Sign a Petition to use the Arabic "Allah" for Christians!

The legal battle goes on in Malaysia's Catholic Publication using the Arabic word for God "Allah" through a petition. Anyone who cares, Jews, other Christians and Muslims, please read the article and sign the petition below:

"Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews) - A group of Christians in Sabah has launched a petition drive to force the government to lift its ban on the use of the word "Allah," which according to the interior ministry should be used only by Muslims.

The campaign was launched last March 4, and will continue until March 29. In a few days, the website has gathered thousands of signatures, including from local Muslims and Hindus. In April, the signatures that have been collected via the internet and on paper will be presented to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The author of the campaign is Jeffrey Kitingan, brother of the deputy prime minister of Sabah, Joseph Pairin Kitingan. Sabah and Sarawak, the Malaysian provinces on the island of Borneo, are the area with the largest concentration of Catholics. Out of 900,000 faithful in all of Malaysia, at least 600,000 live in Sabah and Sarawak.

Ronnie Klassen, a businessman and one of the other organizers of the campaign, says that he hopes the online version will bring support from the international community and from the Vatican. This, he says, is "an issue that is very dear to all Christians as it is to members of the two other Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Islam."

(Read more of this article here)

Sign the Petition NOW by going to this address: PetitionOnline.

God bless!

Islamic World in Crisis According to Fr. Samir

Fr. Samir Khalil Samir observation:

An Islamic world in crisis, anti-Americanism and the fight against Israel

by Samir Khalil Samir

"Arab and Muslim countries are trying to find ways to reassert their dignity and uphold human rights but are increasingly turning inward, inching closer to Islamism and its calls for Sharia and caliphate. US support for Israel and corrupt Arab states fuel fundamentalism. The Islamic world is thus still waiting to reconcile its religion with modernity. "

Beirut (AsiaNews) – Fundamentalism is growing in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Increasingly it is seen as a solution to their problems, this according to a world survey that was reported by AsiaNews (cf Islamic countries reject al Qaeda, but also American policy, AsiaNews, 4 March 2009). The results show that a majority of people in eight predominantly Muslim countries reject al-Qaeda and attacks on civilians but also oppose US policies in the Middle East and the world. "

1. No to bombs or murderers

2. No to US military bases

3. Sharia and the caliphate

4. Searching for a lost dignity

5. Feeling bad about the West, feeling good about Bin Laden

6. What about Bin Laden then?

7. US and Israeli policies

(Read complete details HERE!)

On the other side of the news, UN now is becoming a "Totalitarian" Organization (U.N. to make ban on criticizing Islam mandatory?). Reactions could be found at JihadWatch.

How about news such as these: Muslims attack Christian Community in Punjab and Christian Middle East Exodus Worries churches, would it be the concern of the United Nations?

Not Baptized in the INC, Was Felix Manalo Saved?

If circumcision is a Jewish rite as a sign of permanent Covenant between God and Abraham (See Gen. 17:10-14), Christians are not required to follow this ritual according to Acts 15 (See Circumcision Controversy). Instead, it requires baptism as it's initial rite before one can become a "Christian".

Baptism among the Seven Sacraments, (read Wikipedia here) is the first and foremost Sacrament to be performed before one considers himself / herself a Christian. Sometimes, it's called the "Initiation" by the very fact that it's the first ritual to be performed.

Baptism can be applied to children preferably after 8 days (just as Jewish children are to be circumcised after 8 days). This is mostly practiced among Catholics and Orthodox Churches (and Anglicans) without any problem according to the deposit of Faith in the Sacred Tradition of the Church (read Wikipedia here and read Catholic Encyclopedia here). Or it can be applied to adult catechumen, either by sprinkling, pouring, or complete immersion (like Jesus' baptism in the Jordan River) depending on the accessibility of water as prescribed in the Canon Law (read here or the Catechism of the Catholic Church here).

In general, baptism is "the rite which admits a candidate into the Christian Church, and is considered a sacrament by most denominations" (emphasis mine) including the cultic sect Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Felix Manalo in the Philippines. Althouth strongly denied, the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28 used by all Christians who believed in the Trinity is being used also by the Iglesia ni Cristo. Hence the constituent elements of the baptismal rite are water and a Trinitarian formula: candidates are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Matthew's gospel, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize thus in his post-resurrection appearance to them in Galilee."

"Baptism was quickly seen as necessary for salvation and as the initial Moment of redemption; many passages in Acts teach that baptism must be preceded by faith and the confession and renunciation of sins. Paul developed a theology of baptism in which believers, being baptized, come to union with Christ, share in His death and resurrection, are cleansed of their sins, and incorporated into the body of Christ. The believer's sins are metaphorically washed away in the rite. The water is the visible sign of God's grace. "(Read more in Wikipedia about baptism)

Since the Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo has no available official website or any official book, teachings, guidelines etc, available in leading bookstores, we have to rely on Wikipedia as our main source to study their doctrinal position regarding baptism.

According to the Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo, No. 22, drafted and promulgated through its Executive Minister, the son of the owner and founder of that Corporation Sole:


"The Church of Christ (they mean Iglesia ni Cristo) believes that baptism is necessary for one to become a disciple of Christ and for the attainment of eternal salvation. But this should be done in accordance with the teachings of the Bible."

Since Felix Manalo was NEVER BEEN BAPTIZED in his founded Church that preaches the importance of baptism in order to be saved, I have some questions addressed to their Ministers and apologists that would be helpful for those who are undergoing "indoctrination" (or I call it "brainwashing"). Before you blindly accept their teachings, you need to throw them intelligent questions and demand from them Biblical passages that supports their stand. Here are some:

1. Jesus, who is "a man without sin" submitted himself to the Baptist's baptism,
   what made Felix Manalo exempted? What is the biblical verse that makes him
   exempted?


2. If Jesus was baptized while Felix was NOT, does it mean Felix is superior to
   Jesus?


3. If baptism is "necessary.. for eternal salvation" does it mean, Felix Manalo was
   eternally damned?


4. If Felix Manalo was not baptized in his church, does it mean INC approves his
   Catholic Baptism (or his protestant Baptism) as binding and legitimate so as to
   make him illegible for salvation (according to the commandments of Christ)?


5. Was Felix exulted himself more than Jesus that he's not subject to baptism as
   one of the pillars in the INC teachings?
   

(You can read some other questions addressed to their Ministers from another denominational sect here)

I am sure, any thinking Catholic and non-Catholic has more intelligent questions than what I have just posted. I hope through these initial questions, our ignorant Catholics and separated brethren in the Protestant churches think, pray and study before being led astray by the false teachings of a false angel.

May God bless all who seek justice and truth.

--------------------
Photo Credit: Thanks and God Bless twoheartsdesign.com

Is Arabic Script Exclusively "Islamic"?

Funny but it’s true. The Malaysian Government has dug up again old rotting issues legitimizing the use of Arabic “Allah” exclusively for Muslims which would deliberately prosecute any non-Muslims who would use the word to indicate the ‘Christian’ God. Those “backward-minded” Muslim clerics wanted to make sure that Muslims could distinguish “their” God (Allah) to “our” God (Yahweh) as if there are two distinct Gods that Abraham had preached.

The truth is, according to Raja Mattar in his article "Arab Christians are Arabs”, Christian Arabs “have always existed in the Middle East, and long before the advent of Islam.”

I see this as part of the misunderstanding of their Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) regarding the Christian theology on Trinity. Christians never preach that there are several Gods just because we believed in the Trinity. Their Prophet (pbuh) believed that the Trinity is composed of God, Jesus and his mother Mary which is not even reflected in all existing and historical development of the doctrine. According to our Catechism, there IS ONLY ONE GOD, who revealed himself in 3 Personhood, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Understandably, their charges of “polytheism” of Christians stemmed from the Qu’ranic verse 5:73-75, 116 (read here) that says, “They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.”
As I have posted in my blog (here), Abraham preached One God and that whether his name is translated to other languages it never diminish HIS true essence as Lord, Almighty, Benevolent, Most Merciful, Forgiving, All-Knowing etc., The Bible says, God is the same “yesterday, today and forever” which means we can never make HIM lesser with our definition nor we can limit him through our limited language.

Allah is a word now accepted in the English dictionary which was derived from the Arabic n. Allāh : al-, the + ’ilāh, god. From its definition, it’s an Arabic word (not Islamic- read here) and not all Arabs are Muslims. History would prove that before the advent of Islam through its prophet (pbuh), most of Arabian inhabitants were either Jews or Christians or pagans (read here) who have spoken the very same Arabic that is now used in its Qu’ran.

Sickening topic though but with this fresh issue being circulated around the world through the media ‘islamophobes’ (as they love to call those who opposes Islam) would add something to their long list of Islamic religious intolerance around the world.

Will someone from any of the the Islamic States beg to disagree with the Malaysian Government?

From JihadWatch:

Malaysia Restores 'Allah' Ban for Christians
Monday, March 02, 2009

Print ShareThisKUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The Malaysian government will issue a new decree restoring a ban on Christian publications using the word "Allah" to refer to God, officials said Sunday.

Home Affairs Minister Syed Hamid Albar said a previous Feb. 16 decree that allowed Christian publications to use the word as long as they specified the material was not for Muslims was a mistake, the national Bernama news agency reported.

The about-turn came after Islamic groups slammed the government and warned that even conditional use of the word by Christians would anger Muslims, who make up the country's majority.

A senior ministry official confirmed Syed Hamid's comments, saying there were "interpretation mistakes" in the Feb. 16 decree that led to the confusion.

"'Allah' cannot be used for other religions except Islam because it might confuse Muslims. This is the ministry's stand and it hasn't changed," the official, who declined to be named citing protocol, told The Associated Press.

The official said the ministry was likely to issue a new decree to annul the old one and effectively re-impose the ban.

The dispute has become symbolic of increasing religious tensions in Malaysia, where 60 percent of the 27 million people are Muslim Malays. A third of the population is ethnic Chinese and Indian, and many of them practice Christianity.

Malaysia's minorities have often complained that their constitutional right to practice their religions freely has come under threat from the Malay Muslim-dominated government. They cite destruction of Hindu temples and conversion disputes as examples. The government denies any discrimination.

The Herald, the Roman Catholic Church's main newspaper in the country, had filed a legal suit to challenge the government ban on non-Muslims using the word. (Read more here ).

As a reminder to the Malaysian Government who wants to exclude Christians from using the Arabic word "Allah", here's Mr. Raja Mattar has to say:

"What used to be known as Bilad Al Sham (Greater Syria, if you will) was Arabized long before Islam. To quote Salibi again (ch. 5): "Since pre-Islamic times, Mount Lebanon appears to have been densely populated by Arab tribes.." In ch. 7: "To maintain that the Syrians came to be arabized after the conquest of their country by the Muslim Arabs was simply not correct, because Syria was already largely inhabited by Arabs - in fact, Christian Arabs - long before Islam."

-------------------
Note: pbuh is an abreviation of "Peace be upon him" connected immediately after mentioning any of the "prophets" in Islamic religion. It's a form of respecting their Islamic belief.

The INC re-established, why from the Philippines?

If the Church had indeed apostatized, why from the Philippines?

When I was 10, mother was making a living in the capital town of Basco in Batanes as housemaid so I had to transfer school. From Ivana, I had to enroll at Basco West Central School for that year. In order to survive that time, I was employed to a very good Aberilla Family which was located just opposite the Batanes Hospital and facing a residential house rented by the Iglesia ni Cristo as its worship place.

I was so ignorant then. I thought they're one of us having a minor different teachings about Christ and the Church. I thought it's not a big deal. But then I was wrong. It made me think seriously that both cannot be true at the same time. I haven't heard that name before but considering Felix Manalo as an angel, I have to roll up my sleeves and begin to work. Although I could easily run to a priest's explanation but I thought, working out on my own would be more rewarding later on.

Who's Felix Manalo?

According to them, his angelic position was prophesied Isaiah 43:5-6 ("The north will give them up and the south cannot keep them back; for God said, "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back! 'Bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the ends of the earth--" )'Felix Manalo' who was to be the prophesied 'angel' to restore Christ's 'apostatized' Church.

Since they do not have any available official website or any printed official teachings such as the Official Catholic Catechism, I have to rely on third party sources that seem to be most reliable. According to , their explanation of the North was the Protestants from North America and the South refers to Catholics from Spain). Thus, the Far East refers to the Philippines. Amazing! How did they come up with that explanation?

My curiosity about Iglesia ni Cristo and other Protestant sects and cults didn't happen until I was in college. With some of 'uninformed' Catholics converting to 'Born-Again' and other modern day sects, I had to weigh down it's basic teachings, think and study about my Catholic belief before I'd jump off the boat.

If indeed the Catholic Church has apostatized then definitely one of them is saying the truth. Raised in a Catholic Ivatan tradition, I never had any encounter with Protestants. Normally, I'd have apostatized from the Church and join their group but my little faith saved me from falling into a more serious error.

We had only two Bibles at home, the Ivatan Translation of the NT which was old with almost dilapidated pages due to frequent typhoon. I also have an pocket Bible from Gideon which was freely distributed by some members of that sect.

Reading the Bible was part of my leisure, not part of my spiritual exercises. I memorized only two Bible verses in English. John 3:16 is one and Romans 16:16 is second. The latter is the Bible verse often used by INC.

"[G]reet one another with a holy kiss, all the churches of Christ greet you," says the English version.

"[M]agbatian kayo ng banal na halik, lahat ng iglesia ni Cristo binatati kayo," says the Tagalog version.

"You see, the name "iglesia ni Cristo" is in the Bible whereas the Catholic Church isn't," as they use to brag.

As they claim, Christ's true Church must have a name and it must be biblical. Romans 16:16 was the answer to that. On the contrary, the Catholic Church was not even spelled out in the Bible so it must not be Christ's true Church.

As ignorant as I was, I could have been easily persuaded by that line and be converted right away to Iglesia ni Cristo however I noticed that there was a serious problem with the word 'churches' (iglesia). Ordinary folks wouldn't mind it at all but this was the Bible. I just couldn't take for granted the rules of grammar in understanding the Bible. As I thought, the Bible wasn't written just for the sake of writting but it was written with all its literary rules and grammar. The small letter "c" for churches ("i" for iglesia) would never be considered as 'Proper Name" as far as the rules of grammar is concern. That's deliberately deceiving the ignorant of their ignorance.

They are right, the name church(es) of Christ (iglesia ni Cristo) appeared in the Bible but it was not Church(es) of Christ (or Iglesia ni Cristo). So far, the Four Marks of the Church differentiating it from the false ones contain more astute, logical, biblical, historical, fact-based explanation than their single Biblical verse quotation explaining the whole history of the Church to our modern times.

Soon, other questions emerged and the more I question their beliefs, the more I understand the Catholic Church's teachings.

Why 'Iglesia ni Cristo"?

Why it's written in Tagalog?

Why not use 'Church of Christ' when it's being referred to in English?

This could be answered by going back to its history.

The Iglesia ni Cristo was founded by Felix Manalo in Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila in July 27, 1914. After joining numerous Protestant sects, doubted his faith, joined the masonry, he finally settled down and built his own church, registered it under the Philippine Government, named it "Iglesia ni Cristo" (not Church of Christ) protected under Registered Patent Trademarks. According to its registration, the 'Iglesia ni Cristo" (not Church of Christ while I am writing in English) is a Corporation Sole owned and managed by Felix Manalo as its founder.

Using the English translation "Church of Christ" would pose a serious violation of its Registered Patented Trademarks against H. G. White who first registered 'Church of Christ" (in English).

That explains why you see the English translation inside an open-closed parenthesis whenever they translate their church name to English (see below photo).


Perhaps Manalo was using the Tagalog Version of the Bible when he founded his church. If he had used the Spanish Version, he might have registered it "Iglesia de Cristo."

Again, according to history, the Iglesia ni Cristo was founded 94 years ago (as of year 2008 A. D.) while the Catholic Church traces it's origin back from the First Century (read History of teh Catholic Church)spanning almost 2,000 years in existence. Logically it dates back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Seriously, historians are unanimous with this fact.

If they can easily manipulate and disregard the rules of grammar in the Bible, there is a big possibility as I thought that they could do it with equal easiness
in quoting the Bible. That would further damaged the ignorance of their prospect converts from Catholicism. This led me to consider studying 'personally' about the Bible.

The Bible is the written Word of God. That's certainly true. However with hundreds if not thousands of Bible Translations circulating today, what guarantee can we have that what we are reading is closest to the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and Latin Vulgate versions of the Bible?

I may sound obscure but there are those Christians who are afraid to question the Bible, how it was formed and how it came into existence? All they thought, since it's God's Word, questioning its origin would be like questioning the authority of God. Of course this is not true. We can question the origin of the Bible in order for us to have a clear understanding how, when, what, where was the Bible written for.

The Bible didn't fall from heaven nor God commanded prophets and Apostles to write a Bible. He simply told them to follow what was told them by their forefathers. It was by oral Tradition that we have this faith in One God and the Bible was the effect of that oral Tradition put into writing. In other words, the Church came first and then the Bible.

Serious charges from Islam's Sacred Book (Qu'ran) saying that the Torah and the Gospel ceased to be reliable after it was translated to many languages which eventually lost it's truthfulness. The same reason why the Qu'ran is never allowed to be translated without it's Arabic original script alongside with the translation.

Of course we cannot do that. If we do so, we would be carrying volumes of Bible in our Churches. Although the Bible was translated to Septuaginta and in Vulgate Latin from its original language, the essence and its truthfulness of the message never changed. Gravely misunderstood by Islam and the Iglesia ni Cristo is the Doctrine of Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.

Going back to the origin of the Bible, perhaps the very reason why non-Catholic preachers won't tell the truth about the Bible was because it would never give then any advantage at all. Acknowledging the Catholic Church's authority as the reason why we have a Bible today would be damaging to their career as ministers.

The Catholic Church through its Synods and Ecumenical Councils beginning from the Council of Jerusalem to the Second Vatican Council upheld all declared true teachings from the time of Jesus and the Apostles to this present age.

Such dishonesty in their part kept ignorant people from being properly enlightened. Somehow the ignorance of Catholics is a lucrative business. Teach them another gospel. Brainwash them. Teach them their subjective 'truth' that they are the real and the Catholic Church is the false. Use the dark history of the Church as their proof such as the Inquisition, enumerate the list of errant priests and nuns, add up some legendary stories to back up their brainwashing strategy, hate the Catholic Church and all its forms. Then convert them. Soon, these ignorant Catholics would be the fiercest anti-Catholics ever to be made! And they wouldn't accept any sound explanation as long as it's from the Catholic point of view.

The Devil is wise indeed.

Such was the style of the Iglesia ni Cristo in the Philippines.


Total Apostasy? A Hoax!

Whoever is believing in this hoax teaching, he too must believe that Christ is a liar. Of course, this isn't true. In fact, he's the Way, the Truth, and the Life says the Bible. If then, Christ isn't the liar, Felix must be! They can't be both saying the truth.

So is it true that Christ's Church completely, totally, wholly, entirely, fully, absolutely apostatized from the face of the earth and that nothing, no one, not even one, was on the side of truth and that the only person who had that TRUTH was Felix Manalo who was once a Catholic, once a Protestant, once an Agnostic, once an Atheist, and now an angel who could re-establish it back?

On the contrary, the Catholic Church which the Iglesia ni Cristo acknowledges to be the "Original Church of Christ established in Jerusalem, was part of history, is still part of the present and will be part of the future age.

If then they acknowledge the Catholic Church to be Christ's original Church (before apostatizing), what's their Bible verse that proves it WAS Christ Church indeed (before it apostatized).

We have Matthew 16 to prove that. "[And] you Simon son of Jonah, I will call you Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against it."

(Although they tried their very best to prove that 'this rock' wasn't Peter but Jesus. Logically, how could Jesus refer to himself when he's directly talking to his subject who is Peter?)

What did Jesus said? The gates of hell "WILL NEVER" prevail against [his] Church. Grammatically, 'will' denotes future event and so it must be today while I am wriiting this article. That hell (nor any power of darkness-- not even a lie of Felix Manalo) WILL prevail against it [his Church]. Simple, yet they complicate it to suit their maliciousness.

Why?

It's because if their 'Total Apostasy' teaching is biblically unfounded, then the whole of Iglesia ni Cristo would crumble down and fall. If there is no apostasy, then there's no need for restoration. If there's no need for restoration, then there's no need for a Felix Manalo. And for sure, Felix Manalo would be begging for a cold soda while being roasted somewhere.

So the next time an Iglesia ni Cristo would introduce his cultist beliefs, try to roll up your sleeves, exert effort, do your homework, study, pray, research in your libraries, look for third party sources such as history books and encyclopedia, go to www.answers.com if you are in the net and read. When in doubt, ask an expert, a priest or someone who's not biased and open minded reliable source.

As a reminder from XCrusaders,

When a proper exegesis is done on all their claims, the INC is found to be nothing but another of a variety of pseudo- Christian churches which has drawn many people out of the true body. Examine them closely and do not be fooled. A lot depends on it!

Always remember, pray to the Holy Spirit before searching for truth.

Fresh Violence in Orissa India Against Christians

It seems there's no more end to the violence hurled at Indian Christians living in the State of Orissa. A report from Zenit.org has the story what's really happening.

Extremist Hindus are responsible to these horrifying threat and the Indian Government is doing very little to ease the tension.

BHUBANESWAR, India (Zenit) - "The slaying of another Christian in the Eastern Indian state of Orissa has rekindled fears among a population driven from their homes by a wave of persecution at the hands of Hindu extremists.

Hrudyananda Nayak, 45, was found dead last Thursday, showing signs of a violent end to his life, Aid to the Church in Need reported.

Ongoing Hindu-Christian tensions in India flared into a wave of violence at the end of last August, after extremists blamed the slaying of a Hindu leader on Christians. Dozens of Christians, including a priest, were killed and thousands fled their homes.

More than 10,000 of those same Christians are still living in displacement camps. According to Father Madan Singh, spokesman for Archbishop Raphael Cheenath of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar, "People from relief camps have been slowly returning to their villages. But after this incident, the fear has been doubled, movement has been controlled, suspicion has increased."
(read here for more)
Read related story here

On the other news, Christians (Catholics in particular) relationship with Moderate Muslims has remarkably improved in the past century healing the past wound that haunted these two great faiths from the Crusades. Hopes for a more tolerant Muslim States in the Middle East is one of the most important issues the Church is having dialogue with our Muslim brethren. In 2007, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Highness King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia paid visit to the Vatican and meeting the Pope (read here).

Frequent visitors are His Highness King Abdullah of Jordan and his wife Her Royal Highness Queen Rania (read here). Other Islamic States' head had paid visit to the Vatican in particular the State of Bahrain has invited the Pope to visit them (read here). Thanks to the effort of the Holy See through the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI's (and to John Paul the Great) desire to have a meaningful dialogue with our Muslim brethren.

"VATICAN CITY (Zenit) - Benedict XVI is affirming that Christians add a richness to Muslim-majority countries.

The Pope said this in a message written on his behalf by his secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, and sent to a conference Monday sponsored by the Community of Sant'Egidio. The conference was on "The Value of the Churches in the Middle East: Christians and Muslims Discuss Together."

In the message, the Holy Father expressed the hope that the Middle East will be "a land of dialogue and fraternal collaboration, mutual respect and peace, thanks to the responsible contribution of all believers who live in it."

The letter, published Monday by L'Osservatore Romano, stated that the issue discussed in the meeting has a "clear religious and social significance."

The meeting, the papal statement said, "is one more step in the patient and beneficial journey of dialogue between Christians and Muslims on [topics] of mutual interest." In particular, it affirmed, the congress confronts the "crucial" issue "of the presence of Christian communities in regions of strong Islamic supremacy."
(Read here for more)

As I always say, nothing is impossible with good intention prayers. Let us all ask God to heal our differences and bring peace in our land starting from the three Great Monotheistic Religions flowing to those who have faiths different from us, not to proselytize but to do good works working through our faith in One God.

Olmert, Sorry for TV Show Mocking Catholics!

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apologized for an Israeli TV show that mocked Christians:

JERUSALEM — Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert says he feels "regret, sorrow and disapproval" for a comedy show that mocked Christian theology and offended the Vatican.

Government spokesman Mark Regev said Olmert told ministers at a Cabinet meeting Sunday the comedy segment was "in stark contrast" to good relations between Israel and Christians worldwide.
(read here for more...)

Catholics Should Chastise Israeli TV for Religious Intollerance!

According to an Israeli TV through Catholic.org "comic pokes fun at Jesus and Our Lady, saying he wants to 'deny Christianity' since Christians 'deny the Holocaust'". Perhaps this reaction was caused by Bishop Williamson's denial of the Halocoust. Bishop Williamson belong to the excommunicted Levebrian sect Society of St. Pius X which was recently re-admitted to the fold by Pope Benedict XVI (read more here). To my knowledge, the Pope has chastised the Bishop and was told to recant his views (read here) in line with the sensitivity of the topic that could hamper Jewish-Catholic relations.

Good thing is that, we are not alone. Thanks to moderate Muslims who are backing up the issue with Catholics in the Holy Land.

JERUSALEM (AsiaNews) – The Assembly of Catholic Bishops in the Holy Land slammed the “repulsive attacks” on Jesus Christ and Our Lady on an Israeli TV show. For them the incident is a sign of the growing intolerance and hatred towards other faiths, best exemplified by a recent incident in which copies of the New Testament were publicly burnt in the yard of a synagogue in Or Yehuda.

In the TV show which ran at the start of the week Israeli humorist Yair Shlein said that since Christians “deny the Holocaust, then I want to deny Christianity” in order “to teach a lesson”. (read here for more!)

Picture Credit: Thanks to pennantshop.com

While we are banned to do it...

How I wish non-Muslims can freely do this in Islamic States as they freely enjoy doing it in our democratic cities.

NYPost

Miami New Times Blog

Or perhaps one Muslim would stand up and use his/her democratic rights to pressure Islamic States allowing Christians to put up their ads in buses and in main streets calling them to consider reading the Bible. That is but fair enough...

Would anyone dare?

Lastly, Mr. Robert Spencer carefully evaluated what's the difference between our sense of dialogue to non-Christians in Christian dominated states such as the United States of America:

In the United States, for example, Muslim minorities have the exact same rights — to build places of worship (mosques), publicly carry their scriptures (Korans), to worship and proselytize, and, simply, to be Muslim — as do Christians, Jews, and the rest. That is proof that the West is prepared for dialogue over ancillary matters: it has already visibly demonstrated that it firmly believes all humans are guaranteed basic rights.

Countries like Saudi Arabia evince no respect for basic human rights and freedoms. The contrast is amply demonstrated by the recent comments of one high ranking Saudi who said that “It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church [note the singular] in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognize the prophet Muhammad” — which of course would make all Christians Muslim. (read here for more)

Fr. Samir Khalil Samir on UK's Gagging Mr. Wilders

The producer of the controversial and now being banned movie "Fitna" (watch here) has been barred from entering the United Kingdom to avoid "displeasing Muslims" according to AsiaNews. Mr. Geert Wilders, a member of Parliament in Netherlands who wished to visit London perhaps to promote his movie to a more "tolerant" and "free" country to his dismay was disallowed by airport securities for political reasons.

Earlier, issues such as the cartoon depiction of Islam's prophet (read here)caused widespread casualties particularly targetting Westerners with violence. Some churches were vandalized with hate and some received death threats. Among those who were killed were Theo Van Gogh who was slit with a sharp knife on his neck and was left dead on the street by his assailant. Another case which was reported from Turkey was Fr. Andrea Santoro who was gunned down by a teenager, believed to be acted upon the said cartoon scandal.

In reaction to these violence done in the name of "Islam", none among any Muslims denounce the violence itself nor they condemned those "terrorists" doing such henious crimes in the name of "Islam". Fr. Samir Khalil Samir a Catholic priest, an Islamologist isn't happy with the gagging of Mr. Wilders. Here's what he has to say about the issue:

(AsiaNews) "One thing is clear: the decision of the British foreign office to block the visit of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders is a political reaction, dictated by political motives. The question that can be asked is whether this is a good policy. It could be that this expedient on the part of Great Britain is the only way to avoid religious conflict, but it seems worthwhile to me to make an observation.

I saw the film "Fitna" a year ago, and recently I have viewed a few clips from it again. The film is rather violent and crude, on purpose: its intention is to demonstrate that Islam is a violent religion in itself.

I don't like the film. For one thing, it depicts a reality with many citations from the Qur'an, to demonstrate the violence of this religion. Without a doubt, the reality presented in "Fitna" is partial, and in no way an accurate depiction of Islam as a whole.

The film is certainly provocative, because it intends to assert that Islam is a religion of violence. But in effect, there is violence both in the Qur'an, and in the life of Mohammed. Still today, there are Muslims who carry out violence in the name of the Qur'an and of the prophet of Islam.

But it must be said that the response to a violent, partial film cannot be violence, and not even the decision to prevent someone from speaking. The minister's decision to block Wilders, and the threats against him, fall into this category.

I have seen that the European Arab League has responded to this film with another film, a sort of "anti-Fitna"; other Muslim filmmakers have done the same thing. Such a reaction is more admirable than the one displayed by the Foreign Office. Although I do not like "Fitna," I am against the decision of the British government. All the more so in that Wilders was supposed to present the film to the House of Lords, and not to a political group.

Wilders's speech is, without a doubt, violent and fanatical. This is clear from reading just a few of his statements. But in the West, freedom of speech is a right that cannot be denied without creating other problems.

I have read at least 60 reactions from Muslims to the film "Fitna," although few of them had seen it. Their reactions are mainly of rejection, a violent response. Only one commentary states: "It is true, this film is violent, it is not helpful, and it increases our perception of being besieged on every side; we see Islamophobia everywhere. But it is also true that our reactions make a great deal of room for this Islamophobia."

I wonder: how is it that the Muslim world - and also part of the West - is so sensitive that it must gag every critic and even raise so much (physical) violence against (verbal) violence?

The Muslim world has not yet assimilated certain values, like the right to speech and to criticism, even though this can sometimes be unjust, or partially unjust.

There is a beautiful verse in the Qur'an that says: "In debate, dispute with them in a superior manner, and not on their level." This verse should exclude this kind of violent reaction. And yet it must be said: there is violence in the name of Islam.

In some of the "anti-Fitna" films, there are images of Israelis fighting against the Palestinians; then there are images of crusaders, with cross and swords; then images of Americans in Vietnam. One film has been produced by the Islamic society al Furkan. In these "anti-Fitna" films as well, violence connected to religion is denounced. But the difference is that the Muslims who carry out violence do so in the name of their faith, constantly citing passages from the sacred book and the hadiths. The Israelis and Americans wage war not in the name of the Bible or the Gospel, but in the name of their politics. This is not a question of crusades, because it is foolish to compare contemporary events with those of a long gone past.

If the West goes to war, it does so for political purposes, economic, etc. Unfortunately, in Islam there are many imams who preach a religious war against nonbelievers, not a moral war, but a physical war, always quoting the Qur'an. Violence in the name of God is to be rejected in every religion. John Paul II spoke out against it many times, and Benedict XVI is doing so today. It is therefore worthwhile not to block discussions, but to become engaged and demonstrate falsehood, the connections between religion and politics, correcting one another.

In conclusion, I do not believe that the film "Fitna"is helpful: it serves only to provoke Muslims to make a break with violence, and non-Muslims to react, and not remain silent. On the other hand, the British reaction is not valid either, it does not help Muslims to criticize themselves, nor to stop violence in the name of Islam.

It is increasingly urgent that there be a group of Muslims and non-Muslims fighting together for freedom of speech and conscience, and capable of dialogue; to advance self-criticism of persons and civilization; distinguishing precisely between religion and politics."

Having said that, one website Islam4UK Muslims are inviting non-Muslims for a conference, suggesting it's website's title:

:: CONFERENCE (1/3/09) :: THE ISLAMIC STATE - PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE

What is this conference about?

On the 3rd March 2009 C.E. it will have been 85 years since the destruction of the Islamic State, or in other words 85 years of tyranny, oppression and injustice. For over 1300 years this magnificent superpower dominated world affairs and introduced a law and order that lifted the masses from the darkness of man-made law and into the light of al-Islam. This special conference will be dedicated to providing an in depth overview of the Islamic State, its past, present and future as well as emphasise the need for all Muslims worldwide to struggle as much as they can for the sake of Allah (SWT) to implement the Shari'ah on the earth.

Who are the speakers and what are their topics?

1. The Reality of the Islamic State in the Past

2. How its destruction led to mankind's present sufferinng

3. How its inevitable establishment will illuminate human life in the future

[Speakers to be confirmed soon...]

When is it?

1st March 2009

3pm - 6pm

Where is it?

Vale Farm Sports Centre

76 Watford Road

North Wembley

Middlesex

HA0 3HQ

How much will it cost?

There is no admission fee.

Will there be any merchandise available?

DVD's (£2), Shahadah flags (£5), and other memorabilia will be sold inshaa'allah.

Is it for brothers and sisters?

Yes.

Please note however, strict segregation will be enforced.

I am a non-Muslim can I attend?

Yes. And you are welcome to embrace Islam as well.

Who can I contact for further information?

Media enquiries: 07956 600 569

General enquiries: 07547 032 668

Is UK soon to be the new Islamic State?

The views of Patriotic Australian Prime Minister

Today, a friend sent me this message. This message has been circulated since 2005. I am sorry if this would offend some.

The whole world needs a leader like this! "Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.. Separately, Kevin angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. ' 'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom' 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!' 'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.' 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.' 'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.' Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths. If you agree please SEND THIS ON and ON to as many people as you know.

Although this message carries truthfulness to radical Islamists living in democratic countries such as Australia it is still divisive in its essence. According to hoax-slayer.com, this circulated email wasn't Mr. Rudd's comments. In fact it was Federal Treasurer Peter Costello's commentaries. Some parts of the message were that of Barry Loudermilk, a US Air Force veteran and columnist for a local newspaper in the American state of Georgia.

Further, hoax-slayer calmly suggests:

"[T]hus, while the more lengthy version of message that includes Loudermilk's article is still partially factual, it is nonetheless outdated, contains inaccurate information and may perpetrate a quite misleading understanding of Australia's policies on immigration in general and Muslims in particular. Taken out of context, and with the falsely attributed Loudermilk article thrown into the mix, this email may give the impression that Australia is intolerant of migrants, especially those of the Muslim faith. This is not the case. One of Australia's great strengths is its rich cultural diversity and it welcomes migrants from all parts of the world and with many and varied systems of belief.

Sending on factually dubious information such as this is unlikely to be helpful and may even add to the cultural divisions and misunderstandings that plague our strife-torn world."

Prophecies Fulfilled by Felix Manalo

PASUGO- the official magazine of the Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Felix Manalo who's the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies according to its apologetics has numerously printed teachings contradicting its own teachings. From its earliest publications, their Minister article writers were either confused or ignorant of the Holy Scripture. Lost most rounded debates with experts and scholars beginning from its own founder, they never acknowledge defeat. When unable to defend or sensing defeat, their members would run and hide or challenge their opponents to visit any of their chapels and debate with their minister in a one-sided territory.

As an example, one of PASUGO's writer wrote things damaging acknowledgement of the Catholc Church as Christ's TRUE CHURCH:
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46:
“Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo..."


One reader of their "The Messanger" by the name Christopher Dawson from Los Angeles, California, USA was questioning INC’s very confusing teachings about Jesus and its angel Felix Manalo and the many copied teachings from other Christian denominations he was once a member including the Catholic Church which the Iglesia ni Cristo substantiated to be the REAL CHURCH Christ founded!!!

"I read the history of your Church and I learned that Mr. Felix Y. Manalo had been a member of many different churches like the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Christian Mission, and Seventh-Day-Adventist. Doesn’t this prove that he is not a true messenger since he took all of his teachings from these different churches and combined them to form the teachings of the Church of Christ.?”

Mr. Dawson was right in consulting history. In fact, Felix Manalo was baptized Catholic, later became an Aglipayan, a Methodist pastor, a Presbyterian Bible student, a Disciples’s evangelist, a Christian and Missionary Alliance evangelist after he was struck by how they baptized through immersion. He was convinced to convert to Seventh-Day-Adventists after he lost a debate with one of its ministers.

Mr. Manalo's disagreement with his personal interpretation of the Bible drifted him to be a wanderer; he became an atheist and agnostics; he even lost his faith in God according to Wikipedia. Before he founded his own church, he took all accumulated teachings he gathered from different denominations, with Lamsa translation of the Bible, he concluded that in order to legitimize his own church, he must declare the Catholic Church to have been apostatized which history and Biblical facts couldn't agree either.

And the most shameful part of his story is that, HE DIED WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED IN HIS OWN CHURCH TO GAIN SALVATION…



For the sake of Mr. Dawson’s question, let’s see how their Ministers would answer him. Here was their most intelligent reply:

“The Bible testifies that the one sent by God speaks according to the law and to the testimony (Is. 8:20). To speak according to the law is to teach the will or doctrine of God, not one’s own will—no addition nor subtraction (Jn. 7:16-17; Dt. 12:32). A messenger of God must also possesses the testimony or the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10).”

True! The Bible testifies that “the one sent by God speaks according to the law and to the testimony” but again it’s true that when God calls his own messenger, he calls him by his name. Felix Manalo’s name was never mentioned in the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 which they quote is talking about something else, not about Felix Manalo as “God’s Last Messenger" was taken out of context .

John 7:16-17 which they also quoted was talking about Christ being God’s mouthpiece and it has nothing to do with Felix Manalo’s status as “God’s Last Messenger.”While they quoted Dt. 12:32, there’s not even a slightest clue about Felix Manalo being “God’s Last Messenger.”

Let’s continue their response to Mr. Dawson:

"Brother Felix Y. Manalo is the last messenger because he is the fulfillment of the various prophecies recorded in the Bible (Rev. 7:2-3; Is. 46:11; Is. 41-9-10). The fact that he became a member of other religions prior to his being called by God does not in any way prove that he was not sent by God.

They nailed it right in the middle! Yes, Felix Manalo has fulfilled many of biblical prophecies. This includes a prophesy about the imminent coming of the false teacher, or false prophet, a false angel (see Gal. 1:5-6).

Before Apostle Paul was called to become Christ’s apostle, he belonged to the religious group known as the Pharisees and he had been one of the ruthless persecutors of the Church (Act 22:1-4).

Paul's name was mentioned in the same way Moses and other great OT Prophets and sages however Felix Manalo's name was left out. His name was never mentioned just as Paul was (in the case of their analogy to Felix Manalo's case). This nullifies their teaching that Felix Manalo was called by God.

In the last portion of their response to Mr. Dawson, they said:

"The doctrines that Brother Felix Y. Manalo taught are the words of God written in the Bible--no additions nor subtractions--which is a character of the true messenger of God."

We are not certain if what Bible are they referring to. The Lamsa Translation was among their favorite which wasn't a translation of a scholar. Anyway, let's see if their claim is true.

In John 1-- the Bible says the "Word was God" and made his dwelling among us.
INC says, he was just a man.

Philippians 2 says though Jesus "is in the form of God..."
INC says, he's just a man.

In John 8, Jesus said "Before Abraham came to be, I AM" signifying his divinity.
INC says, he's just a man.

Roma 16:16 was written "iglesia"
INC wrote it "Iglesia" (making it into Proper Noun).
Catholic Answers says "Paul is referring to a collection of local churches, not giving an organizational name."

So is it true that there's "no addition nor subtractions" from the Bible in the teachings of Felix Manalo?

A huge NO!

And if that's the faultless character test to identify the true messenger of God,most certainly Felix Manalo WAS NOT!

Remember Fr. Andrea Santoro—Priest and Martyr

We can only recall how Father Andrea Santoro suffered martyrdom (in its truest sense) when he was shot from behind by a Muslim youth in modern day Turkey in February 5, 2006 while he’s kneeling in prayer. He was murdered inside Santa Maria Church in Trabzon, Turkey as a Catholic missionary priest of Fidei Donum. According to AsiaNews, the 15 years old young man who was convicted later shouted “Allahu Akhbar" (God is Great)before he shoots Father Andrea. As the issue spilled over to Europe and the world, his hearing was widely covered by local newspapers and some international media. According to Wikipedia, “neither the killer nor his mother showed any remorse during the trial.”

Today, we ask the Lord to look upon his servant Father Andrea Santoro for all Catholics and Christians who are facing persecution at the hands of “unbelievers” and fanatics. We pray to his intersession that through his prayers and the prayers of all the saints and angels, his blood would be the seed of evangelization in Turkey which was once a Christian country before it was conquered. Pope Benedict XVI during his address to Turkey’s Bishop, he specifically asked the Bishop to uphold Religious Freedom in Turkey, remembering Father Santoro’s brutal murder.

“[F]rom Saint John to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, from Saint Polycarp of Smyrna to “the many eminent Fathers of the Church, not to mention [the participants in] the Council of Ephesus which proclaimed the Virgin Mary to be Théotokos. More recently Benedict XV and the Blessed John XXIII marked the life of the nation and the Church in Turkey.”

“I also want to mention that every Christian, priests and laity, who bore witness to the charity of Christ, have sometimes made the ultimate sacrifice of their life, like Fr Andrea Santoro. May this impressive history be for your communities—the vigour of whose faith and abnegation under trial I am well aware—not only be a reminder of a glorious past, but also an incentive to continue with generosity along the journey you have begun, bearing witness among your brothers and sisters to God's love for all human beings.” [Read more…]

I ask all Catholics and our separated brethren to remember all those who suffered persecution just because they’re Christians. If our enemies’ weapon is bullet, let’s armor ourselves with love and respect. As the Lord said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."[Luke 23:34].

As a consolation, let’s listen to Christ when he said, “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” [Matthew 10:28]

To Jesus Christ be praised!

----------------------------------

Picture Credit: summagallicana.it and la-croix.com

Behold, Felix Manalo, the Angel...

Hardliner INC Ministers and its blind followers are quick to defend Felix Manalo’s angelic status while they can easily dishonor and ignore the more obvious Biblical facts about Jesus' Dinivity revealed by prophets of old.

Carefully choosing chopped verses of the Bible, their endless argument-- John 8:40; I Tim. 2:5; Is. 53:3; Ps. 80:17; Col. 3:1; Jn. 10:36 [check the verses in the Holy Bible].

Come to think of how they cheat people. Choosing only verses that suits their argument and connects it to other verses is very unprofessional practice for its ignorant ministers. They’re liars and cheaters and deceivers.

"By its fruit, you will know them," says Christ Jesus (Mat. 7:20). But I say, but its founder you can judge them.

And the “Last Messenger” they so revere deified to an angelic state was just the best liar and deceiver. Using Biblical standards for a divinely envoy would deride their assertions: Zoom this .jpeg file but for now, here’s what’s in the letter:

Philippine Mission Churches of Christ Leslie Wolfe Carrie A. Wolfe P.O. Box 8774 Manila, P.I. Oct. 14, 1933 Mr. Salvador Laspinas, 1535 Felix Huertas, Int. C., Manila Dear Bro. Laspinas: I have your letter of Oct. 7th. You know I am sick. I am not able to give you all the information about Felix Manalo that you desire. He was a student in our mission and I was one of his teachers. We had him employed as an evangelist, paying him a salary. He was minister for the church at Singalong for some time. His wife accused him of cruelty and of adultery. She came to my house and showed the wounds which Felix had made by blows on her back. I called the doctor who is now in Manila to examine her wounds. The church at Singalong had an investigation of Felix. The wife of Felix came andmade complaints, but Felix did not come. The church at Singalong voted that Felix was guilty of the charges of his wife. As a consequence we took away the salary that we were giving to Felix. Then Felix left us. I do not have further personal knowledge of the life of Felix. There was, however, a Teresa who studied with us. It was proven in court that Felix was the father of her child. Bro. Baronia has much typewritten information about Felix Manalo and especially about the Teresa case, which he says he will be glad to furnish to any one desiring the information. I hope you will be able to continue your work and that you will be very successful. I am Cordially your, Leslie Wolfe

[source: http://www.pipeline.com/]

You must have heard ROSITA TRILLANES. She's a member of the newly founded Iglesia ni Cristo during its early years but later accused Felix of immorality. ExamineIglesiniCristo has its archive copy.

From these extracted facts, for me, the only reason why an INC sticks its nose to Manalo's church is pride and unwillingness to submit himself to Christ's founded church' Authority, although overwhelmingly, historical facts alone can prove that the church which Christ founded is still alive and vibrant. Wikipedia says about the Catholic Church

"[T]he Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian Church representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population.[6][7] It comprises 2,782 dioceses grouped into 23 particular rites—the Latin Rite and 22 smaller Eastern rites. The pope, currently Benedict XVI, is the Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[8] The community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities[...]

"With a history spanning almost two thousand years, the Church is one of the world's oldest institutions,[20] and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization since at least the 4th century[...]

"The Catholic Church traces its foundation to Jesus and the twelve Apostles.[25] It sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the apostles and the pope in particular as the successor of Peter, the leader of the apostles[...],

The final proof is its own admission printed in their PASUGO that "the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ...

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."

I don't need to prove it further...

A Dangerous Symbol

This is only a symbol Catholics use. It represents their faith in Christ who was crucified and died to bring life to all. While others hate it, Catholics and other Christians love it and displays it with honor, reverence and pride.

To some, it attracts violence. Windshields are smashed by those who oppose it's truthfulness. Others within Christianity sees it as "Catholic symbol" than Christ's salvific suffering to "free" all men and women from the bondage of sin.

It is a symbol of contradiction-- it means peace for some and conflict for some. No matter how other people see this sacred symbol, this cross will always represent the whole truth about salvation. This symbol will always stands high amidst persecution, death threats, bullets, bombs, and insults. If they have insulted and persecuted the Master, we are not even greater than him. So rejoice, have the courage to make this simple yet so powerful symbol to say the least of your true faith in the Lord Jesus.