Reflections

The oldest Christian Church, established by Christ Himself as per Biblical and historical accounts, is celebrating the Year of Faith, which of course aims for us Catholics to grow deeper in the love and service of God and neighbor. But why does not the average Catholic experience a faith-renewing Church, as we speak?

I have come up with a few reflections myself.

I
I was an active debater on religion on the Catholic side. But then I decided to be lie low, really low, and refrain from doing those debates, not because my cardiologist says that I should avoid too much and unnecessary stress if I want to live longer, but because I no longer see a good reason to offend other religions such as the Born Again Christians, Mormons, and the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Some would stand up to me and say that as the Apostles defended the Church in its formative years, and the Church Fathers and Saints did so in their times, I must do so, too. Fair point, but wouldn't it be better to tend to the spiritual needs of the brethren, answer their questions about their own Church, and pray and serve with them, rather than waste time debating with people and offending their beliefs, knowing that they would either change the course of the discussion in response to a good argument or attack you with ad hominems or ad ignorantiams? I would rather educate my brethren about their faith than do endless debates with both sides having bad feelings at the end of the day.

II
There had been a widespread statement on Facebook not too long ago which goes something like "The Church won't adjust to the people." What exactly does that mean? It may be taken as the Church won't let her moral principles become less firm, which implies that Catholics become more immoral as days pass by, a failure on the part of the Church. There also had been a homily delivered on one of the Sundays of Easter this year in my parish which had the line: "Whoever stands with the Church and her precepts shall be rewarded in the life to come. Those who don't will not get their reward. This is how we see who is faithful and who isn't," or something like that. But shouldn't we focus on making the people realize why they need to be faithful, in a manner worthy of delivering the Good News of the Lord? We declare in the Profession of the Faith that we believe in the Communion of Saints. We believe that Christ is the Good Shepherd who leaves his ninety-nine to look for the lost one. Let's live up to those beliefs.

III
I wanted to become a priest, and I am still praying for God to decide and work if He wants me to really become one; I'll just follow where He leads. And I believe that the priesthood is a vocation requiring of patience, endurance, humility, understanding, and faith. I believe that those who aspire to become priests must lead the people by example, and not whine endlessly on social media about the dysarthria or mere mispronunciation of people of the Angelic Salutation (the "Hail Mary"), brag about what they know about the Church, or announce how often they go to confession, among others. They must bring Christ closer to the people, not farther. They must show that Christ is a loving God, and loving Him should entail sacrifices, not making Him appear as a taskmaster with numerous rules to follow or else go to hell.

They must not also be self-righteous, thinking that they are the standard for faith or morality in a community. These people must bear in mind that pre-marital copulation does not necessarily mean excommunication: they should show that God works stronger than sin, and that His mercy encompasses all; that through Him, one can do anything because he is strengthened by God, even fighting sin.

IV
Pope Francis also had his fair share of bashing and criticism, yes, from "devout" Catholics themselves. When he assumed office, there had been numerous questions on his policies, stands, and even on the pectoral cross he wears.

The papacy had come a long way since the Age of Kings in Europe. Now, the papal tiara is not worn anymore, the papal coronation has been replaced with a simple investiture, and if the Church is for the poor, she must be with the poor. The Church had made some serious mistakes in the past, and she tries to correct them, and do other good things to her children. His Holiness cannot do things on his own, we the Church should cooperate. One simple act would be to stop the discrimination between rich and poor inside the Church, and that could come a long, long way. When we have Christ, there is no rich and poor, for God does not look in to what material gifts you can give Him. It is on how you live your life in service to Him and to others which matter the most.

(To be continued)

Annus Fidei: Reviving the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith (PART ONE)

Siguro ilang taon din ang lumipas bago ko tuluyang natanggap ang katotohanang marami sa mga Katoliko sa Pilipinas ay mga "Sunday churchgoer" lang, i.e., mga nagsisimba lang kada Linggo kasi naging routine na lang nila 'yun, sometimes hindi na rin nila alam kung bakit pa sila nagsisimba. Minsan nga, hindi rin alam ng iba 'yung mga turo ng Simbahan, mula sa kung bakit sa Katoliko lang ang "Antanda ng Krus" ("Sign of the Cross"), hanggang sa kung ano ang turing sa mga santo at kanilang mga imahen, hanggang sa kung bakit nga ba tutol ang Simbahan sa RH Bill.

Alam ko namang bago mag-First Communion ay may Catechism na ang isang bata: it even starts at home, sometimes. Pero hindi lahat ay talagang nakakaintindi rito: maraming tanong ang hindi naitatanong o hindi nasasagot, kasi either nahihiya magtanong 'yung tao or hindi masagot ng maayos ng tinatanong, que katekista o kahit pari.

So may pagkukulang ba ang mga pari? Yes, of course. May mga pari na hindi mo talaga malapitan dahil ubod ng yabang o nakakatakot. May mga pari namang hindi dapat maging pari. Kaya ang laki ng load ng mga paring mabubuti, 'yung talagang may koneksiyon sa buong parokya (hindi lang sa iilang may pera) at 'yung approachable talaga, at 'yung, basta, you know a good priest when you see and meet one. Sinusubukan nga nilang maging mabuting ama sa komunidad na ipinagkatiwala sa kanila ng Ama, pero may mga tampalasan namang nagpapabigat ng sitwasyon.

Kaya kailangan din ng tulong ng mga pari mula sa laiko. O sa mga taong marunong at malakas ang pananampalataya, pero hindi naman pari o madre. Kasi kulang tayo sa mga mabubuting pari: and even so, we won't dare sacrifice quality for the quantity.

There's a good number of Catholics who are capable of strengthening the faith of others. Ang kaso nga lang, kulang ng push. Marami akong kakilalang magaling talaga sa doktrina ng Simbahan. Ang iba nga sa kanila, magaling din makipag-debate. At ako, dati rin akong mahilig makipag-debate.

Naisip kong medyo mag-lie low muna sa pakikipag-debate sa mga non-Catholic kasi masakit sa ulo minsan 'yung pagiging illogical ng arguments at ang mga sentence pattern nila (minsan nga may sinabihan akong bumalik sa elementary school para mag-aral ng English grammar). Isa pa, kasi naisip ko rin na mag-focus na lang muna sa pagkalinga sa pananampalataya ng mga kapatid ko kay Kristo: nalalaman nga ng mga kalaban ko sa "paghahanap ng katotohanan" 'yung mga bagay-bagay tungkol sa Simbahan, samantalang hindi pa rin ito alam ng marami kong mga kapatid.

At isa pa, kadalasan ay pataasan lang naman ng morale ang nangyayari sa debate. Naghahanapan ng loophole sa mga argument, gumagamit ng masasakit na salita, at kung minsan nag-aaway-away pa ang magkakapatid. Alam ko na dapat nating ipagtanggol ang pananampalataya sa mga sumisira rito, pero mas kailangan nating patatagin ang pananampalataya ng mga kapwa nating Katoliko.

Kailangan din ng isang magandang environment sa Simbahan: 'yung lahat nakangiti, masaya, at walang distinction ng mayaman at mahirap. 'Yung mararamdaman ng lahat na bahagi sila ng isang pamilya, hindi 'yung iilan lang ang nagkakaintindihan. Nagagawa nga ito ng maliliit na sekta dahil pursigido sila, hindi dahil konti sila. Dapat nga mas maging masaya sa loob ng Simbahan, kasi 'di ba, "the more, the merrier"?

(Itutuloy)

The Battle against Pride: Survival of the Fittest

ONE of the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ is that all other six roots are begotten of pride: as one priest calls it “the enemy within” (Cole, 2007). But how does one, really, combat against pride and emerge as victorious?

Pride perhaps is the root of all evil. The fall of man is associated with pride (Gn 3:6) as Eve wanted herself and Adam to be equal with God, that is, by gaining wisdom. But does that make pride evil in itself?

The concept branches from self-esteem, which we all know is necessary for human survival in the social world. We may take pride in ourselves as humans, in what we have achieved, i.e., passing a critical exam which none of the students know if approved by consensus or merely brought about by their professor’s angst, graduating on time despite the potentially delaying factors, and the UP Maroons winning against the UE Red Warriors in men’s senior basketball, though the only victory so far. But the saying goes, “All of too much begets evil”, and pride may be defined as the hulk of self-esteem.

As you know, pride is:

• the reason why many scrimp their allowances to buy an overpriced gadget 
• the reason why many eat in expensive restaurants
• the reason why there are divisions inside the Catholic Church
• the reason why some people start their own churches and use the Bible illogically to point to the Catholic Church all the evil described in the Scriptures
• the reason why there's a clash between faiths (sure, "search for truth", sure)
• the reason why some of us look down on the masses: what they wear, what province they're from, and what music and film they listen to and watch
• the reason why we UP students underestimate other schools (explain the acronym "DLSU" written on a UP shirt spelled out as "Di Lumusot Sa UPCAT", please)
• the reason why rich people are treated favorably than the poorer ones, even inside the Catholic Church (though not only in the Catholic Church). Even St. James noticed this (James 2:1-4)
• the reason why there are broken homes
• the reason why corruption exists, and why there's such a thing as "political dynasty"
• the reason why many speak in English in front of the masses, especially in a pseudo-impressive manner (teaching them? Or boasting what you can do?), or just the reason why many people attempt to communicate in English.

Parting from all the worldly pressures may free one from the chains of pride. Sure, perhaps many would think this is easy. Decide to cede all your belongings and have nothing to compare – you won’t go selling your iPhone 4S when your friend gets an iPhone 5, or won't have a picture of yourself with an overpriced camera, or drink. Live the life of a celibate and you won’t have to divorce your wife because she bears you no children. Keep calm when some people call you a moron on the streets and you won’t have to kill them. Order what you can afford and what you can consume so nothing would go to waste. Let God and yourself know that you’re a regular churchgoer, almsgiver, feast day observer, pilgrim, Bible-reader, faith defender. Are these easy?

Winning the battle against pride may take a lifetime, like attaining salvation. One could not say “Today, I am saved!” but cheats on her boyfriend the next day, unless certified as a hypocrite. Concurrently, both require faith and works; for if faith was a tree and works is just its fruit, would not an unfruitful tree be cut down? And the battle against pride requires effort, as said before, to part from the earthly pleasures.

The Buddhist doctrine of Nirvana was explained as complete emptiness: neither happiness nor sorrow. Winning against pride may be the same: for if you forgo of all you hold, what would make you happy that would not make you sad, and similarly, what would make you sad that would not make you happy, at all, forever? In contrast, the Christian concept of eternal life is described as unceasing joy. Either way, both are unimaginable, yet attainable.

Whether the Buddhist Nirvana or the Christian Eternal Life, they are attainable. Attaining either (or both?) must start from conscious little efforts: cutting costs by taking public transport (or walking), whenever possible; abstaining from romantic relationships when unsure of what you feel; being less feisty and more compassionate; buying only necessary things, and; by stopping using “Like-if-Jesus-and-scroll-if-Satan” posts on Facebook.

Everything is possible through good faith and unceasing effort: even toothpaste could be shoved up back in its tube if tried. That includes winning and surviving in the battle against the self, in the battle against pride.

Do You Believe in the Modern Prophet?

"Do you believe in the (sic) modern prophet?"


These were the words my cousin Brent asked me a few days ago through text. And because I wasn't that sleepy yet then, I decided to respond to his message not through text, but through writing. 


Brent,


As suggested by the article "the", it is implied that you are talking about a particular person, or in this case, a prophet, as the noun is in its singular form: "the modern prophet". By then I would say, "No, I don't." Why?


In the Church's nearly two millenia of blessed existence, there had been countless heretics who led Christians astray from the pristine Catholic faith, as foretold by Matthew 24:5. Some of them claim to be the modern prophet, who, allegedly, have received divine revelations from our God. Some, like Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844), the founder of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", which regards him as "the prophet of restoration (Joseph Smith.net, 2010)".


Here in the country, there are some people who are like him, too. One is Ptr. Apollo Carreon Quiboloy (1950-) from the Restorationist "Kingdom of Jesus Christ, The Name Above Every Name", who does not only claim to be God's prophet, but His own "appointed son (Kingdom of Jesus Christ.org)".


Another is Felix Ysagun Manalo (1886-1963) of the Iglesia ni Cristo (sic), whom the INC holds as "God's Messenger in These Last Days (Wikipedia, 2012)", claimed to be the "ravenous bird" described in Isaiah 46:11 (who is actually Cyrus the Great of Persia), and the "fourth angel" in the book of Revelation. His church also claims that they were "re-established" because the Catholic Church "strayed away from the pristine faith (This is the Iglesia ni Cristo, 1977)".


By "modern", I suppose you mean the time since the apostolic era. The three men I mentioned above lived more than a thousand years after the time of the Church Fathers, and all of them have established different "Christian" churches which, of course, hold on to some different doctrines.. Like all other 32,000 Christian confessions around the world, their churches hold their leaders/founders as their "modern prophet", like what Smith is to the Mormons and so on.


These so-called prophets used the 66-book "Bible" (the original Catholic Bible has 73) to support their varying claims about themselves and how God "foretold" their existence. They used the supposedly unifying agent as a divisive one, which, of course, Jesus did not want (John 17:21).


These prophets have followers, some who became pastors/ministers. They interpret the Bible on their own, not according to how the Church Jesus established upon St. Peter, 2,000 years ago, does so (Mt. 16:18).

I would have said "yes" if you replaced "the" with "a", or made it like "Do you believe in modern prophets?" All Christians should be modern prophets, that is, by proclaiming God's greatness, love, and mercy to all the ends of the earth. Not to start a schism, but to bring them to God's family here on earth, the One (1 Cor 1:10), Holy (Eph 5:27), Catholic (Mt 28:19), and Apostolic (Mt 16:18, 28:20) Church. When we were baptized, we shared in the threefold mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ as king, priest, and prophet. We ought to do our part until our last breath.


But until then, it is a "no". Why would I believe in people (and their teachings) ought to divide the Church?


I do hope this long post has answered your question. I would be happy to answer more some time.


May God bless you and your family, now and forever.

Think Beyond the Box

Even before Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta , or Lady Gaga, set foot on Philippine soil to hold her concert here, nagpahayag na ang ilang religious movements ng kanilang pagtutol sa pag-perform dito ng isang artistang may mga awiting diumano ay lumalapastangan sa pananampalatayang Kristiyano at mga music video which exhibit sensual and other sensitive scenes. Nandiyan ang iba't-ibang uri ng protesta sa kung saan-saan; sa Facebook, sa email, sa text. at may nagsagawa pa nga ng mobilizations. All of them will to cancel the performer's concert in the country.

Which all left me dismayed in one point and disappointed in another. Una sa lahat, even though the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic-Christian country, such a concept of "state religion" doesn't exist here. A de facto religion maybe, which is Catholicism, but it is not the official religion. Id est, walang karapatan ang sinoman na pigilan ang mga ganitong uri ng pagtatanghal just because it offends religious feelings. Indonesia is an Islamic country kaya naipagbawal ang concert doon. Sa loob nga ng bansa kahit kapag walang concert, may heavy metal songs aired on radio na tahasang nagsasabing anti-Christ ang kumakanta (o sumisigaw?). Mayroon ding lantarang offending of religious feelings between two "Christian" sects with seemingly different orientations (in fact, may mga programa ang dalawang grupong ito on air which feature converts from the opposite sides). Marami pang kahalintulad din nito in different forms, pero the question is, why are these still alive kung "kontra" sila sa bastusan ng paniniwala?

Maybe Articles 132 and 133 of the Revised Penal Code (s. 1930) are enough to protect the different beliefs  here in the country. Besides, hindi naman nag-concert si Lady Gaga sa loob ng simbahan o sinagoga, ni nanghimok ng mga mananampalataya na manood sa kaniya at makinig while she "insults" Christianity. Her fans went on their own, her concert wasn't even promoted heavily. Kung ang isinisigaw ng mga nagpo-protesta ay hindi nila hahayaang maipamana sa kanilang mga anak ang "imoralidad" ng tinaguriang "Mother Monster", then so be it. If their spiritual and/or biological children (who, presumably, watched the concert) have been deeply rooted in the faith, siguro naman, kahit si Satanas pa mismo ang mag-concert sa SMX, walang magbabago sa pananampalataya ng mga bata. Just like the story of Job in the Old Testament, kahit pinahihina na ng kaniyang mga kaibigan ang kaniyang pagtitiwala sa Diyos, he remained steadfast to his faith and was rewarded. And Our Lord, too, when He was tempted by the devil, naging matibay siya at hindi nagpadala sa tukso, then the angels attended to Him. Siguro this is God's way of testing the faith of the Christians who were there in the concert. And this, too, is His way of building His Church stronger.

Equivocated daw ang mga kanta ni Lady Gaga and one must not simply interpret these songs in plain view. Well as you know, interpretations vary, sa Bible pa nga lang ehh. Kaya from One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, there are now more than 30,000 Christian sects and denominations. So we'd better leave the interpretation to her and her team, besides, sila ang talagang nakakaalam kung ano ang ibig-sabihin ng mga kanta and MV's. Pero if we'd stick to our own interpretations, let the faith be a greater positive number and let the songs and videos be a lesser negative number, para kapag pinagsama, positive pa rin ang result. It's up to the Church and the person himself to make that faith grow more and more each day, mula sa isang maliit na positive number, to perhaps a bigger one than the number before faith got tested.

Lady Gaga is a Catholic at isinusulong ng ilang nagmamarunong that she be excommunicated from the Church. We should leave these things to the Canon Lawyers, the Curia, and to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI himself. Marami pang kailangang pagdaanan ang motion for excommunication. Of course the case must be heard for a number of times with both sides explaining, then proceeding with the verdict. Hindi dahil against siya sa ilang tuntunin at pamantayan ng Santa Iglesia, excommunication na agad. Remember the story of Jesus and the sinful woman who was about to be stoned to death. Remember and reflect before you throw that stone to Lady Gaga.

To end (whoo, finally), I am not a fan of the pop icon neither am I against my Mother, the Church. I just don't see the point, really, why her concert was about to be banned. Just let faith shine stronger than what you call sin. Remain steadfast in what you believe in and let this faith thrive in your children para walang palag ang kung anomang impluwensiya sa kanila.

And to those who think, time and time again, that the whole Church is being an extremist, please do think again, at huwag niyo namang sabihing idiot ang Simbahan sa Bibliyang dahil sa kaniya ay nag-exist. Think twice, thrice... seventy-seven times before you say things on air, online, and in print. Hindi rin divided ang Iglesiya sa bagay na ito, the Church is just too big and we are working on evangelizing each and every one to have the same mindset as ours.


I am a devout Catholic and I love my God, so do I love His Church. I just think beyond the box and hope everyone does the same before commenting on a certain issue.

Another Call for Defense

Sa totoo lang, I'm so, so fed up with all these people who're trying to bring the whole Catholic Church down by her simple mistakes and shortcomings. Ang stereotypical, sobra. I can't blame them (some of them were proven to be atheists kaya hindi na rin ako nagulat), though, may mali naman kasi sa simbahan na kailangan nang ayusin.

RH Bill, for the nth time

As I write this, oo, suyang-suya na rin ako.

The question is simple: "Bakit ka sisiping sa kama kung ayaw mong magka-anak?" And is supplemented, "Bakit mo ipagpapalit ang maayos na pamumuhay ng anak mo para sa sandaling 'kaligayahan' ?"

These advocates want to propagate immorality, and extinction. Think of this, kung maisasabatas ang RH Bill, then magiging trivial na ang carnal relations. At kapag naging trivial na, it won't be sacred anymore: yes,  it is sacred because God made it so. At away from His approved manner, say, extra and pre-marital sex, one commits sin.

So what do we want to do, educate the people and convince them not to engage in such activities daily? Yes. It's possible, only immoral people say it isn't.

If this bill would forever be outlawed, then mag-iisip na 'yung mga mag-asawa to abstain from marital activities. And I suppose pati 'yung mga hindi mag-asawa, mag-a-abstain din?

And I suppose this question would be raised: "Eh paano 'yung minors who engage in these activities?" Oo, alam nating lahat na ineligible pa for detention ang mga menor-de-edad. Siguro, to resolve this na lang muna ang atupagin naman sana ng mga kongresista, hindi na lang 'yung puro anti-planking, anti-angry birds. Psh.

Benedict XVI on salvation


I am this open-minded Catholic na hindi talaga matanggap ang idea of exclusive salvation (kaya nga I've had numerous clashes with a friend na talagang ipinagpipipipipipipilitang sila nga lang talaga ang ililigtas sa araw ng paghuhukom) bago ko pa mabasa 'yung "Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?" sa Know Your Faith published by St. Paul's bookstore na there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; because the Catholic Church, by its namesake, includes all humanity.

And then, with the help of a friend, I read from dailymail.co.uk:

"Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.

"The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.

"It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.(Caldwell, 2007)"

Then arose speculations na sinasabi raw ng Santo Papa na ang Santa Iglesia Catolica lang ang maliligtas. What? Ang sinasabi lang, the Catholic Church (Mt 28:19) was instituted by Christ upon St. Peter the Apostle (Mt 16:18) who was its first pope, whose position was then assumed by Benedict XVI after 264 successions, so all other churches aren't true, kasi they are built by men(and in fact, magkakaproblema kapag hindi inirehistro sa Securities and Exchange Commission), not by our Lord.

Marriage among the homosexuals and infertile

Threat naman talaga kasi to humanity ang homosexual marriage. So tell me, how would population grow if we tolerate this kind of marriage? Well, the Bible doesn't say anything about what should not be done in marriage, it says what has to; man and woman, then create children. Tapos. If the Philippine government allows homosexual marriage, basta 'wag lang nilang pilitin ang Catholic priests to witness.

At isa pa, 'yung kasal among the infertile. Retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz once "said" that people who are unable to create must not marry; they will only commit sin in front of God.

Ako man, sa una, nagulat. Kasi I remembered Elizabeth and Zachary, John the Baptizer's parents. The woman was infertile, but she and her husband gained favor in the eyes of God.

Maybe the retired priest meant something beyond the layman's definition of "marriage", I don't know. Besides, try to research about that issue, 'yung pagbabawal ng Catholic Church sa mga baog na magpakasal, I believe you'd only come up with one site which has the exactly similar content you are looking for.

Marami pang ibang napakaliit na issue na susubukan kong pag-aksayahan ng panahon para sa mga mag-aaksaya ng panahong basahin 'to.

Sana naman, there must be mutual respect ammong beliefs and faith. Pero I'll be happy to answer more of these issues, hangga't kaya ko. I won't assume to know what I don't; besides, mas marami pang may kayang sagutin lahat ng mga isyung 'to.

To end, sana naman stop stereotyping. Look at the entire picture before you react (kaya nga medyo matagal rin bago ko 'to naisulat), hindi 'yung magre-rebelde ka sa sarili mong simbahan simply because you think you're brilliant.

The Catholic Truth: Tradition Over the Bible

I've had a friendly discussion with a Born Again Christian pastor not so long ago. Of course, as an aspiring Augustinian Recollect priest, I had many questions and raised several topics which made the discourse last for nearly half an hour.

One of the two topics I liked the most in our discussion was about the Tradition and the Bible (the other was on salvation). He said that the Catholic church has "moved out" of the Biblical doctrines, giving strange terms and performing such extra-doctrinal rites. He added that the Baptist church sticks to "Bible over Tradition" while the Catholic Church does otherwise.

I've been living my life from that day thinking that what he said was wrong, until when I began to realize the truth in what the pastor said. Well, that is not because I'm giving up my faith.

Tradition, defined in the Catholic way, is the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Holy Catholic Church (Mt. 16:18, Mt. 28:19-20). Before, there was no Bible to speak of. There were writings yes, but they were safeguarded by Christian communities who were hiding from the Romans thus, making the scriptures limited to the people. They weren't kept in caves or somewhere else which other "Christians" tell they were.

It's this: without the Catholic Tradition, we could not have availed of the Bible today. As you know, the word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "βιβλιος" which means "book." Mind you, the word "Bible" doesn't exist in any of the 73 books of the Bible. So, if the Catholic Tradition made it possible for a collection of divinely-inspired writings to be named as the "Bible", then the Tradition also made it possible to provide the name "Catholic" ("καθολικός": universal) for Christ's universal church (Mt. 28:19).

Also, it is because of Catholic tradition that we come to know the 73 books of the Holy Bible. And I know that the Catholic Bible has a seven-book "excess" over the Protestant, which has only 66. Before the Lutheran revolt in 1517, the Catholic Christian Bible (the Latin, or Vulgate edition, as compiled and translated by St. Jerome) has originally 73 books, and was later deducted by Luther. And in one of those seven books is where the concept "purgatory" can be found.

St. Jerome working on the Biblia Sacra Vulgata
(c) paintinghere.com 

It's because of the Protestant misconception and wrong definition of Tradition that makes the Catholic Church "very extra-Biblical," though normal human logic should make the former thankful to the latter.

The EUCHARIST

Catholics differ from other Christians mainly because of the way of remembering the Last Supper. Others refer to the bread and wine as "symbols," but we refer to it as the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.


They say that the sacrifice of Christ is a one-time act and cannot be repeated, hence, the bread their spiritual leaders break and distribute are merely symbols.


But, which is really true, according to the Bible? 


Jesus, during the Last Supper, said:


“Take this and eat it, for this is my body. 


Each of you drink from it, for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people."
(Mt. 26:26-28; mod)


Then take a look at this part of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians



" For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and said,“This is my body, which is given for you. Do this to remember me.” In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood. Do this to remember me as often as you drink it.” For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.


  So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

(1 Cor 11:23-28 NLT, emphasis mine)


See? The first Christians shared Christ's Body and Blood, not the symbol.


Yet there were some Christians who modified the Bible just for their doctrine to be correct. Nevertheless, it's still wrong.

If the bread they break is the symbol of the bread we Catholics receive during communion, well that's another case.

Does GOD really EXIST?

If you happen to read this, then congratulations! You are sincere in your search for the truth about God and His existence. Read on and I hope that I might help you in choosing to believe in Him, or continue in being faithful to Him.

As a FUTURE Order of the Augustinian Recollect seminarian, I don't doubt the existence of God.

I created this entry so that the average person who is somehow confused about his and his church's norms, may be directed in the right path, regardless of sect.

I won't explain mainly by using Bible verses, because I assume that most of you won't really search for those paragraphs in the Scriptures, given that most of you use logic.

Well for believers and unbelievers alike.

Jesus Christ (Iesvs Christi) is not a mythical creature, but a legendary being. Legendary, which means that history and religion agree that He really existed, thousands of years ago.

And knowing that He is real, He gave the proof of the existence of God.

"No one has actually seen God [the Father], but the one and only Son (Jesus), who is Himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made Him known, (Jn 1:18)" for Jesus and the Father are one (Jn 10:30).

Obviously, the Bible talks about God teaching His people (Old Testament) and His Revelation and Salvation through Christ Jesus (New Testament).

Now, you might ask, "How true are these writings?"

Hmm, the Bible didn't actually fall right out of the sky, nor did it rise from the ground by itself. You see, it is a compilation of the books written by people, through careful and keen study, inspired by God Himself (2 Tim 3:16).

Science is too young to understand religion. Not all what science knows are enough to explain how Jesus was conceived, how He multiplied five loaves and two fishes, how He brought many dead people back to life, how St. Peter got out from prison, et cetera.

GOD EXISTS. It's a fact. Prove me wrong.

Blessing (v.)

The statement "God bless you" is commonly used by people, obviously, giving blessing, by the Most Holy Name of the LORD. And the LORD commanded His people not to use His Name in vain (Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11). So the question is, does saying "God bless you" violate His commandment?

There are two answers, depending on the conditions.

No, when the blessing is given by someone who is in the state of grace, and channelling God's blessings by saying the words with a clear conscience and a happy, peaceful heart.

Yes, when the blessing is given by someone who is not in the state of grace, and merely saying the words for granted, making the people see him following Christ's command about forgiveness (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:28), which is the opposite of the actual case; that he is just saying those words, regardless of the anger he has.

How can one be a channel of blessing without being in the state of grace, or merely, sincerely giving the blessing? You know, it's not a simple endnote you put on anything you publish, whether you really mean what you say or not.

And by merely saying "God bless you" without sincerity, you commit sin. A grave sin.

(ERRATUM: Before October 30, 2012, Philippine Standard Time, the answers "yes" and "no" were incorrectly placed. I'm very sorry about that.)

Manatili sa IGLESIA!

Maraming kapatid sa tanging Santa Iglesia Catolica ang nangalalamig sa pananampalataya sa panahon ng pag-uusig, o maging sa panahon ng pansarili o pampailyang problema.

Sa Evangelio ngayon, makikita natin si Tomas, na sa halip ay kasama ng sampung disipulo ni Jesus na manahimik sa pananalangin, ay masyadong nananangis sa kamatayan ni Jesus. Kaya nang si Jesus ay pumaroon sa kanila, hindi natanggap ni Tomas ang kapayapaang ipinagkaloob Niya sa Kaniyang mga alagad.

Gayundin sa atin ngayon, mga kapatid. Ano ginagawa ng karamihan sa panahon ng problema? Nangaroon, nagmumukmok at nag-iisip mag-isa na sa halip ay kasama ng Iglesia sa panalangin at pagharap sa pagsubok ng buhay. Mayroon pa ngang nangag-iiba ng pananampalataya, na sinasabi pang kailangan nilang hanapin kung saan sila kabilang, kung saan sila "belong" o "welcome."


Mali at nakakaligaw ang ganitong pag-iisip. Maling mali! Nasaan ang paglutas sa problema? Nasa sa atin! Sino ang makakapag-"welcome" sa atin? Siya mismo, sa pamamagitan ng ating taimtimang pananalangin! Wala sa ibang tao ang pagwewelcome sa atin, lalo na kung may problema! Sa panalangin, at tanging sa panalangin lamang, mga kapatid.

Manatili kayo sa Iglesia! Ang presencia ni Cristo ay nangasasa-atin, wala kay Manalo, kay White, kay Muhammad, o kung kani-kanino pa.

BAGO MAG-REACT:
Bagama't hindi orihinal na salita, bahagi ito ng pagtuturo ni Rdo. P. Emil Quilatan, OAR kaninang umaga sa Santa Misa.

A CONTRARY

There was this book in the Philippines entitled "Lovestruck"  which my girlfriend read to me a certain paragraph, which got me not only disturbed and alarmed by the falsities it spreads among its readers (which are mostly teenagers), but also a contrast to what God teaches.


The summary of the paragraph suggests that "Good works are like dirty rugs wiped across the floor in front of God." 


How could this be, since in the epistle of St. James, Chapter 2, verses 17-19, says:


 "¹⁷ In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
 ¹⁸ But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
   Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. ¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder"?


See? FAITH, WITHOUT WORKS, IS DEAD!


Furthermore, DEMONS BELIEVE IN ONE GOD. How can DEMONS do GOOD WORKS?


The works condemned by Jesus is the ones without faith; the work of the Pharisees praying, fasting, and giving alms so that men may see and give them praise. Those aren't good works but hypocrisy.


The author should've clarified this, because it might spread wrong belief among the "not-so-Bible-reading" age group, or earn more criticisms.


But all in all, I commend the author of "Lovestruck." My girlfriend and I learned so much.

To DEBATE or NOT to DEBATE?

Whether offensive, less offensive, or "not at all offensive," contradicting one's belief or ideology, say, religion, is a debate, nonetheless.


A definition of debate says, a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. See? A mere discussion which involves two ideas on the contrary, with or without aggression, is already a debate.


The Catholic Church has refused (refused, not forbade. Because, it is by nature that if one's faith is question or offended, of course defense will come next, which will lead to a "discussion," or debate) from such useless debates, simply because it won't do any good; no matter how many history books and Biblical verses her members show as proof that she is the Church established by Christ upon Peter on the first century Anno Domini, pride, and not the sincere search for truth, prevails among the other "Christians."


Some Catholic customs, traditions, and doctrines are ridiculed by these Christian denominations. Say, the venerated images, fasting and abstinence, vow of celibacy, the Papal authority, incense, communion, Holy Trinity, One God, etc. But no matter how hard Catholics, or the so-called Catholic Faith Defenders, try to answer their questions, they refuse to believe the answers.


Hence, the saying: "Do not ask a question if you are not prepared to hear the answer, or will refuse to believe the answer."


But according to an article in a Catholic magazine published in the Philippines called "Know Your Faith: In Defense of the Catholic Truth,"  


   " The presence of the Catholic Church is a testament that God wishes to include all men and women in His Family. The Church therefore cannot but proclaim that salvation is for all, not an exclusive right given to her members."


In this sense, debates will just be a waste of everything, without the true desire of searching for the truth. Yet again, if the faith has been offended, there will still be those ready to defend it.

The LAW exists, ABIDE by it!

Law, written, natural, human or divine has one purpose: to keep our lives on track, not to make them hell.

But still, there are those who carelessly violate it. They, who they think for themselves that they are always right.
They, who hypocrtically follow the "observances" of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, like abstaining from eating meat and fasting on "Lenten Fridays," receiving the Holy Eucharist, etc.

They, who interfere and dictate the lives of other people, which the law doesn't allow, by the way.

Take this as an example. There's this lesbian who's been staying with her "live-in partner" (which the Catholic Church strictly prohibits) in the house of her married sister.

Of course, her sister, married, has two lovely and intelligent daughters, which the lesbian raised with her sister. But as time went on, and upon the death of their mother/grandmother, everything changed.

The lesbian was more agressive. She was not disciplining (which should only be the case, but still a violation of PD 604, Title II, Chapter I, Section A, Art. 17) the children, but abusing them (violation of entire PD 604), emotionally, verbally, physically, and even spiritually (violation of Revised Penal Code article 133).

Mind you, she once confiscated the laptop (property of the children's father) used by her nieces, and willfully and consciously threw the modem (which is almost a foot high, half foot wide, and an inch thick, and some "3-digit gram" heavy) at one of the minor-aged girls. Good thing she wasn't hit.

She also slapped her niece loudly when the girl couldn't resist the treatment of their lesbian aunt. The girl mentioned their rights (which was the right thing to do) and, stepped on, the lesbian reacted violently.

The other things were of the same "intensity."

If she really knows what the law is, she'd abide by it. She should act according to her age, and status as an adult.

But I guess she doesn't know what the simple, three-letter word "law" means, or actually is. By then, her observance of all the Roman Catholic customs and doctrines (that includes prayers), are all in vain.

By the way, in Matthew 7:12, it says:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

As SLAVES..

In our world today, the Biblical term "slaves" may refer to maid or menservants, "katulong" in Filipino.

What does the Bible teach about them, err, teach them?

In Ephesians chapter 6, verses 5 to 8, we read,

" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.  Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. "

Obey with what? Respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. But mere violation of their master's (which includes their heirs or descendants) privacy is not, and never will be obedience with the aforementioned traits. Never shall it also be obedience to CHRIST.

How shall they obey, and serve? Obey [them] not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.  Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

But, arrogance, back talking, interference to family affairs, bearing false testimony, is a contrary to what was written above. Moreover, the Lord won't be rewarding them if they continue to do evil deeds.

Speaking of evil deeds, here's what the Bible, in the book of Proverbs, chapter 5 verse 22, says:

"The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; 

   the cords of their sins hold them fast."


Ensnare, as in the evil deeds hold the wicked as captives. Captives from the grace of the Lord. Common sense, you chose to live wickedly, away you are from the Lord God.


But oh yes, I recalled, again in Proverbs, this time in chapter-verses 23:9 and 24:7, 


" Don’t waste your breath on fools,
      for they will despise the wisest advice."

" Wisdom is too lofty for fools.
      Among leaders at the city gate, they have nothing to say."

PROFESSIONALISM...

"Wala akong pakialam kung sino ka. Basta ang alam ko, you threatened me, which FOR YOUR INFORMATION is AGAINST THE LAW!"

What would you expect from a mom seeing her 16-year old daughter with her "classmate" outside the campus at 7pm? Angry? Yes. BUT NOT HYSTERICAL.

Hysterical, to the point where she's scolding her daughter in public and threatening me, her daughter's 15-year old "rumoured" boyfriend to be crippled, once her daughter went out again without seeking her permission.

Damn it! My parents NEVER threatened me like that! They may have denied some of my privileges as a way of "discipline," but not to the extent of threatening, or even doing.

THE Philippines has laws that protect minors from these. It's not that I want to sue someone for "Grave threats to MINORS" because I want to ruin one's family, living, pride, and reputation, but because I am a Filipino, I have my rights, and I know what is right from what is wrong.

ACT, THINK, and TALK like a PROFESSIONAL, if you REALLY ARE ONE!

C'est verite!

My blog serves one purpose and one purpose only: to be in the defense of the truth. What pushed me to create this blog was the urge to speak up for those who cannot. I may not be a lawyer, but I can clearly distinguish what is right from what is wrong.

Enjoy reading!!