RELIGION

[bisaya70]

---

i suppose it is normal for them to do that, mao ra pod na imong maabot if u dont want to "seek and learn". like they said, they lean on their own understanding.

[richard79]

ehem, dia akong tampo o, dong richard basaha ni dong, o. if u have anymore questions, maybe i can help u. pangutana lang.

It's amazing to me that some people have a hard time accepting the idea of asking saints to pray for them. Many non-Catholics have the mistaken concept that that our prayers to Mary and the Saints are prayers of adoration or worship. The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that Catholics are to worship God alone. Prayer of worship to other than Almighty God would be idolatry. Our prayers to Mary and the Saints are only prayers asking for their intercession on our behalf. Many say that any form of communication with the dead including prayer to the saints is condemned by the Bible. Quite often they quote:

Deuteronomy 18:10-12
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

The practice of conjuring up spirits, and asking a servant of God to pray for you is quite different and this should be obvious to most people. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Jesus is an abomination to the Lord? Jesus conversed with the Dead. No I don’t mean instances when he raised Jairus’daughter from the dead by saying, “little girl arise.”(Mark 5:41) or when he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead by shouting “Lazarus come forth” (John 11:44). I’m talking about the time He chatted with Moses and Elias at the Transfiguration.

Mark 9:4
And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Elias is the Greek form of the name Elijah that translators used in the KJV of the New Testament if you aren’t sure who Elias is. The KJV of the Bible is the only version that uses Elias all others use Elijah. Now we know that according to Scripture Elijah was carried away in a fiery chariot. There is no evidence in scripture that tells us he died so we won’t even discuss him. But Scripture not only tells us that Moses died but we are even told his age at his death.

Deuteronomy 34:5-7
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

Catholics believe as do our non-Catholic Christian friends, that there is only one mediator between God and man and that mediator is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). We do believe, however, that there is nothing wrong with having a member of our church pray for us. There are many examples of this in the Bible. Paul asking for prayer, Paul praying for others, and scriptures encouraging us to pray for each other.

2 Thessalonians 3:1
Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
The above verses show that it was a common practice for Church members to pray for each other. I can’t see what difference it makes if the church member we ask to pray for us is no longer on earth if we honestly believe our God to be the God of the living?

Matthew 22:32
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

As Catholics we believe that the Church is composed of three groups of believers. The first group is known as the Church Militant. This group is composed of human beings still on earth trying to complete the work that Jesus commissioned them to do and trying to conform themselves to His image. The second group is the Church Suffering. These are those who are in Purgatory being purged of the venial sins and imperfections they have not repented of. The third group of the Church is known as the Church Triumphant. These believers are the departed saints. Those humans who have completed the work that Jesus commissioned them to do and who have conformed themselves to His image. Together these three groups form what is known as the Communion of Saints. Distinct from each other but incorporated into one body by the Holy Spirit at Baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Romans 12:4-5
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

As members of Christ’s body, praying for each other is not only not condemned but encouraged.

1 Timothy 2:1-4
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Some non Catholics have asked me how Saints, being human, can understand prayers from many people speaking many different languages. Well one could bring out the fact that Saints will could have infused knowledge when in heaven and probably know all languages. We could also consider that since they aren’t limited by time and space many praying at once wouldn’t present a problem. You could also remember that even on earth people had and some still have the gift of interpreting tongues. It’s a charismatic gift of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the best thing would be is to ask yourself, how would Jesus answer this question? Now in my mind I picture Jesus being asked this question and I see Him answering this question the same way He answered a question in Matthew 21:23. (Look it up.) Now this is how my imaginary situation would go. Jesus after being asked the above question responds. You ask, “How can a Saint in heaven understand prayers from many people from different nations?” I have a question for you. If you answer mine I will answer yours. “How could the many people from every nation under heaven understand the Apostles at Pentecost?”

Acts 2:5-11
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Finally on the subject of saints, let’s look at the following verse:

Revelation 5:8.
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Ask yourself and contemplate this question before ever dismissing the idea of having saints intercede for you. If the prayers offered to God were prayed directly to Him why did the saints have them in their possession? I will close with the following reflection. We are one body. We are the Body of Jesus Christ. Those in heaven, those in purgatory and those of us on earth work together and support each other just as each organ of a human body benefits the whole body. If something is wrong with one part of the body the rest of the body reacts. If you don’t believe this, ask yourself the following questions the next time you accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer. Why are my eyes tearing? Why has my respiration changed? Why do I feel nauseous? Do I look stupid sucking my thumb? Get the picture?

thank you some were answered....

[bisaya70]

anytime rich.......

[dacs]

religion cant save you but faith can........useless ang pagwale ug pagkadeboto kung sila mismo mang-libak,mamalikas ug manaway sa lain taw.

Really? Are you saying lumping together faith and love? The Bible distinguishes between faith, hope and love? Sts. James and Paul even claims that there could be faith without love, without charity - and that faith will not save you. Will you now say that what you mean about faith is a living faith - one that actually convict you to do good works? Then, you are not biblical. Catholics believe that you first must believe (have faith) and show that belief in your action (do good works). Without faith, good works is nothing. Without good works, faith is dead. Catholics believe in both faith and good works as necessary for salvation. Protestant want us to believe that it is either faith or good works. Sorry, Catholics choose both.

Religion is necessary for your salvation. Have you read about the definition I give on religion? Read please. That definition had been how the early Christian understand the word, as it is how the Catholic Church understood it and continue to preserve its meaning. Have you ever asked why God demanded a temple to be built for Him? He commissioned the Levites to be a priestly tribe - consecrated to the services in the Temple. God even decreed that no individual except the Levites and the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. If religion is not necessary, why did God decree these things?

[tolstoi]

RELEGION IS FLAWED BECAUSE MAN ITSELF IS FLAWED!

[dacs]

its not an idea its a fact. and about killing someone, if you kill someone; of course that "someone's" family, friends would seek justice. you have to remember the rule: "do not do onto others what you dont want others do unto you" which in physics is "every action has and equal and opposite re-action". these rules exist even before buddah, and the physicians made or discovered them. so if you understand this rules it is what your "religion" is based from in order to preserve humanity from humanity it self, "resue me from me".

Then it is not relative. In fact, you have just told me that there are moral absolutes. You have just given me a moral 'reference' for every human act.

(You probably mean 'physicists' instead of 'physicians' - and they don't make any law; they only discover)

my point was "everything/everyone is not a whole, but part of a whole"

You are so Catholic, do you know that?! Catholics believe that the Church is the Body of Christ. As such, when one of its members, the rest suffers with him. Every Catholic can strengthen the other members of the Church by his personal sacrifices made for the Church. Well, I can explain the doctrine of the communion of saints but I don't have the space.

imagine a kid. who lived in an islamic community, who later starts believing allah all his life and do all the things allah teaches, until the day he died. then he comes to his "creator" then suddenly sees "jesus" and "jesus" told him that "you will go to hell because you did not believe in me". etc etc

now imagine a christian kid going through the same proccess then when he sees he sees his creator instead of "jesus/god" he sees allah. etc etc...

now that would be crazy and would be both unfair to those kids.

If you are a Catholic, then you have no problem with this possibility. You are thinking like a Protestant; so you have a problem with this possibility. Catholics do not see Allah as another God. I, a Catholic Christian, see Allah as God but understood by the Muslim as a Master (not as a loving Father as Christians believe Him to be). To a Muslim, God cannot be a Father nor can we be His sons and daughters through Christ. Christ, to a Muslim, is a prophet and less a prophet than Mohammed.

Catholics believe that every person has in his heart the seed and the need to understand and find God - including the voice (conscience) to do what is right because God demands it. If a Muslim never heard of Jesus nor the truth about the Christian faith, his ignorance will not be reckoned against him. But, upon being instructed to the Christian faith and finding it true, he still profess to continue with abiding in Islam, then that would be reckoned against him.

i am not agnostic, I believe in a God, and I do not have any questions because everthing explains it self. Please do not try to segretate things/ or people because "everyone/everthing is not a whole but just a part of a whole."

Do you really know what is an agnostic? The word was coined by TH Huxley who came up with the word ‘agnostic’ while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself “an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian…” and while he had much in common with freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately. His difference with the people who gave themselves the above labels was that he did not feel certain of his knowledge- or ‘gnosis’- that he “had successfully solved the problem of existence.” Do you not fit in that description? If not, then I am sorry for having arrived to such conclusion. Are you a theist then?

In your last statement, do you want us not to address you as of the same league with silent-kill? That would be segregating you from the rest of us humans. Do you not want to be segregated as human, mammal, vertebrate or ominivore? Can you please set the limit to your distaste for segregation if there is a limit to it?

Thank you and may the God that I know and worship bless you.

___________________________________
(the portion printed in darkred is taken from http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm)

[dacs]

what is true now may not be true tomorrow.

You mean that the truth of the Bible being the Word of God may be falsehood tomorrow? Prove please.

mr dacs i believe that you are a firm believer of you religion and i respect you for that. i would just like you to explain why some or maybe all catholic churches/houses have idols, images of saints, protraits etc. inside and often times i see people praying to them. can you please explain why?. i dont mean to attack any people so dont start flaming.

Certainly, bro. I personally do not take it as an offense. I take it as an opportunity to explain. Why does the Catholic churches have statues and other graven/printed/embroidered/painted images and pictures? Simple. God did not prohibit it.

You could read the explaination of this behavior in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 5 (from 946-959). I will give my take on this one:

QUESTION : Isn't prayer an act of worship?

In modern Protestant religious usage, yes, but as we have said, that is not the basic meaning of the term, and that is certainly not the meaning of the term in all circumstances.

It is the same with other concepts as well. Honoring God, for example, is an act of worship, but in other contexts honoring a person is by no means an act of worship. For example, Jesus himself reminded us of the duty to "Honor your father and mother" (Mark 7:10), yet he certainly was not commanding us to worship our father and mother.

Praying to God certainly can include acts of worship (praising him and proclaiming his greatness for example), but one could also simply ask God for help in a prayer.

The bottom line is that, when used in reference to the saints, prayer is certainly not an act of worship but is, as we have said, simply a request for their intercession.

For anyone who wishes to be cantankerous about this, all I can say is that there is something very different happening in my heart, and the heart of every Catholic, when one says, "Saints Peter and Paul, pray for me" than when one says, "O Lord God, you are truly supreme, you are the Infinitely-Holy, the All-Powerful, the All-Perfect Father of creation."

And I can further only say that unless one has been personally experienced with praying to the saints, one is not qualified to judge what is going on in the heart of another as one has not done it oneself. And, in fact, one should not be judging the hearts of others to begin with, but should take them at their word when they say there is a marked difference between the two. One should always remember Paul's injunction:

"Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3).

QUESTION : Why pray to saints? Is it not better to pray to God direct?

Not always. The same answer applies here as in the case of prayers to the Virgin Mary, who after all is the greatest of all saints. God may wish to give certain favors through the intercession of some given saints. In such a case, it is better to seek the intercession of that saint as God wishes. I can decide to give you a gift myself, or to do so through a friend. In the latter case, you do me greater honor by accepting it from my friend than by refusing my way of giving it to you, and insolently demanding it directly from myself in person.

ADDENDUM : I pray that you may see the futility of praying to saints who can do nothing for you. Christ is the only mediator.

By your very prayer, you are attempting to mediate between God and myself on my behalf. I do not criticize the principle of praying for others. I believe in that. But I do criticize your praying for me in violation of your own principles. If the saints cannot be mediators by praying for me, [then] nor can you. Your prayers would be futile; they could do nothing for me – and you would be wasting your time.

ADDENDUM : 1 Timothy 2:5 says that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

Correct, and Catholics also believe that.

QUESTION : Then why do Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary and other saints to make intercession for them?

Firstly, because doing so is not opposed to the passage you quote. Even though we pray to our Lady and the saints, it is in the Name of Jesus that we ask them to intercede for us, and it is that they may obtain for us a greater share in the fruits of His mediation with God on our behalf.

Secondly, not only is prayer to our Lady and the saints not opposed to the passage you quote, it is an application of it. For, according to the New Testament, Jesus makes all who belong to Him members of Himself. He is the Head, and we are the members. And the members are not only for Him, but they are for each other, and can help each other. For example, my eye is for me, and my hand is for me. But my hand can protect my eye if someone throws a brick at me. But always the power and the life in my eye or in my hand is my power and my life. So, too, I, a poor little member of Christ can appeal to much nobler members of Christ in the persons of Mary and the saints when the devil starts throwing bricks at me. But any power and life in our Lady and the saints is the power and life of Christ and is derived from Him. So I am appealing to Him after all – I, in Christ, appeal to Christ in other members whom He has deigned to associate more closely with Himself; and any hope I have in their intercession is in the name of Christ and through His one great mediation with God. Your difficulties are due to the very superficial view you have of our Christian religion, and a strange tendency to isolate members of the great family of the children of God one from another. From time immemorial, Christians have said, “I believe in the Communion of Saints.” That means the “common union” of all in Christ, and implies their communication one with another. Catholics understand this, and criticism from others is merely because they have no real understanding of the Christian religion.

ADDENDUM : An intercession loses all its charm for me when it is priced so high as to meet with a rebuke, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”

Firstly, that is not the correct translation of what Jesus said. According to the Greek text, He really replied, “Woman, what is it to me and to thee?” And there is no trace of a rebuke in His words. He was speaking in Aramaic, and the word for which ‘woman’ is the English equivalent was one of the utmost respect. Nor would Christ, the model of every virtue, address His mother save with the greatest reverence. Moreover, Mary had noticed the possible discomfiture of the hosts at the wedding feast in not having provided sufficient wine for the guests, and Christ would be the last in world to rebuke a request prompted only by charity.

Further, had Mary understood that Jesus intended to rebuke her, she would not have gone on with the matter, telling the waiters to prepare for what her Son would do. And still further, had Jesus intended to rebuke her for a wrong thing He would not have fulfilled her wish. Yet, He did so. It is impossible to interpret the reply He gave His mother as a rebuke. He uttered a common Eastern expression meaning. “It is not really our responsibility, Lady Mother of Mine.” And it is evident that He betrayed a smiling acquiescence as He said the words, so that Mary knew her request was granted.

QUESTION : When did God tell anyone to pray to human beings?

When the Catholic Church teaches us that prayer to the saints is right and useful, it is God teaching us that truth through His Church. But the doctrine is clearly enough indicated in Scripture also. I have mentioned Abraham’s prayer for Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33). The Jews asked Moses to go to speak to God on their behalf. God Himself said to Eliphaz, the Themanite, “My wrath is kindled against thee… but my servant Job shall pray for you. His face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you.” (Job 42:8 ) Earlier in that same book we read, “Call now if there will be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints.” (Job 5:1) His enemies meant that Job was too wicked to be heard, but they knew that it was lawful to invoke the saints. Long after the death of Jeremiah, Onias said of that prophet, “This is the lover of his brethren and of the people of Israel. This is he that prayeth much for the people and for all the holy city; Jeremiah, the prophet of God.” (2 Macc 15:14). St. James says that “the prayer of a just man availeth much.” If his prayer is valuable, it is worth while to ask his prayers. If you say, “Yes. That is all right whilst a man is still in this life and on earth.” I ask whether you think he has less power when in heaven with God? In Revelation 8:4, St. John says that he saw “the prayers of the saints ascending up before God from the hand of an angel.” If I can ask my own mother to pray for me whilst she is still in this life, surely I can do so when she is with God! She does not know less when she rejoices in the Vision of God; she has not less interest in me; and she is not less charitably disposed towards me then. But for you the doctrine of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in the Communion of Saints,” must be a meaningless formula. Christ is not particularly honored by your ignoring whose who loved and served Him best, and whom He loves much.

QUESTION ; Okay, I'm convinced that intercessory prayer is okay, but I'm confused. You've been talking about asking the saints to pray for you. Why do you call this praying to the saints?

Because the verb "to pray" means "to ask." The English word "pray" originally simply meant "ask," and so when one would ask God for something, one was praying to God, and in the same way when one asked another to ask on your behalf, you were praying to them to pray for you.

This usage began to change in English after the Protestant Reformation, when the people running the English language became Protestants. The idealized form of English is "the King's English," and the king of England was the head of the Protestant Church of England. In the same way, all of the universities in England went Protestant, and so English began to take on a Protestant ideological bent.

One of the Protestantisms that was introduced into English was to begin to restrict the verb "to pray" to God alone, and the semantic range of the word began to shrink in most circumstances. Still, however, there were survivals of the older, broader usage.

One of them is found, for example, in the British expression, "prithee," as in "Prithee, fetch the book" or "Prithee, do tell." "Prithee" is a contraction of "I pray thee" or, more contemporarily, "I ask you." (There are a lot of English contractions like that; "goodbye" is a contraction of "God be with ye" and "zounds!" is a contraction of "by God's [Christ's] wounds!" Check a dictionary.)

In America, where the movers and shakers of the English language were also Protestants, even this usage dropped off, but even here there are survivals of the older, broader use of the term, for example, in court documents.

Once back when I was a Protestant I had occasion to file a motion with a court, and when I got the paperwork my lawyer had submitted, I was stunned to see him writing things like "My client prays that the court will do thus and so." My Protestant sensibilities were shocked! "Your client does nothing of the sort!" I thought. But I was only encountering a survival of the older, broader use of the word "pray," of which I was at that time unaware, thanks to the efforts of my Protestant forebears in amp**ating it from the English language.

Another survival of the older usage of "pray," and the one which concerns us here, is of course its use in Catholic circles. English-speaking Catholics never dropped the older usage when the Protestants around them began to restrict its meaning, and so Catholics still today speak of praying to the saints and meaning by it simply asking the saints to intercede for us.

(Those parts in darkgreen are quotations from my pamphlet entitled On Praying to Saints and to Mary. Most of the entries of that pamphlet are quotations from other sources and therefore should not be taken as coming from my own experiences - especially, the italicized portions.)

please explain these verses.

"“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)"

Catholics do not worship the statues and other graven/printed/embroidered/painted images and pictures. You can read the official explaination of those verses in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1:IV. Care to read?

For Catholics, the second commandment is, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” but, for Protestants, that is the third commandment. Since the question most certainly may come from a Protestant, let us consider the point for the sake of argument. They have taken that part of the first commandment, which refers to graven images, as the second commandment. Is the making of images then forbidden by those words? It is not. God was forbidding idolatry, not the making of images. Again, in Num 21:4-9, the Lord instructed Moses to make a bronze serpent. In 2 Kings 18:4, God ordered the destruction of the bronze serpent (made by Moses in Num 21:8 ) but only after it had come to be worshipped. Prior to its destruction, it has been kept and preserved for about 800 years.

The numbering of the verses affords no argument. There was no numerical distinction of verses in the original Scriptures. Nor did God reveal such distinctions. All who are acquainted with the subject know that Scripture was divided into verses by men some centuries after Christ for convenience. The method of dividing the commandments, however, is not of very great importance. The complaints of Protestants against the Catholic division are rather like that of some modern daughter who would want to spell her name SMYTH, and who complains that her mother spells it SMITH. But the mother knows best how it should be written, and the mother Church knows best how the commandments should be numbered.

QUESTION : Do not graven images, symbols, relics, and other material things play a large part in the worship of the Roman Catholic Church?

No. They play their part within due limits and in a very secondary way only. Every Catholic knows that such external helps to religion have value only insofar as they reflect or stimulate the interior spirit of worship. Without that, they would be but the dead body of religion deprived of its soul.

QUESTION : But I have seen Catholics kissing the feet of the statue of the Child Jesus. Isn’t that idolatry?

If you kiss the photograph of your mother, are you giving honor to a piece of paper? Or is it a tribute of love and respect to your mother? Catholics kiss the image of the Child Jesus not because it is an idol or a piece of plaster, but because it stands for Child Jesus – remembering Him as the God Incarnate.

QUESTION : Some Catholics wipe their hankies on some parts of the statue hoping to be cured from sickness or ill-fortune. Isn’t that idolatry?

You would be correct if those Catholics expect to be cured by the statue – but they don’t. Instead, they hope to be cured through the statue. God, in his Infinite Mercy, could make use of the statue as an instrument of healing. Remember the hemorrhaging woman (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, Luke 8:43-4? She believed that, if only she could touch the cloak, she would be cured. She did touch the cloak of Christ and was immediately healed. It is quite evident in the Holy Scriptures that Christ sometimes used material things to bring about healing to a person. If God would allow such things to happen then, would you not allow Him to do it again to us today?

(the portions in darkgreen are quotations from the pamphlet I have made entitled On Graven Images and Statues.)

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven

CALL NO MAN 'FATHER'

This command of Jesus, found in Mt. 23: 9-10, is not about vocabulary. If it were, the New Testament writers wouldn't have repeatedly used the word 'Father' to refer to human beings. Instead, Jesus is warning us against putting our complete faith and trust in a human being rather than God. We must never submit our innermost being to anyone other than God himself. No prophet, no guru, no teacher should garner our total trust, only God. If simply using the word, 'Father,' to refer to a human being were wrong, we would not find the word used that way throughout the scripture. But of course we do – again and again:

Lk. 16: 24 – Jesus himself refers to "Father Abraham" in the parable of Lazarus the beggar. Would he have failed to follow his own command?

1 Cor. 4: 14-15 – "…I became your father in Christ through the gospel..." St. Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father. In doing so, he defines the way in which Catholics use the term, "father," in referring to a priest – as a "father in Christ through the gospel."

Acts 7: 1-2 – St. Stephen, the first martyr, says to the high priest and the elders and scribes: "'My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham…'"

Rom. 4: 17-18 – St. Paul refers to Abraham as "... the father of us all..." and "the father of many nations."

1 Thess. 2: 11 – "...we treated each one of you as a father treats his children..." Again, St. Paul describes himself as a spiritual father to the faithful.

1 Jn. 2: 13-14 – "I write to you, fathers..." St. John also appears to disobey Jesus' directive – an impossibility, of course. So we see that the vocabulary-based interpretation of Jesus' words cannot be correct.

Mt. 23: 8 – Actually, "father" is not the only word which the passage in question appears to forbid us from using: "'As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.'" "Rabbi" means "teacher." Yet the same people who object to priests being called "father" don't blink an eye when they refer to their Sunday school "teachers."

(All of the above quotations in darkblue are from the booklet entitled Catholic Doctrine in Scripture by Greg Oatis.)

[dacs]

@baby damolag
Usisaha sad bai kung ang inyong kinabag an cge og pahid sa rebolto nga dili makaangayon pahiran. Now you are talking about love ones nga na santos... how sure are you nga nasantos na sila or how sure are that their souls were saved already. me myself is not sure but it seems that you assumed already that they are in heaven.

Apil-apil ko, bay, ha?!

And please before ka mo tubag be open minded sa unsa akong gipasabot sa kani nga thread dili lang pataka og dasmag! SABTA unsa akong ipaibot ani and try to look around be open minded to question on things that you yourself i believe doesnt have a clear answer.

Your words - you yourself i believe doesnt have a clear answer - is a product of a close mind. You already believe that the other guy have no clear answer before that guy ever bothered to explain. Ngano man na?!

Now youre assuming again that i am a newly recruited born again christian... give me a break bai. as what ive said ive been into different extreme positions and i used to question God but the good thing God has found me again and answered my question on Him. NOW you answer my questions bai dili magpataka og sabat! Baby snmp!

So you are not the kind of Protestant who have the assurance of salvation. Indeed, you are not affiliated with people who call themselves born-again Christians. So what are you? Are you of the same position with silent-kill? You surely are a theist - not an atheist. What is your profession of faith then?

[dacs]

First of all.. if you try to check my post nag ask lang kog questions ok and im not putting something on this thread nga makahatag og kainit sa mga tigpamasa... anyways...to move on... another question part... it seems that you are very certain that your church is the real church or the true church as what youve said... but is there in the Bible mentioned about catholicism?

Quick answer? Because it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible and nobody else.

Your first mistake is to assume that everything must be in the Bible and that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Again, please read Acts 11:26. Before the book of Acts was written, there were already Christians. What is their rule of faith? The Bible? Impossible! That assumption - that everything must be in the Bible and that the Bible is the sole rule of faith - creates another problem. If everything must be in the Bible, what book in the Bible actually contains the list of books that should be in the Bible? None. Then, why do you believe that these books are inspired and worthy of belief? Because the Catholic Church said so. Pretty neat, ha?

can you really traced the history that peter started catholicism? please tell me.. maybe perhaps... you could say that catholicism is the true church because kani maoy pinakadugay but it doesnt mean nga mao nani ang gi endorse sa Ginoo. ok?

PETER AS FIRST POPE

Peter is clearly depicted as the first among the apostles, both by Jesus and by the evangelists. Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. All the other apostles combined are mentioned by name just 130 times. And the most commonly referenced apostle apart from Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter's authority is unquestioned, even by Paul. And Peter's name appears first in virtually every listing of the apostles, just as Judas' name always appears last. If there is a reason for the latter – which there obviously is – on what basis can we deny there is a reason for the former?

Mt. 16: 15-19 – "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah... you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Some Protestant apologists make much of the fact that the two words for 'rock' in the original Greek text, 'petros' and 'petra', have different gender endings. They claim that the gender ending results in different meanings – usually, in the size of the 'rock' in question. But the different gender endings are simply due to the fact that a man's name cannot have a feminine ending, while the Greek word for 'rock' does. The error in the Protestant position becomes abundantly clear when one realizes that in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke, there were no gender endings for nouns. So when Jesus spoke this sentence, he would have been saying, "…you are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church…" There would have been no difference whatsoever in the endings of the words; it would have been the exact same word used twice. This is just one example of Protestant believers reading the scriptures through the lens of their traditions, and missing the clear and obvious sense of certain key passages. The fact is, these are profoundly important verses, for they contain Jesus' unequivocal promise to protect and guide the Church he is to found, through St. Peter, to whom he entrusts the keys to the kingdom (see next item). Whenever God renames someone, he is calling our attention to a truly momentous event – as in Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul.

1 Cor. 15: 3-5 – According to St. Paul, St. Peter was singled out by Jesus after the resurrection: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve." Note too that St. Paul refers to St. Peter by the name Jesus gave him: 'Cephas,' which is, 'Rock.' This reference by Paul is alone enough to refute the alternative interpretations given for Mt. 16: 15-19 (see above). For example, if the word, 'Rock,' referred not to Peter, but to Peter's faith, then St. Paul would be making a terrible blunder in referring to Simon himself as 'Rock.' No, in the passage from Matthew, Jesus himself was clearly giving Simon a new name, 'Rock,' indicating a change in his status that was to have a momentous impact on salvation history.

Is. 22: 15-25 – Eliakim is given the keys of kingdom, thus becoming the most powerful man in the realm apart from the king himself. The keys are the sign of the royal authority. Because the keys are passed on to each successive officeholder, they indicate that the office lives on even after the individual who holds it dies. The king does not stop appointing stewards when one dies – the keys are passed along to another. Thus, Jesus' royal authority did not die with Peter, it was passed on to the next generation, as it will be until the end of time.

Rev. 3: 7 – "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this…" The keys belong to Jesus. In scripture, they are the sign of his authority. When he gives the keys to St. Peter in Matthew 16, he is simply delegating the authority which is his for all eternity. Thus, as Eliakim before him (see item above), St. Peter is chief steward of the kingdom who wields the king's authority.

Gal. 1: 18 – After St. Paul receives his revelations from the Holy Spirit, he travels to Jerusalem specifically to confer with St. Peter: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas..." This is an awesome indication of the position of authority which St. Peter occupied. Also note that once again Paul refers to Peter by the name Jesus gave him – 'Cephas,' or 'Rock.'

Is. 51: 1-2 – "Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried; Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth…" Abraham was the patriarch of the old covenant, and his name was changed by God to underscore his status. Abraham was also, in the passage quoted here, the only man referred to as "rock" until Jesus referred to Peter that way. Elsewhere, that metaphor was reserved for God (Deut. 32: 4; 1 Sa. 2: 2; Ps. 18: 3, etc.). So not only by referring to Simon as, "Rock," but also by changing his name in the process, Jesus is establishing an undeniable parallel between Simon Peter and Abraham. Peter is the patriarch of the new covenant, just as Abraham was the patriarch of the old.

Acts 2: 14-36 – "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed…" This is the first Christian sermon detailed in scripture. Already St. Peter's status as leader is clear, as shown by the title, "the Eleven," which never included Peter.

Lk. 22: 31-32 – Jesus prays for St. Peter alone among apostles: "'Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.'" Peter receives special attention from Jesus. Jesus observes that Satan is seeking to break the apostles' faith. Jesus' response is to pray for Peter and to direct him to hold the rest of the apostles firm. Jesus' statement dovetails perfectly with Peter's role as the 'Rock' upon which the Church rests, and with the pope's role in Church history.

Acts 15 – St. Paul and St. Barnabas struggle with the claims of the Judaisers. They travel to Jerusalem where Peter and the apostles set about addressing the matter of whether a Christian must follow Mosaic law and be circumcised: "...it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question... After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them..." This is a description of the first Church council, held in Jerusalem. Note that St. Paul did not attempt to settle the dispute by referring to 'scripture alone.' Instead, he defers to the authority of the Church. Also note that St. Peter settles the question after he has received – three times in fact – revelation in the form of a dream. (See Acts 11, where Peter explains the dream "step by step," just as popes today explain their teachings.) Clearly the Holy Spirit could not allow Peter to remain in error. When St. James speaks after Peter at the council, he is serving as moderator and summing up Peter's statement, since James is bishop of the city where the council is being held. Ever since, the bishops of the cities where councils are held have a ceremonial authority over the councils.

Mt. 10: 2-4 – St. Peter is specified as "first" among the apostles: "The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter..." Indeed, in every listing of the apostles, Peter is given first, and Judas last. We know why Judas was listed last. Can anyone claim that Peter's position – first – is without significance?

Acts 12: 5 – "...prayer by the church was fervently being made..." for St. Peter when he was in prison. No other apostle was graced in this extraordinary way, with the entire Church in prayer – not even St. Paul.

Jn. 21: 15-17 – Three times Jesus asks St. Peter: "Do you love me?..." and three times he commands Peter to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep." Note that Jesus makes no such request of any other apostle.

Mt. 17: 24-27 – St. Peter is supplied with supernatural means to accomplish the task Jesus gives him: "...go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open his mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you." Peter, in paying the tax for Jesus, acts as the Lord's proxy in this earthly matter.

Mt. 14: 28-33 – St. Peter is the one who walks on water, through faith; when he falters, Jesus reaches out to him and saves him. The history of the Church would suggest that this arrangement is ongoing.

Lk 5: 1-3 – St. Peter is called by Jesus; the boat and the nets are Peter's. "Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore." This is the source of the Church's nickname, 'the barque of St. Peter.' 'Barque' is an archaic word for a small boat. In St. Peter's boat, the Lord himself is riding.

Acts 1: 15-26 – St. Peter initiates and then supervises the choice of Judas' successor. "During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers..."

Acts 3: 1-10 – St. Peter performs the first miracle we see in scripture after Jesus' Ascension: "Peter said, 'I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have, I give to you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, [rise and] walk.' Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong. He leaped up…"

Acts 4: 8-12 – When St. Peter & St. John are arrested, Peter is inspired by the Holy Spirit and speaks for them. "Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them..."

Acts 5: 3-11 – When St. Peter condemns Ananias for dishonesty, he dies: "...Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit...?' When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it." We see very early God acting upon St. Peter's injunctions. His words have authority on earth and in heaven (see Mt. 16: 15-19, the first passage discussed in this section).

Acts 5: 15 – "Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them." This is a striking manifestation of the healing power of St. Peter's mere presence.

Acts 8: 9-25 – St. Peter pronounces judgment on Simon the Magician: "But Peter said to him, 'May your money perish with you...'" Simon is thrown into great fear because of Peter's admonition and he repents. He knows the authority by which St. Peter is speaking.

Acts 9: 36-43 – St. Peter restores Tabitha, who was dead, to life. "Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, 'Tabitha, rise up.' She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up." Again, God's power upholds Peter's actions.

Acts 9: 32-35 – St. Peter heals Aeneas: "Peter said to him, 'Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed.' He got up at once."

Acts 10: 9-43 – St. Peter receives a vision of the Gentiles' acceptance into the Church – remitting the circumcision requirement – three times before he yields. The Holy Spirit simply will not let Peter remain in ignorance or error: "Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, 'In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.'" This is a vivid and immediate illustration of infallibility. Note that it was St. Peter who was the object of this supernatural intervention – not St. Paul, who was at the heart of the controversy, nor St. James, who was Bishop of Jerusalem where the First Council was to be held. Peter needed to give his assent before the teaching could be promulgated by the Church.

Mt. 23: 1-3 – Jesus acknowledges the authority of even the Pharisees when they speak from the Chair of Moses: "...Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, 'The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.'" Incidentally, the phrase, 'the chair of Moses,' is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. The fact that the Lord refers to it here confirms the fact that Jesus acknowledged the authority of tradition.

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. That's a failure rate of less than 4 percent. By way of comparison, of the apostles picked by Jesus, one out of the original twelve was evil – representing a failure rate of 8 percent. So the supposed evil and corruption of the popes of history is hardly a reason to despair of the institution of the papacy. Indeed, we would suggest that the extremely low number of evil popes affirms the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their selection and their support. Also, please note that the interpretations of the verses presented 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, 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, Liturgical Press, p. 205).

(All text in green are taken from the booklet entitled Catholic Doctrines in Scripture by Greg Oatis.)

try reading the whole bible and open up your mind bro... ok? thanks again for giving me such good answers...

It seems to me that, with all the Bible verses which I have presented but you have not countered with your own, you need a lot of Bible reading. Some people would say that Catholics do not read their Bibles. It seems to be the opposite here. Sorry, but it had gotten so obvious.

[dacs]

First of all im not doing this to condemn anybody or any religious denominations... now you were saying nga wala ka ampo og laing Ginoo right? try checking other people pre... and try checking your rosary... why not go directly to God instead of asking help from other saints or doing the rosary which cannot be found in the Bible... just a thought lang... ngano kaha?

Which part of the rosary is not in the Bible? The repetition? But we are just following Christ! Have you read Matthew 26:36-46. These verses described the events that happened when Jesus prayed at the Garden of Gethsemane immediately before his arrest. Notice verse 44? The NRSV rendered this verse as 'So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words'. Prayed for the third time, saying the same words! This was Jesus, the Son of God, praying the third time using the same words. Vain repetition?

And im asking you pre... what church imong naadtoan pre kay akoy mismo mokatawa nila kay kapoy kapoy lang sila sa ilang laway...

Bro, it is not a Christian act to laugh at other people's way of worship. Certainly, not a Catholic reponse.

ive been checking some of the churches and it seems... nga ALMOST all wala kay madunggan nga modaot mismo sa Catholic church infact there was one church nga akong nasudlan and they even prayed for Pope John Paul after he died... and i was touched by their good hearts... so please try checking sa kanang church nga imong gisudlan pre nga cge og atake basig dili na church... basig rally gyud diay na!

That is your escape clause right? The 'ALMOST' thing. But what is ALMOST to you quantitatively? 99.99%? 99%? 90%? 75%? 51%? Certainly, not 50% or less. Give me the number. Do not make some escape clause.