BATTLE ROYAL WITH PRO-REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL NO. 5043 SUPPORTERS, Part 7 Demolishing the Jehovah Witnesses' Accusations

The Eternal High Priest

Charlie 7 Oct, 2009

@Kapatas, i’m not good in debate. i already said my piece, don’t distort it. and please don’t quote to me bible verses, it won’t work.

Engr. Jojo 7 Oct, 2009

@All proponents of RH Bill, it is no big deal for us if the MORALIST HYPOCRITES are branding Contraception as Immoral, total papasa at papasa din naman ang Bill na yan. Hayaan na lang natin ang mga Pari at ibang mga moralist tulad nina Kapatas, Albert at iba pa ANG PUMUKOL NG UNANG BATO sa mga nagsusulong ng Batas na ito, baka na naman na ang mga ito’y walang kabahidbahid ng kahit konting immoralidad.

Malaki nga naman ang mawawala sa simbahang katoliko kung ipapatupad ang batas na nagsusulong sa Family Planning. Mababawasan ang mga SANGGOL na BIBINYAGAN (magkano ba ang binabayad ng bawat ninong sa binyagan? anyone?)Mababawasan ang magpapakumpirma, Mababawas ang magpapakasal kung maiiwasan ang pagdami ng tao.

Doon sa mga gumagamit ng contraceptive, sino ba ang nakokonsensya na sila ay nakagawa ng immoralidad, kung mangumpisal kayong gumamit ng contraceptive, ano kaya ang maging penance ninyo? siguro walang kapatawaran, PUMATAY daw kayo, eh? Ewan ko ba, rest na lang ako. Ikakapanya ko na lng si Noynoy at magbigay ng kaalaman tungkol sa RH Bill sa mg tao, then bahala na ang konsensya nila kung dapat bang magplano ng pamilya.

Charlie 7 Oct, 2009

@Engr. Jojo, ang isang napakagandang tanong sa mga lider ng simbahan e ganito: kaya ba nilang akuin, ampunin, pakainin at suportahan lahat ng “mga batang” nagkalat sa kalye, walang makain, namamatay sa sakit, walang matirhan, hindi nakakapag-aral, kriminal, namamalimos, maagang nagbebenta ng laman, nagra-rugby, exploited, etc, etc? yan ang realidad natin ngayon.

Albert7 Oct, 2009

@Francisco. PART 1

Let me respond to your points raised earlier: Since you are calling us HYPOCRITE MORALISTS, LET ME CALL YOU HYPOCRITE CONDOMIST AND IMMORALIST!

Just like you I’ve been born a Catholic, baptized and grew up in the Catholic Church. I’ve got friends during my high schools days who tried to convert me to be a member of the Jehovah Witnesses but instead of simply believing their accusations against my Catholic Faith I decided to read the Sacred Scriptures and the Creeds and Catechisms of the Church.

I found it unbelievable their portrayal of the Church as evil and violent because it is so contrary to my own experience of our priests and nuns. The teachings that we used to receive is that “We have to love God and our neighbours” and that we must not kill. Our parish priests, and we had several of them, never taught us to kill but ways of peace. The nuns who taught us Catecheses were also unanimous in inculcating virtues in our lessons. My parents are devoted Catholics but they didn’t teach us to kill. Thus, my conclusion is that the JW accusing the Catholic Church is downright trying to decieve me or simply parroting the teachings he was given... brainwashed.

Your portrayal of the Church as evil and violent is more a product of the venomous attacks of the JW against our faith which is understandable because newly found religions usually aim to destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church to gain followers. The Catholic institutions in this country are well respected: Ateneo Universities, The La Salle, UST, San Beda, Letran, Sta. Scholastica, Assumption, etc. which of them teach violence and evil against our fellowmen. Instead, your accusations are not founded on actual verifiable truth but a distortion of history, exaggerating what had happened in the past and interpreting it according to the norms and circumstances of the present time instead of looking at it based on the norms and circumstances of those periods.

CONCERNING THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. James stated “This is my decision”… He said that but did it make him higher in authority than Peter? No. When the Speaker of the House or the Senate President declared: “This is my decision.” It doesn’t mean that he is higher than the President of the Republic of the Philippines sitting within the Hall or even outside. It is obvious that James simply followed the statement of Peter who was the one who settled the long dispute [Acts 15:6-10]. The debaters fell into silence when Peter spoke and that decision was simply upheld by James.

It is obvious in the entire New Testament that Peter is more prominent than James. No other apostles can equal Peter in prominence. In the Gospels, James is hardly mentioned speaking and after the Ascension of the Lord Peter took over the leadership. The one who was always with Jesus were Peter, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. Once again I present this:

“Concerning James presiding in Jerusalem Council, of course he presided in that Council because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter was of Rome. But don’t tell me that James is more prominent than Peter. It was to Peter that the Keys of the Kingdom were given [Mt 16:18-19] and it was Peter who was charged to Feed the Lord’s Sheep [John 21:15-17] and the one who was prayed for by Jesus to strengthened his brethren is Peter not James [Lk 22:31-32]. In the list of Apostles, Peter is always on the top. Who decided for the election of Matthias? PETER. Who made the First Sermon after Pentecost? PETER. Who faced the Sanhedrin as leader of the Apostles when they were arrested? PETER. Who decided that the Gentiles shall be baptized? PETER.

It is too much stretch of imagination to claim that James is greater than Peter. Even in Acts 15 it was obvious that James simply followed the decision of Peter. It was Peter’s stand that made the assembly fell into silence and put an end to the long bitter debates.”

CONCERNING PAPAL INFALLIBILITY: The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Anti-Catholics often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Anti-Catholics like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching on that particular case. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

CONCERNING PETER’S WHEREABOUTS DURING HIS LAST DAYS:

You claimed: “Peter, his wife and son Mark sent letter and greetings to the christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bthynia from BABYLON (Modern Iraq) (1 Peter 1:1; 5:12-14)”.

• None in the text you presented shows that Peter was with his wife. Indeed Peter is married, in fact the ONLY Apostle mentioned as married but there is no statement in the Bible that Peter was still living with his wife because he has abandoned his family for the sake of the Kingdom and followed Jesus who was not married. St. Peter himself declared that he left ALL for Christ and the Lord Jesus specified what Peter had abandoned:

Luke 18:28-30 (King James Version) “Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or WIFE, or CHILDREN, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.”

Part of the Blessedness of Peter was his act of leaving behind everything to serve the Lord wholeheartedly.

• The Mark you have mentioned is not the biological son of Peter but Mark the Evangelist, his companion and younger friend whom he considered as spiritual son just like Paul to Timothy and Titus. That is the reason why the Gospel According to Mark is considered authoritative because it bears the authority of Peter. Mark served as companion and secretary to Peter. Both Catholic and Protestant scholarship do not refer to Mark as biological son of Peter. Paul referred to Timothy as his son also although he was not married just like our priests and bishops today:

1 Timothy 1:18 [KJV] "This charge I commit unto thee, SON Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare…"

• Peter sent letter and greetings to the christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bthynia from BABYLON (Modern Iraq) (1 Peter 1:1; 5:12-14). EXCUSE ME. The Babylon mentioned there is the Pagan Rome. Almost all scholars refer to that Babylon not as MODERN IRAQ as you claimed but to Rome. For early centuries Christians, Babylon is the other name for Rome. The Babylon in Modern Iraq, the one built by King Nebuchadnezzar, was already destroyed as a great city then. Rome is called Babylon because like what the Babylonians did, the Romans conquered the Holy Land and destroyed its temple. You yourself unknowingly admitted it when you referred to Rome as the Whore of Babylon. You didn’t refer to Modern Iraq but to Rome. Nakakatawa ka, because the Iraqis do not claim that their city is where Peter lived and died. You were caught flat on that.

Albert7 Oct, 2009

@Francisco, PART 2

YOU CLAIMED THAT THE 7 SACRAMENTS ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE and now you changed tune. Baptism, Marriage, etc are in the Bible but you transferred your attack on some details. That is why before you make generalized accusations please think it over. You are very rash in accusations but when they are examined in the light of the Scriptures you are backtracking.

Baptism is mentioned in the Bible, so, it is Biblical. There is no statement in the Bible that BAPTISM IS IMMERSION ONLY. Is there? How about sprinkling? Is it against the Bible? Well, it so happened that we Catholics are following this Word of God:

Ezekiel 36:25-27 (King James Version) “Then will I SPRINKLE clean WATER upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

That Word of God Almighty is being fulfilled in the Catholic Church. My question is, if the Jehovah Witnesses is the fulfilment of this Divine Prophecy how come you don’t have sprinkling of Holy Water?

• You called an infant “FAITHLESS”. Where in the Bible will you find that statement that an infant is faithless? Will you please point it out to me? Chapters and verses, please. Because the words of the Scriptures that I have read are different from what you are claiming:

Matthew 11:25 (King James Version) “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”

O ho, great wisdom and knowledge have been REVEALED to the infants and therefore they know more than you and me. How can you claim that you have faith while the infants do not? They could have better faith than you. It is true that they cannot speak yet but it doesn’t mean that they don’t have faith. Definitely God sees something in them that we do no see. And the Catholic Church trusted that declaration of the Lord Jesus. And St. Paul attests to this:

2 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version) “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Imagine, St. Paul says that Timothy has known the Sacred Scriptures from childhood yet you claim that the infants are faithless. In Tagalog ANG BIBLIA the words use: “MULA SA PAGKASANGGOL”. Ha, ha, ha… Poor Jehovah Witnesses infants, Jesus proclaims them as more knowledgeable than the wise and the learned, St. Paul and the Catholic Church proclaim them as such yet for Mr. Francisco and the JW they are faithless and ignorant. That is the effect of so much Condoms and drinking so many Contraceptive Pills, their offspring are becoming faithless.

How can they be faithless when they can give God PERFECT PRAISE? Matthew 21:16 and Psalm 8:2 says: “Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” HOW ABOUT YOU FRANCISCO, DO YOU OFFER GOD PERFECT PRAISE OUT OF YOUR MOUTH?

Your claims are so contrary to what Jesus and the Bible claim. The Infants are more knowledgeable and can give perfect praise then you make them appear as if incapable of faith in God.

CONCERNING CONFIRMATION: This Sacrament is known as THE LAYING OF HANDS ON THE BAPTIZED and the ANOINTING OF THE ZEAL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The sacrament of confirmation is found in Bible passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, which speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it is not a narrative account of how confirmation was given and, thus, cannot be dismissed by those who reject the sacrament as something unique to the apostolic age. In fact, the passage refers to confirmation as one of Christianity’s basic teachings, which is to be expected since confirmation, like baptism, is a sacrament of initiation into the Christian life. We read: “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1–2).

Notice how in this passage we walked through the successive stages of the Christian journey—repentance, faith, baptism, confirmation, resurrection, and judgment. This passage encapsulates the Christian’s journey toward heaven and gives what theologians call the order of salvation or the ordo salutis. It well qualifies as “the elementary teachings” of the Christian faith.

The laying on of hands mentioned in the passage must be confirmation: The other kinds of the imposition of hands (for ordination and for healing) are not done to each and every Christian and scarcely qualify as part of the order of salvation. As the following passages show, the Church Fathers and early Christian writers also recognized confirmation as a sacrament distinct from baptism, even though it was usually given simultaneously with baptism. Their words speak powerfully about this anointing and imposition of hands for reception of the Holy Spirit and the role it has in Christian initiation.

The term Confirmation is the English translation of Confirmatio which comes from the verb Confirmat. This is derived from the Latin Bible because the Bible used by the early Christians were in Latin: “qui autem CONFIRMAT nos vobiscum in Christum et qui unxit nos Deus et qui signavit nos et dedit pignus Spiritus in cordibus nostris » [2 Corinthians 1:21-22 Latina vulgata]. In English it is translated as CONFIRMS or in old English CONFIRMETH : "Now he that CONFIRMETH us with you in Christ and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts." [2 corinthians 1:21-22 Douay-Rheims Version].

2 Co 1:21

* Establishes (bebaio?n). Present active participle from bebaios, firm. An apt metaphor in Corinth where confirmation of a bargain often took place (bebaio?sis) as Deissmann shows (Bible Studies, p. 109) and as 2Co_1:22 makes plain.

* Anointed (chrisas). From chrio?, to anoint, old verb, to consecrate, with the Holy Spirit here as in 1Jo_2:20.

From the above Biblical texts the names given by Catholics to this Sacrament are: * CONFIRMATION,* ANOINTING WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT,* SIGNING OR BEING SEALED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

And that is also what is being performed during that Sacrament: The laying on Hands on the Baptized and the anointing of the sacred Oil as a zeal of the Holy Spirit.

CONCERNING ANOINTING OF THE SICK: You claim that this is not in the Bible. I think you are being blind to it because IT IS IN THE BIBLE:

James 5:14-15 (King James Version) “Is any SICK among you? let him call for the elders [PRESBYTERS] of the church; and let them pray over him, ANOINTING HIM WITH OIL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

That holy act of Anointing the Sick with Oil in the Name of the Lord is not invented by James that is something that they’ve learned from the Lord Jesus:

Mark 6:13 (King James Version) “And they cast out many devils, and ANOINTED WITH OIL MANY THAT WERE SICK, and healed them.”

So, it’s not in the Bible ha!

CONCERNING MARRIAGE: You claimed that Marriage rites are “performed by Secular Authority” (Mat. 22:2,10; John 2:1,2). I checked those verses that you have given and Lo and Behold IT IS NOWHERE STATED THERE THAT MARRIAGE IS PERFORMED BY SECULAR AUTHORITY ONLY:

Matthew 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,”

Matthew 2:10 “So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.”

So, where is the secular authority there performing Marriage Rites? Please be honest with your claims. It is not proper to make deceptive claims just to win pogi points. That is not the values of the Aquinos who are devoted Catholics. I agree that Marriage could be contracted by secular authority that is why Catholic marriages are valid ecclesiastically and civilly. But, it is never stated in the Bible that Marriage can be contracted by secular authority ONLY.

Since Jesus established and empowered the Church, the power to bind and to loose belongs to the Church ALSO [Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18]. Thus, the contract of marriage will not be valid for the Church members if it will not be validated by the Authority of the Church.

Albert7 Oct, 2009

@ Francisco, PART 3

CONCERNING ROYAL PRIESTHOOD:

“ROYAL PRIESTHOOD of 144,000 thats why they are Royal Priesthood because they are to rule as Kings and Priest with Christ the Kings of Kings and High Priest”

So, you have admitted that Jesus is not the only priest as you claimed earlier. There are other priests beside Him. That is the Catholic position and you have supported it here. Actually, JESUS IS THE ONLY HIGH PRIEST but not the only priest because there is a priesthood of the believers.

“they will represent the twelve tribes of the “Spiritual Israel” (Israel at heart, as the fleshly Israel have long been dispersed with Judah and Benjamin tribes were remnants)”

Ha, ha, ha… it is not stated in the Bible that this is a “Spiritual Israel”. Where did you get that? I think this is another joke from you just like your BIG BROTHER blunder.

Most probably you mean ‘Symbolic’. In anyway it is not literal, it refers to the Church, THEN ONE FOUNDED BY JESUS AND NOT BY CHARLES TAZE RUSSEL in 1872. Definitely that one is not in the Bible and not apostolic in origin. In any case, it does not refer to the JW because you don’t have priesthood at all. It favors more the Catholic Church.

“They are referred in the Bible by Christ as. “First Fruit” (Rev. 14:4), “Kingdom of Priest and Kings”, (Rev.5:10) “Marked with the Fater’s and Christ’s names in their Foreheads”, (Rev. 14:1)”Little Flock”, (Lu 12:32)”

Let me examine them one by one:

“First Fruit” (Rev. 14:4)” Definitely this is not the JW. Because it is NOT the First Fruit. It is founded only in 1872 so it came later. The Apostles have nothing to do with that group. They are simply using the name of God to deceive people to join them. On the other hand, the Christians of Jerusalem and Rome belongs to the First Fruits. The Roman Christians were even addressed in an Epistle and after the Act of the Apostles the First Epistle mentioned is that addressed to the Romans, showing the great importance of that Seat of Christian Faith. The JW faith is not even third or fourth… It came from the United States in a very later period. So, stop daydreaming about it. The JW are ROTTEN fruit.

“Kingdom of Priest and Kings”, (Rev.5:10) Definitely it is more appropriate for the Catholic Church than the JW. We have priests and we refer to each other as participating in the priesthood of Christ. JW doesn’t have priests. Also, the Catholic Church is set up like a Kingdom, the way it was designed by the Apostles during the first century of Christianity.

“Marked with the Father’s and Christ’s names in their Foreheads”, (Rev. 14:1) Once again this fits the Catholic Church. When we were baptized and during Confirmation our foreheads were marked with Holy Oil with the Minister reciting: “IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” [Matthew 28:19]. This is done only in the Catholic Church. The JW do not have that. So stop hallucinating that it refers to JW.

“Little Flock”, (Lu 12:32)” That little flock was little during the time of Jesus when there were only the 12 Apostles, 70 Disciples and Mary with the women. But Jesus commanded His Apostles to proclaim the faith to all nations [Matthew 28:18-20]. Now 2,000 years later the Faith has been preached to various tribes and nations and peoples and cultures. Definitely the Church has grown in number [Rev 7:9]. Jesus said “Little flock” when He was talking to them but he also stated that the Kingdom of God is like a Mustard Seed that is very small but later will grow into a large entity and will house many [Matthew 4:30-32]. In fact, the imagery used is that it will become THE BIGGEST PLANT [cf. Today’s English Version]. There is no statement in the Bible that the Church will remain small and composed of few. If you have read something like that please show me.

Besides, the JW is no longer a little flock now. They too has grown into a considerable number. So, don’t imagine something that doesn’t apply to your beloved group at all.

“The countless Great Crowd from all the nations mentioned in Rev. 7:9 are not priestly as they are positioned in front of the throne and of Jesus Christ. Isa. 66:1 God said, “Heaven is my throne while earth is my footstool…” since the Great Crowd in the apocaliptic vision of John is in front of the throne, they have the hope for salvation in the New Earth not Heaven unlike the 144,000 who will rule with Christ as kings and Priest for a thousand years.”

Once again you are lying to us. The Kingdom of Priests mentioned in the Book of Revelation [Rev 5:10] refers to THOSE WHO WERE WORSHIPING GOD IN HEAVEN AROUND THE THRONE OF GOD [Rev 5:6] AND THE STANDING LAMB WHO IS JESUS. They are worshipping by Kneeling down or prostrating [Rev 5:8] just like the Catholics. Also LIKE THE CATHOLICS THEY WORSHIP USING INCENSE [Rev 5:8]. Are the JW worshipping by kneeling? Are you worshipping with Incense? WE DO.

Then in Rev 5:10 it is stated: “You have made US unto our God KINGS AND PRIESTS and we shall reign on the earth.” They are worshipping in heaven and they shall reign on the earth. Well, which is the reigning Church today? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Which Church has priests today? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AGAIN. The priests of Episcopalians, Anglicans, Aglipayans, etc. are simply followed from the Catholic priesthood.

It is too much stretch of imagination to apply these verses to your Charles Taze Russell Witnesses. Very very far.

I WANTED TO REFUTE YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT INQUISITION AND RIZAL BUT I NOTICED THAT THERE IS NO NEED BECAUSE KAPATAS IS EXCELLENTLY DOING SO ALREADY.

So, "there is no need to debate publicly" you say. Why did you enumerate here your malicious attacks against our faith? The topic on this post is about RH Bill and you used this comment section to release the venoms of JW’s against the Catholic Church. Our Church is doing a lot of good works in the society and we never teach our faithful to kill people yet you are concocting accusations invented by the JW simply to gain followers from us.

Just simple questions to end this response:

1. WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU FIND THAT THE TRUE CHURCH WILL BE FOUNDED BY CHARLES TAZE RUSSEL?

2. WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT THE TRUE CHURCH WILL COME FROM PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA?

3. WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU FIND THAT THE TRUE CHURCH WILL APPEAR ON EARTH IN 1872?