“Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”
By Bro. G-one Paisones
May nabasa po akong isang aklat na maganda at magagamit sa mga evangelization at apologetics purposes ng mga Catholic Apologist at lahat ng mga Katoliko. Ang aklat na ito ay ang “Paano Ninyo Sasagutin” ni Fr. Ben Carreon (Unang Aklat). Ang naturang aklat ay naglalaman ng mga sagot at information na dapat mabasa ng lahat ng mga Katoliko sa boung Pilipinas. Ang aklat na ito ay mabibili sa mga St. Paul stores.
Madalas na nating naririnig at nababasa na may mga Katoliko na winaksi ang kanilang pananampalataya bilang Katoliko na hindi man lang nila nalalaman ang stand ng doctina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica; ika nga ignoranting mga Katoliko. Ang ilan sa kanila ay umanib sa Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Felix Manalo noong 1914. Ang isa sa mga information na nakuha ko sa aklat (“Paano Ninyo Sasagutin”) ay makatutulong upang tatagan ang paniniwalang Katoliko at malaman ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica basi narin sa Biblia, Apostolic Tradition at sa Banal na Santa Iglesia Catolica; at maging sa mga karagdagang standard references ay narito:
Paano Ninyo Sasagutin
St. Paul Publication
7708 St. Paul Road, ASV
Makati, Metro Manila
(1st Printing, 1966)
(Revised Edition, 1986)
Sino ang Humirang kay Manalo?
Ni Fr. Ben Carreon
Totoo ang iyong (Quirico Porras) sinasabing ang ginawa ng mga Kapatid nating nahihiwalay sa mga sektang Saksi ni Jehova at Iglesia ni Kristo ay pulos panlilinlang sa mga Katolikong alanganin ang paniniwala at kulang ng kaalaman sa relihyon. Una: malaking kasinungalingan ang sinasabi ng mga iglesya (Iglesia ni Cristo) na sila ang pinakauna sa lahat ng relihyon. Sang-ayon sa Encyclopedia of the Philippines, Vol. 10, 1936 edition, pahina 432-433, sinulat ni Zoila Galang, ang Iglesya ay itinatag noong 1914, sa Punta, Sta. Ana, Maynila ni Felix Manalo.
Isa rito sa 18 “hinirang ng Diyos” ay si Mr. Igmidio Zabala, dating Superintendente ng mga Iglesya sa Central Luzon, na ngayon ay nagbalik na sa pagka-Katoliko at ang sabi niya’y hindi totoo na sila’y hinirang ng Diyos. Ang humirang sa kanila ay si G. Manalo. Sa “katunayan,” sudlong pa ni Mr. Zabala, “ano mang oras ay naiaalis ni Manalo ang sino man sa amin. Siya ang nag turo sa aming kung ano ang ituturo namin sa mga kaanib sa sariling pakahulugan niya sa mga talata ng Bibliya. Siya ang nagbibigay ng sweldo sa amin.” Bakit sasabihing Diyos ang humirang sa 18 ito?
Samaktwid, sang-ayon na rin sa tinatawag ni Manalong “hinirang ng Diyos” na si Mr. Zabala, hindi totoong Diyos ang humirag sa mga ministro ng Iglesia, at gayon din hindi totoong Diyos ang humirang kay Felix Manalo. Mayroon bang Diyos na pabagu-bago ng patakaran?
At samakatwid, sang-ayon na rin kay Manalo, ang Iglesya ay natayo sa Punta, Ata. Ana, Maynila noong 1914 at hinirang ng Diyos ang kanyang mga ministro noon ding mga petsang yaon. Paano itong magiging “pinakauna” sa lahat ng relihyon? Mahina yata sa arithmetic ang ating mga kapatid na iyan.
Ang Tunay na Sugo
We are very haapy to have Mr. Igmidio Zabala as a guest columnist in Paano Ninyo Sasagutin. A well-known figure in Manila, he broadcast in DZST as one of the Tinig ni Mang Huwan and writes a column in Sentinel. Mr. Zabala’s name is in the Philippines Encyclopedia as one of the original 18 Ministers of the Iglesya ni Kristo, in which sect he labored for over twenty years, rising to executive position in Luzon until he came back to the Catholic Church a few years ago. A small autobiography has been published: “Ako ay naging Ministro ng Igleya ni Kristo” in which he traced his many years with Felix Manalo and his later disillusionment. The small book has been sold out and no copy is available. We wrote the publishers to request. If they don’t we are planning to serialize it here in the Mindanao Cross.
Courtesy of Bro. Allan O. Salada
By Bro. Joel Roma, CFD
To Noel Tarongoy:
First o all, thank you for commenting.
Here is the answer to your first question:
There’s no contradiction to two interpretations on a single imagery, I suppose, and won’t give a headache to understand it.
The former is a place and the latter is a person. My contention was that without the Virgin Mary there would be no occupants of triumphant souls in the New Heavenly Jerusalem and no salvation of the human race as well. The fall of our first parents when the devil used the woman, Eve, as his instrument to cause the disorder of God’s creation, God in His omnipotence used the woman, Virgin Mary, to restore the disorder of God’s creation.
Thus began the dawn of restoration.
I’m not forcing you to believe this, it’s your own choice!
Here is my answer to your second question:
It is the Holy Scripture that excludes Virgin Mary from the cueses imparted by God to Eve, not me!
In Gen. 3: 15 God was speaking to the serpent and the woman He was implying is the Virgin Mary, not Eve. While in Gen. 3: 16, of course it is explicit, God was speaking to Eve.
I hope you are satisfied with my answers. Thanks
Friday, February 4, 2011
Courtesy of: Sunstar News Paper
AN Iglesia ni Kristo minister will spend two months and a day in jail after the court convicted him of serious disturbance for punching a lawyer.
This happened during a hearing on a libel case he filed against three reporters in 2000.
Ocampo, who is expected to serve a jail sentence of two months and a day and to pay a fine of P1,000, is appealing his case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). His case is scheduled for regular raffling.
Bacalso, who served as legal counsel of DyMF Bombo Radyo, accused Ocampo of allegedly punching him during a clarificatory hearing on the libel complaint the INC minister filed against his clients.
Ocampo filed a libel case against then Bombo Radyo reporters Gerardo “Gerry” Auxilio and Ruphil Bañoc. Bombo Radyo station manager Greman “Jojo” Solante was also included in the complaint.
Bacalso alleged that while he and his clients were attending the hearing, Ocampo suddenly punched him in the back. The attack was made in front of Cebu Provincial prosecutors Federico Pansoy, Vicente Mañalac and Anatalio Necessario.
Ocampo’s attack against Bacalso led to a commotion between the three reporters and more than 100 supporters of the INC who were waiting outside the hearing area.
Bacalso alleged that Ocampo attacked him when he raised to the panel a Supreme Court decision on a libel case filed by the INC against Rosita Trillanes in the 1940s.
The decision had cleared Trillanes of making allegations that one of INC’s founders, Felix Manalo, raped her. The INC filed a libel case against her because she made the allegations without filing a rape complaint against their founder.
Bacalso presented the SC decision as part of documentary evidence for their case.
In her decision, Tecson convicted Ocampo as he was identified not just by Bacalso but by three witness who saw the INC minister hit the lawyer.
Tecson said the main point is that through his act, Ocampo incited the commotion between INC and the complainants during the hearing.
“Whether it was by hitting or simply tapping on the back of Atty. Bacalso by the accused, the fact remains, this particular act of hitting or tapping caused the commotion inside the room where the clarificatory hearing was conducted,” she added.
Auxilio and Bañoc have since left Bombo Radyo, 11 years since they were charged with libel. Auxilio is now working for Radio DySS as a commentator, while Bañoc, now a lawyer, is the station manager of Radio DyHP.
Solante has since retired from broadcasting and is serving a second term as barangay captain of Villahermosa in Tudela, Camotes. He is also the Association of Barangay Councils president of Tudela town.
The INC minister accused the three broadcasters of issuing derogatory and libelous remarks against him over a radio program of Bombo Radyo.
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on February 05, 2011.
Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism and Protestantism are nothing compared to Modernism. We can easily identify if a person is an agnostic, Arian, Nestorian and Protestant. But when it comes to Modernism it is close to impossible to identify if a person is a modernist or not. Modernism can be compared to a polluted air; it gets inside our system without us knowing it, and it destroys us inside out. The hammer of modernism Pope St. Pius X gravely opposed modernism; in his prophetic encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis he describes modernist in the following words;
. . .We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse through the whole tree, so that no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none is more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic. . . Finally, there is the fact which is all hut fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon false conscience, they attempt to ascribed to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy. Pascendi Dominici Gregis No. 3
A number of points can be deduced from the Pope’s description of modernism,
1.) Most pernicious adversary of the Church
2.) They attack the church not from without (outside) but from within (inside)
3.) Modernism affects all the parts of the Church (Theology, Biblical scholarship and spirituality)
4.) Modernism can injure the church greater because the knowledge of modernist heretics is more intimate than those who are outside the Church.
5.) They attack not the externals of the Church but the foundation of dogma leaving no part of Church untouched
6.) Modernist takes both position Catholic and rationalist
7.) Modernism rejects the authority of the Church and appeals to conscience
In order to defeat the devilish doctrine of modernism we must first unmasked him and expose his errors publicly. Since modernism is a very broad topic, it would be beneficial to limit our discussion in the seven important points on modernism.
1. Most pernicious adversary of the Church
Pope St. Pius X called modernism the synthesis of all heresies, because modernism takes a lot of form. In other words modernism is the combination of all heresies.
A Modernist can take the form of Arianism by denying the divinity of Christ. Rudolf Bultmann the father of Protestant liberalism, claimed to have demythologized scripture by distinguishing Christ as a historical person and Christ the miracle worker, a product of Christian consciousness.
It divides Christology into two, Christology from above and Christology from below. This approach in Christology was pioneered by Karl Rahner in Catholic scholarship. According to this approach Jesus of Nazareth is only a man, he is neither God nor a miracle worker. The notion that Christ is a miracle worker and is God is not historical but a product of religious reflection of early Christians. The problem with this approach is that it violates two dogmas of Christology. It violates the dogma of hypostatic union and Communicatio Idiomatum.
According to Dr.Ott, “The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ that is, joined to each other in the Unity of the person” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.142),
the Christological approach pioneered by Karl Rahner attempts to dismiss the unity of Christ’s natures by creating the distinction between the divine and human acts of Christ rather than attributing it to the person of Christ. A modernist can also become a Protestant reformer by denying the authority of the Church. The rationalist approached to the Bible lead modernist to deny the dogma of Christ divinity.
Aside from this they also deny the historical institution of the Church. According to Fr. George H. Tavard a modernist theologian he said
“In no way can the institution of the Church as a social and spiritual entity be traced directly to the recorded words of Jesus, even if these words are believe to have been truly spoken by the Jewish prophet from Nazareth.” (The Church Community of Salvation: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology, p.31)
The implication of Fr. Tavard’s statement is that the institution of the Church cannot be traced back to the very words of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew 16:17-19. This is a direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church. Pope St. Pius X spoke against this error [denial of the historical institution of the Church] in the Oath Against Modernism.
I believed with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Oath against Modernism
Some claim that the oath against modernism was already abrogated by the Church, however not a single document from the Church ever remove or cease the recitation of the oath against modernism by the clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. Granting without admitting that the oath against modernism was abrogated, yet modernist theologians cannot dismiss the fact that it is a dogma of the Church, that the Church was personally and historically instituted by Christ. Against this modernist error the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith issued a document entitled Dominus Iesus.
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is a historical continuity rooted in the apostolic succession between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church. Dominus Iesus No.16
The Church required Catholics to profess that there is a historical continuity between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church because this is an unchanging dogma of the Church. This is a dogma because Christ himself personally and historically founded the Church as recorded in Matthew’s gospel (16:17-19). These are only a few reasons why modernism is the most pernicious adversary of the Church, because of its ability to take form in any kind of heresy.
2. They attack the church not from without (outside) but from within (inside)
The most disgusting about modernism is that they are not our enemies outside of the Church like Protestant heretics. But they are our enemies from the inside of the Church. Pope St. Pius X made this clear when he said,
Venerable Brethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of unbelievers. There are Catholics, yea, and priest too, who say these things openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings! Pascendi Dominici Gregis No.10
It is fitting for us to cite few modernists that attacked the Church from within the Church. One of them is the German theologian Hans Kung, although censured by the Church from teaching in Catholic universities, yet his teachings remained influential among modernist theologians today. Hans Kung taught that the Church is not infallible but only indefectible; this means that the Church can teach errors in matters of faith and morals yet the Church will not be destroyed. This is contrary to the dogmatic pronouncement of the first Vatican Council that the Pope when speaks ex cathedra is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Another theologian is Karl Rahner, he denied the dogma of transubstantiation, for him when the priest consecrates the bread and wine there is no transubstantiation but only “transignification”. Fr. George Tavard in his book “The Church Community of Salvation: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology” rejected the dogma of the Church that Christ personally and historically founded the Church.
The key to being the Church does not lie in apostolic origin but in the perfect discipleship that is exemplified in the only disciple who did not abandon Jesus at the cross. The Church Community of Salvation: An Ecumenical ecclesiology, p. 39, Tavard
According to Tavard the Church is not apostolic in origin, but in being the perfect discipleship, this is an example of subjectivism a philosophical error originated from Immanuel Kant. These theologians are not just ordinary professors of sacred sciences but they are theological advisers of some of the cardinals present in the Second Vatican Council.
3.) Modernism affects all the parts of the Church (Theology, Biblical scholarship and spirituality)
Since they are from within the Church, they were able to influence almost all parts of the Church (for a detailed discussion about modernist as a theologian, philosopher and believer read the Pascendi Dominici Gregis). In Biblical scholarship they rejected the teaching of the Church that the Sacred Scripture has absolute inerrancy, for them Sacred Scriptures errs in history and physical realities Fr. Raymond Brown is one of the liberal Biblical scholars that rejects the absolute inerrancy of Scripture. Modernist as a theologian departed from the traditional norm of interpreting and expounding divine revelation. They developed the so called “New Theology”; they denied the existence of the devil, the necessity of the Church in salvation, dividing Christology into Christ of faith and Christ of history. In spirituality they become liturgical innovator, that is why Pope Benedict XVI promulgated the Summorum Pontificum to encourage the Christian faithful to get in touch to the tradition of the Church particularly the Tridentine Latin Mass. They have popularized the so called prosperity gospel and they praise God in strange tongues.
4.) Modernism can injure the church greater because the knowledge of modernist heretics is more intimate than those who are outside the Church.
What Protestants cannot do was accomplished by the modernist and that is to inflict injury to the Church. How many times have we heard from theologians, catechist and some clergies that the axiom “Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” (Outside the Church there is no salvation) was already abrogated in Vatican II. When coming from a theologian this sounds convincing, however nothing in the sixteen Vatican Council documents ever abrogated the said axiom. In Lumen Gentium and Decree on Ecumenism the axiom was even reaffirm. For modernist the only authoritative council is the Second Vatican Council and the twenty previous councils were overruled by the Second Vatican Council. This ideology was imbedded in the minds of religious educators that they too rejected the authority of councils prior to the second Vatican Council. This is the greatest mistake that the modernist committed because the documents of the second Vatican Council did not abandoned the decrees of previous council, but reaffirms it.
5.) They attack not the externals of the Church but the foundation of dogma leaving no part of Church untouched
When you want to kill a tree you do not cut the leaves and the branches but dig down to the roots and kill it from there. When the modernists want to destroy the Church they did not attack the external visible sings of the Church, but to its very roots the dogma of faith. The modernist doctrine that dogma can be abandon and change created an impact in some religious educators, hence nowadays we seldom hear them speak against heresies. For the modernist the dogma of faith is relative to each individual and group, that various teachings that originated from heretics are different forms of expression of divine revelation that is why they no longer speaks against heresies. The dogma of faith cannot be relative because God is its revealer any other teachings outside of the Church are merely opinions of fallible men.
6.) Modernist takes both position Catholic and rationalist
Fr. Raymond Brown was called “slippery eel” because when he is threatened by the Church to be censured he immediately switch sides and speaks good things about the Church, and makes a superficial renunciation of his errors. And when he is again in good standing with the Church, he begins to rediscover his old errors and spread it. How applicable are the words of the saintly pope St. Pius X to him,
For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. Pascendi Dominici Gregis No.3
The hard thing about modernist is that they are half Catholics, they appear to be professing Catholics but when they start to open their mouth they speak ill against the Church. When we criticized them for their errors, they quote from magisterial documents and twist its meaning to suite their belief.
8.) Modernism rejects the authority of the Church and appeals to conscience
This is rampant among Biblical scholars, for them the consensus of opinions of modernist Biblical scholars is the Magisterium. After a series of encyclicals condemning their errors on inerrancy of scriptures, they still persist in spreading their error. Because for them what matters most is the consensus of modernist scholars rather than the consensus of the Church fathers when in comes to Biblical interpretation.
The venerable Pope St. Pius X appeal to us today to,
Wherefore we must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that we may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised. Pascendi Dominici Gregis No.3
We must rally along side the Church to continually combat the teachings of the modernist. We must be vigilant and refute the teachings of the modernist may it be in private and in public.
By Bro. Joel Roma
CFD Lapulapu Chapter
The image of the woman clothed with sun seen by St. John in Rev. 12: 1 was the present image of the new heavenly Jerusalem and the glorifying image of the Blessed virgin Mary.
Here is the explanation:
When John said that the woman was in pain nearly giving birth (Rev. 12: 2)he was referring to the historical background of the woman(not an allusion to the Blessed Virgin Mary because she is not part of the curses, including the birth pains, given by God to Eve in Gen. 3: 16). The historical background of the woman was that she was alluded to the heavenly Zion of the old covenant (cf. Isaiah 62). The place where the souls of the elect of the old testamant people were placed and God wanted a new name for her and wanted to marry her in the near foture. Remember that the souls of the elect in this place have not yet reached heaven (new Jerusalem) and all of them were waiting for the coming of the Messiah.(Jesus told us that nobody has gone up to heaven John 3: 13 and no one has seen the Father except him who comes from the Father John 6: 46).
Example of this were the souls confined only underneath the altar as seen by St. John in Rev. 6: 9-10 which is different in stature as the souls of the elect seen in Rev. 7: 9-10. As Jesus Christ ascended to heaven according to St. Paul, Jesus has with him many captives (Ephesians 4: 8), the prophesy then of Isaiah 66: 8 that in an instant Zion will give birth of her children, thus comes to its fulfillment (Rev. 7: 9-10).
But, the body and blood of Jesus that made the perfect sacrifice to God (Heb. 9: 14)came from the Blessed Virgin Mary (Heb 2: 14) because without her the perfect sacrifice of Jesus would have had not fulfilled. So the woman in Rev. 12: 1 could be alluded to the Blessed Virgin Mary either.
Robert Sungenis & Scott Butler vs James White & Rob Zins
By Bro. Isahel Alfonso
What They Did With God’s Word
Many Biblical Scholars today begun to doubt the absolute inerrancy of Scriptures. Most of those who hold the position that the Sacred Scripture erred in matters of physical reality and history abandoned the general rule of Biblical interpretation as laid down by the Fathers of the Church, that came down to us through Apostolic tradition. Higher criticism also known as historical criticism  is a methodology used by modernist and liberal Biblical scholars in order to bring out the full sense of a passage in Sacred Scripture. In the right hands, historical criticism is a valuable tool in proving the historicity of dogma, but at the hands of modernist and liberal Biblical Scholars it is detrimental to the Catholic faith. Pope Leo XIII, commenting on higher criticism of Scriptures said;
There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism,” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. (Providentissimus Deus no. 17)
Using the historical criticism heterodox exegetes set aside the theological and spiritual sense of Scripture and approaches it as an ordinary book that contains historical accounts. In using the scientific methodology of gathering historical accounts it does not consider miracles as historical event. Hence they conclude that the Sacred Scripture contains historical errors when it records miracle accounts (Resurrection, Virgin birth etc.) as part of history. To accept that the Sacred Scripture contains errors and denial of the historicity of miracles lead to a complete rejection of dogma. Fr. Raymond Brown who pioneered the historical criticism in Catholic Biblical Scholarship ends up in denying the virgin birth. In his entry to the “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” he said;
In terms of evidence, Is.7:14 currently has less important role in the discussion: first it is widely agreed that it refers to a conception in the eighth century B.C that somehow continued or supported the Davidic line of kings, rather than to the conception of Jesus, second, even the LXX [Septuagint] reading, “Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son,” does not necessarily envisage a virginal conception, for the future tense may mean that a woman who is now a virgin will conceive; third, granted that in his infancy narrative Mathew himself probably added the “fulfillment citation” (1.22-23; 2:5-6, 15, 17-18, 23) to existing material, the citation of Is.7:14 did not create the idea that Jesus was virginally conceived but was used to illustrate it.
Furthermore they also attributed error to the writers of the Sacred Scripture.
Isipin na lamang na si San Lucas na buong ingat na nagsuri upang lubusan nating matiyak ang katotohanang (Lc. 1:3-4) ay nagpakita rin ng maraming kamalian.
Think of it, St. Luke who meticulously and carefully studied so that we can know the truth (Lc.1:3-4) also shows numerous errors.
Kaya hindi na dapat ikabigla kung madiskubre man na maging si Jesus, na nagturo ng may kapangyarihan (Mt.7:28-29; 22:15-16), ay lumitaw na hindi pamilyar sa mga textong kanyang binaggit mula sa Lumang Tipan.
We should not be surprised to discover that even Jesus, who taught with authority (Mt.7:28-29;22:15-16) shows that he is not familiar with the passages He quoted from the Old Testament.
In order to solve difficulties in the Bible, they did not hesitate to compromise Divine inspiration by stating that it was the hagiographers who erred in writing the inspired text. On the first place how can the writers of the Sacred Scripture erred if they are inspired? This is a total departure from Catholic orthodoxy; we must rally for the defense of God’s Word.
Magisterial Teaching On The Inerrancy Of Sacred Scripture
In establishing the inerrancy of Scripture we must first prove that the Sacred Scripture is inspired by God. Inspiration thus means that God is the divine author of the books of Scripture, and this is why the Church reveres them as sacred and canonical. The Council of Trent dogmatically defined the Inspiration of Scriptures;
These [books of the Bible] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by simple human industry, they were later approved by her own authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author and were delivered as such to the Church. (Dei Filius 2)
Decades after the Council of Trent new theories on inspiration arises. Some proposed that the scope and inspiration of Scripture is only limited to matters of faith and morals, and outside of these parameters the Scripture can err. Against this heresy on the inspiration of Scripture Pope Leo XIII reaffirmed the long held tradition of the Church that the Sacred Scripture whole and entire, with all their parts is inspired by God and free from all kinds of error (Faith, Morals, history and natural science.
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose that he had in mind in saying it this system cannot be tolerated.(Providentissimus Deus)
Therefore anyone who is a minister of the word of God must above all accept the dogmatic pronouncement of Church on the Inspiration of Scripture. He must not limit the inspiration of the Holy Scripture on matters of faith and morals but accept that the Scriptures whole and entire, with all their parts are divinely inspired by God.
The Effects Of Inspiration
There are numerous effects of inspiration that are open to theological investigation. One is the canonicity of Scripture. But the most debated effect of inspiration is inerrancy, the belief that the Scripture is trustworthy and true, untainted by anything false, erroneous, or deceptive. This follows logically from the divine authorship of Bible if God is the primary author, and God himself is the perfection of truth, then all that Scripture claims to be true must be necessarily be true. During the European Enlightenment Christian tradition on Holy Scriptures was seriously challenged. With the influence of Existentialism in Biblical studies heterodox scholars begun to proposed theories that are contrary to the beliefs commonly held by the Church about Holy Scriptures, such as the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, Historicity of the miracle accounts in the four gospels, the historicity of Genesis chapter 1-11, the belief that Adam and Eve are the precursor of humanity and the Gospel of Matthew as being the first Gospel being written. And at the birth of historical criticism these are no longer theories but have become the foundation of exegesis. Using the historical criticism beyond the norms established by the Church will lead to the rejection of the fundamental dogmas of the Church. Against this error Pope Leo XIII reaffirmed the ancient tradition of the Church in the absolute and positive inerrancy of Scripture.
For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. And so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.(Providentissimus Deus)
According to Catholic teaching on inspiration and inerrancy, the Bible does not make strictly scientific statements. Rather, when the writers of Scripture talk of the natural world, they speak either “figuratively” or “phenomenologically,” that is, according to the way things appear to the senses. References to the rising of the sun, for example, are not actual scientific assertions that insist the earth is stationary and the sun follows an ascending and descending course of motion. Such expressions are based on sense perception and common experience, and many are still used today. Saint Augustine, whose view on this was endorsed in modern papal teaching, holds that Scripture was not written to tell us about “the essential nature of things of the visible universe”. Thus, since the Bible makes no properly scientific assertions, it cannot be charged with teaching error on scientific matters. Since it is now impossible for modernist and liberal exegetes to deny the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, they retorted saying that God as the primary author of Scripture cannot err but the writers employed by God to write down His words fell into error. Against this rationalistic approach Pope Leo XIII addressed this problem;
Hence because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write He was so present in them that the things which down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. (Providentissiumus Deus)
Pope Leo XIII said, “that anyone who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.” We must accept the declarations of the Magisterium regarding the Holy Scriptures in order to safeguard the orthodoxy of authentic Biblical studies. And if ever we encounter difficult passages in the Sacred Writings that appears to be irreconcilable with the rest of Scripture or might contradict history, we need not worry about it, but recall the words of Saint Augustine, “And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”
So what is their escape goat?
In spite of the constant admonition from the Church, liberal and modernist Biblical scholars continue to propagate their heretical belief about the nature of the Sacred Scriptures. During the Vatican II Council, Cardinal Konig of Vienna proposed to the Council that the teaching of the Church regarding the inerrancy of Scriptures must be modified. He proposed that absolute inerrancy of Scripture must be abandoned, and limited inerrancy must be accepted. However, during the deliberation of the Council on the schema of Dei Verbum Cardinal Konig’s proposal was rejected. The outcome of the deliberation is what is now written in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum, which says;
It follows that the book of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Liberal scholars when interpreting this passage from the Vatican II document Dei Verbum asserts that inerrancy of Scripture is only limited to matters that deals with our salvation specifically about faith and morals. However, they misinterpreted what the Council really meant. In response to liberal interpretation(s), it is worth it to quote Dr.Sungenis’ words;
The clause “for the sake of our salvation” was added precisely to counter the very idea of limited innerancy. A simple and unbiased reading of the context reaveals this. It says:
“…we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scripture. Thus ‘all Scripture is inspired by God…”
How much clearer could it be? It clearly says that:
(a) ”the books of Scripture” are “without error.”
(b) the “truth” was “confided to the sacred Scripture.”
(c) “all Scripture is inspired.”
Do we see in any of those statements a dichotomy between what Scritpure says about salvation and what is not about salvation? No! It simply refers to Scripture at large, the whole of Scripture, with no separations or divisions into salvific or non-salvific portions.
Hence, if we read the statement of Dei Verbum in light of both its context and the traditional teaching of the Church, we understand that, all of Scripture was inspired to be without error so that it could serve as a firm foundation upon which we can know the truths of salvation. It’s very simple. In other words, Scripture is inspired and inerrant for the sake of our salvation. Everytime we open Scripture and read it we can be sure that its words are trustworthy, and each passage will relate, in one way or another, to our salvation, for we need all of Scripture to know all the truths about our salvation. The veracity of one passage is dependent on the veracity of another, and so on and so on.
Dr. Scott Hahn clarified the disputed expression “for the sake of our salvation”, in his Catholic Bible Dictionary, Dr. Hahn said,
. . .in fact, it should be noted that the penultimate schema of Dei Verbum did refer to “saving truth” (Latin, veritatem salutarem), but at the request of numerous Council Fathers and the urging of Pope Paul VI, it was amended to read “truth” (Latin, Veritatem) alone, so that its scope would not be restricted by the adjective “saving” to matters of faith and morals and nothing beyond. The final and official wording of the Constitution thus tells us the purpose of inerrancy, not its extent.
Both, scholars agree that the phrase “for the sake of salvation” does not imply the extent of inspiration rather it stresses the purpose of inerrancy of Sacred Scriptures. The Church is consistent in teaching the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scriptures thus we are obliged to accept it entirely without questioning or doubting it.
 Historical criticism studies a narrative purporting to convey historical information in order to determine what actually occurred in so far as this is possible. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J, Interpreting The New Testament: A Practical Guide, page 85 Keith Crim, gen. ed., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, suppl. Vol., pp..940-941
 Araling Pambiblia Para Sa Mga Dinedebateng Katoliko, page 30, Nonoy Lopez
 Araling Pambiblia Para Sa Mga Dinedebateng Katoliko, page 31, Nonoy Lopez
 Catholic Bible Dictionary, Dr. Scott Hahn, pp. 383, Doubleday 2009
 Catholic Bible Dictionary, Dr. Scott Hahn, pp. 386-387, Doubleday 2009
 Catholic Bible Dictionary, Dr. Scott Hahn, pp. 390, Doubleday 2009
 Ep. Ixxxii., i. et crebrius alibi.
 Dei Verbum No.11
 Catholic Bible Dictionary, page 389, Ed. Dr. Scott Hahn
Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics, also a moderator or the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, published an article in his blog pointing to a contradiction between Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and myself regarding the identity of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary is literal or not.
Mr. Soliman capitalized on Fr. Abe’s statement that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary literally and juxtaposed it to my statement that we don’t take Revelation 12:2 literally. He then concluded that there was a contradiction.
In an article, I pointed to Gerry Soliman that there was no contradiction at all because Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing different issues. Fr. Arganiosa’s statement which Mr. Soliman cited addressed the question of who is the woman of Revelation 12 (verse 1, to be exact). My statement on the other hand is focused on the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12 verse 2. Everyone can read my articles below and check the links on Gerry Soliman’s blog.
Immediately after my article was posted, Mr. Gerry Soliman took issue with the part on the canon of scripture and promised to prepare a “counter-argument” on my article over the weekend. I was of course looking forward to Gerry Soliman’s article.
I was sorely disappointed by Gerry Soliman’s answer. As a Christian, I expected him to own up to his mistake and apologize for something wrong. Instead, Mr. Soliman conveniently skirted the main issue and proceeded to delve on other points.
I understand a person’s need to save one’s face and dignity. But admitting that one committed a mistake and apologizing for it would not make anyone a lesser person. Christianity does not think that way.
Despite the animosity between us, I believe that Gerry Soliman is capable of recognizing his mistake and apologizing for it. Rodimus did that. And we were deeply humbled by that truly magnanimous gesture.
I will respond to the points raised by Mr. Gerry Soliman, but I wish to focus first on this issue to that we will not be sidetracked from the real score.
The issue is: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog?
That issue was squarely raised in my previous articles. Although this issue stared at Mr. Soliman in the face, he cavalierly ignored it. Indeed, Mr. Soliman skirted it and went at great lengths to evade it.
This may be unsolicited, but let’s help Gerry Soliman appreciate the issue. I hope he will be open-minded and Christian enough to see his mistake. And we are Christian enough to accept an apology.
Mr. Soliman quoted precisely these words from Fr. Arganiosa:
“I DIDN’T SAY THAT ‘THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN’ SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.” (emphasis added)
And then he quoted me:
“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” (emphasis added)
What was Mr. Soliman’s conclusion? A contradiction! What was his basis? Tunog system! Because Father Arganiosa’s statement said that the woman clothed with the sun refers to Mary literally and my statement mentioned that we don’t interpret it (Rev. 12:2) literally, there must be a contradiction, right? WRONG!
I already explained how Fr. Arganiosa and I were taken out of context. The specific statements Gerry Soliman quoted from us were discussing two (2) different issues. Fr. Abe’s statement was concerned about the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1. My statement was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2. I accused Mr. Soliman of “intellectual dishonesty” because he knew fully well that my statement was discussing “birth pains” because I was responding to the very question that he asked me.
More than that, I would like to believe that as a “Bible Christian,” Mr. Soliman knows his Bible very well.
He knows that the expression “woman clothed with the sun” (which Fr. Arganiosa was identifying in the statement quoted from him by Gerry Soliman) is found in verse 1 of chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:
“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” (Rev. 12:1, NIV).
On the other hand, the verse I was specifically commenting on is verse 2, chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:
“She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth” (Rev. 12:2, NIV).
And what did I say regarding that? Mr. Soliman quoted it, thus:
“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.”
Notice my dear readers that in the quoted statement of Mr. Soliman, I categorically stated NOT JUST ONCE BUT TWICE that what I don’t take literally is verse 2 of Revelation chapter 12. And what was that about? The “birth pains” of the woman. I was not concerned in that statement, as Fr. Arganiosa was in his, about the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun.”
Gerry Soliman did not deny that I was responding to his query on the “birth pains” in Rev. 12:2. In fact, in his answer, he categorically admitted:
“I asked him if the birth pains in verse two would in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception since God punished Eve with increased birth pains due to sin. For those who don’t know the issue yet, Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation. The problem with the chapter is on verse two where the woman is found to be in labor pains while giving birth to a child.” (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html)
Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.” I would like to hear from you about this.
I appreciate Mr. Soliman’s other arguments and will gladly respond to them only after my good friend Gerry will face this issue squarely.
Ni Bro. G-one T. Paisones
(Note: Ang Pula ay katwiran at tanong ng mga protestante; at ang Berdi ay ang sagot logical at biblical ng may akda)
2.2 John 4:24 Ang Dios ay Espiritu
Ayon sa Biblia na salin ni Msgr. Abriol sa Juan 4:24 ang nakalagay: “Ang Diyos ay espiritu at ang mga sumasamba sa kanya ay dapat sumasamba sa espiritu at katotohanan.” Ano ang sabi ng Biblia? “DAPAT ANG SUMASAMBA SA DIYOS AY SUMASAMBA SA ESPIRITO AT HINDI SA IMAHIN O LARAWAN!!!” Ang tanong “Tama ba na labagin ninyo ang utos ng Biblia na Sambahin ang Diyos sa espiritu at hindi sa larawan”?
-Napapansin po natin sa itaas; na kahit naipaliwanag na nating maiigi ang ating doctrina hinggil sa larawan o imahi, hindi parin tumitigil ang pag gawa ng conclusion ng ating mga kapatid na mga protestante. Ang tanong po ng ating kapatid na “Tama ba na labagin ninyo ang utos ng Biblia na Sambahin ang Diyos sa espiritu at hindi sa larawan”?-ay mali sapagkat ang kanyang tanong ay tinatawag na fallacy of complex question or fallacy of presumption; dapat nating maunawaan na hindi pa napatunayan ng mga kapatid nating mga protestante na tayo ay nakalabag ba talaga sa Juan 4:24.
Tama ba ang pag-unawa ng ating mga kapatid na protestante hingil sa Juan 4:24??? Ang citas na ito ba ay nag-aalis o nagtatanggal ng aral hinggil sa larawan o imahi (Exo. 25:18-22)? Ano ba ang nakalagay sa Biblia hinggil dito?
Napatunayan na natin na nagpagawa ng mga imahi ang Dios (Exo. 25:18-22) at itoy inilalagay sa Kanyang templo (2 Cron. 3:7, 10-14).
Exo. 25:18-22 (Living Bible) “Then make images of angels, using beaten gold, and place them at the two ends of the lid of the Ark. They shall be one piece with the mercy place, and shall have wings spread out above the gold lid. Install the lid upon the Ark, and the place within the Ark the tables of stone I shall give you. And I will meet with you there and talk with you from above the place of mercy between the cherubim; and the Ark will contain the laws of my covenant. There I will tell you my commandments for the people of Israel.” (Emphasis added)
Sa nasambit na natin sa itaas na ang templo ng Dios ay may mga imahe; at nasa instinct na natin na sa templo ng Dios ay doon magsasamba. Narito po ang ebidensya:
2 Cron. 7:15-16 (RSV) “Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place. For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time.”
2 Cron. 7:15-16 (Ang Banal na Biblia) “Mabubuksan na ang aking mga mata at makikinig na ang aking mga pandinig sa panalangin ginagawa sa dakong ito; yayamang pinili ko na pinabanal ang templong ito upang manatili dito magpakailan man ang aking pangalan at dumito sa lahat ng araw ang aking mga mata at puso.”
Ano ang nakalagay? Sa templo ng Dios na may mga banal na imahe tayo magsasamba sa Dios. Napakalinaw po na kahit ang Dios ay espiritu; eh hindi niya ikinagagalit ang pagsamba sa Kanya doon sa templo na may mga imahi, bagkus ini-utos pa Niya na doon siya sasambahin sa isang templong may mga imahi ng mga banal na anghil magpakailanman.
Dapat rin nating malaman na sa mga imahi o larawan ng mga anghil; nanahanan ang kaluwalhatian ng Dios; narito po ang mga ebidensya.
Eze. 11:22 (Ang Banal na Biblia) “Pagkatapos, itinaas ng mga Kerubin ang kanilang mga pakpak at kumilos din sa kasama nila ang mga gulong, samantalang nasa itaas sa kanila ang kaluwalhatian ng Diyos ng Israel.”
Eze. 11:18-22 (Douay Rheims) And the glory of the Lord went forth from the threshold of the temple: and stood over the cherubims. And the cherubims lifting up their wings, were raised from the earth before me: and as they went out, the wheels also followed: and it stood in the entry of the east gate of the house of the Lord: and the glory of the God of Israel was over them. This is the living creature, which I saw under the God of Israel by the river Chobar: and I understood that they were cherubims. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings: and the likeness of a man’s hand was under their wings. And as to the likeness of their faces, they were the same faces which I had seen by the river Chobar, and their looks, and the impulse of every one to go straight forward.
Num. 7:89 (RSV) “And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.
– Dito sa verse na ito ay ating mababasa na nakikipag-usap ang Dios kay Moises sa pagitan ng dalawang imahi ng mga cherubim.
1 Sam. 4:4.a (Living Bible) So they sent for the Ark of the Lord of heaven who is enthrone above the angels.”
1 Sam. 4:4 (NAB) “So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there the ark of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned upon the cherubim. The two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were with the ark of God.”
Datapwat; ating maiintindihan diyan sa mga nabanggit na citas ng Bibliya na kahit na ang Dios ay espiritu, ay hindi ibig sabihin na wala ang kanyang kaluwalhatian sa dalawang sagradong istatwa ng mga anghil bagkus ito po ay naninirahan tanda ng Kanyang presensya.
Ayon sa Biblia sa sulat ni apostol Pablo sa Roma 11: 4 (Living Bible) “And do you remember how God replied? God said, No, you are not the only one left. I have seven thousand others besides you who still love me and have not bowed down to idols.”
Napakalinaw po na hindi dapat luluhod sa imahin; eh ang tanong: “Bakit hindi sinunod ang utos ng Dios ng mga Katoliko sa pamamagitan ng pagluluhod nila sa mga diyos-diyosan?
-Sa totoo lang po sinunud po ng mga Katoliko ang citas ng Biblia na nagbabawal sa pagluluhod sa mga diyos-diyosan tulad nila ni:
-Astarte / Chemosh / Milcom (1 Har. 11:33)
-Zeus / Hermes (Buh. 14:12)
-Dagon (1 Sam 5:5-7)
-Artemis (Buh. 19:27)
-Mercury / Jupiter (Buh. 19:35)
-Baal (Roma 11:4 RSV)
Sa Roma 11:4 ang naka lagay po doon ay si Baal at hindi sina Santa Maria, San Pedro, San Pablo, Jesus Christ at iba pang mga pangalan ng mga santo. At wala kang makikita na mga imahi nila ni Astarte, chemosh, milcom at iba pang diyos-diyosan na nabangkit sa itaas, na nasa simbahan ng mga Katoliko.
Sinusunod po namin ang utos na bawal ang pag luhod sa anomang diyos-diyosan, at aral yan ng Santa Iglesia (Fr. M. Guzman; Question and Answer Catholic Catechisism; 1995; page 159).
Eh baka ang ibig sabihin ng ating mga kapatid na protestante; na bakit tayo nagluluhod sa harap ng mga imahi ng mga anghil at mga santo? Ang sagot po natin ay ganito: ang niluluhoran natin ay ang nilalarawanan; at ang pagluhod natin sa imahi ni Cristo ay tanda ng pagsamba natin sa toong Cristo doon sa langit BILANG DIOS (Tito 2:13); at ang pagluhod natin sa mga imahi ng mga santo at anghil ay tanda ng ating pagbibigay galang sa totoong anghil at santo na nandoon rin sa langit (Rev. 8:4).
Kung ganon, bakit tayong mga Katoliko ay nakaluhod sa harap ng mga imahi? Ang sagot po natin ay napaka simple; nakaluhod tayo sa harap ng imahi (peru hindi natin ito sinasamba) dahil ito poy ay biblical o nasa Biblia (ang mga imahi na ito ay yaong imahi ng mga anghil at hindi ito ipinagbawal ng Dios):
Joshua 7:6-7 (RSV) “Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. 7 And Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord GOD, why hast thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!”
–Dito po ating mababasa na si Joshua ay nagpatirapa sa harap ng kaban ng Tipan ni Yahweh; at huwag po natin pakakalimutan na ang kaban ng Dios ay may mga imahi o istatwa ng mga anghil (Exo. 25:18-22 Living Bible).
1 King 8:6-7 (Living Bible) “Then the priest took the Ark into the inner sanctuary of the Temple – The Most Holy Place – and placed it under the wings of the angels. The angels had been constructed in such a manner that their wings spread over the spot where the Ark would be placed; so now their wings overshadow the Ark and its carrying poles.
(Atin pong mababasa na sa Templo ng Dios inilagay ang mga istatwa ng mga anghil)
1 King 8:22-23 (Living Bible) “Then, as all people watched, Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord with hands spread out towards heaven and said, “O Lord God of Israel, there is no god like you in heaven or earth, for you are loving and kind and you keep your promises to your people if they do their best to do your will.”
(Dito po ating mababasa na si Solomon ay nakaharap sa Altar ng Dios na may mga imahi ng mga anghil <1 Har. 8:22-23> at doon siya nagdasal mismo sa harap ng altar ng Dios.)
1 King 8:54-55 (Living Bible) “Solomon had been kneeling with his hands outreached towards heaven. As he finished this prayer, he rose from before the altar of Jehovah and cried out this blessing upon all the people of Israel.”
(Dito po ating mababasa na si Solomon ay nakaluhod habang siya ay nagdadasal sa Dios; sa harap mismo ng mga istatwa ng mga anghil).
2.4 Pag Procession
Sabi ng Biblia sa Psalm 97:7 (RSV) “All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.” Napakalinaw na dapat na ikinahihiya ang mga taong sumasamba ng larawan o imahi. Kayong mga Katoliko, pinapakita rin ninyo ang inyong pagsamba sa mga imahin ninyo sa pamamagitan ng pag procession ng mga ito kung may fiesta o kung anumang okasyon sa inyong simbahan. Ang tanong, hindi ba kayo nahihiya sa pag procession ninyo sa mga diyos-diyosan?
Ayan na naman, fallacious argument na naman; nasambit na natin sa unahan na kung ikaw ay magtatanong hindi ka dapat mag presume sa isang bagay na hindi pa napapatunayan, tulad nalang “kung ang imahin sa simbahan ng Katoliko ay diyos-diyosan ay isang bagay na hindi pa na papatunayan ng ating mga kapatid na mga protestante. Napatunayan na natin sa una palang bahagi ng paksa na ito na sa Bibliya ay dalawang klasing imahi ang pinag-uusapan diyan; ang isa ay ang diyos-diyosan (Exo. 20:4) at ang isa ay ang ipinagagawang mga imahi ng Dios (Exo. 25:18-22; 2 Cron. 3: 7, 10-14).
Ang dapat na tanong hinggil sa paksa ay ganito: “May mababasa bas a Bibliya na pag procession sa mga imahing ipinagagawa ng Dios? Ang sagot po natin ay mayroon, narito ang mga ebedinsya:
2 Sam. 6:2-5 (RSV) “And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, * the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart* with the ark of God; and Ahio went before the ark. And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD with all their might, with songs* and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals.” (Emphasis added)
-Dito napakalinaw na nag procession si Hari David sa imahi nga mga Cherubim.
Joshua 6:1-9 (Living Bible) “The gates of Jericho were kept tightly shut because the people were afraid of the Israelis; no one was allowed to go in or out. But the Lord said to Joshua, “Jericho and its king and all its mighty warriors are already defeated, for I have given them to you! Your entire army is to walk around the city once a day fox six days, followed by seven priest waking ahead of the Ark, each carrying a trumpet made from ram’s horn. On seventh day you are to walk with around the city seven times, with the priests blowing their trumpets. Then, when they give one long, loud blast, all the people are mighty shout and the walls of the city will fall down; then move in upon the city fro every direction. So Joshua summoned the priests and gave them their instructions: the armed men would lead the procession followed by seven priests blowing continually on their trumpets. Behind them would come the priest carrying the Ark, followed by a rearguard.” (Emphasis added)
-Ating pong mababasa word-4-word na nag procession si Joshua sa Arka ng Dios, at ang Arka ng Dios ay may imahi ng mga anghil (Exo. 25:18-22).
Nasagutan napo naton ang mga tanong.
Kung gusto ninyong basahin ang unang bahagi ng paksang ito; paki click ang link na ito:
Kung gusto n’yo namang pumunta sa ikatlong bahagi ng artikolong ito; paki click lang po sa link na ito:
Modernist Biblical Scholars either Catholic or Protestant, propagate their belief that the Genesis account of creation are consciously planned narratives taken from ancient Mesopotamian creation narratives. The New Jerome Bible Handbook is guilty of this liberalistic interpretation of the Genesis account.
In Mesopotamian culture, the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories, not through abstract reasoning. . . The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world. The New Jerome Bible Handbook, page 16
Not contented in endorsing their liberal views, they now turn their attention to the traditional view of Genesis and criticized it.
Some readers even end up concentrating on defending a “literal interpretation” of chapters 1-3, in particular, against modern evolutionary theory, something that the ancient authors of Genesis, with their tolerance of different versions, would never have done. Ibid.
Although it is not a dogma of the Catholic Faith that Genesis is either a myth or historical, yet we are obliged to accept with religious assent that the Genesis account on creation is historical narrative in the literal sense. Rejection of this truth will lead to 1.) Polygenism, the belief that the human race did not originate from Adam and Eve through natural generation but from a certain number of first parents. 2.) Reject the traditional belief that Adam and Eve are the progenitor of the human race, and 3.) Rejection of original sin. Through the ordinary magisterium the Church against these errors affirmed that we must hold a literal historical view on the Genesis account of creation. Pope St. Pius X in his Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, tells us without exception to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether issued or to be issued. And warns everyone not to disobey the said decisions nor can anyone who by word or by writing attacks the said decrees.
We now declare and expressly enjoin that all without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are no matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and rashness or be therefore without grave fault.Praestantia Scripturae, Pope St.Pius X
The summary of the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission are the following,
1. The first three chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet objectivae realiti et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122
2. In so far as it is a matter of facts, which touch the foundation of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), the literal historical sense is to be adhered to. Such facts are, inter alia, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time, and the special creation of humanity. D 2123
This literal historical view of Genesis is not only limited to the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but it was reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis. Pius XII reiterated the ancient traditional belief the Church the Adam and Eve are not just a mere symbol of a certain number of people but are truly historical characters.
When, however, there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. Humani Generis No.37
Even if it is a unanimous teaching of the Church that Genesis must be taken in a literal historical sense, yet there are even Catholic authors who do not hesitate to criticize the literal sense of the Genesis account. Such is a case when a Catholic apologist refuted Protestant arguments using a liberlistic view of the Sacred Scripture.
Lingid sa kaalaman ng marami wala ng modernong iskolar ng Biblia ang tumatanggap sa Genesis 1-11 bilang isang literal o makasaysayan pangyayari. Dahil dito, naniniwala ang my akda na ang pag-iwas sa makabagong pamamaraan ng pagsusuri ay katumbas na rin ng pagmamaliit o pagtuya sa likas na kakayahan ng mga dalubhasa. Araling Pambiblia Para Sa Mga Dinedebateng Katoliko, footnote no.28, page 27
Unknown the the knowledge of many, there are no more modern biblical scholar that accepts Genesis 1-11 as literal and historical event. Because of this, the author believes that avoiding to utilize the modern method of [Biblical study] is equivalent to degrading the ability of the scholars.
The logical flaw to this kind of reasoning is 1.) It assumes that all Biblical scholars nowadays no longer accept Genesis 1-11 as a historical event, 2.) It assumes that the collective opinion of Biblical scholar is the final authority in interpreting the Sacred Scripture. However this is not the case, even if we assume that all Biblical Scholar nowadays no longer accept Genesis as literal historical event, yet it does not invalidate nor change the traditional and orthodox stand of the Church. They can bark all day long but the Church will not change what Sacred Tradition laid down for us. And the collective opinion of Biblical scholar is not above the Magisterium (reread Prestantia Scrpturae) it is subject to the judgment of the Magisterium. We are not oblige to submit to the opinions and findings of the Biblical scholars but we are oblige to submit to the decrees of the Church. We can contradict and criticize scholars but we cannot reject, attack and criticize the decrees of the Magisterium.
Modern day theologians sided with the Church regarding the issue whether Genesis is historical or myth.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was asked the following question: “May one question the literal historical sense of these chapters [Genesis 1-3] when they deal with facts that touch the fundamental points of Christian religion?. . . The answer was “The literal historical sense may not be questioned.” The accounts of these events in Sacred Scripture are NOT MYTHS or LEGENDS, or MORALIZING FABLES, but HISTORICAL NARRATIVES in the LITERAL SENSE. Faith Seeking Understanding, page 198, Charles Belmonte (my emphasis)
The Catholic Bible Dictionary also clarifies that the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission regarding the creation account may not be questioned or doubted.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission enumerated nine “narrated facts” in Genesis whose “literal and historical meaning” should not be questioned: 1. The creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; 2. The special creation of man; 3. The formation of the first woman from man; 4. The unity of the human race; 5. The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; 6. The divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; 7. the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; 8. The fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; 9. The promise of a future redeemer. Catholic Bible Dictionary, page 308, Ed. Dr. Scott Hahn
Therefore, in obedience to the Magisterium of the Church we must reject the opinion that Genesis is a myth, and accept the ancient tradition of the Church that the Genesis account on creation is a historical narrative in the literal sense.
Bro. G-one T. Paisones
In this essay, we would like to outline some of the paramount attacks and criticisms of our Catholic doctrine regarding Petrine Primacy. We are also dealing here in answering those attacks and criticism, using primarily the Bible and the writing of the successors of the apostles (Church Fathers) as the tools in our apologetics discussion. We can see below the question/critics-and-answer format to give much evidence in justifying the Petrine Primacy base in the Bible and in the early Christian paradigms.
Please take note, that the protestant article will be labeled in red font; while our immediate and Biblical reply is in Green font.
In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)
The title “Pope” is from the Italian language “papa” and Greek word “papas” which means father. In Matt 16:18-19 Jesus gives Peter the keys of kingdom of heaven. Among all apostles; Peter is only the one who receive the keys and it is referred to Isaiah 22:22 in which Shebna the chief steward of the old Davidic kingdom pass his office to Eliakim. Those the Lord Almighty place in the shoulder of Eliakim the key of house of David. The Lord Almighty put the authority over Eliakim in which Eliakim opens the house of David that no-one can shut, and what Eliakim’s shut no-one can open.
God promise to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth (Psalm 89:3-4); those Saint Matthew clearly establishes the tie of David to Jesus (Matt 1:1). Saint Luke wrote in the gospel that angel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given the throne of His father David (Luke 1:32). As Christ give alone to Peter the keys (Mat 16:19), Peter now become the father of God’s people or the church- it is referred to Eliakim which the Lord Almighty made him the father of Jerusalem (Isaiah 20:21). It is the reason why Catholics called the successor of Peter- Pope or Father based on the Bible.
Why we call our Pope “Holy” (Santo)? We call our pope as Holy because the meaning of this word is person separated or dedicated to God as indicated by our standard reference below:
SAINT-in a religious sense it means that which is separated or dedicated to God, and therefore remove from secular use. The word is applied to people, places, and things (e.g. the temples, vessels, garments, the city of Jerusalem, priest). In a personal sense it means holy. (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 518)
Is Peter a priest? The answer is YES! And it can read in the Bible. The Pope’s title “Holy Father” is truly Biblical, even it does not explicitly appear in the Bible but we can understand it; through implicit manner of correct exegesis or interpretation of the Bible.
(For more information about calling our priest as “father” please click this link:
Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a Vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows:
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”
Catholics believe that the Pope is not an absolute God (Tandaman sa Pagtuong Katoliko by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 77). Therefore the assertion of our protestant brothers in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 could not apply to the Catholic Church.
We Call the Pope the “Vicar of Christ” because the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter the first Vicar of Christ. In establishing the Pope as Vicar of Christ; first we need to prove that Saint Peter was the (first) Vicar of Christ here on earth when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven. Here are the arguments:
->Christ is the Shepherd of the Flock (John 10: 11-16)
->Christ commissioned Peter to Shepherd his sheep (John 21:15-17)
->This happened in the post-resurrection period (when Jesus Christ commission Peter to be His Vicar or He place Peter to be a Shepherd of His flock as He is)
->History attests that Saint Peter has successor (Church History by John Laux)
The teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope is Vicar of Christ is truly Biblical.
The Catholics today speak of the Pope as vicar, taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God, Matt. 1:23; John 1:1), yet there is only one passage in the entire Bible which speaks of a man doing such and it calls him “the man of sin.”
Catholic speak that the Vicar-ship of the Pope is not to the extend that the Pope is equal to God, but Vicar-ship of His (Jesus Christ) works here on earth such as strengthen and establish his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible.
Did our protestant brothers agree that Christ commissioned Peter in strengthening and establishing his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible?
Pope Benedict xvi
James Cardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Archbishop said, “Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 82) The apostle Paul said, “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no other foundation but Christ! Therefore, any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone cannot be the church of Christ.
The meaning of “for other foundation no one can lay” is the churches which found only by (ordinary) human and it is not Christ’ founded church (Act 17:24 KJV “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands,”) – example of this man made church is the Protestant Churches which founded only by men any where in the world.
We had already established the meaning of 1 Cor. 3:11 “for other foundation no one can lay”. In the foundation of the true church; Peter, apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ-the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60).Christ promise that He is with the church until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20) and the gates of Hades (Death) shall not prevail against the church (Matt 16:18). Therefore Matt 16:18 and Eph 2:20 are not contradict to 1 Cor. 3:11.
Protestant Churches are not the true church because Christ’ said that He will establish a church (Matt 16:18); Christ had already finished founded His church when He still on earth (Matt 18:17), and He is with the church everyday until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20) therefore from the time of Apostolic period until nowadays the true church continue to struggled and still exist- and this church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church.
Therefore James Cardinal Gibbons is correct when he said in his book that “Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God.” The contention of Cardinal Gibbons above is base on the Bible and Patristic Writings.
Pope Innocent X
Catholic writers often speak of “the primacy of Peter” and “the primacy of the Pope.” However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, “And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy…” Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!
Take note that the Bible used by our protestant brothers may be it is the Douay Rheims Bible, a Catholic Translation of the Bible. Catholic believes that Christ has the ultimate Primacy here on earth Col. 1:18 (DRB). But Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People (John 21:15-17). Therefore Christ made Peter the Bishop (or overseer) of all Bishop and all his people.
The doctrine of Catholic Church regarding the “Primacy of Peter and/or the Pope does not mean that the Pope (or Peter) is above all things making himself equal to God. The primacy of Pope to all Catholic bishops, priests, deacons and all members of Catholic Church are in the following conditions:
-as visible head of the church
-as Bishop of the Bishops
-in matters of (universal) church Governance
-as successor of Saint Peter
-In teaching (address to all people) regarding of Faith and Morals (when the Pope speaks EX-CATHEDRA).
Pope Pius X
Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church. Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
“The pope, therefore, as vicar of Christ, is the visible head of Christ’s kingdom on earth, the Church, of which Christ Himself is the invisible head.” (Answer Wisely, by Martin J. Scott, p. 49).
“According to the will of Christ, all its members profess the same faith, have the same worship and Sacraments, and are united under the one and same visible head, the Pope.” (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, by John F. Noll and Lester J. Fallon, p. 42)
Catholic officials always use the word “visible” no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18; Emp. mine D.R.).
Catholics believe that Christ is the head of the Church (Eph 5:23 TNIV “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”) (The Documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Number 7- “The Head of this body is Christ.”)
After His Resurrection, our savior handed his works (as a shepherd) to Peter; as a shepherd in his people (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and other apostles to propagate and govern her (cf. Mt. 28:18 ff.). Here, He firmly guide the church for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsist in the Catholic Church, which govern by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, posses an inner dynamism toward Catholic unity. (The Documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Number 8)
Please take note that our Protestant brother uses a Catholic Bible translation- the Douay Rheims Bible. Catholic believe that all authority in heaven and earth has given by God to his summoned people (Mat 28:18), and Christ give an authority to his disciples to preach the Good News (Mat 28:19), to make disciples of all nations (Mat 28:19), to teach them to obey everything had commanded by Him (Mat 28:20), to forgive the sins of anyone their sins are forgiven; and do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20:23), and the authority of binding and loosing (Mat 18:18).
Among of the apostles, Peter had given by Christ a higher authority: Christ gives to Peter alone, the keys of kingdom of Heaven (Mat 16:19), Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People (John 21:15-17), and Christ appoint in strengthen and establish his brethren (Luke 22:32).
Luke 17:20-21 says, “And on being asked by the Pharisees, ‘When is the kingdom of God coming?’ he answered and said to them, The kingdom of God comes unawares. Neither will they say, ‘Behold, here it is,’ or ‘Behold, there it is.’ For behold the kingdom of God is within you.” The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king.
Eph. 5:23-25 shows that Christ is the only head of the church. “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.” Consequently, the wife is subject to her husband as the church is to Christ. Just as the wife is subject to only one head–her husband, the church is subject to only one head–Christ. Just as the husband does not send a substitute to rule over his wife, Christ does not authorize a substitute to rule over His bride, the church.
Catholics often use the expression, “One fold and one shepherd” to sustain the doctrine of the papacy. (See Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 59, q. 3). They teach that the “one shepherd” is the Pope and the “one fold” represents the Catholic Church. Hear what Jesus said about it:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep…I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John 10:11, 14-16).
Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one can understand that one and one equals two, he can understand this. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherd–that’s one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd–that’s two!
Thank you for your contention above and because of your contention; it is easy in my task to prove that Christ is the spiritual head of the church and the Pope is the visible head of the church. I would agree with you that “Christ is the spiritual head” but I would not agree with you that “The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king.”
In my previous contention; I said that in the Bible; we must not limit our understanding in a term, phrase and sentence. Sometimes a term where used as a figurative sense (Biblical Expression) and many times as a literal sense.
The phrase “Kingdom of God” has different meaning in the Bible:
Kingdom of God- (Gr. Basileia tou theou). The word kingdom is capable of three different meanings:(1) the realm over which a monarch reigns, (2) the people over whom he or she reigns, and (3) the actual reign or rule it self. In English the third use of the word is archaic and so is not always given its rightful place in discussion of the term; but in Greek and Hebrew, this is the primary meaning. All three meanings are found in NT… 1. The kingdom of God is sometimes the people of the kingdom (Rev 1:6; 5:10)… 2. The kingdom of God is the realm in which God’s reign is experience… 3. The kingdom is also God’s reign or rule… NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil., Page 333) <emphasis mine>
And the meaning of the church:
CHURCH- the English word derives from the Greek word kuriakos (belonging to the Lord), but it stands for another Greek word “ekklesia” (whence “ecclesiastical”), denoting an assembly… When we turn to Acts, the situation changes, the saving work has been fulfilled, and the NT church can thus have its birthday at Pentecost. The term is now used regularly to describe local groups of believers…It is a building of which Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone or foundation (Eph 2:20-22), the fellowship of saints or people of God (1 Peter 2:9), the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-26), and the body of Christ, he being the head and Christians the members (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph 4:4, 12, 15-17).NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil., Page 121) <emphasis mine>
The people of the kingdom of God are the church, which is the body of Christ. Therefore the people of the kingdom of God or the church are visible (a building).
We already establish that Peter commission by Christ to shepherd his people (John 21:15-17); hence making Peter the Bishop of the Bishops and the flock. Therefore Peter is the leader, superintendent and head of the church.
The meaning of word “Head” in the scripture:
HEAD-(Heb. Ro’sh, Gr. Kephalē). The OT uses ro’sh 592 times, translated “chief,” “leader,” “top,” “company,” “beginning,” “captain,” and “hair” but in most often “head,” sometimes used figuratively (e.g., Exod. 18:25; Josh 2:19; 1 Sam 28:2; 2 Sam 3:8; Job 10:15, 20:6). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 242
And we can read in the Bible that peter is a leader, literally!!!
We have delineate the scriptural or biblical evidence of the uniqueness of apostle Peter compare to the other apostles, and these uniqueness (as the leader) are the solid foundation and scriptural proof that Peter is the first pope.
-Pauper, Servus et Humilis-