PDA

View Full Version : Defend Catholic Faith


yankees_suck23
07.01.09, 11:46 AM
I have a classmate who is a Born Again. Kuya Jomel is 28 years old and uses crutches. He always argue that we should not call priests as Father because it is against Matthew 23:8-10 - "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." I said "Kinokonsider kasi ng mga Rabbi ang sarili nilang mataas, kung baga huwag silang magpakataas. Masyado ka kasing literal." Yet he did not listen to me. At least I defended myself.

Marami kasing na-didiscourage kapag hindi napapakinggan. Ilan kaya sa atin ang kayang depensahan ang ating pananampalataya? What if we are asked that we worship stones? Who can answer it correctly, even no one will listen to you? How will you defend that we must pray for the dead or evidence of purgatory? How will you say that the title of the Pope "Vicarius Filii Dei" is fictitious? WE DON'T NEED TO ATTACK THE DOCTRINES OF IGLESIA NI MANALO, IGLESIA NI SORIANO OR BORN AGAIN. The question is "HOW FAITHFUL ARE YOU AS A CATHOLIC?"

According to Fr. Paul Kaiparambadan in his magazine "KNOW THE TRUTH" (Actually, Kuya Jomel tore the cover of my magazine), Catholics leave their faith because (1) indiscipline that they notice in the Church which may be due to its big number of population; and (2) Ignorance; many of them practice traditional Catholic customs without knowing why they do all those. That's why many are fooled by other sects.

It is our duty as a Catholic faithful to know our faith. We must not be ignorant in our own faith.

jefflyceum
07.01.09, 08:35 PM
it's not a question to be raised nor ignored. faith is a somewhat a personal preference. you know what you are going to do. to others, it also applies. it's their choice. but one thing is for sure. no matter what they will throw at us, Jesus Christ is still the Son of Man. and that we all believe in.

spitfire
07.01.10, 07:02 AM
I think the most effective way to defend the Catholic Church is by living your life as a GOOD Catholic. Knowing the Bible intimately is a good start. The advantage of being an Iglesia or Born-Again or whatever is that they follow and interpret the Bible with an almost religious fanaticism. Sadly, many Catholics (like me) are often ill-prepared when they are confronted with questions that challenges their Catholic faith.

But inspite sa sinasabi nila about the Catholic Church and it's practices..i have never once faltered in my faith. I can't imagine myself outside the Catholic Church.

richard
07.01.10, 02:52 PM
i think what we need now are television shows that explain the teachings of the church. from the basic beliefs to the complex one, on why we did this and why we believe that. atleast we can be reinforced at the same time reminded/refreshed of our basic cathechisms which most of our fellow catholics already forgot.

imagine, the most number of catholics nowadays are coming from D & E. they cannot afford to send their children to expensive catholic schools where religion is being taught from elementry to college. but in public schools, cathechism is just optional and only caters to elementary students.

worst, the parents, who should be responsible in teaching basic faith to their children, also forget or know nothing about the topic.

we cannot simply rely on the mass. we should have an extensive program to evangelize and teach not just the children but our fellow catholics around us.

Ramil
07.01.16, 08:34 PM
Hmm...alam nyo ba ang titulo na binibigay sa Santo Papa?
Vicarius Filii Dei...(latin)
Vicar of the Son of God...(english)

Kung alam nyo na to, eh di...alam nyo na...yung iba...basahin na lang...

VICARIUS FILII DEI - Ipag-add nyo ang mga Roman letters dito...

V................................................. ..........5
I................................................. ...........1
C................................................. ......100
a................................................. ..........0
r................................................. ...........0
I................................................. ...........1
U(wala namang U sa Latin...eh di "V")........5
s................................................. ...........0
----------------------------------------------112

f................0
I................1
L..............50
I................1
I................1
------------53

D.............500
e.................0
I.................1
------------501

So...

112 + 53 + 501 = 666

Uhhh...can't explain but true...

Alexander
07.01.17, 08:22 AM
Well....you have to learn APOLOGETICS to answer trick questions like this

I think you know that in ROMAN NUMERALS, you DO NOT ADD small numbers in front of LARGER numbers, but you SUBTRACT... so MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING... the TOTAL is INCORRECT...

Take for example VICARIVS

VI = 6 but what about IV is it also equal to 6... no, because its 4...
Granting you add... 6 + 100 + 4 = 110 and not 112

So what happen to the total, it becomes 664 and not 666. Gets mo?




That was a VERY OLD attack by the Non Catholics to the POPE... 1612 pa yan

Read here for further information...

http://www.answers.com/topic/vicarius-filii-dei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei

Alexander
07.01.19, 12:51 PM
Hmm...alam nyo ba ang titulo na binibigay sa Santo Papa?
Vicarius Filii Dei...(latin)
Vicar of the Son of God...(english)

Kung alam nyo na to, eh di...alam nyo na...yung iba...basahin na lang...

VICARIUS FILII DEI - Ipag-add nyo ang mga Roman letters dito...
.

Ooops pano nga pala nagyari na LATIN and WORDS tapos i-a-add mo in ROMAN NUMBERS.... strange diba? :)

hokanu
07.01.20, 12:47 AM
Kung meron kayong katanungan tungkol sa Pananampalataya natin bilang mga Katoliko, maghanap kayo sa Internet using the search words "Catholic Apologetics", marami ang lalabas na mga resulta.

Know the basics of why you are a Catholic so that when your faith is attacked you don't get carried away by the seeming "truth".

Here's a website that's about non-Catholics Christians who converted or went back to the ahem ahem True Christian Church, the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

http://www.chnetwork.org/

There's also a book by Edgardo C. de Vera who consulted all stripes of our Catholic Faith, from Opus Dei to Catholic Charismatic groups, to defend what our Faith. The book's title is "Catholic Soul".

pat111
07.04.08, 11:58 PM
Kumusta po kayo. Baguhan lang po ako sa Message board na to kaya sorry po kung parang nervous ako.

Yung pong sinasabi nilang Vicarius Filii Dei, hindi po talaga ito isang titulo ng Pope. Talaga po ang titulo ng Sto. Papa ay

Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ)
Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God)
Bishop of Rome
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City

Nakuha nila iyon sa isang dokumento na tinatawag na 'Donation of Constantine' na pinaniniwalaan noon na totoong sinulat ni Emperor Constantine ngunit na-prove na fake lang pala.

Maski doon sa dokumentong iyon, ang title na 'Vicarius Filii Dei' (Vicar of the Son of God) ay ginagamit, hindi sa sto. Papa, ngunit kay San Pedro. (Sasabihin mo bang si San Pedro ang Anti-Kristo?)

Doon ang Papa ay doon tinuturingan na 'Vicarius Petri' (Vicar of Peter).

Meron pong mga article na makakatulong sa tanong na iyon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei#Catholic_mentions
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209qq.asp

titopao
07.04.11, 04:19 AM
My two cents on this:

It's easier for most people to be taken in with urban legends and forwarded emails, so my best advice is for people to take stuff such as the Donation of Constantine and the Vicarius Filii Dei stuff with a grain of salt. Most of these have been debunked and will always be debunked. For all I know, someone can even come up with nifty formulas to make my online nickname "titopao" equals 666 and commit slander by calling me the anti-Christ.

Trust nothing that you receive in an email (sorry if I have to speak this way since I used to work in the spoof emails department of our call center's account) unless it's supported with authoritative sources. For Catholicism, I'd recommend the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (both are available from the Vatican's website at http://www.vatican.va/) and at the Catholic Encyclopedia Online (slightly outdated, but the information is as authoritative as it can get).

Moreover, in matters of faith, trust no one but God. Wag nang patulang ang mga walang kakwenta-kwentang mga pintas na ipinupukol ng ibang tao tungkol sa Katolisismo---for all they know, anyone can find flaws in other people's religion/sect/faith. (Not to mention that it's too silly to be taken seriously.) Instead of destroying each other, we should build bridges and promote understanding. We can start by not giving in too easily to proselytizing masked as "debate".

(Speaking of spoof and spam emails, if you need help with these, just let me know and I'd be more than willing to help...expertise ko na halos 'to ;) )

Freddie
07.04.12, 10:53 AM
Hello po...

Nakatutuwang malaman na marami pa rin sa ating mga katoliko ang nagtatanggol sa ating paniniwala. At karaniwan na rin na ang kahuli hulihang mensahe sa bawat nagtatanggol dito ay ang panghihikayat sa mga nagtatanong na "wag ng paniwalaan ang mga walang kakwenta kwentang ipinupukol sa katoliko". Hindi ako against dun, kaya lamang siguro tingnan din natin: ilan porsyento sa ating mga katoliko ang hindi nakakaalam? Di ba kaya nga sila nagtatanung ay dahil kulang sila sa kaalaman? Ayaw nilang maligaw kaya ang gusto nila ay matulungan siya na maipagtanggol din ang kanilang pananampalataya, di ba?

Minsan kasi nakakatulong ang hindi pagpansin sa mga pamumukol pero minsan, kailangan mong sumagot para hindi na maakay ang iba.

Sa aming lugar, meron kaming BEC. Nakakalungkot pero katotohanan ito na marami sa ating mga katoliko na dahil binyagan na, eh nakuntento na. Wala silang dapat ipaliwanag kasi katoliko na sila. Kahit na sinong manghikayat, hindi nila papansinin kasi katoliko na sila. Pero kapag tinanong mo kung ano ang alam tungkol sa kanyang pananampalataya, ????

Sapat na kaya yung pagiging binyagan lang natin? Sapat na kaya ang natutunan natin? Siguro, kung makita ko, na may kaisahan ang lahat ng katoliko. Pero sa ngayon, malayo pa tayo, umiiyak pa ang halos lahat sa atin na nagsisilbi sa simbahan. Kulang ang members, hindi maibigay ang committment, kulang ang funds kasi walang support sa ibang tao. Makikita rin natin sa simbahan ang problem, pag may activities halimbawa na lang sa concert, mas marami pa yata yung mga kamag-anak na umaatend.... Marami pa...

Siguro nga nasa mga documento ng ating simbahan na tama ang pananampalatayang itinuro sa atin pero sana wag tayong magsawa ituloy lang natin ang pagtatanggol. Siguro kung talagang alam natin ang pasikot sikot sa pagtatanggol nito, mas maganda na dalhin natin sa komunidad natin dahil sila yung mas nangangailangan.

rommeloi
07.04.17, 07:46 AM
respeto lang po siguro sa pananampalataya ng bawat isa ang kailangan. dahil ang religion ay isang debate na walang meeting point kapag walang respect. minsan yan ang sinasabi ko sa mga miembro sa ibang sect kapag naguumpisa na silang makipagdebate...'cause i'm not even good at debates..

but i think we have to learn from some of the comments that they have. like for example..."kayong mga katoliko bakit sinasamba ninyo ang mga rebulto (santo)?" WE DO NOT WORSHIP OUR SAINTS!!! they are there so that their lives will be our guide for holiness, they are there to intercede with our prayers to Jesus.....and we do know that. maybe everybody in this board know that. but sad to say, a lot of our catholic members might not be aware of this, especially those without any religious education, and obviously going overboard of what the church is really teaching about the saint. And these brothers and sisters of ours are likely to be candidates for conversion to the other sects.... (My mom is one, a very active (or over-active) Dominican Tertiary before, but converted to JIL, up to the time she died).

to defend our faith, i think, we have to defend it from the inside, from ignorance and misconception of our own members and educate everybody to what is true, before we can even defend it from other peoples criticism.

....only my opinion:)

chitto
07.04.17, 12:01 PM
hi! buy kau ng The Faith Explained by Fr. Leo Trece, dami kau matututunan about our faith :)

richard
07.04.17, 03:25 PM
tama ka dyan k'rommel! we need to educate our people.

meron akong kamember sa dati kong choir na yung isa naging born again tapos yung dalawa naging add (though hindi naman sila sabay-sabay na lumipat). nakakulungkot ngang isipin. kaya dapat nagkakaroon din ng formation, teaching and spiritual nourishment ang mga members at hindi lang puro kanta at practice.

yankees_suck23
07.04.19, 01:53 AM
Ei, good to see you again. Bale busy ako makipag-debate sa mga Manalista.

Eto yung kay Betong, Manalista po siya:

For Catholics, they believe that Christ has 2 natures that he is truly man and truly God. But the question is nasa Biblia ba ang pagtuturong ito o nilikha lang ng tao?
T. Alamin muna natin, Ang Diyos ba ay pumapayag na Siya ay Diyos na at tao pa? Maliwanag ang banggit Niya sa Ose. 11:9 ang sabi ng Diyos, "Ako'y Diyos at hindi tao". Kung gayon ang Diyos ay HINDI PUMAPAYAG na Siya ay Diyos na at tao pa.
T. Baka naman Siya ay pumapayag na ang tao ay tao na at Diyos pa? Sa Ezek. 28:2 ang ipinasabi ng Diyos sa Prinsipe sa Tiro, "Ikaw ay tao at hindi Diyos". Baka naman sabihin mo, ang prinsipe sa Tiro ang kausap diyan sa talata kaya hindi yan aplikable kay Cristo. Pero ang sagot ko, hindi sinabi ng Diyos sa talata na "ikaw ay prinsipe sa Tiro at hindi Diyos". Kung gayon generalized ang pagkakagamit ng word na tao sa talata. Kaya imposible ang sinasabi mo na si Cristo ay taong totoo at Diyos na totoo. Kaya ang aral na ito ay wala sa Biblia.
T. Ngayon alamin natin, kung wala sa Biblia, sino lamang ang may likha ng aral na si Cristo ay Diyos?
In a book entitled "Discourses on the Apostles Creed" page 206 kung ililiwat mo sa Filipino language malinaw na nakasulat doon na ito'y nilikha lamang noong 325 taon ng Panginoon. Saan? Sa Konsilyo ng Nicea. Ano ba ang isang Konsilyo? Pagtitipon ng mga obispo ng Iglesia Katolika na pinangungunahan ng inyong Papa upang pag-usapan ang mga aral at alituntunin ng pananampalataya na ipatutupad sa Iglesia Katolika. Kaya sa Konsilyo ng Nicea ano ang kanilang napagkasunduan? Na gawing isang alituntunin ng pananampalataya na Si Cristo ay Diyos. Kaya sino ang may imbento ng aral na si Cristo ay Diyos? Ang Iglesia Katolika lamang. Ano pa ang dapat nating mapansin? Matagal ng nasulat ang Biblia ng imbentuhin ang aral na si Cristo ay Diyos at matagal ng patay ang mga apostol at matagal na ring nasa langit si Cristo.
Sabihin mo lang kung gusto mong malaman ang kasaysayan kung paano nabuo ang aral na si Cristo ay Diyos, inanarrate ko sa'yo with matching references. Huwag mo ng ipagpilitang gamitin ang mga talata ng Biblia dahil namamalagi pa rin ang katotohanan na tao ang likas na kalagayan ni Cristo at hindi Diyos.

Gumatong naman ang isa pang Manalista, si Rico

NICE !!!! very well said.

Eto pa ang isa pang Manalista, si marc-kun

magaing kapatid...

Nag-reply ako:

Mali, nagkatawang-tao Siya, OK. NAGKATAWANG-TAO. Kapag sinabi mong nagkatawang-tao, in short, he started not as a man, dahil hindi yun ang original state niya and by the Holy Spirit, doon pumunta ang Diyos Anak sa sinapupunan. Scientific explanation: Kung tao si Hesus, e di dapat nagsama ang egg cell ni Maria at ang sperm cell ng kung sino man, and of course may nangyaring intercourse! Got it? Kaso sinabi sa Lucas 1:35 ay ganito: Sumagot ang anghel, "Bababa sa iyo ang Espiritu Santo, at lililiman ka ng kapangyarihan ng Kataas-taasan. Kaya't banal ang ipanganganak mo at tatawaging ANAK NG DIYOS!"

Kung tao si Hesus, THAT'S WITCHCRAFT MAN! THAT AIN'T RIGHT!

Eto pa ang kapatid nating Katoliko na si Dean Struck:

Ano naman po kung i-point out mo kung kailan nabuo ang aral na iyon? That doesn't prove anything. Cnabi mo lang kung kailan pinag-usapan iyon pero you didn't prove na may error dun sa Council of Nicaea. Were you there to witness and follow the discussion? Or meron ka man lang bang reference na nagbibigay ng details ng usapan noon, kung paano ang takbo ng discussion sa Council? I don't think so.

Bumalik si marc-kun:

msayado kayong hasty.. kayo po ang mali... sa case ni adan at eba, wala naman nangyaring joining of sperm cells at egg cells dun... ibig sabihin, "by scientific explanation" hindi sila tao.. e ano sila.... lahat po ay kayang gawin ng Dios, kayang-kaya nyang gumawa ng tao sa ganuung paraan... at saka... iisa lang ang Dios, disregard mo ang holy trinty dahil wala yun sa biblia.... at saka, d mo ba nabasa ang mga huling paragraphs ni kapatid na bentong? sabi dun, ang pagaging Dios ni Cristo ay INIMBINTO lang, that is written history and thus can be proven by SCIENTIFIC METHODS....

dagdag pa niya:

alam nyo po ba kung ano ang nasa Council of Nicea... kung anong nagyari kung bakit "nabuo" ang aral na yun? alam po namin, hindi naman po siguro kailangan na naroon kami para malaman kung anong meron sa pag-uusap na yun... ang nakasaad po dun, nag-aaway ang mga obispo dahil may elan na GUSTONG (take note, gusto lang nila) gawing DIOS si Cristo... ang iba naman, ang kanilang stand ay isa yung KAPANGAHASAN dahil wala yun sa biblia.... ngunit, ang emperor sa panahong yun ay masyado nang nabahala sa kahabaan ng council na yun at marami na ring pagtatalo na naganap... nag-alala ang emperor na baka masira ang kanyang emperyo dahil dun.. kaya ang emperor mismo ang nagdesisyon na GAWING DIOS si Cristo.. at saka kapatid, sa Council Of Nicea, hindi po pinag-usapan ang pagkaDIOS ni Cristo, INIMBINTO po...

nag-reply uli ako:

God reveals Himself not as a single person, but ‘persons’! In Hebrew, the word for God is not ‘El’, singular noun, but plural ‘Elohim’, which can never be translated as a single person ‘god’ as we usually do! Elohim is a plural noun with a singular form! It has a plural morphological form in Hebrew. (Ref: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) This plural word ‘Elohim’ occurs 2700 times in the Bible! Hebrews called God, “Elohim,” which really meant ‘Divine Persons’ (Ref: Jerusalem Bible Footnote). The are evidences to prove this plural personality of God, in the Bible:
Genesis 1:26 Then God said: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air…” (Here the ‘likeness of God’ is plural as He creates ‘Man’ as ‘male and female’. Therefore Adam and Eve shared one flesh, just as Father and Son shares one substance! Adam and Eve were one spirit, just like Father and Son shares one Spirit! (Malachi.2: 15) Thus the whole creation becomes the ‘image’ reflection, or mirroring of the manifold life of Divine nature of Trinity!
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil….” Genesis 11:7 God said, “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech…”
Isaiah 6:8 “I heard the voice of the Lord “Whom shall I sent. Who will go for Us?”
Anti- Trinitarians always quote Deu: 6.4 to deny this mystery, which says: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord”. In fact, the biblical word here used for ‘One’ is “echad” which is a corporate oneness! Not a numeric count!
The Bible says to us that there are three that bear witness in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost(1Jn. 5.7) Bible reveals, God has a Son Prov.30:4; ‘Who knows the name of God and the name of His Son!”Bible also says Holy Spirit exists with God; “Now the Lord has sent me and His Spirit”
God is defined as Love in Bible. If God is a single individual, this definition becomes invalid as He could never give and experience love! C.S Lewis, the famous thinker says: “If God was a single person, then before the world was made, he was not love”

Dumepensa uli si marc-kun:

so.. how would you explain then other priests and bishops and books of your relegion saying that the doctrine of the holy trinity can NEVER be found in the bible.. and how would you explain then the prayers done by Jesus right before His excution saying that, "....may they acknowledge the truth, that you Father is the ONE and TRUE GOD..." you see brother, I've encountered lots of poems, writings and works of arts using this kind of method in their writings, their using plurals for singulars an singulars for plurals.... just to add emphasis and beauty in their writings... add more impacts and etc... anyways brother, if Jesus would have acknowledged your idea, or rather the Catholic's idea, He would have modified His prayer.. and besides, we don't exactly know the trends in writings in the early times... how they constract their sentences...and others..

Nag-cheer ang isang manalista, si Clarissa:

Marc-kun ang galing mo talaga! Akala ko tapos na ang debate about this... Pero, sige andito lang ako...standing by!

Go, Bro!

Pumasok ang isa pang Manalista, si Jared:

divine trinity pg.2

"the trinity is a mystery that no one can truly understand, we will know when we see God face to face."
anong ibig sabihin ito?
1.no one understands it.so why do you believe it?
2.You will never know because you will never see God face to face..remember juan 4:24-God is spirit, and spirits cannot be seen(luke 24:39)God said himself I am God and NOT MAN(Osa.11:9)vice versa, man cannot be God.(Ezek 28:2)
3Jesus Christ himself said there is only ONE TRUE GOD, the father.(jn 17:3,1)so its not possible to believe in the trinity, can you find the trinity in the bible, tell me if you can..because i would really like to see!!

concerning your Elohim theory:
-Ang terminong “Elohim” ay “plural of majesty” o pangmaramihang kataga ng paggalang sa kamahalan at ginamit upang tumukoy sa iisang Diyos.
-Ayon din sa mga tagapagturong katoliko, ang “Elohim” na ginagamit upanjg tumukoy sa iisang Diyos ay isang “plural of majesty” at ginamit upang tumukoy sa kaisisang Diyos ng Israel.
-Ang pakahulugan na ang terminong “Elohim” ay tumutukoy sa 3 persona ay hindi na makasusumpong ng mga tagapagtaguyod na iskolar.

dagdag din niya:

Jesus is a man...so many times in the bible we see that he is not God,
1. God has no beginning(psalms 90:2)
Jesus on the other hand has a beginning(john 8:42)
2.God doesn't die (I Tim 1:17)
Jesus on the other hand dies(john 19:30,33)
3.God dies not get tired(Isa 40:28 )
Jesus got tired (juan 4:6)

Apostles preached that Jesus is a man so many times,and jesus himself preached that he is a MAN(jn 8:40) so your saying Jesus is a liar by saying that is not a man..Isn't lying a sin??Jesus didnt sin remember??

Lets look at this scenario, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the apostles thought he was a spirit, but did Jesus accept that belief?no certainly he did not he told them he was a man and not a spirit, because spirits cannot be seen unlike Jesus he has bones and flesh.(Luk 24:36-39)who is the spirit?God (john 4:24)

Maria was found pregnant by the holy spirit, you can't say that there was intercourse bcuz look, God is ALL POWERFUL, He can make someone pregnant like that,read on to Luke 1:37-nothing is impossible with the Lord

More proof that Jesus Christ is a man, Judas Iscariot also testified that he is a man(Mat. 27: 4)JUDAS!!!!

Bumalik si marc-kun:

bro, if you insist in your trinitarian beliefs, well, there would be lots of contradictions, not only in the field of the bible but in written history... the Council Of Nicea for example is a council done centuries after the last apostle died, and in that Council, the doctrine that Jesus is GOD, not man, was born.... thus, your holy trinity belief that Jesus is GOD was invinted on or after the Council of Nicea, hence, it ONLY implies that the apostles NEVER preached that doctrine, it was only on that Council that the doctrine was born....

Eto pa uli si Jared:

yeah to add to marc's comment, mr gyreball can you please tell me when the trinity was completed?since you believe it maybe u can tell me when Jesus became God??or when the Holy Spirit became God??what year was it?what council was it??is it found in the Bible the words exactly "trinity" and i dont want something sounding like that, i know you might bust out your I Juan 5:7, i want the exact words "TRINITY"..lets see if you can answer these questions

Sumagot ako:

I. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

II. PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE
A. New Testament

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.

First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18 ). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.

Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.

* He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
* In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
* He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
* He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias -- a step long since taken by all the Apostles -- but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
* Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18 ). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38 ); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28 ). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28 ). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8 ). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18 ), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).

In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10).

Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28 ); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, 1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philemon 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles.

The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.

* He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
* it is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
* He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8 );
* He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
* The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 2:17).

To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see HOLY GHOST).
B. Old Testament

The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, "Dial.", 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", IV, xx, 7-11; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 15-16; Theophilus, "Ad Autol.", ii, 22; Novat., "De Trin.", 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", II, xxx, 9; Theophilus, "Ad. Aut.", II, 15; Hippolytus, "Con. Noet.", 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. theol.", v, 26; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", II, 22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)

Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian.," I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the angel of great counsel."

A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclesiasticus 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person. The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13).

In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God. . .the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf. Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv).
III. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE FROM TRADITION
A. The Church Fathers

In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the One True God," is typical of many such replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv, n. 2).

(1) Baptismal formulas

We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by Christ (Matthew 28:19) clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration of the baptised to the one true God (Tert., "De spect.", iv; Justin, "Apol.", I, iv). The act of consecration was the invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as created beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever. Amen" ("Serm. in Theoph.", n. 10).

(2) The doxologies

The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii).

It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59; Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Hebrews 13:15).

But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use.

* In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to come" (Mart. S. Polyc., n.14; cf. n. 22).
* Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit" (Paed., III, xii).
* St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Contra Noet., n. 18 ).
* Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour and glory forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", xxix, n. 72).
* St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to God with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God").

(3) Other patristic writings

The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.

Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.

Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in "Paedag." I, vi, and somewhat later Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his creed (P.G., X, 986).

(4) As contrasted with heretical teachings

Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.

The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.

It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared -- at Smyrna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt. On the other hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum," claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary to save man."

Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality.

The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on a point so vital.
B. Later Controversy

Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The Socinian writers of the seventeenth century (e.g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668 ) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not with Athanasius, but with Arius. Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his great theological work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by Bossuet, Thomassinus, and other Catholic theologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene belief of the Church:

* That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and not equal to the Father;
* that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament, inasmuchas the Father is essentially invisible, the Son, however, not so;
* that the Son is a created being;
* that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time.

We shall examine these four points in order.

(1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the Son with the Father, passages are cited from Justin (Apol., I, xiii, xxxii), Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, viii, n. 3), Clement of Alexandria ("Strom." VII, ii), Hippolytus (Con. Noet., n. 14), Origen (Con. Cels., VIII, xv). Thus Irenaeus (loc. cit.) says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were established. And Origen, loc. cit., says: "We declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself: "The Father who sent me is greater than I."

Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat our Lord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to His Godhead (cf. Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. The expression is not one which would have been employed by Latin writers who insist that creation and all God's works proceed from Him as One and not from the Persons as distinct from each other. But this truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers.

(2) Justin (Dial., n. 60) Irenaeus (Adv. haer., IV, xx, nn. 7, 11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; "Adv. Prax.", 15, 16), Novatian (De Trin., xviii, 25), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, xxii), are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world; through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was believed by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of xxyyyk.htm">Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work.

(3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv; VI, vii), Tatian (Orat., v), Tertullian ("Adv. Prax." vi; "Adv. "Adv. Hermong.", xviii, xx), Origen (In Joan., I, n. 22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), and Tatian terms the Word the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) the Father."

Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In Colossians 1:16, St. Paul says that all things were created in the Son. This was understood to signify that creation took place according to exemplar ideas predetermined by God and existing in the Word. In view of this, it might be said that the Father created the Word, this term being used in place of the more accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar ideas of creation were communicated by the Father to the Son. Or, again, the actual Creation of the world might be termed the creation of the Word, since it takes place according to the ideas which exist in the Word. The context invariably shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses.

The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never have been employed but for the verse, Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created (ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to the Son, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom was created (Origen, "Princ.", I, ii, n. 3). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three Persons was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned with Arianism, and employed expressions which in the light of subsequent errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous.

(4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to the Creation of the world the Word was not a distinct hypostasis from the Father. These are found in Justin (C. Tryphon., lxi), Tatian (Con. Graecos, v), Athenagoras (Legat., x), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, x, 22); Hippolytus (Con. Noet., x); Tertullian ("Adv. Prax.", v-vii; "Adv. Hermogenem" xviii). Thus Theophilus writes (op. cit., n. 22):

What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word of God Who is also His Son? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought [i.e. as the logos endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the uttered Word [logos prophorikos], the firstborn of all creation, not, however, Himself being left without Reason (logos), but having begotten Reason, and ever holding converse with Reason.

Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of the Stoic philosophy: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these apologists were seeking to explain the Christian Faith to their pagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some Catholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although the Church herself was never involved in the error (see LOGOS). Yet it does not seem necessary to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatible with orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded Proverbs 8:22, and Colossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which the Word, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in time. This temporal generation they conceived to be none other than the act of creation. They viewed this as the complement of the eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creative ideas which from all eternity the Father has communicated to the Eternal Word. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly the eternity of the Son, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense.

It should further be remembered that throughout this period theologians, when treating of the relation of the Divine Persons to each other, invariably regard them in connection with the cosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question of creation and deal with the threefold Personality exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible.
IV. THE TRINITY AS A MYSTERY

The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.

The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae -- "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil, "In Eunom.", I, n. 14; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", VI; St. John Damascene, "Fid. Orth.", I, ii, etc., etc.).

At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Günther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).
V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY
A. Nature and Personality

The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology.

In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect.

This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.

The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Adv. haer., I, xxii; II, iv, 4, 5, xxx, 9; IV, xx, 1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", n. 38; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Con Noet., x) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief "in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost."
B. The Divine Unity

The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenæus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, "His two hands" (Adv. haer., IV, xx, 1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha -- P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him.

This doctrine supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. The Greek Fathers regarded the Son as the Wisdom and power of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like manner, the Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from the Son the Father would be without His Wisdom; apart from the Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the Son and the Spirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and faculties are mere accidental perfections, in the Godhead they are subsistent hypostases. Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and Third Persons as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the First Person as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of Deity alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them.

The Arian controversy led to insistence on the Homoüsia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective analysis. The sonship of the Second Person implies that He has received the Divine Nature in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in nature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine Essence is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same nature which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the Divine Nature as communicated to the Holy Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and the Son. Unity of nature was understood by the Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the Three Persons to possess (Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, "Ep. clxxxix," n. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom.," John Damascene, "De fide orth.", III, xiv). Here we see an important advance in the theology of the Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the Three Persons as each exercising a distinct and separate function.

Finally we have the doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three Persons. The term perichoresis is first used by St. John Damascene. Yet the doctrine is found much earlier. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Son is called the Word and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the mind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen). St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of the Persons. In some passages he explains it by the doctrine already mentioned, that the Son and the Spirit are dynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of the doctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity of essence, will, and action in the Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to the individual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separate existence (kechorismenos einai). In the Godhead the essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separate existence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Fid. orth., I, viii). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in the Homoüsia.

It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developed by St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of Latin theology. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the Three Persons to be but one. Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like the Latins, conceived the Nature as logically antecedent to the Persons. He understands the term God as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When we pray, whether we say 'Kyrie eleison', or 'O God aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix).
C. Mediate and Immediate Procession

The doctrine that the Spirit is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek theology. It is asserted by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his Creed. It is assumed by St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his controversy with the Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xxxi, 31, 32), of the Three Divine Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in St. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), St. John Damascene ("Fid.orth." I, 13), etc. This supposes that the procession of the Son from the Father is immediate; that of the Spirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the Divine Procession as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P.G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three Persons one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the same dogmatic truth. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred to HOLY GHOST.)
D. The Son

The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxix", p. 8, Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", xi, 19; John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", I, viii). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene, "Fid.orth.", I, viii). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental thought; but of the uttered word ("Dion. Alex."; Athanasius, ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of Nyssa, "C. Eunom.", IV; Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxx", p. 20; Basil, "Hom. xvi"; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi).

We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St. John Damascene (Origen apud Athanasius, "De decr. Nic.", p. 27; Athanasius, "Con. Arianos", I, p. 19; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", I, xii). It is based on the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No action, transient or immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. TheAlexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. God, as the supreme perfection, is from all eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this philosophy as their basis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power -- a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink.
E. The Holy Spirit

A point which in Western theology gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (De Trin., xv, n. 37). To the Greek Fathers, who developed the theology of the Spirit in the light of the philosophical principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held, reveals to us His distinctive character as the Third Person, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive characters of the First and Second Persons (cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Ecth. fid."; Basil, "Ep. ccxiv", 4; Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. xxv", 16). He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic holiness of God, the holiness by which God is holy. Just as the Son is the Wisdom and Power by which God is wise and powerful, so the Spirit is the Holiness by which He is holy. Had there ever been a time, as the Macedonians dared to say, when the Holy Spirit was not, then at that time God would have not been holy (St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4).

On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of John 10:22 where Christ, appearing to the Apostles, breathed on them and conferred on them the Holy Spirit. He is the breath of Christ (John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", 1, viii), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of life by which we enjoy the supernatural life of God's children (Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the supernatural order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that of Western theologians. According to Western doctrine, God bestows on man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that gift the Three Persons come to his soul.

In Greek theology the order is reversed: the Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have received sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we receive the gift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continued existence of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen, "In Joan. ii", vi; Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the Holy Spirit constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of Christ, He imprints the likeness of Christ upon us; since Christ is the image of the Father, we too receive the true character of God's children (Athanasius, loc. cit.; Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the Holy Spirit is termed the Giver of life (zoopoios). In the West we more naturally speak of grace as the life of the soul. But to the Greeks it was the Spirit through whose personal presence we live. Just as God gave natural life to Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of life, so did Christ give spiritual life to us when He bestowed on us the gift of the Holy Ghost.
VI. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN LATIN THEOLOGY

The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected.

It received its final and classical form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points:

* He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for him not God the Father, but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of Augustine's genius.
* He insists that every external operation of God is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of appropriation was unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the distinct activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
* By indicating the analogy between the two processions within the Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human mind (De Trin., IX, iii, 3; X, xi, 17), he became the founder of the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer.

In the following exposition of the Latin doctrines, we shall follow St. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is now universally accepted by Catholic theologians. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been proposed. Thus Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, while adhering in the main to Western tradition, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of St. Thomas.
A. The Son

Among the terms employed in Scripture to designate the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3).

Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs Cool, applied to the Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth (cf. Francisco Suárez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; Petavius, VI, i, 7; Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with revealed truth.
B. The Holy Spirit

Just as the Son proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the intellect, so does the Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. In human love, as St. Thomas teaches (I:27:3), even though the object be external to us, yet the immanent act of love arouses in the soul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thing loved. In virtue of this the object of love is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our intellect. This experience is the term of the internal act. The Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

If the immanent act of the intellect is rightly termed generation, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty by St. Thomas, Richard of St. Victor, and Alexander of Hales are very different. It will be sufficient here to note St. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of thewill. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his love. This difference in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to the act of the intellect. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name.

The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of the Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the Latins before his time. He mentions the opinion with favour in the "De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and in the "De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by the West. The Scholastics seek for Scriptural support for it in the name Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and Son, a name expressive of a relation within the Godhead proper to the Person who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to person or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted to God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a Divine Person as designating the relation uniting Him to the other Persons, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to God. But that by which any person is devoted to God is love. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit (I:36:1). The Latin theory is a noble effort of the human reason to penetrate the verities which revelation has left veiled in mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the truths of faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction of revelation.
C. The Divine Relations

The existence of relations in the Godhead may be immediately inferred from the doctrine of processions, and as such is a truth of Revelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian doctrine was familiar to the Greek Fathers. In answer to the Eunomian objection, that consubstantiality rendered any distinction between the Persons impossible, Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. theol.", V, ix; John Damascene, "F.O.", I, viii). Augustine insists that of the ten Aristotelean categories two, stance and relation, are found in God ("De Trin.", V, v). But it was at the hands the Scholastic theologians that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of the dogma, were found to throw great light upon the mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it.

From the fact that there are two processions in Godhead, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between the Persons. They cannot be distinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is common to the Three Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely certain by all theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by St. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and received ecclesiastical sanction in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but Three Persons. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same Divine Nature, so they possess the same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of the Holy Spirit.

Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)

It will be seen that the doctrine of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that the dogma of the Trinity involves the falsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectly true in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in the dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father and Son are alike identical with the Divine Essence, we are affirming that the Supreme Infinite Substance is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their nature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are Three Persons in the Godhead none can be infinite, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like quantity or quality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of the Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence. The Father is that Essence as it eternally regards the Son and the Spirit; the Son is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Son. But the eternal regard by which each of the Three Persons is constituted is not an addition to the infinite perfection of the Godhead.

The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see PERSONALITY). Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.

The question was raised by the Scholastics: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the Son; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father and Son breathe forth the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change action, and its reception passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in the Godhead origination is eternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that the Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We know, indeed, that in the Divine Persons there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one Personality, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (I:32:2).
D. Divine Mission

It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . . his Son into the world" (John 3:17), and "the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? To this it is answered that mission supposes two conditions:

* That the person sent should in some way proceed from the sender and
* that the person sent should come to be at the place indicated.

The procession, however, may take place in various ways -- by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The second condition, too, is satisfied either if the person sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. Though God the Son was already present in the world by reason of His Godhead, His Incarnation made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the object of experimental love. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a procession, may be said to be sent into the soul.


Ei, more to come...

Ei, Depensa din po kayo.

rommeloi
07.04.19, 07:25 AM
tama ka dyan k'rommel! we need to educate our people.

meron akong kamember sa dati kong choir na yung isa naging born again tapos yung dalawa naging add (though hindi naman sila sabay-sabay na lumipat). nakakulungkot ngang isipin. kaya dapat nagkakaroon din ng formation, teaching and spiritual nourishment ang mga members at hindi lang puro kanta at practice.

i guess richard that is the mystery of freedom. marami rin kaming members na lumipat sa ibang sects, different reasons though.

it is good now that in our church, there is this young seminarian who serves in everyway he can. siya ang nagoorganize ng formations, spiritual gatherings, nagtuturo siya ng liturgy sa mga community members. he also helps our group. and mind you, napakalayo pa ng bahay nila. napakasipag ng batang ito and i already see a priest in him.

i believe every community needs persons like him who helps, educate, guide, and most of all give good example to us catholics....para di maligaw...

Das_Sein
07.04.19, 09:42 AM
share ko lang,

i've experienced being a Fides Defensor in an online forum years back at PEx (pinoy exchange). there's a section they call Realm of Thought, which is originally intended for philosophical discussions. dahil sa ni-market ng classmate kong adik sa online forums at "philosophical" daw ang nature ng forum -- sali naman ako... only to find out that it is housed by people who usually end up bashing each other's religious sects. nung una, basa lang ako ng mga arguments nila, till di na ako nakatiis at sumasagot-sagot na ako paminsan-minsan. pagkatapos ng dalawang linggo, tinigilan ko na, not because of its uselessness but because of the thought that it can actually be converted into a more responsible and academic discourse.

i've noticed that these people debate with information -- may bala silang ibinabato, may research na nagaganap. but it is always obvious that what they get are products of googling. naka-encounter ako dati ng isang wikipedia-dependent. sure we have good sites, tulad ng pinoprovide na documents ng vatican online, but it takes an intense study of all the things that they copy-paste in order to put up a good argument. i once asked somebody kung meron syang degree sa Theology o kahit man lang Religious Studies at nasasabi niya ang mga bagay na tulad ng misteryo ng Trinity, transubstantiation -- o kahit man lang ng philosophy para man lang magkaroon ng tamang definition ng "substance" na pwedeng pulutan ng magandang application. Hahahaha... at inaway niya ako, hindi naman daw ito isyu ng diploma.

Well, I just think that long arguments loaded with sensitive information deserves a real academic discourse. Sa mga ganitong bagay, nanghihinayang ako kung ginagawa itong walang-katapusang usapan na hindi man lang nadadala sa imprenta, at hindi man lang napapansin ng mga taong nagtutuon ng maingat na pansin sa tema dahil sila mismo ang nag-aaral talaga. Sa dami ng impormasyong naibibigay at pinaghahalinhinan, may intelektwal na prosesong nagaganap.

hmmm... pananaw lang po ito ng isang taong pinagsasabay ang pagtuturo at pag-aaral. sayang eh. pag impormal, at "sabunutan-mode" ang debate sa relihiyon (na madalas nangyayari sa online forum), walang nararating.

bossing yankee, i commend your arguments... you surely know your stuff, maganda iyang gawan ng papel. ipunin mo yung research mo, then sulat ka... with a self-standing argument and proper documentation, kahit man lang sa blog. darating ang panahon na mapapakinabangan yan, at mapapansin ng mga iskolar na masigpag mag-internet. malayo po ang mararating ng ginagawa ninyo... bukod sa matapang na pangkukumbinsi sa mga taong matagal nang kumbisido sa alam nila. =)

asp2designer
07.07.18, 03:06 AM
I'm currently reading a lot about Apologetics. It helps me clear all my confusion about our Catholic faith. I advice all Catholics to do the same. Study Catholic Apologetics not so that you can debate other religions but to clear your doubts.

pat111
07.07.29, 06:23 AM
In this thread, susubukan nating i-refute baga ang mga bagay na sinasabi ng mga Anti-Katoliko sa atin.

So, meron gustong magtanong?

Alexander
07.07.29, 04:14 PM
pat111,

I just wish we just share our views and not make it a ITANONG KAY PAT111... forum cause I think this would be a never ending discussion if we make it like that.

So share your views na lang...

jose
07.07.30, 10:28 AM
hindi ko rin makita yung point nung mga taong walang magawa kundi makipagdebate tungkol sa relihiyon, lalo na yung mga taong nagki-claim na ang relihiyon nila ang da best tapos sinisiraan ang ibang relihiyon partikular na ang katolisismo. tsk! tsk! ang tingin ko lang sa mga taong eto e nagsa-sour graping sa kanilang napiling paniniwala. o di kaya'y nagpaparami ng mga kasapi sa pamamagitan ng paninira at pangungumbinsi (brainwashing). kaya agree ako sa yo kapatid na rommel na respeto lang sa pananampalataya ng bawat isa ang kailangan.

sa isang banda naman, marami na akong nakausap na ibang relihiyon na may respeto sa ibang pananampalataya (i call them civil and educated if i may say) at maganda ang pinatutunguhan ng aming pag-uusap dahil ang topic lang namin ay iisa ang pinatutungkulan - ang kagandahang loob ng Panginoon at ang pasasalamat na dapat nating ibalik sa Kanya.

Bonnie
07.07.30, 10:59 AM
Well said pareng jose, kahit iba ang religion ng iba kong mga kaibigan o kahit mga kadugo ko, e never akong nakipag debate about sa religion, hindi dahil salat at kulang ang kaaalaman ko tungkol sa Catholisismo kungdi for respeto na lang sa religion at paniniwala ng ibang tao....

titopao
07.07.30, 04:25 PM
I don't see the need, either. For me, coming up with tactics in defense of the Catholic faith is just as bad as coming up with reasons to attack Catholicism, Born-again Christian movements, Iglesia ni Kristo, Ang Dating Daan or, for that matter, any other religion. At its very worst it lends to abuse contrary to one's morals and religion.

Apologetics is best left for the theologians of both Catholic and non-Catholic sects. In these more civilized times, we should be building more bridges instead of burning them. Showing contempt for other faiths and (conversely) coming up with vociferous defense of one's own faith are signs of absolute immaturity and an utter lack of inner faith for those who engage in such useless debates.

pat111
07.07.31, 07:02 PM
Titopao, Apologetics is not all about debating vociferously; it could also take the form of explaining calmly to others (even to Catholics) what we truly believe.

It is also not the realm of Theologians; we Laity also have the responsibility of teaching the Faith to the Non-Catholic or to the confused Catholic alike.

Apologetics does not destroy bridges, properly done it builds them. Nor is it uncivilized, you could act civilly yet still proclaim your Faith.

St. Peter in 1 Peter 3: 15-16 says:
'Always be ready to give an explanation (apologia) to someone who asks you a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence.

So, porke mukhang galit yung mga ibang apologista, hindi naman required na kailangang pagalit ang pag-aapolohiya.

In fact, ngayon natin talaga ang Apologetics sapagkat naglilipana ang mga akusasyon sa Simbahan; for example, are we to just allow someone to be ridiculed and have malicious gossip about him spread? No; it is our duty to show the truth.

pat111
07.07.31, 07:14 PM
Well said pareng jose, kahit iba ang religion ng iba kong mga kaibigan o kahit mga kadugo ko, e never akong nakipag debate about sa religion, hindi dahil salat at kulang ang kaaalaman ko tungkol sa Catholisismo kungdi for respeto na lang sa religion at paniniwala ng ibang tao....

Nice, pero porke respeto ay hindi ibig sabihin na hindi pwedeng itama o i-correct ang isang pananaw ng isang tao. Hindi ko namang sinasabi na bigla ka na lang magsalita sa harap ng mga kakilala mo.

Kadalasan, masama ang tingin ng mga Non-Catholics sa mga Catholic dahil ang mga kakilala nilang Katoliko ay palamura, bayolente (I'm not saying that you're like that) kaya nakukulayan ang pananaw ng mga ito na masama ang Simbahan atbp. Kumbaga, puwede mo ring ipahayag ang iyong Faith through your deeds by being like Christ to them.

asp2designer
07.08.01, 03:16 AM
I believe the biggest threat to our faith is the Iglesia Ni Cristo. They were even spreading lies that the divinity of Christ was invented in the Council of Trent way back in 325AD. They even use the writing of Arius to prove that Christ was just human. But i read the writings of Arius on the Internet and he doesn't even dispute the divinity of Christ, he was merely saying that though Christ is God he is not equal to God the Father. No wonder it takes many Councils and 800 years to clear-up this mess. If they're just arguing if Christ is human and not God that would be so easy.

The bible talks about Christ as human but no text in the bible that says he's only human. Even Christ does not deny he's God when Thomas said "My Lord and My God"

pat111
07.08.01, 08:14 AM
I believe the biggest threat to our faith is the Iglesia Ni Cristo. They were even spreading lies that the divinity of Christ was invented in the Council of Trent way back in 325AD. They even use the writing of Arius to prove that Christ was just human. But i read the writings of Arius on the Internet and he doesn't even dispute the divinity of Christ, he was merely saying that though Christ is God he is not equal to God the Father. No wonder it takes many Councils and 800 years to clear-up this mess. If they're just arguing if Christ is human and not God that would be so easy.

Good; but to correct you there a bit, Council of Nicea po ito at hindi Trent; ang Trent ay ginanap noong 1500's. But anyways hindi totoo ang paratang naito; maraming mga Fathers of the Church ang nagsulat tungkol sa pagka-Diyos ni Jesucristo.

More here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

The site above is really helpful.

Bonnie
07.08.01, 08:42 AM
Nice, pero porke respeto ay hindi ibig sabihin na hindi pwedeng itama o i-correct ang isang pananaw ng isang tao. Hindi ko namang sinasabi na bigla ka na lang magsalita sa harap ng mga kakilala mo.

Kadalasan, masama ang tingin ng mga Non-Catholics sa mga Catholic dahil ang mga kakilala nilang Katoliko ay palamura, bayolente (I'm not saying that you're like that) kaya nakukulayan ang pananaw ng mga ito na masama ang Simbahan atbp. Kumbaga, puwede mo ring ipahayag ang iyong Faith through your deeds by being like Christ to them.

Simple lang kasi ang sagot dyan, dahil sa 75 - 80% ng population ng Pilipinas e Catholico, subalit hindi ito tama at magandang basehan dahil majority ng Pilipino e Katoliko, at di ako naniniwala na ganito ang paningin ng ibang relihiyon sa mga katoliko, na isang palamura at bayolente, hindi rin ito tamang basehan na sabihing masama ang tingin ng non catholics dahil dito, you cannot pleased everybody.

ang alam ko, kahit kulang o salat ang mga kaalaman natin bilang kristyano, hindi to pamantayan na hindi malalim ang Faith natin, totoo ngang ang iba ay marami ang alam tungkol sa Biblia at mga bagay patungkol sa ating Faith, ngunit, hindi ito isang dahilan para maging instrumento para maki pag debate sa ibang mangmang, naturingan ngang magaling, ngunit ang katotohanan, syay mismo ay naguguluhan, Walang perpekto sa mundo ito, magaling man sa ibang bagay, me kahinaan pa rin.

Kung malalim ang paniniwala at Faith natin bilang Katoliko, mas magandang itoy gamitin sa kabutihan, at maging kasangkapan para tumulong sa kapwa, at hindi tuligsain ang pagiging mangmang nito, hindi rin kailangang makipag debatihan para lang i prove na malalim ang yong paniniwala, in the end, Dios lang ang nakaka alam kung ano ang tunay at lalim ng ating pagibig sa Dios, Nakikita nya ang bawat galaw at intention natin kung ito ba ay sa ikabubuti lang ng ating sarili o para sa ikabubuti ng lahat.

asp2designer
07.08.01, 02:19 PM
Good; but to correct you there a bit, Council of Nicea po ito at hindi Trent; ang Trent ay ginanap noong 1500's. But anyways hindi totoo ang paratang naito; maraming mga Fathers of the Church ang nagsulat tungkol sa pagka-Diyos ni Jesucristo.

More here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

The site above is really helpful.

Thank you for the correction. It's Council of Nicea where they formulated our Nicene Creed.

The forum in www.catholic.com is specially helpful.

yankees_suck23
07.08.02, 11:52 AM
I believe the biggest threat to our faith is the Iglesia Ni Cristo. They were even spreading lies that the divinity of Christ was invented in the Council of Trent way back in 325AD. They even use the writing of Arius to prove that Christ was just human. But i read the writings of Arius on the Internet and he doesn't even dispute the divinity of Christ, he was merely saying that though Christ is God he is not equal to God the Father. No wonder it takes many Councils and 800 years to clear-up this mess. If they're just arguing if Christ is human and not God that would be so easy.

The bible talks about Christ as human but no text in the bible that says he's only human. Even Christ does not deny he's God when Thomas said "My Lord and My God"

Iglesia ni Manalo is not a threat. Marami na akong kakilalang dating Manalista na naging Katoliko na. Hindi daw sila naniniwala kasi na ang Iglesiang tinatag lamang ni Felix Manalo ang maliligtas. Isa pa, alam nilang hindi ganun ang Diyos na may pinapanigan lang at ang criteria lamang ay ang pagiging kasapi ng Iglesia ni Cristo.

Bonnie
07.08.02, 12:24 PM
I have nothing againts Iglesia ni Kristo or any other religion out there, but then im a bit confused, the mere fact that the name of their religion "Iglesia ni Krsto" used the name of Christ to identify their religion with Christ, but then they dont believe that Christ is God is quite unusual...

But then, i still respect them as I have said before, each one of us has the right to a religion , whatever relgion we deem appropriate for our faith, as long as we did not attack other religion, and we do our own share to serve for the greater glory of God.


Just my two cents.

asp2designer
07.08.02, 06:15 PM
I still believe that Iglesia Ni Cristo is a real threat simply because we are bombarded daily with their anti-catholics rhetorics on cable tv. And when you browse the cable tv, they're just right after the local channels compared to EWTN which are beyond reach for they're one of the last channels on cable tv.

TIDBITS: do you know that And Dating Daan ni Eli Soriano is an off-shoot of Iglesia Ni Christo. They broke away (the earlier group) because of the misunderstanding on the doctrine of divinity of Christ. No wonder that Eli Soriano is so familiar with the teaching of Iglesia Ni Christo.

yankees_suck23
07.08.04, 09:43 AM
With Net 25 and Gem TV, I see those ministers of Iglesia ni Manalo attacking the Catholic Church below the belt. I also watch Eli Soriano in his program "Ang Dating Daan" when he talks about the Iglesia ni Manalo or about the Members: Church of God International, the name of Eli Soriano's religion. It seems that Iglesia ni Manalo and Church of God have the same strategy.

titopao
07.08.04, 10:53 AM
Each religion has its own strengths and weaknesses. For all I know, the INC and ADD both have their own weaknesses, and some of them could be even more devastating than what they seem to be (personal knowledge...ayoko na lang magsalita). Just watch a joint telecast of both Ang Dating Daan and Ang Tamang Daan (often shown at the same time...hmm?!?!? :) ) to see what I mean.

Ang sa ganang akin, instead of attacking other religions---take note that this has been the trend ever since the time of Judaism, so it's nothing new, really---one way of resolving differences is by a serious study of religions. Not just of one religion, but of as many religions as possible. Study the different Christian sects, as well as that of non-Christian religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism....and then you will come to a point when you will realize that there is no point in attacking one religion in favor of another.

That is why I'm opposed in coming up with strategies to counter attacks against Catholicism---it only exposes the attackers ignorance or misunderstanding of Catholicism, and by being defensive you are only encouraging them. Ika nga sa Internet lingo, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. You are also encouraging them to promote their own marketing strategies, I think. It's very clear that by diverting issues through red herrings and false leads, these proselytes are clearly trying to attract converts who themselves may not be as informed or as educated in their own faiths. It's very obvious that every word they use is well-calculated; in other words, a clear abuse of language, used in a calculated manner to subvert, divert and mislead.

(And, come to think of it, the more that we need the catechists in our midst to stand up and do their work ;) )

Bonnie
07.08.04, 01:54 PM
Punto for punto, masyadong malalim ang pananaw mo Titopao pagdating sa usaping ganito, at di ko mapigilang mamangha sa mga argumentong binibitawan mo, siguro ngay maituturing na mangmang parin ang aking kaalaman pagdating sa mga ganitong usapin, at natutuwa ako sa mga sinasabi mo, salamat sa paliwanag na binigay mo tungkol dito, sanay makatulong ito para mamulat ang bawat isa satin sa mga usaping ukol sa Panamnampalataya ng Katoliko.

asp2designer
07.08.04, 07:07 PM
Ang sa ganang akin, instead of attacking other religions---

Yes i believe attacking other religions will lead to more misunderstanding. But defending your faith is not always the same as attacking other faith. I don't go out and engage in a debate, i simply read more apologetics and try to reason out by myself.

When i'm still ignorant of Apologetics i stopped praying the Rosary for many years and stopped believing in Mother Mary. I thought the Born Again were right. And when somebody tell you that Christ was just human and there's no Trinity because there's only One God things gets confusing.

My advise is for every Catholic to rediscover their faith by reading Apologetics to get rid of their doubts and confusion. And when you have no doubts anymore you will cling to your faith more dearly.

titopao
07.08.04, 08:49 PM
I think that, before someone goes into Apologetics, a Catholic should go back to the basics, so to speak. If one knows their Bible, if one knows their Catechism (the big book, not the abbreviated version)and if one also knows the basic Catholic traditions and history, then one will already have all the basic knowledge about their own religion. After that, taking up apologetics (among other Catholic topics) should be a piece of cake.

asp2designer
07.08.05, 12:37 AM
For me Catechism teaches you what you should believe as Catholics on the other hand Apologetics teaches you why you believe what you believed.

ymzhai
07.08.09, 01:29 PM
I am very happy na marami din tlagang nagtatangol sa ating catholic faith!!
to others plz try to have a copy of KNOW THE TRUTH it is nice!!!!!:)

Alna_lou
07.08.14, 10:15 AM
I have also read a book entitled, "COUNTERFEIT...exposing the doctrines of non-catholic religions..."
It features certain sects like Iglesia ni Kristo, Seventh-day adventists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Baha'i Faith, Children of God and many others...I just forgot the author...

BatusaiX
07.10.13, 08:27 AM
Dapat tigilan na ang debate sa religion. Nagko-cause lalo ito ng division sa mga tao. Kung saan masaya ang isang tao... dun siya. Kung anong religion ang makakapagpabuti sa kanya doon siya manampalataya. Kanya-kanyang pananaw ng tao ang basehan, now it's up to you kung san ka papanig or kung ano ang pipiliin mo.

Bonnie
07.10.13, 10:35 AM
Kanya kanya kasing opinion, kaya ako ngayon, sabi ko sa sarili ko, maging patas lang ako sa aking sarili at sa kapwa ko tao, ok na sakin... Pabayaan ko na lang ang nangungutya, mas marami kasing magagandang bagay pa akong magagawa kesa makipagtalo sa walang patutunguhang diskusyon ng relihiyon.

sjclc
07.10.13, 10:55 AM
Siguro kung ako naman tatanungin, the reason why I stick to being a Catholic is that it lets you "choose your own religion" it does not "force you to join this religion". How you want to believe, Catholics won't kill you for that. I remembered our CL teacher telling us a certain sect that says "Only members of this sect are saved" and my grandfather's response "What about those people who lived and died before this sect was founded? Does this mean they can't be saved no matter what?". Another teacher explained to us why some sects forbid the Sign of the Cross, and it was actually quite funny when I heard. You see my teacher was a convert, and probably one of the very few Catholics in their clan, about the teachings he was told when he was a young boy. Some said that the reason why the Sign of the Cross is forbidden is that "during the time where the people were shouting 'crucify him!' in from of Pilate, the people who were far away and could not speak instead marked a cross on their bodies by doing the method we know today of the Sign of the Cross to express their hatred and willingness to crucify Christ".

True, the greatest number of followers in the world are Catholics, but how much are faithful? I also know of people who use Roman Catholic as something to fill up on their bio-datas or so they wouldn't be suspected of being atheists and so on... Catholicism is a wonderful faith, it lets us choose between right and wrong, does not make us follow strict rules, but teaches us how to live our lives in God's will, but most of us are just too blind to see its beauty.

Bonnie
07.10.14, 11:30 AM
Diba sabi mo 13 ka palang sjclc, hehehe, bilib din ako sayo, kasi masyado ka ng vocal sa mga usaping ganito....

herald
07.10.15, 10:49 AM
binasa ko lahat from page 1 to 5, ang dami na palang usapan dito...

1. I've watched the shows of INC and Eli... and really, hahanga kay soriano pag dating sa memorization ng Bible, and sa INC sa dami ng librong nasa harap nila, iisipin mong they've read a lot.. pero for me it's form of entertainment na lang sa akin, natatawa ako sa kanila kapag pinapanood ko sila... mdalas personalan na, nandyang sugurin pa ng NBI si eli, nandyang may splicing ng audio and video feeds, etc. they've played diry and "God is not pleased with what they are doing".

2. Nalulungkot ako kapag may naririnig akong mga testimonya na nakita raw nila ang tunay na kapayapaan, ang tunay na Diyos, etc. sa Inaaniban nilang relihiyon ngayon, but for me if people just revisited their faith as catholics, things that they've said "they are experiencing" they will see and feel it also in the Catholic Faith. mas lamang pa nga tayo kasi we have our Mothey Mary, we have our Holy Mass, Saints to pray for us.

3. Debate will never end, we should end eat the very moment that we feel na may debate na mangyayari, How?... ako ganito, "I respect your religion, respect mine", for one thing, the very basic things which God teached us is to love one another. We have a bible study here in our office, non catholic ang presiding officer but it's ok for me as long as it is not in conflict with my Catholic faith, and we've doing these for 3 week and wala namang conflict.. siguro kung magiging ganito, magiging harmonious and relationship ng bawat religion.

4. Sometimes, we catholic is not living as Catholics. sa titulo lang, yun apostles creed, we just sometimes recited it and not living it, yung Holy Mass, we just attended it just to coply with our obligation, and we sometimes do the pagan thng, pahid dito pahid doon, pag nakakita ng mukha ni Kristo sa puno, umiyak na santo, isa ng himala??. sigh.. Everyday is a miracle, it happens evrytime we wake up, the air we breath, etc., and the miracle of the Eucharist.

5. Maraming salitang hindi mo makikita sa bible, yung eksakto, kaya kalokohan yung sabihing hanapin sa bible yung eksaktong salita, eh kailan lang naman na imbento yung mga salita, and everytime, may bagong nadadagdag sa dictionary.

6. Some religion says they are Christians, but don't believe the Divinity of Jesus, well, niloloko lang nila sarili nila.

7. Natatawa ako sa mga lohika ng debate, to disprove the divinity of Jesus or to disprove the foundation of our Faith, majority naman sa kanila galing sa Catholic, the foundation is just weak, kaya naghahanap sila ng "tunay na kapayapana at kaligayahan" sa ibang religion, sigh?!!.

I have friends na hindi Catholic, pero ok kami, walang debate, because we love and respect each others religion and we love each other us jesus teached us.. kung ganito lang sana ang lahat ng lider ng bawat religion... wala sanang debate...

In judgement day hindi naman itatanong ng Diyos kung ano religion natin eh...

yun lang po.. nakahabol din sa discussion....

patrick
07.10.18, 03:42 PM
I bought a (pirated, hehe) DVD titled "Deliver us from evil" which is an anti-Catholic video. While I still have a strong faith in the Church, i still have to watch the video to make my faith strong and perhaps look for the things they attack the church.

sjclc
07.10.18, 05:44 PM
Guys I just remembered this article I found on Home Life October 2007 issue which I'd like to share:

What will I do to go back to the Catholic Church?

Mrs. D., e-mail: I have a confession to make that may seem simple to solve, but it is not for me. I was born and raised in the Catholic Church for 35 years. Over the last couple of years, I stopped attending mass regularly. I just didn't feel God's love. This made me weak in my decisions and I joined a Protestant Church five months ago. Now, I know what I have given up.
Only now that I appreciate what I have missed and done before like celebrating the Holy Eucharist, novena, etc. Our children want to go back to the Catholic Church. I realize I need to talk to my Catholic parish priest and the pastor of this Protestant Church but I want your opinion also.
What I need to know is will I be able to come back to the Catholic Church only with a simple confession?

Response:
A simple confession will facilitate your entrance, but it would be good if you talk to your parish priest. There is really no big problem; apparently, when you entered the Protestant Church, you did it because your conscience told you that it was the best option for you. When you follow your conscience and its dictate to do something good, you don't commit any sin. That simple confession will not be your re-entry into the Catholic faith, but your way of exercising one of the fundamentals of this faith. Congratulations for seeing the light again.

unbreakable
07.10.24, 07:35 AM
God has given us freedom... freedom to do everything and anything we like but mind you we should be responsible enough... freedom is good so long as it doesn't make you lesser human (evil?) .. likewise anything abused can do you harm...

Respect is the key to a peaceful community.

simpatico
07.10.24, 12:49 PM
I have already defended my catholic faith kasi nagkaroon ako ng girl friend from other religions and marami talaga akong nakita na mga differences na parang masyadong OA. My gf even convinced me to switch but thank God hindi natuloy kasi matigas nga ang ulo ko at masyado akong perfectionist siguro... hehehe... marami pa akong gustong sabihin pero yung masasabi ko lang ang plastic nilang talaga... ayoko sa kanila.

pat111
07.10.24, 08:15 PM
Diba sabi mo 13 ka palang sjclc, hehehe, bilib din ako sayo, kasi masyado ka ng vocal sa mga usaping ganito....

Di ko alam na may 14 years old pala dito...Kala ko ako lang ang bata dito e (15 lang po). :D

Bonnie
07.10.28, 12:10 PM
Di ko alam na may 14 years old pala dito...Kala ko ako lang ang bata dito e (15 lang po). :D


hahaha, kaya pala pareho kayong makulit ni sjclc, ahahaha, joke lang. Unbelievable kayong dalawa pat 111 and sjclc.

Lance
07.10.29, 09:28 AM
OT: Ako rin po.... just turned 14 this month :)

herald
07.10.29, 09:37 AM
dami nilang below 18 ano??, Hi lance how's Australia....?

unbreakable
07.10.30, 02:25 AM
dami nilang below 18 ano??, Hi lance how's Australia....?

oo nga and siguro marami mag-aagree sa akin na when it comes to their thinking eh mas matured pa sila kaysa sa ibang nasa age level nila....

Ana Maria Licup
07.11.04, 02:08 PM
In order to defend our Catholic Faith, we must know and understand it well. We have to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Holy Bible, the Lives of the Saints, Encyclicals, etc. It is our duty to do so.
Don't forget to pray to the Holy Spirit first.

Catholics who convert to other religions do not have a thorough knowledge and understanding of our faith. That's why they are easily deceived.
The fullness of truth is found only in our Catholic Faith.

anya
07.11.19, 07:23 PM
Higit na makakabuti sa tao na tingnan ang napakaraming pagkakahawig ng paniniwala ng mga magkakaibang relihiyon. Ito ay magiging positibong hakbang tungo sa pagkakaunawaan at pagtitiwala sa kabutihang-loob ng bawat nilikha. Ang paggalang sa pagkakaiba ng pagsasabuhay ng pananampalataya ng kapwa ay makapagpapabilis ng pambasang pagkakaisa at pagkakaunawaan na lubhang kailangan ng ating minamahal na bansa sa kasalukuyan.:)

Soprano812
07.11.20, 01:39 AM
Im getting hard time to practice my faith also here in Sweden..Ang hirap pag di catholic country. I knw our catholic faith coz i was so active before in the church when im in the phils..One thing that help me to bring back my faith is the rosary and meditate by listening to a religious songs..Everytime i listened to Something More nareregain ang spirit ko, but its really hard here, my husband is not believer either. Before i was so active singing in different churches but now i cant. Guys i really need a prayers for my spiritual life and that i can offer my song to HIm again. Tnx for all!

Alexander
07.11.21, 05:18 AM
You can begin by evangelizing your HUSBAND :) I'll pray for you.

Soprano812
07.11.22, 12:27 AM
Tnx Alexander, im trying but parang ako ang nadadala nya eh... but im still trying to hold on my faith..

pat111
07.11.24, 08:58 PM
Im getting hard time to practice my faith also here in Sweden..Ang hirap pag di catholic country. I knw our catholic faith coz i was so active before in the church when im in the phils..One thing that help me to bring back my faith is the rosary and meditate by listening to a religious songs..Everytime i listened to Something More nareregain ang spirit ko, but its really hard here, my husband is not believer either. Before i was so active singing in different churches but now i cant. Guys i really need a prayers for my spiritual life and that i can offer my song to HIm again. Tnx for all!

I know how you feel. Mahirap din dito sa Japan, lalong-lalo na na halos walang lugar ang relihiyon dito ( going to Shrines or Temples are not exactly a surefire way to know who are devout)...walang Simbahan na malapit sa amin kaya sa St. Ignatius (Tokyo malapit sa Sophia University) kami nagsisimba.

Don't worry; may the Lord help your husband.

Soprano812
07.11.25, 03:40 AM
Tnx Pat!!! I will grab also this opportunity to ask for a prayer for my husband. Kasi po he has a tumor and also a blood clot around the tumor in his brain. And now we still dont know kung anong mangyayari kasi po di nila magawan ng decision here.. they are waiting na mawala ung clot before deciding. I'm praying na sana po ay di naman cancerous ung tumor. Please include him on your prayers...i know nothing is impossible to God. His name is Håkan Eriksson pronounce as hokan. Thank u very much in advance!

unbreakable
07.11.27, 10:26 PM
that must be very hard for you and your family since undecided pa rin kung ooperahan siya. But don't you worry, just lift it all up to the Lord for no one is greater healer than Him. Stand firm on your faith. I know that BPOCC Onliners (isa na ako doon) will pray for you. God bless

Soprano812
07.11.28, 02:04 AM
Tnx unbreakable... Dec.4 and 8 ang city scan and xray nya...i prayed na maging ok ang result tnx for all the BPOCC family

MtG_Jox
07.12.01, 10:46 AM
Pwedeng pasawsaw sa usapan? Hindi naman dapat umatake ng ibang religions, however, inaatake nga tayo di ba? Kung sa bagay, tinanong ni Bro. Bo Sanchez ang mga nakikinig sa kanya kung anong klaseng prayer ang rosary. Marami ang sumagot na active prayer. Ouch, ang sakit nun. Kaya daming kumalas sa pagiging Katoliko dahil nakumbinsi ng mga Iglesia ni Cristo o ng Church of God na ang rosary ay dasal lang na paulit-ulit. Dapat kasi inaalam ng bawat Katoliko ang mga turo ng simbahan, hindi sa iba mag-uumpisa.

xycarlo
07.12.06, 02:22 AM
In order to defend our Catholic Faith, we must know and understand it well. We have to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Holy Bible, the Lives of the Saints, Encyclicals, etc. It is our duty to do so.
Don't forget to pray to the Holy Spirit first.

Catholics who convert to other religions do not have a thorough knowledge and understanding of our faith. That's why they are easily deceived.
The fullness of truth is found only in our Catholic Faith.

Hi Ana Maria,

I'm a practicing Catholic and I agree with most of the things you said except for the last line.:( It seems to be a primitive outlook on our religion. Let me just say that we do not have the monopoly of truth.??? Coz if we say that we do, we'll be bringing ourselves back to the time of Galileo Galilei. :worried: Now we don't want that, do we? :no: It's a good thing to defend our faith :surrender: but another thing to be offensive to others.


xycARLo

herald
07.12.07, 12:43 PM
Pwedeng pasawsaw sa usapan? Hindi naman dapat umatake ng ibang religions, however, inaatake nga tayo di ba? Kung sa bagay, tinanong ni Bro. Bo Sanchez ang mga nakikinig sa kanya kung anong klaseng prayer ang rosary. Marami ang sumagot na active prayer. Ouch, ang sakit nun. Kaya daming kumalas sa pagiging Katoliko dahil nakumbinsi ng mga Iglesia ni Cristo o ng Church of God na ang rosary ay dasal lang na paulit-ulit. Dapat kasi inaalam ng bawat Katoliko ang mga turo ng simbahan, hindi sa iba mag-uumpisa.

Meditative prayer ang rosary (If i'm not mistaken)... yung hail mary's eh parang musical score o background lang habang pinagninilayan natin ang misteryo at buhay ni Jesus

herald
07.12.07, 12:45 PM
knowledge is not enough.. we need wisdom...

Marami nga diyan kabisado ang buong bibliya at iba't ibang references tungkol sa religion pero kung hindi naman isinasabuhjay ito bale wala...

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.07, 02:37 PM
Hi xycarlo. I'm sorry if you misunderstood the last line. I said it to encourage Catholics to remain in the truth. What I said was the truth. The fullness (it's correctly spelt this way) of truth means the completeness of truth that is found only in our Catholic faith. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God (Catechism #97).

Let me try to explain as briefly as I can because it could take hours just to talk on this subject.

For example, some of our Protestant brothers and sisters rely only on Sacred Scripture or Sola Scriptura. As a result, they only have some of the truth because quoting John 21:25, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." And St. Paul says in Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." And quoting the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church #80: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and moves towards the same goal."

Other examples...Some do not believe in the divinity of Jesus; that he was only a prophet. We believe that Jesus is God-man. Some do not believe in the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord.

Yes, other religions do possess some of the truth but not all of it. That is the beauty of our faith and that is why good Catholics must know their faith so that they can share the light of truth, Christ himself, to others. And this must be done with great love. We must be careful not to engage in useless debates.

Lastly, let me share with you a beautiful analogy of our Catholic Church: the Catholic Church is the sun which gives the light of truth. The other religions are the planets that surround the sun. How close or how far the planet is to the sun manifests the degree to which the other faiths share the truth with the Catholic Church.

And yes, Herald we must pray to the Holy Spirit for the gift of wisdom. :)

titopao
07.12.07, 02:58 PM
Lastly, let me share with you a beautiful analogy of our Catholic Church: the Catholic Church is the sun which gives the light of truth. The other religions are the planets that surround the sun. How close or how far the planet is to the sun manifests the degree to which the other faiths share the truth with the Catholic Church.

I have a problem with this analogy. Take the perspective of someone who's not a member of the Catholic Church. As far as they are concerned, it's their religion who's the sun in the analogy, and the Catholic Church is just one of the planets. The solar system only has one sun, but there are many religions in the world, and they can't all be the same sun at the same time. This is because each adherent believes that their faith holds The Truth ???

So on this point, I'd hesitate before I use the Solar System as an analogy for the Roman Catholic Church. A better analogy might be the tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant).

J O J I T
07.12.07, 03:47 PM
what if i don't have any religion? does it mean that i belong to another galaxy? kalayo ko naman. huhu actually i have to agree with titopao (pero di ko alam yung alamat ng mga bulag at ng elepante) :D, we all have different beliefs and sad to say kanya-kanyang pananaw. ganun talaga buhay whether politics, religion, or kahit mismo sa loob ng catholic church madalas pa din di parepareho sa pananaw. so for me, the best way to "defend" (mas maganda yata word na "protect") my faith is not to fight other faiths/religion, mas madali sa akin na ipakita nalang sa kanila ganda ng aking relihiyon. Again, pananaw ko lang po. ;)

God bless.

titopao
07.12.07, 04:08 PM
what if i don't have any religion? does it mean that i belong to another galaxy? kalayo ko naman. huhu actually i have to agree with titopao (pero di ko alam yung alamat ng mga bulag at ng elepante) :D, we all have different beliefs and sad to say kanya-kanyang pananaw. ganun talaga buhay whether politics, religion, or kahit mismo sa loob ng catholic church madalas pa din di parepareho sa pananaw. so for me, the best way to "defend" (mas maganda yata word na "protect") my faith is not to fight other faiths/religion, mas madali sa akin na ipakita nalang sa kanila ganda ng aking relihiyon. Again, pananaw ko lang po. ;)

God bless.

I missed that one, Jojit, pero may point ka, as far as atheists, agnostics and syncretists are concerned, their truth is the absolute truth.

The tale of the blind men and the elephant isn't really a big story. It's just a simple tale of a number of blind men touching different parts of an elephant and then, when being asked to describe what they touched, naturally provided different (and sometimes conflicting) answers and, in some versions, even engaged themselves in a fistfight.

The point of the story is that "truth" is sometimes relative, and what may be absolute for one isn't for another. Most religions if not all (somewhat) teach that their own deity or deities are the one, true God, and their Truth, the one Truth---but at the same time, we know that, taken literally, these differing points of view can't be true at the same time (if there is only one true God, why are there so many religions?) History has shown us and has taught us---actually, should have already taught us and we should have learned as well---that some of the bitterest disputes over matters of faith, ideology and politics have caused the bitterest bloodshed humanity has ever seen.

Many of us dread the kind of fundamentalism that we sometimes see in the news---look at Afghanistan before the Taliban were booted out---and can express disgust over where an extreme and rabid fanaticism to a certain "truth" can take a person (or even a nation) to. We can simply dismiss it as the cause of a few certain persons, but it's there, and as far as these persons are concerned they think they're doing the right thing (and, no, they're not insane either).

But in some ways, we are also guilty of a little "fundamentalism" in our own way (sometimes in benign and mild forms). What I'd suggest is a little more openness in the midst of differing points of view, and be tolerant and respectful of other people's creed :)

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.07, 07:47 PM
Thanks for sharing your ideas Jojit and titopao. :)
Yes, there is only one true God and, may I add, only one true Church that Our Lord founded on Peter the rock.
I agree with you that we must not fight or argue with other religions but show them the beauty of our faith and this must be done with love and respect for others. That is what past and present Catholic missionaries all over the world are doing at the risk of their own lives. :)

xycarlo
07.12.09, 11:58 PM
Meditative prayer ang rosary (If i'm not mistaken)... yung hail mary's eh parang musical score o background lang habang pinagninilayan natin ang misteryo at buhay ni Jesus

I kinda like this idea. It's putting Mama Mary at the background and Jesus at the forefront. Both are important. :)

xycarlo
07.12.10, 12:18 AM
Thanks for sharing your ideas Jojit and titopao. :)
Yes, there is only one true God and, may I add, only one true Church that Our Lord founded on Peter the rock.
I agree with you that we must not fight or argue with other religions but show them the beauty of our faith and this must be done with love and respect for others. That is what past and present Catholic missionaries all over the world are doing at the risk of their own lives. :)

:) Thanks for the explanation Ana Maria. :( I still have a problem when you say "one true Church". I think we are way past that claiming. When you say kasi We are THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, you are insisting your superiority over all other faiths. Eh sinong makikinig kung ganuon din ang claim nila? ??? Just a thought.

xycarlo
07.12.10, 12:29 AM
what if i don't have any religion? does it mean that i belong to another galaxy? kalayo ko naman. huhu actually i have to agree with titopao (pero di ko alam yung alamat ng mga bulag at ng elepante) :D, we all have different beliefs and sad to say kanya-kanyang pananaw. ganun talaga buhay whether politics, religion, or kahit mismo sa loob ng catholic church madalas pa din di parepareho sa pananaw. so for me, the best way to "defend" (mas maganda yata word na "protect") my faith is not to fight other faiths/religion, mas madali sa akin na ipakita nalang sa kanila ganda ng aking relihiyon. Again, pananaw ko lang po. ;)

God bless.

If you don't have any religion, I guess :worried: God will still find a way to get to you even if you don't believe in Him. Kagaya ng Sun :paranoid: kahit may clouds or kahit gabi :ninja: sa lugar mo, or kahit saan ka pa nakatira. Kahit sa core pa ng Earth :surrender:.

titopao
07.12.10, 08:44 AM
If you don't have any religion, I guess :worried: God will still find a way to get to you even if you don't believe in Him. Kagaya ng Sun :paranoid: kahit may clouds or kahit gabi :ninja: sa lugar mo, or kahit saan ka pa nakatira. Kahit sa core pa ng Earth :surrender:.

Hmmm...I would rather na i-respeto natin yung views ng tao, basta't alam nating wala syang ginagawang mali.

Try replacing the term "If you don't have any religion" with "If you are a member of [a non-Catholic religious group]". Do you think it would still make sense? For this person, he/she believes in God or in a Supreme Being, but not in the same way as we do. To assume that they don't is disrespecting this person's belief. Sa mga panahong ito, mas kailangan nating maging open sa paniniwala ng mga taong hindi parehas ang paniniwala sa atin.

Ngunit kung talagang dadating sa punto ng mga taong ganito yung---as you put it---makita ang daan at maniwala sa Diyos, e di mas mabuti, at least natulungan natin yung tao na makita yung point of view na iyon. Ang sa akin lang kasi ay, dapat sa kanya manggaling ang pagkukusa. Ang alam ko, ganon ang technique ng ibang mga misyonero sa ibang bansa, hindi nila direktang hinihimok ang ibang tao na sumpalataya, bagkus ay isinasabuhay nila ang kanilang paniniwala at nagpapakita ng kabutihan sa ibang tao (ika nga sa mundo ng advertising, "soft selling" ang ginagawa at hindi "hard selling"). Marami ang nananampalataya at nagpapabinyag hindi dahil sa kung ano ang sinasabi sa kanila kundi dahil sa kung ano ang ipinapakita sa kanilang kabutihan. Actions convince louder than words ;)

xycarlo
07.12.10, 09:13 AM
.... Marami ang nananampalataya at nagpapabinyag hindi dahil sa kung ano ang sinasabi sa kanila kundi dahil sa kung ano ang ipinapakita sa kanilang kabutihan. Actions convince louder than words ;)

I totally agree Titopao. Instead of preaching, mas effective talaga ang actions. Jesus gives us the best and the most powerful example on the cross.

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.10, 10:26 AM
:) Thanks for the explanation Ana Maria. :( I still have a problem when you say "one true Church". I think we are way past that claiming. When you say kasi We are THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, you are insisting your superiority over all other faiths. Eh sinong makikinig kung ganuon din ang claim nila? ??? Just a thought.

Hi xycarlo! Thanks for your thougt because it gives me an opportunity to explain. :)
It's not a claim because anybody can claim something that is not true. It's what Our Lord Himself says in Matthew 16:18, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
Notice that Our Lord says church not churches. Please also notice that He says I will build my church. This statement of Our Lord is proof that the Catholic Church is a divine institution. It is founded, nourished by the Sacraments most especially His Body and Blood in the Eucharist and built by Him and Him alone (though He uses sinners-for we all are-as His instruments). :)

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.10, 10:33 AM
I totally agree Titopao. Instead of preaching, mas effective talaga ang actions. Jesus gives us the best and the most powerful example on the cross.

Remember what St. Francis of Assisi said to his brother-priests, "Preach the Gospel, if necessary use words." :)
And in recent times, the most beautiful example was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
God bless. :)

xycarlo
07.12.12, 02:07 AM
Remember what St. Francis of Assisi said to his brother-priests, "Preach the Gospel, if necessary use words." :)
And in recent times, the most beautiful example was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
God bless. :)

Exactly Ana Maria! :blush: St Francis encouraged preaching but only after becoming witness thru actions. Kung di nya iniwanan ang mayaman nyang itay at sinundan ang tinig ng kanyang puso :heart: na tumatawag sa kanya sa kakaibang buhay :alien: malamang walang Franciscans ngayon.

With Mother Teresa as your example, I'm not very convinced she preached. She and the Missionaries of Charity became witnesses thru actions. They spoke, yes, but not :no: preached.

Sino nga bang may sabi ng 'the word should be your last bullet?' Saint nga ba nagsabi nito? Help me out naman :surrender:.

With your ONE TRUE CHURCH argument, Jesus never said 'upon this rock I will build my CATHOLIC CHURCH'. How did you conclude that it is the Catholic Church He is speaking about? Alam naman nating lahat ang naging problema ng 1st Christians when people started converting to please the emperor.(I think I'm sounding boring) Naki-uso na kasi ang mga tao at lumabnaw ang pagiging Christian, a situation evident even nowadays. Comment nga ng mga pari dito sa amin, daming nango-ngomunyon napaka konti ng nangungumpisal. I digress, sorry.

Now you see where this conversation is taking us when we become bookish?:yawn:We could argue on and on and on dahil sa pag-insist mo dyan sa ONE TRUE CHURCH na yan.:radioactive: In the process you might disregard the actions made by the Holy Spirit in uniting those churches na humiwalay sa Catholic Church many years ago. Have you heard about those ongoing dialogue recently?:sick: It started with Pope John Paul II. We believe in the Holy Trinity and yet you disregard the capabilities of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit the Catholic Church would not have realized its mistakes in the past, and Pope John Paul II would not have asked forgiveness for those mistakes (mistakes which kinda resembles what you are doing right now). Do you think the late pope did it on a whim? Oh no, you do not!!! He was inspired!:O

titopao
07.12.12, 09:06 AM
It's not a claim because anybody can claim something that is not true. It's what Our Lord Himself says in Matthew 16:18, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
Notice that Our Lord says church not churches. Please also notice that He says I will build my church. This statement of Our Lord is proof that the Catholic Church is a divine institution. It is founded, nourished by the Sacraments most especially His Body and Blood in the Eucharist and built by Him and Him alone (though He uses sinners-for we all are-as His instruments). :)

As far as a Catholic is concerned, that would be true. Problem is, in the entire world view, the Catholic Church is not the only religion in the world. It looks like all along this is the line you've been pushing for, as if the other religions didn't exist. Try saying that to a non-Christian fundamentalist and see if you can convince him/her.

Your line of thinking could also be adopted by members of other faiths as well. What if a Muslim told you that Islam is the only true way, that Allah is the one true God and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the one true prophet, that Jesus Christ is merely a prophet and all infidels (i.e. non-Muslims) deserve to die? Sounds too extreme if pushed too far...but, like it or not, this is one line of thinking being pushed by the al Qaeda and the Taleban. And look at the heights they would go to promote their views.

(In fairness to our Muslim brothers, the al Qaeda and Taleban are extreme manifestations of fundamentalism [note that not all Muslims agree with Osam bin Laden], and throughout history there are other forms of extreme fundamentalism espoused by a few people from other faiths as well...including [whether you like it or not] the Catholic Church [ever heard of the Inquisition and Torquemada?]. Throughout history, wars are being fought either because of greed or because of intolerance and discrimination.)

Some of us may recall the debates going on between our brothers in Iglesia ni Cristo and Ang Dating Daan. Sometimes, I'd even watch their two TV shows showing at the same time (both named "Ang Dating Daan" and "Ang Tamang Daan"), switching channels back and forth while bemusedly seeing their ministers attack each other's words (sometimes in real time :S ). It might make for a different entertainment for some people, but let's face it, their arguments are often based on the issue of which one of them is the true church. We know that Filipinos need to be united further, but looking at how the INC-ADD debates go, I can't tell if it would happen soon (as in, kung sa religion pa lang nag-aaway na, paano pa kaya pag hinaluan pa ng ibang isyu tulad ng pulitika, corruption, poverty....?)

It is not for me to discuss matters of theology---I'd rather leave this to clerics and theologians of all creed (whether Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever). What I am pushing for is a little more tolerance of other people's beliefs. It is one thing to acknowledge and accept the differences between people's beliefs; it is another thing to polarize people because of these differences.

This is why I can't say anything against this line of thinking...

With your ONE TRUE CHURCH argument, Jesus never said 'upon this rock I will build my CATHOLIC CHURCH'. How did you conclude that it is the Catholic Church He is speaking about? Alam naman nating lahat ang naging problema ng 1st Christians when people started converting to please the emperor.(I think I'm sounding boring) Naki-uso na kasi ang mga tao at lumabnaw ang pagiging Christian, a situation evident even nowadays. Comment nga ng mga pari dito sa amin, daming nango-ngomunyon napaka konti ng nangungumpisal. I digress, sorry.

Now you see where this conversation is taking us when we become bookish?:yawn:We could argue on and on and on dahil sa pag-insist mo dyan sa ONE TRUE CHURCH na yan.:radioactive: In the process you might disregard the actions made by the Holy Spirit in uniting those churches na humiwalay sa Catholic Church many years ago. Have you heard about those ongoing dialogue recently?:sick: It started with Pope John Paul II. We believe in the Holy Trinity and yet you disregard the capabilities of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit the Catholic Church would not have realized its mistakes in the past, and Pope John Paul II would not have asked forgiveness for those mistakes (mistakes which kinda resembles what you are doing right now). Do you think the late pope did it on a whim? Oh no, you do not!!! He was inspired!:O

Alexander
07.12.12, 10:18 AM
Wow, the discussion here is very healthy.... just be careful in your choices of words ha.

When you think of the other Christian Faith, think of this Word. Ecumenism (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html). As this is the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ himself...

Jesus Prays for All Believers

20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Text from John 17:20-26 (NIV) - BibleGateway.com

xycarlo
07.12.12, 11:39 AM
Wow, the discussion here is very healthy.... just be careful in your choices of words ha.

When you think of the other Christian Faith, think of this Word. Ecumenism (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html). As this is the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ himself...



Text from John 17:20-26 (NIV) - BibleGateway.com

I think it is spelled as Ecumenism with an e in the middle. Not sure though. Could anyone check? Kasi di ba Ecumenical?



Alexander: Hehehe. sensya na... slip of the finger... LOL

titopao
07.12.12, 11:54 AM
Exactly, that's what I am for: ecumenism.

Just to make this clear, I know where I stand as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, there is no question about that.

However, if I'm talking to someone who's not Catholic, whether this person is from another Christian church or from a non-Christian religion, I have to choose my words carefully so as not to offend the other person and be tolerant of any differences their religion has compared to Catholicism. Given naman na kasi na meron silang doktrinang iba sa mga Katoliko, there's nothing I can do to change that.

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.12, 01:18 PM
Hi Xycarlo. Mother Teresa and her sisters preached through their actions. Then converts to the faith would be catechized. That is where the preaching of the truth comes in. :)

Please remember that the preaching of the Gospel is a command given by Our Lord (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:47). And as I pointed out earlier, this must be done with great love. That is what the Apostles did especially St. Paul. They took into account the words of Our Lord: "I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."-John 13:34-35.

God bless.

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.12, 01:55 PM
Catholic is not the name of the Church that Our Lord founded. It is one of the marks of His Church. The Nicene Creed declares the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Please read the Catechism. These marks of the Church are beautifully explained there. The Catechism was a project initiated by John Paul II. It is a complete summary of what Catholics throughout the world believe in common. :)

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.12, 02:08 PM
To have a better understanding of Ecumenism, please read the principles and norms of Ecumenism found in www.vatican.va. You can search for it there.

Ecumenism is a movement towards Christian unity but we do not compromise the truth of our faith. :)

kumintang
07.12.13, 04:52 PM
I'm interested in the Eastern Rite or Byzantine Liturgy. Unfortunately there is no Catholic Eastern Rite parish in the Philippines.

Ana Maria Licup
07.12.14, 08:30 AM
Hello Kumintang. :)
Please check out the Cathedral of the King in Mandaluyong. I think it is of the Eastern or Byzantine rite. I'm not sure though.
Eastern Catholic churches are in full communion with Rome.

korista22
08.01.24, 09:43 AM
hi guys,

there's actually a publication entitled "Know the Truth" by Fr.Paul Kaiparambadan. It is a publication that defends the catholic faith. I encourage you guys to read it. maganda sya. it explains different issues about the catholic faith. You can get a copy in any st. pauls bookstore.

internet edition is www.knowthetruthjesus.com

pj_mariano_RN
08.01.25, 02:36 PM
Ummm... Honestly speaking, there are no perfect religion... I am a Catholic, yet I feel that some of the things we do at Church, hurts the Father... I hope that you get what I mean... Why not we base what we do on the 10 commandments and 2 Great Commandments? Many of us Catholics do not know about the real essence of these commandments. To whom are we praying? To Mary? To the saints? Or God the Father?

"No one comes to the Father except through Me" -Jesus said that... Through Jesus Christ only... And we only pray to our God the Father... Our Saints and Mother Mary are our heroes, models... hindi dinarasalan...

I hope kahit na hindi ko nai-defend mabuti ang faith natin, but i think what God wants is we unite,.. And live His Commandments...^_^

teachertwish
08.01.25, 05:50 PM
Maybe we should also try to understand our attackers to better defend ourselves. It's hard to claim that we are in the TRUE Church because everybody claims that. As Catholics, our style is not to argue, but to be good friends to our Christian brothers. Hopefully through friendship, we will start enlightening our friends with the True faith.

I have a book "Surprised by Truth" which is a compilation of conversion stories. Reading their stories helped me understand their situation and what contributed to their going back to the faith.

Yes, our faith is actually misunderstood. A lot of people think that the Catholic Church is not open to homosexuals, of course not. We embrace everyone. UST formed a group called "Courage" to help support Catholic homosexuals become chaste. They think that we do not welcome grave sinners. Of course not! We have the sacrament of confession.

Conversion is a grace from God. We can only do our part in explaining, but it is also our duty to pray to God for the grace of conversion for our lost friend. :)

Ana Maria Licup
08.01.25, 10:56 PM
Catholics must know what they believe and why.

lordz
08.02.27, 10:51 PM
True, most catholics do not know stuff about our faith. Blind obedience ika nga. The more we know about our faith, the more we'd be able to appreciate, practice and live it.

thenonhacker
08.03.12, 03:35 PM
Wow I found this thread via "Similar Thread" (sa baba).

Must join this one. Though I am not religious today (I was), I love fighting for our faith WHEN attacked by another person who does not know how to respect the beliefs of others.

thenonhacker
08.03.12, 03:36 PM
In addition to what I just above:

In fairness, I have met non-Catholics who respect our faith and have the right sensibilities. They have earned my respect!

Alexander
08.03.13, 09:09 AM
Hello Kumintang. :)
Please check out the Cathedral of the King in Mandaluyong. I think it is of the Eastern or Byzantine rite. I'm not sure though.
Eastern Catholic churches are in full communion with Rome.

Just to back up Ana's statement:

Further reading on the Eastern Catholic Church (article from wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

Further reading on the Eastern Orthodox Church (article from wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

thenonhacker
08.03.13, 11:47 AM
I think may diplomacy ang Roman Catholic sa Eastern Catholics/Orthodox. They are even allowed to attend our mass and partake communion.

Alexander
08.03.13, 12:20 PM
Parang me nakikita nga akong mga Orthodox na mga bishops whenever there are activities in the Vatican. I think the late Pope John Paul II, did a very good job in Ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism).

titopao
08.03.13, 12:26 PM
I think may diplomacy ang Roman Catholic sa Eastern Catholics/Orthodox. They are even allowed to attend our mass and partake communion.

One notable example:

Nung funeral mass ni Pope John Paul II (which is one of the highest-viewed televised events in world history), nakibahagi sa Roman Catholic liturgy ang mga top priests from the Orthodox Catholic Church. They not only sat through the entire mass and took Holy Communion, they were even given time (after the communion) to perform a final blessing under the Orthodox Catholic liturgy just after the communion, in full view of the cameras (and, take note, mga 20-30 minutes din ata na nagtagal yung part na iyon). You may also want to note that some of the members of the College of Cardinals itself are from our Orthodox Catholic brothers; they even voted in the conclave.

They may be somewhat different from us Roman Catholics, but they are still very much a part of the Catholic Church as a whole. Technically, hindi naman sila bukod o tiwalag sa Roman Catholic Church, meron lang na mga points of differences (that are too long to be discussed here)---and in spite of these differences, they are still considered under the full communion of the (general) Catholic Church. Take note that I don't simply refer to them as "Orthodox", but as "Orthodox Catholic" :)

Ana Maria Licup
08.03.13, 03:56 PM
There is a difference between the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other but are not in communion with the Catholic church because they reject the Papacy. However, they have valid sacraments.

The Eastern Catholic Churches used to be called Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome. But they are now properly called Eastern Catholic Churches or Eastern Churches in communion with Rome in order to differentiate them from the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches.

montaro
08.03.13, 10:07 PM
Ewan ko ba kung bakit inaatake ng iba't ibang relihiyon at sekta ang isa't isa gayong parepareho lang sila ng GOAL- mapalapit kay Father God. yeah!

thenonhacker
08.03.13, 10:16 PM
Alam nyo ba yung "Ang Dating Daan"?

Noong nauso yon lagi ko pinapanood,
kasi interesado ako kung paano nya
i-handle ang pag-counter-attack ng Iglesia Ni Cristo
sa kanila Bro. Eli.

Which means, nanood din ako ng "Ang Tamang Daan".
LOLZ, naging gyera po ang dalawang shows.

Pero, pareho silang nagfo-focus sa trivialities
ng religion, at hindi sa "LIVING OUR LIVES WELL".

Yan po ang gusto ko sa Roman Catholic,
hindi na kailangan maging insecure sa ibang relihiyon
to the point na manira. Tayo ay "Mind Our Own Business"
for the most part.

pat111
08.04.04, 03:28 PM
Alam nyo ba yung "Ang Dating Daan"?

Noong nauso yon lagi ko pinapanood,
kasi interesado ako kung paano nya
i-handle ang pag-counter-attack ng Iglesia Ni Cristo
sa kanila Bro. Eli.

Which means, nanood din ako ng "Ang Tamang Daan".
LOLZ, naging gyera po ang dalawang shows.

Pero, pareho silang nagfo-focus sa trivialities
ng religion, at hindi sa "LIVING OUR LIVES WELL".

Yan po ang gusto ko sa Roman Catholic,
hindi na kailangan maging insecure sa ibang relihiyon
to the point na manira. Tayo ay "Mind Our Own Business"
for the most part.

Ganon din ginagawa ko dati...parang halos wala nang ginawa ang dalawang sekta kundi awayin ang isa't isa...:(

Ayan din ang maganda sa Simbahang Katoliko,
kahit may gustong humiwalay sa kanya e nandito pa rin at nakatayo even after 2000 years. Protektado nga ng Diyos ito dahil halos walang institution ang nakatagal ng ganyan.

thenonhacker
08.04.04, 03:48 PM
Ayan din ang maganda sa Simbahang Katoliko,
kahit may gustong humiwalay sa kanya e nandito pa rin at nakatayo even after 2000 years. Protektado nga ng Diyos ito dahil halos walang institution ang nakatagal ng ganyan.

Tama!

With matching Theme Song pa yan: Bukas Palad - Sa Batong Ito (http://einherjarken.imeem.com/music/eKXYAvE4/bukas_palad_sa_batong_ito/)

edwardjerick
08.04.04, 04:20 PM
:)I think there is no need to defend our faith... kasi hindi naman ito mawawala sa atin (unless bumigay talaga tayo..)

Let them to ask and ask about your faith... malay natin kung mahikayat pa natin sila na makiisa sa atin.:)

Iisa lang naman ang Diyos na ating kinikilala natin.. yun nga lamang hindi nila tanggap ang iba nating mga paniniwala at gawain...???


TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOREVER AND EVER!!!:)

jonjefff
08.04.14, 11:26 AM
If I may butt-in again, I am a non-Catholic as what I've introduced myself from another thread "The Meet Meeting" yata yun....I am a protestant, a Methodist in particular. Sometimes nagiging blind obedience na rin ang pagiging Methodist ko kasi my father is a Methodist Pastor, my mother is a Deaconess, so I was born a Methodist na. Yet it is basic to know the doctrines/apologetics of what you believe. We study our social principles by heart, and one of those is to respect other religions doctrines, we study our similarities and not our differences, we focus on ecumenism not to attack other religions' weaknesses. Iisa lang naman ang ating Diyos, kaya sana iwasan ang differences. Let us work together for the Glory of God and the advancement of Christ's Kingdom here on earth.

"God is too big to fit into one religion."

thenonhacker
08.04.14, 01:14 PM
@jonjefff: I studied in Wesley School during my kindergarten days, but I am a Catholic. It is nice to know that Methodist focus on the positive side of things! I respect you and your religion.


If I may butt-in again, I am a non-Catholic as what I've introduced myself from another thread "The Meet Meeting" yata yun....I am a protestant, a Methodist in particular. Sometimes nagiging blind obedience na rin ang pagiging Methodist ko kasi my father is a Methodist Pastor, my mother is a Deaconess, so I was born a Methodist na. Yet it is basic to know the doctrines/apologetics of what you believe. We study our social principles by heart, and one of those is to respect other religions doctrines, we study our similarities and not our differences, we focus on ecumenism not to attack other religions' weaknesses. Iisa lang naman ang ating Diyos, kaya sana iwasan ang differences. Let us work together for the Glory of God and the advancement of Christ's Kingdom here on earth.

"God is too big to fit into one religion."

dacs
08.04.16, 11:05 AM
"God is too big to fit into one religion."

Judaism believes that theirs is the one true God - as with Christianity. Though one can be saved without being a Christian (through no fault of his own), Christians believe that those are still saved through Christ. Nevertheless, Christ prayed that there should be no division among His disciples, that they may be one as the Father and Him are one. St. Paul urged the Corinthians to be united with the same mind and purpose (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). What happened then among the Corinthians is happening now among those who profess to be Christians.

"I belong to the Anglican Church..."

"I belong to the Pentecostal Church ..."

"I belong to the Baptist Church ..."

"I belong to the Catholic Church ..."

This situation we are in is not what Christ wanted nor the apostles. It is what men who profess to be Christians wanted to have. For the most part, these are man-made churches - attached one particular set of beliefs. We probably try to rationalize the situation by telling ourselves that God is too big to fit in one religion.

Just my two cents.

CaptainBarbel
08.04.16, 11:12 PM
"Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of
your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and
acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2)

humay_ug_mais
08.05.28, 03:14 PM
i have a friend who was taunted by two of her officemates, one an adventist and the other a muslim. she wanted to exchange her day-off with her adventist best friend in order to attend a pilgrimage to a marian shrine here in cebu (simala) and all she got from her was "why do you go about processions following those 'bato' images?" in her anger and helplessness, she cried and told everything to her mother, who in turn asked for my help. i lent her a book which has all the answers to the questions her friends have about the catholic faith. i do not know kung natapos niya yung booklet (it's a very small one, you see...yellow siya and is authored by an american...)

point is, a lot of us believe in the roman cathoic church but when we are under attack, mahirap na silang kalabanin since some, if not most of us still take for granted what the katekistas at the parish tell us of our faith...

thenonhacker
08.05.28, 08:11 PM
i have a friend who was taunted by two of her officemates, one an adventist and the other a muslim. she wanted to exchange her day-off with her adventist best friend in order to attend a pilgrimage to a marian shrine here in cebu (simala) and all she got from her was "why do you go about processions following those 'bato' images?"

Kung ako ang nasa situation na yun babarahin ko yung 2 officemates nya.

Una sa lahat dapat ginalang nila kahit anong pananampalaya ko.

Pangalawa, may maipipintas rin ako sa Adventist at Muslim na iyon at sila naman ang maiyak.

Pangatlo, I will research ANY office policy relating to discrimination, including religion, and teach those two a tough lesson.

Like I said earlier, I have respect to people of other religions who are also respecting my religion. Doesn't matter if Budhist, Muslim, Methodist, etc...

bluemurdock
08.06.06, 09:57 PM
Ahaha.. 2 weeks ako sumakay ako sa taxi from otigas to cubao pauwi sa pampanga.. and then the driver (a dating daan.. peace po) started asking me stuff about catholicism kasi nakita nya rosary ko. Eh palalabas ako sa mga bars and stuff pero i do have faith in Him.. (Love you Lord!).. He started poiting out kung anong mali sa catholicism.. and I wasn't even asking him.. I just kept queit..Makasalanan daw ang pagpunta sa bars.. (deep inside i was dying from laughing talaga..). He also pointed that true converts like them daw ang pupunta sa langit.. Nag-init ang tenga ko dun! I asked him ng diretsahan.. "sinasabi mo ba manong na pupunta ako sa impyerno?"... biglang bawi sya.. i wasnt contented... He pointed to me na ang pagpunta sa mga bars was like being in Sodom.. kaya makasalanan.. "kuya.. self-righteousness tawag sa ginagawa mo... mas mabigat na kasalanan yan kaysa pumunta sa bar... para po, eto bayad. *baba"... grr... pero i was laughing after.. its funny how some sects would try to convince other people in joining them through mudslinging... i know what i did was wrong.. i should have been more patient and understanding.. ahehhe.. share ko lang.. ang bad ko ano? ahehehhe

titopao
08.06.07, 12:43 AM
I asked him ng diretsahan.. "sinasabi mo ba manong na pupunta ako sa impyerno?"... biglang bawi sya..

its funny how some sects would try to convince other people in joining them through mudslinging... i know what i did was wrong.. i should have been more patient and understanding.. ahehhe.. share ko lang.. ang bad ko ano? ahehehhe

Actually...hindi ko naman nilalahat...pero ako mismo wala akong bilib sa mga taong sobrang vocal sa kanilang "faith" pero kung manira naman ng ibang tao...parang mahirap paniwalaan yung pino-profess nilang pagiging "Christian" nila. (Lalo na kung sinasabi nila yon sa mga interviews sa entertainment section ng mga dyaryo or sa showbiz news sa mga TV newscasts. And ipinagmamalaki pa nila yung kung saang grupo pa sila kasali. Ayoko nang magbanggit ng pangalan or ng television channel LOL ) Tapos kung minsan ang hilig-hilig pang mag-quote ng kung ano-anong Bible verses na parang yon lang ang librong alam nila sa tanang buhay nila---not that I have anything against reading the Bible, but I just hate how other people would quote from it inverately and (sometimes) mindlessly, parang inaabuso na nila yung Bible nun. I don't mind being in a room with someone whose religion is different from mine, I respect that person's views and I hope he or she does the same with mine; but if that person starts preaching, proselytizing or sermonizing as if my salvation depends on his/her own views of theology and morality, as if my existence depends on his/her word of law....

When it comes to matters of faith, I believe in tolerance. Kasi, let's face it, hindi lang naman Christianity (as a whole) ang religion sa buong mundo. And even in other non-Christian religions meron din naman silang iba-ibang sekta (for example, Muslims have the Shia and the Shi'ite sects). At one point, we have to accept that other people will have a different way of looking at the world (which may be, and will be, radically different from ours), and the only way for all of us to coexist harmoniously is to be more tolerant of each other (for as long as no harm is being done to other people).

Which is why I'm not at ease with some ultra-conservative Catholics (at least, dito sa Pinas---and, honestly, maging sa ibang mga talk shows sa EWTN and Family Land cable channels) making a big deal out of the Catholic Church being the one true Church when they encounter non-Catholics (or at least discuss it as if drafting a battle plan in the event that they do encounter one); other people don't think that way, and in another time and place, saying that would start a war. Nakakainis talaga yung tinitira ng ibang tao yung pagiging Katoliko mo...but that doesn't give you the right to be as vociferous when you meet the chance of getting back at other people for doing that to you. Patas lang ang laban kung tutusin.

One of the greatest sources of conflicts is religious intolerance, and history can provide us with numerous examples of how many lives have been shed in the name of over-zealousness. (Historically, the Catholic Church itself was guilty of that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, so if you think that only Muslims are guilty of acts of terrorism in the entire history of the world, it's time to brush up on your world history.) In the United States of America, some influential Christian leaders (or "Christian" as they have professed) are (ab)using the power of the pulpit in order to gain power that is beyond what is due to them (one recent example is the conflict between Sen. Barack Obama and his now-ex-pastor; another example is the ultraconservative/right-wing evangelical groups with very close ties with the Republican Party). So many wars have been fought because of religious intolerance. These incidents have been written over and over across hundreds of history books...but what have we really learned from history?

Para sa akin, ang pananampalataya ay makapagbibigay ng lakas at tatag ng loob sa isang tao, at lalo't higit na makapagbibigay-liwanag sa kanyang isip at diwa upang higit niyang maunawaan ang pagkakakaiba-iba ng mga tao. Hindi ba't mismong si Kristo ay umunawa sa mga tao maging sa mga hindi naniniwala sa kanya?

I have no objections with the need of having this thread ("defend Catholic faith") kasi, syempre kung below the belt na ang paninira ng ibang tao (like the said taxi driver), I have a duty to the Mother Church, and I won't hesitate doing that duty (just that, hindi ako ang mauunang tumira ng pananampalataya ng ibang tao). But when you step back and look at the bigger picture and think it over...faith is supposed to build bridges, not destroy them. Why are some people using their professed "faith" to discredit other people's faith, simply just because they're different?

Alexander
08.06.09, 06:04 PM
jonjefff,

The Meet Market po yun :)

I'm glad to see someone from another faith joining us in discussion. I am also for Ecumenism.... God Bless


If I may butt-in again, I am a non-Catholic as what I've introduced myself from another thread "The Meet Meeting" yata yun....I am a protestant, a Methodist in particular. Sometimes nagiging blind obedience na rin ang pagiging Methodist ko kasi my father is a Methodist Pastor, my mother is a Deaconess, so I was born a Methodist na. Yet it is basic to know the doctrines/apologetics of what you believe. We study our social principles by heart, and one of those is to respect other religions doctrines, we study our similarities and not our differences, we focus on ecumenism not to attack other religions' weaknesses. Iisa lang naman ang ating Diyos, kaya sana iwasan ang differences. Let us work together for the Glory of God and the advancement of Christ's Kingdom here on earth.

"God is too big to fit into one religion."

kumintang
08.06.09, 06:09 PM
Brod Alex,
Ecumenism yun:nice:
Here's an excellent example of Ecumenism:

http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/images/MAN_4186.jpg http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/images/MAN_0103.jpg http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/images/MAN_0108a.jpg (http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/)
Pope Benedict XVI with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Constantinople (2006) (http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/)

Coolwaters
08.06.09, 06:53 PM
I agree with titopao...
Faith is supposed to build bridges... pero kung minsan mahirap ding makisalamuha sa mga taong mahilig sumunog ng mga tulay... :)

I knew someone who is from Dating Daan. One time, over a discussion during lunch, he lambasted the Catholic Church in its errors in history, mga teachings daw gaya ng pagdasal sa mga santo, etc... I found it hard to be silent. I eventually joined the discussion and told the guy that he insulted me by criticizing my faith. At that time, umiral ang theologian in me. Natapos ang lunch, di pa rin natapos ang argument...

Moral of the story: Dapat i-enjoy ang lunch... :)

titopao
08.06.09, 09:39 PM
I agree with titopao...
Faith is supposed to build bridges... pero kung minsan mahirap ding makisalamuha sa mga taong mahilig sumunog ng mga tulay... :)

I knew someone who is from Dating Daan. One time, over a discussion during lunch, he lambasted the Catholic Church in its errors in history, mga teachings daw gaya ng pagdasal sa mga santo, etc... I found it hard to be silent. I eventually joined the discussion and told the guy that he insulted me by criticizing my faith. At that time, umiral ang theologian in me. Natapos ang lunch, di pa rin natapos ang argument...

Moral of the story: Dapat i-enjoy ang lunch... :)

Hehehe....this is why, in etiquette books (such as Judith Martin's "Miss Manners" and the Emily Post columns), religion, politics, crime and disease are some of the topics that are most discouraged during meals :)

thenonhacker
08.06.10, 12:04 PM
ahahaha Ang Dating Daan:

Lahat ng relihiyon inaway nito. Catholic, Born Again, Muslim, etc...
Pero nung inaway nila ang Iglesia Ni Cristo,
nag-backfire ang pag-aaway nila.

At dyan nagsimula ang TV wars ng
Ang Dating Daan VS Ang Tamang Daan.

Sinubaybayan ko ito:

1. Napo-prove ng "Ang Tamang Daan" kung saan inconsistent si Bro. Eli.

2. May plot development mga kaibigan:
Biglang kumakampi at binibida ang mga Catholic members nila.
Kasi kailangan ng kakampi e.

3. Ang sarap panoorin yung i-VTR nila yung conflicting statements ni Bro. Eli. Masarap panoorin kasi akala mo kung sinong mag-judge si Bro. Eli sa ibang religion samantalang mali-mali at halo-halo ang mga sinasabi nya.


Sa Buddhism, ang tawag po sa nangyari sa "Ang Dating Daan" ay: Karma.

herald
08.06.10, 01:47 PM
well, sinubaybayan ko rin ito, but my conclusion is they both bring their followers in wrong direction.

Pakikipagdebate ba at kaalaman sa bibliya ang sukatan kung tama o mali ang relihiyong inaaniban? I don;t thinjks so

Mas maipapakita pa natin at maipagtatanggol natin ang ating pananampalataya sa pamamagitan ng gawa, pakikipagkapwa, pagsasabuhay ng turo ng Diyos.

Most of the time nagiging intelektuwal na lamang ang pakikipagdebate tungkol sa relihiyon. I ano kung kabisado nila ang buong laman ng Bibilya. mas gugustuhin ko pang wala akong alam sa bibliya o sa relihiyon ko pero may pagmamahal sa kapwa ko.

having knowledge is different from having wisdom. mas tumataas ang pagtingin ko sa isang pastor o isang tao kung iogagalang nya kung ano ang pinaniniwalaan ko.

we can Defend our faith more by loving others in return kahit na anong pagbabatikos pa ang gawin nila. wala tayong pinagkaiba kung sisiraan din natin sila at tutumbukin kung ano ang mali.

Ang alam ko ipinako si Kristo sa krus para sa lahat, kristyano man o hindi...

jash12per
08.06.11, 10:54 AM
Any who does not believe on the Lord Jesus CHrist as their LOrd and Savior is not a Christian.. AM I Right??

bingo
08.06.11, 02:09 PM
yes, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is a CHRISTIAN... without CHRIST,I Am Nothing...

markjeff
08.06.11, 10:55 PM
God is love. Kung hindi mo ma feel me problema ka sa sarili mo. I don't like people looking for faults/loop holes/ error in a religion instead of enriching themselves spiritually. I am a Catholic. I have Muslim and Iglesia friends. Yet our spritual beliefs did not hinder our frienship.

jash12per
08.06.13, 10:47 AM
Believing only is not enough because even the devils believe on Jesus yet, they are not Christians.. Christians, I believe are those who put their full trust or Faith alone on the Lord Jesus Christ..

thenonhacker
08.06.13, 12:13 PM
Believing only is not enough because even the devils believe on Jesus yet, they are not Christians.. Christians, I believe are those who put their full trust or Faith alone on the Lord Jesus Christ..


Well said!

Faith + Works

=

Theory + Practice

JRGarcia
08.06.15, 07:16 AM
I guess the easiest thing to do is to live our life according to the commandments. Halos naman lahat ng faith eh may ten commandments diba? or kahit hindi na 10 basta guidance yan for our faith. Then bakit hindi tayo magkaroon ng kagaya ng INC na TV program na trully talks about the 'bible' or catholic faith in a more deeper manner. I guess it could help reach out pa. The faith doesnt have flaws, it is the person under that faith ang nagkakaroon ng flaws. The teachings are there but should be delicately translated or more over understand. one passage could have thousands of meaning that is kung hindi tayo careful could be very dangerous.

thenonhacker
08.06.15, 09:41 AM
Then bakit hindi tayo magkaroon ng kagaya ng INC na TV program na trully talks about the 'bible' or catholic faith in a more deeper manner.

Marami nang Catholic Shows, just search for them.

In Cable, it's easy: EWTN covers a lot about our faith.

For Local Channels, there are many, some of which are even produced by Jesuit Communications/Productions.

There are also a handful of shows with speakers hosted by Lay People, Priests, or Bishops.

Occasionally, you'll also see Music Videos of Bukas Palad, Himig Hesuita, or Hangad aired on Channel 9 and 13.

On Radio, there is Radio Veritas.

On Print Media, there is a Sunday Column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer written by a Priest.

Several Malls like SM or Robinson's have religious stores like St. Pauls's or Tanging Yaman.

Music Stores sell Catholic music, including Bukas Palad, Papuri, etc...

Several newspapers publish the day's Gospel (which is very convenient, BTW).

For the sick or disabled, they can attend Sunday TV Mass, usually on Channel 2 and 9.

kumintang
08.06.15, 10:36 AM
..bakit hindi tayo magkaroon ng kagaya ng INC na TV program na trully talks about the 'bible' or catholic faith in a more deeper manner. I guess it could help reach out pa.

I agree with you Brod JRGarcia. We need TV Programs or Catholic talk shows na "pang-masa" at "kagaya ng sa INC" which is accessible to all. EWTN cable tv program is available only sa mga cable subscribers and some areas in the provinces ay wala pang cable (or even UHF Antenna!). Some of our poor folks in the provinces can not afford to pay 600 pesos or more for monthly cable subscription fee just to watch EWTN. Isa pa, EWTN is in English while programs "kagaya ng sa INC" (e.g. "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo", "Ang Tamang Daan" etc.) are in Filipino and other local dialects as well. Brod JBGarcia is talking about TV Programs na "tulad ng sa INC" which talks about our Catholic faith in a "more deeper" or "apologetic" manner and not the other types of media. (radio etc.) Maliwanag? ;) Hanggang ngayon ay wala pa akong nakikitang TV Program hosted by Catholics na "kagaya ng sa INC". If there is, kindly give me the TV or cable channel so I could watch it. Thanks.:nice:

Marami nang Catholic Shows, just search for them. In Cable, it's easy: EWTN covers a lot about our faith.For Local Channels, there are many, some of which are even produced by Jesuit Communications/Productions.There are also a handful of shows with speakers hosted by Lay People, Priests, or Bishops. Occasionally, you'll also see Music Videos of Bukas Palad, Himig Hesuita, or Hangad aired on Channel 9 and 13. On Radio, there is Radio Veritas.On Print Media, there is a Sunday Column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer written by a Priest....etc."

titopao
08.06.15, 04:00 PM
Then bakit hindi tayo magkaroon ng kagaya ng INC na TV program na trully talks about the 'bible' or catholic faith in a more deeper manner.

Kung nabasa mo yung last na mahaba kong reply (my other replies were equally lengthy), magiging malinaw sa 'yo na tutol ako sa ganoong uri ng palabas na pantelebisyon. Bakit? Given the reputation of Ang Tamang Daan and, also, of Ang Dating Daan (ng mga ADD), bakit pa nating kailangang manggaya sa kanila?

In fairness sa mga kapatid nating INC at ADD, hindi ako tutol sa konsepto ng pagkakaroon ng isang palabas kung saan mas maipalaliwanag ang . Sa panahong ito na nangangailangan ng mga tagapagpturo ang Simbahang Katoliko, ang mga ganitong konsepto ay mas mainam sapagkat ito ay tiyak na makararating sa lalong higit na bilang ng mga Katoliko.

Subalit nitong mga nakaraang taon, nauuwi na lamang ang mga palabas na ito sa isang palabas kung saan tinutuligsa nila ng tahasan ang pananampalataya ng ibang tao bukod sa kanilang sariling grupo. (Lalo na kung ito ay palabas ng INC kung saan ang mga taga-ADD ang tinitira, at gayundin sa ADD kung mga INC ang pinag-iinitan nila. Nitong huli, nauuwi na lang sa ganoong bangayan ang ADD at ATD.) Ito ay kailanma'y hindi ko matatanggap, lalo't higit pang pinangangatawanan nilang kay Kristo daw nanggaling ang kanilang mga itinuturo...lumalabas na parang may kakulangan saang kanilang pagkakaintindi sa turo ng Panginoon, lalo na kung nagkakairingan na ang dalawang kampo ng ADD at INC.

Akmang-akma ang Pagbasa ng Mabuting Balita sa Linggong ito. Pinili ni Kristo ang kanyang mga alagad at nagbigay ng ilang mga bilin sa kanila. Ngunit kung maiisipan nating mga Katoliko na gumawa ng isang palabas na katulad ng sa ginagawa ng mga Iglesia at Ang Dating Daan...huli na pala ako sa balita, hindi ko pala alam na kasama pala sa ibinilin ng Panginoon na "tuligsain at kapootan ninyo ang mga hindi naniniwala sa kin," parang hindi yata ganoon ang turo ng mga madre sa catholic school na pinanggalingan ko noon at ng mga paring nagmisa sa akin....

TV show tungkol sa Katolisismo? Oo, hindi ako tutol doon. Marami pa nga tayo niyan, kung tutuusin.

TV show na katulad ng "Ang Tamang Daan" at "Ang Dating Daan"? Hindi ko yata maaatim na bumaba ang Simbahan Katoliko sa ganoong kababang lebel.

jash12per
08.06.15, 08:23 PM
Faith Only!! not works, because I believe that the Lord Jesus CHrist Has done all the works.. Faith, as I Have said, means putting your full trust on the Lord Jesus Christ, making Him your Lord and Savior.. We should not trust on our works, but on Jesus only.. Works follows if we trust Him, but it should not be the basis of our salvation.. -Eph. 2:8-9..

Bonnie
08.06.15, 09:38 PM
Faith Only!! not works, because I believe that the Lord Jesus CHrist Has done all the works.. Faith, as I Have said, means putting your full trust on the Lord Jesus Christ, making Him your Lord and Savior.. We should not trust on our works, but on Jesus only.. Works follows if we trust Him, but it should not be the basis of our salvation.. -Eph. 2:8-9..

Faith + work go hand in hand, kahit sabihin mo pang hangang langit ang paniniwala kay Kristo, bale wala pa rin kung baluktot parin ang iyong pamumuhay at ginagawa sa buhay. parang alanganing sabihing "Believer" ka kung di mo naman sinusundan at isinasabuhay ang sampung utos ng Dios "Works will follow" so it goes hand in hand, hindi sya pwedeng mawala, dahil kasama sya sa iyong paniniwala na sa isip, sa salita at sa gawa, para mabuo ang tunay at taimtim mong paniniwala.

thenonhacker
08.06.16, 06:51 AM
Faith Only!! not works, because I believe that the Lord Jesus CHrist Has done all the works.. Faith, as I Have said, means putting your full trust on the Lord Jesus Christ, making Him your Lord and Savior.. We should not trust on our works, but on Jesus only.. Works follows if we trust Him, but it should not be the basis of our salvation.. -Eph. 2:8-9..

Only Protestants say this, because that is what is taught on them.

I have respect on some Protestants,
except when they start trying to force their beliefs into others.

Are you a Protestant?

Alexander
08.06.16, 09:32 AM
Hinay hinay lang po.... and please asking questions that will involve personal belief.

Akala ko din nailay-down ko na ang "apologetics" pero just a bit of clarification on the "Faith Alone" argument... this is what the apostle James taught...

James 2:14-26 (NIV) from www.Biblegateway.com (http://www.Biblegateway.com)


14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.

16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.


19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"and he was called God's friend.

24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.


Nothing for me to add... its pretty straight forward... only the emphasis

Eph 2:8-9 (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Ang tanong... are these teachings in conflict.... ang sagot.... HINDI po... Dahil ang sinasabi sa sulat ni San Pablo sa mga taga Efeso na it is not for them to work for their salvation and the letter of James says, once you have the faith, it's not enough and just do nothing... paano mo na susundin ang utos ni Kristo na "Mahalin mo ang iyong kaaway" "Magmahalan Kayo" kung wala kang gagawin?

Isa pa, eto rin ang sabi ni San Pablo sa mga taga Filipos (3:12-14 KJV)


12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul was a Jew called to be apostle to the Gentiles, if he just stopped by believing and did not "follow" or ACTED on the instruction of Jesus... do you think malalaman ng mga Hentil (tulad natin) ang kaligtasan...

Kapatid I must agree with Bonnie and thenonhacker... faith and action goes hand in hand and I must emphasize, these two teachings is not in conflict.

Peace be with you!

jash12per
08.06.17, 11:32 AM
Why Our Good Works Cannot Save Us

Excerpted from Ray Pritchard, "Sola Fide: By Faith Alone," Series: The Four "Solas," © 1997,

Delivered on July 13, 1997 to Calvary Memorial Church, Oak Park, Illinois. Online: available at http://www.cmcop.org/sermons/071397.HTM, Accessed: July 18, 2002.



But why is it that good works cannot save us? Here are five answers to that question. First, good works can't cancel your sin but sin ruins your good works. Suppose you invite me over for breakfast one morning and offer to fix a three-egg omelet. As you begin to cook, I smell a putrid odor coming from the kitchen. What's that awful smell? Oh, it's just a rotten egg. But don't worry, I added a few good eggs that will cancel out the rottenness. Do you think I would eat your omelet? Not for a million dollars. Why? Because goodness doesn't cancel rottenness but rottenness ruins goodness. The same is true in the spiritual realm. You can’t be good enough to cancel out the putrid effect of your own sins.

Second, good works can't save you because God doesn't grade on a curve. He demands absolute perfection. If you understand the Bible, you know that it only takes one sin to send you to hell. Let's suppose that you somehow only committed three sins a day. That's impossible for most of us because we commit that many sins before getting out of bed in the morning. But let's give you credit for being very, very good. And let's further suppose that you never committed more than three sins a day for your entire life. That would be over 1000 sins a year, which would mean that in 70 years you would end up with over 70,000 sins on your record. Now let's further suppose that those sins were really speeding tickets. If a police officer stopped you for running a red light and discovered that you had 70,000 outstanding speeding tickets on your record, what would he do with you? You'd end up in jail so long they would throw away the key. Do you think God is any different? But you and I commit far more than three sins a day. Our sins are like a mountain-so high we can’t climb over it, so wide we can't walk around it, so deep we can't tunnel under it. Our sins are so great that our works could never save us.

Third, good works can't save you because you can never be good enough long enough. Just when you get a "good streak" going, you sin and have to start all over again.

Fourth, you can never be sure you've done enough. That's why most religious people have no assurance of their salvation. They truly believe that being good will get them to heaven. But as we've already seen, "doing good" is never good enough because we can never do enough to pay for our own sins.

There is one more answer to consider. Good works can't save you because if they could, you wouldn't need Jesus at all. Why would Jesus die on the cross if somehow you could save yourself? When we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, "You and me, Jesus, we did it together. I baked the cookies and you died on the cross." It's either all by Jesus or all by your own efforts – and nothing in between.


Can Faith Without Works Save?
James 2:14
by Bob Wilkin

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

This one little verse is used possibly more than any other by Lordship Salvationists to advance their case. In this article I will show why the arguments they use from this verse simply are not persuasive.
Professing Without Possessing?
Some argue that the word says in the concessive clause if someone says he has faith indicates that a false professor is in view. Someone says he has faith, but he does not.

The problem with this suggestion is that it has no support in the text. James nowhere indicates that the person lacks faith. In fact, James concludes v 14 by saying that although the unproductive brother has faith, his faith can't save him (v 14b).

Some will counter by saying that what James means is that the person claims to have genuine faith, when in reality what they have is false faith.
False Faith?
Some translations of the end of this verse read, "Can that faith save him?" (NASV) or "Can such faith save him?" (NIV).

MacArthur writes concerning this verse, "James describes spurious faith as pure hypocrisy, mere cognitive assent, devoid of any verifying works-no different from the demons' belief. Obviously, there is more to saving faith than merely conceding a set of facts" (The Gospel According to Jesus, 1st ed., p. 170).

Actually James did not use a demonstrative pronoun before the word faith. The Greek merely has the definite article. The noun faith occurs 11 times in vv 14-26. Of the 11 uses, 8 times James uses the definite article. Yet clearly in none of the other 7 places does it make any sense to translate the noun and article as that faith or such faith. For example, v 17, if handled the same way as some translate v 14b, would read, "Thus also that faith by itself, if it does not dead." Is there some kind of faith, then, that is not dead when devoid of works? Hardly. James's point is that faith without works is dead. Not some special kind of faith. So, too, in v 14 James's point is this: faith without works can't save. It is to this point that we now turn.
Faith Can't Save from Hell?
When Lordship Salvation advocates see the words save or salvation, they are often too quick to conclude that it must be talking about eternal salvation from hell. That is the case here.

There is no question but that James is asserting that faith without works can't save. The form of the Greek question expects a negative answer. Yet there is a question about the nature of the salvation under consideration.

About half of the NT uses of the words save and salvation refer to salvation from physical death, from disease, and from various temporal difficulties. That means that you are just as likely to find a given occurrence refer to deliverance from some problem in this life as to eternal salvation.

The word save occurs five times in James (1.21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15, 20). In none of the four uses outside of our passage is eternal salvation in view. In his epistle James uses the word save to refer to deliverance from the death-dealing consequences of sin (cf. 1:15,21). A believer whose faith is not accompanied by works will not be saved from the consequences of his sinful behavior. He or she will experience difficulties which God sends. The purpose of these difficulties is to turn the believer back to the Lord.
Dead Faith?
Our verse is part of a paragraph that ends with v 17. After v 14 James gives an illustration about the importance of meeting the needs of our fellow Christians as we are able. Then v 17 summarizes the paragraph with the words: &quotyThus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Verse 17 is seen by some to support Lordship Salvation. After all, James unequivocally states that faith without works is dead. If it is dead, they conclude, it must not be real (see, for example, MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 218).

This argument sounds plausible until it is examined. If this argument holds, then what James is saying is that faith without works is not faith at all since it is dead. That doesn't make sense. Are things which are dead unreal? Certainly not. The fact that something is dead indicates that the animating power is gone from it. So when faith is divorced from works, its power is gone. Faith comes alive as we do good works. Faith dies when we fail to do good works. James was not questioning the faith of his readers. He was questioning the usefulness of their faith ("What use is it, my brethren ..." NASV; "What does it profit, my brethren ..." NKJV; "What good is it, my brothers . . ." NIV).

Conclusion
There is nothing in James 2:14 that supports Lordship Salvation. James is warning believers to put their faith to work so that they don't experience the painful consequences of sin.

titopao
08.06.17, 11:54 AM
My two cents:

If you have a 40 degrees Centigrade fever, do you think that merely believing you will be healed will make you healed? Of course not. You need to take medicines, take some rest, consult the doctor if necessary.

Many of us believe in our hearts that someday the situation in our country will improve. But do we spend the rest of our lives just believing that good will come with us just sitting by idly? Why not let it start and take things in our own hands with the little things that we do?

It is easy to say that "Faith alone saves", but is it enough?. Madaling sabihin yan, it has almost become dime a dozen. Hell, even the crocodiles in Tongress say that. Even the devil can quote scriptures even better than all the evangelists, theologians, scholars combined.

Yes, my good works may not be enough...pero kailan ko pa sisimulang gumawa ng mabuti sa kapwa ko? Kailan ko pangangatawanan yung pananampalataya ko? Kung kailan huli na? Kung kailan patay na ako?

Aanhin ko ang isang bilyong pananampalataya, kung hindi naman ako gagawa ng kabutihan para sa kapwa ko, kung hindi naman ako nagiging mabuting Kristiyano sa puso, sa isip, sa salita, sa gawa? Bakit hindi ko hahayaang ang lahat ng kabutihan ko ay iaalay ko para sa kadakilaan ng Diyos? Aanhin ko ang isang libong "Alive, Alive" kung hindi ko kayang isabuhay ang pagiging Kristiyano ko? Kung hindi ko isasabuhay ang pinananampalatayaan ko, para saan pa ito?

Sa telebisyon, maraming mga naglalabasang mga ministro na nagpapahayag na 'Faith alone..."---umaagng-umaga, pagbukas ko pa lang ng TV, marami na akong nakikitang ganyang palabas.Ang ilan sa kanila, kumikita ng limpak-limpak na salapi sa pagtitinda ng mga librong iyon at iyon din ang nilalaman---iniiba nga lang ang konsepto at ang tagline ("The Power of Living", anyone? How about "The Purpose Driven Life"?). Kung kusang loob nilang isusuko ang kanilang mga magagarang mansyon at ibibigay ang kanilang mga milyones para bigyan ng mabuting buhay ang maraming mga kapatid nating naghihikahos, mas maniniwala akong naisabuhay nga nila ang lahat ng itinuro ni Kristo.

'Nuff said :P

thenonhacker
08.06.17, 12:00 PM
Why Our Good Works Cannot Save Us

Excerpted from Ray Pritchard, "Sola Fide: By Faith Alone," Series: The Four "Solas," © 1997,

Delivered on July 13, 1997 to Calvary Memorial Church, Oak Park, Illinois. Online: available at http://www.cmcop.org/sermons/071397.HTM, Accessed: July 18, 2002.



1. If I'm a Protestant I agree with you 100%
2. But I'm Not a Protestant.
3. You are a Protestant.
4. You are trying to convince Catholics to believe in Protestant teachings.
5. Sorry, it will Not work, at least for me.


To me, the article you posted is more about Ray Pritchard trying hard to rationalize how James 2:14-26 is wrong, and he tries to bend and distort some Bible passages to make it very compatible with "Sola Fide".


And by the way:

A. Mormons do not agree with your "Sola Fide", too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Mormon_view). I heard there's a LOT of In-Fighting among Protestants, hating Mormons...

B. Between James 2:14-26 (NIV) and Ray Pritchard, I'd rather err on the side of believing James 2:14-26! After all, Protestants love quoting the Bible to prove their points, so this means you are even more obliged to stick to James 2:14-26.

C. Then again, you will present me with Bible Passages that Prove Sola Fide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Passages_used_to_support_sola_fide). Great.
But after that, I will present you Even More Bible Passages That Disprove Sola Fide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Passages_used_to_oppose_sola_fide).


Sir, this will become a never-ending debate,
because your religion's doctrine and mine will always clash.

Let's make this simple, shall we?

How about:
YOU respect MY RELIGION,
and then I respect YOUR RELIGION?



Otherwise, when there is no respect, there will be a LOT of debates, like How The Catholic Religion is Proven By The Protestant Bible (http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml). Too bad for you, the edited Protestant Bible approves Icons & Images via Exodus 25-18: "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat." Maybe that's the reason why Protestants have Fish Icons Car Bumper Stickers (http://healtheland.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/fish.jpg)? We use the Fish Icon, too. (http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/images/loaves_and_fish.jpg) Wow, we have something in common!



So if I were you, I'd follow the path of Ecumenism
-- and there will be peace among Christians.

Yna Suello
08.06.17, 04:22 PM
Whoa... It's looks like things are heating up here.

Well, debates are not exactly necessary if we really want to explain our faith. But I won't hesitate to speak up and speak out loud if someone is deliberately insulting the Catholic Faith. Hmp!

If someone is trying to convert to her religion, I'm sorry - di uubra. But if what she is trying to do is to preach her faith, just to let me know how much she believes in what she believes in, by all means, I would listen. I would just listen and agree on the common points.

In situations when someone is challenging me; asking me lots of question just so she'll know how much I know about my faith, looking for loopholes if she may, I will not keep silent, but I will only speak of what I know in my heart. Through the Holy Spirit, I'll be able to tell of more than what I know. But if it happens that what I know is not enough, or not exactly what she's looking for that does not change anything about Catholicism. My faith is not founded on what I know, it is founded on the Truth.

Just to put it simply, I'll just quote St. Francis of Assisi:

“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

You know what he means. :)

anok17
08.06.17, 04:48 PM
if someone really believes in his/her faith, he/she believes without being convinced, kahit anong question pa ang ibato sa kanya to test his/her faith..

jash12per
08.06.17, 09:25 PM
Im not a Protestant anywayz,, Im a CHristian.. Im not talking about religion here.. But Im talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.. Anywayz,, debate is not Good.. sorry.. hehe.. Hndi na uulitin.. peace..:)

herald
08.06.17, 10:18 PM
I believe that in some instances faith alone as well as work alone can save...

why?, because of the grace of God, there are some places na hindi pa nararating ng Gospel but they love their neighbors, did not kill.. puro good deeds lang, do you think when they die they will be condemened because they didn't know God na puro pagan God ang sinasamba nila?

and those people who are dying and ask the Lords forgivenes before they die, kahit na buong buhay nila pagkasama-sama nila, do you think hindi sila patatawarin ng Diyos?.. no one knows.. only God Knows...

Kaya nga pwede ng Basbasan sa church ang mga nag suicide or inabolish na ang limbo.. dahil nga sa grace of God.. no one except God can tell who will be saved and who will be condemned.

For us naman na who know's God as in kilala, dahil nakikita na sa atin ang mga turo niya.. iyon ang tunay na kilala ang Diyos hindi intelektuwal lamang... Good deeds is just the fruit of our faith in God...

God's commandment is to love one another.. we all believe in that, that is why we do good things to others...

Lastly.. be careful with hyperfaith.. hyperfaith simply means..faith in our faith and not in God..yung tipo bang parang tayo na lagi ang tama at mali sila...

ang alam ko lang hindi ito usapan kung aling relihiyon ang tama... ang alam ko lang Ang Diyos lang ang makapagsasabi sa huling araw kung sino ang dapat mapasama sa kaharian niya...

Grasya lang ng Diyos iyan...

thenonhacker
08.06.17, 11:00 PM
Im not a Protestant anywayz,, Im a CHristian..

Then I do Not know what your Christian sect is. But I'm sure you're Not Catholic -- The "Sola Fide" alone is a dead give-away.


Im not talking about religion here.. But Im talking about the Lord Jesus Christ..

Last time I checked, you were talking about "Faith" is enough, and "Works" is useless. You were Not talking about the the Lord Jesus Christ.

The article you posted doesn't even have an Imprimatur from the Catholic Church, how can you expect us to believe it?


Anywayz,, debate is not Good.. sorry.. hehe.. Hndi na uulitin.. peace..:)


Religious debates will always get people to nowhere because both sides might not stop until one gives in and gets converted.

You gave up the debate because I raised a LOT of valid points.

I always wonder why Some Non-Catholic Christians are so pushy with Catholics,
when they have a LOT more in common.
Our God is also your God, and your Jesus is also our Jesus.

You made the right decision of stopping being pushy
with your Non-Catholic beliefs,
and for that, your apology is accepted.

Let's start respecting each other's religions.

Yna Suello
08.06.18, 09:13 AM
You made the right decision of stopping being pushy
with your Non-Catholic beliefs,
and for that, your apology is accepted.

Let's start respecting each other's religions.

Ok then, peace be with us all! ^_^

Alexander
08.06.18, 11:25 AM
I am stating this not on behalf of the BP Boards nor the moderating team. I have to commend you people for making this discussion as friendly as possible. I must say, we share the same roots as Christian, it just happened that one was an offspring of one branch and the other from another branch. But please bear in mind it is the same tree and the same Body of Christ.

From the self confessed non-Catholics, I admire your boldness and openness and your atmosphere of Ecuminism. Also to the Catholics that shared the same Ideals, I salute you. To the rest of the family, I enjoin you to do the same. After all, it is Christ that will be happy if "there shall be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16)

Let us not let Satan destroy this prayer of Christ on which Christ himself was expecting from us His brothers...

I would like to remind everyone that since this is predominantly a Catholic oriented discussion board (see Conditions and Requirements Par 2 of Rules and Regulations), please avoid clashing with faiths so we all become in harmony.

Peace...

kumintang
08.06.18, 11:08 PM
"But those who are outside, God judges."
I Corinthians 5:13


"For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church,
but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence
of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through
the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
Vatican II, Lumen gentium XVI
(1964)

value
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/IAS/PopeJohnPaulII%7EPope-John-Paul-II-Posters.jpg

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely
available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. . . .
For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

-Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio X
(Dec. 7, 1990)

value

http://img.forministry.com/5/57/571F9126-4B08-4B77-B0DD3418224EEA15/E69CCDAA-56AD-4C72-A708081D1C98022F.jpg

"The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people . Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God's loving grace and salvation. Saint Paul reminds us, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Rom. 11: 33)."

-Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople
[I]Orthodoxia V.I
[January 1998]

value

smeagol05
08.06.22, 12:14 AM
"But those who are outside, God judges."
I Corinthians 5:13


"For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church,
but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence
of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through
the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
Vatican II, Lumen gentium XVI
(1964)

value
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/IAS/PopeJohnPaulII%7EPope-John-Paul-II-Posters.jpg

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely
available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. . . .
For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

-Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio X
(Dec. 7, 1990)

value

http://img.forministry.com/5/57/571F9126-4B08-4B77-B0DD3418224EEA15/E69CCDAA-56AD-4C72-A708081D1C98022F.jpg

"The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people . Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God's loving grace and salvation. Saint Paul reminds us, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Rom. 11: 33)."

-Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople
[I]Orthodoxia V.I
[January 1998]

value


i agree with this one

thenonhacker
08.07.02, 07:05 AM
Dealing with pushy Christians
http://www.homebusinesswiz.com/2006/11/5_steps_for_dealing_with_annoy.html


There are few things that are as uncomfortable as dealing with a pushy salesman. He won’t take no for an answer; he insults your intelligence; he insists that you buy today without having the time to think it over. He’s in your face. Not a fun experience.

...

Once in a great while, you will run into a pushy Christian. Sometimes you are turned off by his great enthusiasm for his beliefs and his desire to have you see things his way. You might be insulted because he wants to convince you that what you believe does not agree with the Bible. You might also be asked to share what you believe with him or to answer a question for which you don’t have an answer. There are numerous reasons why you might avoid talking with that Christian about his faith. Pushy Christians do exist, but they are definitely a small minority in the family of Christ.

...

Read the complete article... (http://www.homebusinesswiz.com/2006/11/5_steps_for_dealing_with_annoy.html)

centrunion
08.07.04, 07:55 AM
Alam naman natin na ito'y predominantly Catholic site. Isa ba yang pamamaraan para sirain kami. I tell you mananatlili akong Katoliko hannga't buhay ako. At saka kung hindi ka naniniwala sa doctrine ng simbahan namin, huwag ka na lang magbasa o magpost dito. Ito ang pinaniniwalaan ko:

Sumasampalataya ako sa Diyos Amang makapangyarihan sa lahat, na may gawa ng langit at lupa. Sumasampalataya ako sa iisang Anak ng Diyos, Panginoon nating lahat. Nagkatawang tao sya lalang ng Espiritu Santo. Ipinanganak ni Santa Mariang Birhen, pinagpakasakit ni Pontio Pilato, ipinako sa krus, namatay , inilibing. Nanaog sa mga kinaroroonan ng mga yumao. Nang may ikatlong araw nabuhay namag-uli. Umakyat sa langit, naluklok sa kanan ng Diyos Amang makapangyarihan sa lahat. Doon magmumula ang paririto't huhukom sa mga nabubuhay at nangamamatay na tao. Sumasampalataya naman ako sa Diyos Espiritu Santo , sa banal na simbahang Katolika, sa kasamahan ng mga banal, sa kapatawaran ng mga kasalanan, at sa pagkabuhay namag-uli ng nangamamatay na tao, at sa buhay na walang hanggan. Amen.

Alexander
08.07.05, 06:46 AM
Centrunion, hinay hinay lang kapatid... sino ba ang pinatutungkulan mo?

thenonhacker
08.07.10, 09:14 AM
Check nyo to, it's somewhat familiar, yet funny!

http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/Veritas_Vos_Liberabit.PNG

Yna Suello
08.07.11, 05:52 PM
"Preach the Gospel at all times, use words if necessary." -St. Francis of Assisi

For actions do speak louder than words.

Let's live our faith.

riki_son02
08.07.13, 01:19 AM
if you lack knowledge about your catholic faith, just open the bible. the holy spirit will guide you if confused..

Alexander
08.07.18, 07:04 AM
Welcome to the board Milliardo...

It's good to see that people of different faith are still united under a common denominator... MUSIC.

Pakilala ka sa THE MEET MARKET (click) (http://www.bukaspalad.com/board/showthread.php?t=378)thread ha... we would love to hear your story.

Milliardo
08.07.18, 07:32 AM
Welcome to the board Milliardo...

It's good to see that people of different faith are still united under a common denominator... MUSIC.

Pakilala ka sa THE MEET MARKET (click) (http://www.bukaspalad.com/board/showthread.php?t=378)thread ha... we would love to hear your story.

Thanks for the welcome. Already posted in the Meet thread. ^_^

tmlagamon
08.07.20, 11:49 AM
Lagi po akong nasa christiandl.com, since international halu-halo po ang mga religion dun, meron akong nakitang thread dun na sinisiraan nila ang mga catholics. MIt's good to know that mraming nag dedefend dun kahit kramihan dun ay hindi catholic at meron ding mga christians na open minded.

bluemurdock
08.07.20, 02:20 PM
Byzantine art... if im not mistaken.. a lot of these artistic creations are found in Turkey particularly Istanbul (since this city is formerly known as the great city of Constantinople).. nakaka-amaza ang mga icons ng Orthodox church.. Mysterious and sharp ang dating.. :)

Milliardo
08.07.20, 07:07 PM
Byzantine art... if im not mistaken.. a lot of these artistic creations are found in Turkey particularly Istanbul (since this city is formerly known as the great city of Constantinople).. nakaka-amaza ang mga icons ng Orthodox church.. Mysterious and sharp ang dating.. :)

Actually many can be found now in Russia, since it has the largest number of Orthodox.

bluemurdock
08.07.20, 11:04 PM
Actually many can be found now in Russia, since it has the largest number of Orthodox.

yep even russia.. ask ko lang.. is st. basil's cathedral catholic or orthodox?

holychef
08.07.21, 12:42 AM
yep even russia.. ask ko lang.. is st. basil's cathedral catholic or orthodox?
Orthodox church po cya...

Eto lng po masasabi ko kng wala pa pong nakakasagot dun sa kung bakit may mga images tayo...eto po ang gawin niyo.

Ask them if they have a wallet. If they have one, tanungin niyo po kung may picture na nandun. If meron, ask niyo kung bakit nandun yung picture na iyon. More often than not, ang isasagot nila para ma-alala mo yung person na yun. Doon po kayo magsimula. Sabihin niyo kaya din mayroon tayo ng mga sacred images is to remind us the closeness of God in our lives. Ang sabi nga po sa CFC (891): "These images can offer genuine aid in their worship of God, and in veneration of the Saints...Nevertheless, the Church is equally insistent on the PROPER USE of such images, avoiding treating them as endowed with magical powers." Hindi po ito ang sinasamba natin kung hindi isang instrumento upang tayo pa ay mapalapit sa Panginoon. Only an idolatrous would think that a Statue of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ himself as would a crazy person think a picture of his/her love one is really the person in flesh.

sana po nakatulong ako sa thread na ito...:)

holychef
08.07.21, 09:45 PM
Images--madali lang sagot dyan, actually. God commanded the use and making of images; what He forbade is the making of images of false gods. If you don't believe it, then check why there are carved cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, two massive searaphim guarding the entrance to the Temple of Solomon, the brass sea as well as images of palm treas, oxen, etc. inside the Temple, the bronze serpent. These were all images commanded by God to be made. So mali yung notion na God forbids images.


oo nga po mas-simple un...Mas maganda din po na nagganling yung explanation sa bible kasi pag sa iba ng book(ex. CFC - what i used) ayaw na nilang pakinggan kasi nga yung bible lang daw ang "only source" nila ng lahat about their faith.

bluemurdock
08.07.23, 06:27 PM
Naiinis mummy ko kanina.. nagsosolicit yung local born again church dito sa amin for their missionary works (diumano).. ayaw nya magbigay kasi daw she heard na kung anu-anong kasiraan sa catholics ang nababanggit sa services nila. She finds it funny na theyre soliciting sa lahat regardless kung kasama sa belief nila or hindi. If magbibigay daw siya ng donation bakit hindi na lang daw sa mismong cathlic church na pinaniniwalaan nya.. (she actually has a point)Kasi daw bakit mga catholics and INCs kaya nila magrely sa mga sarili nilang members, why cant they? ala lang..

PS.
Nashare ko lamang po itong nangyari kanina.. ahehhe.. ala po ako nais patamaan... :)

Alexander
08.07.25, 08:17 AM
Milliardo,

If its okey with you, we will create a thread for the Orthodox Doctrine and information para dedicated ang discussion. Thanks

anya
08.07.25, 11:56 AM
Catholics and other religions are all just the same, they're all innately good, they all know how to love and have strong faith in their God or Creator. In the end, what really matters is, that if you want to be respected, you have to give respect.

thenonhacker
08.07.25, 12:21 PM
Naiinis mummy ko kanina.. nagsosolicit yung local born again church dito sa amin for their missionary works (diumano).. ayaw nya magbigay kasi daw she heard na kung anu-anong kasiraan sa catholics ang nababanggit sa services nila. She finds it funny na theyre soliciting sa lahat regardless kung kasama sa belief nila or hindi. If magbibigay daw siya ng donation bakit hindi na lang daw sa mismong cathlic church na pinaniniwalaan nya.. (she actually has a point)Kasi daw bakit mga catholics and INCs kaya nila magrely sa mga sarili nilang members, why cant they? ala lang..

PS.
Nashare ko lamang po itong nangyari kanina.. ahehhe.. ala po ako nais patamaan... :)


Dude tama yan, hwag magbigay ng donation mga protestants na yan. In fact, hwag magbigay kesyo naninira sila o hindi.

Bakit kapag sa oras ng pera walang Kato-katoliko sa kanila, tapos pagdating sa preaching, they succumb to their insecurity with the Catholic religion. I say that hypocritical, man. It's BS (Barya at Salapi).

Milliardo
08.07.25, 05:37 PM
Milliardo,

If its okey with you, we will create a thread for the Orthodox Doctrine and information para dedicated ang discussion. Thanks

I think that would be good. ^_^

Milliardo
08.08.28, 04:08 AM
Just so you might know--there will be changes in the Mass which might take effect in a few years' time: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93419478 In particular, the reply to the priest saying, "The Lord be with you" would now be "And with your spirit", which is close to the Latin. I think in the Tridentine this is also the reply; many have actually been unhappy with the reply used now, "And also with you" since they contend it's a bad mistranslation of the Latin text. Here are the list of the changes that will be made: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/peoplesparts.pdf Also interesting is the Gloria; it resembles more or less the Doxology chanted after Orthros (Matins) in the Orthodox Church. Just for reference, here is the Doxology for Orthros:

The Great Doxology

Glory to you who has shown us the light.
Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill to all people.
We praise you, we bless you, we worship you, we glorify you, we give thanks to you for your great glory.
Lord, King, heavenly God, Father, almighty; Lord, the only‑begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit.
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father who take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us, you who take away the sins of the world.
Receive our prayer, you who sit at the right hand of the Father, and have mercy on us.
For you only are holy, only you are Lord
Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.
Each day we bless you, and we praise your name forever and to the ages of ages.
Lord, grant that we may be kept this day without sin.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of our fathers. Your name is praised and glorified throughout all ages. Amen.
Let your mercy, Lord, be upon us, as our trust is in you.
Blessed are you, Lord, teach me your statutes (3x).
Lord, you have been our refuge from generation to generation. I said: Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against you.
Lord, to you have I fled; teach me to do your will, for you are my God.
For you are the source of life, and in your light we shall see light.
Extend your mercy to those who know you.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us (3x).

Glory . . . Now and forever . . .

Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

(Then we sing in a stronger voice)

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

(Then the following resurrection hymn is sung)

People: Today salvation has come to the world. Let us sing to him who is risen, the author of our life. For he has vanquished death by death and has given us victory and great mercy.

And the revised Gloria:

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good
will. We praise you, we bless you,
we adore you, we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world,
receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the
Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Hhmm...comments, violent reactions?

Alexander
08.08.28, 06:28 AM
Change is really inevitable... but the good thing is we will have to hear new music again to fit the revised (or corrected) words

Thanks for the information Milliardo

titopao
08.08.28, 08:06 AM
Yes, change is inevitable. Though, sana, if and when they decide to implement the changes, sana mahaba-habang time ang ibigay nila for everyone to learn the changes. It won't be easy to change what people have been doing for over 40 years ;)

herald
08.08.28, 09:30 AM
Change is really inevitable... but the good thing is we will have to hear new music again to fit the revised (or corrected) words

Thanks for the information Milliardo

I agree... another opportunity for all of us to learn and create new music/song for the Lord

thenonhacker
08.08.28, 12:43 PM
And I await the Bukas Palad renditions of the next version of Gloria. :D

thenonhacker
08.09.14, 11:02 PM
What I like about our church and other religions (Christian or not) is that there is collective humility and the willingness to accept mistakes, apologize, and move on.

Take for example:

Church [of England] Apologises To Charles Darwin - 126 Years After Death (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055597/Church-makes--8216-ludicrous-8217-apology-Charles-Darwin--126-years-death.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055597/Church-makes--8216-ludicrous-8217-apology-Charles-Darwin--126-years-death.html


From there you'll see they got inspired with Pope John Paul II:

The Church of England will tomorrow officially apologise to Charles Darwin for misunderstanding his theory of evolution.
...
Church officials compared the apology to the late Pope John Paul II’s decision to say sorry for the Vatican’s 1633 trial of Galileo, the astronomer who appalled prelates by declaring that the earth revolved around the sun.

The officials said that senior bishops wanted to atone for the vilification their predecessors heaped on Darwin in the 1860s, when he put forward his theory that man was descended from apes.


(Now, I am waiting for the Jehovah's Witnesses to come down to their senses and accept that dinosaurs do exist. Some parts of the Bible should not be interpreted literally.)

Alexander
08.09.15, 09:11 AM
The Bible is a source of inspiration, not scientific facts. As such, the Bible should not be interpreted literally. The Bible is one of God's gifts to inspire our lives and to live in harmony.




thenonhacker.... medyo caution sa "the Bible should not be interpreted literally"... kasi if we say that, it would appear that the Bible is just a library of stories and not of the Truth...

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Heb 4:12(NIV)

and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.2 Timothy 3:15-17 (NIV)

thenonhacker
08.09.15, 11:39 AM
thenonhacker.... medyo caution sa "the Bible should not be interpreted literally"... kasi if we say that, it would appear that the Bible is just a library of stories and not of the Truth...

Heb 4:12(NIV)

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (NIV)


You are right. I edited it now to be more accurate.
Changed to simply:

"Some parts of the Bible should not be interpreted literally."

holychef
08.09.15, 11:05 PM
haha...kadedebate lang namin sa school nito...

Pinagtripan ako ng mga classmates ko during CL class...Kasi may classmate na walang magawa said that if people wrote the bible, then we cannot expect it to be perfect. I said (the obvious answer) the writers of the bible are divinely inspired by God, therefore freeing it from human error. Then I said that the bible is not a main source of historical facts, rather we should give more importance to its main purpose as a source of salvific message.

okay ba?haha

xavieristicology
09.05.01, 04:16 PM
ang daming post sa thread na 'to, ngayon ko lang nabasa, pero 'di ko pa tinapos. i'll just share my thoughts re: the thread title "Defend Catholic Faith".

Well, gaya ng sabi ng ibang nag-post dito, 'di natin kailangang makipag-debate/argue para maidepensa ang pagiging katoliko natin... well, you will all agree with me, hindi naman tayo ang nauunang nag-oopen ng topic sa other religions/sects when it comes to FAITH, di ba? sino bang unang nagtatanong o naninira sa katoliko? siyempre mga non-Catholics. well, base on my observations and experiences regarding this matter, 'yung mga taong nagtatanong sa 'kin regarding my faith, parang preparado sila, lagi kasi akong uma-attend sa mga formations, retreats, etc. sa parish namin kaya ang alam ko, mai-dedefend ko ang faith ko, well, parang uma-attend din sila, kasi alam nila ang isasagot ko at ang dami dami nilang tanong talaga... well, honestly natatameme ako, dahil una, mag-isa ko lang, more than one sila; pangalawa, panganay sila sa 'kin; pangatlo, may bible silang dala palagi (ako wala, hehe). alam ko na pagkatapos naming mag-usap, pinagtatawanan nila ako kapag nakatalikod na ko, at 'yung mga kasama nilang bagong miyembro, mas lalong mae-enganyo na sumama sa kanila, dahil kulang ang knowledge ng isang katoliko kahit na ito'y nag-se-serve na sa simbahan. pahiya ako that time ah, knowing na kilalang-kilala ako sa parish namin. i prayed and asked God na sana malampasan ko ito, well, i always attend the First Friday Vigil na kung saan may seminaryo na nagfafacilitate from the Oblate Apostles of the Two Hearts, well, in short, tinanong ko lahat dahil sa bahay namin sila kumain, and we talked so much, pero kulang pa rin... ang mga ilan sa natutunan ko were as follows:

1. kapag ang taong nagtanong sa 'yo ay alam mong makikipag-debate lang, 'wag mo nang pansinin, pero kung gusto niyang humingi ng linaw dahil sa siya'y naguguluhan, just share your experiences and knowledge... mararamdaman mo rin yan eh kung napupunta na sa debate ang usapan niyo. ang taong gustong humingi ng linaw ay siya ring mapagkumbaba kung sumagot, well kung may tanong siya na hindi mo masagot, hahayaan lang niya and for sure, mararamdaman mo rin na nirerespeto niya ang religion mo kasi he/she won't throw some below-the-belt attacks/questions.

2. kapag may mga member/s kayo sa choir or any church organization na gustong magpaalam dahil lilipat sa ibang secta sa reason na hindi nila naiintindihan ang katoliko, encourage him/her to attend seminars or ask your parish priest to give seminars for your organizations. sabihin mo sa kanya na mahirap talagang maintindihan ang katoliko, kaya para lubusang maintindihan mo ito, you should accept that you are really practicing the catholic faith, just like our Blessed Mother, na nung sinabing magbubuntis siya, na-alarma siya, pero tinanggap pa rin niya kahit di niya lubusang naintindihan, what happened? alam niyo naman kung sino ang isinilang niyang Sanggol.

3. bakit sa dinami-raming religion, katoliko ang laging ina-atake? well, spiritually speaking, kung ang community na kinabibilangan mo ay walang sumisira, ibig sabihin (please listen to what i am not saying), hindi buhay si Kristo sa community na 'yun. pero kung maraming naninira, o laging may problema to the point na kailangan ng buwagin 'yung group, talagang para kay Kristo yung community na 'yun. ibig kong sabihin ay, sa lahat ng community na present si Christ, sisirain ni taning yan, well, the Catholic Church, laging sinisiraan, corner to corner, side to side, including the servants and parishoners as well. ito ang naging motivation ko sa buhay ko, na kapag may pinatayo kang organization para kay Kristo, siguaradong guguluhin yan ng demonyo. i know and i am sure that i belong to the true church.

4. with regards sa bible, well, for me, i use the bible for my reflection and of course, to know Christ more... we all know that the Word of God is very rich, for example, read a verse from any part of the bible, then you reflect on it, alam ko na mai-rerelate mo siya sa present life situation mo. Read it again next week, the same verse, try to reflect again, i'm sure you will have a different reflection compared to your present reflection on your life situation. in short, iba-iba rin ang ating interpretation sa bible, though we need proper cathechism on this, kailangan din nating gamitin as our inspiration for our daily lives. pa'no kapag di na tayo nakakaattend sa seminars, what will we do with our bible? kaya nga 'yung sabi ng iba dito, we must not interpret all the Words in the bible literally, we should read the very message of it. pa'no kung 'yung nagsulat ay may tipong pagalit na nagsusulat (just to quote on its message), o sinulat for inspiration, pero gagamitin mo in an opposite manner for a purpose, mali na talaga. mga pari nga eh, the same gospel ang binabasa for a day pero different homily (kung ibe-base ang homily sa gospel). so for me, in short, hindi iisa ang gustong tukuyin ng nasa bible. mga ibang religion/sects, they are sharing what their pastors told/taught them, wala na, period, 'yun lang. sa atin, we have different views, although we belong to one church, the catholic church. and this is the best thing that we can do, when we say bible sharing, we share our views not implement our pastor's view/interpretation.

next time na 'yung iba, mahirap mag-type, nahihilo na ko. buti na lang holiday ngayon.

cidcid01
09.05.04, 05:24 PM
bkit nga kaya boring ung sermon ng pari khit 30 mins lng samantalang ung sermon ng mga born again khit tumagal ng 1 araw e gising parin cla?

if someone challenges u in a bible discussion jas say lets go bak to da original language dat is latin , para patas kaung d alam mag latin.. hehehehe

blastedcleric
09.05.29, 08:13 PM
The sole evidence on which we Catholics base our faith on is still shrouded in mystery.

If we will be logical BASED on the evidence at hand, then we will be considered ILLOGICAL, in general, because the evidence we have (in general) is still full of mystery.

Faith in a specific religion is a preference.

"Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe."

nlim
09.05.29, 10:15 PM
Nagbigay ng talk minsan ang yumao naming parish priest tungkol sa interpretation ng bible; kung sila daw sampung taong nag-aaral ng pagpapari, another 10 years pa raw para naman sa interpretation ng bible; how come ang mga ibang religion na nakahawak lang ng biblya ay ganun na lang kadalubhasa sa pagpapaliwanag at sinasabing tama daw ang interpretation nila without reference sa time ng isinulat iyon at anong translation iyon nanggaling. Pinalalampas ko nalang sa tainga ko ang mga sinasabi ng magagaling na iyon, dahil nainira na lang naman yung iba sa halip na nagbibigay ng linaw at gabay.
Tungkol naman sa mga boring na sermon, mayroon talagang pari na ganoon, walang pakialam, paulit ulit at inaabo minsan ng isang oras ang seron pa lang, parang wala nang mangyayari sa araw na yun kundi ang pagsasalita ng paulit ulit kaya nagingn boring ang misa.:)

titopao
09.06.01, 08:17 AM
Di ko matiis magbigay ng magandang sagot dito :P

kung sila daw sampung taong nag-aaral ng pagpapari, another 10 years pa raw para naman sa interpretation ng bible; how come ang mga ibang religion na nakahawak lang ng biblya ay ganun na lang kadalubhasa sa pagpapaliwanag at sinasabing tama daw ang interpretation nila without reference sa time ng isinulat iyon at anong translation iyon nanggaling.

Hmm...ang pinagkaiba nila ay katulad ng pinagkaiba ng pagrereport ng isang tunay na investigative reporter (e.g. mga taga-PCIJ, mga taga-Newsbreak) at ng isang sikat na reporter na pa-showbiz (katulad nila Korina Sanchez, Mike Enriquez, Ces Drilon, Mel Tiangco, Arnold Clavio, Noli de Castro, Karen Davila, Susan Enriquez at Jessica Soho).

Yung isa, kapag naglabas ng report, talagang pinag-aaralan ng mabuti ang irereport at maraming nilalabas na mga pruweba, at walang paki kung isang bala lang sa ulo nila ang katapat nito.

Yung isa, idinadaan na lang sa pagiging showbiz ang pagrereport, kahit na halata namang kulang ang laman ng report, o kaya'y merong pagkiling (bias) sa pagrereport.

Kayo ang humusga kung anong uri ng "reporter" ang mga nagpapakadalubhasa sa Bibliya ng taon at umaaming hindi pa sapat ang kaalaman nila sa Bibliya...at ang ibang tao na ipinagyayabang na dalubhasa sila pagdating sa Bibliya (sa loob lang ng...uh, anim na buwan? :P ) at nagpipilit na ang kanilang kaalaman lamang ang katotohanan :P

Alexander
09.06.01, 08:19 AM
how come ang mga ibang religion na nakahawak lang ng biblya ay ganun na lang kadalubhasa sa pagpapaliwanag at sinasabing tama daw ang interpretation nila without reference sa time ng isinulat iyon at anong translation iyon nanggaling.

Most of the time, they use this as their reference....

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

casper89
09.06.03, 11:39 AM
i beLieve... taLaga "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT SEE BUT BELIEVES"

MinsaN kasi maLi ng Ibang CatHoLics siNisisi niLa sa Pari.. they are saying "bakit siLa ganyan?", why not say "Ako kaya paano?" diba?

nOelDM
09.06.11, 04:04 PM
paki tignan po ang URL na ito.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Coolwaters
09.06.11, 04:20 PM
naku, di ko maview... blocked kasi youtube dito sa office... will see it later... :D

dacs
09.09.16, 04:30 PM
When we begin to believe that every other religion is equal in standing in the eyes of God, we begin to lose our identity as a Catholic.

I have more comments that I would like to post but, I believe, it can wait some other time ...

Yes, I am one of those online Catholic apologist.

Most of the time, they use this as their reference....

Actually, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would not hold for their purpose. The first two prior verses would run that argument flat on the ground.

2 Timothy 3:14-15
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

If Timothy knows the scriptures from infancy, the 'scriptures' in the succeeding verses (verses 16-17) only include those written and read at the time of infancy of Timothy. Obviously, this does not include the letter to Timothy itself nor the rest(?) of the New Testament books.

The sole evidence on which we Catholics base our faith on is still shrouded in mystery.

If we will be logical BASED on the evidence at hand, then we will be considered ILLOGICAL, in general, because the evidence we have (in general) is still full of mystery.

Faith in a specific religion is a preference.

"Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe."

Yet, there are quite a number of things that have been revealed. As it is, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (cf 1 Timothy 3:15). Yet, the Church do believe that faith and reason are both gifts from God, and both can serve us faithfuls in our limited understanding of God. The Catholic faith is not completely a mystery. There are a lot of revealed truths that we do believe.



@dacs, this is your second time na 3 consecutive post, please read our guidelines at rules and requlation. This serves as a warning - Alexander

Alexander
09.09.22, 12:43 PM
@dacs,

Even the Catholic Church uses that passage in their bible study campaign. So pag sinabi mo na "The first two prior verses would run that argument flat on the ground" ...sa mga ibang religion na tinutukoy ni nlim dito (http://www.bukaspalad.com/board/showpost.php?p=86471&postcount=177) (click), were you saying that the bishops who initiated and used this verse during their Bible Study programs na mali rin sila?

Sino ba dapat ang nagsasabi kung alin ang kasama at alin ang hindi sa verse na... All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ?

As far as the Church is concerned, the Scripture is the Holy Bible and those teachings and traditions that were "passed on" through generations na "hindi nasulat" (this is up for another topic if you wish) na kino-contest ng mga taong nasa labas ng Simbahan.

dacs
09.09.22, 11:19 PM
@dacs,

Even the Catholic Church uses that passage in their bible study campaign. So pag sinabi mo na "The first two prior verses would run that argument flat on the ground" ...sa mga ibang religion na tinutukoy ni nlim dito (http://www.bukaspalad.com/board/showpost.php?p=86471&postcount=177) (click), were you saying that the bishops who initiated and used this verse during their Bible Study programs na mali rin sila?

It is the Catholic Church that confirms the Bible. What comes to mind is the pronouncement of St. Augustine:

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, AD 397)

It is this teaching authority of the Catholic Church that allows us to include the New Testament books as part of Sacred Scriptures. Yet, non-Catholics do not have that. The sole rule of faith they follow is the Bible. In the verses quoted, it would not allow them the use of the New Testament books by literal interpretation.

Sino ba dapat ang nagsasabi kung alin ang kasama at alin ang hindi sa verse na... All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ?

As far as the Church is concerned, the Scripture is the Holy Bible and those teachings and traditions that were "passed on" through generations na "hindi nasulat" (this is up for another topic if you wish) na kino-contest ng mga taong nasa labas ng Simbahan.

I guess my previous answer already suffice.

covenant
09.11.01, 09:08 PM
basta ako.. catholic church lang talaga ang may direct connection sa church sa Jerusalem.. ask any sect.. lahat sila ay may founder na tao.. lahat nakaregister sa SEC..

sa pag debate naman sa other sects/groups, malabo tlaga yan.. kasi mostly yung translations ng bible nila ay either mali or sariling version nila. tulad sa mga taga INC which relies mostly sa George Lamsa na translation which very erroneous.. at may bahid ng arianissm.. yung sa JW sect naman ay sariling translation nila ang ginagamit.. *new world translation".. so useless talaga ang debates..

I wouldn't worry about those who attack the Catholic Church, kasi sabi nga ni Jesus the Gates of Hell would not prevail..(contrary sa apostasy na sinasabi ng mga taga INC).

Dude tama yan, hwag magbigay ng donation mga protestants na yan. In fact, hwag magbigay kesyo naninira sila o hindi.

Bakit kapag sa oras ng pera walang Kato-katoliko sa kanila, tapos pagdating sa preaching, they succumb to their insecurity with the Catholic religion. I say that hypocritical, man. It's BS (Barya at Salapi).

this is true.. they solicit funds for their missions, schools,theology schools. but what do they teach? they teach all kinds of attacks against the church.. its the sad truth...

familia singles
09.11.03, 12:53 AM
wow! seryosong apologetics na ito... hehehe :)

mike2121
09.11.05, 11:04 PM
I love the Church of Christ no matter what!

newlife
10.12.12, 02:26 AM
basta 2000+ yo na catholic church...may ups and downs pero tagal na panahon un para maplantsa ang simbahan natin :D

raiza
10.12.12, 09:40 AM
....pano ko ba idedefend ang faith ko bilang catholic? Sa totoo lang..nalilito ako ngayon. Oo, nagsisimba ako sa simbahan, nakikinig sa mga aral ng Diyos, binabasa ko ang Bible (paminsan-minsan, mga 4 times a week), pero kabawasan ba ng faith ko ang pagsalungat sa mga bagay o utos, rules ng simbahan na mismong mga Paring katoliko ang nagpapasinaya na para sa akin ay hindi naman utos ng Diyos, tulad ng pagbabayad sa mga okasyon ginagawa sa simbahan....

May mga experience din ako na naencounter na mismong mga nasa simbahan ang mga sumasalungat sa utos ng Diyos, mga pari, mga madre, mga nagtatrabaho sa loob ng simbahan.... katulad na lamang ng paghingi ng tulong ng kaibigan ko sa mga madre sa isang lugar kung saan nakita niya ang isang taong grasa na sugatan. Humingi siya ng tulong sa mga madre na nandon, at ang sinabi sa kanya.. "humingi ka ng tulong sa munisipyo, may mga tumutulong sa mga ganyan" tama ba yon? Sila nga dapat manguna sa pagtulong, dahil alam natin na mabubuti ang kanilang puso, dahil nasa kanila ang Diyos, mga maunawain, mga mapgkawanggawa. Naiyak ang kaibigan ko, at sabi niya, bakit daw ganon sila? Ang sabi ko na lang, tanungin mo si Lord, sa puso mo, sasagutin ka niya. Naiyak nga siya talaga, dahil hindi niya to inaasahan.


Ang point ko dito, hindi catholic faith dapat ang idefend natin. Ang faith natin kay God, kahit ano pa religion meron tayo.Sigurado sa mga muslim o iba pang religion sasabihin din nila na.... DEFEND ________ FAITH.

Hinding-hindi ko madedefend ang "Catholic faith" ko kung ako mismo ay sumasalungat sa ibang Catholic Rules.


But I can defend God.





Defend God, not religion. :)

Sir Michael
10.12.12, 04:07 PM
It is then a matter of morals and not of doctrine, raiza. Even the Church officials would also frown at that action, but who are we to judge? Papaano kung wala silang pangtulong talaga? And what if they knew by their consciences na mas mas maraming maitutulong ang munisipyo kaysa sa kumbento sa mga taong naghihirap dahil baka may nakalaan na funds at program ang local government niyo para sa mga nangangailangan?

It raises a lot of questions before we can judge, but I don't really know.

I believe this thread is about Catholic Apologetics. More on defending what we believe to be the truth. How we ACT on what we believe is another matter.

raiza
10.12.12, 06:37 PM
It is then a matter of morals and not of doctrine, raiza. Even the Church officials would also frown at that action, but who are we to judge? Papaano kung wala silang pangtulong talaga? And what if they knew by their consciences na mas mas maraming maitutulong ang munisipyo kaysa sa kumbento sa mga taong naghihirap dahil baka may nakalaan na funds at program ang local government niyo para sa mga nangangailangan?

It raises a lot of questions before we can judge, but I don't really know.

I believe this thread is about Catholic Apologetics. More on defending what we believe to be the truth. How we ACT on what we believe is another matter.



hmm... hindi po ako sang ayon na kailangan natin umasa pa sa kahit kanino. Kung alam natin sa sarili natin na kaya natin. Gagamutin lang naman yun. Mali lang siguro talaga ng nilapitan ang kaibigan ko. Or dapat siya na lang gumawa ng pangagamot. Anyway, lumayo na po ako sa thread. I just want you to know my thoughts. :)

ilujian_20
12.01.20, 11:27 AM
Na-inspire tuloy akong mgapost dahil sa mga nabasa ko. Share ko lang mga experience ko.

Since ang school namin is a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL , o mas mabuting sabihin kong BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, nasanay na akong ganoong uri ng mga tugtog ang napapakinggan ko during break time, mga kantang rock pero holy. During E.P. subject o iyong C.L. Values, we brought out our bibles. Syempre, hindi naman ako magpapahuli. Then when we talk about the commandments, 'di ko maiwasang ma-hurt kapag nagcri-criticize sila sa ating mga Catholics. Kesyo sinasamba natin ang mga rebulto , STO. NIno, nazareno, and everything. May kirot sa puso ko. Naguguluhan din ako kung ano ang paniniwalaan ko. Ang hirap naman kasing makipagtalo sa kanila, kasi, as usual, ako ang talo. Sa dami ba nilang ganyan ang paninwala, sino ang magiging sandigan ko. Thenk, as days pass by, I realize that, it's not the religion or group of worshippers that matters. It's your faith and only you can do what it takes to be in heaven when we pass away. Now, hero, patuloy pa rin akong gumagawa ng kasalanan at sumusuway sa utos. Pero, kapag naaalala ko ang mga nababasa ko sa internet at sa Mga articles ni MR. BO SANCHEZ,He's a great writer at Catholic din siya., masasabi ko sa sarili kong, hindi pa tapos ang lahat habang buhay pa tayo. Lahat ng problema ay may dahilan. Oo, sabihin na nating we sinned, pero, gumagawa ng paraan si God para itama ito at bigyan ng worth kahit masama pa ang mga nagawa natin.


Ang haba noh? Pasensya na. Thanks sa pagbabasa.:):):)

JESUS K.R.U.M.P.S IT TO THE WORLD!(iYAN ATA IYONG GAGAWIN NAMING DESIGN NG T-SHIRT NAMING SECTION.)

IT SIMPLY MEAN, JESUS KnowsReasonablyUrMainPurpose,Share IT TO THE WORLD!

Kuya G.
12.02.05, 01:58 PM
Hi i just want to share this....

PART I to PART III:

http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/

ilujian_20
12.02.05, 03:38 PM
@kuya G: Oh my gulay, laban ba talaga ito? Luma na itong article at now ko lang nabasa, as usual. Ayaw ko ng makisali sa mga awayan na ganyan. Basta ako, gagawin ko ang tama.

Kuya G.
12.02.05, 04:03 PM
@ ilujian_20 let's not think that this is 'laban" we have to be knowledgeable and prepared on how to defend our catholic faith. You are right, just do what is right...

Regards.. :)

koro_si_jason
12.02.05, 07:16 PM
@Kuya G.: I just dropped by the link you just posted about the INC's "pathetic translations" of many Catholic publications. Guess what? I'm in a roller coaster ride! Na-"windang" ako sa mga statements niya contradicting and revealing most of the INC's errors. Nakaka-shock, but sadly, he gave an absolute answer towards their false claims.

Sana, in the end, marami sa mga Katolikong naging miyembro ng "samahan ni Manalo", eh ma-realize ang mga bagay na ito. Kailangan lang nila ng mas tamang impormasyon at mai-guide pa ng husto papunta sa mas 'tamang' landas.

:-)

ilujian_20
12.02.06, 06:56 PM
Guys, I have something to say and I hope that each and everyone of you would listen.

Yes, Lahat tayo Kristiyano. We're all Christians from head to feet. Iba-iba lang ang denominations, sabi nga ng born again kong teacher sa Physics. But come to think of this, HINDI PO ANG RELIHIYON O KUNG SAANG GRUPO KA MAN NG MANANAMPALATAYA NAKASALALAY KUNG MAPUPUNTA KA SA LANGIT OR NOT. It's your faith not the religion. Isaisip po natin ito at isapuso. Kung they are criticizing us, ignore them. It's not the religion you're defending kung i-ignore mo sila, it's your faith. Being humble and not speaking when they criticize your religion is better than defending it. Maipagtatanggol mo nga ang religion mo pero ang faith, sa palagay mo, maproprotektahan mo?NO! You can defend but not protect.

Lahat tayo mamamatay at ang titignan ng Diyos is kung anong nagawa natin sa lupa, paano natin ginamit ang mga biyaya niya at kung ano ang resulta ng mga ito. GOD IS NOT ON THE SIDE OF WHAT RELIGION OR DENOMINATION WE ARE INVOLVED. Sa paniniwala naman iyan eh. Relgion or denomination is only for the name sake.


Hindi po ako galit or something, I'm just reminding na dpaat nating i-ignore na lang ang mga nag-cri-criticize sa atin. Or better than that, pray for them. It is like in the saying na, "KAPAG BINATO KA NG BATO, BATUHIN MO NG TINAPAY." Pay them with your grace from God. Pray for them, malay mo,tumigil na sila.


This is what all I can say. Sana walang magalit or kung ano pa man. Thanks.:):):)

poknat20
12.02.13, 05:36 PM
Ang husay nyan ni Bro. Mars! You can find him and facebook, you'll see in his wall the articles he wrote. You'll discover that those INC ministers are "kapalmuks" more than know.

Hi i just want to share this....

PART I to PART III:

http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/

Alexander
12.02.15, 10:45 AM
All,

Please let us maintain a positive attitude in "Defending" our faith. If somebody slaps you on the right cheek, give the other cheek as well. So if we can avoid using "words" or making "names", this will be a reflection of our faith and how we live it. Thanks