ANG PAGKA-APOSTOLIKANHON SA SIMBAHAN

ANG PAGKA-APOSTOLIKANHON SA SIMBAHAN

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender

 

 

Apologetics on Mass

Agosto 8, 2012

 

 

Ang Simbahan nga gitukod ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo gitawag og “APOSTOLIKA,” kun may kinaiya nga APOSTOLIKANHON. (CFC 1407)

 

Ang pulong APOSTOLIKA gikan sa pinulongang Griego nga “apostellein” o “apostolos” nga nagkahulogan sa Ingles og “apostle.” Sa binisaya nagkahulogan kini’g “pinadala.” Mao kini ang etymology kun etimolohiya, o sa pulong nga APOSTOLIKA.

 

Kay ang Simbahan nga Iyang gitukod mao Iyang gitahasan nga mopadayon sa Iyang hamiling misyon. Gumikan niini, si Cristo ang NAGPADALA sa Iyang Simbahan ngadto sa kalibotan sa nagkalain-laing mga paagi.

 

Ug ang Simbahan ni Cristo Iyang gitukod diha sa pundasyon sa mga APOSTOLES.

 

Efeso 2:20-22 –  “Gitukod KAMO diha sa sukaranan nga gipahimutang sa mga apostoles ug sa mga propeta, ug ang bato nga gisukaran nga mao si Cristo Jesus. Siya mao ang nagsagang sa tibuok balay hangtod nga nahimo kining templo nga balaan sa Ginoo. Uban sa tanang magtutuo kamo usab nga nahiusa Kaniya gihimong usa ka balay diin nagpuyo ang Diyos pinaagi sa Iyang Espiritu.”

 

Dinhi, dayag kaayo ang giingon ni San Pablo, nga gitukod ang atong Simbahan diha sa sukaranan nga gipahimutang sa mga APOSTOLES, nga ato pa,  MGA PINADALA. Ug ang bato nga gisukaran niining simbahana mao si Cristo. Si Cristo mismo ang nagsagang sa tibuok balay ug nahimo kining BALAAN NGA TEMPLO SA GINOO. Nahiusa kitang tanan kang Cristo, ug gihimo kitang usa ka balay diin NAGPUYO ANG DIYOS PINAAGI SA IYANG ESPIRITU.

 

Kay diha sa Roma 1:1-5, giangkon mismo ni San Pablo nga “ulipon” siya ni Cristo Jesus, ug gipili pagka-APOSTOL. Sa laktod, gitawag siya sa Diyos ug gihimong APOSTOL o PINADALA aron pagmatala sa Maayong Balita ni Cristo (1 Corinto 1:1 ug sa 2 Corinto 1:1).

 

Sayod ‘ta nga si San Pablo usa ka Judio, kinsa gitawag sa Diyos sa wala pa siya matawo (Buhat 9:4-6; Galacia 1:13-15). Ug sa dihang misaka na si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo sa Langit, GIPADALA siya sa Diyos ingon nga sulugoon diha sa Iglesya aron sa pagpadayon sa misyon ni Cristo dinhi sa kalibotan (Colosas 1:24-29).//

 

Ang SIMBAHAN gipalakaw ni Cristo sa tibuok kalibotan, ug gisugo sa pagtudlo sa tanang mga pagtulon-an nga Iyang gitudlo. Sa laktod, ang Simbahan maoy nagtipig sa tanang mga balaanong pagtulon-an ni Cristo nga Iyang gitudlo ug gisalig sa Iyang mga APOSTOL, o sa Iyang mga PINADALA.

 

Mateo 28:19-20 – “Busa panglakaw kamo ngadto sa tanang katawhan sa tibuok kalibotan ug HIMOA SILA NGA AKONG MGA TINUN-AN…ug tudloi sila sa pagtuman sa tanan nga Akong gitudlo ug gisugo kaninyo. Ug hinumdomi! Ako mag-uban kaninyo sa kanunay hangtod sa kataposan sa kalibotan.”

 

Ang mga Obispo mao ang mga sumusonod sa mga Apostol

 

Ang mga pagpanudlo sa mga APOSTOL ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo wala kini bugto nga nagdagayday gikan kaniadto hangtod karon, ug nagpabilin kining buhi ug dalisay.//

 

Ang mga APOSTOL sayod ‘ta nga giordinahan o gipili sila ni Cristo.

 

Mark 3:13-14 – “He goeth up unto the mountain, and calleth unto Him who He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and He might send them forth to preach” (King James Version).

 

Binsaya: “Ug mitungas si Jesus sa bungtod ug gitawag niya ang mga tawo nga buot niyang pillion. Nanuol sila kaniya, ug nagpili siyag napulog-duha nga iyang gitawag og mga apostoles. Miingon siya kanila, ‘Gipili ko kamo aron makig-uban kanako ug ipadala ko kamo aron pagwali’ ” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Kaniadto, ang mga APOSTOL nag-ordinar usab og mga obispo. Walay bugto kining maong gimbuhaton. Kay gikan kaniadto hangtod karon, ang Simbahan nagpadayon sa pagpahimutang og mga kaobispohan, ug kini sila ang mga sumosunod sa mga Apostoles ni Cristo.

 

Ug pinaagi niini, natipigan ug napreserbar pag-ayo ang mga pagtulon-an ni Cristo nga Iyang gitisok ug gitudlo sa unang mga sakop sa Simbahan; sa unang mga lider sa Simabahan nga mao ang mga Apostol.

 

 

Ang Santa Iglesya makapakita mismo og mga ebidensiya nga siya gikan ug may kadugtongan gayod sa mga APOSTOLES. Kay sukad sa sinugdan, ang Simbahan padayong nagbaton og mga kaobispohan nga maoy mga sumosunod sa mga APOSTOL ni Cristo.

 

Ug labaw sa tanan, ang Simbahang Katoliko nagbaton sa walay bugto nga kutay sa mga pangulo – nga mao ang mga SANTO PAPA – gikan pa kang San Pedro Apostol hangtod karon ni Papa Benedicto XVI.

 

Ug kining walay bugto nga kutay sa mga pangulo natala ug nahasulat kini diha sa mga libro sa Kasaysayan.

 

Usa sa mga libro nga nagtala sa walay bugto nga kutay sa mga PANGULO sa Santa Iglesya Katolika mao ang  “The Time Almanac,” 2006 Edition, pp. 367-369, diin naa diha ang listahan sa mga Church leaders – from Saint Peter down to our own time, to Pope Benedict XVI. (Nia aning maong libro!)//

 

Dugang niini, ang tanang mga historian dili gayod makanigar nga ang Simbahang Katoliko gikan gayod sa mga APOSTOLES. Mao kini ang bugtong Simabahan nga nagsumikad sa mga tinun-an sa Ginoo, ug nagpadayon hangtod karon.

 

Ang usa ka inilang libro sa kalibotan nga ang The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 26, 15th Edition, p. 928, nagkanayon: Roman Catholicism – A Christian Church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure. Traces its history to the college of Apostles in the 1st Century Church.” 

 

Binisaya: Romano Katoliko – Usa ka Kristohanong Simbahan nga naila sa iyang kahiusahan, ug dili matukib nga kalambuan sa pagtulon-an ug malig-ong kahugpon. Maganid sa pagsubay ang iyang kasaysayan ngadto sa kahugpongan sa mga Apostlol sa unang siglo pa nga Simbahan.”

 

Ang New Book of Knowledge Encyclopedia, Vol. 16, p. 287, Copy Right in 1971, nagkanayon: “The history of

the Roman Catholic Church began in Upper Room in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago…The Church maybe

described as the Society founded by Jesus.”

 

Bibisaya:  “Ang kasaysayan sa Romano Katoliko nagsugod sa Upper Room sa Jerusalem mga 2000 na ka tuig  

ang nakalabay…Ang Simbahan mahimong tawgon nga Katilingban nga gitukod ni Jesus.”

 

Samtang laing standard ug walay gidapigan ng libro nga mao ang Glorier Encycclopedia, Vol. V, p. 106, nagbutyag: Catholic Church. Term generally applied to the Divine society founded by Jesus Christ, and endowed by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. More specifically the name denotes the body of the faithful in communion of the Bishop of Rome, hence often called Roman Catholics.”

 

Binisaya: Iglesya Katolika. Ang pulong nga kasagarang gidapat sa Langitnong katilingban nga gitukod ni Jesu-Cristo, ug gipadad-an sa gasa sa Espiritu Santo sa adlaw sa Pentecostes. Ug sa tino gayod, ang ngalan nagpaila sa kahugpongan sa mga magtutuo nga may kaambitan sa Obispo sa Roma, hinongdan nga gitawag kini’g Romano Katoliko.”//

 

Mao kini APOSTOLIKANHONG kinaiya sa Simbahan nga gitukod ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo. Kining Iglesyaha o pundoka, mao kini ang IGLESYA KATOLIKA ROMANA, nga maoy Iyang gitahasan nga mopadayon sa Iyang misyon dinhi sa kalibotan. Ug niining maong Iglesya, diha Niya gitisok ang tanan Niyang mga pagtulon-an. GISUGO ug GIPADALA Niya kini aron sa pagmantala sa Maayong Balita sa kaluwasan sa tibuok kalibotan./

 

Marcos 16:15 – “Siya miingon KANILA, ‘Panglakaw kamo sa tibuok kalibotan ug isangyaw kining Maayong Balita ngadto sa tanang mga tawo. Ang motuo ug magpabunyag maluwas, apan ang dili motuo, silotan.’ ”

 

Pangutana: Kinsa ba ‘ning “KANILA?”

 

Tubag: Kini sila mao ang unang mga miyembro sa Iglesya, nga mao ang mga APOSTOLES – nga Iyang mga PINADALA.

 

Juan 20:21 – “Ingon nga gipadala Ako sa Amahan, Ako usab magpadala kaninyo.”

 

Ug kining SIMBAHAN nga Iyang gitukod, Iyang gipadala ngadto sa mga hentil aron makaangkon usab sila sa kaluwasan.

 

Buhat 13:47 – “Gibutang ko IKAW nga kahayag alang sa mga dili Judio, aron pinaagi KANIMO ang kaluwasan moabot hangtod sa kinatumyan sa kalibotan.”

 

Ang PINADALA kun APOSTOL adunay dakong papel o tahas aron madunggan ug mamantala ang Maayong Balita ni Cristo.

 

Roma 10:14-15 – “Apan unsaon man nila pagsangpit kaniya kon wala sila motuo? Ug unsaon man nila pagtuo kon wala nila hindunggi ang mensahe? Ug unsaon man nila pagkadungog kon wala kini iwali? Ug unsaon man pagwali sa mensahe kon WALAY GIPADALA NGA MAGWAWALI?”

 

Mao kini ang nagpahiping hinongdan sa pagka-APOSTOLIKANHON sa IGLESYA nga gitukod ni Cristo. Ug kining iglesyaha walay lain, mao kini ang atong SIMBAHAN, ang Iglesya Katolika Apostolika Romana!

 

 

 

 

 

ANG ADLAW NGA IGPAPAHULAY

ANG ADLAW NGA IGPAPAHULAY

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” F. Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender

 

Apologetics on Mass

March 11, 2012

 

Ang birtud sa hustisya, nangayo nga itugyan nato sa Diyos ang unsa nga angay Kaniya. Sanglit nautang man nato ang tanan gikan Kaniya,  nan kinahanglan usab nga motugyan kita og ADLAW aron sa pagsimba ug pagpasidungog Kaniya.

 

Pangutana:  Aduna bay adlaw nga gibendisyonan sa Diyos, aron atong gamiton sa pagbalaan kun pagsimba Kaniya?

 

Ania ang tubag:

 

Gipanalanginan sa Diyos ang ikapitong adlaw ug gibalaan Niya kini kay sa maong adlaw natapos Niya ang Iyang pagpamuhat ug mipahulay Siya” (Genesis 2:3, Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Ug sa ikapito ka adlaw mao ang balaan nga pagkatigom alang sa Ginoo nga imong Diyos” (Deuteronomio 16:8).

 

Pangutana: Kini bang ikapito ka adlaw human sa paglalang sa Diyos sa kalibotan, mao ba kini ang ikapito ka adlaw sa atong kalendaryo karon?

 

Ang tubag: DILI. Kay ang adlaw sa pagpanglalang sa Diyos sa tanang mga butang, wala magpasabot nga sulod sa kawhaag upat ka takna kun baynte kwatro oras, kondili sa yugto sa panahon, kun duration of event. Kini tungod kay ang adlaw sa Ginoo dili sama sa adlaw sa tawo.

 

2 Pedro 3:8 – “…nga alang sa Ginoo ang usa ka adlaw ingon sa usa ka libo ka tuig, ug ang usa ka libo ka tuig ingon sa usa ka adlaw” (Ang Bugna Biblia, SDA Version).

 

Wala buhata sa Diyos ang kalibotan sulod lamang sa pito (7) ka adlaw kun 24 oras, kondili gibuhat Niya pinaagi sa Iyang PULONG.

 

Salmo 33:6 – “Pinaagi sa Iyang PULONG, gibuhat sa GINOO ang kalangitan, ang adlaw, ang bulan, ug ang kabituonan.”

 

Ug si San Pablo midason sa pag-ingon: “Pinaagi sa pagtuo masabtan nato nga gibuhat ang kalibotan pinaagi sa PULONG SA DIYOS, ug ang atong makita gihimo gikan sa mga butang nga dili nato makita” (Hebreo 11:3, Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Labot pa, ang Diyos dili literal nga mipahulay kay dili man Siya maluya ni kapuyan (Isaias 40:28). Ang Apostolic Letter ni Pope John Paul II kabahin sa pagbalaan sa Adlaw sa Ginoo kun Lord’s Day, dayag nga nag-ingon: “The divine rest of the seventh day does not allude to an inactive God, but emphasizes the fullness of what has been accomplished” (Dies Domini, p. 13).

 

Nga kung atong sabton sa binisaya, ang pagpahulay Diyos sa ikapito ka adlaw wala nagpasabot nga wala na Siya maglihok, apan kini nagpadayag sa katumanan ug kahingpitan sa Iyang pagpanglalang.//

 

Pangutana: Nagsugo ba gayod ang Diyos sa mga tawo sa pagbalaan og usa ka adlaw alang Kaniya?

 

Tubag:  Oo! Kay nalakip ug nalatid kini diha sa Napulo ka Sugo sa Diyos.

 

Exodo 20:8-10 – “Hinumdomi ang Adlaw nga Igpapahulay ug balaana kini. Magtrabaho kamo sulod sa unom ka adlaw, apan ang ikapitong adlaw, Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay nga gigahin alang Kanako. Ayaw kamo pagtrabaho nianang adlawa, ni ang inyong mga anak, mga ulipon, mga kahayopan, ug ang mga langyaw nga nagpuyo sa inyong mga lungsod” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Dinhi, ang Diyos gayod ang nagsugo nga mogahin kita’g usa (1) ka adlaw alang Kaniya; ug sa pagpahulay sa atong mga pamuhat alang sa panginabuhi ug sa panginahanglan nga lawasnon.

 

Kay kung atong usisahon pag-ayo ang Exodo 20:8-10, wala naghisgot diha og week kun semana. Wala usab naghisgot sa seventh day of the week kun ikapitong adlaw sa semana. Ug labaw sa tanan, wala diha nalitok ang pulong SATURDAY. The passage says: SEVENTH DAY AFTER SIX WORKING DAYS kun ikapito ka adlaw human sa unom ka adlaw nga paghago.

 

DILI gayod adlaw nga Saturday ang gipahulayan sa Diyos paghuman Niya sa pagbuhat sa kalibotan ug ang tanan nga ania niini. Kay ang standard calendar sa unang panahon mao ang gitawag og Egyptian Calendar, nga nahimo niadtong 4241 B.C.  Busa, wala pa ‘tay matumbok nga adlaw, ug labaw sa tanan, wala pay kalendaryo diin diha nato mailhan ug makita ang ngalan sa mga adlaw, sama sa kalendaryo nga atong gitamod karong panahona.

 

Kay sa 2 Pedro 3:8, giingon man nga ‘ang usa ka adlaw sa Diyos, usa man ka libo ka tuig sa tawo.’ Busa sa literal, dili takdo ang ikapitong adlaw sa atong kalendaryo karon, nga mao ang SATURDAY kun Sabado.

 

Kay si San Pablo miingon: “Libre ang matag usa sa pagsunod hain niini ang hugot niyang gituohan. Ang naghunahuna nga mas balaan ang usa ka adlaw kay sa ubang adlaw, nagpasidungog sa Ginoo” (Roma 14:5-6, Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Sa laktod, si San Pablo nagpadayag nga makapili tag adlaw’ng igpapahulay. Kay ang igpapahulay gibuhat man alang sa kaayohan natong mga tawo.

 

Marcos 2:27-28 – “Unya miingon si Jesus, ‘Ang Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay gibuhat alang sa kaayohan sa tawo, apan wala buhata ang tawo alang sa kaayohan alang sa adlaw’ng Igpapahulay. Busa ang Anak sa Tawo maoy magbuot sa angay buhaton bisan sa Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay’ ” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Kung ato kining hatagan og analogy, ang sapatos gibuhat alang sa kaayohan sa tiil, ug wala buhata ang tiil alang sa kaayohan sa sapatos. Intonses, may katungod ‘ta sa pagpili og unsang brand, o klase ug porma sa sapatos nga atong gamiton, para sa atong mga tiil.

 

Mao nga ang matag usa makapili sa adlaw nga pagapahulayan.  Ang matag usa makahimo sa pagsugod og pagtrabaho sa bisan unsang adlawa; ug makasugod usab sa pag-ihap sa unom ka adlaw nga paghago. Pananglit, kung Lunes ‘ta nagsugod sa paghago, ang ikapito niana ka adlaw mao ang adlaw’ng Domingo, diin adto ‘ta mopahulay.

 

Kay kon atong paklion ang Balaang Kasolatan, si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo mismo ug ang Iyang mga tinun-an WALA MITAMOD sa Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay sa mga Judio, hinoon ila kining gisupak. Sa Mateo 12:1-8, ang mga tinun-an ni Jesus nangutlog mga uhay sa trigo didto sa kaumahan. Sa Mateo 12:9-14, si Cristo nag-ayo’g masakiton sa Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay. Ingon man sa Juan 5:1-18, ang mga Judio nagsugod sa paglutos ug nagplano sa pagpatay kang Jesus kay gilapas man Niya ang balaod sa Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay, kay nag-ayo man Siya’g mga masakiton.

 

Kay kung atong subayon, kining adlaw’ng igpapahulay nga Sabado kun Saturday, dili kini alang kanatong mga Kristiyanos, kondili alang kini sa mga Judio.

 

Ang listahan sa mga Pulong sa Maayong Balita Biblia, dayag nga nag-ingon: “Adlawng Igpapahulay – Ang ikapitong adlaw sa semana (Sabado). Giisip kini nga balaang adlaw sa mga JUDIO, ug gidili ang pagtrabaho niining adlawa.”

 

Kay ang Diyos, pinaagi kang Moises, naghatag sa mga Judio sa ilang adlaw nga igpapahulay.

 

Nehemias 9:13-14 – “Nanaog ka didto sa Bukid sa Sinai, ug misulti ka nila ug gihatagan mo silag mga balaod, ug gisugo mo sila sa pagtamod sa Adlawng Igpapahulay. Pinaagi sa Imong alagad nga si Moises, gihatagan Mo sila sa Imong mga balaod” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Ug sumala usab sa kasaysayan nga naghubit sa mga panghitabo diha sa Bibliya, ang Sabbath, gihimo sa Diyos mga 2,500 ka tuig sa wala pa ang existence sa mga Judio – human sa paghimo Niya sa kalibotan (Genesis 2:1-3).

 

The Sabbath was made and given to man 2,500 years ago before the existence of a Jew” (Insights from God’s Word by Emmanuel P. Mullaneda, p. 96).

 

Ngani, ang mga Judio ug ang mga manunulat sa Bibliya, wala migamit sa pulong nga “Saturday,” Monday, Sunday, ug uban pang mga ngalan sa mga adlaw sa semana, tungod kay ngalan kini sa mga diyos-diyos nga gisimba sa taga Babylonia sa karaang panahon. Ang inilang libro sa Seventh-day Adventist (SDA), nagmatuod niining tanan:

 

Since the Babylonians worshipped the planets, many anciently began to call the days of the week by the names of the planets. The Hebrews and the Bible writers never did this. This is why, even though the names of the days as we have them today, i.e., Sunday, Monday, etc., existed around the time of Christ, the Bible writers never referred to the days by these names, since they were of Pagan origin. The old Mithra religion from the time of Babylon and Persia led to the naming of the days of the week after the planets” (National Sunday Law by A. Jan Marcussen, p. 91).//

 

Gawas nga gisupak ug wala tahora ni Cristo ang pahulay sa mga Judio nga Sabado kun Saturday, unsa may nagpahipi nga katarungan, nganong Sunday kun Domingo man ang REST DAY kun balaang Adlaw nga Igpapahulay sa Simbahang Katoliko?

 

Ania ang tubag: Una sa tanan, ang mga Judio wala gayod makatuman sa lagda sa ilang igpapahulay taliwala sa istrikto nilang pagsunod niini. Gawas pa, grabeng abuso ang ilang gipanghimo kaniadto atol sa ilang Igpapahulay.

 

Amos 8:5-6 – “Nag-ingon kamo sa inyong mga katigulangan, ‘Dili kami makahulat sa pagkatapos sa balaan nga adlaw aron makapamaligya kami og mga trigo. Kanus-a man matapos ang Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay aron makapaligya kami sa among trigo? Mahalon nato ang presyo niini: gamiton ta ang dili hustong taksanan, ug usbon ang timbangan aron paglimbong sa mga pumapalit. Ibaligya tag mahal ang walay pulos nga trigo. Ug paliton ta ang kabos sa presyo sa usa ka paris nga sandalyas aron mahimo siyang ulipon” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Ug tungod niini, gipahunong sa Ginoo ang ilang Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay.

 

Oseas 2:11 – “Ug hunongon Ko ang tanan niyang kalipay, ang iyang mga pangilin, mga bag-ong subang sa bulan, mga Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay, ug ang tanang gitagal niya nga mga pangilin.” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Ug gumikan niini, ang Diyos naghisgot og “laing adlaw” nga igpapahulay.

 

Hebreo 4:8 – “Kay kon si Josue nakahatag pa kanilag pahulay, dili na unta ang Diyos maghisgot pa og laing adlaw. Busa duna pay adlaw ug pahulay alang sa katawhan sa Diyos” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Ug bisan sa panahon ni Cristo ug sa Iyang mga tinun-an nagbansay ug nagpahulay na sila sa adlaw’ng Domingo.

 

Juan 20:19, 26 – “Sa pagkagabii na niadtong Domingoha, nagtigom ang mga tinun-an sulod sa lawak ug gitrangkahan nila ang pultahan kay nahadlok man sila sa mga kadagkoan sa mga Judio…Human molabay ang usa ka semana, nagtigom na usab ang mga tinun-an sulod sa lawak, ug nahiuban na kanila si Tomas. Gitrangkahan ang mga pultahan, apan mitunga si Jesus ug mibarog sa taliwala kanila…” (Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Sa panahon sa mga Apostoles ug ni San Pablo, nagtigom sila sa ADLAW’NG DOMINGO.

 

Buhat 20:7 – “Nianang Domingo, nanambong kami sa usa ka tigom sa pagsimba ug paghandom sa Ginoo, diin si Pablo ang nagwali” (Ang Buhing Pulong).

 

1 Corinto 16:1-2 – “Karon ania ang mga tugon mahitungod sa salapi nga inyong natigom aron ipadala sa mga Cristohohanon sa Jerusalem. Mao kini ang akong tugon ngadto sa mga Iglesia sa Galacia. Sa unang adlaw sa matag semana, adlaw sa Ginoo, ang matag usa kaninyo kinahanglan maggahin gikan sa inyong pinangitaan nianang semanaha sumala sa gidaghanon sa panalangin sa Dios kaninyo. Gamiton ninyo kini alang niining halad aron wala nay pag-amot unya sa akong pag-abot dinha” (Ang Buhing Pulong).

 

Dunay dakong significance kun importansiya alang kanatong mga Kristiyanos, o mga linuwas ni Cristo, ilabi na kanatong mga Katoliko nganong Domingo ang atong ADLAW’NG IGPAPAHULAY. Ang Domingo mao ang ADLAW SA GINOO, o Lord’s day – kun USA KA HALANDUMON, UG USA KA BALAANG ADLAW kay mao ang adlaw nus-a si Cristo nabanhaw.

 

Sa matag Domingo atong ginahandom ang balaanong pagkabanhaw sa atong Manunubos, human Niya buntoga ang sala. Ug mismo ang mga Sabadista nga nagpahulay sa adlaw’ng Sabado kun Saturday, nasayod nga ang Domingo mao ang ADLAW SA GINOO – ang adlaw sa kabanhawan ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo.

 

That the attention of the people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Thus, religious services were held upon it” (The Great Controversy, pp. 49-50).

 

Kay ang laing libro sa SDA miingon usab: “John, the beloved disciple, gives us another clue. Exiled on the rocky island of Patmos, John writes: ‘On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet…(Revelation 1:10). John suggests that there was a special day the disciples worshipped on during the first century. It was called the Lord’s Day…“For the son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath.” Here we have a clear statement. The Sabbath is the Lord’s Day. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath. It is His day’.” (The Almost Forgotten Day by Mark A. Finley, pp. 17-18).

 

Ang mahinongdanon ug balaanong katarungan nganong Domingo ang Adlaw’ng Igpapahulay nga gitamod ug gibalaan sa Simbahang Katoliko, tungod kay mao kini ang adlaw sa pagkabanhaw sa atong Manunubos nga si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo.

 

Kay alang sa matoud nga mga Kristiyanos, adunay lawom nga “spiritual meaning” ang Sabbath. Ngani, si Saint Gregory the Great mideklarar: “For us, the true Sabbath is the person of our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. This is why the joy with which God, on humanity’s first Sabbath, contemplates all that was created from nothing, is now expressed in the joy with which Christ, on Easter Sunday, appeared to his disciples, bringing the gift of peace and the gift of the spirit (cf. John 20:1-23). It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity, and with it the whole creation, “groaning in birth-pangs until now” (Rome 8:22), came to know its new “exodus” in the freedom of God’s children who can cry out with Christ, “Abba, Father!” (Rome 8:15; Galatians 4:6). In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord’s Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the Glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6). We moved from the “Sabbath” to the “first day after the Sabbath,” from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!” (Dies Domini: Apostolic Letter of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II on Keeping the Lord’s Day Holy, pp. 19-20).

 

 

 

THE PAPACY AND THE PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER

THE PAPACY AND THE PRIMACY

OF SAINT PETER

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” F. Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender

Black Nazarene Chapter, Cagayan de Oro City

 

Ang Santo Papa ang Obispo sa Roma ug ang “Supreme Head of the Catholic Church.” Gihuptan sa Papa ang gahom, ug ang dakong kaakuhan nga gitugyan ug gisangon ni Cristo kang Pedro.

Si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo mismo ang nagtudlo kang Pedro, ug sa iyang mga sumosunod o mga successors isip mga lider sa iyang Simbahan nga iyang gitukod.

Mateo 16:18-19 – “Busa sultihan ko ikaw: ikaw si Pedro ug ibabaw niining bato tukoron ko ang akong iglesiya, ug bisan gani ang kamatayon dili gayod makabuntog niini. Ihatag ko kanimo ang mga yawi sa Gingharian sa langit: ang imong idili dinhi sa yuta, idili usab didto sa langit; ug ang imong itugot dinhi sa yuta, itugot usab didto sa langit.”

Sanglit si San Pedro didto man gipatay ug gilubong sa Roma, the Bishop of Rome is by right the Pope of the Universal Church.

Ang labing importanting papel sa Santo Papa mao ang “preservation of unity within the Church.

Ang magbalantay mahinongdanon kaayo aron dili magkatibulaag, mangawala ug dili mapapag ang mga sakop nga iyang gibantayan.

Sa ingon niini nga katarungan, mahinongdanon kaayo ang Papa diha sa Simbahan. Kay kung wala pa ang Santo Papa, walay mahitabong panaghiusa sa mga local churches; and they will become independent with each other.

Kung wala pa ang Papa, DILI NA ‘TA MATAWAG OG SANTA kondili “SANTAIYA” na. Dili na mahimong balaanon o lunsay ang atong mga pagtulon-an kay mag-agad na man lamang unya kini sa level of understanding ug interpretation sa mga pastor sa Bibliya. Ang TRUTH nga atong pagahutan mag-agad na lamang unya sa ma-perceive sa atong senses sa mga lider. Magsantaiya ug magkabulagbulag na ‘ta sama sa mga protestante, sama sa Baptist, Born Again, SDA, Isalm, ug uban pa, nga matag kongregasyon managlahi ang ilang mga doktrina, kay nag-agad man lamang kini sa pagbati, hunahuna ug panabot sa pastor.

Ug bisan ang mga protestante nakaamgo sila sa importansiya kun kamahinongdanon sa usa ka “supreme leader” o “universal leader” tungod kay nagkasiaksiak ug nagkabahinbahin man sila. Wala silay kahiusahan sa ilang mga pagtulon-an, ug nagpinahitay sila. Ang Santo Papa mao usab ang supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.

The Pope presides the system of the central ecclesiastical government of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pope grounds his claim to jurisdiction primacy in the Church, in the so-called “PETRINE THEORY.

Petrine Theory – is that Jesus Christ conferred the position of primacy in the Church upon Peter            alone.

Ang General Council of Chalcedon niadtong A.D. 451, formally recognized the spiritual primacy, or the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

It was affirmed by the Council of Florence in 1439.

And the PETRINE THEORY was defined as a “matter of faith” by the First Vatican Council in 1870.

It was also endorsed by the Second Vatican Council in 1964.

Sa pag-define sa PETRINE THEORY, ang First Vatican Council mi-cite o mikutlo sa tulo (3) ka mga “classical texts” in the New Testament, long associated with it:

  1. Juan 1:42 – Giilisan ni Jesu-Cristo ang ngalan Simon og KEPHAS, nga sa ato pa, PEDRO. Sa Griego: PETROS, nga nagkahulogan og “bato.”

 

  1. Juan 21:15-19 – Sa tulo ka higayon si Jesus nangutana kang Pedro: Simon anak ni Juan, gihigugma mo ba ako?” Ug sa kataposan, si Jesus miingon kang Pedro: “Atimana ang akong mga karnero.” Ug ang mga “karnero” nagpasabot sa “katawhan” (Salmo 79:13).

 

  • Ezekiel 34:31 – “Kamo akong mga karnero, mga karnero sa akong pasibsibanan, ug ako ang inyong Dios.”
  • Jeremias 3:15 – “I will give leaders who obey me, and they will feed with wisdom and understanding.”

 

  1. Mateo 16:18-19 – Si Jesus mismo ang nagtudlo kang Pedro ug sa iyang mga sumosunod isip mga lider sa Iyang Simbahan. Diha usab gi-confer o gisangon kun gisalig ni  Jesus kang Pedro ang iglesya nga Iyang gitukod. Gipasaligan nga DILI MALUMPAG ang maong iglseya. Ug gihatagan pa kini ug gahom kun otoridad. Sa dose (12) ka mga apostol, si Pedro ang gipili sa Ginoo nga saligan sa pagdumala sa Iyang iglesya.

 

  • Ug kining maong iglesya gisugo sa pagsangyaw sa tibuok kalibotan. Gipasaligan usab kini ni Jesus nga Iyang pagaubanan hangtod sa katapusan sa kalibotan (Mateo 28:19-20).

King tulo (3) ka mga “classical texts” sa Bag-ong Tugon, gipasabot sa Vatican I, nga adunay kadugtongan sa gipamulong Cristo kang Pedro diha sa Lucas 22:31-32. (Palihog basaha.)

Ug pinaagi niining maong kalig-unan diha sa Balaang Kasulatan, kini nagmatuod lamang nga si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo gayod mismo ang nag-constitute kang Saint Peter isip:

  • Prince of the Apostles and Visible Head of the Universal Christian Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

 

  • Ug kini naangkon ni Pedro pinaagi sa gitawag og “primacy of jurisdiction” kun “jurisdictional primacy” that was to pass down in perpetuity to his papal successors, along with authority TO PRONOUNCE INFALLIBILITY on matters of faith and morals.

 

  • The Pope serves as the bishop of all bishops and the pastor of all the faithful.

Ug kining priestly powers sa Santo Papa, as bishop or spiritual overseer in the Universal Christian Church, gikan kini sa SACRAMENTAL ACT OF ORDINATION.

Ang Santo Papa nakahupot sa iyang papal authority pinaagi sa eleksiyon sa Sacred College of Cardinals; ug ang panagtigom sa mga sakop sa Sacred College of Cardinals gitawag kini’g “Conclave.”

It is by virtue of the decision of the College of Cardinals nga ang bag-ong napili nga Papa inherits his official titles such as:

  1. 1.      Successor of Peter

From this title flows all the other titles of the Pope for he only holds his office as the Pope inasmuch as he is the successor of Peter.

 

  1. 2.      Supreme Pontiff

This title came from the Latin term “potem facere” which means “to build a bridge.” This title was formerly reserved to the emperor of Rome who was the head of principal college of priests. This title was given to him for he served as the bridge between men and the gods. In A.D. 375, the title was given to the Pope by Gratian. Now the title means “a bridge builder between God and man.” The Pope is also the first and chief bishop in the Church and the head of the Episcopal College. He has truly Episcopal authority over all the faithful and all the pastors.

 

  1. 3.      Bishop of Rome   

Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome who founded the See in the year A.D. 42. It was to Peter the Jesus gave the office of binding and loosing, and the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Vatican I decreed that “Christ established that Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy and the Roman bishops are the successors.” The Pope, therefore, being the successor of Peter, is also the bishop of Rome.

 

  1. 4.      Vicar of Jesus Christ

The title means “one who takes the place of Christ.” This term however is often used of the bishop of Rome in particular, but is also used for bishops in general. This was first used in A.D. 495 by the Roman Synod to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The title signifies the supreme authority of the Pope as the representative of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church, Christ being the invisible head.  He is also spiritual governor of the universal Church.

 

  1. 5.      Primate of Italy

At one time, a primate was bishop or archbishop who had all authority over all bishops of an area covered. The Pope is the highest in authority in the whole of Italy, the only primate in the Catholic Church with such jurisdiction and authority is the Pope.

 

  1. 6.      Sovereign of the State of Vatican

Based on the Lateran Treaty, Italy recognizes Vatican City as the sovereign state with the Pope as its temporal ruler.

 

  1. 7.      Patriarch of the West and Archbishop of the Roman Province

Together with the title Primate of Italy, these titles are based on the principle that the Roman See is the chief and the highest See of all the jurisdictional areas of the Church of which the Church of Rome is part.

 

  1. 8.      Prince of the Apostles

As successor of Saint Peter who was the leader of the Apostles, the Pope is given the title Prince of the Apostles for he is the one who has the primacy over all the successors of the Apostles.

 

  1. 9.      Servant of the Servants of God

Since Saint Gregory the Great, the Pope is called Servus Servorum Dei. From this flows the title of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as the Servant of the Servants of God.

Ang pulong nga Pope gikan sa Latin nga pulong nga papa nga nagkahulogan sa English og “father.” Samtang ang pulong bishop gikan sa Greek word nga episkopos nga nagkahulogan sa English og “supervisor” kun “overseer.”

Kining titulong bishop kun episkopos atong mabasa sa ubay-ubay’ng mga panid sa canonical writings sa Bag-ong Tugon. Gani, sa wala pa mahitabo ang Pentecostes, si San Pedro, sa iyang pagpamulong atol sa ilang paghulip sa nabakanteng pwesto ni Judas, migamit sa pulong episcope o bishopric diha sa pagtudlo sa mohulip sa apostolic office nga gibiyaan sa nagbudhi kang Jesus (Acts 1:20-25, King James Version).

Acts 1:20 – “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take” (KJV).

Ug diha sa Buhat sa mga Apostoles, ingon man sa mga sinulat ni San Pablo, dayag nga nagtug-an kanato nga may mga tawo sa primitive Church, nga naghupot og dagkong gahom – nga may titulong gihuptan nga episkopos kun bishop.

Ang “lingkoranan,” nagpasabot kini’g GAHOM ug KATUNGDANAN. Sama pananglit sa usa ka gingharian, aduna gayoy pinasahi nga lingkuranan ang HARI, diin siya lamang ang makahimo ug angayan nga makalingkod niini.

 

Ingon usab niini ang LINGKORANAN ni San Pedro, ang unang Santo Papa sa Simbahang Katoliko. Ang iyang lingkuranan nagtimailhan ug nagsimbolo sa GAHOM ug OTORIDAD nga gihatag kaniya ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo.

Ang CHAIR OF PETER, kun CATHEDRA PETRI, nagsimbolo usab kini sa TEACHING AUTHORITY sa Santo Papa diha sa kinatibuk-ang Simbahan. Sa dihang ang Santo Papa moluwat og DOGMATIC DEFINITION, ang iyang pamulong gitawag kini’g EX CATHEDRA, nga nagpasabot og “From the Chair.” Ex cathedra literally means “from the throne.”

“Ex cathedra is the exercise of the supreme power of teaching of the Pope. Given the gift of indefectibility, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit the Pope as pastor and teacher of all Christians defines doctrines of faith and morals. His definitions are irreformable of themselves and requires religious assent. His ex-cathedra teachings must speak of: 1) not as private theologian, but as the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians; 2) in virtue of his apostolic authority as the successor of St. Peter; 3) in matters of faith and morals; 4) proposing something to be held by the universal leader” (Questions and Answers on the Pope and the Papacy by Rev. Fr. Ruperto C. Santos, STL, pp. 60-61).

Ang simbolo sa LINGKORANAN mahinongdanon kaayo, nga ang PINUY-ANAN SA PAPA gitawag og Holy See, nga nagkahulogan og “Holy Chair.” Ang See, gikan kini sa Latin nga pulong “sede” kun “seat” sa pinulongan Iningles.

Ang simbolismo usab sa cathedra mahimo usab nga madapat sa see kun lingkuranan sa Obispo, kansang official church gitawag og Cathedral, tungod kay anaa diha nahimutang sa presbytery ang Bishop’s Chair.

Si Jesus mismo ang naghatag kang Pedro ug sa iyang mga sumosunod sa OFFICE OF TEACHING kun BUHATAN SA PAGPANUDLO. Kay didto sa Caesarea Philippi, si Jesus miingon: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; ang whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). Sa mandato mismo ni Jesus ngasumikad ang Dogma of Papal Infallibility, nga gi-defined panahon sa First Vatican Council niadtong 1870 nga nagkanayon: “The Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines ex cathedra a doctrine regarding faith and morals.”

So far, 265 na ka mga Papa ang milingkod sa Chair of St. Peter, apan walay ni isa kanila ang nasayop in matters of faith and morals.

Ug sukad sa fourth century, ang kapistahan sa CHAIR OF SAINT PETER ginasaulog sa matag Pebrero 22, tungod kay giisip nga anibersaryo sa pagka-Obispo ni San Pedro didto sa Roma. Ang orihinal nga CHAIR OF SAINT PETER gipreserbar ug gitipigan sa nagkadaiyang lokasyon o dapit hangtod niadtong 370 A.D., dihang gibalhin kini ni Pope Damasus didto sa Saint Peter’s Basilica.

Ug aron mapreserbar ang maong precious relic sa umaabot nga panahon, si Pope Alexander VII misugo kang Berninni sa pagsulod o pagpahimutang sa maong LINGKORANAN sa usa ka matahom nga tronong bronze didto sa apse sa St. Peter’s Basilica.

 

A CATHOLIC ANSWER TO IGLESIA NI CRISTO [INC] ATTEMPT AT DISPROVING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

A CATHOLIC ANSWER TO IGLESIA NI CRISTO [INC] ATTEMPT AT DISPROVING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

by Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc, CFD National Pres.

 

 
The Transfiguration of the Lord revealing His Divinity

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

I have read a post in the Splendor of the Church Ring of Fire Blog which contains arguments from an INC member refuting some verses which prove the divinity of Christ.  I personally took up the cudgel of answering these objections for several reasons.  Firstly, because as a Catholic I believe in the foundational doctrine of Christianity regarding the divinity of Christ and as St Peter admonishes “be ready always to satisfy every one that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).  Secondly, I find the arguments put forward worthy of refutation because by the manner it was given it seem that the objector is confident that he has successfully refuted the Catholic position.  Thirdly, because the case at hand illustrates the typical strategy used by the INC of quoting and interpreting isolated passages in order to prove their point.  The original post was partly written in English and partly in Tagalog.  In this response, I paraphrased his objections in order to make it more understandable and decent.  Let us now take a look at INC arguments.

 

INC objection:  Whoever is a child of God does not continue to sin, for God’s very nature is in him” (1 John 3:9 TEV).  Are Christians also God in this particular verse? 

From the way the question is posed it is safe to conclude that the INC is aware that there are scriptural passages which may be interpreted as Jesus having the nature of God [i.e., Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:6].  In order to evade this the INC attempts to make a false analogy:  If as 1 John 3:9 which says that the very nature of God is in the believer and this does not ipso facto make him God, so also those passages which speak about Christ having the nature of God do not prove that Christ is God.

The text cited above is rendered differently in other reputable bible versions:  “Whosoever is born of God commits not sin: for his seed abides in him” (Douay Rheims); “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him” (KJV); “No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him” (NAB); “Those who have born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides I them” (NRSV).  If we use these renderings of the verse, the force of the INC objection is significantly diminished.  Of course, the INC will stick to the TEV rendering of this verse since this will best serve their purpose.  The INC is not only selective in their quotation of scriptural passages but also in the bible versions they will use in quoting a particular passage.  They do not usually go by the rules of textual criticism in determining whether a particular verse is translated accurately or not since to them the highest criteria for judging the accuracy of a text is whether or not it subscribes to their man-made doctrines which are constructed upon isolated proof texting.  It then becomes apparent that they are not mostly concerned with accuracy of their alleged proof as much as it’s effect to the unwary audience.     

Setting aside the issue on which is the more accurate rendition of this particular verse, this quotation from the TEV will not at all help the INC cause.  The fallacy of the INC lies in the fact that although it is said that God’s very nature is in the believer (1 John 3:9 TEV) and it is also said to be in Christ but each has it in a different sense.  God’s very nature is in the believer by way of partaking or sharing of the divine nature “By whom he has given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).  This partaking of the divine nature, which in Catholic theology is called the infusion of sanctifying grace into our souls, is the formal principle which makes us sons of God and objectively holy and pleasing before Him.  The fact that Jesus is called Son of God and we are also called sons of God does not put us in the same category as Jesus.  We are made sons of God by way of adoption, “you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.  (Romans 8:15-16).  On the contrary, Jesus is Son of God by nature, “No man has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has declared him” (John 1:18; “For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:5-6).  However, the INC fails to make this all-important distinction which is a manifestation of a very shallow theology, if any.

INC objection:   If you believe that Jesus is God based on Colossians 2:9 because it says that “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally”,will you also say that Christians are God since we can also read that “All the fullness of God might be filled in them (Ephesians 3:19 KJV)?

I would like to point out to the readers that this is typical INC strategy.  They will quote bible verses out of context, formulate a false analogy and build their doctrine out of it.  In response to this let’s do a contextual reading starting with verse 17 to 19 which reads:  “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity, you may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, to know also the charity of Christ, which surpasses all knowledge that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God.”  St Paul here teaches that the way to comprehend and gain a deep insight into the mystery of Christ is through sanctity [that is our souls is rooted and founded in charity] which is the way of the saints.  Christ who dwells in our hearts also enables us to grow ever deeper into his own mystery until we are filled unto the fullness of God [that is the measure of knowledge which God wants to reveal Himself to us].  In the same Epistle St Paul said:  “Untilwe all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto themeasure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).  If we observe carefully St Paul substituted Christ [in Ephesians 4:13] for God [in Ephesians 3:19].  The “fullness of God” is equated with “fullness of Christ” in relation to the knowledge of the Son of God given to us.  Thus St Paul does not equate Christ with us but he equates Christ with God.

Let us now turn our attention to Colossians 2:9 which reads: “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally.”  Once again, it is important to read this passage in its context.  In his Epistle to the Colossians, St Paul was warning the believers against men who practice superstitious worship paid to angels or demons by offering sacrifices to them from which they derive hidden knowledge [gnosis].  In so doing they also denied the supremacy of Christ who is the head both of angels and men.  In order to condemn them of their pretensions and warn the believers St Paul wrote: “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:8-10).  St Paul here upholds the supremacy of Christ [who is head of all principality and power] by asserting his divinity though he appeared in form of man [in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally].  Thus by an examination of the context of the passage it becomes crystal clear that this passage supports the divinity of Christ.  But context is foreign to INC interpretation of key Biblical passages. 

 

 

INC objection:  If you [Catholics] insist that the Son and the Father is God because Jesus said they are one based on your interpretation of John 10:30, will you also say that the disciples is God since they too are one as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11, 21-22)?

The recurring fallacy of the INC in quoting verses out of context and failing to make proper distinctions is again manifest.  Once again, a contextual reading will reveal the error in the INC interpretation.  In John 17:11-22, Jesus was praying to the Father for his disciples.  In the verses surrounding John 10:30, Jesus was addressing the unbelieving Jews.

Let’s take a closer look first at John 10:30 where Jesus said “I and the Father are one.”  The traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons based on the use of the plural linking verb ARE and that they share one divine nature based on ONE.  Let me explain why this interpretation is perfectly consistent within the context.  In the preceding verses Jesus speaks lengthily about himself as the Good Shepherd who takes care of his sheep and that those who belong to his fold listens to his voice.  In verse 14, Jesus says:  “I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me.”  Using the INC line of reasoning [that is, if we don’t try to distinguish], since Jesus said “I know mine, and mine know me” are we to say then that our [his sheep] knowledge of Jesus is in the same measure as Jesus’ knowledge of us?  Of course not!  In verse 15, Jesus makes this astounding claim:  “As the Father knows me, and I know the Father and I lay down my life for my sheep.”  Unquestionably, the Father knows the Son perfectly.  Does the Son also know the Father perfectly?  If we look at parallel sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, we see that Jesus leaves no doubt about this.  Here is what Jesus declares:  “And no one knows the Son but the Father: neither does any one know the Father, but the Son” (Matthew 11:27).  What does Jesus mean here?  Do we not know the Father?  Of course, we do!  But not in the same measure as Jesus knows the Father.  While we know the Father in the measure that the Son reveals Him to us, Jesus knows the Father perfectly.  The Jews understood well the full impact of His words so that in verse 19, John wrote that “A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.”  However their dissension did not deter our Lord from teaching to them what He has come to reveal.  In verse 28, Jesus delivers to them another one of his hard sayings:  “And I give them life everlasting: and they shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of my hand.”  Says who?? Did Jesus just claim here that he is able to give life everlasting?  Yes, He did.  But isn’t this gift reserved for God ALONE to give?  Not only that, Jesus claims that no man shall pluck them [the elect] out of his hand.  Hand in biblical parlance is used to mean power which saves the just and judges evil men (see Exodus 6:1, 7:5, 9:3, 13:3 etc.).  Jesus can give everlasting life because he has the power to accomplish what he wills.  In verse 29, Jesus clarifies from whom He receives all that He has:  “That which my Father has given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.” Notice the shift in the words “out of my [Jesus’] hand” in verse 28 to “out of the hand of my Father” in verse 29.  It is the same hand [power] of Jesus and the Father which gives life everlasting.  Jesus receives this power from the Father as the Son is said to receive all that the Father is [His nature].  In order to avoid any misgivings about Jesus receiving power from the Father that Jesus’ power is something delegated and not inherent, Jesus emphasizes in the verse 30:  “I and the Father are one.”  There is no escaping here that Jesus intended to drive home to his hearers his claim to divinity.  The Jews got this perfectly but they could not accept this astounding truth and for them this is blasphemy so they “took up stones to stone him” (John 10:31).  Had the Jews misunderstood Jesus then Jesus would have corrected them as He did in other occasions (Matthew 16:5-12; John 3:3-8; John 11:11-14).  In the succeeding verse, Jesus defended his words and gave reasons why we should accept his words at face value even if it cannot be fathomed by our finite understanding.

The quote in John 17:11, 21-22 where Jesus said “they may be one, as we also are” is not in anyway denying his substantial unity with the Father nor does it make us united substantially to the Trinity.  Our unity with one another and to God is only analogical to the unity within the Blessed Trinity.  The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in power and therefore essence.  This can be proven in Jesus great commissioning of his disciples: “Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Mat 28:19).  Name here means power and authority as evident when we also read other passages of Scriptures (Mark 16:17; Acts 3:6; 4:7).  Notice the use of the singular “name” and not the plural “names.”  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally and wholly share this one name.  Furthermore, when speaking of God, His name also refers to His essence (Exodus 3:14).  What the passage from John 17:11, 21-22 simply mean is that the essential unity of Jesus and the Father is the vital principle of our unity with one another and with God. Jesus’ disciples are not united by any human affinity but by the grace of God.  They are united with one another in so far as they abide in Jesus and not by anything else. Once more, the INC fails to make the proper distinctions for whatever reasons.

INC objection:  In John 20:28 in which the Apostle Thomas said “My Lord and my God” we are sure that Jesus is not the God referred to here but the Father because if we read back to verse 17, we will notice that in this verse Jesus acknowledged who his God is.  He says:  “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.” The God of Jesus is the Father. Therefore, Jesus is not God.   


In my opinion John 20:28 can stand by itself without any further explanation.  Instead of confronting the direct meaning of the verse the INC evades it by jumping back to verse 17.  Before I address verse 17, let us first turn our attention to verse 28 and the immediate verse which precedes and follows it.  In verse 27, Jesus rebukes Thomas for his lack of faith and gave him proof of his resurrection saying, “Put in your finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.”  Having no room to doubt, Thomas believes and makes his profession of faith to the risen Christ in verse 28: “Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.” Then in verse 29, Jesus confirms this profession of faith saying:  “Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.”  It is truly amazing how one can miss the plain and simple meaning of this statement.  Jesus is Thomas’ Lord and God. Thomas saw Jesus in his risen humanity yet professed belief in Jesus’ divinity.  The verse does not say “Thomas answered and said to them” but “to him.” These words were addressed to Jesus and to no other. In dealing with John 20:28, the INC out rightly abandons their oft-repeated dictum not to add or subtract anything from the Bible.  For the INC when Thomas says to Jesus “My Lord and my God” Jesus is only Thomas’ Lord but not his God.  Let us keep in mind this line reasoning of the INC as this will come in handy in shutting up their back door exit. 

In an attempt to escape being trapped in a self-willed denial of verse 28 the INC harps back to verse 17.  They will assert that when Jesus said “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God” he therefore acknowledges the Father to be his God and therefore Jesus is not God.  But wait a minute, did they not just tell us that when Thomas said to Jesus “my Lord and my God” that Jesus is only Thomas Lord but not his God and that Thomas was referring to two different persons [Jesus as his Lord and God as (well guess what?) his God]?  How then could they suffer from exegetical amnesia when it comes to verse 17 in which Jesus said “My Father… and my God” and tell us that in here Jesus is speaking about the same person who is his Father and at the same time his God?  The fact that Jesus addresses the Father as God is not in anyway a denial of his own divinity in the same way that the fact that the Father addresses his Son as God is a denial of Father’s divinity.  This will bring us to the answer to the next objection.

INC objection:  If in Hebrews 1:8 the Father acknowledges the Son as God, then it will come out that there will be a contradiction in God’s word since He has already declared “Have not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides me? A just God and a saviour, there is none besides me” (Isaiah 45:21).  He, in fact, repeated this twice in this particular passage.  That is why the correct translation in order to eliminate this contradiction is James Moffatt’s which reads: “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne…’”

In an attempt to explain away Hebrews 1:8 the INC presumes to create a contradiction in God’s word but in reality the contradiction exists only in their mind and not in the word of God.  In order to understand why the INC avoids this particular verse, let’s read what it says:  “But to the Son: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of your kingdom” (Douay Rheims);  “But unto the Son he saith; Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:  a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom” (KJV); “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne O God is for ever and ever; and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom” (NRSV); “but of the Son:  ‘Your Throne, O God, stands forever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom” (NAB).  In this passage of scriptures it is clearer than the noonday sun that the Father addresses his Son as God!  If this verse stands then the Catholic Church teaching on the divinity of Christ stands and all INC members should rush to the feet of Jesus in repentance for the sin of blasphemy!

Where the INC finds an alleged contradiction between the above rendering of Hebrews 1:8 and Isaiah 45:21 the Catholic finds that this can harmoniously be reconciled with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.  Since the doctrine of the Trinity states that each of the three divine persons is wholly, entirely and truly God then the fact that Father address his Son as God in Hebrews 1:8 presents no difficulty.  And since the doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Son is not another God besides the Father but as Jesus Himself teaches that He and the Father are one (John 10:30) then it does not contradict Isaiah 45:21.  Furthermore, when we read in context Isaiah 45:21, God was reproving the people for worshipping idols:  “Assemble yourselves, and come, and draw near together, you that are saved of the Gentiles: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven work, and pray to a god that cannot save” (Isaiah 45:20).  It is in the context of condemning idolatry that God reminds the people that there is no God besides him.  In verse 22, God said, “Be converted to me, and you shall be saved, all you ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is no other.”  The God of spoke in the Old Testament appeared in the New Testament and bears the name of Jesus:  “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).  I wish the INC will not stop at Isaiah 45:21 but will continue reading up to verse 24 where God said:  “For every knee shall be bowed to me, and every tongue shall swear.”  Upon reading this Philippians 2:10-11 easily comes to mind which says: “That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”

In a desperate effort to salvage their position, the INC clings to the translation of James Moffatt: “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne…’”  This is another glaring example of INC’s selectiveness in using a bible version that will best suite their purpose.  This will give us an idea that the INC is not interested in knowing the truth but in only defending their position at all cost and in whatever means.  This translation by Moffatt is at least doubtful if not badly inaccurate for several reasons:  1)Reputable bible versions such as the Douay Rheims, KJV, NRSV, NAB and many others render this particular verse as “Thy Throne, O God.”  2) These particular passage is actually a quotation from the Book of Psalms 45:6 where again in a host of reputable bible versions it is rendered as “Thy Throne, O God.”  3)  If we grant the Moffatt “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne’” then this will make the Son greater than God since the one who sits on the throne is unquestionably greater than the throne on which he sits. 4) Ascribing a throne [dominion and authority] to the Son is proper since Jesus is called King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelations 19:16) and only God deserves this title (1 Timothy 6:15).  5)  The Moffatt translation is noted for altering passages which points to the divinity of Christ like in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 by removing the I AM;  In 1 Timothy 3:16 by changing “God was manifest in the flesh” into “He who was manifest in the flesh”; In Matthew 8:2 “worshipped” (KJV) or “adored” (Douay Version) is changed into “knelt.”  6)  In the same context the Son is given divine prerogative:  “And again, when he [Father] brings in the first begotten into the world, he [Father] says: And let all the angels of God adore him [Son]” (Hebrews 1:6).  Here the Father commands all the angels to adore his Son.  If the Son is not God, is the Father commanding us to worship a creature?  Of course for the INC they will teach that God alone is worthy of adoration but since God commands us to adore his Son then we should obey the Father anyway.  This is nothing but what someone calls double-think!

Finally, I would like to exhort all INC members to have an open mind.  Read and learn the arguments of Catholicism from people who are Catholic and who know very well the Catholic faith.  My prayers are for you!

 

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-catholic-answer-to-iglesia-ni-cristo.html

 

 

ARE PROTESTANTS SHALL ALSO BE SAVED?

ARE PROTESTANTS SHALL ALSO BE SAVED?

By Bro. Ramon Gitamondoc

 

 

 

Pope Benedict XVI meeting Protestant leaders in Ecumenical Dialogue

MARK 9:40 “FOR HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US.”
Does it mean, Protestants are also for Christ? And shall also be SAVED? hmmm… heheh 🙂
That’s a good question you ask there [Julio Jesoro] Louie Jay. There are men who out of sincere convictions are against the Church not for what it is but for what they think it is. If they are invincibly ignorant of the true gospel of Christ and of his Church these men can still attain salvation by the grace of God (Titus 2:11) if they follow the dictates of their conscience according to the light of truth that is shown to them. These men will be saved not because of their being a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Protestant but because of the Catholic Truth which they also hold [like Muslims believe in one God and protestants believe in the Trinity and scriptures]. But since men in our fallen state is easily deceived by the Evil One (Rom 1:23-24) then there is the most urgent imperative to convert them to the Catholic Church in which alone Christ entrusted the fullness of salvific truth and salvific means. God does not outrightly condemn a person to hell because his name is not in the Catholic baptismal registry nor outrightly will admit a person into heaven just because his name is in the list. This heresy called Feeneyism has long been condemned by the Church. In present generation, there are many protestants who are born into a protestant environment and upbringing many of which are hostile to the Catholic Church. This men cannot be faulted with the same gravity of offense as the original reformers like Luther, Calvin, et al. But again, even though they possess some elements of truth but they lack the fullness which Christ willed for his followers which can be found in Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE.

 

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2012/10/are-protestants-shall-also-be-saved.html

 

SEX, CONTRACEPTIVES AND COMPLICATED PREGNANCY

SEX, CONTRACEPTIVES AND COMPLICATED PREGNANCY

by Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc, CFD National President

Visitation – A pregnant Virgin Mary visiting St. Elizabeth

  • Brothers, sino ang online po dito?
    Can I ask in my preparation for my Debate,,

    Diba po ba ang SEX is procreation and a porcess of life?
    and naturally it is reserved for husband and wife so eto ang question ko.

    What if ang wife po may complication sa pregnancy does the husband needs to use contraceptives to prevent her from being pregnant?

    • The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore no circumstance will justify its use. Contraception violates the two intrinsic meaning and purpose of the conjugal act. It violates the unitive meaning whereby the both spouses give to each other wholly and without reservation. In using contraception one is withholding from the other a part of himself or herself and that is his manhood or her womanhood. It violates the procreative meaning since it willfully prevents the openness to the transmission of life which God has willed in creating man male and female. A basic principle in moral theology is that the end does not justify the means. In the case cited above I think the prudent action to follow would be for the couple to talk openly to each other and if they are both Catholics and faithful to the Church then this will not present so great difficulty. They can both exercise continence or avail of natural methods which are proven to be almost 100 percent effective. They should devote their time in prayer and trust in God that if they follow his will God will bring out the best for them in the end. In case the wife becomes pregnant then they should avail of the necessary medical attention in order to provide the needed support for both mother and child. Directly willed abortion is never an option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS IT OK FOR A CATHOLIC TO JOIN GROUPS SPOUSING DEISM?

IS IT OK FOR A CATHOLIC TO JOIN GROUPS SPOUSING DEISM?

By Bro. Ramon Gitamondoc

 

The Lord Jesus reigns eternally over the Universe
Anybody heard of the Odd Fellows? My Deist cousin is inviting me to join them. I know the Church forbids membership to Freemasonry but I’m not sure if the Odd Fellows fall into that category.
  • As a Catholic we are not allowed to join organizations and associations whose principles and tenets are contrary to the Catholic religion. Deism is condemned by the Church as a heresy. It is false notion that God created the world and after this he left it to run by itself therefore denying divine providence and God’s plan of Salvation. Avoid joining associations which practice religious indifferentism which is that all religions are equally valid.

A BIBLICAL PROOF THAT THE LORD JESUS IS THE FOUNDER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

A BIBLICAL PROOF THAT THE LORD JESUS IS THE FOUNDER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

by Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc, CFD National President

 

Source Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-biblical-proof-that-lord-jesus-is.html

St. Peter received the Keys of the Kingdom from the Lord

I would like to share an answer to this comment by Hernane Lumanog from Debate Unlimited blog: “well it is your prerogative to claim that in the catholic doctrine it teaches that the catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ. But I want is a biblical proof that Jesus Christ is the founder of the catholic church.”

 

I would like to invite him to read Matthew 16:18where Jesus said to Peter: “Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and even the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

 

There are certain important points that we can draw from these words of Jesus. First, that it is Jesus himself who will establish his Church here on earth. He did not delegate this task to some other person in a future time. Second, it has pleased our Lord to established his Church upon Peter as the visible head for he says “Thou are Peter [aramaic kepha = rock] and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” Third, from Jesus solemn promise “even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it [his Church]” we can derive the attribute of perpetuity, indestructibility, and infallibility.

 

Now all these identifying marks and attributes which our Lord willed to be possessed by his Church we can find only and fully in the Catholic Church alone. History knows of no other person responsible for founding the Catholic Church other than Jesus Christ [Groliers Encyclopedia Volume 5, page 106 and other standard references]. Only the Catholic Church recognizes the authority which Christ gave to St Peter which has continued in an unbroken line of his successors. Only the Catholic Church has an unbroken history which can be traced back to the time of the Apostles thus she possesses perpetuity in duration. In contrast the protestant denominations, too numerous to mention, can be shown to be only of recent origin and we can point out their founders which is an undeniable proof of their human origin. The Catholic Church has survived and weathered all her enemies both from within and from outside her fold which is a proof of her indestructibility. The Catholic Church lays the solitary claim to infallibility in her teachings on faith and morals that is she claims to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (see also 1 Timothy 3:15).

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By: Bro. Marwil Llasos, O.P

 

Mary said “Yes” to Life: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of Life, pray for the defeat of the RH Bill


The Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional


            The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.

The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist that the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a life of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought about by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already discussed and voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The result is the present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, expresses the sense of Article II, Section 12 that it “denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of poverty.”[1]The commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was stated by Fr. Bernas, thus: “The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth can be attended through other means such as availing of the resources of welfare agencies.”[2]


Atty. Marwil N. Llasos reads “The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary” by constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.


What does Article II, Section 12 seek to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the provision was intended “primarily to prevent the state from adopting the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.”[3]


Clearly, the provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. There’s no chance that abortion can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine Constitution stands.

Abortifacients kill human life!

 

But what about the RH Bill? Does it promote or facilitate abortion? The answer is a categorical Yes. While the RH Bill purports to recognize abortion as illegal and punishable by law [Sec. 3 (9)], it however mandates “[a]ll accredited health facilities [to] provide a full range of modern family planning methods” [Sec. 7]. Thus, the RH Bill is inconsistent as best, duplicitous and hypocritical at worst.

Atty. Marwil N. Llasos defends life and the Constitution under the gaze of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn and patroness of the Philippines

While the RH Bill recognizes abortion as illegal, it nevertheless allows the use of the “full range of modern family planning methods. The RH Bill does not specify or list what these methods are; hence, they could include the IUD (intra-uterine device), the morning-after pills,[4] and even manual vacuum aspirators[5] – all of which are known abortifacients!

Copper IUDs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.[6] Hormonal IUDs slow down the growth of the uterine lining thereby making it inhospitable for fertilized eggs.[7]

Prayer Power Rally Against the RH Bill on August 4, 2012 (1:00-7:00 P.M.)

Morning-after pills, otherwise known as Plan B pills, is described as “the backup plan for times when your birth control method has failed, has been forgotten, or you weren’t on any form of birth control, and you don’t want to get pregnant. Whether you’ve missed a few pills, the condom broke or slipped off, or you forgot to insert your diaphragm.”[8] The Plan B pill can be taken up to 72 hours after “unprotected sex.” But what happens within 72 hours? Is it possible that the sperm has already fertilized the egg? Yes. And what does Plan B do in that eventuality? “If the egg is already fertilized, it prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus” (implantation).[9]

Contraceptives promoted by the RH Bill

Manual vacuum aspirators cannot hide its pretense as a mere contraceptive. It is in fact an instrument of death – an earlyabortion machine.[10] Is this among the “full range of modern family planning methods” (Sec. 7) or the “full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies” (Sec. 4) sanctioned in the RH Bill? The Bill is deceptively and fearfully silent.

Plan B Pills prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus thus killing it

The above examples of contraceptives within the RH Bill package prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. Where does the Constitution come in in this regard? The 1987 Philippine Constitution categorically, unmistakably and unequivocably commands the State to protect the unborn “from conception.” Fr. Joaquin Bernas comments that “[t]he unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception,” that is, from the moment of conception.”[11] What is the Constitutional intent? Fr. Bernas expresses it: “The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization.”[12] It is crystal clear that the constitutional definition of conception is fertilization, not implantation. Human life begins at fertilization; thus the fertilized ovum has human life and the State has the constitutional obligation to protect that life.

Instruments of death: Ipas machine vacuum aspirator

Fr. Bernas concludes that Article II, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution “reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.”[13]The RH Bill militates against this constitutional mandate.

On August 7, 2012, when the members of the House of Representatives make a crucial decision on the RH Bill, they must be reminded of their oath “to uphold and defend the Constitution.” To vote in favor of this unconstitutional bill is a betrayal of their sacred oath and of the trust of the sovereign Filipino people.

 
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a legacy of EDSA and CORY. We will go back to EDSA to remind the President to honor that legacy. It is the legacy of his mother that we want to preserve.

On Sacred Images

On Sacred Images

By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

The most common objection raised by fundamentalists on our Catholic faith is the use of images inside the Church. At first they would innocently ask a Catholic why they have images inside the Church, then they would open up their Bible to Exodus 20:5 and say the Bible explicitly prohibit images so why do you have it inside your church? The implication is simple that the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible because it has images of saints inside the Church. A Catholic who knows nothing about his faith would get confuse with such a witty question from a fundamentalist friend. So, how do we respond to this kind of argument? The key in answering this objection is properly understanding the passage that was quoted by the fundamentalist.

“You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carved idols for yourselves in shape of anything in the sky above or on earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or worship them.” Exodus 20:3-5

For a fundamentalist reading this passage the only thing that he sees are the words “you shall not carve images, do not bow down to them and you shall not have other gods” and completely disregarding the rest of the passage. When using this passage fundamentalist would want you to believe that God is absolutely forbidding the creation of all kinds of images and Catholics are not only creating what was forbidden but also worships the images of saints. It’s time for us to interpret this passage correctly, first and foremost this passage do not absolutely forbid the creation of all types and kinds of images what was forbidden in this passage are the images of idols or the gods and goddesses of pagans. The pagans have gods and goddesses in the sky above, earth below and water beneath the earth and these are the very images that were forbidden by God. The non-absoluteness of the prohibition in the creation of images is evident by God’s own command in the creation of the images of Cherubims.

“Make two Cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory fastening them so that the cherub springs directly from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other , but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory.”Exodus 25:18-20

Ark of the Covenant with statue of Cherubim

Aside from the Ark of the Covenant God also ordered the creation of various images inside the temple, not to represent himself by these images but rather serves as aid in worship.

“Two winged creatures were made of olive wood and placed in the Most Holy Place, each one 15 feet tall. Both were of the same size and shape. Each had two wings, each wing 7½ feet long, so that the distance from one wing tip to the other was 15 feet. They were placed side by side in the Most Holy Place, so that two of their outstretched wings touched each other in the middle of the room, and the other two wings touched the walls. The two winged creatures were covered with gold. The walls of the main room and of the inner room were all decorated with carved figures of winged creatures, palm trees, and flowers. Even the floor was covered with gold. A double door made of olive wood was set in place at the entrance of the Most Holy Place; the top of the doorway was a pointed arch. The doors were decorated with carved figures of winged creatures, palm trees, and flowers. The doors, the winged creatures, and the palm trees were covered with gold. For the entrance to the main room a rectangular door frame of olive wood was made. There were two folding doors made of pine and decorated with carved figures of winged creatures, palm trees, and flowers, which were evenly covered with gold.” 1 Kings 6:23-35

God created with body and soul, therefore in worshiping God we not only worship him with our soul but also use our body to worship him. That is the very reason why all our senses our engage in worshiping Him in the Holy Eucharist. The various postures, sacred music, incense and images inside the Church are employed for this reason, to engage the whole person in worshiping God. The worship in the Old Testament are almost synonymous to the manner we worship God in the Holy Eucharist, they too have incense, images in the temple, various postures and sacred music.

“All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the Holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the “cloud of witnesses” who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in the sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man “in the image of God,” finally transfigured “into his likeness,” who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who are recapitulated in Christ: Following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on the streets. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1161

St. Pio (Padre Pio)

I once had a discussion with a Fundamentalist regarding the images inside our Church, since he was very assertive in his belief that Catholics are violating the Scripture I ask him a simple question; Why do you think Catholics have images inside the Church? Surprisingly he did not know the very reason why we Catholics have images inside our Church. The objections of Fundamentalists on our use of images stems not from the proper understanding of the Bible but from the misconceptions that they heard from the preachings of their pastors. We have to correct these misconceptions in order to prevent Catholics from falling away from their faith and also to win back the lost.

Anwering RH BILL Advocates

Anwering RH BILL Advocates

 By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

The following are the counter arguments for the top 6 arguments used by RH BILL advocates to spread their lies and poison the minds of innocent Filipinos.

Argument # 1: The Philippines is overpopulated

The battle cry of proponents of RH BILL and its principal sponsors both in congress and the senate is that the Philippines is already overpopulated and this is the root cause of poverty. Their battle cry will be vindicated if the Philippines is truly overpopulated. The projected population of the Philippines in 2010 is 94.01M1 and according to the advocates of RH BILL we are dangerously overpopulated and sooner or later our country will be plunged into irreversible poverty. The assumption that we are overpopulated is entirely baseless, their only evidence for their belief that we are overpopulated is the numerical value of our population other than that is simply false assumptions. They keep on telling people through mass media that we are overpopulated yet they did not provide us with any parameters for knowing that we are truly overpopulated. Demographically we are not overpopulated since our population growth rate is steadily declining and there are still a lot of uninhabited spaces for us to live in. The National Statistics Office noted that since 1995 up to 2025 our population growth rate is plunging from 2.32% to 1.4%2 aside from that our total fertility rate is also going down from 3.7 in 1998 to 1.5 in 2025 3just enough to replace the population. These two statistical indicators prove that our population is declining, but how do we explain the latest statistical data that shows the growth of our population from 94 million in the year 2000 to 97 million in the year 2012? The increase in our population is the effect of the increase in growth rate 10 or 20 years ago. The declining growth and fertility rate of the recent statistical data will have its effect 10 to 20 years from now. Basing on these statistics the idea that we are overpopulated is far from reality. They only make use of the overpopulation argument in order to make it appear that there is a need to control the population, but in reality we are not overpopulated and overpopulation is a myth!

1http://www.census.gov.ph/
2http://www.census.gov.ph/data/publications/pif2012_in_CD.pdf

3http://www.census.gov.ph/data/publications/pif2012_in_CD.pdf

 

Argument # 2: Population spawns poverty

The basic logic behind this argument is that as our population increases it will also increase the poverty rate of our country, in other words the causative factor of poverty is population. Furthermore, they also argued that in order to combat poverty we must control our population. Although the intention of our lawmakers in confronting the problem of poverty is good yet they are throwing a wrong solution to a real problem. Population control is not a solution to poverty, common sense tells us that there can also be poverty in a small population. Population is not our enemy as a matter of fact it is the reason why our economy is still intact in the ongoing global crisis. Economist Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.d wrote “Lessons are being learned from the ongoing global crisis. One of them is that a large and young population can partly insulate a country from ill effects of global recession.1” In a global perspective population has no relation with poverty, there are countries that has even greater population than us, yet, they are more progressive and has less population in poverty compared with us. The following figures prove my point.

Comparison of Population
Comparison of Poverty rate

Basing on these statistical data it tells us that there is no correlation between population and poverty. As we have seen the first four countries namely China, India, United States of America and Japan have a higher population compared to Philippines. However, looking at its poverty percentage Philippines has a higher poverty rate compared with the other countries. This data proves two things, an increase in population has no connection with poverty and an increase in population can bolster economic growth. Clearly the arguments used by proponents of RH BILL cannot hold water upon close scrutiny.

1Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.d, Positive Dimensions of Population Growth, p.32, 2011

 

Argument # 3: The RH BILL is advantageous in preventing unwanted pregnancies1

There is a principle in medicine “treat the cause not the symptoms”, treating the symptoms of a disease will only temporarily alleviate the person’s discomfort. But, once the effect medicine runs out the symptoms will reappear again. The same principle applies in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. “Unwanted pregnancy” is a symptom of disease called promiscuity, once you treat promiscuity there will no longer be “unwanted pregnancies”. Human being becomes “unwanted” if they are a result of illicit affair and promiscuity. Thus, in order to prevent “unwanted pregnancy” we must exhaust all possible means to prevent promiscuity and illicit affairs. Teaching the youth how to use through sex education how to use various artificial contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases will only make it worst because you are not condoning promiscuity but encouraging it. Telling the youth to use condoms to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is tantamount in saying that it is not wrong to engage in premarital sex as long as you don’t get pregnant and will protect yourself from diseases. Premarital sex is wrong not only for moral reason but because it is contrary to our nature as human beings. Sex outside of marriage and for the purpose of gratification rather than the transmission of life is a perverse act. Dr. Sigmund Freud wrote “It is a characteristic common to all the perversions, that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual act is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.2”Freud argued that a sexual act becomes perverse if its aim is no longer reproduction but gratification. In teaching the youth how to avoid pregnancy and attain gratification by the use of artificial contraception proponents of the RH BILL are teaching them how to become perverts.

1Crossroads Liberates, Holy Cross of Davao College, p.8

2Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures On Psychoanalysis, p.226, Allen & Unwin

 

Argument # 4: Promotion of condom use can lessen the cases of H.I.V infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The department of health June 2012 report stated that, “Sexual contact was the most common mode of HIV transmission, accounting for 94% of all reported AIDS cases.1” With this given fact the proponents of the RH BILL proposed the promotion of condom in order to prevent the transmission of HIV (the virus the causes AIDS). Though their intention in preventing the spread of HIV is good, however they are using a wrong solution to a real problem. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) admits that condom use cannot eliminate or prevent the transmission of HIV, it can only reduce the risk of transmission. The CDC reported “Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner.2 Notice that the CDC said that it can only reduce the risk of transmission but it will never totally prevent its transmission thus even if condom is use consistently and correctly there is always the possibility of transmission. With this problem on hand the CDC concede that the most effective way to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV is through abstinence and monogamous relationship; “The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.

3 Most people who are infected with sexually transmitted diseases are those who are living a promiscuous lifestyle like those who engage into premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexual acts and having ,multiple sexual partners. The only solution in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV is to avoid a promiscuous lifestyle.

1http://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/NEC_HIV_June-AIDSreg2012.pdf
2http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

3http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

 

Argument # 5: Promotion of contraception will decrease maternal death rate

This is another laughable argument used by proponents of RH BILL, they argued that preventing pregnancy will considerably decrease maternal death rate. Let’s us get our facts straight, according to the Department of Health the top 10 mortality rate in the Philippines are a.) Diseases of the heart, b.) Diseases of the vascular system, c.) Malignant neoplasms, d.) Accidents, e.) Pneumonia, f.) Tuberculosis, g.) Chronic lower respiratory diseases, h.) Diabetic mellitus, i.) Certain conditions originating in perinatal period and j.) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis.1 Perinatal period is defined as a period immediately before and after birth. The perinatal period is defined in diverse ways. Depending on the definition, it starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth.2 The Department of Health noted that the top 5 causes of maternal death are a.) Complications related to pregnancy occurring in the course of labor, delivery and puerperium, b.) Hypertension complicating pregnancy (Eclampsia), c.) Post-partum hemorrhage, d.) Pregnancy with abortive outcome and e.) Hemorrhage in early pregnancy.3 Every pregnant mother is at risk in developing either one of this complications, thus the best way to prevent and reduce the risk of having these complications is not to prevent pregnancy that as if pregnancy by itself is a disease. Improving our health care system especially health centers and additional special trainings for health professionals can considerably reduce maternal death rate because we are now more prepared in prevention and management of perinatal complications. To follow the logic of proponents of RH BILL it would be like saying “Let’s not send poor children to school so that we will not have shortage on classrooms!”.

1http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/198
2http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7898

3http://www.doh.gov.ph/kp/statistics/maternal_deaths#2006

 

Argument #6: The RH BILL do not espouse abortion

Pro-life advocates are often accused of being deceivers and liars for exposing the hidden agenda of RH BILL which is abortion. Admittedly there is a provision in the RH BILL that explicitly state that abortion is still illegal, but why do we still keep on insisting that the RH BILL is promoting abortion? It’s because it classified the pill and I.U.D under the ambiguous term essential medicine. The Pill is both contraceptive and abortifacient, the Pill works in four ways a.) It suppresses ovulation, b.) It alters cervical mucus to help block sperm entering the cervix, c.) It alters the lining of the womb to prevent nidation (imbedding or implantation) and d.) It alters the movement of fallopian tubes, delaying the passage of ovum, reducing the possibility of fertilization.1 The 3rd effect of the pill which is the prevention of implantation is no contraception but abortifacient. Life begins at conception and what is prevented from being implanted in the womb or uterus is a fertilized egg which is already a human being. If not implanted the fertilized egg will die which is also tantamount to abortion. The Intrauterine Device (IUD) also acts in the same way it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg because it makes the womb or uterus not conducive for implantation. Possibly this is the reason why they classified these abortifacients as essential medicines so that it will no longer be questioned by the public.

THESE ARE THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENTS USED BY PROPONENTS OF THE RH BILL IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THEIR POSITION. BUT EVIDENTLY UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY THEIR ARGMENTS CANNOT HOLD WATER.

1Christine de Stoop, Contraception The Hidden Truth, p.118, 2000

ANG KAPUSLANAN SA SANTOS NGA MISA

ANG KAPUSLANAN SA SANTOS NGA MISA

Hinikay ni Bro. Lesty F. Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender, Black Nazarene Chapter

Jesus Nazareno Parish, Cagayan de Oro City

 

Unsa bay mga kaayohan o bunga nga atong makuha diha sa Santos nga Misa sa higayong  modawat, mokaon o mokalawat kita sa Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo? Unsa bay bili o kapuslanan niini nganhi sa atong kinabuhi?

 

Sayod ‘ta, nga ang Santos nga Misa, walay kalainan sa sakripisyo nga gihimo ni Cristo didto sa Krus, atol sa Iyang pagtubos kanato. Kay diha sa Misa, gipadayon o gisubli lang sa pari ang gihimo nga sakripisyo ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo sa Krus.

 

Si Cristo presente, o anaa gayod diha sa Santos nga Misa. Kay matod pa sa usa ka gamay’ng libro sa katesismo sa Iglesya Katolika, nga gihikay sa Sons of Holy Mary Immaculate (SHMI), nga gipublikar sa Quality Catholic Publication, “…The bread and wine that we receive are the real body and blood of Christ. Jesus Christ is present in a real and substantial way, with His person, body, soul, and divinity” (My First Holy Communion, p. 40).

 

Si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo gayod ang naghalad sa Iyang kaugalingon diha sa Santos nga Misa aron pagtubos sa atong mga sala, sama sa Iyang gihimo didto sa Kalbaryo. Ang kalainan lang mao ang “manner” o paagi sa paghalad sa sakripisyo. Kay didto sa Krus, ang atong Manunubos, nag-antos; nag-ula sa Iyang hamiling dugo; ug namatay gayod. Samtang sa Santos nga Misa, “Christ suffers a mystical death” kun nagsakripisyo Siya diha sa Altar alang sa nagkatigom nga mga sakop sa Iyang Simbahan, nga mao ang Iyang Mystical Body. Sa laktod, ang Misa mao ang re-enactment sa gihimong paghalad ni Cristo sa Iyang Lawas ug Dugo sa Krus, alang sa kaluwasan sa tanang katawhan.

Kay sumala sa laing katesismo sa Simbahang Katoliko, “Of all the sacraments, the most important is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is (really) present in the Holy Eucharist to be our sacrifice, our food, our companion to strengthen and nourish us with His flesh and blood. He comes to us to unite us with Himself and with all the members of the Church” (Saint Joseph New American Catechism, by Rev. Laurence G. Lovasik, SVD, p. 103).

 

Pero ang pangutana, nganong gikinahanglan pa man ang Santos nga Misa nga si Cristo naghalad naman sa Iyang kaugalingong kinabuhi ug nagpakamatay sa makausa, alang sa kaluwasan sa tanan? Ang atong yanong tubag niini mao, nga ang Misa bililhon kaayo kini kay si Cristo mismo ang nagmugna niini atol sa Katapusang Panihapon uban sa Iyang mga apostol; ug Iya kining gipahimutang diha sa Iyang Simbahan. Naghatag kini kanato og merito sa kamatayon ni Cristo alang sa tagsa-tagsa nato ka mga kalag, ug sa maong sakripsiyo, atong gisangyaw ang Iyang kamatayon hangtod sa Iyang pagbalik.

Subay niini, si San Pablo dunay pahayag kabahin sa kamahinongdanon sa Balaang Panihapon sa Ginoo nga atong subling ginahimo diha sa Altar. “Kay sa matag kaon ninyo niining pan ug sa matag inom ninyo gikan niining kupa, gisangyaw ninyo ang Iyang kamatayon hangtod sa pagbalik Niya.  Busa ang mokaon sa pan sa Ginoo o moinom gikan sa Iyang kupa sa paagi nga dili takos, nakasala batok sa lawas ug sa dugo sa Ginoo” (1 Corinto 11:26-27, Maayong Balita Biblia). Kay kining pan ug bino nga atong gipanag-ambitan diha sa Santos nga Misa, DILLI KINI SIMBOLO lang, kondili, tinuod gayod kini nga Lawas ug Dugo sa atong Ginoo. Kay kung simbolo pa lamang kini, sama sa gipatuo sa ubang mga pundok sa relihiyon, nganong makasala man ‘ta kung mokaon ‘ta sa pan ug moinom sa bino sa paagi nga dili kita takos?

Busa, matod ni San Pablo kinahanglang susihon una nato ang atong kaugalingon ayha kita mokalawat diha sa Balaang Bangkete. “Busa kinahanglan nga ang matag usa magsusi sa iyang kaugalingon ug unya mokaon sa pan ug moinom gikan sa kupa. Kay kon dili niya ilhon ang kahulogan sa lawas sa Ginoo, inigkaon niya sa pan ug ining-inom niya gikan sa kupa, siya ang nagpahamtang og silot sa iyang kaugalingon” (1 Corinto 11:28-29, Maayong Balita Biblia). Kay human sa konsagrasyon sa pari sa pan ug sa bino diha sa Altar, mahimo kining tinuod nga Lawas ug tinuod nga Dugo sa atong Manunubos, pinaagi sa gitawag og “transubstantiation.” Ang mga aksiyon nga ginahimo ug ang mga pulong nga ginalitok sa pari diha sa Santos nga Misa, mao rang mga aksiyona ug mao rang mga pulonga nga gihimo ni Cristo atol sa Katapusang Panihapon (Cf. Mateo 26:26-28).

Ug bisan ang gamay’ng bahin sa Santos nga Tinapay (Ostiya), tibuok gihapon kana nga Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo.  Kay si Cristo presente bisan diha sa pan lamang, presente usab Siya bisan sa dugo lamang, ug anaa Siya diha sa lawas ug dugo nga atong gipanag-ambitan sa Santos nga Misa. Alayon niini, ang katesismo sa Simbahan dayag nga nag-ingon: “Jesus is present in the bread alone, in the blood alone, and in the body and blood together…even if we receive the bread alone, or the blood alone, we receive the whole Jesus Christ, in His body, blood, soul, and divinity” (My First Holy Communion, pp. 43-44).

 

Ug sumala sa Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, nga sinulat ni Dr. Ludwig Ott, Section 2, Chapter 3, Nos. 25-26, ang Santos nga Misa adunay pito (7) ka mga effects, kun pito ka mga sangputanan o katuyoan:

  1.  Sakripisyo sa Pagdayeg ug Pasalamat (Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving)

Ang Misa aduna kini gitawag nga “infinite value” gumikan sa sacrificial gifts niini nga mao ang Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo. Labot pa, si Cristo mismo mao ang PRIMARY SACRIFICING PRIEST sa matag sakripisyo diha sa Altar. Ang Santos nga Misa, usa kini ka labing taas nga matang sa pag-ampo, ug labing hingpit nga sakripisyo sa pagdayeg ug pasalamat nga atong gihalad ngadto sa Diyos nga Amahan – kay si Cristo man mismo ang ginahalad diha sa Santos nga Yukaristiya.  Ang pulong Eucharist, gikan kini sa pinolungang Griego nga eukharistia nga nagkahulogan og pasalamat. Ug pinaagi sa Santos nga Misa, atong hugot nga gidayeg ug gipasalamatan ang Amahan tungod sa pagpanubos sa Iyang Bugtong Anak nga si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo. “The Eucharist is also called the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Memorial of Jesus’ Resurrection. The “Lord’s Supper” because any time we celebrate the Eucharist we remember the Last Supper of Jesus. The “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” because in every Eucharist it is repeated the passion and death on the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The “Memorial of Jesus’ Resurrection” because in every Eucharist is made present the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eucharist is a Greek word “eukaristia,” which means “thanksgiving,” because in the Mass we give thanks to the Lord God for all He has done for us” (My First Holy Communion, pp. 39-40).

  1. Sakripsiyo sa Pagpanghimayad ug Pagpangamuyo (Sacrifice for Expiation and Appeal)

Ang Misa makapatangtang o makapasaylo sa atong mga sala ug sa mga silot niini. Apan alang sa mga salang mortal, ang sakripisyo sa Misa dili gilayon kini mosantop, kondili moagi sa Sakremento sa Bunyag o sa Kompisal. Makapabuhi ug makapalambo kini sa Grasyang Makasantos nga atong madawat diha sa Bunyag ug sa Kompisal. Kay ang mga sakramento nga gipahimutang ni Cristo sa Iyang Simbahan, gihimo niyang agianan sa mga grasya, ilabina sa Sanctifying Grace kun Grasyang Makasantos.

  1. Madawat nato ang mga gasa gikan sa Diyos (We will receive gifts from God)

Ang Misa dili lamang kini alang natong mga buhi, kondili alang usab sa mga kabos ug nag-antos nga mga kalag sa Purgatoryo. Madawat nato ang mga grasya ug mga gasa nga atong pangayoon, sama pananglit sa kaayuhan sa mga balatian, maayong panglawas, kalinaw, maayong trabaho, ug uban pa. Ug labaw sa tanan, madawat nato ug molambo ang Sanctifying Grace nga anaa sa atong kalag. Ang pangutana, unsa ba kining Sanctifying Grace? Ang usa ka karaang libro sa katesismo sa Simabahang Katoliko naghatag kanato og tin-aw nga kahulogan kabahin niini. “Sanctifying Grace is that which confers on the soul a new and supernatural state of life by which we share in the life of God Himself. It is a prevailing condition, making us His children by adoption, temples of the Holy Ghost, holy and pleasing in His sight; and it also gives a pledge of eternal glory. Moreover, it’s an inner supernatural gift bestowed on us through the merits of Jesus Christ for our salvation” (A Catechism for Inquirers, by Rev. Joseph I. Malloy, CSP, pp. 26-27).

Kay bisa’g tuldok lamang kita niining kalibotana, maggilak-gilak ug kahimot-an kita sa Diyos tungod sa grasya. Kay pinaagi sa Grasyang Makasantos, sumala pa, mahimo kitang mga anak sa Diyos; mahiusa kita kang Cristo; maangkon nato ang saad sa kinabuhing dayon; ug daghan pang ubang mga bunga niini. Labot pa, mahisama usab kita sa mga anghel (Mat. 22:29-30); ug maangkon nato ang supernatural perfection kun kahingpitan; ug maangkon usab nato ang mga kabulahanan nga gisaad sa Diyos.

  1. Ang Sakripisyo sa Misa dunay lihok-sangputanan nga “Ex Opere Operato

Ang Sakripisyo sa Santos nga Misa wala mag-agad sa moralidad sa obispo o sa pari. Sa laktod, wala kini mag-agad sa kabuotan ug kadaotan sa ministro niini, tungod kay sakripisyo mismo kini ni Cristo. Si Cristo mismo ang putling halad ug biktima. Siya usab ang primary sacrificing priest nga naghalad sa Iyang kaugalingong Lawas ug Dugo diha sa Altar. Kay gipanagna nang daan sa Karaang Tugon nga ang katawhan sa Diyos maghalad og usa ka putling halad, gikan sa pagsubang hangtod sa pagsalop sa adlaw. “Gikan sa pagsubang sa adlaw hangtod sa pagsalop niini ang akong ngalan gipasindunggan sa kanasoran. Bisag diing dapita nagsunog silag insenso alang Kanako ug naghimo og putli nga halad” (Malaquias 1:11, Maayong Balita Biblia). Ang Santos nga Misa, usa kini ka putli natong halad sa Labaw’ng Makagagahom, ug dili kini mag-agad sa kahimtang sa kinabuhi sa ministro o pari.

  1. Alang sa katawhan, ang Misa dunay lihok-sangputanan nga “Ex Opera Operantis

Kung wala kita sa kahimtang sa grasya, ang sakripisyo sa Santos nga Misa, dili magpulos kanato. Ang Misa usa ka balaan ug solemne nga kasaulogan. Balaan usab ang Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo nga atong pagadawaton ug pagaambitan. Ug kita nga modawat niini, kinahanglang anaa kita sa estado sa grasya. (Basaha ang 1 Corinto 11:27-31). Ug sa dili pa kita modawat sa Balaang Tinapay, atong hinolsulan ang atong mga kalapasan, ug pasayloon usab nato ang atong mga igsoon nga nakasala diha nato. (Basaha ang Mateo 5:23-24).

  1. Ang Sakripisyo sa Misa Makapakunhod sa mga Silot Temporal (Mass Remits the Temporal Punishments)

Ang Santos nga Misa makapakunhod, o makapatangtang sa mga silot temporal sa atong mga venial nga sala, ug sa atong mga salang mortal nga ato nang nahinolsulan ug napasaylo na sa Diyos. Ang temporal punishment, mahimong madawat nato ning kinabuhia, o sa umaabot nga kinabuhi. Mao nga magpamisa ‘ta alang sa kalingkawasan sa mga kalag sa Purgatoryo, nga padayong gilinisan ug giputli ayha sila tugotang makasulod sa Himaya sa Diyos. Kay ang atong katesismo nagkanayon: “We make reparation for the sins of the living and the dead. The Eucharist has the power to forgive the venial sins of the living and of the dead. We must offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass for the souls in Purgatory, so that the Lord may remove the stain of sin and bring them with Him in Paradise” (My First Holy Communion, p. 40).

  1. Ang Sakripisyo sa Misa dunay Pinasahi nga mga Bunga (Special Fruits of the Mass)

Ang Santos nga Misa makapalambo ug makapalipang sa mga gasa nga atong nadawat gikan sa Diyos, ilabina ang “supernatural gift.” Kay diha sa atong Bunyag, madugtong pagbalik ang naputol nga Grasyang Makasantos human nakasala ang atong unang mga ginikanan. Ug diha usab sa Sakramento sa Yukaristiya, molambo ug molipang pag-ayo ang Grasyang Makasantos nga atong nadawat sa Sakramento sa Bunyag ug sa Sakramento sa Kompisal. Gumikan sa paglambo sa Sanctifying Grace, madawat ug maangkon nato ang uban mga espirituhanong gasa nga makapalig-on sa atong maayong relasyon sa Diyos.

Atong timan-an, nga si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo nagtukod og usa ka Simbahan kun Iglesya sa wala pa Siya misaka pagbalik sa Langit. Kining maong Iglesya maoy nagpadayon sa Iyang redemptive mission dinhi sa kalibotan. Gihatagan Niya kini’g otoridad ug gisugo sa pagsangyaw aron ang tanan maluwas. Iya pa gayod kining gipasaligan nga dili mabuntog bisan sa gahom sa Yawa, gisaaran nga Iyang ubanan hangotd sa kataposan sa kapanahonan. Ug diha sa maong Simbahan, Iyang gipahimutang ang mga sakramento nga maoy nagsilbing agianan sa mga grasya sa Diyos, ilabina ang Grasyang Makasantos. Busa atong ampingan nga dili mawagtang kining maong grasya nganhi kanato. Ug kining Grasyang Makasantos nga atong nadawat sa panahon sa atong Bunyag, sa Kompisal ug uban pang mga sakramento, molig-on ug molambo kini pinaagi sa atong pagdawat, o pagkaon sa Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo diha sa Santos nga Misa.  Atong usab nga timan-an, nga sa matag higayon nga mokalawat kita sa Balaang Tinapay diha sa sakripisyo sa Misa, anaa gayod kita sa KAHIMTANG SA GRASYA.

 

 

 

 

ANG PASKO SA PAGKABANHAW

ANG PASKO SA PAGKABANHAW

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender

 

Nganong mag-usab-usab man ang petsa ug ang bulan sa matag tuig, sa pagsaulog sa Simbahang Katoliko sa Easter Sunday kun Pasko sa Pagkabanhaw, usahay saulogon sa bulan sa Marso, ug usahay saulogon sa bulan sa Abril?

 

Si Cristo namatay sa bulan sa Abib kun Nisan – bulan sa kalendaryo sa mga Judio.

Kining Nisan mao kini ang unang bulan sa Jewish Calendar. Kung atong itandi sa atong Gregorian Calendar nga atong gigawi karon, magsugod kini sa tunga-tungang bahin sa bulan sa Marso (Marso 15-30), ug matapos usab kini sa tunga-tungang bahin sa Abril (Abril 1-15). Sa laktod, giyayongan kini sa duha ka bulan.

Exodo 12:1-2 – “Ang Ginoo miingon kang Moises ug kang Aaron didto sa Ehipto, ‘Kining bulana mao ang unang bulan sa tuig alang kaninyo’.”

Ania ang mga ngalan sa mga bulan sa Jewish Calendar:

  1. Nisan – (Marso 15 – Abril 15)
  2. Iyar – (Abril 15 –Mayo 15)
  3. Sivan – (Mayo 15 – Hunyo 15)
  4. Tammuz – (Hunyo 15 – Hulyo 15)
  5. Ab – (Hulyo 15 – Agusto 15)
  6. Elul – (Agusto 15 – Sityembre 15)
  7. Tishri – (Sityembre 15 – Oktubre 15)
  8. Marchesvan – (Oktubre 15 – Nobyembre 15)
  9. Kislev – (Nobyembre 15 – Disyembre 15)
  10. Tebeth – (Disyembre 15 – Enero 15)
  11. Shebeth – (Enero 15 – Pebrero 15)
  12. Adar – (Pebrero 15 – Marso 15)

Kining maong impormasyon atong gikuha gikan sa librong The New Testament Survey nga sinulat ni Dr.  Merrill C. Tenney, p. 95.

Ug niining bulan sa Nisan, gisaulog sa mga Judio ang Passover kun Pangilin sa Pagsaylo.

Levitico 23:5 – “Ang ika-14 ka adlaw sa unang bulan mao ang Pangilin sa Pagsaylo….”

Kining Pangilin sa Pagsaylo kun Passover, usa kini ka bililhong pangilin sa mga Judio nga ilang gisaulog matag tuig isip paghandom sa gihimong pagluwas kanila sa Dios gikan sa ilang pagkabihag ug pagkaulipon didto sa yuta sa Ehipto. (Basaha ang Exodo 12:1-28.)

Ang libro ni Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, nag-ingon: “The Passover was the most important of all, historically and religiously. It marked the anniversary of the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt and their establishment as an independent people by the redemptive act of God” (The New Testament Survey, p. 96).

Gawas niana, ang maong pangilin, ila usab nga gihandom ang pagsaylo sa anghel sa kamatayon sa ilang mga panganay nga anak nga lalaki nga mipatay sa mga panganay’ng anak nga lalaki sa mga Ehiptohanon.

Ang The Handbook of Prayers sa pahina 40 dayag nga nag-asoy: “At every Passover, the Jews recalled and renewed their covenant with God by sacrificing a lamb. This sacrificial lamb once spared the firstborn of the Jews from the exterminating angel who came to slay the firstborn of every family in Egypt.”

Sa Iyang panahon, si Cristo nagsaulog usab sa Pangilin sa Pagsaylo kun “Panihapon sa Pagsaylo.” Basaha ang Mateo 26:17-25, diin gisaulog ni Jesus ang maong pangilin uban sa Iyang mga tinun-an didto sa usa ka balay sa siyudad.

Sa pagsaulog ni Jesus sa Pangilin sa Pagsaylo, gihimo usab Niya ang KATAPUSANG PANIHAPON uban sa Iyang mga tinun-an. Kini natigayon atol sa bisperas sa Iyang kamatayon (Mateo 26:26-30).

Dinhi, nagpasidaan si Jesus sa Iyang mga tinun-an nga atol sa Pangilin sa Pagsaylo, taralon Siya ug ilansang sa krus.

Mateo 26:1-2 – “Sa nakatapos na si Jesus pagtudlo niining tanan, miingon Siya sa Iyang mga tinun-an, ‘Sumala sa inyong nasayran, duha na lang ka adlaw ug saulogon na ang Pangilin sa Pagsaylo, ug ang Anak sa Tawo itugyan na aron ilansang sa krus’.”

Sanglit ang Jewish Calendar usa man ka lunar calendar, ang mga pangilin ug ang dagkong mga kasaulogan sa mga Judio anha nila itunong  o ibase sa lihok sa bulan – sama sa pagsubang ug sa pagtakdol.

Salmo 81:2-5 – “Sugdi ang honi ug patingoga ang tambor; tugtoga ang anindot nga honi pinaagi sa mga alpa ug sa mga lira. Patingoga ang mga trumpeta alang sa pangilin; inigsubang sa bulan ug inigtakdol niini. Kini ang balaod sa Israel, sugo kini sa Dios ni Jacob. Gisugo Niya kini sa katawhan sa Israel, sa pagpahawa nila sa yuta sa Ehipto.”

Ug kining Pangilin sa Pagsaylo sa mga Judio, ilang ginasaulog atol gayod nga FULL MOON kun TAKDOL ang bulan, diin mao usab ang panahon nga ilang gisakit ug gilansang si Ginoong Jesu-Cristo sa krus.

Ug ang FULL MOON nga ilang gibasihan sa kasaulogan sa Passover kun Pangilin sa Pagsaylo mao ang UNANG TAKDOL sa bulan human sa Spring o Vernal Equinox.

Kining “vernal equinox,” usa kini ka phenomenon, o naandang lihok sa kalibotan, diin mao ang higayon nga molatas ang adlaw (sun) sa celestial equator. Sa panahon nga molabang ang adlaw sa equator, parihas gayod ang gidugayon sa adlaw ug gabii. Kining maong phenomenon (vernal equinox) mahitabo kini sa matag Marso 21, kada tuig.

  • Basaha ang Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 429, aron mapasabot ang kahulogan sa “equator” ug sa “equinox” kun “vernal equinox.”
  • Basaha ang Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, Volume 2, p. 1395, aron mapadayag usab ang kahulogan sa pulong “vernal.”

Kini ang tukmang hinongdan ngano ang Pasko sa Pagkabanhaw mag-usab-usab ang petsa ug ang bulan sa kasaulogan niini matag tuig.  Kay human sa VERNAL EQUINOX sa Marso 21, pangitaon ang UNANG TAKDOL SA BULAN, ug ang labing duol nga Domingo human sa full moon kun takdol, diha saulogon ang Easter Sunday kun Pasko sa Pagkabanhaw sa atong Ginoong Jesu-Cristo.

Kay sumala sa Kasaysayan ug sa Bibliya mismo, si Cristo nabanhaw sa adlaw’ng Domingo (Mateo 28:1), human sa takdol.

Ug ang pagpangita sa Ash Wednesday kun Miyerkules sa Badlis, moihap ta’g kwarenta (40) ka adlaw paatras gikan sa Sabado, usa ka adlaw sa dili pa ang Easter Sunday, adto ta mosangko sa adlaw’ng Miyerkules.

Walay labot sa pag-ihap ang unom (6) ka adlaw’ng Domingo, sanglit kasaulogan man kini sa pagkabanhaw ni Cristo.

Kay kon atong subayon ug pakli-on ang kasaysayan sa atong Simbahan, giingon nga ang Easter cycle gilangkuban sa duha ka period kun yugto nga mao ang LENT ug EASTER. Ang Lent anha magsugod sa Ash Wednesday, ang adlaw human sa popular nga Catholic festival nga gitawag og Mardi Gras (French nga pinulongan sa “Fat Tuesday”), ang adlaw sa karnabal ug dakong selebrasyon.

 

Apan ang Ash Wednesday kun Miyerkules sa Badlis, usa ka masulob-on ug mamingaw nga adlaw, tungod kay mao kini ang adlaw nga hinomduman ug hinulsolan sa mga tawo ang ilang mga sala.

Ug sa Miyerkules sa Badlis, dinhi magsugod ang Kwaresma kun kap-atan ka adlaw sa atong pagpamalandong ug pagsaulog sa paschal mystery o misterios pascual sa atong Ginoo Jesu-Cristo, nga mao Iyang PAGPASAKIT, KAMATAYON ug PAGKABANHAW.

Ang pulong “kwaresma” gikan kini sa pinulongang Griego nga tessarakoste. Sa Latin gitawag kini’g quadragesima, nga sa ato pa, kwarenta ka adlaw. Ug sa English giatawag usab kini’g LENT nga nagkahulogan og springtime.

UNSA BAY ANGAY NATONG BUHATON PANAHON SA KWARESMA, DIHA SA ATONG PAGPANGANDAM SA PASKO SA PAGKABANHAW?

  1. PAG-AMPO. Ang pag-ampo maoy pagpataas o pagbayaw sa atong hunahuna ug kasingkasing ngadto sa Dios nga Labing Halangdon ug Labing Balaan. Kini mao ang gitawag og PAG-AMPO MENTAL. Kon ang hunahuna ug ang pagbati sa kasingkasing ibungat sa pulong, mahimo kining PAG-AMPO BOKAL. (Basaha ang My First Catechism nga “What is Prayer,” pp. 169-170). Ang pag-ampo, makahatag kanato’g kalig-on batok sa daotan. Si Cristo miingon, “Pagtukaw kamo ug pag-ampo, aron dili kamo madaog sa panulay” (Mat. 26:41).

 

  1. PAGPUASA UG PAG-ABSTINENSIYA. Ang Puasa himoon panahon sa Miyerkules sa Badlis ug sa Biyernes Santo. Kining mga adlaw sa Puasa mga adlaw usab sa Abstinensiya. Apan ang tinuod nga PUASA mao ang paglugtab sa mga gapos sa sala (Isaias 58:6-7). Samtang ang adlaw sa Abstinensiya mao ang mga adlaw nus-a dili kita tugotan sa pagkaon og karne. Ang adlaw sa Abstinensiya dinhi sa Pilipinas mao ang Miyerkules sa Badlis, ug ang tanang mga Biyernes sulod sa Kwaresma. (Tan-awa ang “Katesismo sa mga Pagtulon-ang Kristohanon,” pp. 75-76.)

 

  1. PAGHATAG OG LIMOS. Ang atong natigom diha sa atong pagpuasa, atong ihatag sa mga kabos, ug sa mga nanginahanglan. Kinahanglang mohatag kita sa uban aron dunay mga grasya nga atong madawat gikan sa Dios (Lucas 6:38).

 

  1. PAGHINULSOL UG PAGPASAYLO. Walay kapuslanan ang atong pagpuasa ug pag-abstinensiya kung nagdumot gihapon ta sa atong mga kaaway. Kinahanglang makig-uli kita kanila (Mateo 5:23-24). Ato sundan og mga maayong buhat ang atong pagpuasa ug pag-abstinensiya. Ato usab nga hinulsolan ug ikompisal ang atong mga sala nga maoy nakapahilayo kanato sa Dios (Sirac 4:26; Sirac 38:10; Ecclesiastes 5:6). Ug ang tinuod nga paghinulsol mao ang pagbiya sa sala (Ezequiel 33:19).

 

BUNYAG SA BATA

BUNYAG SA BATA

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” F. Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender

 

Apologetics on Mass

September 23, 2012

 

Ang Iglesya Katolika, o ang atong Simbahan, nagtudlo nga ang mga bata nailalom o naduhig sa SALANG PANULONDON, ug dili sa salang buhatnon kay wala pa man nakalapas ang bata sa sugo sa Diyos (1 Juan 3:4).

 

Kay ang deklarasyon sa Magisterium sa Santa Iglesya, nagkanayon: “Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.” (De fide.)

 

Binisaya: “Ang sala ni Adan misulod ngadto sa iyang kaliwatan, dili pinaagi sa pag-awat, kondili diha sa pagkunsad.”

 

Ang SALANG PANULONDON mao ang kahimtang sa bata nga nahikawan o nawad-an sa Grasyang Makasantos.

 

Roma 5:12 – “Nakasulod sa kalibotan ang sala pinaagi sa usa ka tawo, ug ang sala nagdalag kamatayon. Busa mikaylap ang kamatayon ngadto sa tanang katawhan kay nakasala man ang tanang tawo.”

 

Ang bata MAY SALA bisan atua pa sa sabakan sa iyang inahan. Ug kini giangkon mismo ni Hari David.

 

Ug si Hari David miangkon:DAOTAN ako sukad ako mahimugso; ug MAKASASALA sukad ako ipanamkon (Salmo 51:5, Maayong Balita Biblia).  (Daotan siya ug makasasala sukad gipanamkon. Pangutana, unsa bang salaa ang nahimo ni Hari David samtang siya gipanamkon? Tubag: mao kini ang gitawag og ORIGINAL SIN.)

 

Pagbangutan 5:7 – “NAKASALA ANG AMONG KATIGULANGAN ug nangamatay sila; ug KAMI ANG NAG-ANTOS SA SILOT SA ILANG MGA SALA.” (Nag-antos ‘ta sa epekto sa ilang mga sala; ug nag-antos ‘ta sa silot sa ilang mga sala.)

 

The Council Trent defined ORIGINAL SIN as the death of the soul. The DEATH OF THE SOUL, is however, the absence of the SUPERNATURAL LIFE, that is, of SANCTIFYING GRACE.

 

Labot pa, ang deklarasyon sa Magisterium sa Santa Iglesya, nagkanayon: “In the state of original sin man is deprived of Sanctifying Grace.” (De fide.)

 

Binisaya: “Diha sa kahimtang sa salang panulondon ang tawo nahikawan sa Grasyang Makasantos.”

 

Ang SALA NGA PANULONDON mao ang epekto sa sala sa atong unang mga ginikanan. Kay human sila nakasala, naputol ang GRASYANG MAKASANTOS, ang Supernatural Life.

 

Ug kining maong GRASYA idugtong kini pagbalik sa Diyos pinaagi sa SAKRAMENTO SA BUNYAG, nga mao usab ang magsilbing entrance o pagsulod sa tawo ngadto sa iyang katilingbang Simbahan.

 

Alayon niini, ang inilang libro sa Iglesya Katolika, nagkanayon: “Baptism constitutes the gateway into the Church of Christ. Without it no other sacrament can be validly received. It is the sacrament which makes a person a Christian and gives him a right to the supernatural kingdom of heaven, to which he has no title by the mere fact of his natural birth. Baptism therefore is a spiritual rebirth or regeneration of the soul” (The Faith of Millions by Rev. John A. O’Brien, p. 153).

 

Dogma: “In BAPTISM original sin is eradicated through the INFUSION OF SANCTIFYING GRACE.”//

 

Kay sa Juan 3:5 – “Walay makasulod sa Gingharian sa Diyos gawas kon siya MATAWO PAG-USAB pinaagi sa tubig ug sa Espiritu.”

 

Kining maong teksto wala kini magpasabot nga mag-born again ‘ta, kondili nagpasabot kini sa BUNYAG, aron kita makasulod sa langit, ug makaangkon sa kinabuhing dayon.

 

Tito 3:5 – “Giluwas kita Niya pinaagi sa PAGHUGAS kanato aron kita MATAWO PAG-USAB UG MAKABATON OG BAG-ONG KINABUHI diha sa Espiritu Santo.

English: “He saved us through baptism of new birth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (New American Bible).

 

(Kay sa Greek, ang original text sa New Testament, ang termino nga gigamit mao ang “genethe anothen.” Sa English: “born from above.” Kay ang termino nga “born again,” sa Greek: “genethe palin.”)

 

Kining pagkatawo pag-usab pinaagi sa tubig ug sa espiritu nagpasabot kini sa BUNYAG. Ug gigamit ni Jesus ang pulong TAWO, busa lakip niini bisan ang gamay’ng masuso, kay si Jesus nag-ingon nga ang masuso, tawo usab.

 

Juan 16:21 – “Ang usa ka babaye kung manganak may kasubo, kay miabot ang iyang takna; apan kung makaanak na dili mahanumdom sa kagul-anan, tungod sa kalipay nga natawo ang usa ka tawo sa kalibotan” (Bugna Biblia).

 

Kay sa Dekreto sa Konselyo sa Trento (1546), sa Canon XII, nagkanayon: CANON XII:If any one saith, that no one is to be baptized save at that age at which Christ was baptized, or in the very article of death; let him be anathema.”

 

Binisaya: Kung adunay si bisan kinsa nga moingon, nga walay si bisan kinsa nga pagabawtismohan gawas lamang kung siya susama ug edad sa dihang si Cristo gibawtismohan, o diha sa yugto sa iyang kamatayon; pasagdi nga matinunglo siya.

 

Ug ang mga Protestante hugot nga nagtudlo: Nga ang PAGTUO kinahanglanon kaayo diha sa BAUTISMO.

 

Marcos 16:16 – “Ang MOTUO ug MAGPABUNYAG maluwas, apan ang dili motuo, silotan.”

 

Kining maong teksto sa Bibliya, DILI nila kini magamit diha sa ilang pagnigar sa BUNYAG SA BATANG MASUSO. Kay si San Marcos naghisgot man sa mga HAMTONG nga kinahanglang motuo ug magpabunyag aron sila maluwas.

 

Kay si Saint Thomas Aquinas, ang usa sa mga bantugang doktor sa Simbahan, miingon:FAITH is the act of the intellect when it assents to divine truth under the influence of the will moved by God through grace” (Suma Theologica II, Q.2 a 9).

 

Binisaya: “Ang PAGTUO usa ka lihok sa salabotan sa dihang mosanong kini sa Diyosnong kamatuoran duyog sa ganoy sa kabubot-on diin giduso sa Diyos pinaagi sa grasya.”

 

Dinhi, dayag nga ang PAGTUO nagsumikad kini sa espirituhanong bahin sa tawo, ug dili sa lawasnong kahimtang.  Busa ang pagbaton sa PAGTUO wala nag-agad sa edad o kahamtong sa tawo.  Tungod niana, tataw kaayo nga ANG MGA BATA DUNA GAYOY PAGTUO, bisan dili pa kini nila mapadayag sama sa mga dagko.//

 

Ang mga BATANG MASUSO adunay tiunay nga pagtuo sa Diyos.

 

Kay si Ginoong Jesus dayag nga miingon: “Ug mahitungod niining GAGMAY’NG MGA BATA NGA NAGTUO KANAKO….” (Mateo 18:6, Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Ug ang atong Ginoo midugang sa pag-ingon:Ang mga bata ug ang mga masuso gibansay mo sa paghalad ug hingpit nga pagdayeg kanimo” (Mateo 21:16, Maayong Balita Biblia).

 

Karon kining pagdayeg sa Diyos sangputanan man kini sa pagtuo. Busa dili unta makadayeg sa Diyos ang mga bata ug ang mga masuso kung sila wala pay pagtuo! Dinhi, klaro kaayo nga ANG MGA BATA ADUNAY TIUNAY NGA PAGTUO.

 

Ug ang pagtuo sa mga masuso, gitawag kini’g implicit faith” kun pagtuo diha sa atong kahiladman, o diha sa atong kalag nga gitisok sa Diyos.

 

Kay si San Pablo miingon: “…SUKAD SA IMONG PAGKABATA nagbasa ka na sa Balaang Kasulatan nga arang makahatag kanimog kaalam nga maghatod ngadto sa kaluwasan PINAAGI SA PAGTUO kang Cristo Jesus” (2 Timoteo 3:15, Maayong Balita Biblia).//

 

Lucas 1:41 – “Sa pagkabati ni Elizabet sa pangumosta ni Maria, milihok ang bata sulod sa iyang tiyan.”

 

Ang paglihok sa bata nga si San Juan nagtimailhan nga siya NAKAILA ug MITUO sa Batang Jesus nga gisabak usab ni Santa Maria.  Kamatuoran kini nga ang PAGTUO ANAA GAYOD SA MGA BATANG MASUSO, bisan gani niadtong atoa pa sa tagoangkan sa ilang inahan.

 

Ug wala may mabasa sa Bibliya nga ang kalag sa bata, bata usab. Kay sa bunyag, dili man ang lawas ang pagaluwason, kondili, ANG KALAG man.

 

Ug ang BUNYAG dili man ang paghugas sa buling sa lawas, kondili, sa BULING SA KALAG.

 

1 Pedro 3:20-21 – “Walo lamang ka tawo ang misulod sa arka ug naluwas pinaagi sa tubig. Naghulagway kini sa BUNYAG nga karon nagluwas kaninyo, DILI PINAAGI SA PAGHUGAS SA BULING SA INYONG LAWAS…Ang bunyag naglwas kaninyo pinaagi sa pagkabanhaw ni Jesu-Cristo.”//

 

Ang ginikanan, uban sa mga ninong og ninang, maoy representante sa PAGTUO SA MGA BATA. Naa ba kini pruyba sa Bibliya?

 

1 Corinto 1:16 – Si Estefanas maoy nahimong representante, ug ang iyang panimalay NAKADAWAT SA BUNYAG.

 

Buhat 18:8 – Si Crispo nga pangulo sa sinagoga maoy nahimong representante, ug ang iyang tibuok panimalay GIBUNYAGAN.

 

Buhat 11:14-48 – Si Cornelio nahimong representante sa iyang tibuok pamilya, ug silang tanan GIBUNYAGAN.

 

Buhat 16:31-33 – Ang PAGTUO sa gwardiya sa karsel maoy nahimong timailhan sa pagtuo sa iyang tibuok panimalay, ug silang tanan GIBUNYAGAN.

 

Dugang Pruyba sa Balaang Kasulatan:

 

Buhat 2:38-39 – “Ang tagsatagsa kaninyo kinhanglang maghinulsol, ug magpabunyag…ang saad sa Dios alang man kaninyo ug sa inyong mga ANAK.

 

Ang orihinal nga sinulat sa mga Buhat sa Apostoles mao ang pinulongang Griego. Ug ang pulong kun termino nga “anak,” sa Greek: “teknois, nga nagkahologan og BATANG MASUSO kun GAMAY’NG BATA.

 

1 Corinto 10:1-2 – “Mga igsoon, buot kong hinumdoman ninyo ang nahitabo sa atong mga katigulangan nga mikuyog kang Moises. Gipanalipdan silang tanan sa panganod, ug milatas sila sa Dagat nga Pula. Pinaagi sa panganod ug sa dagat GIBUNYAGAN SILANG TANAN ingon nga mga sumosunod ni Moises.”

 

Hinumdoman, nga sa paglatas nila sa Dagat nga Pula kuyog nila ang MASUSONG MGA BATA, ug silang tanan NABAWTISMOHAN.

 

Kay ang tradisyon sa mga apostoles nagtudlo kanato sa dayag nga ang pagpamunyag sa unang mga Kristohanon lakip ang mga batang masuso. Ug kini gipamatud-an sa Kasaysayan sa Kalibotan.

 

Baptism was occasionally administered to infants from the earliest days of the Church” (World History by O’Brien, page 144).

 

ANG KAMAHINONGDANON SA BUNYAG:

 

Ang gibunyagan sa ngalan ni Cristo nagsul-ob ni Cristo. Ang bunyag mao ang paghiusa sa bata ngato ni Cristo (Galacia 2:27).

 

Pinaagi sa bunyag, nahimong Kristiyanos ang usa ka tawo (1 Corinto 12:13).

 

Ug ang katarungan sa mga protestante nga dili na kinahanglang bunyagan ang bata kay ang Gingharian sa Langit alang kanila, usa ka dakong sayop! Kay kadtong giingnan ni Cristo nga ang mga bata alang kanila ang langit, mao kadtong mga bata nga gipaduol sa ilang mga ginikanan kang Ginoong Jesu-Cristo, pinaagi sa BUNYAG.

 

Kay ang pangutana mao kini: Ang pagbunyag sa bata, makapahilayo o makapahiduol ba kang Cristo?

 

Kay diha sa BUNYAG, ulion o isumpay pagbalik ang GRASYANG MAKASANTOS nga naputol human nakasala ang una natong mga ginikanan.

 

Ang usa ka karaang libro sa katesismo sa Simabahang Katoliko naghatag kanato og tin-aw nga pagpasabot kon unsay kahulogan ug unsa kamahinongdanon ang Grasyang Makasantos. “Sanctifying Grace is that which confers on the soul a new and Supernatural State of life by which we share in the life of God Himself. It is a prevailing condition, making us His children by adoption, temples of the Holy Ghost, holy and pleasing in His sight; and it also gives a pledge of eternal glory. Moreover, it’s an inner supernatural gift bestowed on us through the merits of Jesus Christ for our salvation” (A Catechism for Inquirers, by Rev. Joseph I. Malloy, CSP, pp. 26-27).