The Ministry of Sharing and Spreading the Word of God
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
ROMAN CATHOLICISM , THE BIBLE AND TRADITION
The following text below is my copy paste of the writing of protestant apologetics to reverse and discredit Catholic teachings. Purposely, my intention of this copy is to study the facts and authenticity of the presentation of Bro. Matt, and in turn prove that he is wrong with his study on the subject of the Catholic church tradition and the Bible for his presentation displays deception and false truth on delving deeper into the subject. Under his writing I'm giving my comments and examination to prove him wrong.
Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition
One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism).
The Catholic Church reasons thusly:
- "The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.'" (Par. 77).
- "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 78).
- "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (Par. 82).
Within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries. For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more. Protestantism as a whole differs with Catholicism in these additions.
Tradition in the Bible
The Bible speaks about tradition. Some verses speak for tradition and others speak against it. Of course, the contexts are different and carry different meanings. For example:
| For | Against |
| 2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." | Matt. 15:3-6, "And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." |
| 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." | Mark 7:8-9, "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.9He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." |
| 1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." | Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." |
In the discussions regarding Tradition between Protestants and Catholics both sets of scriptures are often quoted in order to establish their respective positions. The Protestants often quote Matt. 15:3-6 in opposition to Sacred Tradition. In an appeal to be biblical, many Catholic apologists cite 2 Thess. 2:15 to validate their position on Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, this amounts to using the Word of God against itself. Clearly, God's word is not contradictory. Rather, it is our understanding that is in error.
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.
Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition.
Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal?
To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible. Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not.
When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6.
"Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, Honor your father and mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not.
Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114).
It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.
Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition.
But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture.
My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation.
If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God.
MY POINT:
1. Plainly, Bro. Matt should define in his writing Jewish Tradition and the APOSTOLIC TRADITION. It should make mention on Matt 15:3-6 that apostolic teachings and traditions is not in the scope of Tradition mentioned, as Jesus was teaching or handing down his teachings to his apostles for the truth to be spread as the gospel. the handing down is the tradition.
2. Traditions of the Apostles is the truth, the teachings of Jesus, which in the course of time, any teachings or gospels preached shall fall within the tradtion of apostles.
3. Pharisees express and practice old Jewish traditions, and those were in error and not under the teachings and guidance of Jesus. In the living Jesus, all apostles were being taught of the truth, and these are the traditions based on Jesus.
3. In the early fathers of the church, the traditions are kept solemnly as not to commit error in teaching the word of God or the holy scripture, safeguarded to be solely one and these are the traditions handed down since then that the church.
Friday, May 10, 2013
THE 47th WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DAY
May 12, 2013, the 47th World Communications Day. The date for the Universal Church affirming the increasing importance on the reality of the Digital Social Networks, it's relevance and necessity to deliver the Gospel effectively in this medium - an open public square in which people share ideas, information and opinions.
Pope Benedict I could recall said that spreading the Gospel as commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ is still the same, as "the instruction is the same, but only the medium changes", and this is the very core of our foundation and mission, in the social Communication Ministry of our parish, and my firm belief that the availability of the Social Networks and its capacity for evangelization is vast and compelling to the Holy Father to commit everyone of us as virtual men of god in the web.
As we go today for the 47th anniversary of World Communications Day, it is obvious that the the chunk of cyber space is the picture of this Day, focused on digital forms of communications. Topping the list are the Social Networks; Facebooks, twitters, You tube, and all sorts of applications from desktops computers, cellphones, tablets, and laptops, etc., which had become part of our lives.
As the gospel should constantly be spread for all, and as our church is Universal, the enormous task of reaching every creature is a mission unchanged until today- a fact to carry on.
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Mark 16:15
Neither by foot, by bus or by air, or on anywhere else, the gospel should constantly be spread, in every possible way, as gone wild and high tech in this digital age.
We have our obligation as Christ's digital apostles, bringing the faith in social networks whenever possible. Our accounts should exist and gather friends, more members for our Groups, and more likes for our pages, for what? To reach everyone, to all the world, preach the gospel through our posts and updates (Mark 16:15), we should be open not close, for our Church is open for all and universal.
There are 1.2 Billion Catholics today of the world's population of 7.1 Billion. Are we spreading the gospel enough? Do you think the figure is fair to say that we are doing our homework of baptizing every creature on earth? (Mark 16:15)
Evangelization of the Gospel is about open minds. We have to attract everyone, make them believe in Christ for in him is salvation.
The World Communications Day is about opening our church to the world, to let everyone in- in the Door of Faith "PORTA FIDEI" - This is the Year of Faith, an open faith.
Our Mass goers are shrinking, collections baskets running empty and servers dwindling, yet we opt to "close" our group page settings - hide the good parish activities to others?How many will know? We have more or less 200,000 parishioners in the Bago Bantay, and we have only 1,400 member groups in our FB page. Are we for the New Evangelization?
Admins can delete, hide, report or spam irrelevant posts in groups, easy.
The parable of the Prodigal Son speaks it all.
God with us, our group page will reach them one by one, - let the other 198,600 parishioners find their way back home to our parish.
God is OPEN for all, specially calling those unchurch.
Let them know our Parish is alive, make known our activities now.
We should communicate. The 47th World Communications Day.
Bro. Gilbert
Pope Benedict on the 47th WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DAY
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Young, new Philippine cardinal has extensive international ties
 |
| Cardinal Luis Tagle of Manila, left, greets his new colleagues after being made a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI during a consistory in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican last fall. (CNS/Paul Haring) |
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- At 55, Cardinal Luis Tagle of Manila, Philippines, is one of the youngest and newest members of the College of Cardinals, but he is also one of the cardinals most frequently mentioned as a possible pope.
His youthful energy, his pastoral experience, his theological training and his communications skills impressed cardinals and bishops from around the world even before Pope Benedict XVI inducted him into the College of Cardinals last November.
In 1997, Blessed John Paul II named him a member of the International Theological Commission, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict.
Cardinal Tagle's speeches at the 2005, 2008 and 2012 synods of bishops drew attention, as did his presentation in February 2012 at a Vatican-sponsored conference on handling the clerical sexual abuse crisis, particularly in countries and regions where very few accusations have become public.
At the conference, he said the church in Asia cannot wait for a crisis to erupt before it begins to address the scandal of abuse and put into place measures to ensure that victims come first in the church's concern.
"We do not need to wait for a bomb to explode. Preventing it from exploding is the best response," he said.
The cardinal led discussions about how Asian bishops should prepare their child protection policies, particularly given cultural customs and behaviors that could make it difficult to define inappropriate touching and that work to keep abuse secret.
In his speech to the world Synod of Bishops on the new evangelization in October, then-Archbishop Tagle focused on the humility that must mark the church's interaction with the world, a theme that recurs in his writings and homilies.
Being humble means recognizing when the church does not have all the answers, and therefore being willing to remain silent, he told the synod, adding that "a church at home with silence will make the voiceless believe they are not alone."
In his homily during the Mass for his installation as archbishop of Manila in 2011, he promised to remain humble.
"I tell myself as though it were the Lord telling me, 'Chito, do not think you have become great because of your new position. Be great rather in being a beloved and loving disciple of the Lord,'" he said, referring to himself by his nickname.
He also told Catholics the church must trust Jesus like the disciples did.
"We know that the Lord guards his church," he said. "He keeps watch with us on those long nights of confusion and helplessness in mission."
"When, in spite of our good intentions and efforts there are still multitudes of hungry people we cannot feed, homeless people we cannot shelter, battered women and children we cannot protect, cases of corruption and injustice that we cannot remedy," he said, "the long night of the disciples in the middle of the sea continues in us." But the experience makes the church "grow in compassion toward our neighbors whose lives seem to be a never-ending dark night."
In December, after both the Philippine House and Senate passed versions of a Reproductive Health Bill that the nation's bishops opposed because it would fund contraceptives for the poor, Cardinal Tagle said the legislature's action was "unfortunate and tragic. But we do not take it as a defeat of truth -- for truth shall prevail, especially the truth about human life, marriage and the family."
In response, he said, the Manila Archdiocese would " work harder to promote the sanctity of human life and of the human person," including by educating youth in Catholic values, offering concrete assistance to the poor and working to preserve the true meaning of marriage.
In an interview filmed last summer with Canada's Salt and Light TV, then-Archbishop Tagle was asked if he thought there ever would be a pope from Asia.
"I don't know," he said, "maybe we should ask the Holy Spirit."
"It's not so much the nationality, but it's the person" that counts, he said. The next pope could come "from any part of the world, but if this person embodies for the church at this particular time the grace that the Lord wants the church to experience in its supreme pastor, then we will welcome anyone."
Born June 21, 1957, in Manila, he studied at San Jose Seminary and Ateneo de Manila University, earning degrees in philosophy and theology. He earned his doctorate in sacred theology from The Catholic University of America, Washington, with a thesis on episcopal collegiality in the doctrine and practice of Pope Paul VI.
He was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Imus Feb. 27, 1982, and served in various parishes and as spiritual director of the Imus seminary before becoming rector. He also taught philosophy and theology at the Divine Word Seminary and San Carlos Seminary.
In the mid-1990s, he was part of the editorial committee working on a history of the Second Vatican Council for the Institute for Religious Studies in Bologna, Italy. The history has been described in some quarters as being too progressive and as presenting Vatican II as a "rupture" with church tradition rather than a reform in continuity with tradition.
Blessed John Paul named him bishop of Imus in 2001. He has served as president of the Philippine bishops' doctrinal committee and as president of the office for theological questions of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences.
Since 2008, he has appeared on a weekly television program, "The Word Exposed," in which he offers reflections on the Sunday Mass readings.
- - -
Contributing to this story was Lauren Colegrove at the Vatican.
END
SOURCE: catholic news service
Disclaimer : I do not own this article, it is the property of the Catholic News Service .
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS REGARDING THE BROTHERS OF JESUS
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS
REGARDING
THE BROTHERS OF JESUS
Did Jesus have biological brothers as some non-Catholics claim? Or is this just another attack on the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Since the early days of the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has been asserted and defended.
First of all, I will explain to you the Biblical meaning of the “brothers of Jesus.” In today’s society, as it was in the days of Jesus, the word “brother” had another meaning other than being a biological brother. The Natives of North America call each other “brothers”, although in most cases, they are not related. When watching television, we notice how the black people call each other “brothers,” although they are not related. The moslems in Canada often called each other “brothers” although they are not related. Prisoners call each other “bro” or “brothers” although they are not related. Members of religious groups call each other “brothers.” Even those who are involved in illegal drug activities, they call each other “brothers.” Yet none of these groups are really blood related to each other.
Why do these groups of people call each other “brothers?” It is because the word “brother” in these cases has a totally different meaning. The usage of the word “brother” in these cases has to do with association by culture, peers, race or religion. Some people like to emphasize that they belong to the same race. Equally, some like to emphasize that they belong to the same culture, a particular peer group or the same Church.
All of us, sometime in life, will experience being introduced as a “brother” or “sister” to someone. It might be because of the friendship between two persons or the manner in which one is introduced to a certain group. At the same time, one knows that truly, he is not the “brother” or “sister” of the other person.
It was the same in the Jewish culture. The Jewish people, not belonging to the gentile nations, made reference to each other as “brothers” and “sisters.” When introduced, this identified them as “one of them,” as a Jewish person. When something was written about the Jewish people, they were referred to as “brothers” as a means of saying they were Jewish.
To complicate the matter, the Hebrew language did not contain a word that meant “cousin.” Instead, the word “brother” was used for both, the words “brother” and “cousin.” When the Jewish scholars translated the early Church writings from Hebrew to Greek, they literally translated the word “brother” as “brother.” Since they were accustomed to the word that could mean either “brother” or “cousin,” they did not believe that it was necessary to define when it means “brother” or when it means “cousin.” Therefore, in instance where a reference might be made to a cousin of Jesus, the word “brother” was applied. While this person may have been a blood relative, he was not a biological brother.
Now, let us review the claim that James was the brother of Jesus. In Mark 15:40, we read, “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” It is clear from this verse that Mary, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Bible makes reference to more than one Mary.
To conclude, I want to present some logical facts that clearly indicate that Jesus could not have had brothers. These are:
1) If Jesus had brothers or sisters, does common sense not state that the descendants from Jesus’s mother would be proud of it? And accordingly, would these descendants not be claiming their rightful place as descendants of Mary? Yet, this has never happened!
2) The Catholic Church has always proclaimed that Mary was ever-virgin. If such was not true, why has her alleged other children and possibly descendants ever publicly renounce the virginity of Mary as a lie? It is because there are no other children or descendants of Mary.
3) If Mary would have had other children, Jesus would not have been as popular as He was. Jesus was popular because He was recognized as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the words found in the Gospel of Matthew where it states, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophoet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means, 'God is with us.'" [Mt. 1:22-23] If Mary would have had other children, the prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been fulfilled. And Jesus would not have been recognized as being the Messiah.
4) In the Gospel of John, we read, "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, 'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." [Jn. 19:26-27]
If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom, they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died. But this was not the case. Jesus placed the care of His mother, Mary, into the hands of the Apostle John.
5) In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.
6) In Mark 6:3, we read, "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?' And they were offense at him." Notice here that there is only one reference to "the son of Mary," that being Jesus. The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.
Knowing that Jesus had no biological brothers, we can speculate regarding the status of his brothers. They could have members of Jesus' religious group. The could have been cousins. They could have been adopted by Joseph and Mary. Or, if Joseph had fathered children from a previous marriage and was a widower, then the brothers would actually be half-brothers of Jesus. While all of these speculations are possible, they do not contradict the fact that Jesus had no biological brothers who shared Mary and Joseph as parents. Those who claim otherwise, they have failed to thoroughly study the facts that are found in the Holy Bible.
Link to this site: APOLOGETICS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)