"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (-John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

"Where the bishop is, there let the people gather; just as where ever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". -St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca 110 AD)a martyr later thrown to the lions, wrote to a church in Asia Minor. Antioch was also where the term "Christian" was first used.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." -CCC 811

Sunday, June 26, 2016

This is how our Church began! And the rest were hearsays!

Saturday, June 25, 2016


Posted on March 9, 2015 by Bryan Mercier

Just because something is repeated over and over again does not make it true. The same is true here with the Crusades. In reality, the Crusades were wars of self-defense against the Muslims. Here are the real facts:

Every historian knows that Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca for preaching his new religion. After raising an army in Medina, he returned and sacked Mecca razing it to the ground. Thereafter, his new army garnered much military strength and went on to conquer the entire surrounding area. By the time Muhammad died, his armies had conquered the whole area of land we know today as the “Fertile Crescent.”

After Muhammad’s death, Islam spread even more rapidly. In just 100 years (657 A.D. – 757 A.D.), the conquering armies of Islam decimated everything in their path from Afghanistan to North Africa. They then invaded Europe and seized many islands. They were going for full world conquest. In a short span of time, Islam conquered the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, and two-thirds of the Byzantine Empire, the last major empire on earth. Over a thousand years of war without batting an eye. One can begin to see why the Crusades were called.

During all of this time, while some Catholic kings may have defended their countries, the Catholic Church herself never retaliated at all but just prayed for peace and hoped the Muslim aggression would stop. However, around the year 1094 A.D, due to the devastation of the Byzantine Empire, Commodore Alexius the 1st called on the pope and the Catholic Church for help in complete desperation. The pope prayed about it for a long time and eventually decided to “come to the aid of our brothers in the East.” THAT was the reason the Crusades were started. An answer to the Emperor’s plea.

Occasionally, thousands of innocent and unarmed Christians were massacred by Muslims while processing on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. In addition, more than half of all Christian lands had been seized by Islamic armies. So, the Church also sought to take back the Holy Land in order to create a safe passage for innocent pilgrims processing there. They also wanted to protect Christians around the world. For all of these reasons, the Crusades were called.

Unlike Islam, the Catholic Church had been a mostly peaceful religion and had done more good for the world than anyone else. I’m not saying that Christians were perfect or that abuses didn’t happen during the Crusades because they did, but they were started as wars of self-defense and as a response to the request of Emperor Alexius I. The Crusades had nothing to do with an “aggressive, power hungry church” who killed peaceful people of other religions or anyone who disagreed with the Catholic religion. That is huge myth which in not historical, not tenable, and not true.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Iglesia Ni Cristo®'s Hypocrisy on Biblical Images!

Members of Manalo's INC™ Church who are very critical against Catholic images of Jesus, Mary and the saints are quick to say THAT those images AREN'T JESUS, MARY or the SAINTS.

But SHAMELESSLY PUBLISHING IMAGE(S) of MOSES in their PASUGO magazine that no Manalista can GUARANTEE if that's how MOSES LOOKED LIKE.

Images of Moses and his wife and Aaron. Source: PASUGO June 2011 p. 32.


Monday, June 20, 2016


Q: How can I answer this Protestant objection about “our crosses”?

Full Question

One Protestant objection I hear quite often has to do with “our cross.” The objection usually goes something like this: “Jesus died once and for all, for everyone. Any problems or difficulties we may encounter stem from our human nature or condition. To say that God gives us a cross that we must bear is not only unbiblical but minimizes Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice at Calvary.” In other words, we’re carrying a cross Jesus already died on!


Unbiblical? What about the words of Christ himself: “”If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me”” (Luke 9:23)?

While it is true that problems and difficulties stem from our human condition, they are permitted by God because they have the ability to conform us more perfectly to him. Taking up our cross is not in opposition to his cross, but our feeble attempt to be one with him in the love he has shown us in carrying his. We express love most sublimely through sacrifice, as Scripture abundantly shows us.

Source: CatholicSay

Altar Rails and Reverence

I hope and pray that this 'altar railings' may be revived in our churches, to separated the profane from being desecrated. -CD2000

Article from The Liturgy Guy
Posted in June 22, 2014

(Photograph of the sanctuary and altar rail at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Salisbury, NC)

Altar rails are making a comeback and with their return so is reverence. It is becoming more common these days to see the installation of rails as an integral component of liturgical reform and church architecture. From dioceses as diverse as Charlotte, North Carolina to Madison, Wisconsin the rail has returned.

To be clear, there was never a requirement to remove altar rails (also called communion rails) in the years following the Second Vatican Council. However, there were many in the Church who aggressively sought to remove that which was considered traditional and sacred. Gone were the high altars, beautiful Catholic statuary, and of course, altar rails.

A liturgically misguided attempt at egalitarianism ruled the post-conciliar landscape, one which challenged the very distinction between sanctuary and nave. Overtones of anticlericalism were pervasive, as was a new type of Catholic worship, one intentionally structured for ecumenical purposes.

By their very presence altar rails hindered the march toward the profane desired by many. With such liturgical innovations as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and most particularly the practice of Communion in the hand, altar rails were an affront to the moderns. In the new, democratic, liturgy kneeling had simply become outdated and uncouth.

In his seminal work “The Spirit of the Liturgy” Cardinal Ratzinger noted that, “The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core.” In recent years, however, there has been a slow yet steady healing occurring within the liturgy.

Church designers, architects and historians such as Duncan Stroik and Denis McNamara have done their part in this effort. McNamara, who is a professor at the Liturgical Institute of the University of Saint Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, addressed the theological significance of rails in a July 2011 interview with the National Catholic Register:

“(The altar rail) is still a marker of the place where heaven and earth meet, indicating that they are not yet completely united…But, at the same time, the rail is low, very permeable, and has a gate, so it does not prevent us from participating in heaven. So we could say there is a theology of the rail, one which sees it as more than a fence, but as a marker where heaven and earth meet, where the priest, acting in persona Christi, reaches across from heaven to earth to give the Eucharist as the gift of divine life.”

Altar rails are contributing to the restoration of the sacred and the recovery of reverence within the Holy Mass. At my home parish of St. Ann’s in Charlotte, North Carolina the rail returned with the 2009 renovation of the church. The altar rail was installed to accommodate the Traditional Latin Mass which was offered weekly. Over time the use of the rail was expanded to include all masses, whether offered in the Ordinary form or Extraordinary form.

The altar rail has also returned to Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Salisbury, North Carolina (also in the Diocese of Charlotte). While the new church was completed back in 2009, the rail was not installed until just last year in support of the weekly Sunday Traditional Latin Mass.

More recently there is also the story of St. Mary’s of Pine Bluff, Wisconsin. Father Richard Heilman, pastor, had the altar rail installed earlier this year following a $20,000 gift from an anonymous donor. Overall the return of the rail has been well received by his parishioners. Since Fr. Heilman was already offering the mass ad orientem, and using kneelers for the faithful at Holy Communion, the reintroduction of the altar rail made perfect sense. More importantly, Father has seen reverence for the Eucharist continue to grow. Much like St. Ann’s in Charlotte, the majority of parishioners at St. Mary’s of Pine Bluff choose to receive Communion on the tongue.

It is fitting to conclude with the words of our pope emeritus, Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger noted that, “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.”

Pray that more Catholics are blessed to experience the return of the altar rail to their parish and to receive Holy Communion while kneeling.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Muslims HATE us! Period!

If we Catholics are encouraged to greet Muslims a 'Ramadan Kareem' or 'Eid Mubarak' then why these Muslim hate preachers say Muslims aren't allowed to reciprocate the same gesture during Christian festivities? For this Muslim extremist preacher, greeting a KUFAR (that is those who are non-Muslims), that greeting is WORST than killing?!!! Really?!

What a SHAME! Muslims must start HATING THEIR PREACHERS for preaching hate. But as we know, they will not, because what this Muslim preacher is saying is exactly what all Muslims believe should be.


Cast of Ignacio de Loyola:
Andreas Muñoz - Iñigo de Loyola
Javier Godino - Xanti
Julio Perillán - Father Sanchez
Gonzalo Trujillo - Inquisitor Frias
Isabel García Lorca - Doña Ines Pascual
Lucas Fuica - Don Beltran de Loyola
Mario de la Rosa - Calixto
Jonathan D. Mellor - Inquisitor Figueroa

Ignacio de Loyola is distributed by Jesuit Communications Foundation Philippines thru Solar Pictures.

Read more: http://www.showinginphilippines.com/2016/06/ignacio-de-loyola-showing-starts-july.html#ixzz4Bv0IIkkH

Friday, June 17, 2016


The 'lack of reverence' for the Holy Eucharist is not just happening in the US. I am afraid this wrong practice of abuse is also happening in the Philippines. I can enumerate them one by one but Brother Patrick Madrid's reflection below maybe an EYE-OPENER for every Catholic reading this article. During this year of Extraordinary Year of Mercy, please do one of the 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy by INSTRUCTING those Catholics and non-Catholics still are IGNORANT of our faith! -CD2000

By Francis Phillips for Catholic Herald
Posted Thursday, 16 Jun 2016

How lack of reverence for the Eucharist puts people off Catholicism

A woman receives Communion during a Mass for young adults at St Patrick's Cathedral in New York City (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
Patrick Madrid recalls the Mormon who told him: 'I've never seen Catholics show awe. So I guess they don't believe it'

Having referred to Patrick Madrid’s Life Lessons: Fifty Things I Learnt in My First Fifty Years (US, UK) in my last blog, I have found it both so readable and so full of wise reflections based on his own experiences (which could easily be the reader’s experiences too), that I will highlight another chapter here.

Madrid relates that, as a full-time Catholic apologist, he was once giving a lecture on the Catholic faith when a Mormon in the audience asked if he could speak to him later on. During their conversation, which happened to be on the Eucharist and the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle, the Mormon remarked, “I really don’t get the impression that most Catholics believe what you have just said about ‘the Eucharist’.”

Madrid was taken aback, commenting: “As a Catholic I figured that I’d know a whole heck of a lot better than what he, a Mormon, could possibly know about what Catholics believe, especially on something as central … as the Eucharist.” Then the Mormon explained that he had been to several Catholic weddings and to other Catholic Masses “And the Catholics I’ve seen there sure didn’t seem as though they believed in what you just said about Jesus being in the Eucharist.”


Thursday, June 16, 2016

Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete is in Crisis?

Afraid of being too friendly with Rome, Pan-Orthodox Council may not push through... Let's keep praying for our separated Orthodox brethren that they may soon recognize the Bishop of Rome as our 'Apostle Peter' in our present generation. -CD2000

Article Source: Catholic Herald
By Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith
Posted Thursday, 16 Jun 2016

Deep fears about modernity lie behind the unravelling of the Pan-Orthodox Council
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, left, and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill (AP Photo)

For some even the slightest change in relations with Rome will end up with tradition being swept away

The fate of the Pan-Orthodox Council, which is due to start its deliberations in Crete this Sunday, hangs in the balance. At present it seems that the Bulgarians will definitely not be there, neither will the Antiochenes, and it looks as if the Serbs, Georgians and the Russians are pulling out as well. There is a useful summary of what is going on in this article at the Guardian website.

The trouble, for us outsiders, is that it is very difficult to understand why this is happening. The Council has been over five decades in preparation, so the idea that it needs more time to prepare really seems unreasonable. Again, the Bulgarian objections to the seating plan look like a pretext. Again, the objection to the way the documents of the Council were drawn up, being made now, when the way they were drawn up was supposedly approved by all parties, seems suspect at this late stage. But one thing is clear: five out of the 14 Orthodox churches do not want to meet. And one of those five, Russia, is the biggest of the Churches, which means that a meeting, if it does take place, will hardly be able to speak for all Orthodox.

But why don’t they want to meet? Trawling round the many Orthodox websites, what emerges, it seems to me, is a fear that the Council, if it meets, will open some sort of floodgate to modernity, which will result in the sweeping away of tradition. In fact, as observers have noted, the tone and content of the documents is extremely conservative, clearly designed to calm any such fears; but the slightest hint of change – and in particular rapprochement with Rome, and ecumenism in general – is clearly enough to make many parties cry halt even before the Council begins.

Certain Orthodox Churches are happy to be ecumenical, such as that of Constantinople, but this is clearly not shared by Bulgaria or Georgia, or the monks of Mount Athos. Of course, ecumenism is an “iceberg issue”, only one 10th of which is above the surface, and which masks much deeper matters at stake.

Incidentally, at the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Lefebvre’s supporters made a great play of defending the traditional liturgy, as their headline stance, but the real problem for them was the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. Similarly, the radical Orthodox traditionalists are known as Old Calendarists, but the Julian calendar issue is the rallying cry for a deeper concern with ecumenism, which they regard as the great “pan-heresy”.

For the Orthodox Churches ecumenism is the great divider: for some a good and necessary thing, for others, the thin end of the wedge, leading to a collapse of tradition.

At this point it may be useful to remember why the Catholic Church and others embarked on our current ecumenical endeavours. The first reason was theological, because Christ founded only one Church, and wanted that Church to be one. So, to work for unity is to do the work of the Lord. The second reason was because divided churches do not give a coherent witness to the Lord. And thirdly, when faced with so many external threats, such as atheism and secularisation, the various Christian churches needed to unite against the common threat rather than squabble amongst themselves.

These reasons have not gone away in the last few decades, indeed they have become more pressing, and to their number has been added Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. The ancient but numerically tiny Orthodox Churches in the Middle East now face extinction, thanks to the threat of ISIS.

That the 14 autocephalous Churches cannot even meet does not bode well for their co-operation with each other, let alone with Catholics, in the face of all these threats, and hardly gives a good example to the world of Christian harmony and charity. Now is clearly not the time to be quarrelling over seating plans, rather it is the time for getting ready for mission to the world.

Of course we have been here before. There were many reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire, but one contributing factor was the way the Empire fatally weakened itself through internal religious strife, rather than facing the external threats of the time. History, sadly, seems to be repeating itself.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The Catholic Church was Right All The Way!

The Catholic Church was right all the way!

Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control

Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry
Business Insider Feb. 8, 2012, 4:39 PM

Painting the Catholic Church as "out of touch" is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church's stance against contraception.

Many people, (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or "out-dated." C'mon! It's the 21st century, they say! Don't they SEE that it's STUPID, they scream.

Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.

So, what's going on?

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.

Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

  1. General lowering of moral standards
  2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
  3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
  4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what's been happening for the past 40 years.

As George Akerloff wrote in Slate over a decade ago,

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for "fatherhood."
Today's moral lodestar People.com

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days. Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8% [PDF]. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

And if you don't think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we're talking about this right now).

Aleteia: Last Priest from Dachau Concentration Camp Dies at 102

Father Hermann Scheipers survived Nazis and communists in long career
Aleteia by John Burger
June 14, 2016

ERIC SCHWAB/Getty Images
The last Catholic priest to have been imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp has died at age 102.

Father Hermann Scheipers was a young priest in 1940 when he was arrested by the Nazis and taken to the camp, near Munich. Dachau had a large population of priests: some 95% of the 2,720 clergymen imprisoned there were Catholic.

Father Scheipers died June 2 in Ochtrup in Münsterland, the same town where he was born on July 24, 1913.

His work among young people, soon after his ordination, drew the attention of the Nazis. An obituary at KNA, a German Catholic news agency, translated by Mark de Vries, noted:

Because he was sympathetic with Polish forced laborers, celebrated Mass with them and heard their confessions, he was arrested [in] October of 1940 and brought to Dachau five months later. His file, which he came across by chance, states the true reason for his arrest: “Scheipers is a fanatical proponent of the Catholic Church and thus likely to cause unrest among the population.”

He wore the number 24255 on his prison uniform.

Father Scheipers recalled the way the camp commander welcomed him and his fellow inmates: “You are without honor, without help and without rights. Here, you can either work or perish.”

The sign over the entrance to the prisoner camp famously read, “Arbeit macht frei,” or “Work will make you free.”

My Blog List

My Calendar

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...