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."