MY EXPERIENCE WITH JEHOVAH WITNESSES IN PALAWAN By John Tedrick Rodriguez

 MY EXPERIENCE WITH JEHOVAH WITNESSES IN PALAWAN By John Tedrick Rodriguez

I want to share my past experiences with my conversation with one of the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church in my hometown in Coron, Palawan.

Habang ako ay naglalakad sa may Lualhati Park samen sa Coron nilapitan ako ng isang lalaking myembro ng Jehovah's Witnesses Church at inabutan nya ako ng pinapamigay nilang flyers. Then kinausap ko sya ng sandaliaan.

Me: Kapatid ano pong religion nyo?

Him: Jehovah's Witnesses po.

Me: Ano pong authority nyo doing this kind of Evangelization? or ano pong authority nong founder nyo para bumuo ng samahan na kinaaaniban ninyo?

Him: Ehh diba sabi ni Kristo sa Bible kapatid ganito "Humayo kayo at ipahayag nyo ang Mabuting Balita".

Me: Ahh opo, nasa Bible po yan. Ehh kapatid kanino naman po yan sinabi ni Kristo?

Him: Sa kanyang mga apostol.

Me: Ahh opo sa kanyang mga apostol sabi nyo po. ehh ngayon naman kapatid ano pong kaugnayan nyo sa mga apostol?

Him: (Nataranta na). Ayy kapatid may mga pupuntahan pa po kasi kami, mas mabuti pumunta ka nalang sa aming simbahan para masagot ung mga katanungan mo.

But then at the end of the conversation I ask myself:

Kung sila may lakas ng loob magpangaral ng aral ng kanilang pananampalataya kahit mali ang kanilang pinapangaral. Ehh tayong mga katoliko nasaan tayo? Kung tayo ang tunay na nakakaalam ng Bibliya bakit hindi tayo tumayo at ipangaral ang totoo para sa ikaliligtas ng mga tao?

"Without love, deeds, even the most brilliant, count as nothing."

-St. Therese of Lisieux.

References:

Rodriguez, J. T. (2022, October 1). MY EXPERIENCE WITH JEHOVAH WITNESSES IN PALAWAN By John Tedrick Rodriguez. Retrieved from The Splendor of the Church: http://thesplendorofthechurch.com/2022/10/01/my-experience-with-jehovah-witnesses-in-palawan-by-john-tedrick-rodriguez/?fbclid=IwAR0_yrrEFVZJM8f8R-XAIwTmdNF1l4kr2drjsBu-rUheYPiGCncpTqJrXQw

 

 

IS POPE FRANCIS A FALSE TEACHER? DEBUNKING THE ALLEGATIONS OF ANTI-CATHOLICS By John Noriel, SPMS

IS POPE FRANCIS A FALSE TEACHER?

Debunking the allegations of non-Catholic.

John Noriel, SPMS

According to Jordan Riley Ministries’s post he described Pope Francis as:

Pope Francis is NOT SAVIOR (Acts 4:12)

Pope Francis is NOT your FATHER (Matthew 23:9)

Pope Francis is NOT HOLY (Mark 10:18)

Pope Francis is NOT SINLESS (Romans 3:23)

Pope Francis is NOT GOD’S REPRESENTATIVE (1 Timothy 2:5)

Pope Francis is NOT HEAD OF THE CHURCH (Colossians 1:17-18)

Pope Francis preaches false doctrine (Galatians 1:6-9, Ephesians 2:8-9)

OUR RESPONSE!

(POPE FRANCIS IS NOT SAVIOR?)

The Catholic Church never believe that Pope Francis is a savior. We believe that salvation comes from God. (John 3:16, Titus 2:13)

(POPE FRANCIS IS NOT OUR FATHER?)

Pope Francis is not our father as God but we’ll called him father because he is the father of faith.

1 Corinthians 4:15 NIV

[15] Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I BECAME your FATHER THROUGH the GOSPEL.

We, Catholics believe that our only FATHER (GOD) is the Father in heaven.

(POPE FRANCIS IS NOT HOLY?)

First and foremost, can you elaborate what kinds of HOLY? God is HOLY therefore pope Francis is HOLY! God made him Holy.

Romans 1:7

To all in Rome who are LOVED by GOD and CALLED to BE his HOLY PEOPLE:

People in Rome are loved by God and called to be his HOLY PEOPLE.

(POPE FRANCIS IS NOT SINLESS?)

Yes, we believe that Pope Francis is NOT SINLESS!

Romans 3:23 NIV

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Pope Francis is a mere man, he committed sin he is not sinless. But pope Francis is infallible for teaching the word of God. (Matthew 16:18-19)

(POPE FRANCIS IS NOT GOD’S REPRESENTATIVE?)

Pope Francis is God’s representative because the holy spirit appointed him as bishop!

Acts 20:28 Douay-Rheims Bible

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the HOLY GHOST hath PLACED YOU BISHOPS, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

SEE??! Pope Francis is GOD’S REPRESENTATIVE.

(POPE FRANCIS IS NOT HEAD OF THE CHURCH?)

Yes, the Catholics believe that Jesus is the head of the church not the pope.

Colossians 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

The Pope was called VISIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH OR VICAR OR CHRIST.

(POPE FRANCIS PREACHES FALSE DOCTRINE?)

The poster use the bible verses ,(Galatians 1:6-9, Ephesians 2:8-9) to give his conclusion that Pope Francis is preaches false doctrine. But before we conclude let’s read what the bible verse says.

Galatians 1:6-9 KJV

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Pope Francis never taught a doctrine that not favor from the sacred scripture. In fact we defended the bible for many times.

Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Before you teach this bible verse, the Catholic Church teaches it first. We believe that we will saved by the GRACE OF GOD but if you’re talking for FAITH ALONE… there’s no FAITH ALONE written in Ephesians 2:8-9. If we continues reading from verse 10 we will see the truth.

Ephesians 2:10 NIV

[10] For we are God’s handiwork, CREATED in CHRIST JESUS TO DO GOOD WORKS, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Pope Francis teaches FAITH AND GOOD WORKS not FAITH ALONE.

James 2:24 King James Bible

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.

1 Peter 3:15 Berean Standard Bible

But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. ALWAYS BE PREPARED to GIVE a DEFENSE to EVERYONE who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect,

 

MGA TANONG NA PWEDE NATING GAMITIN KAPAG GINAMIT NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO 1914 ANG ROMA 16:16 – CFD Muntinlupa

Catholic Faith Defenders - Muntinlupa City

APAT (4) NA TANONG NA PWEDE NATING GAMITIN KAPAG GINAMIT NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO 1914 ANG ROMA 16:16

Noong isinulat ni San Pablo ang Roma 16:16 ay HINDI PA LUMITAW ang Iglesia ni Cristo na tatag ni Felix Manalo kaya isang MALAKING KAMALIAN na eh proclaim na sila ang tinutukoy dito. Kaya malaking kasinungalingan talaga ito kung eh claim natin ang isang bagay na hindi naman para sa iyo.

Kaya narito ang apat (4) na katanungan na pwede nating gamitin laban sa Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 kapag ginamit nila at sinabi nila na sila ang nakasulat at tinutukoy sa Roma 16:16.

1. Ang Roma 16:16 ay isinulat ni San Pablo noong 57-58 A.D., ang ibig sabihin hindi pa lumitaw ang Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Felix Manalo noong 1914 sa Pilipinas. Ang tanong paano ninyo na masasabi Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 ito eh matagal na pala itong naisulat at samantalang lumitaw lang ang INC sa Pilipinas taong July 27,1914?

2. Sa pinakaunang sulat ni San Pablo sa mga taga Roma, sinabi niya na ang PANANAMPALATAYA ng mga unang “Cristiano” ay LUMAGANAP NA SA BUONG SANLIBUTAN (Roma 1:8).

Ito ay nangangahulogan na noong panahong iyon ay LUMAGANAP NA SA BUONG SANLIBUTAN ANG PANANAMPALATAYA NG MGA NAUNANG CHRISTIANO. ANG TANONG, LUMAGANAP NA BA NOONG PANAHONG IYON ANG ITINATAG NI FELIX MANALO NA “IGLESIA NI CRISTO”?

3. Ang mga ugali ng mga naunang Cristiano ay hindi tulad ng pag uugali ng Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Felix Manalo. Ang mga Christiano sa taga Roma ay tinuroan na huwag silang humusga o humatol sa mga taong kumakain ng kahit anong klase ng pagkain (Roma 14:3). ANG TANONG BAKIT ANG MGA MIYEMBRO NG IGLESIA NI MANALO AY MAHILIG MANGHUSGA O HUMATOL SA MGA KATOLIKO SA MGA PAGKAIN NA KINAKAIN NITO TULAD NG “DINUGOAN”?

Dagdag pa rito malinaw na sinabi ni San Pablo sa sulat niya na ang taong kumakain ng kahit ano at mga taong kumakain ng gulay lang ay PAREHONG TINATANGGAP NG DIYOS. Ang tanong, tinatanggap ba ng Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 ang mga katoliko na kumakain ng dinugoan? Hindi bat sinasabi din nila na walang kaligtasan ang mga taong hindi pumapasok sa kanilang relihiyon? Kung ang Diyos ay TINATANGGAP NIYA ANG MGA TAONG KUMAKAIN NG KAHIT ANO, sino itong mga myembro ng Iglesia ni Cristo para pagsabihan nila ang hindi nila myembro?

4. Ang mga Christiano sa taga Roma ay tinuroan na Diyos si Cristo, PERO ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO NA ITINATAG NI FELIX MANALO AY TINUROAN NA “HINDI DIYOS” SI CRISTO KUNGDI SIYA AY ISA LAMANG NA TAO.

Ano ang sabi ni San Pablo sa mga taga Roma:

“To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, IS THE CHRIST, WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, blessed forever. Amen”(Romans 9:5)

ANG TANONG KUNG KUNG KINE CLAIM NILA NA SILA ANG TINUTUKOY SA ROMA 16:16 BAKIT HINDI ITINURO SA KANILA NA SI CRISTO AY TOTOONG DIYOS AT HINDI TAO?

Note: Ito ay mga katanungan lamang para sa INC 1914 na gumagamit ng Roma 16:16.

References:

Catholic Faith Defenders - Muntinlupa City. (2022, September 14). MGA TANONG NA PWEDE NATING GAMITIN KAPAG GINAMIT NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO 1914 ANG ROMA 16:16 – CFD Muntinlupa. Retrieved from The Splendor of the Church: https://thesplendorofthechurch.com/2022/09/14/mga-tanong-na-pwede-nating-gamitin-kapag-ginamit-ng-iglesia-ni-cristo-1914-ang-roma-1616-cfd-muntinlupa/

 

THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH By Leonard Canamo

Cofat Catechesis

The Church with the Pope

Part 5: Visible and Invisible Church

Now a days, iba iba ang pagkakaunawa ng mga Kristiyano sa salitang “Simbahan o Church”. Some take it with a deeper meaning and some take it with a lesser one. Some with an exclusive mind believe na we should be a card holding member of this church in order for you to be save otherwise you will be damn in hell. On the other hand, there are some who believe na hindi importante kung saang simbahan ka nabibilang, what is important according to them is your personal relationship with Christ. And for me that’s a dilemma and if we sum up those views we can group them into two; either the Church is

1) Visible or

2) Invisible

–

For the first view of the Church, they believe that the Church is a Visible organization that can be identified. But some take it exclusively to the point that they promote a belief that we should be a member of this Church and outside of this church you have no hope to be save. Only the members of this Church ang may pagasang maligtas. Sometimes ganito ang nangyayari if we focus too much sa ganitong view to the extent na it emphasized membership rather than God’s saving grace working inside of us. Evident ito sa mga Philippine founding church like Iglesia ni Cristo and others

–

While for the second view, they believe that the Church is Invisible meaning the holy Christian Church is a reality, although it is not an external, visible organization. Because ‘man look on the outward appearance, but the Lord look on the heart, therefore only the Lord knows ‘them that are his.’ That’s why according to them, the members of the holy Christian Church are known only to God; we cannot distinguish between true believers and hypocrites. So for those who believe in an Invisible church promotes a kind of church that cannot be identified with anyone church body or the sum total of all church bodies. The invisible church is a typical view of most of “born again christian groups” now a days na very appealing because of their clever expression of their view like “Christianity is not a religion it is a personal relationship with Christ”, and “I’m spiritual but not religious”. Those expression shows their belief to an invisible church.

–

In both extremes that we have, the Catholic Church gives I think the balance between this two different views. Because we catholics believe that the Church has both Visible aspect and Invisible aspect. It means we believe that the Church is a Visible Church with a hierarchical structure, with an address that we can locate their place and leaders that has authority to settle doctrinal and moral issues. At the same time we believe in the Church that transend,meaning it has invisible aspect in which we can receive the grace of God through sacraments that make us holy and partakers of the life of God.

–

That is why Catholics believe that Christ’sChurch is more than invisible communion of faith. Just as Christ had a real physical body, so Christ’s Church is made up of a real physical union of believers held together by human bonds, as well as by divine grace. The Church is the “Mystical Body of Christ”, an expression which reflect both the spiritual (Mystical) and the physical (Body) nature of the Church.

–

Of course,there are some Christians that will object with that, because they see the human,physical side of the Church as a barrier between them and God. They contend that the Church should be only spiritual and therefore invisible community of faith. God offers grace,they think, directly to each person,not through the mediation of any Church. God speaks, they suppose, to each one individually,not through the teaching office of a Church.

–

But if we read the bible, it shows that God offers salvation to human being not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds,but by making them into a single people. Remember God formed first, the people of Israel sa Old testament to prepare the way, then through Jesus, he formed the new “People of God” we read

–

1 Peter 2,10

[10]Though in past times you were not a people, yet now you are the people of God. Though you had not obtained mercy, yet now you have obtained mercy.

–

This People of God is the Church. Now if that Church is invisible we will fail to see the significance of Jesus words in the bible we read

–

Matthew 18,17

[17]And if he will not listen to them, tell the Church. But if he will not listen to the Church, let him be to you like the pagan and the tax collector.

–

This is a passage from the Gospel that explain how to settle disputes among christians and from that text Jesus shows the role of the Church as a final arbiter in which Jesus said “if he will not listen to the Church let him be like the pagan and tax collector” meaning a foreigner or a sinner.

–

Ngayon kung iaapply natin yan today,if we have doctrinal dispute sa isang born again Christian, following the words of Jesus na “tell the Church” which will serve as our arbiter, the question is saang church kami pupunta? Ako as catholics will go to the Catholic church habang ang kaibigan kong born again will go sa Church na kinabibilangan nya, in the end we will not solve our doctrinal dispute. That’s the problem of those christians na naniniwala na ang simbahan is an invisible church. But for catholics,we don’thave that problem because as i said we believe also sa visible church that serve as a judge to settle doctrinal issues.

–

Next time pagusapan natin ng mas malalim ang Visible aspect ng simbahan kung saan alam naman natin maraming issue dito hindi lang ang mga non catholics kundi maging ang mga kapwa natin catholics. And after that dadako na tayo sa aspect kung saan paguusapan na natin sino sino ang bumubuo sa simbahan hanggang sa makarating tayo sa main topic ko walang iba kundi ang Santo Papa. Stay tuned. Godbless

References:

Canamo, L. (2022, September 10). THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH . Retrieved from The Splendor of the Church: http://thesplendorofthechurch.com/2022/09/10/the-visible-and-invisible-church-by-leonard-canamo/

 

REBUTTAL TO THE RADTRAD PROPAGANDA: “Mass of the Ages 2”

NAPAKAHALAGANG ANUNSYO PARA PO SA BLOG LABAN KAY PADRE GURIBA

Mga minamahal kong Marbelians,

Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo na paminsanan po ako ng pagpo-post sa blog na ito, at sa katunayan, ay inaasahan namin ito bukas na maisapubliko na po namin ang mga blog ukol sa pagkondena ng Simbahan laban kay Fr. Archie Guriba at sa katunayan ay inaasahan namin na magpopost namin ito upang magbigay babala sa mga Marbelians lalong-lalo na sa mga mananampalatayang Katoliko.

Maraming Salamat po...

AM+DG

Pro Deo Et Ecclesia! 

Post Election Article: A Respond to the GenSan Mayoral Candidates on Abortion

A Respond to the GenSan Mayoral Candidates on Abortion

By: Bro. Nino Gaton

Aspirant Catholic Faith Defender of the Diocese of Marbel

 

 

Various reactions took place at the beginning of the debate held at Barangay Calumpang Gymnasium, it was vitiated by many left and right events, especially the beginning and end of the debate.SK Federation President of the City of General Santos, Hon. John Demdam is affected by a variety of controversies that are being thrown at him, especially by the trolls and outright criticism against him. Despite the many controversies or issues of the Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay Calumpang of the City of General Santos, the debate continued even though it was still being criticized. The participants in the debate are the Regional Communities Reform Initiatives Party or RCRI and the two independent candidates for Mayor. Unfortunately, Mr. Elmer Catulpos of the Achievement with Integrity Movement or AIM party and Councilor Lorelie Pacquiao, representative of the League of Barangays in the City of General Santos, under the banner of the People’s Champ Movement were also not in the debate. But if his brother-in-law Senator Manny Pacquiao were Sen. Pacquiao is running for the Presidency of the Philippines we will answer on the issue of abortion, said Sen. Manny Pacquiao himself is also against abortion, but it is also possible that this the answer of Councilor Pacquiao regarding the issue of abortion.

 

On the one hand, even if there are controversial practices or throwing stones at them, the moderators of the debate accept my abortion question. However, most of those who attended the debate were supporters of Bongbong Marcos who is the Presidential candidate who agrees with Abortion. Meanwhile, Mr. Roberto Perales and Engr. Sterling Sanado is opposed to abortion even though Mayor Rivera seems to have considerations regarding abortion, Mr. Perales said, “In our country, we are against abortion but we have to consider also the life of the mother. Sometimes, kailangan nating gawin para sa kabutihan, hindi lahat ginagawa ay kasamaan depende sa rason kung bakit gagawi, eh kung nanganganib ang buhay ng ina ay di kailangang gawin pero kung sadyain, sa tingin ko, ay hindi po puwede. (we have to do it for good, not everything we do is evil depending on the reason why we do it, eh if the mother's life is in danger we don't have to do it but if we do it intentionally, I don't think we can).On the other hand, Mayor Rivera's response as the representative of Congresswoman Shirlyn Banas where Congresswoman Banas is running for Mayor on the issue as well said, “Naay kondisyon usahay na kailangan nato na mga medical situation sa usa ka mama so kinanghanglan nato og pagtagad, so we will allowed abortion on medical situation sa usa ka mama and of course, ang kailagan debatihan didto gamay kay victim of abuses ng rape o nabuntis na so we know for the fact ang bata is a blessing gikan sa Ginoo, we know that is a blessing, pero sometimes kung dili siya blessing tungod biktima sa abuse o biktima sa rape alanganin ta diha sa bata mudako nga walay magmahal. We want to make sure nakung makaya lang ang counsel sa babae nga girape o naagig abuse kay gumikan duda, so we can create the guidelines o nga parameters.”( There is a condition sometimes that we need a mother's medical situation so we need attention, so we will be allowed abortion on a mother's medical situation and of course, the need to be debated there is little to the victim of rape abuses or already pregnant so we know for the fact the child is a blessing from the Lord, we know that is a blessing, but sometimes if he is not a blessing because of the victim of abuse or victim of rape let us in the child grow up without love. We want to make sure I can only counsel the woman who has been raped or abused out of doubt, so we can create the guidelines or parameters.) The response of Engr. Sterling Sanado on the issue although he mentioned God's fifth commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', then he added also, “unless siguro is the discretion of the family kung naay medikal na instances unya magpili ta, kung kinsay musurvive, kung papilion sa doktor kung ang inahan ba o ang anak, so with regards of the decision na Pro o Anti, so dili gyud ko musugot na malegalize ang aborsyon but, there's a provision kung naay medikal na kondisyon nga kinanghanglan atoang isaalang-alang.” (unless maybe it is the discretion of the family if there are medical instances then we will choose, who will survive, if the doctor will choose whether it is the mother or the child, so with regards to the decision Pro or Anti, so I will never agree may legalize abortion but, there's a provision if there is a medical condition that we need to consider.)

 

            But we are trying to get a statement from Mr. Elmer Catulpos in his answer regarding the issue related to abortion.

 

            On the one hand, this is what I am paying attention to regarding what GenSan Mayor Ronnel Rivera said on abortion it is similar to Bongbong Marcos ’answer regarding the issue. Consequently, the Catholic Church has stated that Abortion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is well said, Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

 

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of ex-communication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, " "by the very commission of the offense, " and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights, one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its survival.”

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2270-2275)

            Although, the Magisterium teaches also on regarding abortion stated at the Vatican II, “The Second Vatican Council… sternly condemned abortion: “From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” [Evangelium Vitae 62(Cf. Gaudium et Spes, 51)] Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition, and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. [Evangelium Vitae 62(Cf. Lumen Gentium, 25)]

In the same way, in the preferred to the Biblical basis on Abortion stated, it is clear as it said by Engr. Sterling Sanado that, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, (Exodus 20:13). Then, “God made you in the womb…formed us in our mothers. I have upheld you since you were conceived, the Lord formed you in the womb. You knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body, the baby leaped in her womb” (Job 31:15; Is.46:3-4; Is.44:2; Is. 49:5; Ps. 139:13-16; Lk. 1:41) For instance, “In his[God's] hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind, before you were born I set you apart, defend the weak and fatherless. [Pharmakeia (gk.)] Rescue those being led away to death” “from my mother’s womb you have been my God” (Job. 12:10; Ps 82:3-4; Jer. 1:4-5 Gal 5:20; Rev 9:2; Rev 21:8; Prov. 24:11-12 Ps 22:9-10)

Even though, if Mayor Ronnel Rivera or Cong. Shirlyn Banas favors Abortion, and the Church replies to that statement in favor of abortion as described, in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae ex-communication.” (Code of Canon Law # 1398) In the same way, our Philippine Laws stated this, and firm standing on abortion indicates, “The State values the DIGNITY OF EVERY HUMAN PERSON and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State recognizes the SANCTITY of FAMILY LIFE and shall PROTECT and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the LIFE OF MOTHER and the LIFE OF THE UNBORN FROM CONCEPTION. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”(Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Section XI-XII) On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines stated Abortion tells us. Intentional Abortion. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer, 1.  The penalty of reclusión temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. 2. The penalty of prisión mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman. 3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented. Unintentional Abortion. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and the medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally. Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by Her Parents. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so. Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor shall suffer the penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods. If this crime is committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of the said woman to conceal her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Abortion Practiced by a Physician or Midwife and Dispensing of Abortives. — The penalties provided in article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same. (The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Article 255-259)

 Not only the teachings of the Magisterium but also the Church fathers on Abortion stated also that, “The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his work. The knowledge, therefore, that is given to us to walk in this way, is the following…You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor shall you destroy it after it is born.” [Letter of Barnabas 19(c. A.D. 75)] “In our case, murder being forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroys one that is coming to the birth. That is a man that is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.” [Apology 9 (A.D. 197)] “And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire that smote the women in the eyes: and these were accursed who conceived and caused abortion.” [The Apocalypse of Peter 25 (c. A.D. 135)] “I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who fall every day and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother... Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.” [Letters 22:13 (A.D.384)] “The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder… The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but the term of ten years. And let their treatment depend not on the mere lapse of time, but on the character of their repentance.” [Letters 188:2 (A.D. 374)] “Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses.” (Letter 188:8) “You shall not use magic. You shall not use witchcraft; for he says, “You shall not suffer a witch to live.” You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill what is begotten; for “everything shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it is slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed”.” [Apostolic Constitutions 7:1:3 (c. A.D. 400)]

 Taking everything into consideration, at the end of this article let’s tell the question Mayor Rivera together with Mayoral Candidate then Congresswoman Shirlyn Banas, ‘Is abortion would be allowed in the medical situation even in case of rape or incest? Eventually, the Church states it was wrong to allow abortion also then the Church teaches that ABORTION IS A CULTURE OF DEATH AND NOT A CULTURE OF LIFE even also the Church’s Fathers as well said that they believe that ABORTION is BOTH Suicide and Murder. As you stated on that particular saying that speaking you’ve said that you allowed that abortion is allowed in the medical situation even in case of rape or incest, the Science also answered on this statement, in which Science agrees that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. However, Science proves that LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION. Many Science textbooks tell us that LIFE BEGINS WHEN SPERM CELLS AND EGG CELLS MEET WITH EACH OTHER.

Weighing on this both sides of this argument, The Church teaches that HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED AND MUST BE TREATED WITH RESPECT and HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION and also from the BEGINNING LIFE MUST BE DEFENDED. Consequently, INTENTIONAL ABORTION IS AND ALWAYS IMMORAL AND IT IS A GRAVE SIN and GRAVE EVIL. The Church teaches that the teaching about Abortion has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Before I end my article I will emphatically insert such an article regarding the legalization of abortion, however, almost intend to legislate the legalization of abortion in Argentina fortunately, the Supreme of Argentina have been suspended that law. Hence, St. John Paul II once says “Give us the grace – When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, to stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life.”(St. John Paul II) And my friend also says, “Life is the most precious gift from God. Let us nourish our lives, let us cherish our years, and celebrate our days.”(Bro. Airson Kelly Llena)

Hopefully, after this article that I have posted or published to all faithful, I assure you that our Bishop would give either a pastoral letter or else regarding the issue of abortion that faithful aware of this whoever people support abortion

 

We have to see that, it is appropriate for us that whether in the election or not we should analyze the circumstances that surround us, especially with candidates or non -candidates from the perspective of abortion, in fact even at the end of the election or in the middle of the election. Such an article will remind us to stand up for what is more inspiring for the good, I hope this article will be a guide and inspiration for you, especially for those who live surrounded by the territory of the Diocese of Marbel.

Reference: The Dignity of Life: Abortion? by: Airson Kelly B. Llena. Powerpoint Presentation

Why Does the Catholic Church Treat the Holy Eucharist With Adoration and Devotion? By Lawrence Luna

Why Does the Catholic Church Treat the Holy Eucharist With Adoration and Devotion? 

By Lawrence Luna

Answer:

The Catholic Church treat the Holy Eucharist in a respectful manner and with adoration because of the following reasons that are biblical based:

• The Holy Eucharist is not a symbol of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ as others said, but truly that it is his real body (Jn 6:54-57, Lk 22, 1 Cor 11). IT IS THE REAL BODY OF JESUS OUR GOD who is present there Body, Soul and Divinity. It means that when we treat it with devotion and adoration, then it signifies our faith and love for him but if we commit sacrilegious communion or make any actions that dishonors the Holy Eucharist, then it disrespects his body; that is sacrilegious to Jesus our God . With this, the Catholic Church uses its authority up to the point of establishing norms and make sanctions to ensure that the Holy Eucharist will be respected, guarded, dignified, and be treated in proper way towards proper manner and devotion to it (Mt 18:18-20, 1 Cor 14, 1 Cor 5). An example of Church document that ensures the norms on this matter is the Redemptionis Sacramentum, although there are also other Church documents that can be connected in this case.

• The Holy Eucharist must be adored and respected and treated properly as well because every time that there is Eucharistic Celebration and receive it, we proclaim the death of our Lord Jesus Christ until he comes again (1 Cor 11:26). This means that the Eucharistic celebration is a true and a proper sacrifice, and as well signifies his passion, death, and resurrection (1 Cor 11, Lk 22, 1 Tim 2). No doubt that the Catholic Church is serious and particular on these matters because of these truths.

In fact, the apostles and early disciples also devoted themselves to the breaking of bread and prayers (Acts 2: 42-43), which this scenario tells us that the treating of the Holy Eucharist in a respectful manner and with devotion is even practiced already by the early Christians. Such way of respect and devotion is still applicable and must be maintained even in our times, and with the more generations to come (Mt 28:19-20, Mt 5).

Source from:

https://thesplendorofthechurch.com/2022/03/18/why-does-the-catholic-church-treat-the-holy-eucharist-with-adoration-devotion-by-lawrence-luna/

MUSINGS: Priests & Partisan Politics

MUSINGS: Priests & Partisan Politics

(This post is just an excerpt of a non-published article I made last year. This is my opinion. You may disagree with me. But I will defend my position in a respectful dialogue.)

1. “Priests should be non-partisan” - The injunction is not as absolute as others present it to be. Magisterial pronouncements regarding the matter are not as rigid as some people think. 

2. The Church has the obligation to give some moral principles or issue guidelines concerning political matters. The Church as an institution does not endorse a certain candidate or party. She guides. She is non-partisan. However, it seems to me that passing moral judgements on issues related to political affairs is unavoidably partisan. And the Church somehow admits this one (Second Plenary Council of the Philippines #344).

3. A priest may publicly express his support to a particular candidate as long as such is a product of a prayerful discernment, based on facts, for the common good, and not done in the pulpit. In good and informed conscience, when a priest expresses support to a particular candidate and persuades others to do so, I don’t think he is being condescending or that he engages in “clericalism.” His action is still in accord with Church teaching. He is neither violating any ecclesiastical law nor committing impropriety. A prophet is neither mute nor deaf. A prophet knows how and when to speak. 

4. One big objection against such act is unity. The CBCP says that “the Church prohibits Clergy and Religious from involvement in partisan politics because they are considered the symbols of unity in the Church community” (Catechism on Church and Politics, Part III, #2). This is correct. But such unity or harmony should be based on justice (Can. 287 § 1). What is it that unites us? What is unity when injustices and other social evils abound and we remain silent? Should one remain indifferent when justice is violated? When corruption proliferates? When extrajudicial killings become prevalent and supported? Should a priest remain silent when convicts run for public office? Should a priest remain in his cold neutrality when Gospel values and the common good are at stake? Should a priest remain silent in the face of all these? Is that the kind of priest Jesus wants for His Church? Is that the kind of priest the lay faithful want — silent because he does not hold the same view that they have?

5. Politics is good and vital but it isn’t a perfect science. So, when the fundamental rights of people are in peril or violated, when political malaise exacerbates, should a priest remain neutral and silent? He needs to side with the common good, truth, justice, and other Gospel values. Making a stand is not easy and it requires patience and discernment. In doing so, pastoral prudence is to be exercised. 

Thank you. God bless.🙏🌸

MUSINGS: A NOTE ON THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

By: Rev. Fr. Fran D. Villegas, Ph. L., M.A.

Since the issue on the separation of Church and State resurfaces, let us clarify this matter once again. Let this be my little contribution to a reasoned public discourse. 

It is commonly believed that there is an impervious wall separating the Church and the State. And when church people (bishops, priests, & nuns; by the way, the Church is bigger than this triumvirate. The laity — you — forms the biggest part of the Church) say something against a bill or policy or misdeeds done by the government, some would mindlessly parrot, “Separation of Church and State! Huwag makialam ang Simbahan sa politika!”

The Constitution says that the "separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable"(Section 6, Art. II). This provision is more of a restriction on the powers of the State than on the Church. This is actually an injunction imposed by the State upon itself. This section also must be taken in conjunction with Section 5, Article III of the Constitution, which also provides that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof." 

According to the highly respected Constitutionalist, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., Section 5 of the Bill of Rights contains two essential parts — (1) the non-establishment of a religion clause, and (2) the free exercise of religion clause. The first one (1) is a negative command of the Constitution directed to the State that it cannot establish a state religion. Then the second one (2) is the pertinent part of that constitutional provision for church people for it commands and guarantees the free exercise of religion. 

However, this does not automatically mean that the State cannot intervene in church matters. This rather means that when a certain religious belief becomes an act destructive to the society and goes against the laws of the State, for example: polygamy, human sacrifice, and other crimes, then that falls within the police powers or regulation of the government. Let me give a concrete example: in 2015 the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) protested and questioned the authority of the Department of Justice, then headed by Sec Leila De Lima. Its members shouted, “Separation of Church and State!” However, it must be recalled that there were allegations of crimes and charges were filled before the Department of Justice. This department is mandated by law to investigate and determine probable cause. The trial is a secular matter, not a religious one. Therefore, the “Separation of Church and State” cannot be applied. 

In the same manner, there is nothing in this constitutional provision that bars or prohibits church people, most especially the clergy and nuns, from voicing out objections and criticisms on matters considered “political.” It is utterly non-sensical for one to deny the Church its right of freedom of speech and opinion. Just because the Church is a religious group that it cannot voice its concerns or criticize wrongdoings. To argue on this ground is wrong. And let us be reminded that these same church people are citizens of this county who have constitutionally guaranteed rights like anyone else.

They say, “Huwag makialam ang Simbahan sa politika!” Is this correct? Do you want a church silent in the face of crimes and injustices? Then the Catholic Church is not for you. She refuses to suit your cheap taste. Ang isang mabuting Katoliko dapat may alam; dapat makialam. Patay lang po ang walang pakialam. Or as I say in Cebuano, “Ang Simbahan wala manghilabot, kundili nangilabot.” A church that just keeps silent before all evils is a traitor. She is betraying her Master. Just read the Gospels and know Jesus and His works. Those who keep on silencing the Church are not on the side of Jesus, for sure.

It is preposterous, therefore, to use this “Separation of Church and State” against the Church. And when this provision is not correctly understood by Filipinos, then it can be used to marginalized the Church from public discourse. When conscientious Catholics allow this falsity to foster, then it can be a powerful weapon to further silence the Church. These we should not allow to happen. For those who persist in their misinterpretation, let the light of truth extinguish that darkness of ignorance in you. 

I will end this discourse with a quotation from the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines which says, “the more basic principle which governs the area of politics and binds all Christians, whether cleric or lay, at all times. And the principle is simply that politics, like all human activities, must be exercised always in the light of the faith of the Gospel; and the requirements of the Gospel in regard to human dignity, justice, charity, the common good, cannot be sacrificed on the flimsy pretext that ‘the Church does not engage in politics’. Concretely, this means that both clergy and laity must be involved in the area of politics when moral and Gospel values are at stake” (PCP II, 344). The love of Christ urges us. The Gospel values impel us. This is one of the duties of the Church — to speak the truth in love “in season and out of season.” After all, only love can break the impervious wall of separation. 

~Fr. @Fran Villegas, CFD National Spiritual Director

MUSINGS: VOTING A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE IN THE PHILIPPINES

MUSINGS: VOTING A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE IN THE PHILIPPINES 

In defense of BBM, his apologists would quote the words of Cardinal Ratzinger to justify their position that in certain circumstances a Catholic may vote a pro-abortion candidate. Cardinal Rarzinger says, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Though not comprehensive, but let me offer the following notes:

1. There is no circumstance or reason that can justify the direct killing of the unborn. Abortion, in the constant teaching of the Church, can never be justified. Rape and incest, for example, are not sufficient to end the life of the unborn. There are other acceptable interventions (moral, psychological, etc.) available. 

2. It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such act would be considered “Formal Cooperation” to something that is intrinsically evil (abortion). The candidate would push for its legalization once elected.

3. Now, a Catholic may vote a pro-abortion candidate, but votes for such candidate for other reasons. Such act is considered “Remote Material Cooperation.” However, as Cardinal Ratzinger notes, such remote material cooperation can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. That one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate because of proportionate reasons means that other candidates support policies that are equally evil to abortion or outweigh it. 

4. Moral issues do not have the same moral weight. In the Philippines, what reasons could be given, being supported by other candidates, that are proportionate to the intrinsic evil of abortion??? Reasons such as same-sex union, death penalty, territorial disputes, or any similar pressing societal issues in this country and in our times are simply lacking in proportionality.

5. Since abortion has been defined by the Church as a serious sin and intrinsically evil, the question we have to honestly ask ourselves as we choose our candidate: WHAT REASONS DO WE HAVE THAT COULD POSSIBLY OUTWEIGH OR COULD BE PROPORTIONATE TO JUSTIFY A CATHOLIC VOTING FOR A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE??? If there is none, then, those who vote such a candidate are his accomplices in killing innocent and defenseless unborn. 

PS: 

Ang aborsyon ay isang uri din ng pagnanakaw: (1) ninanakaw ng tao mula sa Dios ang kapangyarihan sa buhay, at (2) ninanakaw ng tao ang buhay ng isang inosente at walang kalabanlabang tao sa sinapupunan ng kanyang ina. 

Kung hindi nirerespeto ng isang kandidato ang inosenteng buhay ng sanggol, ilang inosenteng buhay pa kaya ang kaya nyang kitilin, patayin?!?