieremias (comprising the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Baruch), Daniel, Ezechiel,Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Hesdrae libri duo (Ezra and Nehemiah), Machabaeorum libri duo” [75].

(Bolding mine for emphasis of the disputed books.)

Likewise, Augustine in Christian Instruction (2,8,13; 397 AD), lists the following:

“The whole canon of the Scriptures…is contained in these books: the five of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; and one book of Jesus Nave (Joshua), one of Judges; one little book is called Ruth…the the four of Kingdoms (1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings); and the two of Paralipomenon (1 & 2 Chronicles)…Job and Tobias and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees; and the two of Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah)…the Psalms of David…Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes…Wisdom…Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)…the individual books of the twelve (minor) prophets…Isaias, Jeremias (including both Lamentations and Baruch), Daniel, and Ezechiel. With these forty-four books the authority of the Old Testament is concluded” [76].

(Bolding mine for emphasis of the disputed books.)

Again, these examples could be multiplied by examining the texts of the Decree of Damasus (382 AD), the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage (397 AD and 418 AD), and the Council of Florence in 1441 AD. Since the extant texts of these documents include the seven Deuterocanonical books within their lists of canonical Scriptures, it remains a mystery as to how the Council of Trent could have addedthem to the Bible (1,164 years later, in the earliest example) as Boettner claims.

[75] Mario Romero, Unabridged Christianity. Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1999; pg 16.

[76] Jurgens, Vol. 3, pg 53.

39. Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed….1560.

There are three creeds used in the Catholic Church: the Apostle’s Creed, dating at least as far back as Tertullian; the Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD; and the Athanasian Creed, dating from the 4th century. The “Creed of Pius IV” however, was not a creed, but a profession of adherence to Catholic doctrine that all ecclesiastical office holders had to swear allegiance to. Contained in Pius’ bull Injunctum nobis, issued November 13, 1565 (not 1560 as Boettner erroneously claims), it contained a long list of doctrines, such as belief in seven sacraments, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, obedience to the Roman Pontiff, acceptance of the Holy Scriptures, and so on, that any candidate for an office in the Church had to proclaim his belief in and adherence to [77]. As such, Boettner’s implication that Pius IV “invented a new creed” is baseless.

[77] Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History, “Pius IV, Creed of”, pp 667-668.

40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by pope Pius IX….1854.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary (meaning the doctrine that she was conceived free from stain of original sin) goes back at least to St. Ephraim of Nisbis, who wrote in 370 AD that Mary was “immune from all stain…no spot…nor any taint” could be found in her [78]. Various other Patristic Fathers also described Mary in like terms—St. Ambrose said she was “free from all stain of sin”; Severus of Antioch said she was “pure from all taint”; Sophronius of Jerusalem called her “pre-purified”; Andrew of Crete called her the “pure and Immaculate Virgin”; and Theognastes of Constantinople said she was “conceived by a sanctifying action” [79].

Pius IX officially defined this existing doctrine and declared it to be a dogma in his bull Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 [80]—but as with many things Boettner misinterprets, Pius did not invent the Immaculate Conception; it existed as a concept more than 1400 years before 1854.

[78] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993; pg 40.

[79] ibid., pg 40.

[80] ibid., pg 41.

41. Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by pope Pius IX, and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers….1864.

The Syllabus of Pius IX ignited a firestorm when it was issued in 1864—condemned by Germany’s Bismarck and Italy’s Victor Emmanuel, forbidden to be published in Russia and France. Many saw it as the Pope’s declaration of war against the modern state [81].

However, Pius’ document is merely a list of viewpoints which, insofar as Catholic teaching is concerned, are erroneous. Among them are the contention that there is no God (#1); that the existance of Jesus Christ is a myth (#7); that all religions are equally legitimate (#16); that the Church has no right to possess property (#26); that bishops may not publish letters to their congregations without the permission of the state (#28); that the state may intrude on the governance of the Church, up to and including the specification of how the sacraments may be administered (#44); that the Church has no right to establish schools; that even seminaries must be subject to the state (#46 and 47); and that the state has the right not only to appoint and depose bishops, but to prevent them from communicating with the Vatican (#49 and 51) [82].

A careful reading of the Syllabus does not reveal a condemnation of freedom of religion or conscience, but rather an assertion that Catholics have the right to freedom of religion and conscience free from interference by the secular state. There appears to be little or no mention of freedom of speech or press, outside of condemning the viewpoint that the state has the right to interfere in the communication of individual Catholics, both lay and clerical, with the Holy See. There is likewise no specific condemnation by the Pope concerning scientific discoveries, as Boettner asserts; but rather a refutation of the wholesale idea that the Church “impedes the true progress of science” (#12). Further, far from asserting the Pope’s rights over temporal rulers, the Syllabus repeatedly asserts the right of the Pope to be free from the interference of the secular state in matters pertaining to the governance of the Church.

In short, Boettner created a monster of his own imagination in what he perceives the Syllabus to contain, while conveniently ignoring the stipulations upheld by Pius IX that call for the protection of not only the individual rights of Catholics, but of all Christians—the same rights which would prove to be especially important in the century which followed the issuance of the Syllabus—a century which saw the flourishing of atheism, Communism, Nazism, and secular humanism.

[81] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14; “Syllabus”, pg 368.

42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council….1870.The concept of Papal infallibility has been around for a long time. The letter of Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth in approximately 80 AD issues instructions to that church, and Clement makes it clear that he is to be obeyed [83]; likewise, Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD) states that all churches must conform to the church of Rome and be in agreement with it [84]. Augustine, in Against the Pelagians (420 AD)
quotes

a letter from Pope Innocent I, and declares, “Rome’s reply has come; the matter is closed” [85].

As a last example, Peter Chrysologus, the Archbishop of Ravenna, wrote to Eutyches in 449 AD, “We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try causes on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome” [86]. These examples more than suffice to show that the 1st Vatican Council merely defined the doctrine of Papal infallibility; as a concept it pre-dated the council by nearly 1800 years, and was not “invented” in 1870, despite what Boettner tries to imply.

[83] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 12.

[84] ibid., pg 90.

[85] ibid., Vol. 3, pg 142.

[86] ibid., pg 268.

43. Public schools condemned by pope Pius XI….1930.

Boettner is apparently referring to a document issued by the Catechetical Office of the Holy See on January 12, 1935 (not 1930, as he stipulates), entitled “Provido Sane Consilio: On Better Care for Catechetical Teaching”. The document nowhere condemns public schools, but merely insists on the right of Catholic students in public schools to receive proper catchetical instruction from the Church, as a safeguard against academic instruction hostile to the Catholic Faith.

For example, #12 of the document states that “in some nations, the very right of the Church to direct the Christian education of children is called into question or even denied by reason of political policy”; #15 states that this interference is exacerbated by “the fact that ravening wolves have come into the world, not sparing the flock; likewise, pseudo-teachers given to atheism and the new paganism have made their appearance, giving expression to clever falsehoods and sheer nonsense by writings and by other means cunningly attempting to destroy the Catholic belief in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the divine work of the Church” [87].

Clearly the purpose of the Pope, as evidenced by the issuance of this instructional letter, is not the condemnation of public schools, but a concern that Catholic students, whatever their educational disposition, are allowed access to proper religious instruction under the legitimate supervision of the Church—a right that was being denied even then in countries like Nazi Germany. Boettner has not only misinterpreted the purpose of the letter, but he is also off by five years concerning the date of its issuance.

[87] http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CATTEACH.HTM.

44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascention into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by pope Pius XII…..1950.

As with the cases of the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility, Boettner tries to give the impression that the Assumption of Mary is something that the Vatican “invented” in recent years. While the Assumption was admittedly a gradual development within the belief of the Church, the fact is that the concept pre-dates its definition by better than 1300 years.

The first explicit reference to this doctrine is from Gregory of Tours (d.593), who states in his letter Libri miraculorum that Mary’s body was borne to heaven after her death; other references come from Germain of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John Damascene, who mentions in his Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary (c.745 AD) that three days after Mary’s death, her coffin was opened, to reveal empty grave wrappings, but no trace of her body [88]. Although all of these references date from the 8th century, liturgical feasts in honor of the Assumption began to appear in Christian churches in Syria and Egypt during the 6th century; in Gaul in the 7th century; in Rome by the 8th century; and were universally celebrated by the whole of East and West by the 13th century [89].

[88] Romero, pg 282.

[89] Miravalle, pp 52-53.

45. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church, by pope Paul VI…..1965.

This was an addendum to Boettner’s original book, as the first publication date for Roman Catholicism was 1962; however, Boettner remains off in his dates, since the proclamation of Mary as Mother of the Church was issued by Pope Paul VI not in 1965, but on November 21, 1964: “Therefore, for the glory of the Blessed Virgin and our consolation, we declare most holy Mary Mother of the Church, that is of the whole Christian people” [90].

As with most of the other items in Boettner’s list, the subject of Mary’s title as Mother of the Church in neither anything new nor terribly controversial; the earliest reference to Mary as “Virgin Mother of the Church” can be found in a work by Berengaud of Treves (d.1125) in which he says “By the Woman (Revelation 12:1), we may understand Blessed Mary, for she is Mother of the Church for having engendered the one who is head of the Church” [91]. Rupert of Deutz (d.1135) in his Canticum Canticorum refers to Mary as the “Mother of Churches”; and Denis the Carthusian (d.1471) refers to Mary as “Mother of the whole Church” [92].

Further references to Mary under this title can be found in the writings of St. Antoninus of Florence, St. Lawrence, St. Peter Canasius, Matthias Scheeben, and St. John Bosco. As can be clearly seen, Mary was being referred to as “Mother of the Church” 840 years before Boettner’s implication that Pope Paul VI “invented” the title.

[90] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference/Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997; pg 251.

[91] Leon Suprenant, Jr., “Mary, Mother of the Church”. Catholics United For the Faith,http://www.cuf.org/member/motherofthechurch.pdf.

[92] ibid.

The forty-five “heresies and inventions” that Loraine Boettner lists at the beginning of Roman Catholicism did, indeed, develop over the course of Church history; but as we have seen, none of them are “heretical”; and neither were they “invented” at some point in time—and Boettner is a dismal failure at pinning down the correct dates of the development of these doctrines. As I stated at the beginning, I will leave it up to the individual reader to decide for themselves whether a man who is so grossly erroneous in the fixing of simple historical dates (leaving aside all of his other errors) can be trusted to to be correct in instructing his readers whether a Catholic doctrine is a heresy, and invention, or not.

Perhaps Karl Keating put it best in his assessment of Boettner’smagnum opus: “No effort is made to give sources for his charges, and little effort is made to say what the significance of the ‘inventions’ might be. That task is left to innuendo. What Boettner implies is that any belief or practice not found in the pages of the New Testament in plain words must be spurious and must have been instituted for some nefarious purpose” [93].

I believe that Boettner himself had a “nefarious purpose” in creating the infamous “list” on pages 7, 8, and 9 of his book: to discredit, malign, and denigrate the Catholic Church, at all costs—even if he had to prefabricate the charges against her. The sad thing is that so many good and sincere Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, have been taken in by his falsehoods. With God’s kindness and grace, perhaps those who read this paper of mine will be helped to see that the only “inventions” to be found in Boettner’s book are the ones he concocted and wrote down himself.

[93] Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 47.

 
 
 

BRAD SCHILLING: THE JOURNEY FROM BAPTIST TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

$
0
0
Brad Schilling

Brad Schilling

The Journey from Anabaptist to Catholicism
by Brad Schilling
-Love Being a Catholic-

After spending 20 years in various Protestant denominations Brad Schilling found his home in the Catholic Church. Brad lives in Bunbury, Western Australia with his wife Marina and their three children.

The Beginning

Sometime in February 2010 I decided to attend a Catholic Mass. After 20 years of being a Protestant Christian I had come to the point where I could no longer bring myself to attend another church service. Over the years I had been a part of over 10 different denominations as well as helped to begin an Anabaptist like house-church. I was tired of wanting church to be more than a service that I watched. I remember thinking that Sunday morning, “Well, if Church is no more than the Sunday service then I will go to where they do it properly.”

As a postman in Bunbury I knew where all the churches were. So, I headed straight to St. Mary’s in Columba Street, South Bunbury. Only once before had I been in a Catholic Church. So, I had no idea of protocol, gestures, liturgy or the like. I told myself that today I would suspend any judgment on what I was to be part of. I was here to worship the risen Lord. So, that would be my focus and not the people, priest or the other distractions.

The First Mass

Much to my surprise the Mass was entirely focused on Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity. I heard more Scripture read than I had ever heard in any Protestant church. I heard a 15 minute sermon on the Gospel reading. We said the Our Father together. We confessed our sins together. We prayed for the Church, the government, the needy, the lost and our selves. We remembered members of the Church who had died. We sang hymns. We kneeled. We stood. We made the sign of the Cross. We shook hands with each other and said, “Peace be with you.” It was a corporate affair.

The fact that the Church has always understood the New Testament idea that Baptism was incorporation into Christ’s Body, the Church, had always been something I admired about the Catholic Church. It made sense of why so much of the Mass was said out aloud, and acted out together. We were the Body of Christ. It wasn’t just about me.

I sat there observing all the ritual, the vestments, the noises and the smells. Having come from a low-church background (Baptist, Churches of Christ) the Mass was the opposite of what I believed Christian worship to be. I have never liked vestments, liturgy, call and response prayers or the officiating of priests. Still I suspended judgment and focussed on Christ.

The Eucharist

The primary reason Catholics meet is for the Eucharist. They believe it is truly Christ made present in their midst. It is the key to understanding Catholicism. I had believed the Eucharist (Communion, Lord’s Supper, Breaking of the Bread) to be symbolic but still meaningful because we -The Church – were showing solidarity by eating the bread and wine together. This understanding of the Lord’s Supper came from my Anabaptist understanding of Church. My Anabaptist tendencies accentuated the people who ate together (the Body of Christ) over the One who broke the Bread at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church drew the two together.

I watched the priest preside over the Eucharist then invite everyone to come forward to receive Christ. I saw people of all races and positions in life (an MLA was kneeling across from me) rise and walk orderly forward as a group to the front. I remained of course and surveyed the scene. Once everyone had Communion the priest told us the Mass was ended. The whole Mass took 1 hour.

The Aftermath

I was pleasantly surprised that the Mass was so short. I was used to hour and a half services that continued afterwards with tea and biscuits. I decided to take a copy of the weekly Catholic newspaper The Record” from the back of the Church and headed for the café strip of Bunbury (I have since discovered that I should have paid for the newspaper!). Sitting with a large coffee I read the newspaper and reflected on the Mass. I felt edified and happy that the Catholic Church was not what I had thought it was. Funnily, I then bumped into a couple I knew from my previous church who had gone shopping that Sunday instead of going to church. They were coy because I had seen them. I was coy because I had behind my back the kind of newspaper that they would have disliked.

I came home and told Marina all about the Mass and said I would continue to attend for worship. Marina continued to take the children to our previous church.

Where to Now?

I began to read everything Catholic from theology and doctrine through to Church history. I downloaded articles and listened to interviews with Protestants who had converted to Catholicism.

I was struck by a number of things.

Firstly, as a Protestant I had always read church history backwards. That is, I would start with where the Protestant church was in the present and trace a path back to its origins in the 16th Century. I would compare how the denominations looked in the present with the early church as recorded in the New Testament to see which were the most faithful. I ignored the period of history from 90AD through to the 1500’s.

With my new found interest in Catholicism I started to read history forwards. I downloaded a lecture series with its accompanying course materials by Thomas Madden, the professor of history and chair of the Department of History at the University of Saint Louis. Madden was a non believer but an expert on pre-modern Europe. I wanted an unbiased view of Church history. The series was in two parts: From Jesus to Christianity: A History of the Early Church & Christianity at the Crossroads: The Reformations of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.

Seeing Christianity unfold over the centuries was a revelation. By the time I came to the Reformation period (after hours and hours of listening on my iPod whilst sorting mail at work) it was with a sense of sadness and not triumphalism that I heard about the church schism that still has not been mended. I started to rethink some of the Protestant assumptions about Church authority. I started to see a more complete picture of the great Reformers in their historical context. I started to see the Reformation through Catholic eyes. The Catholic Church now views the Reformation as a tragedy that they were responsible for as much as the Luther’s and the Zwingli’s of the Reformation.

On my historical journey I wrestled with the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the bad Popes and times of compromise with worldly powers amongst other things. But I was often overcome (literally) by the many saints, good Popes and a Church that had gone against the world’s powers in order to be faithful to its Lord. I started to see the Church for what is – a community of saints and sinners struggling through history with the Divine will and Presence in their midst.

I expected to read the history of the Church and finally put to bed any intention of becoming Catholic. Instead I came to see the Church differently. I realised that at the heart of my Protestism was the ancient heresy of Donatism. The mistaken belief that one can create a “pure” authentic Church out of a Church that remains frustratingly soiled by sin. I had personally church hopped for twenty years in an attempt to find a “New Testament church”. I even helped to create one! Sadly it took that long for me to discover that a pure Church never existed in Jesus or Paul’s time (we forget Judas, Peter’s denial of Christ, James and John’s desire for power, Thomas’ doubt, Paul’s sexually immoral and theologically dubious fledgling churches and so on) nor has it ever existed.

A Catholic Priest

I called the Parish Office because I wanted to speak to someone one on one about the Catholic Faith. I was referred to Father Vittorio, an Italian priest who had started at St.Mary’s the same week I started to attend Mass there. We met at a café and spoke for 2 hours about our different lives. Strangely, I discovered that we had a lot in common when it came to our views of church. He was from a missionary order called the Neo-Catechumenal Way, which had it origins in the slums of Madrid. Begun by a Spanish painter convert to Catholicism in the 1960’s it has grown throughout the world with the the blessing of the Vatican. From a Protestant perspective it resembles the house church movement. It is centred on a missionary family who is assisted by a missionary priest.

Father Vittorio has since become a good friend of mine and our family. He drops by regular for coffee and even watched the World Cup Soccer with my brother, son and me when Italy played. When I texted him about my intentions to be received into the Church he appeared at my door within ten minutes in his exercise clothes to shake my hand. He also attended the mass of my initiation.

A Catholic Friend

During a period when I was discouraged by the many nominal Catholics I had met over the years I began to pray that God would bring me a Catholic friend who was truly committed to Jesus Christ – someone who would show me what real Catholic life was like. Not long after that Marina and I were at the public library when Marina spied a man that she had met through homeschooling circles and whom we had sat behind once at a Latin Mass. His name was Matthew. After chatting about homeschooling matters she told him I was attending the Catholic Church and had a lot of questions. Matthew invited me for coffee the next week to talk. We started to meet nearly every week. I would come with a list of questions that were troubling me and he would try and answer them the best way he could. Matthew became my RCIA sponsor.

The Dreams

Conversion is never all about the mind. It also involves the heart, the emotions and the will. During the three months of attending Mass Marina and I started to have a lot of significant dreams. Whilst this was quite common for Marina in the past it was rare for me to have religious dreams. Here is a selection that stood out:

A dream about me: Marina dreamed that we were all on an ocean liner coming into a port. I was dressed all in white. As we approached the port I told marina I had to get off here. Whilst they stayed on deck they watched me walk down the gangplank and disembark.

A dream about a friend: I dreamed that a Protestant friend of mine who rejected the Catholicism of his youth was with me at a Catholic meeting. After it ended I took him over to meet the priest. My friend said that he had enjoyed himself and wanted to come back again.

When I told my friend this dream he laughed. He has since started to attend Mass regularly.

A Marian Dream: Marina dreamed that she saw a woman holding a jar of oil. It was the purest she had ever seen. Marina was also holding a jar of oil but hers was murky by comparison to the woman’s. So, she asked the woman if she could have some of the pure oil. The woman replied that she had to ask the owner whether it was ok for her to give Marina the pure oil. The woman asked the owner and he gave permission for Marina to be given the oil.

A dream about a work colleague: I dreamed that I was at a garage sale when I saw a work colleague called Jon. As I went up to him he was carrying a box of books containing commentaries on the books of the bible. He told me he was interested in Christianity but wasn’t sure whether it was ok to read the Bible without assistance. I reassured him that the Church had said that the
canon
of scripture was safe for him to read.

I have since discovered that Jon had become a Christian many years ago in England through a group called the Jesus Army but was no longer practising. We have since had conversations about what it means to be Christian and my conversion to Catholicism.

My Brother

My family are not Christians. At the time I started to attend Mass I received a call from my brother in Perth vasking whether I had any Christian books that he could read. I was taken aback because my brother and I had never talked about religious matters before. I said, “Sure” and sent him a book my Anglican scholar NT Wright on Jesus. In short, my brother was investigating the Christian faith. He relocated to Bunbury not long after and eventually moved into the studio flat at the back our house.

One night I was talking to Marina about St.Mary’s with my brother at the table. When I had finished he said that the next time I went to St.Mary’s he would like to come along. He added that he had always felt that if he were to become a Christian he wanted to be Catholic – so, begun our weekly Sunday evening Mass attendance. My brother is getting baptised on the 23rd of April this year.

Being Received into the Church

I began attending RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) which is a 9 month weekly course in order to prepare an enquirer for baptism into the Church with my brother. I lasted four weeks. I had too many questions that needed answering and the RCIA wasn’t the place where they could be answered to my satisfaction. I was in a bind. The RCIA was THE way to enter the Catholic Church in our parish.

When I mentioned this to Matthew he suggested I meet with a Perth based priest called Father Michael Rowe who visited Bunbury once a month to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. He received people into the church through private instruction which I didn’t know could still be done. Every time he would come down to Bunbury I would meet him thirty minutes before Mass to discuss anything I wanted. He answered questions, gave me things to read, corrected misunderstandings.

It was before a Latin Mass that I was received into the Church. During the ceremony I knelt, professed the Catholic Faith, had my first confession, was given a conditional baptism (I was not sure whether my original baptism was legitimate) and then was formally received into the Church. At the following Mass I received the Eucharist for the first time. Through the grace of baptism I have joined all the faithful Christians who have lived and died and who still live in Christ. Amen.

If you have found this story helpful in your spiritual journey we hope you will consider sharing it. Have feedback or would like to share your story? Email us at convert@whyimcatholic.com

http://whyimcatholic.com/…/90-anabaptist-convert-brad-schil…

SPLENDOR READERS RESPOND TO THE ATHEIST RAPPLER CONCERNING THE ALLEGED WEALTH OF THE CHURCH

$
0
0

Colegio de San Jose, Iloilo City

Well, those so called journalist should know how a Catholic institution is being run. I am a product of a Catholic school in Iloilo City and proud to say that I graduated as a Marillac Grantee. My school, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE is owned and manage by the Daughters of Charity. As a Marillac Grantee (student assistant) for five years, I knew well or shall I say, I am familiar how the school is manage. The school has (during my time) 73 Marillac Grantees who enjoys free tuition fees nd out of that 73, 25 are interns or those who stay inside the school and enjoy a free board and lodging, aside from Marillac Grantees, there are 11 Vincentian Legacy Scholars that enjoys fre board and lodging outside the school and free tuition and miscellaneous fees, transportation and book allowances… in assition there are 150 Marguaritte Nasaue Scholars that enjoys a 50% discount on tuition and the school has only a total population of 2500… the money collected from the tuition of the regular students are used to pay the salaries of the teachers and school projects on the adopted baranggays…
The so called “money” of the church is used for the welfare of the everyone. It is not kept. Another example is what the congregation of the Daughters of charity hve done after Yolanda. They give livelihood projects to the people of Conception, Iloilo. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul provided housing materials.
The daughters of charity in iloilo also manage the home for the aged (asilo de molo) and being a bosconian staying in Don Bosco Hall before, We have seen and experience the apostolate of the Salesians towards the poor street children in our dormitory.

SINO ANG DAPAT MASUNOD ANG PANGINOONG JESUCRISTO O ANG PASTOR? By John Albert Gales

$
0
0
Jesus the Teacher

Jesus the Teacher

 

para sa mga Born Again mas higit ang Pananampalataya kesa sa Pag-ibig…

Kasi sabi ng Pastor SUMAMPALATAYA KA LAMANG AT MALILIGTAS KA NA…hindi mo na kailangan ang mga Mabubuting Gawa..

Ang sabi naman ni Kristo na ating Panginoon IBIGIN MO ANG PANGINOONG DIYOS AT IYONG KAPWA.. 

Matthew 22:36-40

Mark 12:30-31

Luke 10:27

MAS SUSUNDIN KO SI LORD JESUS NA IBIGIN ANG DIYOS AT AKING MGA KAPWA…KESA KAY PASTOR…KASI SI PASTOR NILOLOKO KA LANG GINAGAWA KANG MAGING TAMAD AT MAGPAKAHAYAHAY…

Viewing all 3780 articles
Browse latest View live