Rep. Lito Atienza lived his Catholic faith and defended the Church against Duterte attack!

Thanks for defending the Church!

Atienza to Duterte: Stop insulting Catholic faith; Church can’t be destroyed

Lito Atienza (Photo Source: Inquirer)

By: Pathricia Ann V. Roxas - Reporter / @PathRoxasINQ

INQUIRER.net / 08:20 PM January 15, 2019

MANILA, Philippines — Senior Deputy Minority Leader and Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza has defended the Catholic Church from President Rodrigo Duterte’s tirades, urging the Chief Executive to stop insulting the faith as the Church “cannot be destroyed.”

In a statement on Tuesday, Atienza pointed out that Duterte’s “incessant” statements against the clergy are “creating a climate and culture of death.” He added that Duterte should instead focus on his campaign to stamp out corruption.

“The Church cannot be destroyed. Many have tried but failed. I’d rather that the President devotes his time to giving Filipinos a better life and I want him to succeed in that,” Atienza said.

The former Manila mayor also noted that while he has been supporting Duterte’s flagship campaign against illegal drugs and increasing the pay of military and police personnel, he “speak out against him when he is wrong.”

“Huwag niyo pong maliitin, insultuhin, at ilagay sa kapahamakan ang ating mga pari at obispo. I believe in my faith and I will continue defending my faith,” said Atienza, pointing out Duterte should not focus on the Catholic Church, “which has been dealing with wrongdoings committed by its members.”

“We in Congress must stand and prevent the continuing efforts to destroy the foundations of our Church. What will succeed in the end is still the will of God,” he added.

The Catholic Thing: Thinking the Unthinkable

People, priests, and bishops need not shrink from the obligation to defend the Faith. We should consider it a privilege: “Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, ‘I believed, and so I spoke,’ we too believe, and so we speak.” (2 Cor. 4:13)

Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky

Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington. He is pastor of St. Catherine of Siena parish in Great Falls, Virginia.

Source: The Catholic Thing

Saturday, September 29, 2018

The word “unthinkable” is an amusing expression, an oxymoron wrapped in a single word. Nevertheless, it points us towards some very unpleasant things we are forced to think about, such as nuclear war or a Church in crisis.

Until very recently, the prospect of a pope promulgating significant doctrinal error was unthinkable. But many of us are now fretting about ambiguous papal pronouncements said to be “authentic magisterium” that directly oppose Scripture and Tradition.

It is always helpful to remember that a pope does not create doctrines; he elucidates doctrines to conserve the Faith he has received. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council defined the teaching authority of the pope. But they link his authority to Scripture and Tradition, the Church’s entire doctrinal history:

The Roman pontiffs . . . sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions. (Vatican I, Chapter 4, emphasis added.)

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council Fathers likewise link the authentic magisterium to Tradition and Scripture:

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. (Vatican II, LG 25, emphasis added.)

For example, the infallible teachings about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption emerged from unsettled Catholic theology. But the deeper understanding could be explained in light of Tradition and in relationship with the rest of Catholic doctrines and dogmas.

On sexual matters, the Church’s constant teachings in her ordinary magisterium on the nature and goods of marriage – and intrinsic sexual disorders such as contraceptive acts and homosexual behavior – are well-defined infallible teachings of the Church rooted in Scripture and Tradition. These clear doctrines not only provide precise moral guidance but opportunities for fruitful theological reflection bringing even greater clarity.

The Council Fathers carefully defined the authority of bishops – and assumed their fidelity and goodwill in conserving and faithfully teaching Catholic truth. But the Fathers surely knew the many ways that unfaithful bishops betray their office, usually by neglect but sometimes by flawed teachings.

*

The Fathers apparently did not see the need to state the obvious: doctrinal violations of Church teaching by bishops cannot bind the faithful in conscience. It is at least conceivable that a pope might also reject and abuse the graces of his office in a similar way. Such errors may muddy the waters of the ordinary magisterium, but obviously cannot bind in conscience.

LifeSite News: Massive turnout for rosary crusade in Poland. Liberals furious

WARSAW, Poland, October 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Hundreds of thousands of Polish Catholics encircled their country with prayer Saturday, imploring Our Lady’s intervention to save Poland and the world.

As Catholics lined the country’s 2,000-mile border for the “Rosary at the Borders,” progressives and compatible media deemed the national prayer gathering “controversial,” xenophobic, Islamophobic, or “not” representative of the Catholic Church.

“Poland Catholics hold controversial prayer day on borders,” the BBC’s headline said of the event.

In Defense of the Church

THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY RAMIL PARBA USING HEBREW TEXT OF GENESIS 23:6 TO SHOW THE GREEK WORD, THEOS IN THE THIRD CLAUSE OF JOHN 1:1 IS NOT A NOUN BUT AN ADJECTIVE

Ni Kapatid na Duane

We can see in this video that Parba found it very difficult to distort the Bible verses using his questionable knowledge of biblical languages.

Since his explanation of John 1:1 is wrong, no New Testament scholar will agree with him that the Greek word "Theos" in John 1:1 is an adjective. He used the verse from the Old Testament where the Hebrew word, "נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים" or "mighty prince" in English was compared to the 3rd clause of John 1:1 "and the Word was God".

IF UNDERSTANDING OF HEBREW TEXT IS WRONG, WHAT MORE IF IT IS ABOUT SYNTAX?

When Ramil Parba read Genesis 23:6, we noticed he read the word, אֲדֹנִי (Adoni) as Adonay so he referred to Abraham as God. He was wrong from the start.

Is it right to use the Hebrew Word "נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים" or "n'si Elohim" from Genesis 23:6 to show that the Greek word Theos in the 3rd clause of John 1:1 is an adjective?

He used the Hebrew syntax since he wanted to rectify his wrong understanding about the Greek syntax?

שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי, נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה בְּתוֹכֵנוּ--בְּמִבְחַר קְבָרֵינוּ, קְבֹר אֶת-מֵתֶךָ; אִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶת-קִבְרוֹ לֹא-יִכְלֶה מִמְּךָ מִקְּבֹר מֵתֶךָ.

(Genesis 23:6, Hebrew Bible)

First of all, Elohim is not an adjective in Genesis 23:6. As usual, think context. Genesis is an ancient narrative, in Hebrew, written in the sixth or fifth century BCE, in formal courtly language: “a prince of God.” As opposed to ancient narrative, John (half a millennium later) is making a solemn claim, in Greek, that Jesus is God and co-eternal with God. The Hebrew and the Greek cannot be compared on equal terms. The Hittites (polytheists!) are not thinking John's "God."

John specifically and dramatically is claiming that Jesus IS GOD.

John 1:1 is Greek, while Genesis 23:6 is Hebrew; so the rules of syntax are somewhat different.

Greek syntax works different than Hebrew syntax.

Ramil Parba is trying to confuse the issue by appealing to Hebrew syntax as a way to refute a point of Greek syntax.

That would be like suggesting a point in Spanish syntax could illumine an issue in French syntax—mixing apples and oranges.

The question about the syntax in John 1:1 is Greek, so the only kind of syntactical parallels that will count must be in Greek.

A SELF-EXCOMMUNICATED ROBERTSON POBLETE JOINED THE SCHISMATIC REBELLIOUS LEVEBRIANS (SSPX), CATHOLICS ARE INFORMED NOT TO JOIN HIS GROUP

Mr. Roberto Poblete [far left in Red] with the rebellious group SSPX in Metro Manila. (Source: Splendor Of The Church)

A former Catholic (self-proclaimed) "defender" had defected to SSPX, therefore, we are all requested to get rid of his group and pray for his return to the true fold.

His unbecoming behavior as reported by one of the CFD members in Manila, is unacceptable. He therefore is recommended to our prayers and sacrifices. He needs our prayers like a lost sheep among the fold, for only God can change his heart to humble himself before the Church and return home.

Come Home Mr. Robertson! Come Home in Humility and in Repentance! God bless.

PDI OPINION: Duterte’s unfair tactics and lies against Roman Catholic bishops

BULLSEYE!

Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:10 AM May 25th, 2016

These are presumptive President-elect Rodrigo Duterte’s false charges and unfair tactics against the bishops of the Catholic Church whenever they humbly assert their moral duty and their magisterium, as apostles of God, like when they opposed his plan to reimpose the death penalty (this time, by hanging, at that):

1. Ad hominem. Attack the honor, character and integrity of the Catholic Church and its bishops.

He alleges he was a victim of sexual abuse by a priest 50 years ago when he was 10. (His father, former governor of Davao, apparently ignored it or did not believe it because until recently, Duterte did not talk about the actions taken by his prominent family in response—if what he claims is true).

Some bishops received vehicles and financial support from former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. (They returned the vehicles to the government during a Senate inquiry, as an act of spiritual detachment to material things, despite their great need for mobility and accessibility, considering their multifarious field pastoral work to serve millions of Catholics in far-flung areas).

By virtue of the constitutional doctrine of “separation of Church and state,” the Church is “absolutely” prohibited from collaborating with and receiving assistance from government for its social action programs that benefit the poor and the oppressed. (According to many Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution allows “collaboration” between Church and state to promote the general welfare, and the matter of the Church receiving reasonable support from the state does not violate the separation doctrine.

That the Church is the “most hypocritical institution” in the Philippines. (Duterte, of course, skirts the issues on his unexplained wealth in BPI, his dubious SALNs, the inconsistencies, if not lies, in his speeches [his positions on issues change from time to time, depending on his audience], his secret meetings with Chinese officials and the Sultan of Brunei during the campaign, his allegation about poverty and lack of campaign funds [belied by his TV and radio political ads worth millions of pesos] his secret big-time financiers from mining, rice-trading and other business sectors, and his many other claims that amounted to gross dishonesty, irresponsibility and hypocrisy).

2. Diversionary tactic. Ignore the main arguments. (The United Nations and its agencies urge member-states to reject death penalty as a policy. The Second Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Convention prohibits death penalty since the 1970s. The current international norm rejects death penalty, except for a few states—e.g., United States, China, Singapore). Divert instead the attention of the public to irrelevant or collateral issues.

Sometimes I am tempted to conclude that Duterte’s very close, if not fanatical, association with top-ranking communist leaders and his deep ideological indoctrination to communism since the 1960s up to now have turned him into an atheist, the “religion” of hardcore communists.

Whenever I listen to Duterte, I always get the feeling that his mind is not only agitated by hate and overblown ego but also closed to reason and differing opinions, and that he listens only to himself and his alter egos, and that he believes his own lies.
—MANUEL J. LASERNA JR., former professor of law, Far Eastern University, partner, Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices, Las Piñas City

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/94893/dutertes-unfair-tactics-and-lies-against-roman-catholic-bishops#ixzz49osX8YH3

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook