REFUTING IGLESIA NI CRISTO®-1914: DID JESUS DENY HIS DEITY IN JOHN 14:28?

By Bro. Duane Cartujano

Jesus Christ took away his being God and became humble (Philippians 2:5-8).

"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal's death on a cross."(Philippians 2:5-8)

Jesus came here not to give glory to Himself but to the Father.

He is not like many people who give glory only to themselves.

"Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God."(John 8:54)

Another New Testament scholar used by INC ministers to twist the truth in John 10:30 is the Book of D.A. Carson on “The Gospel According to John.”

Now, will Parba, Ventilacion and other INC Ministers still accept the statement of D.A. Carson?

"At a popular level, this clause is often cited, out of context, by modern arians who renew the controversy from the early centuries that is connected with the name of Arius. In the clause before us, the father is greater that I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God; the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant" (The Gospel According to John by D.A. Carson, Page 507)

I just want to quote the comment of a highly respected Christian Scholar, Norman Geisler.

"The Father is greater than the son by office, but not by nature, since both are God. Just as an earthly father is equally human with, but holds a higher office than, his son, even so the Father and the Son in the trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. "(The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, Page 420)

When INC Ministers defended their wrong interpretation of John 1:1, they gathered what the scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace said.

Now, will Parba, Ventilacion and other INC Ministers still accept the statement of Dr. Daniel Wallace?

"In this context, it is obvious that Jesus is speaking with reference to his office, not his person. That is, the Father has great rank, but the Son is no less deity than is the Father. "(Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace, Page 111)

Not All Images are Idols. Let’s explore Solomon’s Temple, The Tabernacle, Herod’s Temple and the Synagogue in Our Own Time -By Bro Duane

Shared from BRO. DUANE'S BLOG - THE JOURNEY OF A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST

It is a big sin for Christians to judge their fellowmen. Reading the Bible does not allow us to judge others especially if we have not studied entirely what is written in the Bible.

I decided to review the original text in Hebrew and Greek to fully understand the Word of God since many English versions were not translated correctly from the original text.

In my 16 years of defending Christianity, I often see people who introduce themselves as Christians judging fellow Christians particularly our Catholic friends.

The reason is they have images in their chapels and homes.

Many Christians use Deuteronomy 5:7 to conclude that all images are idols.

Personally, I am not in favor of treating images as god since this is idolatry. Yet, we will find out that not all images can be called idols if we study the Bible well.

Here is one of the oldest manuscripts of Deuteronomy and if we study closely verse 7.

The Hebrew word “Elohim Acherim” refers to other gods.

Normal word order in Hebrew is for adjective to follow verb, like often in Greek, the opposite of English. Thus, “other gods” is the proper English way to translate Elohim Acherim.

The Hebrew word “Pesel” is in Verse 8 and refers to idols.

These are the verses used by our brothers about “IDOLS” so we can read the Hebrew Word Pesel.

In Deuteronomy 5: 9, there is the Hebrew word, tishtachave and here is the meaning of the related word in Hebrew word which is tishtachave.

He will bow down to worship – yishtachave
I will bow down to worship – ‘eshtachave
You will bow down to worship – tishtachavoo
They will bow down to worship – yishtachavoo
Bow Down to Worship (command, singular) – hishtachavi
Bow Down to Worship (command, plural) – hishtachavoo

She (3f sing.) will bow down to worship ” tishtachave” is the same form as You (2m sing.) will bow down to worship tishtachave Also, the context is the ten commandments: you/thou shall not.

We will discover not all images are idols.

Let us find out what can be seen inside Solomon’s temple.

King Solomon built the temple in the Bible in 960 BC. To understand its purpose, we must know that God made the world and created the rules. It was destroyed by Babylonians in 586 BC.

The temple was located on the eastern hill. It is north of the City of David where we can find the Dome of the Rock today. The temple mount was significantly smaller. Solomon made it bigger. Herod also added to the present size of the platform. It is known as Haram esh-Sharif. This is “the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite”. (2 Samuel 24:18), “Mouth Moriah” (2 Chronicles 3:1), and possibly the “Zion of the Psalms. The term belonged to the city of David.

The Temple was envisioned as the tabernacle rectangular, with a porch or vestibule facing east, a nave an inner sanctuary or Holy of Holies.

Here is the image of Solomon’s temple. We can see the images clearly.

The holiest place housed the Ark of the Covenant and two winged figures (cherubim). These were made from olive wood coated with gold stretching from wall to wall. Similar doors separated the nave from the covered entrance. Only priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place every day.

The Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) was God’s throne room which is the meeting place. This was between the two cherubim on the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant. The high priest sprinkled blood on the mercy seat on the day of atonement for the sins of the people.

We can also see the illustration in the Bible clearly.

“for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord.All this, in writing at the Lord’s direction, he made clear to me—the plan of all the works.”(1 Chronicles 28:18-19, NRSV)

We can read The Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 25:18-20.

“You shall make two cherubim of gold; you shall make them of hammered work, at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other; of one piece with the mercy seat you shall make the cherubim at its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings. They shall face one to another; the faces of the cherubim shall be turned toward the mercy seat.”(Exodus 25:18-20, NRSV)

The Ark of the Covenant was the place where God talked to Moses Exodus 25:22. It was made from acacia wood and covered with gold.

The tabernacle (the “tent of meeting”) housed the Ark. The ark was the first furniture built after God ordered Moses to build the tabernacle Exodus 25:10-22.

The ark was to be the main focus of the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle as well as the temple Exodus 40:1-21.

The Ark was placed in the most holy place and separated by a thick veil Exodus 26:31-33.

According to scholars, when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem (586 BC) and plundered the temple, the ark could have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed, or hidden by Levites.

Here is the Tabernacle

The tabernacle was a transferable “tent of meeting” that God commanded Moses to build Exodus 25:1-2, 25:8-9. God wanted to live with the Israelites. He had fellowship with them and communicated with them.

“There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat,from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will deliver to you all my commands for the Israelites.”(Exodus 25:22, NRSV)

The tabernacle was the place that God dwelt with his people for 4000 years. This was from the exodus until the time of King Solomon when the temple was constructed.

The tabernacle was at the heart of the Israelite camp. The 12 tribes of Israel encamped around it. The figures in the boxes refer to the number of males (20 years and above) in each tribe numbers 1-3.

Here is Herod’s Temple

Scholars pointed at the illustration of Herod’s temple.
 

Here is the illustration of Herod’s temple and other details when Jesus was still on Earth.

It is different from Solomon’s Temple.

It started in 20 BC. Herod’s new structure was 15 stories high and followed floor dimensions of the former temples in the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.

According to the Book written by Bruce Metzger, The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible in page 308.

Within this holy place, there were increasingly sacred areas; the court of the women at the east, the court of the priest, then the temple (naos). This area was separated from the women’s court, being 15 steps higher, and could be entered through the nicanor gate. Only the priests could enter the temple, and only the high priest could enter the holy of holies, and that only on the day of atonement.

The whole structure was destroyed by the Romans in Ad 70.

Are there images in Herod’s temple like what we see in Solomon’s Temple?

According to the Babylonian Talmud.

“There were no cherubim in the temple of Herod, but the walls were painted with figures of them (Babylonian Talmud Yoma 54a).”

For our information, the Talmud is the anthology of the historic rabbis “discussing” or “debating” what the Torah means. The Talmud’s two elements are Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), which is a written account of Rabbinic Judaism’s Oral Torah (Talmud means “instruction” in Hebrew)

Are There Images in the Synagogue?

Synagogue comes from the Greek term that means “house of assembly.” In Hebrew, the word used is “beit k’nesset.” It means house of assembly. English-speaking people do not translate it or use the Hebrew. They use an anglicized Greek word, synagogue.

According to a respected and famous Jewish scholar, Professor Lawrence Schiffman (leading scholar of ancient Judaism):

“Some synagogues have two lions above the ark and one of the interpretations of this imagery is that it represents the cherubim. There are certainly no sculpted images in synagogues.”

We can see inside the synagogue two images of lions in the upper part.

Professor Schiffman also said:

This is similar and look at the section above the ark curtain, where two lions face each other with a crown symbolizing the Torah beteen them.

Jews are more intelligent than us when it comes to the Old Testament because they know very well Hebrew.

If Deuteronomy 5:8 and Exodus 20:4 really forbid keeping images, even the Jews failed to obey this since they put images of lions inside their synagogue. Yet, they know the meaning of the Hebrew words: Elohim Acherim, Pesel and Tishtachave which we can read in Deuteronomy 5:7-9 and Exodus 20:3-5.

As a Christian, is my analysis correct that not all images are idols?

In our studies, it is very clear that some non-catholic pastors and their followers who were not able to study the Scriptures very well say all images are idols.

If we study closely, 2 noted scholars proved that not all images are idols.

1. Gleason Archer

Who is Gleason Archer?

Gleason Leonard Archer Jr. (May 22, 1916 – April 27, 2004) was a biblical scholar, theologian, educator and author. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleason_Archer_Jr.)

He is not a Catholic.

Gleason Archer wrote this in his book.

The explanation of Archer is like that of Catholics who say not all images are idols since God ordered the creation of images.

2. Norman Geisler

Who is Norman Geisler?

Norman L. Geisler is an evangelical scholar, Christian apologist, and the author/coauthor of over fifty Christian books defending the Christian faith by means of logic, evidence, and philosophy. He has also authored many scholarly articles on a wide range of theological and philosophical topics. (https://www.theopedia.com/norman-geisler)

Norman Geisler is not a Catholic.

This is what Norman Geisler said in his book.

Jose Ventilacion: Iglesia Ni Cristo Apologist Expert on Textual Criticism?

WHO IS DR. EUGENE ULRICH?
By Bro. Duane

Dr. Eugene Ulrich teaches and writes in the areas of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint. A member of the translation teams for both the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the New American Bible: Revised Edition, he also co-authored The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. He is one of the three General Editors of the Scrolls International Publication Project and Chief Editor of the Biblical Scrolls.

He was twice elected as President of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and was invited as a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Recently, he was elected as President of the Catholic Biblical Association and as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Here is my question to Iglesia ni Cristo:

Why is it that up to now, the iglesia ni Cristo of felix manalo does not have its own bible translated by an Iglesia ni Cristo minister specially Mr. Joe Ventilacion who claim to be someone who studied textual criticism?

Dr. Taylor Marshall: In defense of “I am not worthy” in the Roman Mass

by Dr Taylor Marshall

The Huffington Post recently published an article titled “Dear Pope Francis, End the Religious Ritual that Devalues Human Life” by Christine Horner.

Ms. Horner writes:

Every single day before communion, millions of Christians verbally declare one of the most destructive phrases in human history.

Stop the press.The tribunal of the Huffington Post’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made a judgment. According to them, Catholics are daily reciting: “one of the most destructive phrases in human history.” How awful. Catholics are ruining their self-esteem daily by saying these words in public:

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

This statement, a recitation of Matthew 8:8, is one of the most destructive phrases in human history…and it has a long history. Every Roman Catholic Pope, bishop, priest, and pious laymen has been reciting this (biblical) phrase daily for over 1,300 years. Yet according to Ms. Horner this acclamation of “unworthiness” is one of the most destructive things a Christian can say.

She is incorrect, but I can see where she is coming form. Our American culture is a cult of self-esteem. In the United States, we are taught that depression, theft, rape, murder, racism, war, unemployment, etc. are essentially caused by a lack of self-esteem.

Dignus, Dignity, and the Imago Deo

Since our culture has lost its roots in the virtue tradition of Christendom, we no longer understand human dignity in terms of being conformed to the imago Dei (image of God). Our worth is no longer related to a divine being that loved to create us and loves to redeem us.

True human dignity relies on theism. When we say in Mass “Lord, I am not worthy, the Latin is “Domine, non sum dignus.” You don’t need to know Latin to see that dignus (Latin: “worthy”) is related to our English term “dignity.”

This is where Ms. Horner at the Huffington Post misses the mark. She claims that our saying, “Lord I am not worthy” is a form “negative reinforcement.” For her it confirms the alleged Catholic strategy of drowning people in guilt and unworthiness – which to her translates as fostering low self-esteem.

Self-Esteem or God-Esteem

The Huffington Post lacks the theological foundation to understand that promoting self-esteem without God-esteem is the path to destruction and sorrow. The “You go girl!” culture of self-affirmation and self-esteem trumpeted by secularist outlets like the Huff-Po for the last 30 years attempts to produce “esteem” from a collective. If enough people say, “You are so beautiful” then this will translate to a girl truly believing she is beautiful. If enough people just say, “You are so intelligent,” it will translate into intelligent people.

The problem for them is that this approach to esteem relies on a consistent collective that reinforces the message. This is why “bullies” are such a problem in the modern self-esteem cult. They are destroying the collective affirmation process. And then there is also the inconsistent messaging. Every one is told they are equally special and worthy, but the media outlets quietly suggest that some are more special and worthy. Taylor Swift, Robert Downey Jr, Jennifer Lawrence, Johnny Depp, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Stone seem be more worthy than the rest of us.

So where do we find find esteem or worthiness?

Worthiness, Suffering, and Martyrdom

When we look at Christianity at the turn of the 4th century, we find Christians standing up to the supreme arbitrator and law giver (the Roman Emperor) and the entire political/social collective (the Roman Empire) for the sake of a dignus that was not granted by collective, the media, the culture, or the secular state.

They discovered a divine dignus.

Saint Agnes of Rome cannot be persuaded to abandon Christ, her virginity, her modesty, or her virtue. Why is she so strong? Because the collective is coming together to affirm her?

No, she is so strong because she finds herself unworthy of anything outside of her life in Christo. Her esteem is thousands of times higher than the richest matrons of Rome – even higher than that of the senator or emperor himself. If Christ rose from the dead, and Christ is truly “under her roof,” well then she has it all.

The Huffington Post and the women’s mags at the supermarket checkout line are trying to lift “self-esteem” to empower people to love themselves and value themselves.

They are telling us, “Don’t say ‘I’m unworthy,’ but rather say ‘I am worthy of everything.’ Deep down inside say to yourself, ‘I have a perfect body. I’m rich. I’m popular. I’m basically Leonardo DiCaprio/Taylor Swift,’ and then you will be so!'”

But let’s be honest. That doesn’t work. And even if you are the sexiest or richest person of the year, does that translate to worthiness and happiness? Apparently not.

Liturgical Worthiness

Our liturgical affirmation Domine non sum dignus is not isolated. It is placed in a context. Let’s look at its location within the Roman Rite:

• Eucharistic Prayer

• Our Father

• “The peace of the Lord be with you always.”

• Agnus Dei

• “Lord I’m not worthy…”

• Reception of Communion

The acclamation, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) by Saint John the Baptist is theologically proximate to “I am not worthy,” since John the Baptist also says, “even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (John 1:27).

The Christian who says, “I am not worthy” has just recited the Our Father, declaring that God is our Father. Not something we are inherently worthy of, but something He grants as a gratuitous gift. Next, the believer hears “The peace of the Lord be with you.” The liturgical context is essential familial, peaceful, and redemptive.

We do say, “I am not worthy,” but the “but” is important. We say, “but only say the word and my soul shall be cleaned.” This statement is an affirmation of hope!

And what is the next phrase that the priest proclaims to the Christian? He proclaims, “The Body of Christ,” and the believer receives the Eucharist. That is the word that makes clean. That is the word that makes worthy.

Conclusion on “Being Worthy”

Ms. Horner does a disservice by isolating one line of liturgical text from the whole of the Eucharistic liturgy. Most non-Catholics have no idea about its placement proximate to the Our Father, the peace, or the climax of Catholic liturgy in the reception of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Most non-Catholic readers do not understand that Christ enters “under the roof” of our mouths and that we become one in Him and He in us. Yet this is where we find our worthiness. When we esteem God, we find our dignity fully. God designed it that way.

Sadly, the cultural self-esteem cult of finding an ever larger and louder voice of affirmation will not transform a man or woman into something beautiful or truly worthy. Only God can do that for us. Without this Eucharistic miracle “under our roofs,” we will continue to be plagued by cultural decline, despair, and violence. With your kindness and love, share the Gospel with others. Invite them to Mass with you this Sunday. Let others see the hope that we have in the Eucharist.

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall

10 Things Catholics Are Tired of Hearing

BY ELIZABETH GIDDENS VALVERDE for CATHOLIC365

POSTED IN 2/19/2015

Photo Credit: Flickr/On Being

1.“Catholics worship statues.”

This stereotype is painful to hear. Not only is this completely false, but it is ludicrous. Despite the fact that there are 801 millions Protestants world-wide, according to the Pew Research Center, my rant will be geared towards our brothers and sisters in the United States. In this country, approximately 51.5% of people are Protestant Christians. Realistically, most of these families have pictures in their home, which is completely normal, right? Right. They have pictures of their loved ones, both living and deceased. Is it not hypocritical then to say that Catholics are idol worshipers, when these families have portraits of their loved ones on the walls? If these Protestant families can have pictures of Uncle Bernie and Mawmaw hanging on the wall, then most certainly the Church can present pictures of our beloved Jesus, his disciples, and the saints.

2.“Catholics pray to Mary instead of God.”

This is a very common misconception throughout the Protestant community, and while I can understand why it is, I am also disheartened that many jump to such a harsh conclusion of the Catholic faith. We don’t pray to Mary, we ask her to pray for us, just as a Protestant asks their deceased grandparent/parent to watch over them.

3. “The saints can’t hear your prayers, because they are dead.”

I beg to differ. Since when is anyone who is in Heaven considered dead? We call it the afterLIFE for a reason. In fact, there is biblical proof that the saints can hear our prays:

-Revelation 5:8 “And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”

-Revelation 8:3-4 “Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God from the angel’s hand.”

4. “Mother Mary isn’t important; she’s just like anyone else.”

If our Blessed Mother isn’t important, then every female would have had an immaculate conception. For this reason, that is why the declarative statement above doesn’t make sense. Of course Mother Mary is important, she gave birth to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. What is so amazing about the Catholic faith is the fact that we recognize the importance of Mary, and we honor her accordingly. She is a role model and saint for all Christians to look up to, because she submitted to God completely. Until the day another woman gives birth to Jesus, no one will ever be just like Mary. She is a very special, holy woman.

5. “Catholics made up all their rules.”

Every single tradition we have in the Catholic Church, namely during Mass, has biblical roots. Not to mention the fact that Jesus was the founder of our Church. I don’t know about you, but Jesus doesn’t make mistakes.

6. “God said to confess sins to Him, not a priest.”

This one is a personal favorite of mine. Drum roll please.

-James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.”

It is true that we pray directly to God, and ask Him to forgiveness, however for sins (mortal) we do as Jesus commands and confess it to one another (our priests). Jesus said this directly to his disciples, so through Him, they were able to forgive sins. This power passed down to every priest, and so on and so forth. That felt good.

7. “Catholicism is a cult.”

Jesus Christ founded this Church more than 2,000 years ago, I would hardly call it a cult.

8. “Catholics aren’t Christians.”

The word Christian is associated with anyone who follows Christ’s teachings, and since the Catholic Church does just that then we are to be called Christians. Not to mention Catholics were actually the first Christians.

9. “Catholics added books to the Holy Bible.”

This one is so hilarious it hurts. For 300 years there was no Bible, only random writings from the prophets like St.Peter etc, until the Catholic monks compiled and canonized what is now known today as the Holy Bible. (That is until the Protestant Reformation occurred, in which one man *Martin Luther* removed 7 books). Ouch.

10. “Catholics believe you can pay your way into Heaven.”

We definitely do not. That is a huge misconception which occurred during the Protestant Reformation.

Despite the many stereotypes that hang over our faith, the important thing to remember is our Church has stood the test of time and remained for more than 2,000 years. Whether you are Catholic or Protestant-- we are all followers of Christ, and He is the ultimate goal.

“The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it, let it loose, and it will defend itself.”

-St. Augustine of Hippo

How to Respond to the "New Atheism" By Trent Horn, A Catholic Convert, Apologist and Speaker

Photo source: Huffingtonpost

Ridicule of religion is the ethos of many modern unbelievers

By: Trent Horn

Source: Catholic Answers

In C. S. Lewis’s novel That Hideous Strength there is a scene where the non-religious protagonist, Mark, is instructed as “part of an exercise” to trample an image of a large crucifix. Because Mark is not a Christian, he is puzzled as to why he should bother with this exercise and not just leave this silly superstition alone. The professor who is leading the exercise tells Mark, “Of course it is a superstition: but it is that particular superstition which has pressed upon our society for many centuries. . . . An explicit action in the reverse direction is therefore a necessary step towards complete objectivity” (ch. 15). In other words, if religion is to be purged from society it cannot simply be ignored; it has to be ridiculed.

Lewis’s novel, published in 1945, was set in the future. Nearly seventy years later, that future is our present, and the author’s descriptions of religious ridicule pale in comparison to the current mockeries of Christianity found on the Internet. Yet while the vileness of the ridicule has increased, the attitude embodied by the professor remains the same. The best way to see how Lewis’s fiction has become prophecy is to contrast the “Old Atheism” with what some have called the “New Atheism.”

The “Old Atheism”

Throughout most of the twentieth century, public profession of atheism was synonymous with communism or the endorsement of totalitarianism. In a 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone titled “The Obsolete Man,” a librarian in a police state is executed for the crime of believing in God. Ultimately the librarian (portrayed wonderfully by the late Burgess Meredith) turns the tables on his executioner, but the image of a believer being crushed under the jackboot of totalitarian atheism was, at the time, not mere fiction. In his 1967 memoir, Tortured for Christ, Richard Wurmbrand describes how Soviet guards would tell prisoners, “I thank God in whom I don’t believe. Now I may indulge the evil in my heart” (p. 34).

These horror stories may have something to do with atheism’s low approval ratings. Gallup compared two polls conducted in 1958 and 2012 about people’s unwillingness to elect certain minorities to the U.S. presidency. In 1958, 38 percent were willing to elect an African-American and 18 percent were willing to elect an atheist. In 2012, while 96 percent were willing to elect an African-American, only 54 percent were willing to elect an atheist (Jeffrey Jones, “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates,” Gallup Polling, June 21, 2012).

Faced with such dismal levels of public approval, atheists felt the need to show believers that they were good people and not amoral communists. Beginning in the 1970s, the philosopher Paul Kurtz promoted what he called “secular humanism,” which focused on promoting human well-being without religion rather than converting people to atheism. Secular humanists even praised religion for its beneficial effects on society.

The Second Humanist Manifesto affirmed, “In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals.” The Manifesto went on to point out that while religion can hinder society, so can many nonreligious ideologies that are not based on humanism (Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, “Humanist Manifesto II,” 1973). But this attitude of congenial disagreement changed for many people on September 11, 2001.

The “New Atheism”

I remember getting ready for school on that fateful day when my dad ran into my bedroom and turned on the television. Because I went to high school in Arizona, the attacks were in progress by the time I woke up. I stared in disbelief as the news replayed over and over again the surreal sight of the World Trade Center collapsing into a pile of dust. How could 19 human beings (the 9/11 hijackers) do something so terrible? The answer from the New Atheists was simple: Religion alone has the power to cause people to do such terrible things.

In 2004 American atheist Sam Harris, after reflecting on the September 11 terrorist attacks, published The End of Faith. In the book, Harris argued that religion is a form of mental illness and not part of a rational worldview. He writes, “[I]t is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions.” (p. 70). In 2006 British biologist Richard Dawkins went so far as to claim that religious education for children is child abuse: “Even without physical abduction, isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label a child a possessor of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?” (The God Delusion, p. 354). These books were followed by others, such as Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great and philosopher Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon. Before Hitchens died in 2011, these authors were known as the “four horsemen” of the “New Atheism.”

What made these atheists “new” weren’t their arguments against religion but their attitude that religion should be reviled. At the 2012 “Reason Rally,” about 10,000 atheists gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where Dawkins instructed them regarding Christians: “Mock them, ridicule them in public. . . . Don't fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion” (Lillian Kwon, “Atheists Rally for Reason; Urged to Mock the Religious,” The Christian Post, March 24, 2012).

Ridiculing religion

To be fair, there are atheists who do not see religion as a bad thing and don’t support ridicule as a way to combat it. Atheistic philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong writes, “Like law, science, art, and guns, religion is a powerful tool that can be used for great good as well as for great evil. I have no desire to obstruct the benefits of religion” (William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist, 82).But other atheists think this “accommodation” is dangerous. Harris writes, “I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss” (The End of Faith, 15).

ANG BATAYAN SA TUNAY NA IGLESIA AYON SA KOMENTO NG ISANG INC™

Epiphany Catholic Church, IL, USA (Source: Epiphany Parish)

Heto ang isa namang komento ng kaanib ng Iglesia Ni Cristo® -1914 mula sa ating post na ANG KATOTOHANAN TUNGKOL SA INK-1914.

rodel daroyMay 12, 2016 at 10:01 AM #1. Ang Cristo at mga Apostol ay matagal nang pinag pahinga ng Dios..  #2. Ang unang Iglesia Ni Cristo ay natalikod dahil pinag papatay, ang iba ay sumamba na sa mga dios-diosan na gawa sa ginto, bato, kahoy at iba pang materials... nangyari ito ng umakyat na sa langit ang Cristo,,, at ang mga apostol ay pinag pahinga na ng Dios.  #3. May sinabi ang Cristo, meron pa akong mga tupa wala sa kulongang ito, sila ay tatawagin mula sa malayo... sa maka tuwid hindi ito kasama sa mga pinag papatay at natalikod sa pananam palataya.. merong kakasang-kapanin ang Dios sa muling pag bangon ng INC sa mga huling araw,,, natural mente hindi na ang cristo yun at hindi narin ang mga apostol yun... tao na mag mumula sa sikatan ng araw o sa malayung silangan o Pilipinas,,, bakit namin natiyak na ang INC sa pilipinas nga yong tinotukoy ng Cristo? bakit? meron bang ibang bansa sa malayung silangan na doon muling bumangun ang INC? makikilala ba?  #4. Sinabi ng Cristo makikila ito sa pamamagitan ng aral na itataguyod nito,,,  #5. Isang tagapagligtas ang Cristo at isang Dios ang Ama na lumalang ng lahat ng bagay at nasa loob ng isa lamang katawan yun ang IGLESIA,,,ANG KAWAN,,, ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO,,, colosas 1:18, gawa 20:28, roma 16:16....  Ito naman paki basa:  #6. kani no bang aral ang pag babawal ng pag-aasawa? ang pag babawal ng pagkain ng lamang kati o karne sa mga araw na bawal? at pag samba o pag luhod sa mga larawan o mga santo o mga dios-diosan? ito ang dapat mong suriin kinauukulan,,,, kung ito ba ay aral ng Dios? o aral ng Diablo? wala akong mabasa sa biblia na nangaral ang cristo ang mga apostol ng ganito,,,, at maging ang kapatid na Filix Manalo ay wala ring ganitong ipinangaral,,,,, kung gayun kaninong aral kaya ito? ikaw na ang tumimbang kinauukulan,,,  #7. ito ang hula sa Iglesiang lilitaw o lumitaw na nga sa Bansang Pilipinas,,, Awit 4:3, Isa.43:5-6, moffatt translation; Isa. 62:11-12, Gawa 20:28 Lamsa translation, ang mga aral ng Iglesiang ito ay walang pinag kaiba sa aral ng unang Iglesia na itinatag ng Cristo sa jerusalim,,, sa makatwid ang INC na lumitaw muli sa pilipinas ay ang kawan na sinabi ng cristo na mula sa malayo... makikilala sa turo at pangangaral...  mahal namin kayo,,, kaya sana pag laanan niyo ng panahun ang pagsusuri sa mga aral ng INC... salamt po rodel proud to be INC,,,

Bagamat ang mga katanungan at sariling sagot ng kaanib ng INC™ na ito ay KASING-TANDA na ng mga kabundukan, atin pa ring sasagutin upang MAIPAKITA natin sila na ang PAGMAMAHAL ng DIYOS ay PAGPAPAHAYAG ng KATOTOHANANG hindi pa nila nasusumpungan hanggang sa kasalukuyan.

#1. Ang Cristo at mga Apostol ay matagal nang pinag pahinga ng Dios..

• Ano nga ba ang pagkaunawa ng mga kaanib ng INC™ na kapag namatay na ay ALABOK na lamang daw ang isang patay ("Pagbubunyag sa Iglesia Ni Cristo", p. 110) at wala na raw itong saysay sa mundo ng mga buhay (PASUGO December 1966, p. 10). Pinagpahinga ng Panginoon ang mga Apostol ang kanilang mga katawang-lupa ngunit BUHAY NA BUHAY kapiling ang Diyos na si Jesus sa langit. Sa Mt. 22:32, bagamat MATAGAL NANG PATAY sina Abraham, Isaac at Jacob sila ay BUHAY na kapiling ng Diyos. Ganon din ang mga Apostol ni Jesus. Sa katunayan, sinabi pa ni Jesus sa mga Apostol na "mauuna siya at ipaghahanda sila ng tirahan sa langit" na kapiling Siya (Jn. 14:3).

#2. Ang unang Iglesia Ni Cristo ay natalikod dahil pinag papatay, ang iba ay sumamba na sa mga dios-diosan na gawa sa ginto, bato, kahoy at iba pang materials... nangyari ito ng umakyat na sa langit ang Cristo,,, at ang mga apostol ay pinag pahinga na ng Dios.

• Ang UNANG nagsabing NATALIKOD na GANAP ang Unang Iglesia ay HINDI si Felix Manalo kundi si JOSEPH SMITH ng Mormon. Let me quote what was written by Dr. Patrick Madrid in his article 'IN SEARCH FOR THE GREAT APOSTASY'. "The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of this apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. IF THE ALLEGED APOSTASY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH WAS NOT A REALITY, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS IS NOT THE DIVINE INSTITUTION ITS NAME PROCLAIMS"[1] (emphasis added).

KINOPYA nga ba ni Felix Manalo ang doktrina ng mga Mormons ayon sa paratag ng blog na ito? Ngunit sa ngalan ng tamang pagsisiyasat, kung NATALIKOD NA GANAP ang TUNAY na Iglesiang TATAG ni Cristo (at ito ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA), ano bang KATIBAYAN ang maaari nating PANGHAHAWAKAN upang paniwalaan natin ang ganitong mga pahayag? Meron po ba silang hawak na HISTORICAL RECORDS na nagpapatunay ng PAGTATALIKOD?

AYON kay Cristo, HINDING HINDI RAW MATATALIKOD ang kanyang TATAG NA IGLESIA. Kahit pinto pa lamang ng Hades ay HINDI makapananaig dito (Mt. 16:16-18). ISANG PANGAKO yan! Tapos dumating lang si Felix Manalo noong 1914 eh NATALIKOD NA GANAP na raw ito? Inabot pa ng ISANG LIBO'T SIYAM NA RAAN AT LABING PITONG TAON (1,914) bago nalaman ni Cristo na NATALIKOD na pala ang Iglesiang TATAG niya at KAILANGAN ng isang Felix Manalo para 'itatag' muli tulad ng sinabi sa PASUGO Agosto 1971, p.22? Konting sentido comon naman po mga G. Rodel.

Sa katunayan, ayon na rin sa inyong OPISYAL na MAGASING PASUGO, ay HINDI nga NATALIKOD o HINDI PA NATATALIKOD ang tunay na Iglesia-- ang Iglesia Katolika.

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." 

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."

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."

Mayron pa ba akong dapat pang ipaliwanag tungkol sa "PAGTALIKOD NA GANAP" daw ng TUNAY na Iglesia ni Cristo? Malinaw na siguro ito mula sa inyong official magazine.

CWR: Why is this non-Catholic scholar debunking "centuries of anti-Catholic history"?

An interview with Dr. Rodney Stark, sociologist and author of "Bearing False Witness"

May 07, 2016 
Carl E. Olson for Catholic World Report

Dr. Rodney Stark has written nearly 40 books on a wide range of topics, incuding a number of recent books on the history of Christianity, monotheism, Christianity in China, and the roots of modernity. After beginning as a newspaper reporter and spending time in the Army, Stark received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, where he held appointments as a research sociologist at the Survey Research Center and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society. He later was Professor of Sociology and of Comparative Religion at the University of Washington; he has been at Baylor University since 2004. Stark is past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, and he has won a number of national and international awards for distinguished scholarship. Raised as a Lutheran, he has identified himself as an agnostic but has, more recently, called himself an "independent Christian".

His most recent book is Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History (Templeton Press, 2016), which addresses ten prevalent myths about Church history. Dr. Stark recently responded by e-mail to some questions from Carl E. Olson, editor ofCatholic World Report.

CWR: You begin the book by first noting your upbringing as an American Protestant and then discussing "distinguished bigots". What is a "distinguished bigot"? And how have such people influenced the way in which the Catholic Church is understood and perceived by many Americans today?

Dr. Rodney Stark: By distinguished bigots I mean prominent scholars and intellectuals who clearly are antagonistic to the Catholic Church and who promulgate false historical claims.

CWR: How did you go about identifying and selecting the ten anti-Catholic myths that you rebut in the book? To what degree are these myths part of a general (if sometimes vague) Protestant culture, and to what degree are they encouraged and spread by a more secular, elite culture?

Dr. Stark: For the most part I encountered these anti-Catholic myths as I wrote about various historical periods and events, and discovered that these well-known ‘facts” were false and therefore was forced to deal with them in those studies. These myths are not limited to some generalized Protestant culture—many Catholics, including well-known ones, have repeated them too. These myths have too often, and for too long, been granted truthful validity by historians in general. Of course secularists—especially ex-Catholics such as Karen Armstrong—love these myths.

CWR: The first chapter is on "sins of anti-Semitism," perhaps the most divisive and controversial of the topics you address. How have your own views on this issue changed, and why? Why do you think there continues to be a wide-spread belief or impression that the Catholic Church in inherently anti-Semitic?

YHWH: JEHOVAH? or YAHWEH?

Source: JWFacts

Almighty God was referred to by a number of names and titles in the Old Testament. Jews traditionally say there were seven names. One of these names was YHWH. The letters YHWH are named in Hebrew Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh. The Jewish Encyclopaedia states:

"Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh ( ), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility." jewishencyclopedia.com (as of 25/09/2005)

Prior to the time of Jesus, mainline Judaism came to believe that YHWH, the divine name of God, was too sacred to be uttered, and the ineffable name stopped being uttered aloud. Because written Hebrew contained consonants but no vowels, it is now unknown exactly how YHWH was pronounced by ancient Jews. However, there is consensus by scholars that God's name was rendered as Yahuweh or Yahweh.

"There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh. Probably the name means literally "He is."" New International Version: The Making of a Contemporary Translation CHAPTER 9: YHWH Sabaoth: "The Lord Almighty" Kenneth L. Barker

Jews recognise the divine name in modern times as Yahweh. The Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1906 by Funk and Wagnalls includes the divine name as Yahweh when translated into English.

Nazarene Judaism is a source of information on the pronunciation of YHWH because they see importance in the use of the name and continued to utter the name after mainstream Judaism had ceased saying the word out loud. The following quote is from an article written by a Nazarene and explains that there is significant evidence that Yahweh is the correct. Nazarenes and the Name of YHWH by James Trimm states;

"It is clear when examining the many sources that the pronunciation of YHWH can be recovered as YAHUWEH sometimes abbreviated as YAHWEH, YAHU or YAH. This is attested to by the Yahwitic names of the Masoretic text, the Peshitta Aramaic and the Marashu texts. The true pronunciation of YHWH is also preserved in ancient transliterations of the name written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, cuneiform and Greek, all of which had written vowels. The restoration of the use of the name of Yahuweh with its correct pronunciation is as prophetically significant as the restoration of the ancient sect of the Nazarenes. Such a restoration of the name of Yahweh to his people is promised in scripture: For then will I turn to the people a pure language, That they may call upon the name of YHWH (Zeph. 3:9)"

The first half of the Tetragrammaton is commonly used as an abbreviation for God's name and is included in the a number of Biblical names. The shorten form of YHWH is Yah. The New World Translation Reference Bible states;

""As Jah." BHSftn(Heb.), ki Yah; M(Heb.), beYah´, "by Jah." Yah is the first half of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. It occurs 49 times in M distinguished by a point (mappik) in its second letter and once, in Ca 8:6, without the mappik. TLXXSyVg, "Jehovah." See Ex 15:2 ftn, "Jah"; App 1A." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Footnote to Psalm 68:4

This is attested to by a number of English Biblical references. The word Hallelujah means 'Praise Yah" and shows that YH was pronounced as yah. The names Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah all end with Yah. On the other hand, Jehosaphat begins with the incorrect "Jeho" in place of Yah. This carries the same inaccuracy as Jehovah. The inaccuracy is due to Masorite additions from the nineth century C.E. The correct way to transliterate this name is Yahosaphat and is a combination of the word Yah, with the Hebrew 'shaphat', which means 'judge'.

The first letter was Y as the letter J did not exist in the Hebrew language. The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:

Q: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

ANSWER:

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Q: When did the term “Roman Catholic Church” first come into being?

ANSWER:

It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”

A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.

Source: CatholicSay
November 1, 2014

Q: What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Catholic religion?

ANSWER:

The Catholic religion/Church comprises all ecclesial communities, all group of churches in communion with the Pope. If a group or community does not adhere to the Pope, it is not part of the Catholic Church.

There are a number of individual or sui iuris (self-governing) churches, sometimes called “rites”. One of these is the Roman rite. It includes most catholics in the West. So when you say “Roman Catholic” it properly refers to a member of the Roman rite which is the largest of all other rites.

Maronites, Ukrainian, Chaldean, Syro-Malankara Catholics can be properly refered to as “Catholics” but not “Roman Catholics”. They are “Maronite Catholics”, “Chaldean Catholics” etc. They are all as catholic as everyone else since they are in full communion with the Pope.

All the rites are equal, their ecclesial customs and traditions may be different, ways of doing theology etc, but the doctrines are all the same.

Source: CatholicSay
October 10, 2014

Balik Islam Robert Ibrahim Macabulos (Muslim) Converted to Catholicism

Thanks to the Splendor of the Church blog for sharing this conversion story.
Published March 14,2016
Interviewed by Atty. Marwil Llasos, OP



#KnowTheTruth #TVMariaPh #TVMaria

PAINFUL TRUTH: OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION!

Blessed Pope Pius IX

Father Michael Müller: Questions and Answers on Salvation

by Father Michael Müller, C.SS.R.

Source: Catholic Family News

www.cfnews.org

CFN Editor’s Note: Father Michael Müller was one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th Century. He ranks as one of the greatest defenders of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in modern times. Father Müller always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication, thus we are sure of the doctrinal soundness of his teachings. This article, first published in 1875, is one of the finest treatments of the doctrinal truth that Our Lord founded one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Father Muller’s firm writings are desperately needed in our time when this doctrine is denied by those who are the most influential members of our Holy Church. We publish Father Müller’s excellent little Catechism as an antidote to the prevalent religious indifferentism — an indifferentism that is the direct result of what Blessed Pius IX denounced as “Liberal Catholicism”.

1. Do all admit that the Catholic Church is the first and the oldest Church, and, consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ?

That the Catholic Church is the first and oldest and consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ, is and must be admitted by all, because it is a fact clearly proven by Scripture and by history.

2. Who bear witness to this fact?

The Jews and the Gentiles bear witness to it, and even Protestants themselves acknowledge it, because, if asked why they call themselves Protestants, they answer: “Because we protest against the Catholic Church.”

3. What follows from this answer?

That the Catholic Church is older than Protestantism; otherwise they could not have protested against her.

4. If we go still further back and ask the Greek Church how they came into existence, what will be their answer?

The Greek Church must answer: “We began by separating from the Catholic Church in the 9th Century.”

5. What follows from this?

That the Catholic Church existed for eight hundred years before the Greek Church began, and consequently, it is older than the Greek Church.

6. If we thus go back to the very days of the Apostles, what do we find everywhere in regard to the manner in which religious sects arose?

If we go back to the days of the Apostles, we find that every sect separated from the Catholic Church, and therefore we see Calvinists, Kilhamites, Quakers, Shakers, Panters, Seekers, Jumpers, Reformed Methodists, German Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists, Baptists, Particular Baptists, Hardshell Baptists, Softshell Baptists, Forty- Gallon Baptists, Sixty- Gallon Baptists, Mennonites, Millerites, Universalists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Mormons, Christian Perfectionists, etc., etc., etc.

7. Is it not all the same to God whatever religion a person professes?

If it were all the same to God whatever religion a person professes, God would not have forbidden, in the First Commandment, to worship Him in any other than in the true religion. Nor would Christ have solemnly declared: “He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.” (Matt. 18:17)

8. Who, then, will be saved?

Christ has solemnly declared that only those will be saved who have done God’s will on earth as explained, not by private interpretation, but by the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. “Not everyone,” says Christ, “who saith to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doth the will of My Father Who is in Heaven, he shall enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 7:21) The will of the heavenly Father is that all men hear and believe His Son, Jesus Christ. “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him.” (Luke 9:35)

Now Jesus Christ said to His Apostles and to all their lawful successors: “He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him, the heavenly Father, that sent Me.” Hence all those who do not listen to Jesus Christ speaking to them through Saint Peter and the Apostles in their lawful successors, despise God the Father. They do not do His will, and therefore Heaven will never be theirs.