‘KNOW THE TRUTH’ WITH CFD NATIONAL PRESIDENT RAMON GITAMONDOC & TO BE AIRED IN RADIO VERITAS

RADIO VERITAS

Brad Pit
Brad Pit 

Know the truth in Radio veritas846 am band Tonight 8pm to 9pm 2 Episode in one hour THE PRIMACY OF PETER with Atty Marwill Llasos, Fr Abe Arganiosa & Prof. Engr. Ramon GuitamondocPart 2 TUNAY NA IGLESIA with Bro Wendel Talibong For more info 0929 980 1010 simulcast via streaming www.veritas846.ph

38th CFD National Convention Part 2

Bro. G-one Paisones and Dr. Rey Entila

 

 

Atty Mike Abas of Dipolog City, Bro Wendell Talibong of Ozamiz city, me and Atty Marwil Llasos of Manila — with Marwil Nacor Llasos.

 

Bro Soc w bro G-one d administrator of CFD official website.

 

With our Cfd legend bro Socrates Fernandez and bro Jub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38th CFD National Convention Part 1

 CFD National Board of Governors.
Atty. Marwil Nacor Llasos and Bro. G-one Paisones
Bro. Wendell Talibong; Fr. Abe Arganiosa and Atty. Marwil Nacor Llasos
Atty. Mike Abas and Bro Wendell
Bro. Wendell together with Bro Paul Alima ex-pastor of Jehovah’s Witness….

Welcome and Mabuhay to 38th Annual Convention of Catholic Faith Defenders National

10920958_908808025818389_9054070200423299552_n (1)

Rebulto Sinasamba ba? Answered by Bro. Ramon Gitamondoc

Ito po ang matibay na katibayan kung bakit namin sinasabi na ang mga Catholico ay sumasamba sa rebulto.. panoorin po ang video.. pakiusap po suriin lamang po ninyo ng mabuti at maging open minded po tayo..Hindi po ang layunin nito ay batikusin or makasakit ng damdamin ninoman.. Pasensya na po at paki delete kung hindi ito pwede sa group na ito

Israel Nono Ponce uploaded a new video from January 18, 2014 to his timeline.

pati ‪#‎ARINOLA‬ sinasamba ng katoliko.

DEBATE W/ka Bularan smile emoticon

Like ·  · Share
  • Ramon Gitamondoc This is what happens when someone who is ignorant of the Catholic religion reads Catholic manual of religion and then imposes his own understanding of the text he reads without looking at the other possible meaning of the term being used. The word worship as applied to the saints does not mean to adore but means to venerate or give due honor or reverence. Even in the Bible the word worship is used in this secondary meaning for example when we read that “Nebuchadnezzar fell down and worship Daniel” (Dan 2:46). Of course, it is true that the honor which we give to the saints is not only limited to their person but also extends to their relics and images in the same way that the honor which we give to Dr Jose Rizal is not confined to his person but also extend to his statue and his relics. The INC who respects Manalo also give due respect and honor to Manalo’s effigy as evidence in their hanging them on their walls. It is in this sense and this sense alone that the manual of religion says that the worship (meaning honor not adoration) which we give to the saints also extends to their images and their relics. Now that you know the truth you can no longer go on accusing us Catholics of idolatry without great malice.
    2 hrs · Like · 3
  • Miguel Santos Sir Ramon Gitamondoc, ito po yun binasa na aklat..pasensya na po kayo if nasaktan kayo

    2 hrs · Like
  • Ramon Gitamondoc I am not offended. I am used to reading this kind of ignorant and malicious comments from anti-Catholics. I am simply educating Ka Bularan and all INC members who are mislead by him. After all, don’t we Catholics have the right to answer false accusations hurled against us? Read my reply above and tell me which part is illogical or unbiblical since I have quoted Dan 2:46 to clarify my position.
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Ramon Gitamondoc Miguel Santos, tell me are you a member of the sect founded by Felix Manalo in 1914. If yes, where you a Catholic before?
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Ramon Gitamondoc Am I wrong in telling you that the word “worship” can mean either 1) to adore or 2) to venerate or honor. Who is in the better position to tell you that when the book quoted by Ka Bularan uses the word worship (tagalog “samba”) that it is using it in its second meaning and not the first, you an INC or me who is a Catholic?
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Ramon Gitamondoc Let us have an open mind. I watched and listened to the video you posted at least twice. Now I ask you to read and ponder on my reply. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Ka Bularan may have mis-interpreted the book he was quoting?
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Miguel Santos Balikan po kita sir Ramon Gitamondoc, salamat po sa panonood at pagsusuri
    2 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Ramon Gitamondoc What is your point? I have already explained to you the meaning of the worship as used in that book. Ka Bularan’s error lies in not being aware that the word “worship” can mean at least 2 things: 1) to adore and 2) to honor. In his reading he thinks that it means to adore when it fact the correct meaning is to honor. If Ka Bularan knows this then he is guilty of misrepresenting the Catholic side. If he does not know this then he is commenting on something on which he is ignorant. Either way he does not deserve our attention.
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Ramon Gitamondoc I will wait for you and I hope you will interact with the arguments I presented in defense of the Catholic religion. See you then.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Jhoel Adriano Si ka bularan, talagang bulaan.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Jhoel Adriano Ang mga iglesia ni manalo, mahilig magbasa ng mga librong hindi kanila at saka bibigyan ng pakahulugan. Napakahirap talaga umunawa ang mga taong nasakop na ng Diliman.
  • G-one Paisones Mga INC-m kasi; pay biblical na sagot na; eh… sarado parin ang puso…

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.