Comments (Komento)

Para sa inyong mga Komento; paki post lang po ito sa isa nating website sa kadahilanang marami ang spam comments dito na website na ito.

Dito po kayo mag comment sa website na ito:

http://catholicfaithdefender.wordpress.com

36 thoughts on “Comments (Komento)

  1. Google+
    I am one of the catholic youth defenders of Dumaguete City, i would like to ask a favor that you will add the code above in this website for our blogsite.
    Thanks.

  2. I am one of the catholic youth defenders of Dumaguete City, i would like to ask a favor that you will add the code below in this website for our blogsite.
    Thanks.

    Google+

  3. Ang CFD Manual ako na ni na download og akong gi re produce og gipanghatag sa atong mga brothers and sisters dri sa QATAR sa tuyo pra masabtan nla ang pagtoong katoliko. Mas maayo kon dunay tagalog version ani. Daghang Salamat

    • Halo mga igsuon, brothers and sister, usa ako ka alagad sa amung simbahan sa chapel unsaman inyo eka estorya aning bahin sa atong mga katoliko nga kanunay hilabtan?,.. kasagara daghan sila ug mga p[angutana . Tanung kolang sa sarili ko? siguro wala pa sila mahayagi sa atong pag toong katoliko . nga mao ang matood nga kayahag SI KRISTO.
      GOD BLESS SA ENYO TANAN BROTHER,&. SISTER.
      PLEAS REPLY.

  4. Praise be Jesus and Mary,

    Peace!

    Brothers, please issue an answer to these preposterous remarks against the Catholic Church, it was e-mailed to me by a “hardcore” Born -Again Christian “Steve”. From Youtube username BornAgainRN.

    By the grace of God and through the intercession of Mary, I will pray that you will be able to study well and refute his heretical and fanatical bigotry.

    Please email me the reply / transcript to our office: albertomarvelli.centercebu@gmail.com

    May God bless your MInistry!

    In Mary,

    Br. Ronald N. Que

    ——————————–

    I have no doubt that you are well-educated in CATHOLIC church history, but unfortunately, not all of it, nor CHRISTIAN Church history. As I mentioned before, if you study Catholic church history, there are large gaps in the papacy — sometimes YEARS — where there was no pope. When you trace the papacy back, you actually find that the bishop of Rome being the ‘supreme bishop’ of the Christian church does NOT go back to Peter. This is because in the early Church, the bishop of Rome didn’t have anymore authority in the Church, than any other bishop. This didn’t occur until much, MUCH later, when the Roman Empire began to crumble & Christianity was ‘legal,’ & the ‘head’ of the Catholic church was located in Rome. So, the ‘bishop of Rome’ adopted the title of the Roman Emperor — Pontificus Maximus (which is where we get ‘Pontiff’ from). The confusion comes from believing that Peter is the ‘rock’ that Christ built His Church on, based on Matthew 16. However, in the Greek, not only does ‘rock’ come from a different Greek word (‘petra’) than Peter (‘Petros’), but the main confusion comes from believing that ‘THIS rock’ refers to Peter, because ‘Peter’ is the previous NOUN. However, in Greek, the word for ‘this’ refers to the previous SUBJECT (not ‘noun’), which is in the previous sentence, & the previous ‘subject’ is the REVELATION that God gave Peter ‘Who’ Jesus was (‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God’). ‘THAT’ is the ‘rock’ (‘petra’) that the Church is built on — individual ‘stones’ that God has revealed ‘Who’ Jesus is — not Peter, which is why Peter refers to himself as a ‘FELLOW’ elder in his epistle, not the ‘HEAD’ elder, & why Christ says “the gates of Hades will not prevail against ‘IT'” – ( not ‘HIM.’) If you notice in Mark’s account, he doesn’t even bring that part up, & Mark’s Gospel is basically the words of Peter. So, if Peter though he was the ‘rock,’ he would have definitely left that in there — but he didn’t. Also, if you examine the Greek for ‘this’ in the NT in other passages, you’ll find that it does NOT refer to the previous noun in those passages either. And when the OT was translated into Greek, the term ‘this rock’ NEVER refers to the previous noun, but either the previous SUBJECT in another verse or a later verse. So, based on the original Greek (not the translated English or Latin), Peter was NOT the ‘rock’ that Christ built His Church on, nor the ‘first pope.’

    Since ALL Scripture — both OT & NT is God-breathed — obviously GOD is the reason we ‘have the Bible in our hand.’ The fact that He guided fallible, sinful men to put it together — first by the Jews (OT), then by the Church (NT), rather than asking ‘who’ put it together, a more appropriate question should be ‘what’ godly characteristics did they look for in discerning which books to include & which ones to omit? Obviously, a book that would contain historical & theological errors in & contradictions between previous & later Scripture couldn’t be included, otherwise, they would be like saying that God Himself is capable of being in error & contradiction, which is impossible. So, first, you need to ask yourself ‘are ALL the books in the Catholic Bible free from error & contradiction?’ And the answer is ‘no’ — in fact, ALL of the books in the Catholic Bible that are NOT in the Protestant Bible have errors and/or contradictions in them (which I can readily prove to you). The Hebrew OT (the OT books that are in Protestant Bibles) were well-established long before the time of Christ, which is why Christ authenticated them when He spoke to the Pharisees (Luke 11:49-51). The confusion that the early Catholic church had was that since the Septuagint was a TRANSLATION of both the Hebrew OT & the Apocrypha into Greek, they ‘assumed’ that the 7 Apocryphal books, that are in Catholic Bibles today, were also in the Hebrew OT, so they placed those books in the already accepted Hebrew OT canon…even though later the Catholic church realized that they WEREN’T in the Hebrew OT canon.

    As far as the NT canon, keep in mind, that by mid-FIRST Century, the large majority of the NT was accepted as SCRIPTURE — Paul referred to Luke’s Gospel as ‘SCRIPTURE’ (1 Timothy 5:18) — which would also include Acts, which was Luke’s ‘continuation’ from his Gospel, and Peter called ALL of Paul’s epistles ‘SCRIPTURE’ (2 Peter 3:15-16). And by the end of the 1st Century, John’s book of Revelation was ‘self-authenticated’ to a revelation from Jesus (Revelation 1:1), as well as the closing of the canon (Revelation 22:18-19), & by doing so, it authenticated John’s Gospel, as well as his epistles. Also, if we go to the writings of the ECF’s, these early Church Fathers wrote numerous books and letters in which they made over 38,000 quotations from the New Testament. From their writings alone we could reconstruct the entire New Testament minus about 11 verses.” (Recently, some Christian apologists have discovered only 6 verses of the NT aren’t quoted by the ECF’s.) So, by the time the various LOCAL councils were formed to discern between false ‘gospels’ & epistles, and Inspired ones, there was no question based on the testimony of the Paul, Peter, & John that the 27 books we have in the NT now, as well as the 39 books in the OT that was accepted in the days of Jesus (& previous to that) were Inspired Scripture. However, because the writings of the ECF’s are NOT Inspired, & because they WERE fallible men, they made the mistake of placing those 7 Apocryphal books in the Bible, but they were not UNIVERSALLY accepted until Trent, but rather accepted by LOCAL councils — which were frequently wrong, which had to be corrected by universal councils. And the reason they struggled with the Apocrypha, was because of the obvious & blatant errors & contradictions in them, which they only UNIVERSALLY accepted as Inspired Scripture, ONLY in response to the Reformation (this is supported even by EWTN):

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEUTEROS.TXT

    Although other books not included in the Bible were regarded as ‘authoritarian’ in ‘some’ churches (such as didache, the ‘gospel’ of Thomas, Clement’s 1st epistle to the Corinthians, etc.), they weren’t considered ‘Inspired,’ but rather ‘edifying reading’ like the way the FIRST Century Christian Church viewed the 7 Apocrypha books. The didache contains word for word verses from Revelation, which argues for a ‘post-Revelation date,’ which would have been when the Bible was completed. The ‘gospel’ of Thomas paints a completely DIFFERENT ‘Jesus,’ than that from Scripture, plus it was written LATER that the Inspired Gospels. Although Clement was mentioned in the NT, & part of that early Christian Church, it wasn’t considered ‘Inspired,’ because his writings made ‘some’ (albeit, not many) false statements, such as him believing that the Phoenix was a real animal. 2 Clement is a ‘theoretical’ epistle that can’t be verified, which proves that ‘if’ it existed, it’s not part of Scripture, otherwise, God would not have allowed it to lost. And although Clement was ‘A’ bishop of Rome, he was NOT a pope, & neither was Peter. So, other than CATHOLIC church ‘tradition,’ the only evidence that Peter ‘might’ have been in Rome, was his reference to it, by referring to ‘Babylon’ (a ‘key word’ for ‘Rome’). However, Peter was NEVER bishop in Rome (ie: pope), because according to the Catholic ‘tradition’ his ‘papacy’ would have been somewhere between 30 to 64 (or 67 A.D.) & inbetween this time, Peter wrote his epistle to Rome, & Paul NEVER referred to Peter, nor to the bishop of Rome, like he addressed bishops of other cities. In fact, the term ‘bishop of Rome’ isn’t mentioned in ANY NT book, including Revelation. And that’s because the bishop that was in Rome wasn’t anymore ‘supreme’ than any other bishop.

    So, the Catholic church didn’t ‘choose’ what books went in the Bible. Rather, the ALREADY established OT & NT books were included, & certain godly criteria were used to discern between between false ‘gospels’ & epistles and Inspired ones. And as far as Christians “scratching and stabbing each other with divided teachings” that was a common occurrence in the Catholic church over the centuries. Popes murdered & were murdered by ‘competitors’ to the papacy, they brutally tortured & murdered anyone who questioned the authority of the pope — even when he was wrong, the papacy was frequently ‘bought’ by influential families in the church during the middle ages, like the Borjia’s. So, the Catholic church is not ‘exempt’ from ‘divided teachings’ — many of which popes disagreed & had ‘divisions’ with each other, even over salvation. How many ‘rites’ are in the Catholic church alone today? And let’s not forget about the divisions from the Catholic church BEFORE the Reformation (the Great Schism — Eastern Greek Orthodox; Oriental Orthodox — 451; etc.)

    Yes, Christ wants unity & not division, but only unity of a ‘TRUE Church’ that obeys HIM, not church leaders that teach a different plan(s) of salvation than He did. And how we ‘know’ what Jesus’ plan is, is by looking to SCRIPTURE, & if church teachings on salvation are contrary to Scripture, than that teaching isn’t from Christ. So, the Church should be united by SCRIPTURE, not ‘ecumenism’ or ‘ecumenical bibles.’ So, the Catholic church did NOT ‘give us our Bible.’ The OT was ‘given’ to us by the Jews FIRST, then the Jews (plus Luke) ‘gave us’ the NT, which was completed by the FIRST Century. The Bible (plus the uninspired Apocrypha) was placed under one cover, CENTURIES later.

    Your comments about Luther are irrelevant, because I’m not a follower of Luther or the ‘successor’ of Peter, but of Jesus (read 1 Corinthians Ch.1). The reason Luther wanted to remove James, was because as a former Catholic, he believed that James was teaching a ‘works+faith’ salvation plan (which James WASN’T teaching). It’s also why he ‘originally’ thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin & ‘immaculately’ conceived (which NEITHER is true). In fact, the concept of the PVM originates — not from the Bible — but from the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James — a SECOND Century Gnostic writing, which is confirmed from Jimmy Akin from CatholicAnswers. Plus, Luther wasn’t ‘head’ of the Protestant Church, like Catholics imply he was. Other Protestants worked WITH Luther to discern between Inspired Scriptures & false ‘scripture’ using the godly characteristics by the OT Jews & the first Century Church before them.

    Lastly, regarding the false ‘gospel’ of salvation that the Catholic church teaches, I’m referring to the Catholic church’s ‘interpretation’ of ‘water’ in John 3:5, & how that interpretation contradicts other Catholic dogmas (like ‘invincible ignorance,’ ‘baptism by desire,’ ‘baptized by blood,’ the ‘hope’ of salvation for babies who die without baptism, etc), which I’ll cover in another reply to you. So, before you quickly respond to that with Catholic ‘cookie-cutter’ responses that I’ve heard hundreds of times already by Catholics, I want you to REALLY think about the problem with that CATHOLIC interpretation of John 3:5, & how the Catholic church is the one who is ‘really’ calling Jesus a ‘liar.’

    BTW, the HOLY SPIRIT ‘intercedes’ for me (Romans 8:26-27) & so does JESUS (Romans 8:34) — NOT Mary. Mary is in Heaven, but she’s DEAD. Just like the High Priest was the ONLY one who could intercede for Israel & go before God, today, Jesus OUR ‘High Priest’ intercedes FOR US before God (Hebrews 4:14) — NOT Mary.

    John 3:5
    Consider this Catholic belief about John 3:5:

    ‘UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven.’

    The Catholic church believes ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism. So, John 3:5 could read:

    ‘UNLESS one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of Heaven.’

    This would mean that a person CANNOT enter Heaven, UNLESS he is baptized IN WATER (emphasis added). In Greek, ‘UNLESS’ means ‘except,’ & ‘CANNOT’ means ‘has no power,’ so in Greek, John 3:5 would read:

    ‘EXCEPT one is baptized IN WATER & the Spirit, he HAS NO POWER to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

    This would mean that the ONLY way to enter Heaven is to be baptized IN WATER (again, emphasis added). So, how exactly can a person who is ‘baptized by desire,’ ‘baptized of blood,’ ‘invincibly ignorant,’ or the ‘hope of salvation for unbaptized babies who die WITHOUT being baptized IN WATER? Remember, Jesus used EXCLUSIVE language (‘UNLESS’ & ‘CANNOT’), which in Greek, means that being baptized IN WATER would be the ONLY way to enter Heaven, ‘IF’ the ‘water’ refers to the waters of BAPTISM, which is the official Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5.

    ——————————————–

    Paragraph 1 is simply based from the Greek. There’s nothing ‘anti-catholic’ about it. It’s whether you accept the fact or not that the NT was originally written in Greek, not English or Latin. When you translate from one language to another, you lose meaning, because languages have different rules & the meaning and intent of words & phrases don’t always translate as well. One of the main differences I see between Catholics & Protestants, is that Catholics tend to personally interpret a verse based on what they ‘think’ a passage means in English, while the Protestant desires to know what the most accurate meaning based on the original languages of the Inspired text. And that’s why Catholics think Peter is the ‘rock’ that Jesus built His Church on, while Protestants believe that it’s the revelation that God gave to Peter ‘Who’ Jesus is. So, it’s not ‘anti-catholic,’ it’s disciplining oneself to desire to know what a passage means outside of one’s religious opinion & tradition. Logically speaking, how could the ‘rock’ be Peter when 1) Peter never refers to himself as ‘rock’ (petra), 2) When Jesus refers to Peter in other passages, he refers to him as ‘stone’ (Petros), not ‘rock’ (petra), 3) Immediately after Jesus talks about the ‘rock’ He is to built his Church on, Peter’s faith fails, & Jesus looks TO Peter & says ‘get behind me SATAN!’ 4) Even in one of Peter’s epistles, he calls himself ‘Simon Peter,’ not just Peter, 5) Peter NEVER refers to himself as a ‘rock’ in his epistles, but a ‘fellow’ small ‘stone,’ 6) Even after the Church is established, Peter was so wrong in doctrine that Paul had to rebuke him to his face. If Peter can be wrong, the pope & the magisterium certainly can be. And far as the Pontifex Maximus being adopted by the papacy from Roman Emperors, this information can be found right from Vatican.va where there’s over 200 references regarding that term, over 30 from EWTN, & even on Wikipedia if you want a neutral source. So, that’s hardly ‘anti-catholic.’
    And, again, historically, there is no evidence either Christian or otherwise, that Peter was the first pope, nor that the bishop of Rome had any higher ‘supremacy’ in the Church than any other bishop. CatholicAnswers even quotes an ECF, Ignatius’ letter to Smyrna, “Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” Catholic incorrectly believe that this refers to the bishop of Rome, however, Ignatius never mentions the bishop of Rome. Rather, he’s addressing the bishop of SMYRNA, just as John addresses the ‘angel’ (‘messenger’ — ie: the bishop) of Smyrna in Revelation. The bishop of Rome is not even mention in ANY of John writings, which were the last to be written to complete the canon.

    Paragraph 2 is simply your ability & willingness to accept whether a particular writing is Inspired or not, or if you simply ‘believe’ your religious leaders tell you. You say that you can’t be swayed, but if you can’t recognize an error & contradiction in a writing, then apparently you can be. Personally, I don’t have a problem if the 7 Apocryphal books are Inspired, but after putting my ‘religious’ beliefs, aside I decided to be more like the Bereans, rather than the Thessalonicans, & ‘compare what I have been taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). Unfortunately, more times than not, Catholics don’t do that. I am ‘still’ willing to SHOW you the errors & contradictions in the Apocrypha if you want to see them. But based on your responses, you are unwilling to even look at them, because if you were spiritually discerned & you accepted those errors & contradictions, it would pose a problem for you as a Catholic. And only the Holy Spirit can help you with that.

    Paragraph 3 is simply right out of the Bible, so there is nothing ‘anti-catholic’ about that (unless you are implying that the Bible is anti-catholic). I even gave you the actual VERSES to prove that most of the NT was CALLED ‘SCRIPTURE’ by mid-1st Century. If you don’t believe me, then go ahead & READ the SCRIPTURE verses I provided. The last part of Paragraph 3 was straight from EWTN — a CATHOLIC source that shows that the matter of the Apocrypha was ‘not settled’ until well AFTER the council of Florence (1441). I even gave you the EWTN Web site, so you could READ it. Again, hardly ‘anti-catholic.’

    Paragraph 4 is simply explaining — objectively — ‘why’ books like the didache, 1 Clement, the ‘gospel’ of Thomas, etc were not included in the Bible, which the Catholic church would AGREE with. So, again, hardly ‘anti-catholic.’ The last part addresses the logical & historical reason why Peter was NOT the bishop of Rome, based on ‘when’ the Catholic church believes he reigned as pope. So, aside from simply ‘believing’ in what the Catholic church ‘tells you,’ the burden of proof is on ‘you’ to prove from Scripture, as well as from logic that Peter reigned during that time. Scripture is totally absent about Peter’s papacy, as well as logic based on Scripture & early FIRST Century CHRISTIAN Church history.

    Paragraph 5 is based on CATHOLIC history that, again, the Catholic church would agree with. Sorry, but the Catholic church has a very evil track record, especially around the middle ages. All you have to do is turn on EWTN or go to their Web site, & a lot of this is discussed.

    Paragraph 6, again, is based on SCRIPTURE — again, certainly not ‘anti-catholic’ – & whether you accept & are able to spiritually discern ‘why’ God sent His Only Begotten Son to die FOR us, which was previously discussed.

    Paragraph 7 was about your incorrect understanding about Luther & the REASONS ‘why’ he wanted to remove the Apocrypha & the canonically Inspired Scripture (the latter, he DIDN’T, btw). And, the ‘true’ source of the PVM, which CatholicAnswers AGREES with. Check it out on YouTube or go to their site & check it out for yourself.

    Paragraph 8 addresses the contradictory doctrinal beliefs of the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5. You say that you can’t be ‘easily swayed,’ yet you accept these Catholic contradictions in their own doctrines, because you’ll readily believe in Catholic theology, simply for the sake of Catholic theology, rather than objectively examine those doctrines, like to noble-minded Bereans would, to see if those doctrines are SCRIPTURALLY sound, or if they are not.

    Paragraph 9, again, are direct quotes from SCRIPTURE ‘Who’ the Apostle Paul says ‘intercedes’ for us, not who ‘religious’ fallible men says intercedes for us. So, do you believe Inspired Scripture, or fallible religious men, who have a long tract history of changing their theology on salvation?

    All I’m asking is three things? 1) Examine the separate email regarding John 3:5 & address the Catholic contradictions of salvation…and really take some time to let it sink in before responding, 2) Think about ‘why’ the books of the Bible are in there, rather than ‘who’ put them in there. IOW, ‘what’ godly criteria did the OT Jews & then the early Church use to discern between Inspired Scripture & false writings? Why did they include the Gospel of Luke, but not the ‘gospel’ of Thomas? & 3) If you are so confident that the 7 Apocryphal books belong in the Bible, then why aren’t you confident enough to ask me to SHOW you those errors & contradictions? I’m more than willing to show them to you.

    So, before responding with ‘cookie-cutter’ Catholic responses like ‘Jesus isn’t bound by the same commands He gives us’ or ‘God is merciful,’ etc. keep in mind that Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE words, & since Jesus is God, He can’t make an EXCLUSIVE statement, but then later ‘change His mind,’ because that means His original statement would be false, & God cannot lie.

    Really think about this…

  5. ahahaha nakaka tawa naman ang nag sulat nitong nabasa ko,,, nagpapahiwatig lang talaga nahh ang mga naisulat niya ay ang mga narinig lang niya sa tabi tabi.. gud day of u my friend

  6. It’s our Catholic Faith. Let’s live by it. Naging altar boy din po ako noong elem. At highschool. Madami na rin po akong nasasaksihan na debate at kaya nagkainterest na rin po akong mag aral ng apologetics or maging cfd. Meron po bang branch dito sa manila? Umattend na din po ako ng seminar ng CFD yun nasa leyte pa po ako kaso hindi ko na po natatapos simula ng pumunta na ako nh Maynila para magtrabaho.

  7. usa ako ka catholico taga Bicahan antequera bohol usa ako ka chapel chairman sa among kapilya .ako nahasol gayod aning mga SDA ug born again nga nagsigi ug bisita sa among mga membro ug nagsabwab ug mga bakak bahin sa atong pagtoo.ang akong katakos dili igo nga makig lantogi kabahin sa biblia . kon mahimo unta matabangan ko ninyo aron ako makakat on sa biblia aro makatabang ako sa pagpanalipod sa atong tinoohan salamat

  8. magandang araw po sa iyo mga Bro.,,,paki.bisita po itong site na ito ask-a muslim.com na nagsasabi na Jesus was muslim,,,,,at basahin ninyo yong explanation nila,,,, sa future gagamitin ito ng mga debater na moros at meron na tayong tamang sagot nito,,, alam ko , na explained na ni Bro ,Cenon ang ibang sagot nito tungkol sa comforter sa Tumbukin natin .

    pero maayo masteron ninyo ang kanilang sagot ,,,,,, nasaan na ba ngayon ang Tumbukin natin? ni Bro. Cenon, miss na miss ko na yong site niya.,,,,,,,,, natagpuan ko lang sa faithfreedom.org
    ang subject na ito. kasi lagi akong nagbabasa kay Mr.Ali Sina na faithfreedom.org,,,, ang mga muslim nagtayo rin ng faithfreedom.com para mailihis yong mga naghahanap ng site ni Mr.Sina.,,,,,,,,, nakakatawa yong muslim na nag debate ni Talibong , wala sa ayos kung sumagot , para siyang nasa tubaan or barbershop , si Talibong kung sumagot completo at marespeto sa nagtatanong at ang mga tamang sagot at References sa bible.

  9. Brod naa lang koy pangutana ngano man nga ang kasal sa Huwes dili honored sa simbahang katoliko ug dakong kasalanan kini?.

  10. bro . magcomentaryo lang ko sa dabate nila ni bro. Talibong ug kadtong muslim ,,,matud sa muslim nga bisan daw ang mga cristiano sa Iraq nagbanggit ug allah,,,wala kaayo matubag ni ni bro Talibong,
    sa middle east tanang basahon pulos arabic language apil na diha
    ang bibliya, sa Syria, Egypt,ug uban pang muslim na bansa may mga bible pero in arabic language,,,,natural lang na ang nakasulat at tawag sa dios ay allah.,,,,dugay na nako ni na nabasa karon lang ko kasulod sa komentaryo,,,,,naa-allah la ko lang…yan po Bro.ay congrats kay Talibong yong muslim na kaharap wala sa ayoslaging nagagalit at nang-iinsolto sa mga nagtatanong kung sumasagot.

  11. yong mga members ng INC laking takot nila sa leader nila, isipin mo
    mga educado pa at dami, engineer pa, nagpapaloko sa mga leader nila nagaabuloy mandatoryo 10%,,,at alam nila na hindi tama yong INC ,,, bakit kaya ?,,,takot sila ?,,, mag-peoples power naman sila.

    at congratulations sa CFD , hanggang ngayon pala pambato pa rin nila si Parba at Ventilador,,,,wala bang mga young debater sa INC baka walang tiwala sa iba,,,,kasi yong young INC takot at baka mapahiya lang ,,,, itong Parba at Ventilasyon makapal na kasi ang mukha kaya laban ,or,, takot kasi baka walang salary na matangap.

  12. ibig sabihin mga iglesia ni cristo sa roma. mga kaanib nga bunga sa pagtuturo ni apostol pablo. walang katoliko noon at saka trinity ang katoliko ngunit isa lang ang diyos ni apostol pablo.

  13. bro? maayong adlaw fan ko ninyo bro member ko sa SFC (Singles for Christ) .. gusto unta ko mo attend sa inyung mga seminar sa agdao wa lg ko kblo sa date ug uban pang details…naa lg ko ask bro ang word na “God” ba ky common noun or proper noun? mao na gi question sa ako bro usa ka Saksi…salamat sa pag tubag

      • Hello,

        I am the Parish Youth Leader in Diocesan Shrine of our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary Parish of New Washington, Aklan. I want to have an advocacy to defend our Catholic faith, unfortunately I am not that well oriented in our Doctrines. I have ideas but I know those are just few. By reaching this site, I am very eager to record the things mostly asked by protestant to us Catholics especially the youth. I have this question in my mind and I couldn’t find the answer, I am hoping you can give me facts about this, “Is Mary has something to do with our salvation? Why do we have to intercede with her if we can directly ask God about our needs?”
        If there are scriptural lines to support the answers, please write it so that I can forward it to my fellow young people.

        Kindly reach me via my email.

        Thank you and God bless.

      • Hello,

        I am the Parish Youth Leader in Diocesan Shrine of our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary Parish of New Washington, Aklan. I want to have an advocacy to defend our Catholic faith, unfortunately I am not that well oriented in our Doctrines. I have ideas but I know those are just few. By reaching this site, I am very eager to record the things mostly asked by protestant to us Catholics especially the youth. I have this question in my mind and I couldn’t find the answer, I am hoping you can give me facts about this, “Is Mary has something to do with our salvation? Why do we have to intercede with her if we can directly ask God about our needs?”
        If there are scriptural lines to support the answers, please write it so that I can forward it to my fellow young people.

        Kindly reach me via my email…

        Thank you and God bless.

        • Thank you brother for your messages…

          Please text me in my mobile number 09268983848

          As for your question about mother Mary… I will make articles with regards to that topic…

          Regards,

          G-one

  14. Dear Brethrens,

    Good day.
    I live in UK and at the moment, I studied about Catholic faith by myself, to help and find answer to those other religion asking question to our group. Is there any way that the Catholic Faith Defender will be organised in UK?. Hoping to hear fron you soon. Thanks and God bless.

    In Christ,
    Bro Alan

    Note: you can reply to my email add

  15. sana magpost kayo ng debate na tagalog para naman matuto kaming mga katoliko.bisaya kasi ang nakapost sa debate interesting pa naman.kung maari nga sanang magkaroon kayo ng chapter dito sa Rizal.pwede kayang maimbita dito s parokya namin sa cainta ang isa sa magagaling ninyong defenders?dati rin akong miyembro ng defenders of the catholic faith kaya lang hindi nagtuloy tuluy kasi yung aming trainer ay sumakabilang buhay na at pinigilan din kami ng aming dating parish priest.siguro dapat naming pinaalam muna sa kanya.sayang nga dami na naming napabalik sa ating simbahan na nakuha ng born again.tanong ko sa aming parish priest kung pwedeng magpa seminar kami dito ng pagdedepensa sa ating pananampalataya.salamat at pagpalain kayo ng Diyos.sana’y lumago pa ang inyong samahan.sayang ang mga nakukumbinsi ngibang sekta.hindi muna sila nagsaliksik. God bless CFD

    • SANA rin pag mag post ng inglish hubarin din ng tagalog at bisaya
      par amas madali ang pag intindihan .kasi hindi naman tayo mga amirkano o yaga ibang bansa.
      Godless din poh CFD.

  16. paa ano ba ako maka tulong sa kapwa tao nating sumasalakay sa smbahang katoliko kasi sa aming paaralan ..may roun kaming klasmate na nag bible stdy isa pu siyang born again…..na ipinawatig niya na ang katoliko ay marameng demunyu tulad ng mga rebulto sa pag aatanda ng krus larawan,,,,kung anoano pang senabe tungkol sa katoliko…gusto kung pigelan peru deku na pigilan …may ruon naman kaklase na isa siyang katoliko pero ngayun esa na siyang born again dahil sa classmate kong born again ….gusto kung makatulong sa mga kapatid natin …

    • Bro, please text me sa iyong location…….

      Thanks;

      09268983848..

      Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!!!!

      Best Regards,

      G-one T. Paisones

    • KAPATID, wag kang maniwala sa sinasabi ng iba katulad ng sinasabi mo, dahil sa katunayan hindi pa siya naka intindi kung ano ang simbahang katoliko, pag aralan mong mabuti,,, at sana wag mong tularan, ang taong marunong manira……intindihin mo nalang ang ibat ibang rilihiyon. …. at sa bawat isa sa ugali ng tao….
      Ang tunay na tao at tunay na anak ng Dios ay hindi kayang manira. . . . . . .Hindi man tayo perpecto, pero tama na seguro kung saan tayo nag simula noon…. Noong tayoy bininyagan sa simbahang katoliko……

  17. Pakiimprove po ang background ng website na ito, masyado pong masakit sa mata.
    Mas ok po kung gagawin nyong plain lang…
    Ung logo po ng catholic defender mas mabuti kung sa upper portion lang ng page ipoposition…

  18. Glory to God !

    Ask lang nako, unsaon pagka mugna sa CFD Gensan Chapter dinhia sa Gensan. Kay daghan kaayo sa atoang mga igsoon sa laing sekta ang kusog kaayo mo tamay sa mga katoliko nga walay alamag. Sanglit daghan na kaayo silag nadani sailang pagtoong mali tin.aw nga igo sila sa giingun ni San Judas nga “motungha ang mga tawo nga mag biay-biay kaninyo- mga tawo nga nag sunod sailang dautang tinguha. Sila maoy hinungdan sa pagka bahinbahin”
    -1 Jud. 5:16

    ako nag edukar saakoang huna2 sa atoang doktrina og pag master sa pag tubag sa mga pangutana sa atoang mga igsoon sa laing sekta sukad nga ako 3rd year high school pa hangtud nga ako 2nd year college na. Apan murag makuwangan pa ako sa akoang mga nabal.an. Kanunay nako gina ampo sa Ginoo nga unta mamugna ang Cfd dinhia sa General Santos City arun sa mga pag pahayag sa mga nangitngitan.

    Salamat

  19. Akoa lang klarohon akoang nahatag nga versikulo dhaa sa ” motungha ang mga tawo nga mag biay-biay kaninyo – mga tawo nga mag sunod sa ilang dautang tinguha . Sila maoy hinungdan sa pagka bahin-bahin”
    – Jud. 1:18-19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.