Why Christians laugh at Zakir Naik

From Answering Muslims

Judge Robert H. Bork: "..there was the fact that the (Catholic) Church is the Church that Christ established"

"I found the evidence of the existence of God highly persuasive, as well as the arguments from design both at the macro level of the universe and the micro level of the cell.

"I found the evidence of design overwhelming, and also the number of witnesses to the Resurrection compelling. The Resurrection is established as a solid historical fact.

"Plus, there was the fact that the (Catholic) Church is the Church that Christ established, and while it’s always in trouble, despite its modern troubles it has stayed more orthodox than almost any church I know of. The mainline Protestant churches are having much more difficulty."

-Judge Robert H. Bork, Former circuit judge, U.S. solicitor general and 1987 Supreme Court judicial nominee, entered the Catholic Church on July 21 at age 76 Source: Catholic Education

"Ang Katolikong si KAT" - Katryn M. Leonor's Story

Read this beautiful story how KAT was able to defend the Catholic Church against Born-Against and those who hated the Catholic Church. I am sure you can relate to her in her story. Iglesia ni Manalo members, please pay attention to bold phrases(emphasis mine). My apologies, photos were deleted to shorten the page but you are always welcome to visit Ang Katolikong si KAT

Ako si Katryn M. Leonor, 19 na taong gulang at naging Kristiyano noong ika-30 ng Enero taong 1994.

Marami ang nagtatanong kung bakit ako naging interesado sa pag-aaral ng Apologetics at sa pagtatanggol ng ating Simbahan. Hayaan niyong ilahad ko sa inyo ang aking istorya.

Sampung taong gulang pa lamang ako ay naglilingkod na ako sa simbahan bilang choir. Tuwing 3pm ay kumakanta kami sa Children's mass. Di naglaon ay sumali rin ako sa Legion of Mary at ako ay naging Junior Legionary.

Nang tumuntong ako sa highschool ay pumasok ako sa kaisa-isahang Katolikong paaralan sa aming bayan, at yun ay ang Saint Peter's School. Dito ay masasabing kong lumalim din ang aking pananampalataya at naging interesado din ako sa mga bagay tungkol sa ating relihiyon. Naging miyembro ako ng Theresian, SCA, naging student Catechist, naging lector, once naging commentator at siyempre sumali rin ako sa choir. Sumasali rin ako sa mga religion quizbees.

Sa loob ng apat ng taon ko sa paaralang ito ay masasabi kong nakatulong ito sa pagpapatibay ng pundasyon ng aking pananamplataya kaya noong ako ay makagraduate dito ay hindi ko pa rin itinigil ang pagsimba ko linggu-linggo. Hindi na nga lang ako nakakaattend ng novena para sa Mother of Perpetual Help dahil pumapasok na ko nun sa kolehiyo.

Hanggang sa nagkaroon ako ng boyfriend at siya ay isang Born Again. Sa una ay hindi ako sumasama sa kanya dahil ayaw ko talaga kasi parang pangit sa katulad ko na graduate ng Catholic school ang sumimba sa ganun.

Hanggang sa inakit niya ko sa Christmas party ng kanilang simbahan. Hindi ko naman siya matanggihan kaya um-oo na lang ako, gitarista nga pala siya ng music ministry nila. Yun pala, bago magparty ay may worship service muna sila. So ayun na nga po, natouch yung puso ko sa worship songs nila, una po na napakinggan ko ay yung "At the Cross". Naramdaman ko nun na parang anlayu-layo ko kay God that time. I felt guilty cause of my sins that I've done. Hindi naman po kasi ako sobrang religious nung mga panahong yun. Oo, nagsisimba ako pero I know just a little about our Catholic Faith.

That time,  hindi naman po ako nakakaisip lumipat sa kanila. May pinapanghawakan kasi akong pangako na binitiwan namin ng aking bestfriend noong 3rd year highschool kami. Oras yun ng Christian Living and Values namin. Nangako kami na "Ipinanganak kaming Katoliko, mamamatay din kaming Katoliko" (kabilang din sa pangako namin na walang magpaparebond samin ng buhok, pero hindi ko na sana ilalagay kasi wala namang koneksyon ito sa blogpost ko hehe)

Nung first time kong sumama sa kanya ay na-guilty din ako bilang Katoliko dahil pagkatapos kong sumimba sa Catholic ay dumiretso ako sa simbahan nila.

Pagkatapos po nun, kapag inaakit niya ko na sumimba sa kanila ay nagdadahilan na lang ako ng kung anu-ano para hindi ako makasama sa kanya.

One time, habang kami'y namamasyal ay nag-open siya ng topic kumbakit daw tayo nagpapahid ng panyo sa mga rebulto at bakit daw tayo lumuluhod sa harap nun. Sumagot naman ako based on my logic at salamat sa Diyos tama pala ang naisagot ko sa kanya. Sabi ko, "Hindi naman dun sa rebulto kami nananalangin kundi sa nirerepresenta nito"

Halos magsigawan na kami nun sa tabing kalsada kasi idinedepensa namin parehas ang aming panig. At the end naman ay naging okay rin kami, Sinabi ko "Hindi ako titigil sa pagtatanggol sa relihiyon ko. Sabi naman niya, "Ako rin"

Napaisip ako nun na magresearch pero nawala sa isip ko na magresearch kaya pagkalipas ng ilang araw ay party na naman sa simbahan nila. (Christmas party ng church nila doon sa sinabi ko kanina, ngayon ay Christmas party naman ng mga Youth people)

Nung nag-speech na yun pastora ay may sinabi siya na dati raw siyang Katoliko, sinabi niya na kung may nag-aakit daw na magsimbang gabi ay wag sumama. Nung Katoliko pa kasi siya ay inaantok daw siya pag simbang gabi at naiinis sa mga matatandang nagdadaldalan habang may misa.

Gustung-gusto ko sumagot nun pero siyempre, nagkontrol muna ko ng sarili, hindi naman kasi ako eskandalosa.

December 2010 yan nangyari. Sa loob ng isang taon ay nabibilang sa daliri ang pagsama ko sa ex ko sa simbahan nila. Tuwing may okasyon lang ako sumasama kasi I'm afraid na baka hindi ako makatupad sa promise namin ng bestfriend ko.

Ang nakakatuwa nito, ay sumasama sakin dati yung ex ko sa pagsimba. Nakakatuwa nga e, lumuluhod din siya pag may luhod (kahit medyo labag sa kanyang kalooban) Hindi ko na nga pinapaluhod pero lumuhod pa rin siya (ako ay lumuhod just like this)
                        
Ang isa pa sa nakakatuwa ay nakihawak kamay siya sa Ama Namin.

Meron akong lola. Actually hindi ko talaga siya lola, ninang siya nina papa sa kasal. Isa rin siya sa nakatulong kumbakit ako ganito ngayon. She's really a 'deboto' at isinasama niya ko sa Dawn penitential procession. Marami akong natutunan sa kanya. Isa rin siya sa mga nagpabago ng ugali ko. Siya rin ang naging dahilan kumbakit ako nagkaroon ng debosyon sa Divine Mercy. Marami rin siyang ibinahagi sa aking prayer booklets and pamplets. Sa kanya ako humihingi ng advice pag may problema ako, sabi niya magdasal ka lang lagi..

Eto siya oh.. please pray for her.. Sister Crispina Agawin..

Side view yan, lagi siyang nagbabasa ng prayer booklets kasi nga napakarelihiyoso niya ^_^

So now let's proceed, First Saturday of the month ay isinama namin ni lola yung ex ko sa dawn procession - nang nakayapak.

Sa loob ng isang taon ay wala namang gaanong nangyari, basta ang alam ko, mas lalong tumatag yung faith ko as a Catholic. Hindi pa ko nag-aapologetics that time. Pero dumating sa point na medyo nanghina ang faith nung sumasama ulit ako sa kanya. Napakabait kasi nung churchmates niya maging yung pastor. Nahihilig na rin ako sa worship songs nila. May isa nga dun na nagsabi, "Uy *pangalan ni ex*, dapat sa susunod naipatanggap mo na siya ha?". Hindi ko pa nagegets kong ano yun nung time na yun.

Minsan, tinanong ako ni ex kung "Tinanggap mo na ba si Hesus bilang Panginoon at personal mong Tagapagligtas?". Sumagot ako, "Oo". Tinanong niya ko kung kelan. "Sabi ko, "Nung ako ay binyagan." at tumahimik na siya. Ngayon ko lang nagets na  yun pala yung unang process para maging born again, na para raw 'saved' na ko. Sorry na lang sa kanya kung hindi niya ineexpect yung sagot ko =)
Yun pala yung sinasabi nung babae na "pagpapatanggap".

I'm already born again on January 30, 1994


..nung biniyagan ako. =)


Noong November 10 ay napadaan ako sa simbahan. Isa kasi sa paring nagmimisa ay kilala ko kaya nagsimba ako. Napaisip din ako, siguro ito na yung time para magtanong ako tungkol sa pananampalataya ko, para mawala na rin ang pagkabagabag sa dibdib ko. After the mass ay nag-approach ako sa bagong pari sa aming parokya, at yun ay si Father Topher Parraba.
                 
At yun na nga, yun ang kauna-unahang counseling ko sa isang pari. Sinabi ko lahat ng pagdududa at pag-aagam-agam ko sa ating pananampalataya na nagsimula nung sumama ako sa pagsimba sa Born Again. Isa na riyan ang tunugkol sa mga santo. Natutunan ko sa kanya yung 3 levels of reverence. Ang Latria, Hyperdulia at Dulia. Sinabi niya rin na magkaiba ang adoration sa veneration. Marami pa akong natutunan sa kanya at talagang naliwanagan ako. Dalawang oras din kaming nag-usap at pagkatapos nun ay nangumpisal ako sa kanya. Napakasarap sa pakiramdam. =)

Dun din ako nakapagdecide na simula ngayon ay magiging tagapagtanggol ako ng Simbahan. Dun ko rin narealize na ang Catholic faith pala ay higit pa sa linggu-linggong pagsimba, pagrorosaryo at pagsama sa prusisyon. Napakalawak pala at napakaganda ng sakop nito.

Simula nun ay mas naappreciate ko na ang pag-attend sa misa. Nagte-take note rin ako sa mga sinasabi ng mga pari sa homily at pinagninilayan ko pag-uwi sa bahay. Naging kumpleto rin ang pakiramdam ko lalo na nung nakakatanggap na ko ng Banal na Komunyon.  Kung dati ay naiinip ako sa misa, ngayon ay hindi na. Kung dati sumisilip-silip ako nang konti sa cellphone ko habang may misa, ngayon ay hindi na.

Umaattend na rin ako ng daily mass, yun ang debosyon ko although minsan ay hindi ko ito natutupad dahil late na kong gumising.

December 05, 2012 - isinama ako ng ex ko sa simbahan nila sa kabilang bayan, meeting lang daw so sumama ako. Di ko naman inexpect na may konting kantahan at Bible sharing  ulit. Pinagdala niya ko ng Bible. So dinala ko yung Catholic Bible ko. Kumpleto yan =)

Nung nagkaroon ng sharing, nagpreach na naman yung pastora at nakaramdam ako ng pailalim na pag-atake sa mga Katoliko. Na kesyo yung nanay daw niya ay deboto noon, araw-araw nagrorosaryo. Tinuturuan nga daw siya magrosaryo tapos may pinapamemorya raw na pagkahaba-habang dasal kaya inaantok siya. Nagpapasalamat nga daw siya dahil two years bago  namatay yung nanay niya ay 'naliwanagan' daw ito (naging born again). Binasa niya ang Bible from cover to cover. Wag din daw maniwala sa santo, hindi daw sila dapat sambahin kasi ang Diyos lang ang dapat sambahin). (sino bang may sabing sambahin ang mga santo? Gumagawa ka ng sariling kwento). Wag din daw maniwala sa Purgatoryo, wala naman daw ito sa Bibliya. Alam ko naman na ako yung pinapatamaan niya, she is trying to persuade me to convert. But sad to say, mas lalong lumakas yugn desire kong maging defender ng Simbahan.

Medyo nagalit ako nun, kasi bakit ganun, antaas ng paggalang ko sa kanila dahil napakalapit nila kay God pero ganun pala ang tingin nila sa mga Katoliko? Ang pagtingin kong iyon ay biglang bumugso. Sa tingin ba nila, gusto yun ni God? Na manghusga sila at mantuligsa? Kaya pala ganun mag-isip yung ex ko e na-brainwash na ng ganung kaisipan.

Simula noon ay nagsimula na kong magresearch.  Itinype ko sa search tab ng FB yung salitang Katoliko at lumabas ito:


Ang 100% Katolikong Pinoy ang kauna-unahang Catholic page na tinambayan ko. Napakarami ko ritong natutunan. Nagtanong na rin ako dito at naipost nga sa page nila ito at ang kasagutan.. Halimbawa:


Makikita ang link sa :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150624332853643&set=a.10150527294783643.392908.96426468642&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F425073_10150624332853643_1713261161_n.jpg&size=633%2C500

Isa ako sa naging certified tambayer ng kanilang page. Nag-oobserve din ako ng mga debate sa page at minsan ay nakikisabat ako pag alam ko ang isasagot. Binasa ko rin ang notes ng page na ito mula sa simula hanggang sa pinaka-latest na note.

Isang araw, nakita ko ang post ni Kuya Andrew Cagampang Calopez, inilagay niya yung link ng group na Ang Tunay na Kawan. Sumali ako roon at marami akong nakilala roon na apologist. In-add nila ako at ang isa nga sa mga unang naka-close ko dun ay si Kuya Carlo Rapay. Sumunod ay sina Bro. Elias Arzadon Jr at ang aking mentor na si Nolette Evangelista, formerly known as Teewee Diego.

Isa nga rin pala sa mga paborito kong dalawing blog ay yung blog ni Father Abe, ang The Splendor of the Church. Marami akong natutunang istratehiya kung paano sagutin ang mga heretiko na tumutuligsa sa ating Simbahan.

Hanggang sa ngayon ay patuloy pa rin ako sa pagreresearch hindi lang tungkol sa Apologetics kundi pati tungkol sa Catholic Faith. Marami na rin akong kilala at ka-close na apologist. I love what I'm doing. Siya nga po pala, wala na kami nung ex kong born again. I also have a calling to enter religious life. Ipag-pray niyo naman po ako. Thank you!

Gloria in Excelsis Deo!

"I was born a Catholic and I wil die as a Catholic."

Special thanks to:
God
Mama Mary
Saints
Guardian Angel
ANd to my co-apologists at Catholic friends, Ryan Michael, Randale, Mark Gelo, Kuya Carlo, Bro. Elias, Bro. Igi, Father Abe, Sir Nolette, Noah, Lay Person Scripturist, Kuya Mark Louie, Atty. Llasos, Jack Saliba at marami pang iba.


- Katryn M. Leonor

Iglesia ni Cristo's Understanding of the Catholic Church and her doctrines

Despite the fact that CATHOLIC TEACHINGS and HISTORY can be found in many OFFICIAL CATHOLIC SITES often or almost always, members of the so-called "Iglesia ni Cristo" (Church of Christ in Tagalog), founded by Felix Manalo in 1914 as a Corporation Sole accuse the Catholic Church of having altered ancient apostolic teachings but a close scrutiny of historical facts and biblical texts concerning Catholic doctrines confirm the TRUTHFULNESS of all her teachings. Their GROSS DISHONESTY and their desire to DECEIVE can be easily seen under the light of honesty on the part of serious truth seekers. Let it be known that members of the INC of Manalo cult were seriously "brain-washed" by their equally misinformed paid ministers so they will never know the TRUTH which has been preached for more than 2 millennia now..

Are you sure the Catholic Church never changes her doctrines? First, during the time of Christ and the Apostles; the earlier Christians did not consider Christ as God. Yes, He never sinned and possess special qualities. He performed miracles GIVEN by God. As for the Trinity, it was invented long after Christ has ascended to heaven and the Apostles died. From baptism by immersion, the Catholic Church changed it to sprinkling of water out of convenience. What used to be just a policy, the “Celibacy Law” became a law. There are many more changes from the original teachings of God. Correction: Celibacy Law was first made as an OPTION then made into law. By the way, the Popes also erred disproving their infallibility. Some successors to the Pope rebuked the predecessors’ policies and laws. (Source: Monk's Hobbit)

CATHOLIC CHANGED CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES(?)

The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church's proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all--for those ``new'' dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints--saints the calibre of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Why do Catholics believe that God is three Persons, called the Holy Trinity? How can God be three Persons and still be one God?

Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three distinct and equal divine Persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--because on numerous occasions God has described Himself thus. The Old Testament gives intimations that there are more than one Person in God. In Genesis 1:26, God says, ``Let us make man to our image and likeness.'' In Isaias 9:6-7, God the Father revealed the imminent coming into the world of God the Son. In Psalms 2:7, we read, ``The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'' And in the New Testament, God reveals this doctrine even more clearly. For example, at the baptism of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father was heard: ``This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'' (Matt. 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, God the Son commanded the Apostles to baptize ``in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' And in 1 Cor. 12:4-6, the Bible refers to God with three names: Spirit, Lord, and God-- corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Three divine Persons in one Godhead may be incomprehensible to the human mind, but that is to be expected. How can man fully comprehend God's infinite make-up when he cannot fully comprehend his own finite make-up? We have to take God's word for it. Also, we can satisfy ourselves as to the feasibility of God's triune make-up by considering various other triune realities. The triangle, for example, is one distinct form with three distinct and equal sides. And the clover leaf is one leaf with three distinct and equal petals. There are many physical trinities on earth, therefore a Spiritual Trinity, who is God in Heaven, is not against human reason--it is simply above human reason.

THE DEITY OF JESUS

Why do Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was God the Son--the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Would it not be more reasonable to believe that He was a great and holy man... a religious leader of exceptional talent and dedication... a prophet?

Catholics believe that Jesus was God the Son, incarnate in human flesh, firstly because God's physical manifestation on earth, plus all the circumstances of that manifestation, were prophesied time and again in Divine Revelation, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy right to the letter; secondly, because He claimed that He was God (John 10:30, 14:9-10 and numerous other passages), and He never deceived anyone; thirdly, because He proved His divinity by His impeccable holiness and the flawless perfection of His doctrine; fourthly, because only God could have performed the miracles He performed miracles such as walking on the sea, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, and, after His death on the Cross, resurrecting Himself from His own tomb; fifthly, because only God could have, in the brief space of three years, without military conquest, without political power, without writing a single line or traveling more than a few score miles, so profoundly affected the course of human events; sixthly, because only God can instill in the soul of man the grace and the peace and the assurance of eternal salvation that Jesus instills.-Read more at Augustine Club

ON PRIESTLY CELIBACY

Celibacy is Scriptural

Fundamentalists will tell you that celibacy has no basis in the Bible whatsoever, saying that Christians are called to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This mandate speaks to humanity in general, however, and overlooks numerous passages in the Bible that support the celibate life. In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).

Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."

Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!

Celibacy is historical.

Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times. While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century.

Celibacy emphasizes the unique role of the priest.

The priest is a representative of Christ, an alter Christus. In this respect, the priest understands his identity by following the example of Jesus, a man who lived His life in perfect chastity and dedication to God. As Archbishop Crescenzio Sepe of Grado explains, "[A priest's] being and his acting must be like Christ's: undivided" (The Relevance of Priestly Celibacy Today, 1993). As such, the sacramental priesthood is holy, something set apart from the rest of the world. Just as Christ sacrificed His life for His bride, the Church, so too must a priest offer up his life for the good of Christ's people. -Read more at Augustin Club or read at Catholic Answers

BABPTISM BY IMMERSION ONLY?

Physical Difficulties

After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.

What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.

Baptism in the Early Church

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

Ancient Christian Mosaics Show Pouring

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person. -Read more at Catholic Answers

INC of Manalo were Busy Celebrating CHRISTMAS

Was it coincidental that I did not receive any comment from members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) during the Christmas Day?

The reason why I am smiling about it is because I normally receive (nasty) comments (plural) from members of Manalo's cult on a daily basis. But yesterday till today I received none.

I can only assume that these Iglesia ni Cristo were not in their computers: THEY WERE BUSY CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS too.

Indeed, have a BLESSED CHRISTMAS to all the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) members. Hopefully you enjoyed our CHRISTMAS. We know that you don't celebrate Christmas doctrinally but PRACTICALLY you do.

^_^

PASUGO Disyembre 1957, p. 28: (sinulat ni Emeliano I. Agustin) (Patula)

“Ang diwa ng Pasko ay kapayapaan;

Nang mundong naglunoy sa lusak ng Buhay;

Mabuting balita sa kinalulugdan;

Pagsilang ni Jesus sa abang sabsaban."

Jimmy Akin: 7 Top MYTHS about Christmas

It is unfortunate that Christmas--the commemoration of our Savior's birth--is marred by so much misinformation and misunderstanding. Too often our ideas about Christmas are influenced more by images from Christmas cards or even from sources hostile to Christianity. Here are seven ideas about Christmas which range from the unsubstantiated to the flat out false.

#1

Jesus Was Born in a Barn

People often infer this from the fact that Luke 2:7 says that Mary laid the baby Jesus in a manger. In our culture we find mangers in stables or barns, and people make the inference from that.

But at the time animals were often sheltered in caves, and there is a very strong tradition that dates at least to the 100s, that Jesus was born in a cave. Today the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is built over such a cave, which is next to the one that the biblical scholar St. Jerome dwelt in during the 300s. In his writings, Jerome points to evidence that the cave under the Church of the Nativity was, in fact, where Jesus was born.

#2

We Know There Were Three Wise Men

The account of the wise men, or magi (who were not kings, by the way), is recorded in Matthew 2, but it does not say anywhere that there were three wise men.

This number is probably inferred from the fact that three gifts are mentioned: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But we really don't know much about the size or composition of the magi's caravan. The odds are that, for such rich and visiting dignitaries, the caravan was more than three people and, in addition to the magi, included quite a number of other people, including servants and guards.

#3

The Wise Men Arrived the Same Night

Again, the images on Christmas cards haunt us by depicting the magi arriving on the night of Jesus' birth.

We know that they associated the rising of the star of Bethlehem with Jesus' birth, and the trip from their distant homeland would have been too long to make in a single night. Matthew 2:10 records that by this point the holy family was living in a house (although it could have been a house combined with the grotto of the Nativity, for homes were often combined with caves).

Most fundamentally, Matthew 2:16 indicates that Herod sought to kill all the boys two years old and under, based on the time he learned from the magi, so they may have showed up as much as two years later (although Herod may also have padded the figure just to be "safe").

#4

December 25th Can't Be the Birth of Christ Because Sheep Aren't Pastured in the Winter

It is often argued that Jesus couldn't have been born December 25th because Luke 2:8 records that there were shepherds pasturing their flocks, and this doesn't happen in the area in winter.

But it does.

Bethlehem is below the snow line, sheep have fleece to keep them warm, and even today sheep are pastured in the Shepherds' Field near Bethlehem at this very time of year.

#5

Christmas Trees Are Forbidden by the Old Testament

Some Fundamentalists argue that Jeremiah 10 condemns having Christmas trees as a pagan practice.

This would be odd, since Jeremiah wrote centuries before the birth of Christ and thus before the celebration of Christmas.

A careful reading of the passage, though, shows that Jeremiah isn't talking about ornamented holiday trees at all. He's talking about idols. That's why he points out that after a tree is cut down and a workman goes to work on it that it cannot speak, that it cannot move on its own and must be carried, that we should not be afraid of it, and that it has power to do neither evil or good to us. Jeremiah is pointing out the limitations of dead idols, not Christmas trees.

#6

Christmas Is Based on a Pagan Holiday

Sometimes Fundamentalists, secularists, and pagans argue that Christmas is just a pagan holiday that has been "baptized" by the Church. Accounts differ as to which one. Sometimes it is claimed that Christmas is based on Saturnalia or the birth of Sol Invictus ("the unconquerable sun").

But Saturnalia wasn't celebrated on December 25th. It ran from December 17th to the 23rd. It was over and done with before the 25th.

We do have records that suggest some pagans celebrated the birth of Sol Invictus on December 25th, but the first such record dates from the year A.D. 354 (on what is known as the Calendar of Filocalus or the Chronology of 354). The trouble is, even this source isn't fully explicit. It just says that December 25 was celebrated as the Natalis Invicti or the "Birthday of the Unconquerable One," without saying who that is.

We also know that some Christians had been identifying December 25th as Jesus' birthday at least a century and a half before this time. Around A.D. 206, St. Hippolytus of Rome wrote in his Commentary on Daniel that:

"The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the kalends of January."

In ancient Roman time reckoning, the kalends was the first day of the month, and if you count back eight days from January 1, you arrive at December 25.

It's true that we don't know for sure when Jesus was born, and early Christian writers proposed a variety of dates for his birth, including December 25th. But what is remarkable, in light of modern claims, is that when they write about Christ's birth they never say things like, "Let's schedule his birthday here so that we can convert a bunch of pagans" or "Let's put it here so that we can subvert this pagan holiday."

When they propose dates for his birth, they use arguments to support their view, and they honestly believe that he was born on the dates they propose.

#7

It Would Matter If Christmas Were Connected with a Pagan Holiday

Even if early Christians had scheduled the commemoration of Christ's birth to subvert a pagan holiday, so what?

How does that taint the celebration of Christmas today--by people who have never even heard of these pagan holidays? Aren't they honestly celebrating Christ's birth, regardless of the precise day on which it happened?

Further, isn't subverting a pagan holiday a good thing? Don't many Protestant groups celebrate October 31 not as Halloween (which they wrongly perceive as pagan) but as "Reformation Day" or "Harvest Festival"?

Helping people wean themselves off of pagan practices by providing a wholesome, alternative celebration would seem to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Still, there's no evidence that this is what early Christians were doing with Christmas, and in fact the evidence is against it.

- - -

Getting at the truth is important--whether it is biblical or historical. One tool that helps me greatly in doing research is Logos Bible Software. It is a valuable resource that covers both biblical and historical resources.

You can listen to a discussion I recently had about how Bible software--and Logos in particular--can help you. You can listen to it if you click here.

I hope that you'll consider using one of the Logos packages for Catholics, including a just-announced, less-expensive version called the Catholic Foundations Library.

You can learn more about these valuable resources by clicking here to go to Logos.com/Jimmy.

Also, I can save you 15% off the purchase price on any of Logos package if you use the coupon code "Jimmy."

I hope you'll take advantage of this offer, perhaps as a Christmas gift for someone you know--or as one for yourself. It can help you get more out of your study of God's word--at Christmas and all year 'round.

Coming Soon: A Christmas "Interview" with Pope Benedict

Your pal,

Jimmy Akin, Secret Info Club

WISHING YOU ALL A BLESSED CHRISTMAS!

CATHOLIC DEFENDER wishes all readers a very HAPPY and BLESSED CHRISTMAS. 

May the LORD who is born today bless you with every spiritual blessings in heaven.  You, your friends, and your loved ones.  May you live with joy, peace and abundance according to his will.

FAQ about the Catholic Church: On the Sacraments

Why do Catholics believe in seven sacraments, while Protestants believe in only two? Exactly what is a sacrament, and what does it do for a person?

Catholics believe in seven sacraments because Christ instituted seven; because the Apostles and Church Fathers believed in seven; because the second Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1274) defined seven; and because the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) confirmed seven. In short, the enumeration, seven, arises from the perpetual tradition of Christian belief--which explains why that enumeration is accepted not only by Catholics, but by all of the other ancient and semi-ancient Christian communities--Egyptian Coptic, Ethiopian Monophysite, Syrian Jacobite, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox.

To understand what a sacrament is, and what it does for a person, one must know the correct, the traditional Christian, definition of a sacrament. Properly defined, a sacrament is ``an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace'' (holiness) to the soul . . . that is to say, it is a divinely prescribed ceremony of the Church in which the words and action combine to form what is at the same time both a sign of divine grace and a fount of divine grace. When this special grace--distinct from ordinary, inspirational grace--is imparted to the soul, the Holy Spirit of God is imparted to the soul, imbuing the soul with divine life, uniting the soul to Christ.

As the Scriptures point out, this grace is the grace of salvation--without it man is, in a very real sense, isolated from Christ. And as the Scriptures point out, Christ gave His Church seven sacraments to serve as well-springs of this ineffable, soul-saving grace, the grace which flows from His sacrifice on Calvary:

BAPTISM--the sacrament of spiritual rebirth through which we are made children of God and heirs of Heaven: ``Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'' (John 3:5. Also see Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:2-6).

CONFIRMATION--the sacrament which confers the Holy Spirit to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ: ``Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.... Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.'' (Acts 8:14-17. Also see Acts 19:6).

The EUCHARIST--the sacrament, also known as Holy Communion, which nourishes the soul with the true Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, under the appearance, or sacramental veil, of bread and wine: ``And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.'' (Mark 14:22-24. Also see Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, John 6:52-54, 1 Cor. 10:16).

PENANCE--the sacrament, also known as Confession, through which Christ forgives sin and restores the soul to grace: ``Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. '' (John 20:22-23. Also see Matt. 18:18).

EXTREME UNCTION--the sacrament, sometimes called the Last Anointing, which strengthens the sick and sanctifies the dying: ``Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord . . . and if he be in ,ins, they shall be forgiven him.'' (James 5:14-15. Also see Mark 6:12-13).

HOLY ORDERS--the sacrament of ordination which empowers priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, administer the sacraments, and officiate over all the other proper affairs of the Church: ``For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.... Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.'' (Heb. 5:1-4. Also see Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 4:14). Also: ``And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.'' (Luke 22:19).

MATRIMONY--the sacrament which unites a man and woman in a holy and indissoluble bond: ``For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'' (Matt. 19:5-6. Also see Mark 10:7-9, Eph. 5:22-32).

There you have it, the Word of Christ and the example of the Apostles attesting both to the validity and the efficacy of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. In truth, every one of them is an integral part of Christ's plan for man's eternal salvation.

Read More HERE

An Appeal from the Bereans about the Iglesia ni Cristo

An Iglesia ni Manalo chapen in Zamboanga. INC is founded by Felix Manalo in 1914

The Iglesia ni Cristo Cult and the Council of Nicea AD 325: What Really Transpired?

(Source: psSquare.com)

Dear Friends,

The Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 authorities are trying their best to lure many people into their web of deception by propagating their twisted ecclesiastical history way back during the time of Nicea in AD325. You will hear an INC 1914 speaker teach that Constantine led many bishops during that time to embrace the doctrine of Christ's divinity. This kind of twisted facts is no longer new because even the Jehovah's Witnesses have also their own version of the story about the Council of Nicea in AD325. Now, you need to understand that Constantine was not a theologian therefore he is in no position to influence the hundreds of bishops that visited his place. Granted for the sake of argument that a death penalty was issued for those who will believe Jesus Christ is divine, do you think it will be that easy for the church fathers to just turn their back from this precious doctrine that they hold for several decades? What is the real purpose of the meeting in the Council of Nicea? When Constantine's empire was threatened by division due to Arius' heretical teaching he immediately asked the assistance of every Christian bishop in the East and West. Was it to promote the divinity of Christ as the followers of Felix Manalo alleges? Or address some issues that surround the divinity Christ resulting to mayhem in Constantine's political kingdom? What happened to Arius and Athenasius in the Council of Nicea? Why are the Iglesia ni Cristo false teachers mum about what really happened? It is unfortunate that many INC 1914 and non-INC 1914 viewers are tremendously lazy checking the data to validate what was aired over the INC TV. They only accept whatever the INC 1914 false teachers wanted them to swallow. These false teachers will quote a number of books who are not official church historians. Many times also they will quote a small portion from the literatures of respected evangelical scholars misrepresenting their thoughts and research. I encourage everybody not just to take the teachings of the Iglesia ni Cristo cult movement at prima facie. Learn to read the actual context of what they have been quoting all along. Know the academic background of each author. Are they really church historians? Are they just quoting from secondary sources? Are they authentic scholars or liberal scholars? Do they really believe the Bible is the authentic word of God? Don't be gullible.

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. Prov. 18:17

Justyn M. | Coordinator

TheBereans.Net, Philippines

www.thebereans.net

FAQ About the Catholic Church: The Pope

Pope Benedict XVI- 265th Pope of the Church of Christ
(Source: Wikipedia)

Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope, when the word ``Pope'' doesn't even appear in Catholic Bibles? Just where does the Pope get his authority to rule over the Catholic Church?

True, the word ``Pope'' doesn't appear in the Bible--but then neither do the words ``Trinity,'' ``Incarnation,'' ``Ascension'' and ``Bible'' appear in the Bible. However, they are referred to by other names. The Bible, for example, is referred to as ``Scripture.'' The Pope, which means head bishop of the Church, is referred to as the ``rock'' of the Church, or as the ``shepherd'' of the Church. Christ used that terminology when He appointed the Apostle Peter the first head bishop of His Church, saying: ``Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.'' (Matt. 16:17-19). ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd.'' (John 10:16). ``Feed my lambs... feed my sheep.'' (John 21:15-17). The words ``rock'' and ``shepherd'' must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Certainly the other Apostles understood that Peter had authority from Christ to lead the Church, for they gave him the presiding place every time they assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).

In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was ``the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter.'' In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) ``mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood . . . the place of Peter.'' Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first Pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Literaria: ``That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients.'' Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ--by God Himself.

Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is a human being, with a finite human intellect, like the rest of us? What is the scriptural basis for this belief?

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty--the Faith of Jesus Christ.

In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, ``from the Chair'' of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation--only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to ``define,'' some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: ``I will give (o thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.'' (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to ``hear the church'' (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth--without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible.

For a complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years--sometimes hundreds of years--of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England's Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching.

Read More HERE

FAQ about the Catholic Church: The ONE Church

Why do Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that Christ's true Church is a spiritual union of all Christian denominations?

Catholics believe that theirs is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ's true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles' Creed and the Primitive Christian letters). Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: ``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.'' Our Lord said: ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (``And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.'' Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church.

Why do Catholics refuse to concede that their church became doctrinally corrupt in the Middle Ages, necessitating the Protestant Reformation?

Catholics refuse to concede such a thing out of faith in Jesus Christ. Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church ``another Paraclete . . . the spirit of truth,'' to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as ``the pillar and ground of the truth.'' (I Tim. 3:15). If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther's revolt) became doctrinally corrupt as alleged, it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against it--it would mean that Christ had deceived His followers. Believing Christ to be the very essence of truth and integrity, Catholics cannot in conscience believe that He could be guilty of such deception. Another thing: Catholics cannot see how the division of Christianity into hundreds of rival camps and doctrinal variations can be called a ``reformation'' of the Christian Church. In the Catholic mind, hundreds of conflicting interpretations of Christ's teachings do not add up to a true interpretation of Christ's teachings.

If the Catholic Church never fell into error, how explain the worldly Popes, the bloody Inquisitions, the selling of indulgences and the invention of new doctrines? A careful, objective investigation of Catholic history will disclose these facts: The so-called worldly popes of the Middle Ages--three in number--were certainly guilty of extravagant pomposity, nepotism and other indiscretions and sins which were not in keeping with the dignity of their high church office--but they certainly were not guilty of licentious conduct while in office, nor were they guilty of altering any part of the Church's Christ-given deposit of faith. The so-called bloody Inquisitions, which were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens--even as priests and bishops--were indeed approved by the Church. (Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were left alone by the Inquisition.) And the vast majority of those questioned by the Inquisition (including St. Teresa of Avila) were completely cleared. Nevertheless, the popes roundly condemned the proceedings when they saw justice giving way to cruel abuses, and it was this insistent condemnation by the popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.

The so-called selling of indulgences positively did not involve any ``selling''--it involved the granting of the spiritual favor of an indulgence (which is the remission of the debt of temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins) in return for the giving of alms to the Church for the building of Christendom's greatest house of prayer--St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. One must understand with regard to indulgences that there are always two acts to be fulfilled by the one gaining the in-dulgence: 1) doing the deed (e.g., alms-giving) and 2) saying of some prescribed prayers with proper spiritual dispositions. In the case in point, the first act for gaining the indulgence was ``giving alms.'' If the almsgiver thereafter failed to say the requisite prayers, he would not receive the indulgence because he had failed to fulfill both required acts. The indulgences therefore were not ``sold''; the very giving of money was itself the first of two requisite acts for gaining the indulgence in question.

The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church's proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all--for those ``new'' dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints--saints the calibre of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

Read More HERE

FAQ About the Catholic Church: The Holy Trinity

Why do Catholics believe that God is three Persons, called the Holy Trinity? How can God be three Persons and still be one God?

Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three distinct and equal divine Persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--because on numerous occasions God has described Himself thus. The Old Testament gives intimations that there are more than one Person in God. In Genesis 1:26, God says, ``Let us make man to our image and likeness.'' In Isaias 9:6-7, God the Father revealed the imminent coming into the world of God the Son. In Psalms 2:7, we read, ``The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'' And in the New Testament, God reveals this doctrine even more clearly. For example, at the baptism of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father was heard: ``This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'' (Matt. 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, God the Son commanded the Apostles to baptize ``in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' And in 1 Cor. 12:4-6, the Bible refers to God with three names: Spirit, Lord, and God-- corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Three divine Persons in one Godhead may be incomprehensible to the human mind, but that is to be expected. How can man fully comprehend God's infinite make-up when he cannot fully comprehend his own finite make-up? We have to take God's word for it. Also, we can satisfy ourselves as to the feasibility of God's triune make-up by considering various other triune realities. The triangle, for example, is one distinct form with three distinct and equal sides. And the clover leaf is one leaf with three distinct and equal petals. There are many physical trinities on earth, therefore a Spiritual Trinity, who is God in Heaven, is not against human reason--it is simply above human reason.

Why do Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was God the Son--the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Would it not be more reasonable to believe that He was a great and holy man... a religious leader of exceptional talent and dedication... a prophet?

Catholics believe that Jesus was God the Son, incarnate in human flesh, firstly because God's physical manifestation on earth, plus all the circumstances of that manifestation, were prophesied time and again in Divine Revelation, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy right to the letter; secondly, because He claimed that He was God (John 10:30, 14:9-10 and numerous other passages), and He never deceived anyone; thirdly, because He proved His divinity by His impeccable holiness and the flawless perfection of His doctrine; fourthly, because only God could have performed the miracles He performed miracles such as walking on the sea, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, and, after His death on the Cross, resurrecting Himself from His own tomb; fifthly, because only God could have, in the brief space of three years, without military conquest, without political power, without writing a single line or traveling more than a few score miles, so profoundly affected the course of human events; sixthly, because only God can instill in the soul of man the grace and the peace and the assurance of eternal salvation that Jesus instills.

Read More HERE

FAQ about the Catholic Church: On GOD

The Nicene Creed

FAQ: Why do Catholics believe that the universe and all life in it was created by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called God? What actual proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence?

Catholics believe that the universe is the creation, and the exclusive dominion, of an infinitely powerful Spirit Being, called God, because the evidence which points to that conclusion is so overwhelming that there is no room left for even the slightest vestige of doubt. First, there is the evidence of logic. Through the process of simple mathematical-type reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with certain indisputable principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can bring itself into existence. Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call ``God.'' (The theory of evolution, even if it could be proved, would not explain the origin of anything; evolution simply deals with what may have happened after matter came into existence.) Further, 1) personal creation (man) presupposes a superior Personal Creator, 2) universal order presupposes a Universal Orderer, 3) cosmic energy presupposes a Cosmic Energizer, 4) natural law presupposes a Universal Law Maker. Basic principles of reason such as these explain why so many of the world's leading scientists are firm believers in God.

Then, there is the evidence of divine revelation--on countless occasions God has revealed Himself by voice, vision and apparition (by means which are receptive to the human senses), and demonstrated His Omnipotence by stupendous, obviously supernatural miracles. Many of these revelations are a matter of authenticated historical record. The Scriptures, for example, are full of such accounts; and in modern times the world has been witness to such Heaven-sent miracles as those at Fatima, Lourdes, and St. Anne de Beaupré in Quebec, Canada, where the cured have left a forest of crutches in testimony. (The Lourdes Medical Bureau is open for examination by any doctor.) In addition, there is the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius which still takes place in Naples each year on September 19, his feastday; the incorruption of the bodies of many Catholic saints (such as St. Bernadette, who died in 1879); and the miraculous Eucharistic Host of Lanciano, Italy, which has been scientifically proven to be human flesh and human blood, type AB--to mention only a few of the miracles still on-going in the 20th century, which point to the existence of a God.

And lastly there is the evidence of human intuition. Psychologists have long known that every human being--the atheist included--intuitively seeks God's help in times of great calamity, and instinctively pleads for God's mercy when death is imminent. Hence the renowned Voltaire, who was so eloquent in his denial of God while he enjoyed health, fame and fortune, repudiated all of his atheistic writings on his deathbed and frantically sought the ministrations of a Catholic priest. Nikolai Lenin, as he lay on his deathbed, looked around him and frantically asked pardon of the tables and chairs in the room. For as hunger for food proclaims the existence of food, man's intuitive hunger for God proclaims the Reality, the Omnipotence and the Justice of God. Catholic belief in God, therefore, is purely and simply an expression of intellectual sanity.

Read more HERE

FAQ About the Catholic Church

Iranian Catholics praying in Tehran Church (Source: dawn.com)

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. Her 1.2 billion members inhabit the width and breadth of the earth, comprising almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Paradoxically, however, the Catholic Church is also the world's most controversial religious concept. Catholic belief is different, too different to be orthodox, say Protestants and Christian cultists. Catholic belief is too ethereal to be logical, and too strict to be enjoyable, say the humanists and agnostics Hence to millions of people, Catholicism is not only a colossal success, it is also a colossal enigma. Of course, there has to be an explanation for these contradictory opinions-- and there is an explanation: Protestants and others who have questions about Catholic belief too often make the mistake of going to the wrong place for the answers. Too often books written by religious incompetents are consulted. The result is incomplete and distorted information. With such information, one cannot help but see the Catholic faith as a colossal enigma.

The right place to go for information about Catholic belief--in fact the only place to go for complete and authoritative information--is the Catholic Church herself. As any detective will tell you, no investigation is quite so complete as an on-the-spot investigation. Hence, dear reader, if you are a Protestant, an unaffiliated Christian, or an agnostic, who wants to know the truth about Catholic belief, take this friendly advice: Seek out a Catholic priest and put your questions to him. You will find him a very understanding and obliging person. Or read this little booklet. This booklet was written by a Catholic who knows the questions you are likely to ask, as well as the answers, because once he, too, was outside of the Catholic Church, looking in. The questions in this booklet are basically the same ones he put to a Catholic priest, and the answers are basically the same ones given him by that priest. Read this booklet; then forget all the fiction you have heard about the Catholic Church, for you will have the gospel truth.

Read more HERE

Felix Manalo or Felix Ysagun?

"Changing name is not against the Bible: Apostle Paul was first called "Saul"; Abraham was first called "Abram"; and Israel was first called "Jacob."


It was wrong to say that the name Felix Ysagun was his "birth" name. It was actually his CATHOLIC NAME when he was baptized in the original Church of Christ. We must note that Felix Manalo, INC's founder was never baptized in his founded church thus making him equal to John the Baptist." - Ges Mundo (INC Minister)

In this article, INC apologists again assume that Felix Manalo is ranked among great prophets and sages in the Bible whose names were changed after God commissioned them as messengers.

Comparing Felix Manalo with Paul, Abraham, Jacob is very ambitious claim and it's deceiving. Felix Manalo personally changed his name while Paul, Abraham, Jacob it was GOD himself who changed it.

There is no way that Felix is a messenger. Paul, Abraham, Jacob's names are written in the Bible while Felix Manalo was not!  And his founded church called the "Iglesia ni Cristo" was just another fake church claiming to be the real.

PLAIN TRUTH: The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and the INC founded by Felix Manalo is not.

PASUGO Setyembre 1940, p. 1:
“Dapat malaman ng lahat, ayon sa Bagong Tipan, ang tunay na INK ay si Cristo ang nagtatag nito."

PASUGO Nobyembre 1940, p. 23:
“Iisa lamang ang tanging makapagtatayo ng Iglesiang magiging dapat sa Dios. Kung sino-- ang ating Panginoong Jesu-Cristo lamang! Sino mang tao-- maging marunong o mangmang, maging dakila o hamak-- ay walang karapatang magtayo ng Iglesia"

PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7:
“Ang tunay na INK ay iisa lamang. Ito ang Iglesiyang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay hindi tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi huwad lamang."

PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:
“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."

PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."

[Quotes from Ang Katotohanan tungkol sa INK-1914]

And why change from Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) to Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)? Any explanation?

Iglesia Katolika: Ang nag-iisang Iglesia ni Cristo

Basahin ang nag-iisang IGLESIA NI CRISTO!!!

Ang sabi ni README kaanib ng Iglesia ni Manalo:

"One of the many attacks is this, they say, what was written in the bible is not (capital letter)"Iglesia ni Cristo" but only (small letter) "iglesia ni Cristo". So, when quoting Romans 16:16 in filipino bible, it is said, "mga iglesia ni Cristo" or in english bible "churches of Christ" not in capital letters, but the Pasugo Magazine change it with a capital letter always...

"First of all, the INC doesnt care if it is written as Iglesia ni Cristo or iglesia ni Cristo or iglesia ni cristo or IGLESIA NI CRISTO because these are all the same! What the INC teaches is that the church that was established by Christ is none other than the Iglesia ni Cristo."

Quote mula sa post:

Malaking kagalakan ang mababasa natin sa mga comments na mababasa sa post ni README kaanib ng Iglesia ni Manalo sa pagsabing MALI raw at KONTRA ang aking post sa "iglesia o Iglesia".

Ayon sa may-ari ng blog na READMEInc, ang tunay daw na Iglesia ay ang "Iglesia ni Cristo". 

Maka-100% agree po tayo diyan.  Wala pong duda na ang tunay na Iglesia ay ang nag-iisang IGLESIA NI CRISTO pero ito ay hindi ang KATUNOG na itinatag ni Felix Manalo sa Punta Santa Ana Maynila.

Ang tinutukoy na NAG-IISANG IGLESIA ay ang IGLESIANG TATAG NI CRISTO sa JERUSALEM!

Ang iglesiang founded sa Sta. Ana na sa TAGALOG lamang nasusulat ay PEKE.  Samantalang ang itinatag ni Cristo sa Jerusalem ay hindi napapasailalim sa isang wika lamang at hindi rehistrado sa ilalim ng pamunuan ng kahit anong gobyerno ng tao.

At upang malaman natin kung alin nga ba ang TUNAY  IGLESIA na binabanggit sa Roma 16:16, ating hanguhin ngayon ang kanilang OFFICIAL magazine upang magpatotoo rito.

PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7:

“Ang tunay na INK ay iisa lamang. Ito ang Iglesiyang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay hindi tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi huwad lamang."

PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:

“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."

At HINDI ang itinayo ni Manalo sa Pilipinas!

Kung tuus-tuusin ay wala na tayong dapat pang linawin pa dahil inilahad na pong sinabi OFFICIALLY ng INC ni Manalo na ang kanilang Iglesia ay HUWAD o PEKE sapagkat kailan laman sila "nagsisibangon ngayon."

 Sa mga salin na Biblia na kanilang pinagkukunan ng quote sa Roma 16:16, wala ni isa sa kanila ang nakalagay na "Iglesia" (Church) kundi "iglesia" (churches).  Iba naman kapag ito'y sinipi nila at ipalathala sa magasing Pasugo.

Ang maliit na titik ay ginagawa nilang malaking titik upang lalabas na ito ay PROPER NOUN.

Sa kanilang pagko-collect ng mga salin ng Biblia, tanging sa CATHOLIC EDITION (Tagalog) lamang nila masusumpungan ang mga katagang "mga Iglesia ni Cristo" (malaking titik) at sa buong akala nila ay SILA ang tinutukoy ng Santa Iglesia roon.

Hindi nila alintana na ang kanilang pinagsasaya ay hugot mula sa CATHOLIC EDITION ng Biblia na lalong nagpapatingkad sa mga nakasaad sa OFFICIAL MAGAZINE na PASUGO.

PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7:

    “Ang tunay na INK ay iisa lamang. Ito ang Iglesiyang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay hindi tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi huwad lamang."

PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:

    “Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."

Ayon ulit kay G. ReadmeInc,

Another thing, the phrase "churches of Christ" is not the name of the church that was established by Christ, it only denotes that Christ's church has congregations in other parts of the world. Because in the time the church was preached by the apostles, there are congregations or churches in other countries. For example, there is also a church in U.S.A, Europe, China, Philippines and Indonesia that's why it is said to be "churches of Christ", but the church that was established by Christ is not many, but only ONE that's why it should also be singular, "Church of Christ" or "Iglesia ni Cristo".

Ang iglesia raw ay IISA sapagkat IISA lamang daw ang itinatag ni Cristo kaya't marapat lamang daw na "Iglesia" ito at hindi "iglesia".  

Iyan din ang ITINUTURO ng Santa Iglesia mula pa noong ito'y ITINATAG sa JERUSALEM.  Na may IISANG IGLESIA at lahat ng mga nagpapanggap na "Iglesia" rin ay pawang mga PEKE o HUWAD lamang ayon sa magasing Pasugo.

Sa mga pangungusap ng kaanib ng INC ni Manalo na si Readme, at ng kanilang PASUGO, at ang CATHOLIC EDITION ng Roma 16:16 lalabas na ang NAG-IISANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO noon pang panahon ni Apostol San Pablo (na siyang sumulat ng Sulat sa mga taga-Roma) ay ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA lamang sapagkat tanging ito lamang sa maraming nag-aangking mga "iglesia" rin ang may kasaysayang nagmula pa noong UNANG SIGLO.

Sa katunayan ay tumatawid na po ito sa IKATLONG SIGLO samantalang ang "Iglesia ni Cristo" na KOPYA lamang ni Manalo ay papunta pa lamang sa SENTENARYO ngayong 2014 Anno Domini.

Tunay nga na TANGING ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA lamang ang nag-iisang IGLESIA NI CRISTO sapagkat ito rin ang paglalahad ng OFFICIAL MAGAZINE ng INC ni Manalo:

PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46:

“Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."

At bago pa man nila muling sasabihin na NATALIKOD na GANAP ang tunay na Iglesiang tatag ni Cristo, abah, magsuri sila sapagkat hindi ito ang ITINUTURO ng INC ni Manalo.

Ayon sa magasing PASUGO hango mula sa aklat na pinamagatang "ANG KATOTOHANAN TUNGKOL SA INK-1914"  ang IGLESIA ay HINDI NATALIKOD.  Ito'y UMIIRAL pa hanggang sa KASALUKUYANkaya't lalong tumitibay ang unang sinabi ng PASUGO na HUWAG o PEKE lamang ang mga "nagsisibangon ngayon" na may kapangalang "Iglesia ni Cristo."

PASUGO Enero 1964, p. 2:
“Sa isang paksang mababasa sa nakaraang labas nitong Pasugo (Disyembre) ay ipinaliwanag kung saan naroon ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo noong unang siglo as Jerusalem. Ito ay natalikod. Nalipol na lahat."

Itong mga sinasabi nilang ito ay maraming nailigaw na landas ng Kabanalan. Dahil dito ay inilalahad ko ang mga katibayang magpapawalang saysaysa sinasabi nilang ito at nasusulat din sa kanilang Pasugo gaya nitong mga sumusunod:

(a). PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 5:
"Ano ang katangian ng maging Tupa ni Cristo? Sa Juan 10:28 ay ganito ang sabi: 'At sila'y binigyan ko ng walang hanggang buhay, at kailanma'y hindi sila malilipol, at hindi aagawin ng sinuman sa aking kamay'. Isang dakilang kapalaran ang maging Tupa o Tauhan ni Cristo sapagkat sila'y binibigyan niya ng walang hanggang buhay at hindi sila malilipol kailan man."

Idaragdag natin dito ang talata 29, bilang susog sa talatang 28 na ginagamit nila, at ganito ang karugtong:

(29) Ang aking Ama (wika niJesus), na sa kanila ay nagbigay sa akin ay lalong dakila kaysa lahat; at hindi sila maaagaw ninuman sa kamay ng Ama." Ito bang nasusulat na ito sa kanilang PASUGO ay mabubura pa nila? Gayon din itong garantiyang sinasabi ni Jesus hinggil [sa] mga magiging tauhan niya? At higit pa bang paniniwalaan natin itong mga maling aral!

At bilang kalakip nito ay sisikapin pa natin ang isang banggit na nasusulat sa PASUGO Hunyo 1940, p. 27:

"Papaano ang pag-aalaga at pag-iingat sa pananampalataya? Wala tayong dapat gawin kundi manatili sa mga aral ng Dios na ating napag-aralan. Ito ang ginawa ng unang Iglesia. Sila'y nanatiling matibay sa aral ng mga Apostol. Ganito rin ang dapat nating gawin."

O ano pa ang ating puntong liliwanagin? Tinatanggap na nilang nananatiling matibay sa aral ng Dios ang mga Apostol ang unang Iglesia ni Cristo. At pagkatapos ay iyan daw ang kanilang pamarisan o dapat gawin. E, gayon pala; bakit sinasabi nilang "ganap na nawala sa ibabaw ng lupa ang mga dating tagasunod ni Jesus, inagaw at nilipol ng mga bulaang propeta." Huwag ninyong gawing sinungaling si Jesus. Malinaw ang kanyang sinabing garantiya na mababasa sa Juan 10:28-29, at inyong ginamit din.

At bago tayo magwakas ay kukuha pa tayo ng isang punto na may kaugnayan din dito.

(b). PASUGO Agosto 1971, p.22:
“Tinitindigan namin na ang Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo ay talagang iisa
lamang. Nang magkaroon ng INK sa Pilipinas ay wala na ang Iglesia ni Cristo sa Jerusalem.”

Ang ibig nilang palitawin dito, ay noong 1914, ay nawala na ang itinayo ni Cristo. Bueno, tingnan natin ang bagay na ito, sapagkat may isang banggit na nasusulat sa PASUGO, Abril 1966, p. 46:

“Ang totoo hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay patuloy na ginagawa ni Satanas ang pagpapasok ng mga maling aral sa Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula'y siyang Iglesia ni Cristo. Sadyang matalino at tuso ang diablo. Hindi niya ginawang biglaan ang pagtalikod sa Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo noong unang siglo."

Ngayon, ang mga nakasulat ba sa CATHOLIC EDITION ng Bible ay LABAN sa Iglesia Katolika?  Hindi po.  Sinasabi lamang namin na KAMI ang binabanggit doon sa Roma 16:16 at hindi ang INC ni Manalo sa Pinas.  

Alin nga ba ang  "IGLESIANG" binabanggit sa ROMA 16:16?

Ang nag-iisang IGLESIA NI CRISTO na tatag ni Cristo sa Jerusalem?