Geek Catholic

The Woman and the dignity of Man

2011-09-01T03:14:00.000+02:00

What is the right to reproductive "health"? Is this a genuine health or just another name that could open a host of problems?

Preventing pregnancy by timed (controlled) infertility for women (or men) -- logic flows towards more abuse of women rather than protecting them. Making women infertile does not protect them from sexual abuse either by stranger, friends, kin, or even their husbands.

What problems can arise when sexual curiosity is postponed to married adult life and with a single partner? What problems do arise when sexual curiosity is satisfied by "sexual exploration" before married life? Which problems do we want to have? Does this balance the equation of "sexual liberation" and "health"?

(Wo)Men that lack a sense of responsibility (hence a distorted idea of true love) definitely fear of becoming a (mother) father. It is a fear of the need to provide more and work harder to support the family. Is this the kind of "responsible" citizens that this Country wants to produce in the future?

Induced infertility of woman.
1. Sexual abuse is prevented by the fear of pregnancy -- both for women and men.
2. Some women have inhibitions to sex because of the fear of pregnancy.
3. Sex or the feeling of being loved?

Are we trying to become more animal or more human? Remove womanhood (that is, the potential to become mothers) and one removes humanity in us.

Form vs. function

2011-07-10T19:20:00.000+02:00

Every form reflects the reason for the function of the same, just as function dictates the eventual form of something. This is a truth in every biology. Hence true in the biological aspects of sexuality.

Events in Christ's Life

2011-07-09T18:07:00.002+02:00

Could you come up with a list of very significant events in Christ's life that's not in the following?

1. Annunciation of Christ's birth by St. Gabriel the Archangel as an invitation to be docile to the Holy Spirit and God's agents for divine messages and help.

2. Visitation of the Virgin Mary to St. Elizabeth and the proclamation of St. John the Baptist while in the womb as an invitation to put into action the docility of the mind.

3. Birth of Christ at Bethlehem, the city of bread as an absolute act of love of God to lower himself among us.

4. Presentation of Christ after eighth day in accordance to the laws of Moses and the demonstration of obedience to the Church.

5. Finding of Jesus at the Temple as a gesture of constant longing to the divine and the human longing for reasons of natural unexpected events in life pointing to the Will of the Father.

6. Baptism of Christ at the Jordan River by St. John the Baptist

7. Miracle of water turning into wine in the wedding at Cana as first miracle of Christ through the intercession of his Mother, Mary.

8. Christ's proclamation of the Kingdom through preaching, miracles and forgiveness of sins.

9. Transfiguration of Jesus at Mt. Tabor with Peter, John and James as witnesses.

10. Institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper on the first Holy Thursday -- the definitive offering of Body as nourishment and Blood as perfection and perpetual covenantal sacrament.

11. Agony at the Garden in the Good Friday morning as Christ's agony and triumph in the unity of the divine and human wills -- hence the proper order of good with God's Will as the highest possible good.

12. Scourging at the pillar as Christ's participation and perfection of the body's obedience to the will and reason of man.

13. Crowning of thorns as Christ's ultimate humility by allowing people/man ridicule his kingship and lordship.

14. Carrying and bearing the cross to Golgotta as Christ's acceptance of the weight of the sins of all men since the beginning until the end of times.

15. Crucifixion and death on the cross at one of the mounts of Moriah as the definitive offering of God to his Justice our of Love. The ultimate mixing of love and justice in God's hands. The definitive and final realization of the OT's sacrificial nature of worship and affirmation of covenant.

16. Christ's resurrection on the first Easter Sunday as the definitive moment of triumph against Death and the Devil.

17. Ascension to heaven and sitting at the Right Hand of the Father as the High Priest, Mediator, Lord and Brother of all Christians.

18. Descent of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ to continue Christ's mission ("He will take what is mine...")

19. Assumption of the Virgin Mother of Christ (hence of God, Theotokos) as a hope of all Christians: all faithful and followers of the Will of God will get to heaven as promised. This hope is assured by the previous event which is the Holy Spirit, for without Him we cannot call Jesus our "Lord" in the truest meaning of Lord and Brother.

20. Coronation of the Mary as the Queen of Heaven and of Earth -- as a hope of all Christians: all who do well in their own vocations will get the best rewards in Heaven. Still through the Holy Spirit's guidance for we cannot pray to the Father by ourselves but through the prompting of the Paraclete.

Do you have any event in mind that is not listed or cannot be placed in one of the major events above?

Rosary around the World

2011-06-24T10:09:00.003+02:00

It's a celebration of the World Priest Day on 01 July 2011. Let's pray for more priestly vocations and their call to the help of the Holy Spirit in their work.

Philippines is a participant in The (second) Global Annual Rosary Relay for Priests! Here's the entry: "Philippines (GMT 03.00) local (11.00). The National Shrine of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish is in New Manila, Quezon City." The national shrine is where I attend the daily mass! July 1 is a Friday, unfortunately and I have class! :-(

Even the Pope Benedict XVI pens a prayer for this World Rosary Relay.

Peter, leader after Christ's Ascension.

2011-06-06T03:21:00.006+02:00

Another compelling point defending Peter's Office as the head of the Apostles after Ascension. It is through him that the idea of filling the Office of Judas Escariot was revealed.

We can read from Acts 1 that the Eleven "devoted themselves with one accord to prayer" together with Our Lady (v.14). It is during this time that that "Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers" numbering about 120 (v.15) suggesting to fill the Office of Judas Escariot ("the guide for those who arrested Jesus").

Everyone agreed and had Matthias counted among the Apostles. As of today, the original twelve grew to at least 5,200 catholic bishops around the world. Isn't that amazing?!

Solomon-like wisdom

2011-03-28T10:51:00.002+02:00

Currently, there are issues on the actual beginning of human life. In one of my subscriptions, I received an email that recounts the following (possibly hypothetical) anecdote between a doctor and a patient.

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.

So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?'
She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms.
This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is.

There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.
The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb.

The crime is the same!

Cool story. It made the point well and clear!

In prayer, you are not alone

2011-03-26T08:32:00.002+01:00

I can imagine that even when praying alone, a faithful lifts him-/herself to the higher "plane" where all the other Faithful together with the Saints and Angels (with Mary as their Leader and Queen). Hence, one do not pray even when alone using the words: "My Father..." "... pray for me" "save me from the fires of Hell".

I realized this during my first Retreat. It was all-men and closed (minimal conversation) one. Given that we are all men, during the Penitential Rite/Prayer we still say: "I confess ... to you my brothers and sisters...." and "I ask ... you my brothers and sisters to pray for me ..." I realized that during prayer we lift ourselves together with all those who pray at the same moment. Since all the Saints and Angels unceasingly behold the Face of our God, they pray to Him constantly! When we immerse in prayerful moments, we get a unique taste of Eternity with the whole Church!

Truly, the Church is one as every Faithful member believes "in the Holy Spirit, (...) the communion of Saints (...), and the life everlasting." Life everlasting only means that all the saints who have died are still living in eternity and that we are still in communion with them. This "communion" is in a sense different from the communion effected by the reception of Christ in the Eucharist.

With, through and in the Church, time machine is possible! God is Greatness!

Valentines day should be about the Cross

2011-02-15T19:32:00.003+01:00

I realized that while people around the world exchange flowers and hearts to symbolize the Season of (secular) Love, christians should exchange Crucifixes.

The crucifix is a cross with the crucified Christ. It is the best expression of true love. God loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son. God's love can never be fathomed by human heart but when experienced (touch, smell, taste, and felt in the Eucharist), gives us a glimpse of our state in Heaven.

While many think that God can never be contained in that "piece" of bread, how come we believe the same infinite God became incarnate as a finite human person as Jesus Christ? God's love is more than what we can think of, his is always greater -- beyond expectations. He gave his body to us in the Eucharist, let us handle God with care, lest we become those people who shouted "Crucify him! Crucify him!" when Pilate presented the suffering Jesus to them.

Ephesians 6:18 and the "Saints" or "Holy Ones"

2011-01-17T09:51:00.003+01:00

"With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones"

What do you think is the meaning of the "holy ones" in many letters according to St. Paul? Most translations use "the saints" instead indicating that it should be the Entire Church.

If one would follow the original meaning of holiness, this pertains to people who are "separated" or consecrated for God. It should be fitting that every Christian should pray for the whole Church (or Body of Christ), I believe that this passage is about praying for the priests (or "ministers") since the Church priests and ministers are "holy" or separated as ambassadors of Christ in the world. It thus naturally follows that St. Paul is one of them:

"and also for me, that speech may be given me to open my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel for which I am an ambassador in chains, so that I may have the courage to speak as I must."

These arguments have been going in my mind every time I read among his letters: "To the Holy Ones in ..." When I think that the letters having this as an introduction is for the priests and ministers in particular, I can think of a lot of theological significance with respect to the Tradition of the Church.

The Son of Man and the commission

2011-01-15T01:58:00.000+01:00

We know the ending of the familiar healing of the paralytic who were lowered down from the roof. Some rabbinic scholars are around thinking that only God can forgive sins according to the scriptures. Jesus knew of this of course so he said:

"Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"-- he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home." [Mk 2:8ff]

All present were astounded and glorified God, saying,

"We have never seen anything like this." [v.12]

A line or two must be mentioned about the "thing" they saw which never looked any before this event. Before this, Jesus already "cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons" including cleaning of the leper (cf. Mk 1). Thus, this "anything like this" is about the FORGIVENESS OF SINS that can be done by Man.

Mark is trying to stress at this point that man through the Son of Man is given the authority to forgive sins sing they have the Holy Spirit breathed in them. Such men are called the "holy men" being "consecrated" or "separated from the rest" in the Jewish context realized through the catholic christianity's explanation.

Therefore, Jesus gave holy ("separated") men the authority to forgive sins through the giving of the Holy Spirit:

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." [Jn 20:21-23]

Finally, this "authority" is not simply through the work of men but through the Imposition of Hands by the apostolic authority -- the bishop. When the bishops fail, then the successor to the Office of Peter will ultimately give it as the living vicar of Christ (cf. Lk 22:31-32).

To our God be the glory for He has given us, lowly servants, great power and honor!

Reaching the Place of Rest

2011-01-14T01:47:00.002+01:00

The first reading today talks about the "final resting place" for all Isrealites as in the Old. Hebrews 4:1-5,11 mentions about this "resting place" to be still applicable to the People of God, the new Israel.

Woe to those who believe in simply believing because God requires a faith that is alive and at the same time connected to the Vine who is Jesus Christ. The fruit of the Vine is the Blood of the Lamb that flows out for the whole world. If we nourish our Faith with his Body, we continue to be able to live the Faith that was handed down to us through the ages.

By living the Faith until the end of our earthly journey, we shall reach the Final Resting Place that God has intended for us. Indeed, meanwhile we walk in the Valley of Tears -- the desert and wilderness . As we traverse it we are to be nourished spiritually and physically by the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, just as the old Israel wandered the desert for years dependent on the manna from heaven and water flowing out from the rock. With us we walk with our Mother the Virgin Mary, true carrier of God Incarnate, the true Ark of the (new) Covenant, just as the Old carried with them the Ark of the Covenant as they conquered lands and enemies.

Consecration and the priesthood in the Church

2010-12-17T23:09:00.004+01:00

Just in a while (within 1 hr), I was reading the latest blog of Br. Taylor on "The Mind of the Blessed Virgin Mary." I looked up on the word "consecrate." I stumbled into the wikipedia entry of it as I normally end up when I look for meanings. I noticed the entry that it includes biblical references. I made some highlights to some passages in it.

In this interpretation (and with the highlights) I see a more conscilience (coherence and continuity; as you know we are Scientists by heart) in the concept of catholic christian priesthood and the Letter of Paul to the Romans and the context of his letter to the Hebrews. I believe that the christian priesthood is different from the Jewish priesthood because:

The Christian priesthood is anchored from the Life and Passion of Christ (as the cornerstone) and hence takes power in and through Christ and with the Holy Spirit. In fact, the catholic priests alone cannot confer the "transsubstantiation" but only THROUGH the Holy Spirit by praying "through your Holy Spirit, we ask that...". With these texts, the "in persona Christi" concept of the catholic Church becomes much more evident and more obvious.
The catholic priesthood is different from the Jewish priesthood because the catholic priests do not offer different sacrificial lamb each time. The catholic priests offer the same Lamb of God (cf. the prayer "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us..." just as the Host is broken by the priest). This appears to be the whole point of the Book of Hebrews when read in this context. Moreover, this "type" of priesthood is consistent with another dimension of unity: "offering the same Sacrifice and eating the same Bread and drinking from the same Cup". Even more, this concept of priesthood is still consistent (hence a continuation) with the Jewish priesthood because the catholic priests have their High Priest in Heaven -- Christ Himself -- who is with the Father offering himself in eternity.
The "Divine Liturgy" also makes more sense versus "christian Service". Also, the Liturgy (mass = liturgy of the Word + liturgy of the Eucharist) is the same everywhere and anytime! Being so, the concept of "eternity" is best foreshadowed. Eternity, hence the concept of "heaven."

There are more to be added but the space!

I have always wanted to have an open heart and free mind to ponder upon the mysteries of God as revealed to the Church, facilitated by the heart and soul of the Virgin Theotokos!

May she always show us her ways to Jesus. A meaningful Christmas, as always.

Glory be...

Mary: the Queen of Heaven and of Earth

2010-12-11T03:57:00.003+01:00

Eve was "conceived" without sin, as Adam was. However, they sinned by directly disobeying God's simple law -- not to eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

If the Catholic Faith instructs us to believe that the Virgin Mary is the second Eve, she must be immaculate since conception as Eve was. He did not sin because she offered her resounding "YES" to God: "Be it done to me according to your Word." The catholic belief that the Virgin is spotless since birth by virtue of Jesus' Passion and Death is a closing in to the centerpoint of the mysteries of the catholic Faith.

Somewhere else, I have ever noted that the special graces that our Mother has been granted gives us:

1. Hope that God does what He promises.

2. Faith assured by the witness of the Mother of God (Theotokos).

3. Love kindled by the motherhood of Mary, a love that is willing to suffer without even taking credit of the success.

I cannot understand why God cannot render a soul to be spotless since birth. I cannot understand why one cannot honor -- of greatest degree -- another soul who was holy before the Angels and the Trinity. Such honor is enough for the Holy Spirit to dwell in her and conceive of the Word made Flesh. No one ever recorded in the Holy Scriptures to whom the Spirit of God dwell in, except probably in Christ.

I cannot now understand why God would not be ever honored by honoring his greatest Creation -- the second Eve. That "my soul magnifies the Lord" be realized. It is by mistake that the powers of the second Eve is solely by herself that leads many astray (and blind). We should understand that God -- in his infinite and humanly misunderstandable and under-estimatable Love -- can grant his Creation the right to distribute his Graces. Elijah can conjure fire from heaven, shut the sky of rain and ask for drought, and many others. Many others can request God -- in unity with the Will of God -- virtually anything. Mary can ask anything.

One (online) catholic friend Bro. Marshall is being attacked by an anti-catholic calling him and all others who honor the Mother of God as heretic (of course relative to their belief). I once argued along the same line as them, anticatholics. But one underlying bias is about looking. I realized that: "The worst blindness is when one refuses to see the light." I decided: "I'd rather be blind by the Truth than refusing to look at it."

As this seems the case for him, I offer three "Hail Mary" prayers that the Queen and all her followers -- the Saints and the Angels -- would pray for him (and all other anti-catholics) that he be given grace and strength by God enough for him to look at the Light, not on the shadows.

Glory to the Father...

"Withdrawal Bleeding"?

2010-12-06T02:58:00.000+01:00

I am surprised why we read: the Philippine Obstetric and Gynecologic Society is in favor of the RH Bills. They are disseminating email to colleagues sending the link to the PCHRD/Philippine Star article on "Noted OB-Gyne says Contraceptives Not Abortifacient."

However, why do we read that an active research is done to minimize the so-called "withdrawal bleeding" when one uses Contraceptive Drugs? Withdrawal bleeding is a sign that normal women who take hormones beyond the regular body cycle is detrimental to their natural cycle.

Why is our Country (and the World) willing to put our women (and children) at risk? Why would the State allow ALL Filipino citizens (and taxpayers) FORCE to pay industry in providing the citizenry with risky drugs and paraphernalia?

God help us battle through the Storm.

The Barque of Peter

2010-12-03T02:26:00.002+01:00

I was reading the beautiful article of Elizabeth Lev in Zenit.org. She mentions the Barque of Peter, having read first time, i googled it up.

I ended up with a very nice site (though quite complicated colors, but i like the contents) which quoted St. Anselm:

"The world is a sea in which the Church, like a ship, is beaten by the waves, but not submerged."

This was a theological interpretation of the meaning why the Evangelist recorded and emphasized the story of Jesus calming the Sea of Chaos:

He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We are perishing!" He said to them, "Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?" Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm. [Mt 8:23-26]

In the end as the Church hopes in the true Hope, Christ will prevail through his Church: "Peace, be still!" [Mk 4:39]

And it will be so. Amen. Glory be... Our help is our Lord God, through Mary our Queen with all the Saints and Angels.

Proclamation of the new Jerusalem

2010-12-01T06:56:00.004+01:00

In the reading today (1st Reading), we have Isaiah 25 proclaiming the Days of the Lord when:

... a strong people will honor you, fierce nations will fear you.
For you are a refuge to the poor, a refuge to the needy in distress;
Shelter from the rain, shade from the heat. As with the cold rain, as with the desert heat, even so you quell the uproar of the wanton.

The mountain (Zion, the perfection of the Church, the heavenly Jerusalem) will be God's instrument and dwelling. Through this, God becomes the refuge. Indeed, in the Church the poor and the needy are taken cared of, spiritually, morally and materially.

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will provide for all peoples a feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines.

The "feast" here is none other than the Feast of the Eucharist, where the "choice" wines become the Blood that saves and the "rich food" becomes the Body of Christ, the heavenly Food.

On this mountain he will destroy the veil that veils all peoples, the web that is woven over all nations; he will destroy death forever.

The "veil" is the blanket of fear of death. But God will destroy death, destroying that fear of death. The People of God believes in the Resurrection of the Body and in the Life Everlasting. Indeed, Death who stings, stings no more. In fact, death is not a new Birth -- the birth to the Everlasting Life, the coming to the True Home who is God.

The first reading also points to Christ multiplication of the loaves of bread and fish in the Gospel reading (Matthew 15:29-37) that foreshadows that his Spirit will do the same even transforming (see Transsubstantiation) the Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Blood as nourishment to his Brothers and Sisters -- the Children of God.

Alleluia! God is great and his Majesty covers the whole Universe. The Universe is dynamic and procreative, for his Power dwells in it and keeping the same so.

Glory be...

Reading today (29 Nov 2010)

2010-11-29T02:04:00.004+01:00

Isaiah 4:2-6. The cloud and smoke, the flaring fire; the glory of the Lord. All these gives the Church the mantle of protection. Through and with the holy angels and saints God, because of his infinite Love, shares his glory eternally. The heat, storm and rain are the constant persecution that the Church suffers now and then.

In Matthew 8:5-11, Christ is recorded to have said: "many will come from east and west to take their places with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob at the feast in the kingdom of heaven." This feast is celebrated now in the Church as the Eucharistic feast for the Church considers the feast as the touching of Heaven and Earth.

May God continue to count me and my family as part of that feast, to be able to sit with our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob down at the Lord's Table. May we all be blessed and continuously be invited as members of the House of the Lord.

Revelation 20: The battle begins

2010-11-26T06:53:00.003+01:00

In the first reading today, Revelation to John (Chapter 20).

The first sentence, caught my attention. St. John saw

"an angel come down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the abyss and a heavy chain."[v.1]

I know somewhere, somebody noted that the "chain" is the Rosary of the Virgin Mother of God and the Cross is the "key" to the Abyss.

The next verse the caught my attention is this: "Then I(John) saw thrones; those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment." [v.4] Indicating that Christians becomes judges. But what do judges do? Of course, they judge. This role can be found in the Catholic priests and bishops because they judge people during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Bishops also take the role of the Judges when they cry out injustice in the society and in each state.

The Saints and Martyrs are the witnesses of Christ in the world. They suffer in the name of preaching the Gospel.

Praise and glory be to God for sharing with us and to the world, through us, His Mercy and Justice.

Condoms as sign of responsibility

2010-11-22T17:43:00.003+01:00

Pope Benedict XVI is typically misunderstood just as the Church is. But this time, misquotation reached one of its peaks.

Popular mass media has taught that the Pope condones the use of condoms in some specific cases. This is a misquotation and misunderstanding of a preview excerpt of a book due to be released on 23. Nov this year.

One of the worst quotations (normally as one newswire copies from the last news), is this:

Pope Benedict XVI has said for the first time that using condoms is acceptable "in certain cases", notably to reduce the risk of HIV infection, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hard-line stance.

Obviously this cannot be true! Zenit.org clarified this in at least two of their news items:

AIDE: BENEDICT XVI DOESN'T JUSTIFY CONDOM USE

Notes Pope's Ability to See Small Steps of Impoverished Humanity

http://www.zenit.org/article-31025?l=english

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- A Vatican spokesman is clarifying that Benedict XVI is not justifying condom use, though the Pope said it could in some cases be a first step toward moral behavior.

BENEDICT XVI, CONDOMS, AND THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

Interview With Janet Smith

http://www.zenit.org/article-31026?l=english

DETROIT, NOV. 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- A book-length interview with Benedict XVI, due to be released on Tuesday, is already causing controversy in the public spotlight due to the Pope's comments on the use of condoms.

What I like most in these articles is the profoundness of Popes eyes. He can look into seemingly sinful act, and see the slight indication of goodness that the human heart is yearning to do.

I believe that the human heart is looking for that authentic expression of love: of himself and of others. This can only be truly expressed if we would look at how we value our true human nature not sacrificing it to become just like animals.

The Love that is Alive

2010-11-17T03:00:00.003+01:00

"If you refuse to love, you must remain dead;

to hate your brother is to be a murderer,

and murderers, as you know, do not have eternal life in them." [1 Jn 14:15]

This is implied from the new commandments of love: To love God with all... and to love others as .... Refusing to love means breaking the law (commandment) hence equivalent to a murderer. Breaking of one law is still a sin, no matter how less serious the law was.

One thing that caught my attention is how the author exhorts his spiritual children to "love not in word or speech but in deed and truth." [v.18] This is significant in living out the Faith that was handed on to us and that we will hand on to the next generation, expounded and more developed than we received. Love is doing something to show such will.

True, God wants us to live that love whose ultimate source is Love himself -- a love that is alive and is God.

Worshipping the True Sun

2010-11-15T03:21:00.004+01:00

One time or another, Catholics are said to be worshipping the Sun. As some would even say, Catholics are going back to the time of Egypt when they worship the sun-god Ra or Horus.

For lo, the day is coming, blazing like an oven, when all the proud and all evildoers will be stubble, And the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving them neither root nor branch, says the LORD of hosts. But for you who fear my name, there will arise the sun of justice with its healing rays; [Malachi 3:19-20]

The Catholics (in the extraordinary mass), faces the East when they pray. The old churches (structures) are actually built so that the congregation will face the East during Eucharistic celebrations.

This is not surprising because all these are symbolic that Catholics worship the true Sun of the World, the Sun of Righteousness: Christ the King and the Lord.

No wonder why many people think that the bread that is made to be the Body of Christ (by the Holy Spirit) is a symbol for the sun, hence Catholics are sun-worshipers. Maybe Catholics are sun-worshippers, but this Sun is the true Sun who is Christ Jesus.

Glory by to God who revealed his Wisdom to the lowly!

Against or with the Church

2010-11-09T13:51:00.002+01:00

But that's the Catholic argument.

Catholic argument, hence false. Fallacy. One argument that wins an anti-Catholic to the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill is asking whether one is against the Church or for the Church. In most of my dialogues, it always boils down that I side the Church and they do not, as if the validity of the arguments depend whether one sides the Church or not.

An article on "Snappy replies to condomic arguments" in Business World, Jemy Gatdula gives good arguments against false beliefs about the Church. The author actually contrasts pro-Choice arguments that are against the Church. It appears therefore, that pro-Choice (just like the American ideology) means attacking the Church (and the Faith she defends).

Arguments are laid down AGAINST:

The Church has no business dealing in government matters.
The Catholic Church’s position on contraception has changed and is evolving.
The contraception ban was merely invented by priests.
The Church is against the right to choose.
Contraception helps solve poverty.
Contraception effectively prevents AIDS.
The Catholic Church hates sex.
The Catholic Church makes no allowance for people’s individual consciences.

I liked the straight to the point discussion of the truth that the Church is trying tell the world. I myself would like to stand with the Church in defending the truth about Man and his nature as God has designed it should be so that Man will live life to the fullest.

Catholic Q&A

2010-11-02T11:44:00.002+01:00

I was pointed to a website that asks and answers typical Catholic stumble blocks from non-Catholic Faith.

It is interesting to find the answers I also found (with some even interesting details). I am also happy that the author is a convert to the Catholic Faith, just like me. :-)

Here's the website link: http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathansr.shtml

"The Catholic Church has the Answer" by Paul Whitcomb.

The Catholic Christian Life

2010-10-27T22:35:00.000+02:00

Summarized. In schematics. Again.

I thought of improving my previous version of the Catholic Life. The improvement lies in the fact that in this current schematics, the Eucharist is clearly the center of life. Also highlighted is the fact that you get Confirmed and married (to a person or to the Church) once only, for each. More details are also added as I get better and better grasp of their meanings. Related Biblical passages that give hints to the greater parts of the Scripture, thus the Sacraments' fundamental rationality, are also added.

It is at this point that prompted me to write the previous blog on "leprosy" in the OT prefigured the state of sin (as opposed to the state of grace). In the figure, this is simply "spiritual leprosy" and therefore implies separation (excommunication) from receiving the Eucharist (taking Communion).

Holy Matrimony and Orders are given the label "vocation" to reflect a deeper meaning on the two sacraments. The Confirmation step is given the label "maturity" proper to the sacrament. The dashed borders enclosing these two implies a more outward activity specifically the service to others and the fulfillment of the mission entrusted to the Church. Its intersection with the Eucharist hints the effective source of strength and meaning.

The shape is also now more circular implying regularity and uniformity of the whole life (it also adds space!). I also believe that "The Catholic Pilgrim's Life in Christ" gives a lot of hints of what the Catholic life really is (e.g. why "pilgrim", why "catholic", why "in").

Indeed, this image can be greatly helpful in explaining the catholic life and what it means to be a Catholic Christian.

All glory to God for the amazing discovery that He has granted me to draw this schematics.

Leprosy, separation and reconciliation through priests

2010-10-21T22:41:00.006+02:00

In Luke 17:11-19, we find the story about the Ten Lepers who were healed by Christ, commanding them to “go and show” themselves “to the priests.” This is based on the current Jewish customs that lepers have to be separated from the community since they are considered “unclean.” The Old Testament writings would further attest that under the Mosaic law, once they get healed, the “unclean” person has to go to a priest and receive a rite of cleansing involving some specific sacrificial animals and some form of ritual.

Many theologians would argue that the story is about a Samaritan (still of Israel, northern kingdom) the only one who returned and “glorif[ied] God.” As such the Samaritan got a healing not just physically but also spiritually as Jesus confirmed: “[Y]our faith has saved you.” (v.19b)

In a different perspective, the passage seems to be about the interrelation of sin, forgiveness and faith. This is revealed by looking at the context at which the author wanted to point at -- in relation to the Life of and in the Church. We should tackle this in as follows.

In verse 1, the author implies that Jesus is pointing out the inevitability of temptation (“things that cause [one to] sin”), hence eventually, of sin. Naturally, in verse 3, the author witnesses Jesus telling them to forgive again, and again (i.e. “seventy-seven times”, cf. Mt. 18:22). This then naturally would incline the readers to ask “how can the apostles do this?”so they truly need faith in God to do this duty. Thus, the apostles are recounted to ask from Jesus, “Increase our faith.” (v.5) To this, Jesus is said to reply that even a small faith can do improbable things.

It further seems that the author implies that this forgiving business is a kind of ministry consistent with the understanding of St. Paul (“ministry of reconciliation”, 2 Cor 5:18-21). As such, there is some responsibility (i.e. “one’s cross”) associated with it: the apostles tasked are servants who have jobs to fulfill. The succeeding verses (v.7-10) naturally expounds this, explains that whatever leniency and clemency they show to penitents is not to their pleasure or option. Rather, their being forgiving is a duty -- something that cannot be counted for their glory -- stemming naturally from their special position and “entrusted mission” (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-21). This is summarized in verses 9 and 10:

“Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded? So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.'"

Then finally, the story of Ten Lepers. It appears to me, given the Holy Tradition of the Church, St. Luke is implying that: the disease that lepers have (i.e. leprosy), the lepers’ “uncleanliness” and therefore separation from the community, foreshadow the sinful nature of a faithful that succumbed to temptations (i.e. “things that cause [one to] sin”). Thus, a sinner, being “unclean,” is spiritually separated himself from the communion of saints (or from the Church). The only way for “unclean” members be united to the Body is through this “ministry of reconciliation”, that is, to: “[g]o show [them]selves to the priests.” (see v.14) This ministry is properly called nowadays as the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Truly, at least some “were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.” (Mt 9:6-8 for proper context)

It must be noticed that before Jesus instructed the lepers to show themselves to the priests for cleansing, they clearly recognized: 1. their uncleanliness and unworthiness, and 2. Jesus’ mercy and authority to heal them. This is clearly expressed as they: 1. “stood at a distance from him” (v. 12); and 2. asked for mercy while calling Jesus “master” or “lord.” In the context of Jewish culture, a master or lord is a name that implies authority or ownership.

The next question is about the effect of the Sacrament to the faithful: How does cleansing happens during the Sacrament of Reconciliation? The author noted specifically in verse 14 that as “they were going they were cleansed.” This indicates that sins MAY be forgiven in lieu of the intension or the will to “go.” Hence, St. Luke magnifies the idea that a “contrite heart” is necessary for a complete absolution from sins. Moreover, regardless of the real reason for this state, whether out of fear or out of love of God, all then lepers were “cleaned.” God is indeed glorious to extend his mercy to all who wills to go and confess anyway. The Act of Contrition gives good hints about the above points:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins, because of Your just punishments, but most of all because they offend You, my God, who are all-good and deserving of all my love.  I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.

Thus, a contrite heart may be due to: a. fear of punishment (or fear of separation from the community, of Hell), or b. love of God. The second one, being a “perfect contrition” is of course a lot better than the first and St. Luke points out that Jesus commended the contrite heart of the Samaritan as he/she glorified God and thanked Jesus for making him/her whole again. The Samaritan showed a love of God, not just a fear of being separated from the community. Either way, God has saved them all because of their faith. The instance that Jesus turned to the Samaritan and declared that he is saved seems separated from the point of Jesus that only the Samaritan showed a contrite heart because of his/her love of God.

Not all translations are consistent whether the Samaritan still has to “go to the priest” or not. One one hand, one may argue that he/she should still go the priest so that “everything will be done accordingly.” On the other hand, that he/she is already forgiven because of his/her perfect contrition (see CCC #1452). Thus, consistent with what the Fathers of the Church defined and affirmed during their council in Trent that both perfect contrition and imperfect contrition (attrition) are valid forms of repentance. The same is explained further by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in article numbers 1451 to 1453.

St. Luke even reports that during Jesus’ earthly ministry, only 10% (one for every ten) of the repentant individuals display perfect contrition. If still true today, or worse, the state of affairs would magnify the constant call of the Church to frequent the Sacrament of Confession.

In summary, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is seen expounded by St. Luke in his version of the Gospel, chapter 17, verses 11 to 19. The Old Testament separation of the lepers being “unclean” foreshadows the necessary separation (“falling away”) of the faithful who are led astray and have sinned. The cleansing ritual of the priest also foreshadows Confession, except that during Confession, it is Christ’s death and resurrection that effects the forgiveness, not the death of the sacrificial animals in the Old Testament. It is in this regard, that the Sacrament is awesome -- the process does not require repeated sacrifice -- because Christ died once, and for all.

Finally, the details of the “ministry of reconciliation” is consistent with the Sacred Tradition of the Church (e.g. prayers and sacraments) in such a way that: 1. it can only be given by authorized individuals (i.e. confessors); and 2. the sacrament requires a contrite heart. In the very end, the love of God implies appreciation, “awe” and shouts of “glory” to the amazing gift of God to men being able to loose and bind authoritatively (see Mt. 18:18). This can only be found in the Catholic Church! What a privilege! Truly, all glory be to God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thrice, amen!

On the fullness of knowledge of the Faith

2010-10-19T14:12:00.009+02:00

Many (especially cradle) adult Catholics have ceased to dig deeper than what they know about the Catholic Faith. At some point, we just get tired of hearing the same theological or practical Christian message in the same Bible passage (or “readings”) or even within the Faith of the Church as interpreted and explained by the Holy Spirit through the Church. But just as the great Doctors of the Church has shown us, we can learn more and even deeper meanings of our Faith through our daily, even seemingly insignificant and cliché, actions and experiences.

One does not need to be a Catholic Apologist, or theologian to be able to grasp and feel God’s words in his/her environment and experiences. One only needs to be open to God’s living voice -- the Holy Spirit -- that works within and without the Church. He can speak without a human tongue. The Holy Spirit can be found anywhere, if only we permit Him to show to us.

The Holy Spirit lives within each of us since our Spiritual Birth (viz. Baptism), therefore He speaks to us constantly and unceasingly. It is us who hears but do not listen. It is us who continuously ignores and rejects the lessons we hear and learn through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, we have to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit speaks to the Church, with the Church and in the Church. The spoken words couldn't be louder and clearer outside the context of a living Church.

The fullness of knowledge remains “knowing” without necessity of understanding. The term “to know” has somehow lost its deeper meaning. This means to be united in a very special way. Knowing means being “united” both in the mind and action. This therefore implies that our knowledge of the Catholic Faith presupposes our active participation -- conscious living -- of the same Faith. It is only through this living of the Faith that we come into fullness of the Faith of our forefathers and -mothers have lived, and died so, as to live it for eternity.

This analysis about “knowing” God is better understood in the context of the Old Testament writings. When the husband “know” his wife, marital union is implied. Thus, knowing God is being in “union” with God both spiritually and physically. This union requires that the Church as Bride has to “leave his parents” (that is, the “old self under the worldly laws”), and Christ as Groom "leave" (in figurative speech) the Father in order to cleave to each other as Spouses. For us Catholics, the foretaste of this intimate physical and spiritual union is realized in the Eucharist. During the Eucharistic worship, Heaven and Earth touch. Properly as the name implies, it culminates to the Communion.

It is in this context that the People of God is a race of "royal priesthood" (s. Hebrews) -- a race separated from the world, consecrated (literally, "separated") for the Father. It is necessary that the Church be separated from the worldly order and carnal whims because she is the Bride of the Groom. God became man in order to be united with his Bride; it is (again) the time that the Bride separate herself from the world, while being still in this world, so to be united with her Groom:

Jesus [said], "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here." [Jn 18:36 NAB]

The late Pope John Paul II puts it better:

"It is our duty then to live in history, side by side with our peers, sharing their worries and hopes, because the Christian is and must be fully a man of his time. He cannot escape into another dimension, ignoring the tragedies of his era, closing his eyes and heart to the anguish that pervades life. On the contrary, it is he who, although not "of" this world, is immersed "in" this world every day, ready to hasten to wherever there is a brother in need of help, a tear to be dried, a request for help to be answered. On this will we be judged!" [Message of P. John Paul II for the XI World Youth Day, 26 Nov 1995; emphasis mine]

This is expounded by Pope Benedict XVI in his message to the 83rd World Mission Sunday 2009 (29 June):

The universal Church, which knows neither borders nor frontiers, is aware of her responsibility to proclaim the Gospel to entire peoples (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 53). It is the duty of the Church, called to be a seed of hope, to continue Christ's service in the world.

State vs Church, again -- The Dominance Mistake

2010-10-13T09:24:00.005+02:00

This article is my response to an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer: "The Church Has Lost Her Dominance" by Jose Ma. Montelibano first Posted 02:10:00 10/08/2010.

Firstly, the Church is there not because of political "dominance" but for the call of moral uprightness. When will the Filipinos ever escape the bitter past and embrace the truth? I respond to the following quotes from the article more specifically.

"Europe is one clear example. It used to be that the Catholic Church dominated the whole of Europe. Today, it hardly dominates anyone in Europe."

The author fails to understand that it was the spread of Christianity (through the Church, directly or indirectly) that Europe became. Europe without the Christian values will not hold to the test of "history" either.

"The Church hierarchy must realize that the emergence of democracy, and its march towards greater expression, threatens the blind obedience that had long been the main weapon of the Church."

The Church teaches that morals is not democratic. It is based on the Faith that has been handed down to her during Christ's time. But not everyone believes this. In any case, it is surprising that cultures and nations go and fade, but the Church still stands. I wonder why?

The debate is about the "true democracy" vs. "false democracy." This is not a war between "domination" but rather war of conscience and morals. What do Filipinos really uphold? What do we believe about freedom? What about freedom to explore the meaning of life, meaning of responsibility, and the meaning of being people (read: "human" apart from just simply belonging to the kingdom Animalia). What is more blind that being blind to other options and point of views?

"Blind obedience" is a straw man here. Reason and Faith has been the call of the Church. How can this be "blind"? Would it be more blind to simply ignore an idea just because it is strongly a position of the Church?

"The growth of the population of the laity compared to the growth of the religious, however, will lessen the reach of the true heroes of the Church. It is ironic that the population growth protected by the Church is what helps erode her traditional control."

The author COMPLETELY failed to understand the position of the Church. Didn't he knew that the members of the Church are BOTH the Laity and the Religious (of course including the priests and bishops)? One does not have to be religious just to hold on to the morals and teachings on the Faith of the Church?

The irony is the Government pushing for eradicating the very people the could support the economy. Why is the Government simply push into harnessing the great workforce that we have at the bottom of the economic chain? It's about a cultural problem, the true cancer, instead of a population growth issue. Why have not the author mentioned of the population growth (negative growth) of Europe if he wanted to take Europe as an exemplar of cultures?

Ten Lepers and the Healing of Christ

2010-10-10T23:38:00.005+02:00

The readings this Sunday was about the healing of Ten Lepers by Christ, Luke 17:11-19. In the (two) homilies that I have attended for the set of readings (one during the Saturday evening, another yesterday, Sunday), both was about being thankful and grateful of the blessings we have received. That all blessings, directly or indirectly (through other people or circumstances), are God's gift to be properly thanked for and be shared with others. The Responsorial Psalm indeed teaches us to pray: "Lord, teach us to be grateful."

Upon closer inspection there is a minor lesson that we can learn from the readings this Sunday. What caught my attention was the qualification part of the one who went back and glorified God thanking Christ personally:

and he fell at the feet of Jesus and thanked him. He was a Samaritan.[parallel: Lk 17:16, highlight mine]

Being a Samaritan is simply not being a Jew. According to the Jewish tradition at the time of Jesus, Samaritan means "enemy" (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk 10:30ff). Being a Samaritan is being worse than being a pagan -- a non-Jew.

The minor lesson is that God shows his Mercy and Salvation even to the non-Jewish people -- to all Nations. In the context of the New Israel (the Church): God shows his Salvation even to those who are not yet fully with the Church; and typically the very People of God seldom gives back the proper thanks to God of the Salvation received. God does not revoke his blessings for He is faithful. But God gives more blessings to those who go back and give thanks to the One Giver of Blessings. If the People of God will not acknowledge the gift of God to them, God will continue to bring in converts from other religions, showing the proper way to glorify God as He intended it to be.

See, it was in Naaman (a non Jew) who was cured through Elisha's instructions that the power of God was shown (2 Kings 5). Although initially reluctant due to pride, as he sees a superficial cleanliness of the river, Jordan (v.12); Naaman was healed. It was also in Naaman that the great gratitude is seen. This gratitude is overwhelming to the point of carrying two mule-loads of earth just to be able to worship the God of Isreal, likely in pagan style or according to their custom (see v.18 and commentaries).

The words of St. Paul to Timothy gives us a clear idea that: with Baptism, we can live a life with God; and, as we persevere in Faith (or continue being Sanctified through proper worship), we will eventually triumph and "reign" with Christ.

If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. [2 Tim 2:11-13]

God is great and his Mercy covers multitudes of sins, his Spirit cleanses us even to our souls through the proper Sacrament (e.g. Jordan river, water of Baptism, words of Absolution) and through his ambassadors (e.g. prophets, priests), "angels" and people. This is better worded by the current Pope Benedict XVI in his homily for the Mideast Synod:

It is the mystery of the universality of Salvation and at the same time of its necessary link with the historical mediation of Christ Jesus, preceded by that of the people of Israel and continued by that of the Church.

Glory be to God ....

St. Paul vs. St. Peter

2010-10-06T09:21:00.005+02:00

Debates go over the primacy of the Saints Paul and Peter. Many non-Catholics (especially anti-Papists) against Peter's primacy often incite the idea that even St. Paul corrected ("in the face") St. Peter's action when the latter visited Antioch, as St. Paul accounted:

"I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong." [Gal 2:11/parallel translation here]

However, if I were to read the context of St. Paul's explanation to the Galatians, his argumentation actually supports the idea that he is simply contrasting apostolic authority (over doctrines) and personal behavior (actions in conformity to the doctrine preached/believed). St. Paul do not wish to oppose St. Peter as much as possible. Even some translation include the phrase "had to" because St. Peter's action is not in accordance with the Gospel they all had previously agreed consistent with the Faith of the Church.

Thus, St. Paul is merely pointing out that St. Peter did not act the way the Gospel (of equality, Jews or Gentile) is to be preached and God divine plan of salvation. One would clearly see this in the previous verses (Gal 2:1-10) since it appears that St. Paul needed to confirm with the Pillars of the Church (James, Kepha/Peter and John) whether his ideas of salvation for the Gentiles ("gospel that I preach to the Gentiles") and the tradition he is setting or way of preaching ("running, or have run [my life]" some translations: "all my efforts") agrees with the Faith of the Church as it was preached personally by Jesus to the Twelve (vs. revelation to St. Paul post-ascension). Note that it appears more likely that he (Paul) did the consultation ("went up") following the personal revelation to him ("in accord with a revelation") to go there and verify [see v.2a/parallel]. Thus, even the Spirit instructs St. Paul to consult an important truth of the Faith.

The above analysis is supported by the fact that the Pillars even "gave" St. Paul. If one would read Galatians 2:9, St. Paul writes:

"when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership."

In fact, of 17 translations, only New Living Translation (NLT, used "accepted as co-workers") and God's Word Translation ("agreeing to be parters") used weaker verbs. St. Paul specifically mentions that the three FIRST recognized the truth; THEN gave the permission. He also emphasized that these three are Pillars of the Church. There was even a CONDITION for such partnership as he wrote in the following verse (v.10):

"Only, we were to be mindful of the poor."

This requirement is even translated stronger in other translations: e.g. All they asked was (NIV), Only it was their desire (Bible in Basic English), They only asked us (World English Bible). I cannot imagine what St. Paul will do if the Pillars did not accept/gave/agree with him.

The main idea in chapters 1 and 2 of Galatians is that Gentiles need not to be circumcised to become members of the Church ("justification through the Law"), but instead by being circumcised in the Spirit ("baptized by Water and Spirit"). I also believe that St. Paul is merely justifying his action against St. Peter being quite harsh being one of the Pillars of the Church and "leader of reputation." It's like one newbie trying to oppose in the face the President of a Country in public.

Signs and Wisdom

2010-08-27T03:10:00.003+02:00

Some demand signs and others look for wisdom [1 Cor. 1:22a]. This is a trend even today. Once and since, Europe wanted to remove the message that Catholics preach. This is the crucifix. The crucifix is different from a cross because the crucifix include the crucified Christ. Whether one likes it or not, it depicts that Christ died on the Cross. The message is not just the Cross itself but also Death. The presence of Christ himself is the hope that rest on the Hope himself. That on the last day, we will be with him in the Paradise.

Before I became a Catholic, I did not realize the high significance of the crucifix. The crucifix is the message of the Church. The crucified Christ may be absurd for the those who look for the "proper order of things" or foolishness for those who look for the "philosophy behind." However, it is the message itself that bring about the Wisdom beyond any man's natural gift to understand.

Indeed, as Paul teaches it:

"we proclaim Christ crucified..." [v23a]

So does the Church. God is great! Amen.

Spain -- the killing begins, legally

2010-07-06T03:54:00.002+02:00

and the Bishops of the Church in Spain cried against the legalization of abortion:

"We speak in fact in favor of those who have a right to be born and to be received by their parents with love; we speak in favor of mothers, who have the right to receive the social and state support necessary to avoid becoming victims of abortion; we speak in favor of the liberty of parents and of the schools that collaborate with them, to give their children an emotional and sexual formation in keeping with moral convictions that truly prepare them to be parents and to accept the gift of life; we speak in favor of a society that has the right to count on just laws that do not confuse injustice with rights."

Now the World is at war with the Church. The Dragon is waiting to devour the children to be born!

The first rock/stone of the Church

2010-07-04T03:03:00.003+02:00

The Gospel today (Sun, 04.July 2010) reads:

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone [1]. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [Eph 2:19-22 (NAB)]

For the Church, St. Peter is the first stone/rock cast by Christ together with the apostles and prophets. It makes sense because the apostles have the power (still through the Holy Spirit) to build on themselves; themselves being the first ("foundation").

Indeed, every one is added on one foundation that is Kepha (or "Cepha") the Rock that was first placed by the Cornerstone himself.

It all makes sense this way doesn't it?!

----

[1] Also "cornerstone" or "keystone" in other versions; in masonry and architecture, this stone/structure holds all the structures and is important in the overall alignment and organization. This term is used to figuratively indicate the dependence of other "elements" of the structure. Without the cornerstone, the entire structure collapses into individual pieces.

The power given to men

2010-07-01T16:49:00.004+02:00

The reading today should bring great joy to the humankind: God gave "such power to men/human beings"! But what power is this?

Matthew 9:1-8 presents a story about a paralytic whose sins were forgiven by the Son of Man, Jesus. Note that Jesus specifically uttered "your sins are forgiven" for the audience know that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." This should reminded us of the mission of forgiveness of Jesus. He came to forgive the sinners and give them a chance to live life to the fullest. Indeed, the age of Grace has arrived -- the new and everlasting Kingdom of God!

This mission to forgiveness is passed on to the apostles (and bishops as their successors), and hence to the priests as their "assistants" in dispensing specific graces. This is consistent with the Scripture as it describes the bishops and priests as "ambassadors of Christ" in the "ministry of reconciliation" [2 Cor 5:18-20], and "ministry through the mercy" as the "treasure in earthen vessels", believing that "the surpassing power may be of God and not from us" [2 Cor 4]. This mission of forgiveness now takes a specific form in the Sacrament of Penance.

The advice of St. Paul to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 2 makes sense when read in relation to the Sacrament of Penance. It appears that St. Paul is actually exhorting the priests to be more lenient in recommending penance to the penitent, "forgiving" and "encouraging" the penitent sinners instead. This way, they "reaffirm [their] love for [the sinner]."

All these becomes clear when Jesus first appeared to the fearful apostles and said:

"As the Father has sent me, so I send you." and after saying so, He also gave them the authority to forgive sins which is binding both in earth and in heaven. [cf. John 20:21ff]

Truly, God gave a great power to humankind! Surely, God expects great responsibility for such powers. No wonder the admonitions of St. Paul.

Glory be...

Back to the past, back to the future

2010-06-22T07:18:00.003+02:00

The Eucharist is a time machine. Every authentic encounter with the Eucharist is a participation in a timeless and spaceless Sacrifice and Communion with God. It has been always thought that in the Eucharist, Heaven and Earth touch.

The Eucharist is real just as Christ is real for Jesus was born, died, buried, resurrected and ascended to Heaven. The reality of the "internal transformation" of bread and wine to become substantially the Body and Blood of Christ keeping their "external appearances" (more officially termed as "transsubstantiation") is integral to the Christian Faith.

The Christian Faith holds that God loved the World (John 3:16). God is the Absolute Love and so his love is absolute. That love is the love that sacrifices and offers everything including His life. It is understood that God will that Man (his mere creation) participates in his divine life. When somebody asks for a ride for a mile, God offers his donkey for free so that that somebody can go anywhere. For a thirsty man, God does not give him a glass of water but an everlasting well. For Man who is always hungry, God gives his own Word to become our Food.

When God gives, He must give all because he is Love. Thus, God should have given even himself to the hands of Man. This is the very essence of Incarnation, God became man because of his Love. Thus, a symbolic presence is not a full presence -- it is an artificial giving that is purely spiritual. Jesus in all his divinity and humanity is present in every piece (or drop) of Bread (or Wine).

Indeed, in the Eucharist, "we enter into a reality that precedes us, more than that, which embraces heaven and earth and, hence, also the past, the future and the present." [zenit.com] The sacrifice of Christ is eternal in a sense that it is experienced by all souls both in the past and in the future. This is the reason why Christ has to descend to Hell (Sheol) during the three days before his resurrection. Jesus declared to the souls in "limbo" that Heaven has been opened for them through Him.

Every Eucharistic worship is a participation of that heavenly banquet with Christ as the High Priest. Banquet because food is served. This is the Food that does not spoil in time but is beyond time -- yes, eternal. When one receives Christ in the Eucharist, the same person goes back to the past, in the present and to the future -- truly eternal!

Father's Day 2010

2010-06-20T19:36:00.000+02:00

A good father is:

Just

Merciful and

Provider.

A good father is also the sign of:

Faith

Hope and

Love

in every family, whether it be spiritual, social or biological.

A good father therefore should be a living sign of

the fatherhood of the Father to Jesus,

just as every good son/daughter should be a living sign of

the sonship of Jesus to the Father in Heaven.

Time of sorrow, fear and excitement

2010-06-05T15:57:00.005+02:00

These times, trials and tribulation are wrecking the Boat of Christ -- the Catholic Church. A friend of mine, forwarded to me an article in the Inquirer entitled: "Growing up or growing away"

I decided to respond with the following mixed feelings.

1) Sorrow. It is heartening to see that those who are expected of more do not deliver what is expected of them, especially these trying times. Church leaders (not just Catholic) fail to be come good examples of the very lessons they preach. This is true most especially with the sexual abuse cases within the Church in Ireland, Germany and the US. I would feel more sorrowful if there is even such cases within the Church in the Philippines.

It even gives me more sadness that articles like this misrepresent the true teachings of the Church. For example, in the article,

“The Catholic people have already changed,” more aware that “they themselves… are the Church.”

It should be stressed that without the Bishops, the people will never be the Church. It should also be stressed that the Church includes BOTH sinners and saints.

The article even tells that:

No more are many of us “as little children” swallowing every teaching, major and minor, every rule to its last minutiae, every devotion practiced to distraction.

This is a sign of a childish understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church, never able to grow spiritually and intellectually. This is like a Peter-Pan-syndrome, being afraid to find the light of truth behind every teaching, rule and devotions.

Further on the article writes:

The Church will shape itself. Changes in the priesthood, liturgy, women’s role, a genuinely empowered laity, governance, “new” pastoral-doctrinal-moral approaches—no-no’s in this lifetime, may become fait accompli in the future. Change is unstoppable. We may see a Church more diverse, prophetic, kinder; rather than one, pure, petrified and princely.

The Church never shaped itself without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There will never be changes in its doctrines and truth. Never will there be changes in the notion of priesthood, liturgy, even in women's role. She has preserved the Truth since Pentecost for over two millennia, she will not fail at all in holding on to the same truth.

In the last paragraph:

There is no “loss of faith”; only of “blind obedience.” The faithful may not be growing away, just growing up. And an adult faithful is certainly the better ally.

The writer is correct that the adult (and mature) faithful is certainly the better ally because adults must have "informed obedience." Nevertheless, it should be noted that "childish obedience" is better than the pride that our First Parents had as the root of Original Sin. (cf. Lk 18:17)

2) Fear. I fear that fellow Catholic (and other christians as well) might simply get out of the Boat just because of the fear, shame or contempt of what is happening to the Church these days. Obviously, other than positive message, this article gives a false understanding of what the Church is and how she decides on matters of the Faith and the resulting morals which the Catholic faithful has to follow in life.

According to the Catholic Faith, the truth handed by Christ on to the Church (through Christ's Apostles) is absolute and its interpretation should always be final. Therefore, the care for the truth requires absolute authority, not democracy. Our Faith tells us that it is the Holy Spirit in the Church who has the sole authority in expounding the truths.

The absolute morals are never dictated by the whims and tides of culture. The Church is not of this world. She will always do what is mandated by her Lord and Bridegroom -- Christ -- to protect and develop the Faith that was handed on to her with the help of the spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit in her. While christians live IN this world, we live FOR another world; that other world is the place which Christ has went to prepare for all of us -- the true Canaan, the true Promised Land.

I am not afraid because the Church will never be defeated by Satan. No matter the pressure of the world systems (political or even the entire population of the world); the Church will never simply give up and boil away. The Church will never be defeated even by the gates of Hell.

Meanwhile, let us not grumble and despair in this Desert or be carried out by the temporal goodness of Babylon. Let our gaze to our sure Future be steady and our hope solid in the new Jerusalem, the Boat of Salvation as we travel this sea of earthly life where storms are common. Christ is with us in the Boat. Let us not be afraid to be in this Boat. Let us not commit suicide by jumping out of the Boat or to another boat.

"While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder [i.e., destroying other people's faith in God by their terrible example], those who take scandal-who allow scandals to destroy their faith-are guilty of spiritual suicide." St. Francis de Sales [http://www.catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp]

3) Excitement. This time seems to mark another era of great persecution in the Church. As if the Church experiences tides of temptations and worldly pressures that even those men assigned with sail, anchor and steering wheels are maligned and abusing. It is historically pleasing that only these times that martyrs and saints ever more shine through the darkness, guiding many out of the storms, together with the Holy Spirit.

It is indeed exciting to see that the visions of John at Patmos written in the book of Revelation (Apocalypse). Read entire Revelation 13 and one could immediately see the current signs of time.

According to an author in catholic.com:

Once one of the brothers in the order of Friars Minor who was sensitive to scandal asked him, "Brother Francis, what would you do if you knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side?" Francis replied, "When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands." [http://www.catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp]

This are the times with which Jesus refer when he said,

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven" (Matt. 5:11-12).

I would like to stay in the Boat; Christ is still in the Boat. I will ally with the Lamb of God in this war.

The two wills of Christ -- one fully human and another fully divine

2010-04-28T14:47:00.003+02:00

The reading today is from Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 12:44-50.

In this reading we find the following truths:

1. God wills that all men be saved. However, God gave each of us free will: the freedom to choose between obedience and disobedience to his Word. Therefore the only way by which an individual will not be saved is by his own willful rejection of God's gift.

2. Christ has two wills, human and divine; and that his human will is one with his divine will. It is this point that is also highlighted in the passage. It is at this point that many have argued against the canon from the Council of Chalcedon (451) which says that "he only-begotten Son of God must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united . . . without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union." [(re)quoted from catholic.com article]

Christ is saying that he had seen the light and he is compelled by his own free reason to proclaim that light to all. Just as all of us is compelled to tell the truth about the Church once we have known about it. Proclaiming what is true about the Church is proclaiming what is true about her founder -- Christ.

True human freedom is a Christian principle

2010-04-26T15:20:00.002+02:00

Indeed! True Christianity is living to the fullest.

When Christ as the Shepherd willed that we live life to the fullest, He must have thought of the original design that are human -- the Man God made -- that is, Man as flesh and spirit. There are now very few Christian "sect" that believes on this. Some deny the reality of the flesh and a few even think that the flesh is evil being a "cage" that keeps the spirit's freedom.

We cannot live in purely spiritual terms. We are originally designed to be humans that need both spiritual and physical interactions. Even to the end, we will have physical bodies and live with God eternally. Our creed says that we ought to believe "in the resurrection of the body" which implies the necessity of the body in order for us to have "life to the fullest" as promised by our good Shepherd.

Being also physical, we need physical "instruments" to better reach God. Hence the icons and other prayer tools such as the rosary beads, the crucifixes, and the cross itself are deemed useful. Many other helpful physical things are good in their original state. It is how we use and think of them that they can channel aspects that are not good.

Indeed it is only the Catholic Church that promotes her children to live life to the fullest. We shall not ignore the physical side of life but rather in a balanced kind of harmony between the physical and spiritual realms. In both cases, the boundaries are clear, just as every sheep in a herd knows their boundary set by their respective shepherds. True human freedom is found in the rational acceptance of our bounds and responsibilities. Christ is our good Shepherds, He sets the boundaries and gives our true freedom so that i the end, we can live life to the fullest!

Five points for the Real Presence

2010-04-23T10:12:00.001+02:00

1. God, because He is absolute Love, gave and emptied himself out completely including his Incarnated body. If, as the protestants understand, He only gave up his Body in "principle" (purely spiritual), this ancient Christian belief cannot be supported. Christ must have given up his body and entrusted his body and blood (in the full sense) to his Church. What is the sense of being incarnated if God cannot perpetuate the sacrament?

It is God's Love that made him trust Man of his most holy Body and Blood. If He would not do this, what is the sense of the Covenant? In the end, it is not God who will fail, it is Man as he is frail because of pride. The Holy Spirit is there to guide us in all our undertakings in going back ("relegare") to Him.

2. All devotions and the entire life of Christ's Church is centered about receiving of the Eucharist ("breaking of the Bread"). This fact makes every teaching of Christ meaningful from his Two Commandments to the Baptism to the receiving ("eating", "gnawing", "chewing") of his Body as the true spiritual food and his Blood as the new and everlasting Covenant/Testament. Remove the Eucharist and all Christ's teachings become random moral lessons without sense of unity.

3. As Scott Hahnn has pointed out, all Covenants (since the old and even before) culminates in a partaking of a sacramental meal. Partaking involves eating the flesh of the sign of the covenant. For (old) Israel it is eating the flesh of the lamb. Still for the (new) Israel, we eat the flesh of God's Lamb -- Christ. Indeed, for the Church, Christ himself IS THE Covenant. Thus, eating his flesh is indeed the greatest partaking of the Covenant.

4. The fullness of life can be found on BOTH the spiritual and physical sense. It is with the belief that Christ is present BOTH spiritually and bodily in the Church fulfills this fullness of our life in Christ. Protestants belief is not "full" in the sense that they do not (and in any case, cannot) get the flesh and blood of Christ.

5. The belief on BOTH the spiritual and physical unity of Marriage bond has been held true by the Church. In fact, the mystical relation of the Church and Christ can be understood as a marriage. Now, every marriage is consummated only once the physical "dimension" of the relationship/vow is fulfilled -- i.e. with the marital act. Being one with Christ in body is the consummation of the Church's relation with Christ. We become one with Christ both in body and spirit during the Catholic Communion. If Christ did not institute the reality of his presence in the Bread and Wine, then it is like a "fake" consummation or a marital act where new life is prevented (i.e. use of contra-inceptive methods).

All these facts point to the reality that we all need to be "virgins" both in spirit and body before we receive and be one with Christ.

Surprisingly, these truths cannot be found in any other church except the Universal, Ancient and One Church -- the Holy Catholic Church -- unstained by the flaws and sins of her ministers.

Biblical source of Lent

2010-02-21T00:58:00.004+01:00

Lent is the liturgical season before easter. It starts on the Ash Wednesday and culminates at the Easter Sunday.

Lent is 40 days! The reading for today is Luke 4:1-13, which narrates how Jesus, at the start of his public ministry -- after his Baptism in Jordan -- was led to the "wilderness" to be tempted by Satan. With Jesus representing the firstborn Israel, this event perfects the 40-year experience of the nation Israel in the desert/wilderness with Moses (cf. Deut 8:2).

In particular, Jesus -- just as He reversed Adam's disobedience -- reversed the three major fails that old Israel made in the wilderness responding the lessons taught in those specific stages.

1. One does not live by bread alone (cf. Deut 8:3, expounded in the verses that follows).

2. You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve (cf. Ex 32, see commentary on verse 5 here).

3. You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test (cf. Num 20).

During this year's Lent, catholics concentrate on perfecting themselves by even more putting emphasis to the commandments of God: the Two Great Commandments of the Word of God -- Jesus, detailed in particular in the Mosaic Ten Commandments. That is living the exhortation through James in James 2:5-18 concluding that ones Faith has to be reflected in his/her life, a Faith lived.

All these "foreshadowing" in the old Testament, and in Jesus' life, is fulfilled in the new Covenant as the Church -- the Kingdom of God (in the making) on earth -- relives the salvation history. With these rhythm of life, she slowly uncovers the wonders and the "coronation" that awaits in the End of Time.

I am glad that non-Catholic christian groups are slowly accepting self-inflicted suffering and self-denial (fasting and/or abstinence) as a means to gazing the face of the Lord by living the Faith. I hope that however humanly these 40-day catholic period that is rooted from the beginnings of the catholic Faith (traceable even to the old Covenant), it is instructive and effective in proclaiming the catholic Gospel which is Christ himself -- Verbum Dei, the Word of God in the flesh (as in the truest sense of the human flesh -- the mystery of Incarnation).

May our daily sufferings purify all our holy intentions, ever pointing us to the right path to seeing the Face of the Lord, instead of considering it as punishment. As Jesus tells us clearly:

"If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily 11 and follow me...." (Lk 9:23)

Priests shall never be lacking

2009-11-29T12:00:00.000+01:00

God is Faithful to his promises! Give glory to His Name.

The reading today concerns the promise of God -- the promise of salvation to the Israel that covers the ENTIRE human race up to the will of Man to be saved. What strikes me is the later part of the OT reading:

For thus says the LORD: Never shall David lack a successor on the throne of the house of Israel, nor shall priests of Levi ever be lacking, to offer holocausts before me, to burn cereal offerings, and to sacrifice victims. (Jer 33:17-18, NAB)

While many argue that offering should stop after Jesus' ultimate Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, this verse gives a justification to the Daily Offering in the Mass. Moreover, it is also interesting to note of the "burning of cereal offering(s)." "Cereal Offering" is equivalent to an offering of praise and thanks -- the Eucharist.

In the Eucharist, the Church become one (communion):

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. (1 Cor 10:16-17, NAB)

Here, in case one argues that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, then the communion becomes a mere symbol and not an actual "one-ness." In this regard, I find the Catholic position about the Real Presence more compelling and amazing -- the Eucharist is, and must be, BOTH symbolic and actual for the Love of God is both real and beyond physical reality.

Faith and Science

2009-10-10T05:11:00.003+02:00

I have always believed that having Faith alone or Science alone cannot completely answer all of Man's ultimate questions of life.

It is the position of the Catholic Church on Faith and Reason that attracted me to examine the Faith closer and more intimately. Faith is the guide for Reason and Reason brings in reality of the Faith. Reason gives us the will to follow the Faith, and Faith gives Reason the Hope for something that is greater than what is known (or even knowable). Of these, indeed the greatest is the Love that is generated as a result of Faith and Hope working together in each of us through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Recently, this dynamic duo of Faith and Reason is elaborated in a Zenit article, "Faith and Science: Prelate defends dual outlook". In particular, I'm very much aligned and in agreement of the following quotations by the same Catholic news agency.

Science and faith cover "different realms," he said, with "different methodologies." But they "need one another to complement each other in the mind of a thinking person," he contended.

"Science asks about the 'how,' whereas metaphysics and religion are dedicated to investigating ultimate values, the 'why,'" the prelate continued.

The Truth about the Holy Spirit

2009-10-08T04:47:00.003+02:00

and the teachings of the Apostles as handed down from generations to generations of the Holy Orders ("holy ones").

This can be gleaned from St. Paul's letters to Timothy about the Truth as passed on from generation to generation.

First, Timothy received the faith directly from St. Paul and must guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit:

2 Tim 1:13 "Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us."

2 Tim 3:10-11,14 "You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, and sufferings.... remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it...."

2 Tim 2:2 "... what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people ...."

1 Tim 6:20 "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you."

and that he also was conferred with gifts and teaching authority about the same faith via the imposition of hands:

1 Tim 4:14 "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

1 Tim 1:6,9 "I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. ... [God] saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began"

Second, St. Paul instructed Timothy to exercise the teaching authority ("the gift", "the gift of God") that were conferred to him:

1 Tim 1:2-3 "... you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith."

1 Tim 4:6a "If you will give these instructions to the brothers..." (Timothy is supposed to give instructions here.)

1 Tim 4:11 "Command and teach these things." (... also give commands and lessons about the faith.)

Therefore, it is clear that one has to receive and accept by faith the teachings from their respective spiritual authorities. For Catholics, these spiritual authorities are their local (spiritual advisors, priests or more authoritatively, the respective Bishop) and universal (final and ultimate teaching authority, Church Magisterium) magisteria.

Let us not deviate --- by following false teachers now and before --- from the true teachings of the Faith transmitted to us, either thru previous generations' writings, words and examples. St. Paul admonishes Timothy:

1 Tim 1:6-7 "Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance."

1 Tim 4:7a "Avoid profane and silly myths."

2 Tim 3:16 "Avoid profane, idle talk, for such people will become more and more godless, ...."

2 Tim 4:3-4 "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths."

Indeed, some truths are simply difficult to swallow but in time, but with prayers we will be guided by the Holy Spirit to finally understand and attain "all truth."

St. Paul experienced this:

2 Cor 12:3b-4 "... this person[referring to himself] was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable things, which no one may utter."

Christ's followers experienced the same when He taught them about "eating and drinking" His own "flesh and blood" respectively:

Jn 6:60,66 "... many of [Christ's] disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" [Because of this] many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

Our ever deepening understanding of the revealed Truth through generations is one of the works of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ:

Jn 14:16-17,26 "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name -- he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you."

Mk 16:17b "... they will speak new languages." ["Trinity," "Transsubstantiation", etc. are of a new language?]

Some argue that the authentic works of the Holy Spirit are works of the Devil or even deny that there is such a Holy Spirit at work, heed:

Mt 12:31-32 "Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Let us trust the Holy Spirit at work with our spiritual authorities that He will not let the Faithful be guided to darkness. Stir the flame of Faith, Hope and Love.

Let us keep, protect and nourish the Faith that we have received from the previous generations. Remember the Parable of the Talents.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, forever, as it was in the beginning.

Eastern Orthodox Faith

2009-09-10T05:52:00.004+02:00

The Eastern Christian Faith comes in two general "flavors": East Orthodox and East Catholic. Obviously, the second is properly known as the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church. In the blog, "Parchment and Pen" forwarded by a Bible Believing Christian (BBC) friend Teci, I have come in contact with some "EricW" who is kind enough to give me resources on the Eastern Orthodox Churchs' Faith (EOCs' Faith). Honestly, I don't know much about the EOCs' Faith but I'm sure its the nearest that one could be to the true Catholic Church without embracing the "Roman" Catholic Church. This is exactly the sentiments of the Philippine Independence Church (a.k.a. Iglesia Filipina Independiente, IFI in the Philippines) and hopes to find apostolicity in the sacraments by associating with the other Catholic schimatics in Europe (e.g. Belgium).

In the catholic.com website, they publish (freely) the back-issues of "This Rock" catholic magazine and in it are several articles concerning the EOCs' Faith (via Google's search). One article "How Do We Know It’s the True Church? Twelve Things to Look For" enumerates several pointers on how the Catholic Faith is founded differently from EOCs:

Rooted in history but adaptable to the times keeping the tradition of holding Councils whenever necessary as in Acts 15 of the nascent one catholic (Jews+Gentiles) Church.
Objective but flexible held together by one teaching authority
Both has universal doctrinal authority and local autonomy. Even local bishops have doctrinal authority, though has to be in union with the Magisterium of the Church.
Faith held is intellectually deep but still accessible to everyone. Both science and art are allowed to capture the essence of the teachings of the Faith.
Made up of the visible and invisible parts. Just as Man is both body (from Earth) and spirit (breath of God) as described in Genesis, the Church is formed out of men (the Apostles) and the Holy Spirit (breath of Christ).

Indeed, the Church is more than just an organization that is united in the concept of God and His divine Plan -- she is a caring Mother giving birth to God's sons and daughters.

I do not waver in the Hope that whatever differences there are in the Christian Churches today, the Holy Spirit will gather all into one so that "all may be one." Glory be....

Timeline of the Bible (and other related documents)

2009-08-31T15:43:00.000+02:00

This is taken from the thread "A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic" in the Catholic Answers Forum posted by JustaServant (http://thetrailhome.blogspot.com/).

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul's first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul's second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul's third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
95- The Epistle of Clement is written..
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

Well done..

AIDS debate: condom or contradom

2009-08-28T16:03:00.004+02:00

A recent article on Zenit.org "Scientist: Pope was right about AIDS" highlighted that Abstinence and Fidelity are more effective than (just) condoms. He affirms that AB(C) technique, with (C)ondoms as the "last resort" (A=Abstinence, and B=Be faithful). Apparently, people want to always go to the "last resort" and settles with the easier way.

In most cases, the easy way is not necessarily the right way. In fact, condom and other "easy ways" like contraception (artificial birth controls) have inherent "side effects" which is more detrimental to the society and humanity both in reality of human relationships and in principle. To this, Rachel Fay in her This Rock article "That celibate bachelor was right" she presented the ideas that me and my wife have in common regarding the bad side-effects contraception.

I wonder what the Filipino's take is regarding this issue: Contra- or con-DOM, either against or in favor of Man becoming Dirty and Old.

Early Church Fathers: "Peter is the rock"

2009-08-25T17:05:00.001+02:00

The following I quoted from this website about Biblical sources of Catholic Faith. The messages are simply these: 1. Almost 30% of the popes is saint and barely 4% is immoral/corrupt; 2. Not one of the 4% ever gave a binding decision on Faith and Morals (since "not one of the popes ever taught error in areas of faith or morals"); and 3. The understanding that Peter is the Rock that was first laid by Christ, and that this Office is existent, is held since the beginning of the Christian communities. So I quote,

Out of 265 Popes, 79 were saints, only 10 were immoral or corrupt, and not one ever taught error in areas of faith or morals.
Please note that the interpretations found above are hardly novel. Witness this Passage from Tertullian, written ca. 200 A.D.:

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called, 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth'?"("On Prescription against Heretics ANF 3: 253)

And from Origen, written just two or three decades later, we find,

"Look at that great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith...'" ('The Faith of the Early Fathers,' Vol. 1, Jurgens, p. 205).

...

More on the Mt 16:18

2009-08-22T17:21:00.007+02:00

In the Scriptures, Jesus built his Church upon the Apostle Peter when he said

And so I say to you, you are Peter/Kepha, and upon this rock/kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18 NAB)

Other translations are as follows can be found in this website.

Concentrating on the last phrase: "the gates of the netherworld/hell/Hades shall not prevail against it," we see that Death cannot prevail against Christ's Church.

We can therefore conclude the following:
1. The Church did not and cannot die with the death of the Apostles and their successors (cf. Acts 1:15-26).
2. The Church is founded on persons (here, on the Apostle St. Peter) just as the Church is built on the Apostles and the Faithful, not on their faith (1 Pet 2:5, the Church is not made of just the Cornerstone; Rev 21:14,19-20).
3. The Church has Ministry-related Offices that do not disappear with the death of those sitting on their respective Cathedra/Seats/Offices.
4. Together with the succeeding passage on the giving of the "keys," the entire passage only make sense if all of the above are true.

Hence,
1. The Church that Christ built did not die sometime ago, only to be "risen" again after some time.
2. The same Church has a sense of succession of office independent of death or even blood relations as of the Old, as a certain authority ("keys") are passed on from one successor to another.

We should interpret the Bible in its entirety and as a whole and that there is unity in the Gospel that the Bible is trying to convey to the intended readers and what it means to us in the present time and situation.

The Catholic Life

2009-08-22T01:54:00.006+02:00

The logic of the Catholic Life indeed caught me up. I thought of making a diagram in a form of flowchart for the Catholic Life as I imagined it.

There is nothing more real than this.

Sidetrack: "The Lord is with you."

2009-08-18T18:00:00.004+02:00

There are at least five passages when the phrase "The Lord is with you" is used. I used the google search for the phrase within the USCCB Online Bible (NAB). The following are the results of that search.

[T]he angel of the Lord appeared to him and said, "The LORD is with you, O champion!" (Jg 6:12) The "champion" referring to Gideon, a Judge of Israel who answered "My Lord, if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us?" The story is written so that the "angel of the Lord" and "the Lord" seems interchangeable. It is the "angel of the Lord" that greeted Gideon with the phrase and promised a defeat of Israel's enemies to be led by Gideon who considers his family "the meanest in Manasseh" and himself as "the most insignificant" in his father's house. Also notable is the "peace-offering" in a form of "slaughter-offering" making use of meat and bread (vv. 19-21).

Nathan answered the king[David], "Go, do whatever you have in mind, for the Lord is with you." (2 Sam 7:4) Here, we see prophet Nathan talking to king David. Although this is not a greeting to the king, this precedes the construction of the house for the Ark of God. (cf. v.5 and forward) In the end of the chapter (vv. 28-29), David prays "And now, Lord GOD, you are God and your words are truth; you have made this generous promise to your servant. Do, then, bless the house of your servant that it may be before you forever; for you, Lord GOD, have promised, and by your blessing the house of your servant shall be blessed forever."

They[Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol] answered [to Aaron]: "We are convinced that the Lord is with you, so we propose that there be a sworn agreement between our two sides--between you and us. (Gen 26:28) Here, it shows that since Aaron is "with the Lord," he stands as the true representative of Israel during the time when Israel was in contact with the Philistines (represented by Abimelech). It is interesting to note that the "pact between" Philistines and Israel was about "not molesting Israel" and Israel not to "act unkindly toward" Philistine.

He[Azariah with whom the "spirit of God came"] went forth to meet Asa and said to him: "Hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! The Lord is with you when you are with him, and if you seek him he will be present to you; (2 Chr 15:2) Note that the greeting is done through the messenger of the Lord (prophet). At the end of the address of Azariah (v. 7), he states that Asa has consistently not done anything wrong and are in fact doing good when he exhorted him to "be strong and ... not relax, for your work shall be rewarded." It is during Asa's reign when all the idols in the house of Judah and Benjamin were removed and they "entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul." In the end however, Asa's pride started to overcome him at the 35th year of his reign as king (cf. ch 16).

And [angel Gabriel] coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." (Lk 1:28) Note that the greeting "Hail" is reserved to a king/rabbi as individuals addressed Jesus (s. Jn 19:3; Mk 15:18; and Mt 26:49,27:29b) or an object instituted by the Lord that worthy of praise that a great mountain (obstacle) will be passed over as if it will be plain (Zech 4:7b). Here, the Virgin Mary is greeted saying that the Lord is with her because she "will conceive in [her] womb and bear" the "Son of the Most High" (v. 31-32).

Catholics view Eucharist as the self-sacrifice of the Son of God when He once and for all gave His Body and shed His Blood for the entire human race. This Eucharist is in the form or appearance of bread and wine though truly (supernatural) the Body and Blood of Christ as effected by the consecration of a valid bishop (or priest). Catholics also view Christ as the Covenant between God and Man, and also as the Law.

It is very interesting that the same greeting "the Lord is with you" is used for Mary by Gabriel (item 5). This act seems to complete or satisfy or fulfill the foreshadowed uses of the same greeting in the Bible. The Virgin Mary's answer (viz. Magnificat) alludes all the OT's personalities during the Annunciation as seen in Lk 1:46-55:

"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.
He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.
The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy,
according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

This song of Mary clearly alludes all circumstances above and points that in her the phrase "the Lord is with you" truly and finally realized. Mary sees herself as the least among Israel (cf. item 1 above). Mary became the Carrier of the Covenant hence becoming a literal "house of God" for nine months. Since she is the (spiritual) Mother of all Christians, thus the Church is her "house" (the servant's house) and that this house is blessed forever (cf. item 2).

She herself will be called "blessed" for generations to come. She is also blameless since conception (sinless according to personal sin) and is saved by the Lord (with regards to the original sin) in a special way (retroactive application of Jesus' sacrifice). This being blameless (Immaculate Conception) is already shown in Item 4.

The Mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43) being with Jesus must feel infinitely happy and does not need any "pleasure" which is of the world including carnal pleasure or even the happiness of having another child. Hence, Mary is also not "defiled" or "molested" after Jesus' birth as foreshadowed in Item 3. Her YES and willingness to "carry" the Covenant caused people to "seek the Jesus with all their heart and soul" as she commands us to "do whatever Jesus tells us to do" (Jn 2:5).

Let God be praised for all the wonders He made for Man giving our Hope of resurrection and heaven through the Assumption of Mary, Theotokos. Catholic celebrate Assumption every year on the 15th of August with the Eastern Rite having a more elaborate program. All glory be to God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen.

Sidetrack: Trembling story of rebellion

2009-08-15T04:33:00.001+02:00

The story is known as the Rebellion of Korah. It begins as follows:

Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, (and Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben) took two hundred and fifty Israelites who were leaders in the community, members of the council and men of note. They stood before Moses, and held an assembly against Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, "Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD'S congregation?" (Num 16:1-3 NAB)

Two cases of rebellion during the early years of Israel as a holy nation of God in the leadership of Moses with Aaron as the High Priest: Political and spiritual.

What is interesting is the spiritual dimension of the uprising summarized by Moses as:

"[God] has allowed you and your kinsmen, the descendants of Levi, to approach him, and yet you now seek the priesthood too." (v. 10 NAB)

where the highlighted portion is very striking.

This lead me to wonder what the Protestants have done in the face of the one sitting on the Chair of Peter. But God has plans for every historical event.

Aside: The truth behind euthanasia is love

2009-08-14T18:14:00.018+02:00

1. One of the most difficult topics within any Faith is the question of Life let alone about Love itself. God (or so says in other faiths, "gods") has revealed to us, Man, the concept of Love, Truth and Life that He is. For Christians: God is Love (1 Jn 4:8b). As the Son of God has revealed to us: He is also Truth and Life (Jn 14:6).

While existing debate about the beginning of life ("ensoulment") and the end of it ("separation of the soul") are all around, the central question remains:

Is it moral to take charge of our lives -- our own or of other's lives who are in some way "entrusted" to us as closest "relatives"?

A lot of "gray-area" situations appear concerning the answer to this question. Based on my experience in examining things using Catholic eyes, I believe that the Catholic Faith offers a clear-cut answer.

2. As one would realize, the term "life" is like a line with two endpoints: (a) conception and (b) death. Hence, the question posted here is relevant to euthanasia. "Taking charge of our lives" is not only about decisions on who will live when; but also about decisions on who will die when. The tricky part is that these two ends are not simple points since both are processes. As many would argue, and I concur, life and death don't have a crystal clear start and end. However, Christians agree that actual life (hence also death) can be defined as per the presence of the soul in a body. Hence, a "living being" is a body or "tent" (2 Pt 1:13a; Is 38:12; 2 Cor 5:1-8) that can support a soul.

In the end we ask: Are we in charge of this "tent"? Do we have the basic/fundamental right to dismantle it however and whenever we want? This is very related to an act or program called: EUTHANASIA.

3. We are not in charge of the tent and the answer lies along the line: "Thine will be done, not mine." (Mt 6:10; Lk 22:42b) Both our body and our soul are just gifts from the Creator. Even our bodies are called the "temple of the Spirit" (1 Cor 6:19).

4. And so, we speak of EUTHANASIA defined in the Declaration on Euthanasia by the Church through her Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued on 05 May 1980, ratified by Pope John Paul II as:

[A]n action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used.

Hence, euthanasia is centered on ending life in order to escape life's burden.

Hence, with Euthanasia, death becomes the end life, instead of the beginning. This is exactly the opposite of what life is about since for the sons and daughters of God, death is the beginning of that life eternal with the Living God (Sir 11:28; Ecc 7:1b). In fact, saints are celebrated on the date of their death.

5. The Declaration gives a black-and-white position on the following questions.

When is it moral to remove life-support on a patient?
Up to which point are pain relievers (e.g. morphine) morally allowable?
When is refusal to receive medical help (e.g. medicine, medical treatment) or undergo medical procedure a suicide?
When would a health care provider be seen as assisting suicide?

and many others. The answer depends on how you would read the Catholic position on Euthanasia, based on OFFICIAL statements, not on what Catholics (or otherwise) understand about what Catholics should. You can start reading at Euthanasia.com.

God is great for He alone can lead us to living the life to the fullest!

Caritas in Veritate, Pt 2

2009-08-12T17:56:00.004+02:00

Starting from the first paragraphs, we realize the following points.

1. Love is the object of every human being. This has been revealed fully by and in Christ (cf. Jn 14:6) when He teaches that the entire Laws and Prophets can be summarized under the heading "Caritas" or Love. This vocation of Man (or the deepest desire of every human heart) can be seen in every desire to help and show some form of love be it emotional or based on other non-theistic principle.

2. Just like Love, every human being also seeks for the Truth as represented by Pilate and the Scribes (cf. Jn 8; Jn 18:38). Part of this Truth is a truth about what a Man truly is. This reminds us that:

[Jesus] came so that [we] might have life and have it more abundantly. (Jn 10:10b NAB)

The Church is consistent with this reiterating that Man has both a body and an immortal spirit. A(n) (abundant) life can therefore be realized only if we consider the non-physical dimension of human beings.

3. Truth and Love therefore are like the pair of feet that we have in order to walk upright and forward towards Heaven raising our hands and spirit to God (Caritas in Veritate 79). "Truth gives meaning and value to Charity"; and that without it, charity simply becomes an empty sense of sentimentality: "Charity ... needs to be understood, confirmed and practiced in the light of truth." (s. paragraphs 2 and 3) Love can therefore fully express (it)himself if we adhere to the truth about its very object: God and therefore fellow-Man.

4. The development of the community of human beings therefore degenerates to the whollistic development of Man as a creation of God and according to God's Will for his purpose. Worded in a better way in paragraph 78: "A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism." It is therefore reasonable that to be able to express that Love of humanity, we should consider God's Will and that Man is composed of a united body and soul, therefore: "Development must include not just material growth but also spiritual growth...." (paragraph 76)

The Pope actually centered his discussion around principles taken from Charity and the social dimension of Man: (a) Justice, and (b) common good.

Caritas in Veritate, Pt 1

2009-08-09T04:03:00.000+02:00

I have read the recent Encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI (just once, yet). It is printable (e.g. as pdf) from the Vatican website or from Zenit.org and probably everywhere, Google is your friend.

I think it is an excellent treatise reminding Man to focus himself on what is genuinely human as God has designed it. I think Pope wanted to write more but was limited by space (and time). Or maybe it will sound too much of a repetition (he is a teacher/professor and repetition is the way to teach well).

I like it when God teaches Man how to fully become what he is as God designed him in the beginning.

The central theme is the "love in truth" that Man is both spiritual and bodily, hence have "vocation" to develop himself and his "world" (a gift from the Creator) by "loving" all dimensions of life emanating from this "truth."

I can see that the Holy Father is warning all of us that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil has been becoming the object of Man's desire instead of being one of the trees in the original Garden which we have to "take care and keep." He reminds us of our vocation to be what we should be keeping our feet planted on the ground while reaching out to God who is reaching down for us through Christ.

I will have to post some of my notes and reflections here soon.

Believing only what is in Scriptures

2009-08-07T03:29:00.005+02:00

In the Catholic Answers Forum, one said:

I have already 'found' the truth. I am trying to help you find it too. It is very easy. First, match what you believe, against the written scriptures, and secondly, throw out that which does not fit the scriptures. You will make God very happy. Me,....well....I'm already very happy. Love you. :)

I replied:

Good for you. Now, God will be very much happier if you would also cultivate that "plant" in your heart. Expand your understanding, get into deeper details of that "truth." Do not put that "talent" that Jesus has given to you underground and in dormancy forever (cf. Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28).

Do not scorn the Catholics who have been cultivating that Plant through the help of the Holy Spirit, have now grown into a big Tree (Matthew 13:31-32). You would not see the intricacies of its branches by observing the falling leaves and figs, try to look at its roots, its foundation, and finally from Whom it is taking its nourishment (viz. Eternal Well and Bread from Heaven).

It is not for us to "feel" happy about the Truth (Matthew 10:34-39, Luke 12:49-53, Luke 14:26).

"But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God...." (Jn 1:12 NAB) This makes a lot more sense if we believe in the real presence -- accepting Christ both as a reality in the Gospel and a reality of body and soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

Note that the Pharisees and the Sadducees threw out all that they cannot find in the Scriptures about the Son of Man. They did not realize that Jesus was indeed the Messiah who they have been waiting for thousands of years. Catholics realize Jesus in the Eucharist not just because of the Scriptures but also because He said so as His apostles told their disciples who told their disciples, who told their disciples, ... (Traditio..), until now as it is preserved in the form of what Catholics term as Sacraments (part of that "Tradition", big 'T').

Do not rest until your innermost heart is. God bless us all...

Me, still unrested...

The Olive Tree and the Church

2009-08-01T13:23:00.000+02:00

I think that the Tree that Christ has compared to the Kingdom is the olive tree. Though the idea that it starts with a "small seed" seems to contradict that idea.

By the way, the olive tree is very "bushy" when healthy, indicating a great explosion of the Christian Church that now has become "becomes a shelter for birds of the sky ". This story is known as the Parable of the Mustard Seed.

God is great!

Traditions: Human vs Divine

2009-07-30T23:41:00.002+02:00

An article was posted as a comment (cut-and-paste style) resulting to an even longer article than the one being commented. The article can be read here, entitled: Church Traditions (by Ptr. Beresford Job). It tackles as a response to my previous post: Doctrines and disciplines

The same article actually highlights the Biblical verses about Jesus being against the "tradition of men," in particular that explained in Mk 7:3-4 after the Pharisees noted Jesus' disciples not washing themselves carefully before eating:

For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders. And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed....

Clearly, Jesus wanted to emphasize that doctrines from "human precepts" are exactly how man "worships God in vain." (cf Mk 7:7). He wants traditions that at the same time clings to God's commandments. He is exactly against the legalistic view of Pharisees. For them, it appears that following the Laws and traditions can bring them to Heaven. Jesus is trying to teach them to return to the reason for the Laws. For the Laws are not the end themselves but are the means to attaining true Life and pleasing God. Jesus is the Law of God in flesh and truly, He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Jn 14:6).

The same is happening today. People have always looked upon the Laws and trying to keep them trying not to violate down to the minute details. The reason for having such Laws are lost -- Love of God. It is thus important to find the reason for following a certain tradition whether it will lead us to better understanding and therefore a better worship of the Triune God. Even most Catholics would simply attend masses for the sake of attending and not because for the love of God. Some pray to the saints for the gifts not for the reason of asking them to pray for them to the same God in the name of Communion of Saints. Even within the Church, there are members who do not clean the gems of the Faith entrusted to them, not digging to a deeper sense of the Truth, letting them rust in the corner. Indeed, we should keep pondering the Truth in our hearts so that we can have a higher capacity to be happy when we see God one day (hopefully).

As per the Laws given by God directly, these include the most commonly known as the Ten Commandments and the Two Laws (1. Love God with all your ...; and 2. Love your neighbor as you ...). The others "laws" detail the way to highlight these Laws. Of course, there are Mosaic precepts that were allowed by God just as Jesus reasoned (Mt 19:8): "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

For the Catholic Church, the sacred traditions and specific practices gather around the Eucharist -- that is, around the living Christ, Body and Spirit. The Compendium of CCC teaches:

(#12) Apostolic Tradition is the transmission of the message of Christ, brought about from the very beginnings of Christianity by means of preaching, bearing witness, institutions, worship, and inspired writings. The apostles transmitted all they received from Christ and learned from the Holy Spirit to their successors, the bishops, and through them to all generations until the end of the world.

(#13) Apostolic Tradition occurs in two ways: through the living transmission of the word of God (also simply called Tradition) and through Sacred Scripture which is the same proclamation of salvation in written form.

The Sacred Traditions of the Church are derived from Apostolic Teachings which include: Profession of Faith, Celebration of the Christian Mystery, The Life in Christ, and The Christian Prayers. These are summarized more concisely in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Christ is the One Chief Shepherd

2009-07-27T05:54:00.003+02:00

The true King and Chief Shepherd is promised through the prophets in the reading today.

Jeremiah 23:1-6

‘Doom for the shepherds who allow the flock of my pasture to be destroyed and scattered – it is the Lord who speaks! This, therefore, is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says about the shepherds in charge of my people: You have let my flock be scattered and go wandering and have not taken care of them.
Right, I will take care of you for your misdeeds – it is the Lord who speaks! But the remnant of my flock I myself will gather from all the countries where I have dispersed them, and will bring them back to their pastures: they shall be fruitful and increase in numbers. I will raise up shepherds to look after them and pasture them; no fear, no terror for them any more; not one shall be lost – it is the Lord who speaks!
‘See, the days are coming – it is the Lord who speaks –
when I will raise a virtuous Branch for David,
who will reign as true king and be wise,
practising honesty and integrity in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel dwell in confidence.
And this is the name he will be called:
The-Lord-our-integrity.’

While Jesus the Lord is the King, this does not prevent Him from assigning "shepherds" to portions of his Flock. Indeed, He sends others to shepherd the flocks since "[t]he harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest." (Lk 10:2). The "shepherds" in the Old Covenant ended up scattering the Flock; the shepherds assigned in the New Covenant is assigned to call the scattered flocks together into one so that there will be "there will be one flock, one shepherd." (Jn 10:16b). This One Chief Shepherd is Christ himself.

The Catholic Church teaches about the bishops:

CCCC#s 187,327: A bishop to whom a particular Church has been entrusted governs that Church with the authority of his own sacred power which is ordinary and immediate and exercised in the name of Christ, the Good Shepherd, in communion with the entire Church and under the guidance of the Successor of Peter. The bishop to whom the care of a particular Church is entrusted is the visible head and foundation of unity for that Church. For the sake of that Church, as vicar of Christ, he fulfills the office of shepherd and is assisted by his own priests and deacons.

These bishops need to have a visible sign of unity while in spirit they are united in Christ together with all the Faithful. The Catholic Church teaches about this visible sign of unity:

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Saint Peter, is the perpetual, visible source and foundation of the unity of the Church. He is the vicar of Christ, the head of the College of bishops and pastor of the universal Church over which he has by divine institution full, supreme, immediate, and universal power.

where the word "vicar" is rooted from the Latin word "vice" which means a person that acts "in place of." This indicates that the person sitting on the Seat of Peter acts as the voice of Jesus through the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised to Peter that Jesus prays for his faith and loyalty to his Will.

More on the Ark of the Covenant

2009-07-22T02:38:00.006+02:00

As a follow up on my post on the same subject, i would like to post the link to an article (among many) which posted the parallel between the OT and NT on the role of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. It is a section in the article: "Mary in the Bible" by David MacDonald. A short scroll down on the same page would reveal how Mary parallel's Eve in Christ's "new creation" as revealed in Revelation as the "New Earth and the New Heaven."

I quote David in his article:

We must remember that the apostles Paul, Peter performed miracles in the name of Jesus. Even modern pastors perform miracles in Jesus' name. Catholics believe Mary can do the same.

and his invitation to all:

I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus. Most Christians would agree that it is completely safe to pray to Jesus about anything. I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus about Mary. Simply ask Jesus to show you the truth about his mother. Ask Him to direct your thinking about her. Ask Jesus if his mother is alive with Him. Ask Him if Mary is praying for us. Just pray to Jesus about her. Try this every night for six weeks. I am thoroughly convinced that He will bring you to the truth about his mother.

CS Lewis and the Holy Orders

2009-07-21T17:07:00.003+02:00

CS Lewis, a convert to Christianity in his book "Mere Christianity" writes:

He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others - not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one.

I believe this reflects the basic idea of the Catholic Holy Orders and that every one is called according to their respective vocations. As for those belonging to the Holy Orders, they become unique (ordinary = by order, called for) channels of Grace as willed by Christ.

Antithesis to Sola Scriptura

2009-07-20T13:27:00.019+02:00

In one of my previous blog entry entitled Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic Idea, Augusto commented:

we can nevertheless briefly consider a few words by Jesus and Paul about the divine authority of the written word of God. First Jesus: "...until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law..." (Mt 5:18). "The Scripture shall not be broken..." (Jn 10:35). "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures..." (Mt 22:29. "How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?" (Mt 26:54). We could add the at least sixteen times Jesus appealed to the authority of the written Scriptures by saying "…it is written…" and the at least six times he said "Have you not read?" Now for Paul: "and how from infancy you [Timothy] have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed.."

While these statements do not at all support the ONLYity of the Scriptures, this could be a misleading "cut-and-paste" way of using the scriptures in an attempt to support the idea that the scripture is the ONLY authentic source of the Apostolic Faith (Sola Scriptura). In all that it says, I totally agree that the Scripture (OT and NT) is God breathed both because it says itself to be so and that the Church proclaims the Bible does not contain anything against the Truth.

The antithesis to the Sola Scriptura is this:

The divine authority is Jesus himself because he is the Word of God, not the Scriptures. (cf. Dei Verbum and its wiki entry)

Thus Jesus used the Scriptures because: (1) He wants to reveal the deeper meaning of the Law and the Prophets; and (2) the Pharisees tend to be legalistic applying the Law even to the minute activities of life (Lk 11:38ff, Mt 12:1-8) and that Sadducees are known to be Sola Scripturalists and ignore the oral part of the Passing on (Traditio). They are those who "have taken their seat on the chair of Moses." (Mt 23:2)

In the following, I highlight how the quoted verses cannot be used to support Sola Scriptura when it only shows the validity of its use and not the ONLY use.

The quoted verse about the fulfillment of the law to the last detail (Mt 5:18) is until the definitive end of his Sacrifice, that is when Jesus said: "It is finished!" (Jn 19:30). If we read the story until the end of the account of His entire Sermon on the Mount, " the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." (Mt 7:28-29) Therefore, Jesus merely confirms the validity of the Old Law and points to a deeper meaning which is not obvious in the Scriptures. Note that even the Devil can use Scriptures against God (Lk 4), but Jesus knows the Scriptures because He authored it being the Word of God. But this argument is not for Sola Scripturalism, rather for having a need for an authority over interpreting the Scriptures as a united whole not in parts.

The quoted phrase "the Scripture should not be broken" is simply a part of Jn 10:35 -- an assumption that is asserted by the Pharisees being legalistic during Jesus' time. This argument is used by Jesus to defend his claim being the Son of God convincing the legalists and Sola Scripturalists that He is still consistent with the Law and Scripture. Thus, this only means that the Scripture is divinely inspired and hence contains part of the Truth. This does not demonstrate anything about being the ONLY source of revelation. In fact, Scriptures alone or those who use them does not give any sense of authority as Jesus does (Mt 7:29). The thought is almost similar in the next point.

The question of Jesus quoted comes from the sentence "But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?" (Mt 26:54) when Jesus rebuked one of his disciples who resisted Jesus' arrest. Clearly, Jesus is doing everything so that the Scriptures will be fulfilled until "it is finished." Again, this does not support that the Scripture alone especially after Jesus' resurrection. The fact that the Law on Circumcision (part of "the Laws" in OT) is not binding for the Gentiles is confirmed during the first Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) since Baptism replaced Circumcision. Truly, as Jesus said, not part of the Law and Scriptures should be broken since they all point to Him.

Whenever Jesus quotes the Scriptures (which means the OT, not yet including the NT), it is always a means either to clarify or use it against those who twist the meaning of the same. As we can see from the written Gospel, Jesus is actually explaining the "Scriptures" giving the contemporary Jews a deeper understanding of the OT, something that is missing in legalistic and scripturalistic view of the Divine Plan of Redemption.

The letter of Paul to Timothy about the Scriptures only leads to it being a genuine source of divine instructions but NOT THE ONLY source. In fact, the WHOLE INSTRUCTION OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY is to "remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures...." (2 Tim 3:14-15, the whole chapter actually also highlights following Paul's "teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, and sufferings" not Scripture alone) It brings my curiosity why most Sola Scripturalists of today deliberately leaves that part of the "AND" whenever they quote St. Paul along this line. This point is elaborated in the article Scripture and Tradition. Hence, BOTH what was "passed on" from Paul and other Apostles (read: Traditio) AND Old Testament Scriptures is important in passing on the Apostolic Faith. I would say that NT is a product of that "Traditio" of the true Apostles in the apostolic age (English: Apostolic Tradition). Consistently, the Church teaches (CCCC#13):

"Apostolic Tradition occurs in two ways: through the living transmission of the word of God (also simply called Tradition) and through Sacred Scripture which is the same proclamation of salvation in written form."

I believe that Sola Scriptura "dogma" is a direct rejection of the "living transmission of the word of God."

Therefore, I still cannot see why the Bible as the SOLE source of divine instruction is being held. However, "the Bible as a guard against false teachings" has a grain of truth in it but we should always heed St. Peter's words written that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, implying a final authority over interpretation of Scriptures.

The misunderstanding seems to stem from the difference between having a final authority and the individual ability to read and understand the Scriptures. I do not see why having a final authority prevents anyone to read and ability to interpret the same. The problem arises when we raise ourselves higher than those who are given authority to judge our interpretations (through the Holy Spirit passed on through imposition of hands) whether wrong or not. This is an extreme kind of Individualism to the point of ignoring true Physicists and Mathematicians in telling us whether we are wrong or correct about our understanding of the difficult topics in Physics and Math.

St. Paul encouraged praying for the dead?

2009-07-19T02:37:00.003+02:00

One name: Onesiphorus.

Two citations: 2 Timothy 1:16-18, 4:19.

From CAF, it was posted that this is a scriptural evidence for the Catholic tradition of praying for the dead.

Non-Catholic comments are exposed here by Armstrong agreeing with most scholars that Onesiphorus was already dead during the writing of the letter to Timothy.

While the Church does not forget to remind to pray for those left, the same encourage the praying for the soul of the dead.

Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea

2009-07-04T15:15:00.005+02:00

It is obvious that Sola Scriptura is both a doctrine and a practice held by most non-Catholics. Sola Scriptura is defined as confining and accepting all Christian doctrines that are derivable from the Bible. Hence, limiting the final Revelation of God in writing.

The strongest argument for Sola Scriptura is that the decisions made during the replacement of Judas Escariot in his Office and the first Council of Jerusalem were based on Scripture. However, in Spero Forum thread, this is contended highly for two points:
1. If the Apostles held sola scriptura, then there would be no NT.
2. The actual decisions of the council did not depend heavily on the quoted Scripture passages. Instead it is highly probable that they were used to convince those converts that originally adheres to the Sadducees' teaching of Sola Scriptura. The Sadduccess rose to the High Priest position around the 2nd centura BCE until they were totally wiped out in 70 AD/CE. They were the only Jews who adhere to the excessive literal (word-per-word) translation of the Torah.

While the Sola Scripturalists argue that most of the Catholic Dogmas are non-Apostolic, the basis for their faith seems to be not apostolic. I'm still waiting how they take this issue.

The Ark of the Covenant

2009-06-20T04:08:00.001+02:00

I simply quote from Inside the Ark (This Rock: October 2005) (colons and semi-colons inserted):

Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant : Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
The stone tablets of the law—the word of God inscribed on stone : The body of Jesus Christ—the word of God in the flesh;
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness—the miraculous bread come down from heaven : The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41);
The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest : The actual and eternal High Priest.

God acts without time constraint

2009-06-17T00:42:00.005+02:00

I have come to realize that God's mercy can be applied by virtue of one's future prayers and actions. The common notion is that we pray today to be heard tomorrow. But our prayers in the future is already heard today --- God has been working on them for you since yesterday!

For example, an unrepentant sinner is saved from an accident because of his eventual conversion and prayers after the incident. God knows everything but does not meddle with our free will.

This comes from the reading last Monday 15 June which relates how Jesus quoted Isaiah 49:8:

"In a time of favor I answer you, on the day of salvation I help you."

God is great! His mercy defies both time and space.

Sola Scriptura, a review

2009-06-16T06:00:00.002+02:00

A good analysis of Sola Scriptura is elaborated in the article "Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles."

The article argued how certain assumptions are required for Sola Scriptura to be possible.

"In summary, sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) a cash-based economy, (4) universal literacy, (5) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (6) the universal possession of adequate time for study, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills."

There is however an interesting point for the Sola Scriptura philosophy: every person is responsible for bringing his own soul closer to God. That is, every man has to decide to himself whether to believe in Christ or not.

For Catholics, this decision to believe in Christ results to the belief in the Church that Christ built as it subsists in the Catholic Church today.

A House (un)Divided

2009-06-14T00:05:00.010+02:00

This is in response to the blog of Br. Ivan entitled: A House Divided: A Critique of Roman Claims to be the One True Church.

The introduction and the historical account are great! Ivan discussed the progress of the Church without bias and suspension of the important details. Here, I try to answer the "Theological Problems" that he encountered as stated in his blog. Honestly, these are among those I encountered as the biggest stumbling block to my full conversion to the Catholic Faith (mine includes Indulgence).

Indeed, all (if not most) of these "problems" stems from the idea that indeed Christ instituted one Church founded among the Apostles. This foundation is like how God (in OT) founded his People thru Abraham as the rock.

1. Pope as Supreme, Infallible Vicar of Christ

I have posted my response here showing that one person has to be a rock and that rock is Peter. There is also a good source of Biblical analysis (OT and NT) on the primacy of Peter here.

As for the problem of Peter being the first rock which Christ laid, I address it here proving that every Christian is a rock/stone with which the Church is and is being built.

As for Pope Honorius I's case, I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry. The point is that one has to truly analyze the grounds why Pope Honorius I was declared heretic. It appears that Pope Honorius I did not actually decide on the issue at hand. Finally, being heretic does not mean everything he said is so, just as Martin Luther was (e.g. Luther believes in almost everything about Virgin Mary).

Peter vs. James:

"James is the head of the Jerusalem church"

Assuming that this statement is true. I answer that being head of the Jerusalem Church has no bearing on the argument about primacy. A presiding officer over a meeting (viz. "first" Council of Jerusalem) does not indicate primacy. If one would analyze the turn of events in Acts 15, we can say the following.
1.1 James could be the presiding officer of the council.
1.2 James' final statement depended on what "Simon" (Peter) has stated.
1.3 James simply finalized the statement for the entire council based on the statement of Peter.
1.4 It was when Peter "got up and said" his own statement to the entire council that everyone settled down arguing.
This is consistent with how Councils are done. In the end, the one assigned to the "Office of Peter" (Seat of Peter, Cathedra) has to approve and has the final say for every council decision be binding to the entire Church.

On "the sovereignty of each bishop," I do not find any contradiction to the statements of the Church about each Bishop (Compendium of CCC #187):

"Every bishop, insofar as he is a member of the college of bishops, bears collegially the care for all particular Churches and for the entire Church along with all the other bishops who are united to the Pope. A bishop to whom a particular Church has been entrusted governs that Church with the authority of his own sacred power which is ordinary and immediate and exercised in the name of Christ, the Good Shepherd, in communion with the entire Church and under the guidance of the Successor of Peter."

The issue therefore is on the Primacy, not on the authority and independence of each Bishop over his portion of the Flock. The antipopes are clearly highly political claims over the position to the Office. I don't even want to go this area since the Vatican issues an official list of Popes in a better and better version each time. This "better" version is based on a more and more sophisticated research on historical archives rather than internal "conspiracy."

The Primacy issue is about the question: "If all the Church's bishop are not in agreement over a Faith issue, who gets the authoritative answer and will be definitely be guided by the Holy Spirit in all his decisions?" I highlight the last phrase because this is the promise of Christ. My bet is on the one sitting on the Cathedra of St. Peter. The idea of being definitely guided by Christ's Spirit is the same idea where "Vicar of Christ" stems from as the fullness of the role of the one sitting on the Seat of Peter (find the meaning of the Latin word, vicarius or vice).

2. The Immaculate Conception of Mary

There are a lot of articles about this stumbling block. Even for me, this is one of the greatest before my full and conscious conversion to the Catholic Faith. I find several very interesting: Keating, Hahnn, Stanley, Akin, and numerous other sites citing that Mary's status is biblical. All in all the arguments lie on the following:
2.1 Christ is the new Covenant.
2.2 Mary is the Ark of the (new) Covenant since she contained Christ in her womb.
2.3 No one can even bear God while at the same time not spotless.
2.4 The sacrifice of Christ is eternal and universal -- it defies both time and space. It can be (and is, when Jesus descended to the dead, see Limbus patrum) applied to those who lived before Jesus of Nazareth and obviously to those who lived after, as to anywhere is obvious. Why not even to the Virgin Mary, who mothered Jesus therefore the Mother of God (Theotokos)?

Indeed:

"To elevate Mary above the sinful is to imply she could provide an equal sacrifice to that of Christ's, and to assign her a position retained for God alone is idolatry."

This is exactly what the Church has been clarifying about. Find the meaning of latria vs. dulia (and hyperdulia) and you will see the difference. The thing is, "worship" has a lot of meanings in the term today. She provides equal sacrifice to that of Christ's because she offers her son, which is exactly the one offered by Christ. Like Mary, we offer the same sacrifice as we (all) continually share in Christ's eternal priesthood offering His Body (The Church is Christ's Body) most especially during the (Catholic) Mass.

For me, Mary's holiness and story is a sign of hope that whenever we will what God wills, we will surely be saved and receive great rewards in Heaven, except on the position of being the most holy of all the Saints.

3. Transubstantiation

This mystery is really the best of all. Indeed Christ is still with the Church both in Spirit and Body. Indeed, Christ came into the world so that we can live being human fully --- without denying any bodily and spiritual needs.

4. Forced Celibacy of the Clergy

The conclusion that

"Scripture and tradition are clear: the hypocracy of bishops espousing forced celibacy on the clergy is not to be suffered."

seems to be shortsighted. This is against the following Christian virtues:
4.1 Service to God has to be wholesale. Being "married" to the Church implies dedication to the same without any other "master(s)."
4.2 The Eastern Catholic Rite has married priests but only once-married Patriarchs. This reflects point 4.1 above.
4.3 Every person is called by God to each owns vocation. Every person can and should be able to render fully and without difference their service to God without becoming a bishop or a priest. The only difference will be on their respective intension and will.

Indeed there are difference between doctrine and discipline.

5. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

First, Christ did not promise a perfect Church. You can indeed glean this in the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast:

"The parables of the mustard seed and the yeast illustrate the same point: the amazing contrast between the small beginnings of the kingdom and its marvelous expansion. (commentary on Mat 13)"

I cannot also ignore the Saints who were "produced" in the Church. Truly they are the "yeasts" that leavens the entire dough as you cited in Gal 5:9:

"a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough."

While this can be interpreted as the negative, just like the next statement tries to hint; the previous statements can also call for the positive interpretation consistent with the parables of Christ (which the intended reader of the letter knows very well). Finally, the "yeast" is simply St. Paul as can be seen argued in the introduction of his letter (Gal 1:6ff).

Holiness of the Church:

"If the Church is holy, it is solely by the grace won at the Cross of Christ and not by the many traditions, dogmas and institutions of the churches."

Indeed, one should only read the same from the Catechism:

"The Spirit builds, animates and sanctifies the Church. (Compendium of CCC #145, emphasis mine)"

and more precisely:

"The Church is holy insofar as the Most Holy God is her author. Christ has given himself for her to sanctify her and make her a source of sanctification. The Holy Spirit gives her life with charity. In the Church one finds the fullness of the means of salvation. Holiness is the vocation of each of her members and the purpose of all her activities. The Church counts among her members the Virgin Mary and numerous Saints who are her models and intercessors. The holiness of the Church is the fountain of sanctification for her children who here on earth recognize themselves as sinners ever in need of conversion and purification. (ibid #165, emphasis mine)"

Truly, the Church as the Kingdom of God is composed of Saints, Sinners, False Teachers, and Weeds.

On the big IF: "but the church must also hold Doctrinal Apostolic Succession." I would say that this follows from the Apostolic Succession because of the promise of Christ through the action of the imparted Holy Spirit associated with the "laying of hands." Moreover, isn't doctrinal continuity one of the very idea of succession (Tradition)?

Now, as per the following:

"Many dogmatic issues are worth debating and are not clearly defined in Scripture, many others are simply a Mystery of God and should be treated as such, but many others (some of those listed above) so clearly contradict the plain meaning of Scripture that they can only be described as a perversion of Apostolic teaching."

I can only say:
5.1 Being not clearly defined in the Scripture and being simply a mystery, should not prevent us to continuously ponder and develop our understanding of the Salvific Plan of God. Sticking to the yet undeveloped view of the Biblical World is a direct contradiction of the command to love God with all our mind.
5.2 The "clear contradiction" seems to stem from the "clear misunderstanding" of the Catholic Teaching. This is based on my personal experience during my swim across the Tiber.

I find Ivan's conclusion very moving. Indeed, i pray with him that:

"one day, ... the whole Church would finally recognize itself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - bridging denominational lines and living in full, true Communion."

In the end, we cannot deny that the Church has to grow into a big tree! Christ envisioned one tree, not one forest. BIG, but still ONE tree, not a forest of trees.

Glory be ...

The Cross of Christianity

2009-06-04T04:30:00.003+02:00

One Catholic asked in a forum about how and why does the Cross saves. It led me to contemplate on the meaning of the Cross, at least on how i perceive the Catholic teaching. So I tried:

The Cross is a symbol of Faith: the perfection of latria -- the offering of the Lamb of God as the only true and acceptable offering to God. This is the perfection of the form of worship in the Old Covenant (read: OT), hence Sanctification. The Lamb of God took the sins that Man did and suffered the Death that Man should, hence Justification. That through the same Cross and death, the Lamb conquered Death, so that Death can no longer separate us from God and each other, hence Redemption.

The Cross is a symbol of Hope: the fulfillment of God's promise -- the example of loyalty to the covenant He made with the early Fathers. With Christ's death and resurrection, Christians hope that one day we will live with Him in Heaven.

The Cross is a symbol of Love: the Love of God -- it extends to all, both to sinners and great sinners. It is the very model of how each human should love his neighbor.

God took the Cross He doesn't deserve; Man should take his and accept the burden of life. For through this, he shall earn rewards in Heaven. To avoid sinking into our human frailty, we should constantly look at the face of Jesus, and contemplate on a Cross -- just as Peter should have done to not to sink while walking on water.

RH NOT needed in the Philippines

2009-05-28T09:18:00.005+02:00

Recent statistics from www.census.gov.ph shows that the annual population growth in the country dramatically declined in the years 2000-2007 to about 2.04% from about 3.01% in the 1960-1970 (steady decline to 2.75, 2.35, 2.34 for every ten years since).

This statistics only reveals that Philippines is in its record low in birth rate even without the Reproductive Health Law proposed in the Legislative branch of the country. I don't know why they have to argue based on the booming population when in fact, it has already slowed down dramatically for the last four decades. Maybe the next time they would propose is genocide!

Science and the Christian Faith

2009-05-26T15:03:00.003+02:00

St. Augustine is quoted in a non-Catholic link that discusses "Augustine's Origin of the Species".
"God has established fixed laws governing the production of kinds and qualities of beings, and bringing them out of concealment into full view."

I have realized that it is the task of Science to discover those laws.

Genesis has been my inspiration in believing in the Sciences. Now, I have God.

God is great! No, God is greatness!

Acting without authority

2009-05-25T22:39:00.000+02:00

The growth of the nascent Church can be gleaned from the following reading. Highlighted are the important parts that rings how the Catholic Church lives until now.

The apostles and elders decided to choose delegates to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; the whole church concurred with this. They chose Judas known as Barsabbas and Silas, both leading men in the brotherhood, and gave them this letter to take with them: ‘The apostles and elders, your brothers, send greetings to the brothers of pagan birth in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. We hear that some of our members have disturbed you with their demands and have unsettled your minds. They acted without any authority from us; and so we have decided unanimously to elect delegates and to send them to you with Barnabas and Paul, men we highly respect who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly we are sending you Judas and Silas, who will confirm by word of mouth what we have written in this letter. It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to saddle you with any burden beyond these essentials: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols; from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from fornication. Avoid these, and you will do what is right. Farewell.’
The party left and went down to Antioch, where they summoned the whole community and delivered the letter. The community read it and were delighted with the encouragement it gave them. [Acts 15:22-31 (Jerus. Bible)]

Indeed, the Church have always "confirmed" the message of the letters in the Bible including other "books" contains therein. No one without an apostolic authority can do such written message.

Some truths about the Vulgate -- and Bible "versions"

2009-05-20T03:48:00.000+02:00

Direct quote from "Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims" by Jimmy Akin (This Rock: Feb 2002).

Important lessons learned highlighted.

... Vulgate is superior on four grounds: (1) It is the official Bible of the Catholic Church; (2) it has been declared free of moral or theological error, (3) Jerome had access to manuscripts that we do not have today, and (4) he was a stupendous translator.

The first point is not true. There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the "Neo-Vulgate" promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.

The second point is true—ecclesiastical documents have acknowleged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn’t even the same thing as being a good translation. If someone utters the Spanish sentence " La manzana es verde" and I translate that as "The apple is red," then I have in not committed a moral or theological error, but I have committed a translation error (verde means green, not red).

In the same way, as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn’t.

The third point is true—Jerome did have manuscripts that we don’t have today—but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.

One scholar, however brilliant, working in an age when textual criticism was still embryonic, was not as good as today’s community of scholars who are able to critically cross-examine each other’s work in an age in which the rules of textual criticism have been worked out much better. Further, no matter how many manuscripts Jerome had access to, it was not the thousands used by biblical scholars today.

Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, "You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original" (Trials of a Translator, 29).

Finally, Jerome did not even translate certain books of the Vulgate; he simply incorporated extant Latin translations. Consequently, John Paul II notes that the Neo-Vulgate revision "was quite demanding in certain books of the Old Testament which Saint Jerome did not touch" (Scripturarum Thesaurus). These books scarcely provide an illustration of definitive textual criticism.

The fourth point—that Jerome was a stupendous translator—is true, especially for his era. He also had the advantage of being much closer to the time the biblical dialects were spoken, though koina Greek (the dialect the New Testament is written in) already had evolved into a new dialect before his birth.

But to his disadvantage, Jerome learned these languages in a time before dictionaries and foreign language grammars had been invented. As a result, if a translator didn’t know a rare or unusual word or grammatical form, he couldn’t look it up. No matter how good a translator is, the worthiness of his work will be proportionate to how much he exerts himself—and sometimes Jerome did not exert himself very much. For example, he translated the book of Tobit in a single night.

Recently, I read one Douay-Rheims Onlyist booklet that actually praised this as a demonstration of Jerome’s linguistic prowess. One can only say that this demonstrates a lack of familiarity with how translation works. Nobody trying to do a careful job of translating a book of Scripture will rough out a translation in a single night and leave it at that.

The Church owes an enormous debt to Jerome for the Vulgate, but one must not fail to acknowledge that it—like all translations—fails to capture perfectly the sense of the original. Sometimes this is due to the limitations of the language he’s translating into (Latin), and sometimes it’s due to translator error.

On (Catholic) Justification

2009-05-18T18:28:00.000+02:00

I directly quote the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Justification:

We have an authentic explanation of the Catholic doctrine in the famous "Decretum de justificatione" of the Sixth Session (13 Jan., 1547) of the Council of Trent, which in sixteen chapters (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", nn.793-810) and thirty-three canons (l.c., 811-43) gives in the clearest manner all necessary information about the process, causes, effects, and qualities of justification.

The process of justification (processus justificationis)

Since justification as an application of the Redemption to the individual presupposes the fall of the entire human race, the Council of Trent quite logically begins with the fundamental statement that original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will (Trent, sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). Nevertheless, as the children of Adam were really corrupted by original sin, they could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. Neither the natural faculties left in man, nor the observance of the Jewish Law could achieve this. Since God alone was able to free us from this great misery, He sent in His infinite love His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who by His bitter passion and death on the cross redeemed fallen man and thus became the Mediator between God and man. But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified. What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer (l.c., cap.iv: "Justificatio impii. . . translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam, Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum"). In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water. While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part, the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God. This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema"). By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive, but also forestalled the Jansenistic heresy regarding the impossibility of resisting actual grace. With what little right heretics in defence of their doctrine appeal to St. Augustine, may be seen from the following brief extract from his writings: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). Regarding St. Augustine's doctrine cf. J. Jausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", II, Freiburg, 1909, pp. 208-58.
We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini* (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: "illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt"). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism. Considering merely the psychological analysis of the conversion of sinners, as given by the council, it is at once evident that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man (Trent, l. c., can. xii: "Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, a.s."). Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail.

The formal cause of justification

The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active justification comprises not only forgiveness of sin, but also "sanctification and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts" (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum"). In order to exclude the Protestant idea of a merely forensic absolution and exterior declaration of righteousness, special stress is laid on the fact that we are justified by God's justice, not that whereby He himself is just but that whereby He makes us just, in so far as He bestows on us the gift of His grace which renovates the soul interiorly and adheres to it as the soul's own holiness (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae: et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam"). This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed "sanctifying (or habitual) grace", and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the "justitia Dei extra nos" is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God's own holiness. The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: the glory of God and of Christ as the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God as the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ as the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), the reception of the Sacraments as the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis). Thus each and every factor receives its full share and is assigned its proper place. Hence the Catholic doctrine on justification, in welcome contrast to the Protestant teaching, stands out as a reasonable, consistent, harmonious system. For further explanation of the nature of sanctifying grace, see SUPERNATURAL GRACE. Regarding the false doctrine of the Catholic theologian Hermes, cf. Kleutgen, "Theologie der Vorzeit", II (2nd ed., Munster, 1872), 254-343.

According to the Council of Trent sanctifying grace is not merely a formal cause, but "the only formal cause" (unica causa formalis) of our justification. By this important decision the Council excluded the error of Butzer and some Catholic theologians (Gropper, Scripando, and Albert Pighius) who maintained that an additional "external favour of God" (favor Dei externus) belonged to the essence of justification. The same decree also effectually set aside the opinion of Peter Lombard, that the formal cause of justification (i.e. sanctifying grace) is nothing less than the Person of the Holy Ghost, Who is the hypostatic holiness and charity, or the uncreated grace (gratia increata). Since justification consists in an interior sanctity and renovation of spirit, its formal cause evidently must be a created grace (gratia creata), a permanent quality, a supernatural modification or accident (accidens) of the soul. Quite distinct from this is the question whether the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, although not required for justification (inasmuch as sanctifying grace alone suffices), be necessary as a prerequisite for Divine adoption. Several great theologians have answered in the affirmative, as for instance Lessius ("De summo bono", II, i; "De perfect. moribusque divin.", XII, ii); Petavius ("De Trinit.", viii, 4 sqq.); Thomassin ("De Trinit.", viii, 9 sqq.), and Hurter ("Compend. theol. dogmat.", III, 6th ed., pp. 162 sqq.). The solution of the lively controversy on this point between Fr. Granderath ("Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie", 1881, pp. 283 sqq.; 1883, 491 sqq., 593 sqq.; 1884, 545 sqq.) and Professor Scheeben ("Dogmatik", II, sec. 169; "Katholik", 1883, I, 142 sqq.; II, 561 sqq.; 1884, I, 18 sqq.; II, 465 sqq., 610 sqq.) seems to lie in the following distinction: the Divine adoption, inseparably connected with sanctifying grace, is not constituted by the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, but receives therefrom its full development and perfection.

And i repeat a man of science: The proposed system by the Catholic Church "stands out as a reasonable, consistent, harmonious system."

Differences between Protestants and Catholics

2009-05-15T18:14:00.003+02:00

I found a link that summarizes the differences. Here: http://www.truthaboutangelsanddemons.com/church-and-bio-ethics/articles/difference-protestants-and-catholics.html

Good to know this. Also, an information on Catholic Justification and Sanctification could be found. I just had to re-think of my understanding of the Catholic Dogma on it.

Authority and infallibility

2009-05-04T03:05:00.003+02:00

There is a BIG difference between the two. It is a fact however that most people often interchange these. By writing "most people," I mean including me....

Arguing with non-Catholics on infallibility of the Pope is really a tough one. As a very young self-claimed apologist, I realized I did all the mistakes I could as one. You can read them here as Greg Krehbiel has explained it. I even did not realize that Scott Hahn can be so mean and may be just brushing over the Bible verses. In truth, i appreciate Scott Hahn for his scholarly research of the Bible verses. But of course, I like the way he presents the ideas behind the Bible.

True, the next thing we should do is read the Church's documents together and in relation to the Bible. Here, i list all the recommendations of Greg Krehbiel in his article: Stop It (This Rock: Feb 2001)
Bad habit: Assuming that you are right because the Church is right.
Remedy: Listen to your critics—yes, even non-Catholics. You may not know as much as you think you know.
Bad habit: Assuming that an argument is valid because it has convinced other people.
Remedy: Listen to your critics, not just your cheerleaders. The former may have some insights on the logic (or illogic) of your arguments.
Bad habit: Engaging in ad hominem attacks of any sort.
Remedy: Get over it. Fussing and whining about how mean the other guy is only makes you a crybaby.
Bad habit: Learning about generic "Protestant" doctrine and applying it to all Protestants.
Remedy: Let your Protestant friend speak for himself. Listen to what he’s saying without imposing any doctrinal template on his words.
Bad habit: Attacking Martin Luther based on a cursory study of his teachings or based on Catholic apologetic sources.
Remedy: Either spend a year studying Luther so you really know what he said—and don’t bother if you’re reading him only to find the juicy stuff—or purge the name from your vocabulary.
Bad habit #1: Asserting a universal negative.
Bad habit #2: Repeating extravagant claims you read in apologetic literature that the author himself could not possibly have known.
Remedy: Stick to what you really know.
Bad habit: Using the Bible like a tool to win arguments with other Christians.
Remedy: Quit apologetics. Major in Bible study, and work on your personal relationship with Christ.
Bad habit: Trying to magnify the Church and Catholic doctrine by disparaging the Bible.
Remedy: Always speak of the Bible reverently. Read Psalms 19 and 119, and learn to regard the Bible the way King David did. Never even consider saying, "What good is the Bible . . . ?" You’d be better off to cut out your tongue and chop off your fingers.
Bad habit: Tossing around infallibility as if it solves everything.
Remedy: Focus on the need for an authoritative Church. Once that is established, then work on infallibility.

The difference between authority and infallibility is best explained by the authors in trying to explain infallible:

The problem is that there has to be a break in the chain somewhere. God is infallible; we are not. If we diagram the progression from God’s infallible self-revelation to our fallible perception of that revelation—for simplicity’s sake let’s just say the steps are A then B then C then D—the "infallible" part has to get lost somewhere. It starts off infallible in God’s mind and ends up a muddled mess in mine. It really doesn’t matter where you put the transition; the logical problem is the same. We can ask, "What good is an infallible A without an infallible B" just as well as we can ask, "What good is an infallible C without an infallible D?" It’s simply the wrong question.

The Protestant confesses that Scripture is infallible but that the Church that tells us which books belong in Scripture is not. The Catholic confesses that the Magisterium is infallible, but the ministers who teach us what the Magisterium says are not. Both have to move from an infallible something to a fallible something, so the Catholic apologist has to guard against unleashing an attack dog that bites his own leg.

In the end, we ask: "Who is right?" Of course, the best answer is God.

God the Father.

Word of God (the Logos, Jesus Christ). Revelation of God the Father (both OT and NT).

Holy Spirit. Fully revealed in NT. Guide for an ever-increasing understanding of what was revealed. Animates the life of the one Church --- and every individual, member or not.

Just as every aspiring individual, the Holy Spirit guides the Church. The same gives the Church the spiritual (and temporal) authority. The temporal authority is best demonstrated by its Apostolic origin.

Reason helps Man to find certainty in what he knows and believes (knows => believes, or believes => knows). But the same must lead him to an Authority for this certainty. It follows that this Authority must know the correct answer to every rational question. Hence, infallibility.

Doctrines:disciplines :: Traditions:tranditions

2009-04-26T08:57:00.003+02:00

Just found out a clear explanation on the difference between Doctrine and Discipline. The Bible guides us how to become Christians by following certain guidelines. But drawing a distinction between living like the Biblical time and believing what they believed then is difficult. It is true that there are Traditions and traditions and I believe that when we speak of Doctrines, these are unchangeable beliefs while of disciplines, these are practices that develop or change over time as an application or living out of the doctrines.

The above distinction is very well interpreted in a very controversial example on priestly celibacy in section "Is It a Doctrine of a Discipline?" in This Rock by Catholic.com:

Let’s go back to the question of priestly celibacy. As Catholics, we know this practice to be a matter of discipline, not doctrine. But non-Catholics often fail to understand the concept of discipline and unwittingly think we believe priestly celibacy to be a doctrine of our faith, and so they cite Scripture to prove that such a "doctrine" is anti-biblical.

The following two Bible verses are often raised: "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher" (1 Tim. 3:2, emphasis added). And "Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well" (1 Tim. 3:12, emphasis added).

Many non-Catholics interpret these verses so literally as to mean that bishops and deacons—and priests for that matter—must be married. Scripture plainly says so!

But such verses are of little consequence when one understands that priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. Scripture doesn’t explicitly tell us that, but it doesn’t have to. Catholics do not rely on Scripture alone for settling such matters. But it’s easy to see how those who do might come to erroneous conclusions. This is a good example of why we should heed Peter’s warning about Paul’s letters: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). (Source: This Rock, Jul-Aug 2008)

Great news for me!

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit!

Rock, Stone, Pebble, You

2009-04-03T02:02:00.003+02:00

1. Many contend that in Mat 16:18 , Christ referred to Simon Peter as a Pebble (Stone), while referred to the Confession of Faith by Simon Peter as the Rock. Hence, the rock by which Christ's Church is to be built is on the faith.

Two points.

2. (A) The original greek used by the writer is Aramaic, not Greek. Hence, the argument cannot be won by simple Greek lesson. This is very well explained by this track in Catholic.com. In essence, the original word used is Kepha (not Petros/as), hence should not be contestable. In fact, "Kepha" is the name used in other passages to emphasize the meaning as the first rock laid as the foundation of Christ's Church ("upon this", hence foundation). But how come that Simon Peter be the foundation of Christ's Church when Jesus is "the cornerstone that the builders rejected" (Ps 118:22, and comments therein)?

3. (B) Being the first rock laid by Christ as foundation does not diminish His role as the cornerstone. "First rock" laid with reference to which? In reference to Christ Himself; He is but the "cornerstone" and "living stone" as thought by Peter himself in 1 Pet 2:4,7. If one were to build, several rocks/stones had to be laid, but always in reference to one stone:

The cornerstone: the particular stone in a building from which "all other stones will be set in reference ..., thus determining the position of the entire structure." (wikipedia,03Apr2k9)

Jesus is this cornerstone from which all other stones must refer to by faith:

"thus says the Lord GOD: See, I am laying a stone in Zion, a stone that has been tested, A precious cornerstone as a sure foundation; he who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." (Is 28:16)

Peter's faith in Christ made Kepha a sure foundation of the Church! Peter's faith in Christ makes him an unshakable stone/rock of the Church for "he who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." This is why Jesus prays for Peter's faith (Lk 22:31-32).

4. Indeed, Peter's teaching is very much in congruence with this as every Christian should be:

"like living stones, let [each]... be built into a spiritual house. (1 Peter 2:5a)"

What spiritual house? The Church of course. Truly, this "building" has twelve stones as foundations:

The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev 21:14)

The faithful who follows the faith of the apostles are like "precious stones" decorating the Church:

"The foundations of the city wall were decorated with every precious stone; the first course of stones was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh hyacinth, and the twelfth amethyst." (v.19-20)

St. Paul agrees with St. Peter.

5. While non-Catholics argue that Peter is simply one of the stones in the Church (or at least one of Her 12 foundations) they moreover claim that the Church cannot be founded on Peter since Christ is the Foundation. How can a founder put the first stone and not call it foundation? How can a founder found himself as the founder of something he owns? It just doesn't make sense.

6. God (the Father) laid the Son (Jesus Christ) as the foundation of His Covenant. "...I am laying a stone in Zion, cornerstone as a sure foundation...." (Is 28:16) This was proclaimed during the time when old Israel was scattered since the Old Covenant/Testament were very much broken -- no stone then was a sure foundation. With Christ, the Covenant will be everlasting.

7. God the Son then founded His Church on Himself by laying the first rock, Kepha; but He was careful to emphasize that this has to always be in reference to Him (the Cornerstone) through Faith. Later, it is to be understood (see #4 above) that He founded the Church on all the Twelve.

8. Later on, the Apostles can build upon themselves new foundations, building upon themselves. We clearly understand this logic from St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

"According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it." (1 Cor 3:10)

St. Paul builds a foundation founded on himself which is founded on the Apostles (he was "laid hands" by the Pillars of the Church). He reminds however that

"... each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation ..."

Note, one foundation! But who can lay such a foundation? ... and we continue reading:

"other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ." (v.11)

The "one foundation" placed by Christ is Kepha and on Kepha, the Apostles. It is only Him who can lay such a foundation; for He Himself is a foundation, laid by God the Father in Zion (Is 28:16). I wonder why non-Catholics even use this to prove otherwise. One can even compare and contrast the different translation versions here.

9. But how come the revelations to St. John in Patmos Island shows Twelve not one? This could be explained by the fact that the Apostles are themselves foundations in reference to being the first Bishops of the Church. Hence, Peter must be the first of the Bishops! This primacy is very much believed by the whole early Church.

"... you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone/cornerstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." [Eph 2:19b-22 NAB]

10. Simple: God the Father placed Jesus as the Cornerstone of the Covenant. Jesus placed Kepha as the foundation of His Church, He placed the Apotles on Kepha. The Apostles and disciples built upon themselves. St. Paul must also be placed by Kepha during his stay with him.

Truly, every bishop of the Church must be considered a foundation, the shepherd of that portion of Jesus' flock (see CCCC327, CCC1560-61)! In the Church today, a local church is led by a bishop and more properly called as a Diocese. No wonder why there is a very important part of the Church's prayer in the Liturgy when Catholics pray "together with Pope Benedict, and our Bishop N...." This part cannot be removed nor changed by anyone.

So, the mustard seed can become a tree. Just as i wrote on a previous entry:: I may be just a very small pebble sticking on the walls of the Church, let me be as long as I'm part of the Church of Christ.

One Flock, One Shepherd

2009-03-31T13:55:00.000+02:00

Jesus said:

"I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd." (Jn 10:16)

while somewhere, He commissioned Peter (Simon bar-Jonah)...

"Simon, son of John... : Feed my Lambs, ... Tend my Sheep, ... Feed my Sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)

According to the comments in the NAB version, "other sheep" could refer to the Gentiles since "this fold" must refer to the Israel in Jesus' time.

Peter is the prince of the Apostles, leader of the Bishops, Vicar of Christ:
1) Peter has to strengthen his brothers during the time when Satan will sift all the Bishops like wheat.
2) Peter has to feed the Lambs and Sheeps.
3) Peter has to tend the Flock.

I don't know how non-Catholics don't want to believe that St. Peter was the earthly shepherd assigned while the Bridegroom is away.

Still, we pray: "may all hear Him," so that "all may be one." May those who hear, listen. Listen to those He sent, just as we listen to Him who is Sent. For as we listen to the One who is Sent, we listen to the One who Sent.

Jesus said while sending His apostles:

"[In a town w]hoever will not receive you or listen to your[the apostles'] words... it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Mat 10:14-15)

So I rest my case...

Illogical logic of Sola Scriptura

2009-03-27T14:27:00.000+01:00

I just read two arguments against Sola Scriptura: using logic and using logistical arguments. Note that in the first, the discussion is limited to the extreme case that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ has built. Hence, the Bible only. In the second, the discussion is pointed to the impossibility due to the logistic problem since technology and literacy has only advanced recently.

The first article is a very convincing argument based solely on the following proposition:

A. All revealed truth is to be found in inspired Scripture.

By "inspired" means only the Hebrew canon (66-book Bible), Luther's standard. However, this very proposition can never be found in the same "inspired Scripture." Hence the proposition is not part of the revealed truth. Reductio ad absurdum; Scripture-alone crumbles. Even if the Bible says:

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Tim 3:16)

it follows immediately that

"... so that one ... may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:17)

It uses "may" not "shall be." Hence, the Bible claims that it is not sufficient.

Now, one can get away from the contradiction above. This can be done by augmenting A with the following propositions. In fact, there are non-Catholic denominations which hold these two, together with A:

B. The Catholic Church incurred apostasy sometime in the past.

hence

B.1. The Bible is now the only inerrant (or to an extreme, infallable) authority.

As for the "incurred sometime in the past," in B i don't know when: 1054, 1378-1417, 1517, or since when?

Let us just assume that B is correct. Using the proposition A, we get

A.1: ... upon this rock I[Jesus] will build my church... (Mat 16:18a)

for

A.2: ... I[Jesus] am with you always, until the end of the age. (Mat 28:20b)

because

A.3: "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you." (Jn 14:26) so that "when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth." (Jn 16:13)

therefore

A.4: ... the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it [the Church that Christ has built]. (Mat 16:18a)

Proposition A requires that the Church that Christ built (A.1) will never be lost at any time point (A.4). Hence B will contradict A (against even to the very words of Christ!). Unless we don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, we cannot imagine how the true Church of Christ not survive over time. How can a Holy-Spirit-guided Church fail at one point in time?

While dependent on B, B.1 also fails because of the complexity of every written document. Historians can always discuss about it. It is simply hard to understand what the author is trying to tell the reader (literal meaning). Their meaning depends on a lot of things: e.g. intended audience, artistic style, time of writing, and many others. Hence a new proposal:

B.2 The Bible can only be interpreted through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Since "... no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation." (2 Pet 1:20; also see Mk 9:11ff)
However, how can the Holy Spirit fall upon somebody without the somebody dispensing the Holy Spirit's gifts through laying of hands? St. Paul was very keen of this when he told Timothy:

"Do not lay hands too readily on anyone..." (1 Tim 5:22)

where "lay hands" means to ordain (see below). In fact, this power is limited to those who were ordained to the point that one wanted to buy it in Act 8:18.

Don't know what to think? The solution: "Do not rely on your logic!" "Do not immerse yourself reading books other than the Bible." Now, that is madness. How can one even understand the deep meanings of a Book without referring to how history understood it? The Bible surely does not contain "guide how to read the Bible" unless one has to claim that his interpretation is the right one.

Notes on "laying of hands":

"From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace. The fact that grace is ascribed immediately to the external rite, shows that Christ must have thus ordained. The fact that cheirontonein, cheirotonia, which meant electing by show of hands, had acquired the technical meaning of ordination by imposition of hands before the middle of the third century, shows that appointment to the various orders was made by that external rite. We read of the deacons, how the Apostles "praying, imposed hands upon them" (Acts 6:6). In 2 Timothy 1:6 St. Paul reminds Timothy that he was made a bishop by the imposition of St. Paul's hands (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4), and Timothy is exhorted to appoint presbyters by the same rite (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22). In the Third Clementine Homily (73), we read of the appointment of Zachæus as bishop by the imposition of Peter's hands. The word is used in its technical meaning by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI.13, 106; cf. Apostolic Consitutions II.32). "A priest lays on hands, but does not ordain" (cheirothetei ou cheirotonei) "Didasc. Syr.", IV; III, 10, 11, 20; Cornelius, "Ad Fabianum" in Eusebius, Church History VI.43.

Grace was attached to this external sign and conferred by it. "I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, through (dia) the imposition of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6). The context clearly shows that there is question here of a grace which enables Timothy to rightly discharge the office imposed upon him, for St. Paul continues "God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety." This grace is something permanent, as appears from the words "that thou stir up the grace which is in thee"; we reach the same conclusion from 1 Timothy 4:14, where St. Paul says, "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with (meta) imposition of hands of the priesthood." This text shows that when St. Paul ordained Timothy, the presbyters also laid their hands upon him, even as now the presbyters who assist at ordination lay their hands on the candidate. St. Paul here exhorts Timothy to teach and command, to be an example to all. To neglect this would be to neglect the grace which is in him. This grace therefore enables him to teach and command, to discharge his office rightly. The grace then is not a charismatic gift, but a gift of the Holy Spirit for the rightful discharge of official duties. The Sacrament of Order has ever been recognized in the Church as such. This is attested by the belief in a special priesthood (cf. St. John Chrysostom, "De sacerdotio"; St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Oratio in baptism. Christi"), which requires a special ordination. St. Augustine, speaking about baptism and order, says, "Each is a sacrament, and each is given by a certain consecration, . . . If both are sacraments, which no one doubts, how is the one not lost (by defection from the Church) and the other lost?" (Contra. Epist. Parmen., ii, 28-30). The Council of Trent says, "Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of Holy Church" (Sess. XXIII, c. iii, can. 3)." (taken in part from: New Advent site)

New Creation => New Worship Schedule

2009-03-26T14:18:00.000+01:00

The first creation was finished in the sixth day and the seventh day is sanctified. Hence, Sabbath.

The second creation was finished on the eight day on the resurrection of Christ. Hence, Sunday.

Pascal's Wager and theism

2009-03-22T23:26:00.000+01:00

A prominent atheist (or non-theist) Richard Dawkins says "Probably there is no God. (quoted here)" Ever since, i liked the argument in the article that says "[the saying] does not even exclude the possibility that there is God."

This made me recall Pascal's Wager on the existence of God: Believing in a god gives zero risk and infinite gain; on the other hand, believing otherwise gives infinite risk but a possibly finite gain. (Or something to that effect)

I found Pascal's Wager very fundamental --- removes fear by minimizing risk. However, the problem is that I have crossed the point in believing that God wants us to believe in Him out of love, not out of fear.

Honest truth

2009-03-18T11:00:00.000+01:00

I just found a very nice website for Catholic Apologetics. In this blog, one can find a good resource for understanding the Catholic Faith. Even a good source against Fallacies during arguments.

In particular, i share the sentiments of the author when he/she said of the following i quote below.

I am convinced that 90% of the problem is that non-Catholics are at first unwilling to be intellectual honest. I know it was my own problem when I was both a Lutheran and Baptist, yet every Protestant knows that there is something wrong with demoninationalism, and desparately thirsts for the truth. They have Jesus, but they know that something is missing - His family, His Church. In my own conversion once I stopped saying "You Catholics believe" and started saying "What is it you Catholics believe about....?" I was almost instantaniously doomed to become a Roman Catholic. As soon as I was willing to really listen, the answers poured in so fast it made my head spin. "The Pillar and Bulwark of truth is the Church" - How could have I missed that in my Bible before? With a small army of well catechized Catholics I quickly found most of the misconceptions about the Catholic Church spoiled. It took time, and a lot of patience, and a lot of learning, but once I was willing to say "Okay, tell me about the Church", the Holy Spirit worked on my heart and softened it towards His Church. (Full article here.)

I think i need to start changing my tone from defensive, instead try to explain/clarify why Catholics believe what.

God is a Family

2009-02-14T00:16:00.001+01:00

http://www.zenit.org/article-4433?l=english

When the family is threatened, God is threatened.

Family is the greatest expression of God.

Family is God's idea since the very beginning.

The world's déjà vu: the Eucharist

2009-02-11T14:24:00.000+01:00

The Eucharistic celebration of the Church, both as a remembrance and actuality of Jesus' Sacrifice, is actually the original plan of God before Israel committed sin by worshiping a golden calf. The priestly position of the Levites are by virtue of them not participating in the mortal sin to God.

What was the original form of worship? The offering of bread and wine! Moreover, these bread and wine are consumed by the family members. Who offers standing as high priests? The fathers with their firstborn son as the rightful priests. It is also a coincidence that the Trinitarian view is in parallel with the act of Abraham offering his firstborn and only son, Isaac.

There are a lot of points to be discussed but these are very coherently and precisely discussed by Scott Hann, Phd here:
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm

Good works as offering

2009-02-08T11:27:00.001+01:00

There are denominations that say good works are not part of the saving plan of God. They put emphasis against what the Catholic Church is teaching on the tag-team of faith and good works. Although it has been known that these is not against the so-called "living faith," still many scorn on the Catholic Faith regarding good works.

"Through him(Jesus Christ) (then) let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have; God is pleased by sacrifices of that kind." Hebrews 13:15-16 (NAB)

Good works are already considered as part of the sacrifice! While Jews consider sacrifice be limited to "offerings" done in the altar, these are extended to individual works in the last and everlasting Covenant with Christians. Three things:
1. Sacrifice of praise
2. Sacrifice of good works
3. Sacrifice of sharing
Sacrifice of praise obviously refers to our oral confession ('fruit of lips") of our praises to God. Good works are obvious. Sharing is also obvious. By the way, it seems that all these can be categorized simply as "works." I believe the "good works" here pertains to fulfilling our daily roles in life, not just those directed towards others. Sharing must point to what Catholics call "charity work."

This is the reason why these items are important for the Church! It can further be noticed that all these sacrifices are recalled just before every formal offering during every Eucharistic celebration. Hence, together with Christ definitive sacrifice, we raise our individual sacrifices as well.

So, what would you bring today?

Death, when do you come?

2008-12-25T23:29:00.000+01:00

So, when do you think you can say that a person is dead? I meant, scientifically and theologically. That is, as the Church says, not just our opinion.

Here's what the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has to say. I think it is a *very* good read. Download the pdf from here.

Happy prayerful reading!

Dignitas Personae is out

2008-12-15T23:13:00.000+01:00

Read full text here: Dignitas Personae; Recent copy of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's summary at Zenit.com.

It's just in time. The Church has always been and will always be coping with the changing times. Due to recent advances in Biomedical Research and Biotechnology, more questions are raised as to the meaning of human life and every man's dignity -- how to respect the life of one man -- from conception to natural death.

Using "both reason and faith", the Church has ever more been very objective and truly serving God with the help of the Holy Spirit. May we all realize our dignity as a "created in the image of God" as well as others, including those in their youngest state: embryos.

Let us all pray for those thousands in their embryonic stages still frozen somewhere, their life being imprisoned with nowhere to get since they are outside their mother's living care. Let us continue to pray for the whole Church, and that the Pope may bear the responsibility of "reminding all the Bishops' faith" and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, guide us all as one visible body of Christ.

The smallest individual and the question of human life

2008-11-19T10:45:00.000+01:00

The smallest individual is about a little above 100 micrometers. This is assuming that fertilization of a human egg cell by a sperm cell does not significantly increase its size (in any case, only the head of the sperm enters the egg during the zygote formation). Although very small, i argue that a human embryo is one human individual already, complete with all the dignity and rights of a living person.

Life is real and not just an imagined term or idea[1].

But then, we remain asking the very question: "What is life, really?" The cell is defined by science to be the basic unit of biological life -- the "building block of life". A cell is a system composed of its parts working together. Without the qualifying phrase "working together," that cell is simply a bunch of biochemicals bound by a membrane -- a dead matter/thing. But what makes a cell "work together"? What makes it start, keep, and stop working as a (single) unit? The answer is the concept (or idea) of life -- or the living "essence" -- without it, the parts just won't work together. This "essence" is the idea of (A) the working together of the parts as a unit (whole) apart from (B) the potential to work together such as being organized as such. B does not ensure A; and A requires B. A is the life; B is the body. Something is alive if A and B is there.

The question of life is one of the greatest in the history of human thought. Descartes' idea of life says: non-human animals "are merely ingeniously constructed machines [-- automata]" by virtue of their "construction".

Hence according to Descarte, humans must have thought (Mind) and since thoughts are separate from the matter making up the "machine", humans have something else aside from the physical body. It is not surprising that life is very similar to the"soul."

Now, what makes an individual human (distinct from other living things and from other humans as well) unique? There could be a thousand answers to this question; but in essence, they would all boil down to one thing: each living human being has a soul -- a concept that must be held separate from life. A soul is but a "principle", a concept just like life. I would imagine that a soul is the idea of an individual with free will. A soul is very much similar to a character in a story, except that a character in a story has no free will since it is animated by the author-- her/-is decisions and actions are under the mercy of the author. Thus, a (human) person must be composed of an A, a B, and (C) a soul. We must admit: life is not equal to the soul.

The concept of free will needs to be expounded since one can always argue that other (non-human) animals might have free will as well. A dog for instance, can starve to death if it wills to eat food only offered by it's master (owner). However, the question is really the difference between "training" and "development" of an individual's behavior and consequently, of a person's will (from trained behavior to a willed behavior, a free will).

I concede that the difference between a non-human embryo (zygote, fertilized egg/ovum) and a human embryo is the latter has the potential to develop to a person with a willed behavior. In other words, it already wills to survive and develop --- though just like other zygotes, the potential of realized free will is there. When one accepts the presence of this potential, this must be equivalent to the idea that a human zygote has a soul and therefore already a human person.

Isn't this consistent with the idea that one is "conceived" (probably from: realized, materialized) at the moment of fertilization? Conception is like a process of writing a character in a story as depicted in the mind of its author, albeit this character in the story lacks (even a potential of having) free will and it will never develop one. Hence:

During conception, a unit of knowledge about the existence of one individual begins to be materialized (moment of realization or thought); death is the end of this materialization but the thought is still there.

Truly the Author is greater than any other since His "characters" are imbued with free will. The Author must be very pleased. The characters should be very grateful not because of training but because the characters wills to be.

------
Notes:
[1] Concepts are part of reality. You can argue for days with scientists about the reality of concepts such as energy, entropy, or even probably mass.
Questions arising:
a. Since other animals seems to have an identity, do they have soul as well? For example, "dogs have dog soul." When one names a pet dog for example, does this not constitute "conception", albeit does not start from fertilization.
b. Can free will be defined, independent of us? Deepens as: is this world here without us thinking about it? If animals think, would they have a different concept of the world?

Are you saved?

2008-11-18T22:51:00.000+01:00

The first reading today is from the Revelation according to St. John. Part what Jesus was saying is that:

"I will never erase his name from the book of life but will acknowledge his name in the presence of my Father and of his angels." (Rev 3:5b)

This means one thing: ONE'S NAME CAN BE ERASED FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE! No one is assured of salvation!

Once again, i remember the night i was asked if i am sure that i'm saved. That was one of the incidences i am asked of the opening question on my Christian Faith:

"Are you saved?"

Actually, i answered "I'm not sure." The second question is usually in a form of a story which is very Catholic in nature. The story starts with your death. Then the story goes to a scene in front of the gate of Heaven with St. Peter. The question is: Can you assert your right to enter the gate?

The logic goes like this: If you have (a living) faith, then you are saved since "by faith alone, one can be saved". And, if you are saved, then you should be able to enter Heaven after death --- this you can assert to St. Peter. This logic is flawed for (at least) three major reasons:

1. The premise actually says: "one can be saved" as opposed to "one is saved." Hence, faith is a necessary condition for being saved; but it is not a sufficient condition to be saved. In fact, Rom. 3:28 reads that faith is a necessary condition for being saved (i.e. we must be justified before God first). Other versions are found here. One needs to be justified first before being able to "work out for salvation" (Phil. 2:12).

2. Isn't it difficult to ascertain that one has a genuine faith using his(-er) own hormone-affected Conscience? One can see that faith is more than belief: faith is rooted to the will. The human will is expected to be independent of (exclusive from) one's feelings. A person can find the will in the innermost part of his(-er) heart (Do you really believe on something, or are you trying to keep it from surfacing?). Meanwhile the will is outwardly expressed in works; but not all works reflect this fact since there are physical limitations (e.g. strength, wealth) and/or feelings against the will (i.e. hormones; e.g. mood, peer pressure). Only works prompted the will with the Faith counts. Hence, the greatest challenge is this: Keeping the control of our will over our feelings. This is keeping both the spirit and the flesh strong (cf. "The spirit is strong; but the flesh is weak.").

3. In the end, it is a question of justification and salvation. A good article on justification can be found here and on salvation here. Both are from oce.catholic.com. Hence we work out our salvation as St. Paul tells the Christians in Philippians. I always think of two things: (a) being listed in the Book of Life; and (b) keeping it there until i die. As for the particular churches: (a) being grafted into the Vine; and (b) keeping it this way. As nobody is perfect by nature --- there's a chance that one can be almost erased from the Book of Life or that be severed from the Vine (or Tree of Life), it is truly reasonable (apart from the fact that Tradition dictates so) that Christ must have instituted a way for individuals (and particular churches) to be reconciled back to His Flock (rewritten, re-grafted).

A cool summary of the Church's perspective is found in Catholic Answers.

I have faith in the saving power of Christ, i hope for this during this life and in the next, and finally i believe i need graces from him to be able to be charitable to all including my perceived enemies. I praise the Holy Spirit in continuously guiding Christ's Church in keeping with the Truth as revealed through the Word made flesh.

Theory of Uniformitarianism?

2008-09-25T09:19:00.000+02:00

It's amazing that the first reading for today comes up in part as:

What has been, that will be;
what has been done, that will be done.
Nothing is new under the sun.
Even the thing of which we say, “See, this is new!”
has already existed in the ages that preceded us.(Eccl 1:9-10)

This is uniformitarianism of science. I quote directly here:

Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."(wikipediea.org, acc:25.Sep.2k9)

I would guess that indeed, the people during the patriarchal age would also be doing some kind of science.

Venerating the Cross

2008-09-16T22:38:00.000+02:00

... or of any relic or image for that same manner, many would scorn a faithful on. Well, i would, not a long time ago. Then, i read the true Catholic Teaching and understood! I'm still getting a hang of it. ;-)

One might ask: Would one be violating the Ten Commandments because of venerating a cross (or a relic, or an image)? Indeed, we could cite: Exodus 20:3-5:

"Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them."

This Bible quotation is most often the case "against" the Church by non-Catholics often accusing the Church of "promoting" or at least tolerating such practice of veneration.

I am surprised to know and realize the following two points (though expected, as the Church is old enough to know):

Most people (probably even some of the faithful) do not understand the term "veneration." This term has deep meaning that recent language has already left behind hence giving different meaning to the same term**. Veneration is a human gesture of dulia both to show and enhance the experience of honoring the one represented by the object (e.g. cross-->Christ or His salvific suffering, saint image-->the saint). I highly regard such recognition that we are truly human. Indeed helping us to achieve "full life" by being human and using humanly gestures and feelings to achieve latria which is due only to God.

The Church has already dealt with the problem of idolatry practiced in the early church. Thus, this topic was tackled in the Second Council of Nicea as well as in the Council of Trent. In the Council of Trent:
"Images are not to be worshipped because it is believed that some divinity or power resides in them and that they must be worshipped on that account, or because we ought to ask anything of them, or because we should put our trust in them, as was done by the gentiles of old who placed their hope in idols but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we kneel, we may adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose resemblances they bear."

In fact, one of the reasons of Schism is iconoclasm. If the Church can be swayed by human factors, why would she let herself suffer such break if the matter is not serious?

How dare accuse the Church of teaching idolatry!

The faithful should venerate the cross as a means of assisting us to contemplate and express our thanks and devotion to the experience of being "purchased" by the blood (and body) of Christ. All true veneration is expected to result in praising God or the yearning to receive His Son's most precious Body and Blood.

Now, think: we believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly present during the Eucharist (see CCCC: 282-283). What do you do to show your latria during the Holy Mass? Remember, we must love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our body. I would kneel wherever i am.... Now, i fully realize the idea behind the custom of one making the sign of the cross every time (s)he passes in front of a church building in anticipation of the Christ Jesus being truly and really present.

For a more elaborate read on images and the cross you can click here and here, respectively.

**I now understand why there were a time when the Church insists the use of the Latin language to preserve the meaning of prayers during the Mass! This is another topic, of course. CCCC = Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Cry of the Church: Common Good

2008-04-26T08:39:00.000+02:00

Read Zenit's article: "Holy See calls for human-centered development"

A good article that can be a template even for local level of development in our country. I like the idea that we focus on the Man, not on the Economy. Thus, economic development should be seen as a *means* of achieving Human Dignity rather than the other way around.

I remember my wife, Joanne, in her field involving Consumerism. That consumerism is not evil as long as it is centered on Man's rights and fairness, not Man's greed nor the goods. I also remember papa Monching's efforts in local development program designs -- giving back to the people the power they have, being independent of external agents but they themselves interdependent for the common goal of development. In the very end, giving more focus on satisfying the "common good."

I like the position of the Church because She always looks at the "good" of Mankind. For in the end, through the Church, only God knows what is truly good for the Man.

A view of an atheist

2008-04-23T20:52:00.000+02:00

This has been around in my Edit page. I finally decided to publish it (also given a time just now). Been a while..

Well, this are quotations from a user jbehan from Catholic Forum where i am also a member (quite inactive for some time now :( ). I directly quote them below and give answers following the block quotes.

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. :( I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have

.

Fair enough. It seems that you are leaving your faith because of rational reasons alone. Remember during your analysis that man cannot live by pure reason alone. A world with a god is a world that frees us from Reason but at the same time uses Reason for an even greater purpose.

I commend you for having a synthesis below of your becoming an atheist. This is so far the most clear presentation of one's new belief system aside from theism.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.

Correct. Thus, with experience via our human senses, we come up with what we call Science. Note however, that Science does not claim a full grasp of what is truth but rather a continuing approximation of it.

2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

There is a major flaw in this assumption/premise. The God of Christians is MORE THAN A BEING. He just seems to be a being because that is the best description that we can come up with Him. Thus, the second sentence, plus Almighty.

Reducing God to a "being" makes him limited to the time and space just like us -- merely God's creations.

3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

True. But the other end of the spectrum is also true: "It is possible to prove His existence." The second sentence highly depends on the validity of the claim that the task "is highly unlikely". It is likely, it only takes Reason and Faith to do that. When it comes to ordinary things, Reason seems to be coherent and powerful. However, when it comes to fundamental questions of our existence (matter, space and time, energy, etc), it just sometimes contradicts itself (something like two times infinity is greater than one infinity, but also equal). God can be found there, but again, since we are finite, we can only give approximation of Him.

For me, the explanation of Science is simply a "discovery" of the Great Design this World is made of. The Laws of Nature are simply the Word of God when he said, "Let there be..." God can be found in every Law of Nature that we discover and shall discover in the future.

Syllogism:

Major premise: The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

No. As Einstein says it: "Theories have to be simple; but not that simple." It should be simple enough, not just simple. But your statement is almost in the right mark.

- Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

I think that Christianity is better than Atheism in two points: (1) It embraces Reason but towards a greater Goal; and (2) It answers, together with Reason, the fundamental questions of life. These two points are just weak for Atheism (or Agnostism) that they make no sense at all. For Atheists, Faith has to be consistent with Science therefore reducing Faith to a part of Science. For Christians, Science has to be consistent with Faith, embracing Science being a way of recognizing our humanity but putting trust to a Revelation of a God reaching out towards Man.

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

I strongly agree with this. But Atheism just gives much conditions not like Christianity. With Christianity, we are freed from ourselves and finally live life fully.

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

I remember a saying: "Choose not what is easy, but choose what is right."

Minor Premise: Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

Conclusion: Atheism is the rational position.

Atheism in fact posits a lot more object -- ad infinitum. This is due to the idea that it cannot fully explain without stopping fundamental questions on our existence. Atheism simply stops at "because it simply is" unless burdened with infinite causes. Christians, answers: "because God said so." Being subjective when it comes to morality just posits a lot of problems, in fact. Unless you have no one to say with absoluteness, everything just become chaotic.

I believe that with the Christian God, Science just becomes more meaningful and interesting.

Thus, atheism is an attempt to stop Man from looking further than what we can sense. This belief system ("philosophy" as you call it) reduces Man to a "rational animal" without a Will (thus Soul). Atheism is the very Forbidden Fruit in the garden of Eden.

Please don't stop your search for the Truth. God will open the door to those who knock. Give God more than just the benefit of the doubt.

Fear of finding the truth or bitterness?

2008-04-21T22:15:00.000+02:00

Do you believe in a god?

This question is easy to answer. But difficult to accept. I find most people very apprehensive of answering the question in an absolute sense. Is this a fear of being disappointed by the god? Is this because of the doubts in god due to the apparent possibility of the Science to know everything? Or is it due to the idea that a god only does "magic"?

Are you afraid of finding the Truth? Truth does not come to those who don't ask for it. Look and you shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened. Stop ignoring the signs. I know, deep in everyone's heart, there is this big question mark trying to come out and be answered point blank. Our mind is blocking it and tries to reason out to keep it locked.

Are you bitter? Have you decided that god does not exist because of "some" observations you made? That there is so much suffering in this world, that there is evil in this world? Are you looking at god, or just an imperfect human presentation of god?

I am saddened by the idea that people stop believing in a god just because they don't understand. Why do we always have to measure up god using human rod? After 2000 years of Christian era, still people are like young children whom the father has to guide. Naturally, children don't understand what it means when the father does something "weird."

Note that this is just about "a god," we have not tackled about believing in a correct God: the God of Israel, God of Christians -- the Triune God.

Church authenticates Bible, Bible authenticates Church: Circular argument?

2008-03-28T00:30:00.003+01:00

No.

The circularity arises if we postulate Sola Scriptura. The truth is that the Bible is authenticated by the Church, testifying that the Bible is a consistent testament of her Faith. No Church, no Bible.

Chuch => Bible; not the other way around.

How come the Bible "authenticates" the Church? I don't think "authenticate" is the right word here. Maybe "writes about" is better. The Bible is a written "testament" that there was such a Church and that it looks like so before. It only guarantees that the current Church describes the same truth only in a different way probably using a different but more compact terms.

It is the continuing existence of the Church that the Bible derives its authenticity. The life of the Bible depends on the life of the Church.

The Church uses the Bible to make sure that she is consistent to her teachings as before. Thus, the Church authenticates the Bible; and BOTH the Bible and the Church authenticates the Teachings of the same Church. The Church is not justified to exist just because the Bible says so. It is the other way around. Thus it also follows that the Church must know MORE than just those written in the Bible!

Truly it's like this:

Once certain one individual (let's call this individual "One") knew that there exists a very beautiful place (we shall call it "Paradise"). It was so true that One described the Paradise to someone (say "X0") arguing about the truth of its existence. Now, X0 appreciated the truth about the Paradise and recounted the same (adding descriptions in his own terms) to X1. Then, X1 did the same to X2, and so on. Now, someone, say Xn (n>0), was so inspired of the Paradise that all the important descriptions of the Paradise according X(n-1) before him (and according to the One as recounted) is written in a piece of paper (we call "Paper"). Admitting that Xn can never be able to write the complete description of the Paradise, together with the Paper, Xn expounded to the succeeding Xs about the meaning of what was in the Paper. The succeeding Xs does the same while preserving the Paper through the years. The process goes on for all "generations" of Xs up to the present.

Meanwhile, another (say "Y0") got hold of a copy of the Paper. Based on the descriptions written, Y0 claimed that there is such a place called Paradise. Y0 started to describe the Paradise based on his own interpretation of what is in the Paper. As some of the descriptions is bound to Xn's time, Y0 would definitely deviate from original intent when it was written. Noting this deviation, one of the Xs rebuked Y0's description to the point that Xs decided to write the elaborations (we call "Elaborations") of the Paper against Y0's. The process continues for every Yn attempting to have a description different from what has been handed down to all Xs before the current "generation" of X. Thus, the current generation of X also have a large compilation of the Elaborations.

Thus, the existence of the Paper (plus the Elaborations) is an assurance that the Paradise spoken about by the current Xs is the same Paradise that One described before. Obviously, we expect that there will be more details in what the current generation of X describes about the Paradise than just what is written in the Paper. Moreover, this detail can indeed be derived from the oral description transmitted (and written in the Elaborations) but never against with those in the Paper.

The Bible is thus like a Diary of the Church. It can only be authenticated by the same Church, and used for her own sake. What the Church has written, only she can explain its meaning as she intended it to be when she wrote it. Thus, by reading the Bible, we can see how the Church looks like before: how it worked before and how it initially developed. With the consistency of the Church's Teachings to that of the Bible, we are sure that this Church now is the same simple (and small) Church 2000 years ago!

Truly, we should expect a big difference between the Church before and the Church now, given the 2,000 years of the careful Tradition (read: "passing on the message") and reflection on the written "message" in its original terms (Bible and Apologies). The difference is in the depth of understanding of the IDEA than she received initially. Somehow, the SAME IDEAS were developed into MORE ELABORATE but THE SAME IDEAS. Somehow, the SAME IDEAS are expressed in more concise terms and crystalized statements. Somehow, OTHER IDEAS were derived from the received SAME IDEAS giving a coherent set of more OTHER IDEAS contributing to the realization of THE SAME IDEAS received.

This process of development of the SAME IDEAS is a proof that the Church is a living Church. Her Lord had predicted this through a parable (allegory) illustrating how the Kingdom of God would look like:

The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened. (Mt 13:33 NAB)

Or even more complex:

The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least* indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof. (Ibid v.31-32)

I find it AMAZING! Now, if you were a Z who wants to know what the One had handed down about the Paradise, which would you be with, the Xs or the Ys?

--------
footnote:
* "least" for the sake of illustration not for validity of argument.
** The story presented above about the One, can be attributed to the development of Science. Here's how to do it: One --> Discoverer, Paradise --> Theory, Paper --> Manuscript, Elaborations --> Books and Experiments, "write" --> "experiment", "describe" --> "demonstrate", etc.

The right of the Church to say: Anathema sit

2008-03-27T18:03:00.000+01:00

Most of the anti-Catholic apologists are abhorred by the fact that the Church can say anathema sit to anyone who would oppose her Teachings. How can she do it? From whom does this authority come from? Truly alarming because they argue that the Beast in the Revelation to John is said to have powers so great which most think the Church today has (as they try to think of this Beast to be the Church).

HOWEVER, during one of their gatherings, Jesus said to the Apostles:

Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Mt 18:18-20 NAB)

The Councils in the Catholic Church conforms to this and in fact calls upon this very promise of Christ. Caveat: This does not mean that just "any two" can deal with just "any" consent. It really depends on the gravity of the matter. Indeed, before Jesus said the above quoted words, here is what He said:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Ibid. v.15-17)

Note that Jesus is talking to His apostles. Now, who is the "church" referred here? For the Catholics, it is easy to "tell the Church."

Note that most of the times, non-Catholics would also quote (v.20) but only to claim that Christ is truly in the midst of at least two persons in prayer. Although rightly so, as even some Catholic homilies do quote it, i think it is in reference to the exercise of "binding and loosing," and "giving consent" that the verse is more clearly applicable. Moreover, the "you" in "any of you" denotes the Bishops (successors of the Apostles seat), thus, favoring the latter exercise.

The New American Bible version has notes saying that indeed:

This is understood of such assemblies only as are gathered in the name and authority of Christ; and in unity of the church of Christ. (St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae).

Truly, the meaning of the passage has to always be taken literally as to what the author really wants to impart to the reader. Not what we think the author wants to express.

--------
footnote:
* To be: (1) formally set apart; (2) banished, excommunicated, exiled; (3) denounced, accursed.

New Covenant, connected to the Old: a short reading

2008-03-26T11:16:00.000+01:00

There are arguments that the Old has nothing to do with the New and Everlasting Covenant as instituted by Jesus Christ. That the new is not at all connected (nor patterned!) from the Old for we should truly "worship the Lord in spirit and in truth."
However, in a reading for today, it is affirmed by Christ Himself that all of the prophets in the Scriptures (read: OT) refer to the necessity of the Christ to suffer and die for the salvation of mankind.

When two of Jesus' disciples were walking home one late afternoon and discussing to their astonishment of the news that Jesus was risen, Jesus unrecognized confirmed that they were talking about the same. He rebuked them for their slow of acceptance and belief. And so thus quoted herein:

And he[Jesus] said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. (Lk 24:25-27, insert for clarity; cf v.46ff)

Jesus has spoken! If we are to believe the Bible as truly in-errant, then we must accept these words of Jesus unless we be called "foolish" by the Savior Himself.

The two disciples were still unbelieving until it happened that "while he[Jesus] was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them." (Lk 24:30). Doesn't this look like a Eucharistic meal-sacrifice, the culmination of everything that were explained? Further, only the Apostles can do that and of course Christ Himself, making the two disciples conclude that He is indeed Jesus. The suffering of Jesus has something to do with what has been revealed in the Scriptures (i.e. Old Testament).

Now, what did Jesus tell the disciples when "he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (v.45)? Read what the Fathers of the Church has written, specially about the Eucharist; ask the Church, she knows more than anybody else.

"Upon this rock I will build my Church"

2008-03-24T12:59:00.001+01:00

These were Jesus' words as recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew (16:18). As Jesus is THE Word of God, and since the God's voice is "a sharp two-edged sword, that with it he[The Word of God] may strike the nations" (part of Rev 19:15, insert mine; fullness of meaning can be read in 19:11-16). The first "edge" of the sword is about the invisible idea -- unshaken faith of Simon of Jonah (renamed as "Kepha" the moment Jesus gave the words) -- from which the invisible part of the Church is made of (read the Creed, it all starts with "I/We believe"). Just as many interprets it. But why only until here? There is a second "edge."

The Church that He built does not just contain invisible parts, just as the second "edge" of the sword cuts -- this "new Jerusalem" can be measured by a man as the angel did in John's Apocalypse:

And he that spoke with me had a measure of a reed of gold, to measure the city and the gates thereof and the wall. 16 And the city lieth in a four-square: and the length thereof is as great as the breadth. And he measured the city with the golden reed for twelve thousand furlongs: and the length and the height and the breadth thereof are equal. And he measured the wall thereof an hundred forty-four cubits, the measure of a man, which is of an angel. Rev 21:14-17 (Emphasis mine)

The Church is tangible to the human senses. It can be "measured"!

God, as He ever completely understands human reason, provided a Church that has a visible/sensible/tangible part. Just as how He intends to bring Graces to human reality: creation of Man (from Dust and Spirit, Gen 2:7), bringing of actual graces* (C4#146,220), and the miracles accounted by the Church throughout her Testament (written and taught); the Church herself is the "universal sacrament of salvation" (C4#152) being composed of the sensible (tangible) and the "fruits" of Christ's redemption (sacrament explained in CCC#1131).

Indeed the Church is build/founded from the very Rock: Christ Himself. He claimed that he is the Foundation of this Church (Mat 21:42ff). By "foundation" he speaks of the chief corner stone (Is 28:16) that the "builders rejected" (1 Pet 2:7). By "cornerstone" we mean the very stone such that "all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire edifice[structure]" (see the Encyclopedic meaning of "cornerstone"). Jesus being the very foundation of the Teachings of the Church (CCC 748-749) and being very dependent on His institution (CCC 813-816) just reveals the obvious that the Church is both invisibly and visibly founded on Chief Corner Stone -- shining forth giving its glory to the entire Church:

Having the glory of God, and the light thereof was like to a precious stone, as to the jasper stone even as crystal. (Rev 21:11)

A structure cannot be founded and after that never be built. We should never stop by just looking at the Church having the right Foundation. Indeed, the Church is continuously being built as it descends from Heaven "like a bride" preparing to be wed** (Rev 21:9ff). Therefore, the first rock (other than the Corner Stone) this Church was laid on is Kepha (St. Peter), together with the succeeding rocks: all the Saints (Apostles and Disciples, Saints, Martyrs, the Faithful, etc). In fact, the great Apostles are regarded as the "pillars of the Church" by St. Paul (Gal 2:9). Even John accounts, in his Apocalypse, the Apostles as the 12 foundations of the "new city Jerusalem" walls:

... the wall of the city had twelve foundations: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev 21:14)

Literally (on the other side of the two-edged sword), this also corresponds to having the Saints' relics being under the Altars of visible church buildings which are the foundation of being a place of worship, not to mention the saints' icon adorning the walls of every church building all over the world!

This Church, furthermore, can only be understood by "passing through" the city's gates -- the Faith of Israel:

And it had a wall great and high, having twelve gates, and in the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. (Rev 21:12)

Indeed the Church has always placed great respect in the Old Testament and the teachings of the Scriptures (as referred to by the New Testament).

Truly, in this city, there is no chaos:
(1) "the street of the city was pure gold, as it were, transparent glass" (part of Rev 21:21) just like how coherent and consistent the Teachings of the Church are;
(2) "no temple therein" (verse 22) just how united the Church within, no "camps";
(3) "the glory of God hath enlightened it: and the Lamb is the lamp thereof" (v.23) just as She claims (CCC 748-749);
and this city will never be soiled:
(4) "There shall not enter into it any thing defiled or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie: but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb." (v.27) just as the the Teachings of Church was guarded all throughout Her history, all of it, including the "dark" portions.

What am I, but just a pebble sticking to the walls of this Church? Let it be as long as I'm part of the Church.

-------
notes:
CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church (see Reference Link #1 on the right)
C4 = CCC: a Compendium (see Reference Link #1 on the right)
* Even the Incarnation of the Word, the Ultimate Grace, needs both Spirit and the Virgin's body -- invisible and visible.
** Now, i come to understand why most picture memorabilia of Weddings always include the bride's preparation! Because it ***hints*** how the Church-bride should prepare for the meeting with her Groom!

The End of Science

2008-03-24T01:54:00.000+01:00

As Men of Science, we have been in search of the single Ultimate Law from which all Laws of Nature can be derived from. I propose that the Church has been constantly telling us that the Word of God is this Ultimate Law.

The proof is Us and this very World. For we are but "from the Word" and without this Word, we (and the World) will never be. It is obvious in Genesis that this World came into what it is now (and always will) after "God said" so [1]. Indeed, as the Gospel of John testifies, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1) and that "All things came to be through him [the Word], and without him [the Word] nothing came to be" (part of 1:3, insertion mine). The Laws of Nature that Science are discovering (and yet to discover) are nothing but the resounding Ruling of the Word of God! This is the exact testament of Jesus (the Word of God) in His own words, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Mat 28:18) How wonderful, isn't it?

Hence, when we hear someone say: "That's the Law of Gravity in action," (or others along the same line), it is truly that we glorify the One who said it on the first place. Which of us can claim that he created any particular Law of Nature? Isn't it that, at best, we can only attribute the DISCOVERY of the Laws of Nature to ourselves? "For he holds the depths of the earth[World] in his hands" (Psalmist)

Doing Science is in fact by design our very Human Nature following God's command: "subdue it [the World created]" (part of Gen 1:28, insertion mine) and that He allowed Man a unique Role so that "whatever the man called each of them["parts" of the Earth] would be its name" (part of Gen 2:19). Further, Man being made "in his[God's] image" (part of Gen 1:27, insertion mine; CCCC #63), Man is capable of co-creating part of this Reality by using his own body, words, and imagination, mimicking what God did (Creation) and is continuing to do (continuing existence of this World). Even the existence of a Man by virtue of this gift can be self-proven by "I think, therefore I am." Truly, God is much mightier since He said: "I AM WHO AM," without even thinking!

Rightly, along the same truth that the Church considers Man to be co-creators in the propagation of the human race (Life) since each soul is created by God during conception (CCCC #70). However and justly, these "co-creations" (of Life and Reality) are just the privileged participation in God's divinity since God is truly the source of everything that Man is capable of. Why? Since, God said so (Gen 1:26). I won't dare imagine what will happen if He would retract what He has said?! How could Man question the Order of Things through the Word when even Pilate can say "What I have written, I have written?"(John 19:22).

God said So and so Thus. With the "elders" in the Revelations to John, I now also say:

Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honour and power. Because thou hast created all things: and for thy will they were and have been created. (Rev 4:11)

Even as in the beginning and will be the same, forever. Amen!

------
[1] Chapter 1 of Genesis records that of the seven days of creation, God used the Word 8 times. Source: NAB Bible from Reference Link #1 on the right.

CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church (see Reference Link #1 on the right)
CCCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church: a Compendium (see Reference Link #1 on the right)

Note: Surprisingly a Father of the Church, Tertullian in "Against Hermogenes," has shed some light about the same line of reasoning above on Reality.

Is God cruel for not Revealing Himself fully at once?

2008-03-23T23:03:00.000+01:00

I would like to remember and review these conversations some other time. So i shall post more of them here. (Note to self)

[All blocked quotes are from ateista of Catholic Answers Forum]
In a nutshell, I am saying that the supposed "revelation" is not sufficient. A revelation must be absolutely unmistakable, precise and without the slightest possibility of misinterpretation. Any other kind only speaks of contempt and disdain toward the people it is aimed at. God did not "deem" us worthy to be given a "revelation" which is clear and scientifically shows his existence along with the precise enumeration of our expected behavior.

That is unacceptable.

In the right time, my friend. In the right time. He said, "there are many other things that i would like to tell you but you cannot bear it for now." Keep your patience. Just as in Science, let us for now trust the accounts of those who came before us in handling those "revelations."

As for "precise and without the slightest possibility of misinterpretation": isn't this what the Catholic Church claims about her Teachings? Do not be bias against these Teachings because the teachings of Science do not enjoy the same privilege of certainty. The only misinterpretation of the Teachings are in the details (numerous as many as non-Catholic Christians "denominations" are) as proposed by those who do not want to compare it with the Revealed Primary Basic Truths.

If this revelation is supposed to be our guiding line to tell us how we should "behave" to avoid the eternal damnation which is the "reward" of falling short, then nothing imprecise will do.

"To avoid the eternal damnation" is only the consequence of accepting the Truth. The Truth says that the same God love us and thus want us to be able to "live a full life" (therefore necessitates granting of Free Will)[see C4 #001-ff]. By free-will, humans chose to be "falling short," by denying the Source of perfection, and thus needs to be "fixed." Now, He can't "fix" us unless we want to.

Mind you, such a revelation would not deprive us our freedom to disregard it. We would be totally free to accept or reject God as we choose. It would merely remove the uncertainty from the decision process.

Indeed! The Teachings of the Faith totally agrees with this. This is the very idea of Free Will*. This same "freedom" teaches you that you can modify this very same belief and accept the better "wager", if you will -- God does not and will never force it, He only hints ;) .

To require full responsibility of us and not giving us the full information on which we must base our decisions is cruel** and contemptious. [footnote added]

Again, this is a consequence of two truths about humans by design:
(1) Human Free-Will.
(2) Our intelligence can only grasp something that is finite.

Would we think God is cruel when he has given us this freedom to decide if we want the Truth or not? (I know, I want the Truth!) The Man started the problem: his pride on trying to find the Truth by ignoring God's guidance/directive/rule/mandate/law (the Fall of Man).

It is the result of being the Good Himself that He that leads us slowly out of the cave of our innocence. He doesn't appear to push us into reality by shoving Everything in our frail minds in one stroke. God very well knows our limitations (He made us) and is even "un-cruel" by revealing the Truth bit by bit over the stretch of thousand years (Start measuring time from Abraham's). You can't eat one family-size pizza without cutting them into bite-sizes and eating them one at a time.

Imagine if the whole Truth were "revealed fully" to one man. How do you think would his fellows say about the Things he speaks? (Allegory of the Cave) Even those who have first "discovered" (but still partial) truths about the Laws of Nature are believed to be "insane" by their contemporaries by having such "giant leaps" on conclusions. We are blinded by our first sight of Light that we never saw in its full Intensity.

----------
footnotes:
* will = the very reason or purpose of one's action, decision, or reason.
**Additional note: Even the idea of "cruelty" is revealed to the human race. Others "discovered" it in their hearts. The very definitions of "cruelty" and "contemptious-ity" started as the anti-thesis to Gods goodness and generous-ity (labeled as "grace" by the Church using human terms). If one argues that their meaning can be "derived" by human deduction, two possible problems arise: (1) relativity -- "for him it resulted to that but for the other's an entirely different one" and (2) authority -- "who says your assumptions are true/correct".