Catholic Church (Bro. RJ Seno) vs Missionary Baptist (Pastor Bernardo) – November 2, 2014 Debate

Catholic Church (Bro. RJ Seno) vs Missionary Baptist (Pastor Bernardo) – November 2, 2014 Debate

by John Carlo

 

On the All Souls day last November 2, 2014, God shows his power and defeat the Devil through this debate. The event happened at Cabaguio Davao City and it has been well attended by faithfuls from different Parishes all over Davao and even from Cebu. Roughly 200 people witnessed the debate with the majority from Catholics. Converted Pastor Bro. Noe Dora did a testimony in between the debate, and he really moved the Baptist faithfuls including Pastor Bernardo with his conversion experiences. Rev. Fr. Jorge S. Angga also testifies after the debate about the Catholic Faith, encourages the Catholic Faithfuls to stand firm in their faith. The Devil really hates the Sacraments, so he was trying to oppose that the Sacraments is not a teaching from Christ, but through Bro. RJ Seno who has been an instrument to defend the Catholic doctrines the Devil was defeated. The video will tell you the whole thing. :)

I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” Luke 10:18

This is the full length of the debate.

click this ——–> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnupyrQVaqQ&feature=youtu.be

1013507_950955591599728_1083985716320385155_n

2014-11-02-6377 2014-11-02-6393 2014-11-02-6394 2014-11-02-6395 2014-11-02-6396 2014-11-02-6397 2014-11-02-6398 2014-11-02-6399 2014-11-02-6400 2014-11-02-6401 2014-11-02-6402

 

 

 

Open Letter for Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas

April 8, 2014

Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas, D.D.
President CBCP
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan

Dear Father,
Grace and peace to you From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I will be opening this letter with two bold statements then follow it up with the illumination of such claims.
1. The Catholic Church right now is in great peril.
2. There is a drastic need for all Catholics to learn the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Yes, we are in deep crisis and to deny this fact means that we have deliberately closed our eyes and ears to the spiritual degradation that we are now in. To say that what we now experience has been always here throughout the Church’s History and is not enough reason for great concern, only reveals that we already have succumbed to the enemy’s insidious deception.
“We have been Sacramentalized but not Evangelized”. I could not agree more with this axiom. Here in the Philippines we have always been proud to say that 80% of our population is Catholic. But sad to say, that also 80% of these Catholics know next to nothing about the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is the reason why our country could hardly be called a Christian nation judging on its moral bankruptcy. We may reason out that morality wise we fare much better than our western counterparts, but what we always forget to consider is, that we ought to gauge ourselves thru Christ’s standards.
I will now site several of the many detrimental effects of the lack of adequate adult Catholic Catechism.
There is an alarming rate of exodus by Catholics from the mystical body of Christ to other beliefs. Most Catholics are easy prey to this so called “evangelization” of other Christian sects since they do not understand their faith and cannot answer back even to those basic and relevant questions hurled at them by their so called concerned “evangelizer”. The usual thing that you hear from these “converted“people is this; “not until I became Born Again/Iglesia Ni Cristo/ Jehovah’s Witness/Adventist etc. I did not discover the true Gospel and was not able to give up all my vices”. And this is sad but typical occurrence is perfectly illustrated by our very own, Manny Paquiao who was once a Rosary-cladding Filipino pride. The fact of the matter is, just like “Manny”, people are hungry for the Word of God no matter how irreligious they seem to be, whether they are aware of this or not since man is created to hunger for Truth (God). Now if this deep longing and craving for the Truth is not satisfied inside their house, like hungry dogs they will devour whatever scrap of food they can get outside their house no matter how poisonous it may be just to satisfy their hunger. We cannot totally blame “Manny” for trading the true worship found in the Holy Eucharist for a false one since most of them do not know what it means or what a great treasure they already possess. We have not been effective in educating them. We have always been prompt and thorough when it comes to liturgical celebrations and preparations of “activities” but when it comes to preaching the solid doctrine, we placed it on the back seat. A lot of us have become lax and contented in just generating members instead of laboriously heeding the command of Christ to make disciples. The faithful are left to grapple from scraps of truth heard from here and there.
Let us take the case of the Iglesia Ni Cristo as an example. The reason why they are flourishing and are so effective in recruiting members and keeping them in place, is because they put emphasis on indoctrination and constantly hammer to the heads of their members what they believe and why they believe it. Their members have a concrete working theology of their belief no matter how erroneous it maybe. This is what we lack in our present set-up (at least here in the Philippines for that matter).
Yes, we have catechists, but only for children and the number of these catechists are dwindling at a rapid rate because of the lack of support. Even the important tradition of Flores de Mayo where children are catechized before their first communion is slowly fading away (even Confession are no longer given utmost importance nor regularly offered). Yes, we have seminars for the parents before baptism, seminars for couple before the wedding, GSK’s, retreats, recollections, homilies at Mass and many others which are extremely important, however these are still not enough. Yes we have several Catholic charismatic groups but most of them are not centered on teaching the Catechism. Some group may be, but their audience are limited on a few interested ones and not on a massive scale since it is not incorporated into the Church own program.
Next, many of these so called faithful Catholics who remain inside the Church do not even identify nor support the teachings of the Church especially when it comes to morality like teachings about artificial contraception, divorce, same sex marriage and many others. Why? Because people cannot be expected to embrace directives which they do not have a working understanding for such difficult restrictions which entail hefty sacrifice and personal discomfort on their part.
Next, until now we can still observe widespread Christo-paganistic practices among Filipinos such as the practice of “ padugo”, “patagna”, “habak”, “mananambal”, mga “pamahiin”, and various “Feng shui” practices among Filipino-Chinese Catholics which is seemingly a fusion of Christian and oriental religion which somehow mostly not being addressed.
Another detrimental effect of lack of Catechism is the rapid decline in Vocation. This is a natural consequence of it, since most our catholic youth right now are no longer grounded on solid doctrine, (which is found in the Catechism) and not instilled in them the genuine love of Christ and Church. Also because of the lack of adequate adult catechism, many who enter the seminary or convent enter for the wrong reason and wrong motives and bring with them when they graduate their wrong reasons and treats Priesthood as an occupation rather as a Vocation. That’s why a lot our priests right now, instead of being the Alter Christos who supposed to usher salvation of souls to those whose faith are weak, now become the instrument of apostasy and perdition of many, every time they do various kinds of scandals.
But the most injurious effect of all in putting the Catechism on the sidelines is the lack of Unity and Catholicity nowadays on the teachings among priests, religious and lay people inside the Catholic Church. Modernism, Liberal Theology, heterodoxy have already crept into the Church, Seminaries and Catholic schools which give all the more reason to put an emphasis to promote The Catechism of the Catholic Church. A concrete example of this is for instance a priest here in Ozamiz city taught in his homily that pre-marital sex is just a venial sin. Also one priest stated in his homily that fornication is okay as long as no pregnancy will result. Many priests and religious do not share the belief of the Church concerning the teaching on Humane Vitae. Some promote religious indifferentism and false ecumenism. There are many other conflicting teachings to mention which leaves the faithful dazed and confused. This will clearly be the outcome when in Seminary Formation; the teachings of dissident and liberal theologians are given precedence over and above The Catechism of the Catholic Church as what is going on right now in some seminaries.
In relation to these problems we face, we need to step up our effort since the Salvation of Souls is what is at stake here. It is high time that we have to have an active Catechism Centre here in our Diocese sanctioned and spear-headed by the Bishop where the Catechism of the Catholic Church is systematically indoctrinated to all the faithful especially adults. There is a great need to have a place for a regular, weekly, all year-round extensive Adult Catechism Lecture Center where people can go and deepen their Catholic Faith and equip them for evangelization.

Our ultimate goal is that this will eventually be duplicated in all the parishes all over the Philippines. Let us make it our goal that the teachings of Jesus Christ (The Catechism of the Catholic Church) will become a common knowledge to all Catholics just like the Israelites during the ancient days where most (if not all) of them are well versed of the Laws of Moses.
Contrary to popular belief, the Catechism is not at all boring, it is actually suitable for all ages particularly the youth, as long as it is skillfully presented, adequately elucidated and correlated to practical daily experiences with concrete examples rather than given in vague and abstract language. As a matter of fact, since October 2010, five of us (who were given Ecclesiastical Authority by the Bishop) members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Faith Defenders through the support of Vicar General Msgr. Maximino Naron are conducting 30 minute catechism lectures before Sunday Mass in some of the different parishes in Ozamiz and Tangub City. So far the response has been very encouraging and parishioners love it.
Even then, we feel that this effort is still not fast enough to reach out to many people as possible as time is of the essence since many Catholics right now are prancing their way to hell and are not even aware of it. I should know, since I was once like this before, until by God’s grace, led me to the Truth which in turn set me free from bondage of sin. I was once an active member of a Catholic Charismatic group yet living an immoral life and on the verge of leaving the Catholic Church. I was on my way to perdition yet without the faintest idea that I’m already heading downhill. Why? Because of wrong theology. I was not aware that even though how I claim to love Jesus and how “good” I seem to be, one mortal sin (unrepented of at death) is enough to send me to hell forever. I reached my 30’s yet still I was not aware how important Sanctifying Grace is, that this is what we need to enter heaven. Actually I was not even aware that there is such a thing as Sanctifying Grace. In fact, never have I heard this mentioned in any homily or sermon at mass in my entire life. This is now the state of most average Filipino Catholic. And I know with great conviction that there’s a lot of Catholics out there who are just like me before who needs to hear the Truth and needs to be saved from the state of Mortal Sin and spiritual death and time is running out, fast.
Lastly, the intention of this letter is not to point fingers nor judge any specific clergy, religious or laity whatsoever. I apologize if this might come across as harsh but my aim is to point out hard facts that are actually happening in our midst that might have slipped our awareness that by now warrants drastic and prompt measures. I pray that this exhortation and request will be taken with an open mind for the greater glory of God and the furtherance of His Kingdom here on earth. In fact, I would not be so honest like this in expressing my innermost sentiments have it not been you to whom I will be submitting my letter to. My utmost respect and confidence on your spiritual integrity has given me the audacity to be up front like this knowing that a message such as this will fall into sympathetic heart and mind, like yours.
In humility and obedience shall I wait for your response.

Sincerely,

Jose Gonzalo M. Ditching S.S.V.P.
Nat’l Vice President, Internal Affairs
Catholic Faith Defenders

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Part V “Immaculate Conception”

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Part V “Immaculate Conception”

By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros’ false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers. This time we’ll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.

Know this well no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision for it was men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke. 2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Sacred Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefore it must also be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. The first Scriptural passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Like 1:46-48 which says;

And Mary said, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults God my savior! Lk.1:46-47

Although Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any argument using the passage but basing on experience most Protestants would argue that since Mary admitted that she needs a savior therefore Mary is not Immaculate as what Catholics believed but she too is a sinner like us. With this kind of reasoning protestants are missing the point of this passage. Notice that Mary claimed Christ as her savior even before Christ died on the cross. Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin. Another passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Rom.3:23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23

There are two interesting points that I can see in this passage. Consulting the Greek text the word that was used for “all” is “pantes” which describes a large number of people however it allows exemptions from “all” and that would be Jesus Christ and Mary. If St. Paul meant that each and every person without exemptions he could have use a more strict and restrictive Greek word which is “hapas”. But that is not the case St. Paul is trying to say that sin is universal, but universality of sin does not mean everyone has sinned, we have Jesus and Mary who have not commit any sin. Just as we say that the Catholic Church is universal but not everyone is Catholic. Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God’s glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John  1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you”. Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather  it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.

The Church do not teach that Mary’s sinlessness is by her own doing when the dogma of Immaculate Conception was defined by the Pope it was clear that Mary’s preservation from sin is a privilege granted by God in view of the anticipatory merits of Christ on the cross.

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus


Everything God created is good (1 Timothy 4:4), when God created the first Adam the material (soil) that he used is pure and without blemish. In like manner the new Adam (Christ) was formed from pure and without blemish womb of Mary the new Eve. In Gen.3:15, God in the beginning of time already foreordained that Mary will always be in enmity with the devil, because Mary like God’s first creation was pure and without blemish. In the letter of Paul to the Hebrews it was stated that Christ shared the very flesh and very blood of Mary (Heb.2:14) and this flesh and blood that he took and soon offered to the cross is without blemish (Heb.9:14). Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part III

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part III

 By. Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

For Image Reference Only

Not contended with his caricature against the Catholic Church, Pastor Ballesteros strikes again and this time against the Virgin Mary. On page 13 of his book Important Questions and Answers he dealt with the question “What does the Bible say about the Virgin Mary?” He answered the question by quoting Luke 1:28, 34 and 42, we do not have any problem with these passages because they are telling the truth. What bothers us the more is his succeeding answer. Pastor Ballesteros asserts that Mary is just a vessel so that Christ can enter the history of mankind.

She was chosen by God as a vessel to give birth to a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ[1]

Notice that Pastor Ballesteros uses the term “vessel” pertaining to the Virgin Mary. But what exactly is a vessel and what does a vessel do? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defined vessel as a container for holding something.[2] Therefore for Pastor Ballesteros Mary is just a container for holding Jesus Christ for 9 months and worst of all he made it appear that as if God is the one who made Mary a mere vessel for Christ but in fact it was him who made Mary a mere vessel. Nowhere in Scripture ever stated implicitly nor explicitly that Mary is a vessel for Christ. But what does the Bible say about Mary? In Heb.2:14 it tells us that children shares the flesh and blood of their mother.

Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could take away all the power of the devil. Heb.2:14 Jerusalem Bible

Basing on the facts of this passage Mary is not a vessel because Mary is the one who gave Christ is very own flesh and blood! A vessel does not share its nature with the thing that it holds, like a jar it does not share its nature with the water that it holds. But Mary gave Christ his flesh and blood, the very flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross to save us. Not just an ordinary sacrifice but a perfect and unblemished sacrifice (Heb.9:14). Another anti-Mary bushing of Pastor Ballesteros is by reducing Mary as a mere decoration in the history of Christianity.

She is a very special woman who added color to the history of Christianity[3]

This is not a compliment but rather an insult to the dignity of Mary. God exalted Mary above every women, He chose her to be the Mother of his only begotten Son yet Pastor Ballesteros simply dismissed this by saying that Mary is a special woman who added color to the history of Christianity. If we put this statement in a literary context Mary is just a highfalutin word in a poem to make it appear better. But the Scripture says otherwise. In Luke 1:42 it tells us that Mary is above every women.

She gave a loud cry and said, of all women you are the most blessed.Luke 1:42

Pastor Ballesteros could have given more dignity to Mary if he just read his Bible, but basing on his knowledge and understanding of Scripture he is not fond of reading the word of God. In his next statement Pastor Ballesteros ate his words when he said,

A unique woman whose honor must not be demeaned or be extolled higher than what God intended.[4]

Pastor Ballesteros said “unique woman whose honor must not be demeaned” but in his previous statement he simply called Mary a vessel for Christ and merely a color added to the history of Christianity. Aside from the passages that Pastor Ballesteros quoted his other three statements are not supported by Scripture but merely a product of his anti-Marian mentality akin to all anti-Catholics.


[1] Jun Ballesteros, Important Questions and Answeres, p.13, 1997
[3] Jun Ballesteros, Important Questions and Answeres, p.13, 1997
[4] Jun Ballesteros, Important Questions and Answeres, p.13, 1997

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part II

Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions Part II

 By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

I received nasty reactions and comments from those who believed Pastor Ballesteros’ lies and deceptions against the Catholic Church. I know that you are hurt because your knight in shinning armor is slowly losing his radiance as his lies and deceptions are being exposed. I’ve tried to send him a copy of my response to his false allegations against Mary in his E-mail address j-and-t@dagupan.com but the E-mail address that he wrote in his book is not working, this gives me the impression that he is just another typical charlatan that enjoys attacking the Catholic faith. On page 19 of his book he began his discussion with the question “Are there other writings as important as the Bible?” After quoting Scriptures passages like Jude 3, Gal.1:8, Prov.30:6 and Rev.22:18-19 he turns his attention to the Catholic Church. Pastor Ballesteros said,

For Catholics, tradition, the Ex Cathedra (or pronouncements of the Pope) and the teachings of the Magisterium (Church council) are the bases of faith and practice.[1]

At first glance by an unsuspecting reader this statement appears to be accurately presenting the Catholic faith, but in really Pastor Ballesteros is dead wrong! Pastor Ballesteros has no theological knowledge of the Catholic faith thus he is not in the position to teach or explain what the Catholic Church teaches. Nevertheless he proceeds to explain the position of the Catholic Church no matter how inaccurate it is. The only point why Pastor Ballesteros do this is not really to present the Catholic faith in its fullness but rather to put the Catholic Church in bad faith. Let us scrutinize the statement made by Pastor Ballesteros. With his cunning and deceitful ways this evangelical pastor is trying to give the readers of his book the impression that the basis of the Catholic faith is not the Sacred Scripture but the teachings of the pope notice that he did not include Sacred Scripture in his list of Catholic’s basis of faith and practice, but this is far from the teachings of the Church. Pastor Ballesteros failed to distinguish the act of teaching made by the Pope and a Church Council and the sources or basis of the teachings of the Pope and a Church Council. In paragraph 10 of Dei Verbum it clearly states the basis of the Catholic faith.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers. . .[2]

Whenever teaching in matters of faith and morals the Pope or a Church Council has the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as its basis. St. Paul in his epistle to the Thessalonians also said that “Stand firm, then brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (II Thess.2:15) St. Paul seems to propose that there are two bases for teachings the written which we call the Bible and the unwritten which is the Sacred Tradition. This clearly reflects the teaching of the Church that the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form one sacred deposit of faith. So Pastor Ballesteros where did you get the idea that “For Catholics, tradition, the Ex Cathedra (or pronouncements of the Pope) and teachings of the Magisterium (Church council) are the bases of faith and practice? There are also flaws in his understanding of the word “Magisterium” for him “Magisterium is a Church council. This error displays pastor Ballesteros lack of scholarship. The word Magisterium is derived from the Latin word Magistere which means teacher. The Dictionary of Fundamental Theology defined Magisterium as;

In modern Catholic usage the term Magisterium has come to be associated almost exclusively with the teaching role and authority of the hierarchy. An even more recent development is that the term Magisterium is often used to refer not to the teaching office as such but to the body of men who have this office in the Catholic Church: namely, the pope and bishops.[3]

Pastor Ballesteros’ understand of the nature and definition of Magisterium is offshoot. Pastor Ballesteros never run out of deception technique in his next statement he tried to fool his readers that the Catholic Church in the past do not encourage reading the Bible.

Catholics nowadays are encouraged to read passages in the Bible to find comfort through personal reflections on the promises it contains.[4]

Notice how he use the word “nowadays”, the word “nowadays” means “at the present time(s)” he is trying to imply that previously before “nowadays” the Catholic Church do not encourage reading the Bible. Aside from being ignorant on the word of God Pastor Ballesteros is also ignorant of Church history. If he would not mind picking up spiritual writings of the saints he will notice that it is full of quotations from the Sacred Scripture. The writings of the Church Fathers and doctors of the Church voluminously quoted the Sacred Scripture. His accusation that the Church do not encourage reading the Bible is baseless and pure hearsay. Furthermore, Pastor Ballesteros continued his deception and lies,

The whole doctrinal system of the Roman Catholic Church is still founded on the three Vatican-sanctioned sources mentioned above. Idolatry, veneration to Mary, purgatory, signing of the cross, repeated prayers, prayers for the dead and many more other unbiblical doctrines are still being held and practiced.[5]

As for the lie of Pastor Ballesteros that the doctrinal system of the Catholic Church are the three Vatican-sanctioned sources he mentioned previously was already debunk and proven wrong. Pastor Ballesteros like other heretics loves to bear false witness against the Catholic Church. Pastor Ballesteros included idolatry as one of the teachings of the Catholic Church, Pastor Ballesteros if what you are saying is true then can you provide us a quotation from the Catechism, Council decrees, Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bull and Apostolic letter that idolatry is a Catholic doctrine? In paragraph 2113 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church it condemns idolatry. So who is the liar here? Pastor Ballesteros who made an accusation without any basis or the Catholic Church who explicitly denounce idolatry? In his short list of allege unbiblical teaching of the Church he included veneration of Mary as unbiblical. In Romans 13:7 St. Paul said “Give honor to whom honor is due” during the annunciation the Angel Gabriel rendered respect and honor to Mary when he said “Hail, Full of grace” Luke 1:28. For Purgatory and prayer for the dead read my article about the dogma of Purgatory. Pastor Ballesteros keep on piling up his blunders. He said sign of the cross and repetition of prayer is unbiblical, in Rev.4:8 the angels in heaven never stop praising God. It is evident that Pastor Ballesteros is not reading the Bible in Ezekiel 9:4 it says Go all through the city, all through Jerusalem, and mark a cross on the foreheads of all who deplore and disapprove of all the filth practiced in it. Pastor you said that the sign of the cross is unbiblical? How come we read in the passage the sign of the cross? To conclude his lies and deceptions he again related a bogus story.

The worst is, I have Catholic friends who pronounced judgment upon the Bible as incomplete and unreliable when it does not substantiate their beliefs.[6]

There is no way that the readers can verify this statement, I suspect that this statement is intentionally made up by Pastor Ballesteros in order to add suspicions to against the Catholic Church, this act by the pastor is a subtle trick that can only be learned from the devil.


[1] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997
[2] Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum No.10
[3] Rene Latourelle, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, p. 614, 1994
[4] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997
[5] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997

[6] Jun A. Ballesteros, Important Questions & Answers, p.19, 1997

Mga Doktrinal Nga Ataki Ni Smith Ug Ang Tubag

Mga Doktrinal Nga Ataki Ni Smith Ug Ang Tubag

ni Padre Joseph Giaime, S.D.B.

si Mr. Oswald Smith Nagsulat og Gamay’ng Basahon nga Giulohan og “Ang Katoliko nga Bibliya maoy Tubag.” Giatake sa maong Baptist nga Pastor ang mga Doktrina nga Gitudlo sa Katoliko, ug buot niyang ipasabot nga ang maong mga Doktrina Nahasupak sa Gitudlo sa mga pulong sa Dios. Mao nga ania ang iyang mga Atake ug ang mga Tubag.

1. Nag-ingon ba si Jesus nga Tukoron Niya ang Iyang Iglesia Ibabaw ni Pedro? Akong Kutloon Ang Bibliya nga Katoliko, Ikaw mao si Pedro, ug ibabaw niining maong Bato Akong pagatukoron ang Akong iglesia.”
(Mat.16:18 ).Apan wala Siya Mag-ingon nga Iyang Tukoron ang Iyang iglesia ibabaw ni Pedro.Ang Griego nga Pulong sa Pedro mao ang petros Nagkahulogan og gamay’ng bato.Apan Gipatukod ni Kristo ang Iyang iglesia ibabaw sa Rock,kun Dakong Bato.Ang Pulong sa Griego sa Dakong Bato mao ang Petra. sanglit ang iyang iglesia gipatukod man sa Dakong Bato, ug si Kristo mao man ang Dakong Bato. busa diha kang Kristo ipatukod niya
ang iyang iglesia, dili sa gamay’ng bato nga mao si Pedro.

Tubag:

dili mahitabo nga nawala’y kahulogan ang pag-ingon ni Jesus kang Pedro, “Ikaw Pedro (Bato)
ug sa ibabaw niining maong Bato, pagatukoron ko ang akong Iglesia,” kay kon wala’y labot si Pedro, moingon lang unta si Kristo.” Ako si Kristo ang Bato ug ibabaw niining maong Bato tukoron ko ang Akong Iglesia.” Ang Ngalan ni Pedro kaniadto Simon giilisdan ni Jesus og Kephas, usa ka Pulong nga Enibreyo nga Nagkahulogan og Dakong Bato o Batong Pangpang. ug sanglit ang tukma sa Griego sa Pulong Kephas mao man ang Petra, ug ang Petra Ngalan man sa Babaye, mao nga gipabilin lang ang Ngalan nga Pedro. bisan pa ang Pedro Nagkahulogan og “gamay’ng bato.” basaha sa Katoliko nga Bibliya nga si Simon Giingnan ni Jesus,” ang imong Ngalan mao na si Kephas,”(Jn.1:42). Bisan pa gani sa mga katawhan nga nagsulti og Griego si Simon gitawag og Kephas, basaha sa (1Kor.1:12, 15:5, Gal.1:18 ). unsa may katarungan ni Kristo sa Pag-ilis niya sa Ngalan nga Simon ngadto sa pagka- Kephas? matin-aw, tungod sa misyon nga gisangon niya ni Pedro nga mao ang Pagka-Sukaranan sa iyang iglesia sunod niya. ug gani sa Bag-ong hubad, bisan sa Maayong Balita Biblia mao na kini: “Ikaw si Pedro, ang Bato” ug sa New American Bible catholic translation, I for my Part declare to You, You are Rock, and upon this Rock I Build My Church. . .(Mat.16:18). ang atong Ginoo mismo misaad niini aron dili magmahuyang o mapukan ang pagtoo ni Pedro, “Apan Ako mag-ampo alang kanimo aron dili magmahuyang ang Imong Pagtoo. ug sa Malig-on kana, Panglig-ona ang imong mga kaigsoonan,”(Luk.22:32). mao gani nga ang iglesia mao ang Haligi ug Patukoranan sa Kamatuoran,”(1tim.3:15). dili tungod sa kaigsoonan nga lig-onon pa, kondili tungod ni Pedro nga Maoy Gisugo ni Kristo Paglig-on sa mga Kaigsoonan.

2. si Mr. Oswald Smith mipadayon pag-ataki,” ngani si Pedro gitawag ni Kristo, og Satanas,” (Mat.16:23) mahimo ba ni Kristo nga ang Patukoranan sa iyang iglesia mao si Satanas?.”
Akong Tubag. ikaw ra usab ang Misumpaki sa imong katarungan sanglit mipadayon ka man sa pag-ingon nga ang iglesia gipatukod sa patukoranan nga mao ang mga Apostoles, si Kristo ang Pangulong Bato sa Pamag-ang(Efeso2:20). kon si Pedro Satanas, nganong nahimo man siya nga usa sa patukoranan komo Apostol? ang pagtawag kang pedro og Satanas, dili kay siya gayud mismo, kondili ang yawa, kay si Jesus miingon man, ” Simon, Simon, Ania si Satanas buot moalig-ig kaninyo sama sa Trigo, apan ako mag-ampo alang kanimo. . . ( Lukas 22:31-32). mipadayon sa pagpahimug-at si Mr.Smith, “Ang Patukoranan sa iglesia dili gayod si Pedro kondili si Kristo.” gikutlo nimo ang (1Pedro2:5-8; 1kor.3:11 ug efeso2:20). Ang Iglesia Katolika nagtudlo niana, isip bahin sa iyang lintunganay’ng Doktrina nga si Kristo gayud mao ang labaw sa tibuok iglesia isip ULO O PANGULO, apan taliwala sa mga Apostoles siya mao ang mitudlo kang Pedro nga Ulo o’ Pangulo katulo gayud balika ni Jesus pag-ingon kang Pedro,” pasibsiba ang akong mga Nati ug mga Karnero ( juan21:15-17).

kining katungdanan sa pagpasib-sib sa tanang mga sakop sa iglesia naghupot og katungdanan sa pagka-Pangulo ni Pedro. siya ang unang midumala sa konsilyo sa jerusalem, bisan pa ang Obispo sa maong dapit mao si santiago(buhat 15:1-12). siya mao ang unang midawat sa Hentil nga nakabig(buhat10:1-11). siya ang mihatag og wali sa adlaw nga gipakanaog ang Espiritu Santo sa Adlaw sa pentecostes.(buhat2:1-11). siya ang mipakanaog silot ni Ananias ug Safira(buhat5:1-5). maoy kabubut-on sa Dios nga ang iyang iglesia adunay Pangulo kay mikayab si Kristo balik sa Langit iyang gibilin si Pedro, ug sa pagkamatay ni Pedro dunay mopuli kaniya kay ang inyong mga bunga magpadayon. . . “(Jn.15:16). kining simbahan nga dunay walay bugto nga kutay sa mga sumusunod ni San Pedro mao ang Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana. busa mao kini ang Matuod nga Iglesia ug wala nay Lain.