Madonna with Child Pietro Lorenzetti
-
hello father, i'm catholic. can you please clarify what you said: IF THE PURPOSE IS PURELY FOR BIRTH CONTROL IT IS WRONG. my question is why is it be wrong? isn't it that it's better to choose NFP than AFP as birth control? isn't it that NFP teaches abstinence/self control even for purely birth control purpose? can you please tell me how NFP should be done/treated other than being a birth control method? if i have 3 kids and don't want anymore to have another, and i choose NFP to do it, does it mean i'm committing a sin? so either way NFP or AFP, i'm committing a sin? if i choose to make love to my wife during her infertile days to avoid conception (meaning birth control purpose), why is it wrong? didn't you say that it is still open to life? bottom line, what are the other purposes of NFP, if not birth control alone, so that i will not sin if i choose it instead of AFP?
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[hello father, i'm catholic. can you please clarify what you said: IF THE PURPOSE IS PURELY FOR BIRTH CONTROL IT IS WRONG.]
IT MEANS THAT EVEN IF WE ARE USING NFP OUR ATTITUDE IS MUST NOT BE EXCLUSIVELY REFUSAL TO BE OPEN TO LIFE. EVEN IF YOU WANT TO USE THE NATURAL PRIVILEGE STILL AS CATHOLIC YOU ARE BEING DEMANDED TO BE OPEN TO LIFE.
[my question is why is it be wrong?]
IT IS WRONG BECAUSE GOD IS A GOD OF LIFE AND NOT A GOD WHO IS CLOSED TO LIFE. IT IS WRONG BECAUSE YOUR 5TH OR 7TH CHILD COULD BE THE PERSON WHO WILL BRING PROSPERITY TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND THE COUNTRY. IN LIFE THERE ARE A LOT OF OCCASIONS WHEN THE YOUNGEST OR ONE OF THOSE BORN LATE WERE THE ONE BECOMING THE GREATEST HONOR AND BLESSINGS TO THE FAMILY. SO WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE TO BE CLOSED TO LIFE?
[isn't it that it's better to choose NFP than AFP as birth control?]
YES. BECAUSE NFP IS NATURAL AND STILL OPEN TO LIFE. IT IS NOT GOVERNED BY BIRTH CONTROL MENTALITY BUT BY FREEDOM IN BOTH BODY AND SPIRIT.
-
[isn't it that NFP teaches abstinence/self control even for purely birth control purpose?]
YES, BUT IF YOUR PURPOSE IS PURELY BIRTH CONTROL THE NFP IS STILL GOOD BUT IT IS YOU WHO IS NOT. BECAUSE YOU LOOSE YOUR TRUST IN THE LORD AND OPENNESS TO HIS GRACE. YOU ARE REFUSING THE POSSIBILITY OF A NEW CHILD WHOM HE CAN GIVE YOU AS A BLESSING.
TAKE NOTE, EVERY CHILD IS A BLESSING NOT A PROBLEM OR CURSE. THE SOURCE OF PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD IS NOT THE CHILDREN BUT OUR SINFULNESS AND IMMORALITIES.
[can you please tell me how NFP should be done/treated other than being a birth control method?]
SIMPLE. JUST USE IT AS A PRIVILEGE BUT CONVINCED THAT 'IF EVER'... GOD WILL STILL GIVE ME A BABY DESPITE THE NFP I WILL ACCEPT THIS CHILD AS A BLESSING FROM GOD. THAT IS OPENNESS AND FREEDOM.
[if i have 3 kids and don't want anymore to have another, and i choose NFP to do it, does it mean i'm committing a sin?]
WHAT IS WRONG THERE IS IN THE MENTALITY 'I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER KID'. IT MEANS THAT FROM NOW ON YOU JUST WANT TO ENJOY THE PLEASURE OF THE FLESH AND THE ENJOYMENT OF SEX BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OPEN TO ITS NATURAL BLESSING.
THAT MENTALITY IS SELFISH AND TOO MATERIALISTIC. YOU JUST WANT TO USE YOUR BODY FOR PLEASURE BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS NATURAL EFFECTS.
[so either way NFP or AFP, i'm committing a sin?]
EVEN IF THE METHOD THAT YOU USE IS GOOD IF THE INTENTION IS BAD THEN THE ACT IS BECOMING BAD. FOR INSTANCE, GIVING MONEY IS GOOD BUT IF YOU HAND MONEY TO ANOTHER BECAUSE YOU ARE PAYING FOR HER SEXUAL SERVICE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT IS PROSTITUTION. SO, THE NFP IS GOOD BUT IF YOU USE IT MERELY TO FEED YOUR SELFISH SEXUAL DESIRES AND PLEASURES WITHOUT BEING OPEN TO LIFE OF COURSE IT IS BECOMING A MEANS TO SIN. THE ROOT OF SIN IS NOT THE NFP BUT YOUR OWN SELFISHNESS.
[if i choose to make love to my wife during her infertile days to avoid conception (meaning birth control purpose), why is it wrong?]
IT IS WRONG BECAUSE THE INTENTION IS PURELY FOR BIRTH CONTROL PURPOSE ONLY. BUT IF YOUR PURPOSE IS THAT YOU ONLY WANT TO PLAN YOUR FAMILY AND PREFER TO HAVE A SPACING THAT IS WHY YOU CHOSE THE NFP BUT YOU ARE TELLING ONE ANOTHER THAT IF GOD WISHES TO GIVE US NEW BABY THROUGH THIS LOVE MAKING WE WILL ACCEPT HIS WILL THEN YOU ARE TRUSTING AND FAITHFUL TO THE LORD. THEN YOUR LOVE MAKING IS NOT ONLY FOR PLEASURE BUT LIFE-GIVING ALSO.
[didn't you say that it is still open to life?]
THE NFP IS OPEN TO LIFE BECAUSE GOD MADE IT OPEN TO LIFE. BUT IF YOUR PURPOSE IS PURELY BIRTH CONTROL THEN YOUR MIND IS NOT OPEN TO LIFE. SEE, WHAT COLORS THE METHOD IS THE PERSON WHO USES THE INSTRUMENT OR METHOD.
[bottom line, what are the other purposes of NFP, if not birth control alone, so that i will not sin if i choose it instead of AFP?]
THE PURPOSE OF NFP IS TO ALLOW THE COUPLES TO HAVE SPACING OF THEIR CHILDREN IN A NATURAL MANNER. BUT THE MARRIED COUPLE MUST USE IT WITH THE INTENTION OF BEING OPEN TO LIFE BECAUSE GOD IS NOT THE GOD OF THE DEAD BUT OF THE LIVING. HE IS THE GOD OF LIFE.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
this is a very clear explanation! thank you father! i'm richard by the way. this is just one of my so many questions in mind. i'm glad there is someone like you who can clearly explain things regarding the faith. i pray your strength and wisdom won't fail so that more people (catholics/non-catholics) can benefit.
ReplyDeleteO Richard. He, he, he... God bless you. Yeah I need prayers really to handle all these questions according to His Will.
ReplyDeletequestions on day to day activites:
ReplyDelete1) watching movies - as catholics what movies should we watch out? there are movies with a little violence and sometimes love making, sometimes a little naked women, but the story is good.
2) how about piracy? we always buy pirated dvds because they are cheaper. but recently i started thinking it is immoral to be a part of an immoral business because it's like buying a stolen item. am i correct? what should i do with my dvds? sell them? throw them away? i have a dora the explorer and barney dvds for my toddler who is now addicted to it. should i destroy them?
3) how about watching movies in the net? it is free. but as i observed, most of the movie sites are being closed by the authorities. i observed that most of these free movies (new ones) are not so clear (copied in cinema theaters as evidenced by shadows of audiences walking around)so i am thinking they are illegal although they claim they are legal because their website doesn't offer or play the movies itself but only the "link" to the movies where. is it a sin to watch these movies in the net?
4) how about pirated softwares? my computer has a lot of pirated softwares like: microsoft office, music softwares, etc. Even my Windows XP (Operating system) is pirated and the internet detected it, but thanks to the internet also, i was able to make it a genuine copy. how? i got the license from a person who shared it in the net. is it wrong to share licenses? may i keep my pirated softwares and promise not to buy anymore in the future?
just wanted to be sure that i'm not making my God angry with my day to day activities. more questions to come. thanks for being patient father.
richard
[1) watching movies - as catholics what movies should we watch out?]
ReplyDeleteIT IS OUR CHRISTIAN DUTY TO PROMOTE VALUES PROMOTING MOVIES AND AVOID THOSE THAT DEGRADE THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON AND IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH. SO CHOOSE GOOD MOVIES.
[there are movies with a little violence and sometimes love making, sometimes a little naked women, but the story is good.]
IF WE WATCH A MOVIE BECAUSE IT IS AN INTERNATIONALLY OR NATIONALLY PRAISED MOVIE OR A BIG HIT, THEN LET US CHECK IF IT IS PROPER FOR OUR CHILDREN OR NOT. ON OUR PART, OF COURSE OUR CHRISTIAN FORMATION MUST BE STRENGTHENED SO THAT WE KNOW HOW TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS NOT PROPER. AND TO HAVE THE STRENGTH OF THE SPIRIT NOT TO FALL INTO TEMPTATIONS DESPITE SEEING THESE MOVIES. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WE AVOID MOVIES THAT IS HARMFUL FOR OUR FAITH BUT IF WE DON'T KNOW ITS CONTENT AND WE WATCH OUR IMMUNITY DEPENDS ON OUR CHRISTIAN MATURITY.
[2) how about piracy? we always buy pirated dvds because they are cheaper. but recently i started thinking it is immoral to be a part of an immoral business because it's like buying a stolen item. am i correct? what should i do with my dvds? sell them? throw them away? i have a dora the explorer and barney dvds for my toddler who is now addicted to it. should i destroy them?]
ReplyDeleteNO NEED TO COMPLICATE. JUST STOP BUYING PIRATED MATERIALS.
[3) how about watching movies in the net? it is free. but as i observed, most of the movie sites are being closed by the authorities. i observed that most of these free movies (new ones) are not so clear (copied in cinema theaters as evidenced by shadows of audiences walking around)so i am thinking they are illegal although they claim they are legal because their website doesn't offer or play the movies itself but only the "link" to the movies where. is it a sin to watch these movies in the net?]
ReplyDeleteThe internet is a contemporary benefit of technology. It is not yet properly controlled by any government and therefore the morality of its use depends primarily on the operators, owners of the websites and the computer users.
It has a lot of benefit previously unavailable for instance, chatting is for free while on telephone they are very expensive.
As regards pirated movies in the net. The one commmitting sin there are those who are downloading and posting illegal things on the net. And on our part, if we notice that the contents or products they are giving are pirated then we should stop patronizing that site.
If we are really sure that the website has stolen data such as movies and we patronize them then we are a participant to an injustice and are sinning also but if we are not aware of it since we don't know exactly which movies are allowed or prohibited to be posted in the net then we are not sinning. Because watching is not evil per se but neutral. Using the internet is also neutral. Without full knowledge and full consent we are not committing sin especially if what we are doing is not intrinsically evil.
thank you very much father!
ReplyDeleteanother issue is about giving alms to street children. i recently heard Boy Abunda's Bottom Line interview with the secretary of DSWD saying we must stop stop giving alms to street children even if it hurts our heart. that way we can help them (gov't) in achieving zero street children by December 2011. i would like to refute what she said. can she not do her duty or achieve her goals if i continue giving alms to street children? if she really has the will, determination, and the effective program to help all those families so that by 2011 there are no more children in the streets, then she can do it even if i continue giving alms to them. besides, whom am i going to give alms to if they have successfully fulfilled their promise, right? my point is, it should be the other way around. DSWD must do as it promises so that we won't give alms anymore, than saying, we must not give alms so we can help DSWD do its work. it's just like DSWD is looking for a way out in case they don't fulfill the promise by dec 2011. it's just like giving the burden of the duty to people instead of them doing their job for the people. it's just like DSWD is saying, hey people of the philippines please stop earning money so we can help you drive away the burglars, because without money, no burglar will come to you. meaning stop doing a good act so the govt can eliminate a problem of society. if help is what DSWD needs then they should think of other ways people can help. why do i continue giving alms to street children (even adults)? because i find it in my heart that it is good to do it and it is an act of charity. some people say, what if the beggar used the alms for gambling or buying illegal drugs or solvent? my answer is, i don't care! i don't know whether the beggar will do such a thing or not! he will be answerable to God if he did. but nobody ever thought the other way around, what if the alms you give to the beggar is the only way he can get through the day without dying of hunger or his family of 10 waiting for him as the only hope to be fed with rice and noodles for the day? a lot of different reasons why a beggar begs, bottom line, we don't know the real reason. but my heart says, i pity you, i want to help you, i want to share your suffering, anyway the money that i'm giving away won't hurt me, but it "MAY" save a life. question: am i correct? what is the catholic church's stand?
YOU ARE CORRECT. MOTHER TERESA ANSWERED THAT WAY WHEN ASKED ALMOST THE SAME THING. I've read it in a book way back when I was a seminarian about 16 years ago.
ReplyDeleteShe was called to task by the reporter interviewing her saying that social policy makers and government officials are complaining that Mother Teresa was not helping them because she keeps on giving temporary food to the poor instead of helping in a long term solutions by discussing and planning. Also many of the kids on the streets must not be helped because they are under some syndicates.
Mother responded that her duty is not to make a long term solution and to do the planning but ease the present hunger of the poor. Let the policy makers debate and plan as long as they want but they cannot stop me [Mother Teresa] for doing the mission God has entrusted me.
The wordings are not exactly that way but the thought as I remember it is the same.
IF WE SEE A POOR IN FRONT OF US THEN WE ARE BOUND TO GIVE SOMETHING ON THE SPOT AND SHARE THE LITTLE YOU HAVE.
ReplyDeleteSUGGESTION THOUGH:
DON'T GIVE MONEY BUT FOOD. BREAD, RICE, OR COOKED FOOD, ETC. BECAUSE MONEY CAN BE TAKEN BY THE SYNDICATES OR BY THE PARENTS. BUT FOOD WILL BE EATEN IMMEDIATELY BY THOSE WHO ARE HUNGRY. THOSE WHO ARE NOT HUNGRY WILL THROW IT BACK TO YOU. HE, HE, HE...
hahaha! most of the time i give coins because i have spare coins in the car. seldom food because not always do i have food in the car. but next time i'll bring along biscuits. we have biscuits at home. thanks father!
ReplyDeleterichard
fr, another question, bakit may bayad sa catholic ang marriage, baptism? sabi ni mama eli sa kanila daw walang bayad. kasi ang turong tinanggap mo ng libre ibigay mo din ng libre. ang marriage at baptism daw ay kasama daw sa turo ng simbahan so dapat libre.
ReplyDeletei understand na baka malunod ang baby during baptism kapag submerged sa tubig, that's why binubuhusan na lang. at least this is how i understand it. but how about adults, those who are converted to catholicism? are they submerged under water? yun daw kasi ang ibig sabihin ng baptize.
richard
fr, another question, bakit may bayad sa catholic ang marriage, baptism? sabi ni mama eli sa kanila daw walang bayad. kasi ang turong tinanggap mo ng libre ibigay mo din ng libre. ang marriage at baptism daw ay kasama daw sa turo ng simbahan so dapat libre.
ReplyDeleteSI RICHARD KA BA TALAGA? BAKIT BIGLANG NAGING CHEAP ANG MGA SENTENCES AT ENGLISH MO? HE, HE, HE... RICHARD WRITES AND SPEAKS ENGLISH IMPECCABLY. HE, HE, HE...
HINDI BAYAD YON KUNDI OFFERINGS NG GODPARENTS AND SPONSORS.
THERE IS A FIX PRIZE, USUALLY P100.00 PER SPONSOR IN ORDER TO AVOID ABUSES. BUT A P100.00 OFFERING PER SPONSOR IS JUST AND REASONABLE.
ABOUT ALMS GIVING AGAIN RICHARD.
ReplyDeleteIF THEY RECEIVE MONEY THEY CAN USE IT TO BUY DRUGS. WHILE FOOD IS FREE OF THAT TEMPTATION. HE, HE, HE... I LEARNED THAT FROM ONE OF OUR OLD AND VERY WISE SOMASCAN PRIEST.
yes it is still me, richard. that's how i write, father. sometimes straight english then sometimes taglish. i just don't understand how my english became cheap. is it because i mixed it with tagalog? is that it? looking back, i don't find it cheap father. English is not my major, but i speak and write english well because i excelled in that subject from elementary til college. that's the reason why hindi baluktot ang grammar ko. that's the reason also, father, why i use basic english only. kasi nga Business ang major ko, not english. i really don't use english as my means of communicating orally. i do it only when writing. but sometimes nagkakamali din ako sa grammar especally if impromptu nagsasalita. unlike dito sa blog, i can edit once i review my composition and found flaws in it. i understand that you want to be sure you are talking to the same person and not some masked devil. i will inform you immediately if someone posts something using my name. or better yet, is there a way to post messages/comments so you can be sure that it is really me, like an automatic appearance of my profile instead of typing my name below? i have signed in already as follower of this blog. this is my first time to participate in a blog so you must forgive me. i can only select the "anonymous" profile since i do not know how to use the other selections. the first time i read your blog, i've been a daily reader and now decided to participate so that all of my questions in mind regarding the my catholic faith will be answered. and thanks to you, little by little, nababawasan ang list of questions ko. thank you very much!
ReplyDeleterichard
richard
HA, HA, HA... IT IS NOT CHEAP RICHARD. IT SO HAPPENED THAT I USED TO RECEIVE HIGH INTELLECTUAL IDEAS FROM YOU IN A VERY LOGICAL AND SYSTEMATIC MANNER SO THAT WHEN YOU SUDDENLY PRESENTED SIMPLE SENTENCES IT BECAME SUSPICIOUS FOR ME. THERE MIGHT ME ANOTHER PERSON CLAIMING TO BE RICHARD.
ReplyDeleteIT IS AN IMPROPER TERM TO BE USED. I DON'T MEAN IT TO BE 'CHEAP' IN THE REAL MEANING OF THE TERM, SIMPLY NOT AT PAR WITH THE KIND OF SENTENCES I USED TO RECEIVE FROM YOU. HE, HE, HE...
father, i changed my profile so i can follow you publicly.
ReplyDeleteanyways, i have another question. regarding the proper clothes to wear during mass. i'm a bit confused with the veil and long hair thing for women. i read in other catholic sites that women can wear hats. is this true? if she has long hair, then is it ok not to wear veil? or hat? or any covering? if women has long hair, is she exempted to wear a covering? how long is a long hair? women are prohibited to wear spaghetti or sleeveless (that's what the priest told us in our parish), which i kept on telling my wife so she would obey. you see, my wife is having a hard time obeying this, but recently she started obeying kasi nagagalit na ako. bawal din po ba ang tight fitting garments na pantaas at pambaba? how about outside the church (mass), pwede na ba magsleeveless ang babae? or tight clothes, or short shorts? how about in social parties, women usually wear sexy clothes. how about in swimming, is it a sin for women to wear tight fitting and very thin swim wear na halo labas na ang dibdib? aren't these violations of the bible verses in 1 Timothy 2:9-10? how then should my wife comply in the said occasions? eto na kasi ang nakaugalian ngayon. what i mean is that if these women wore this modern fashion during the olden times, i think malaswang malaswa ang dating sa mga kalalakihan kasi hindi sila sanay. but if they wear it today hindi na masyado malaswa. only those na may sombrang laswa ang isip ang siyang gumagawa ng pambabastos sa kababaihan. but on the other hand if women will just wear more decent clothings, then could help men not to sin. and again, on the other hand, even if women would wear decent clothes they can still be victims of men's sinful eyes. really confused. please enlighten me father.
also, is it a sin to wear expensive clothes, watches, bracelets, earrings? how do you define expensive? when does it become expensive. we have clothes, watches, jewelries, etc. which are, for me, expensive, but for others, like the rich people, they are cheap. are we sinning if we wear this things?
thank you very much!
richard
hi father, may i go back to wedding and baptismal 'offerings' because i remember having paid 25000 in the church for our wedding and 3000 for the baptism of my first born both in santuario de san antonio forbes park. the church staff didn't say that it was supposed to be offered by the godparents or sponsors. they just took the money so that the date can be booked. you said 'hindi bayad yon kundi offerings'. does it follow that these are free services of our church. if there are no godparents/sponsors, or let's say the godparents/sponsors refuse to offer any amount,will the church still provide the service for the couple and the baby?
ReplyDeletefather, i'm also waiting for your answer on my questions regarding clothing, which you approved. i'm not in a hurry. besides, there are still a lot of topics in this blog that i have to read, so please take your time if you have other more important questions to answer. i just wanted to make sure you haven't overlooked it. thanks!
richard
Dear Bro. Richard,
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't know how to respond to that may be because the amount is too shocking for me and besides I am not aware that a parish can ask such an amount for a sacrament, either Wedding or Baptism. THAT IS TOO MUCH... THAT IS SCANDALOUS.
However, I just want to console myself thinking that most probably those amounts were asked because the pastor of the parish know that his parishioners are either rich, very rich or super rich that they can afford such amount to donate for those sacraments.
For the Barrio folks 500 for Wedding and 50 pesos for Baptism are already heavy may be the parishioners of Forbes Park under the renown Santuario de San Antonio Church can afford that and that practice has become a tradition in that parish because of their financial status as the home of the Rich and the Famous of the Philippines. Perhaps the Parish Pastoral Council with its lay leaders unanimously approved it and since no one complaints then the Parish Priest presuppose that every body agrees with that.
May be the Parish really needs such great amount of money which it returns by the services it gives. For instance, the entire Church and its offices and seminar halls are airconditioned so the amount of electricity it is paying is also staggering. Thus, since the parishioners enjoy these privileges then they must also share in the pain.
Another point to be considered Brod, is the Social and Charitable works of the Rich Parishes. For instance, the other center of the Rich and the Famous in St. James the Great Parish Alabang. Its former Parish Priest, Msgr. Gerry Santos, was our Moral Theology professor when he was still there. He told us that the Parish has Sister Parishes in Mindanao, Palawan, Benguet, etc. So, from the income of the parish they are helping the construction of various Churches in several very poor areas in the country. Then, they also provide Tuition Fees of poor Seminarians etc. There are many things to be considered.
Our parish of ST. JEROME EMILIANI in Ayala, Alabang near Town Center is actually the one feeding our Two Seminaries: The College-Seminary in Pampanga and the Major Seminary in Tagaytay City. Because of the generosity of the parishioners many of whom are rich during our time our studies are 100% free. Then later some amount was asked so that the seminarians have at least little contributions. Now, I think the amount they are sharing for Education, Food, Dorm, etc. is only P1,500 per month while many diocesan Seminaries are asking for P10,000/month Tuition plus the Seminarian has to give 1 sack of rice every Semester. Our seminary is subsidizing about 90% of the needs of our Seminarians because of the generosity of our rich parishioners in Alabang. Our parents only took good care of our personal necessities during our first four years of studies.
I am just giving you reasons Brod. Probable reasons for the amount you have been asked to share to your parish. Remember, the Santuario de San Antonio belongs to the Franciscans. May be they are getting their Seminary bread from that parish too. In that case your 25,000 may have provided food for the Seminarians of the Franciscan Order for some days.
O GOODNESS, I DON'T KNOW ALREADY WHERE TO GET THAT QUESTION ON CLOTHING. HE, HE, HE...
ReplyDeleteAddendum:
ReplyDeleteIf the parents are really poor that they cannot give anything especially such an amount the Parish Priest is morally bound to give the Sacrament still. Because the Sacraments are for free.
The amount are established so that people will learn how to be generous to the Lord and the Church but those who are truly poor must not be deprived of Sacraments. If they can find godparents who can sponsor fine, but if nobody wants to foot the bill and the couples are destitute then IT MUST BE GIVEN FOR FREE. If the priest will not give it for free he is sending his soul to great danger of God's wrath.
thanks father! you are right. one of the reasons we decided to celebrate our marriage in that church is the air conditioning. and i think the amount is justified. regarding clothing, i'l just repost it again:
ReplyDelete"anyways, i have another question. regarding the proper clothes to wear during mass. i'm a bit confused with the veil and long hair thing for women. i read in other catholic sites that women can wear hats. is this true? if she has long hair, then is it ok not to wear veil? or hat? or any covering? if women has long hair, is she exempted to wear a covering? how long is a long hair? women are prohibited to wear spaghetti or sleeveless (that's what the priest told us in our parish), which i kept on telling my wife so she would obey. you see, my wife is having a hard time obeying this, but recently she started obeying kasi nagagalit na ako. bawal din po ba ang tight fitting garments na pantaas at pambaba? how about outside the church (mass), pwede na ba magsleeveless ang babae? or tight clothes, or short shorts? how about in social parties, women usually wear sexy clothes. how about in swimming, is it a sin for women to wear tight fitting and very thin swim wear na halo labas na ang dibdib? aren't these violations of the bible verses in 1 Timothy 2:9-10? how then should my wife comply in the said occasions? eto na kasi ang nakaugalian ngayon. what i mean is that if these women wore this modern fashion during the olden times, i think malaswang malaswa ang dating sa mga kalalakihan kasi hindi sila sanay. but if they wear it today hindi na masyado malaswa. only those na may sombrang laswa ang isip ang siyang gumagawa ng pambabastos sa kababaihan. but on the other hand if women will just wear more decent clothings, then could help men not to sin. and again, on the other hand, even if women would wear decent clothes they can still be victims of men's sinful eyes. really confused. please enlighten me father.
also, is it a sin to wear expensive clothes, watches, bracelets, earrings? how do you define expensive? when does it become expensive. we have clothes, watches, jewelries, etc. which are, for me, expensive, but for others, like the rich people, they are cheap. are we sinning if we wear this things?"
thanks!
richard
[regarding the proper clothes to wear during mass.]
ReplyDeleteTHE ARCHDIOCESE OF MANILA HAS ISSUED A VERY SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR PROPER CLOTHES TO WEAR DURING THE MASS.
[i'm a bit confused with the veil and long hair thing for women.]
THE VEIL IS IDEAL FOR WOMEN WHEN ATTENDING MASSES OR ARE PRAYING IN THE CHURCH. IT IS A SIGN OF THEIR SUBMISSION OF HEART AND MIND TO GOD THE FATHER, A MANIFESTATION OF THEIR VIRGINITY OR PURITY OR CHASTITY. MUCH MORE IT IS THE VERY EXAMPLE OF THE BLESSED MOTHER HERSELF WHO IS A PERFECT IMAGE OF A TRUE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER AND A GENUINE MODEL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN.
THE CLOTHES OF MAMA MARY IS NOT JUST FOLLOWING THE FASHION OF HIS TIME. IT IS THE PERPETUAL MANIFESTATION OF A TRUE CATHOLIC WOMAN.
[ i read in other catholic sites that women can wear hats.]
BECAUSE IN THOSE COUNTRIES DUE TO COLD WEATHER IT IS NECESSARY AND CULTURALLY PROPER TO WEAR HATS. NOT WEARING HAT IN COUNTRIES LIKE ENGLAND, NETHERLANDS, AUSTRIA, ETC. ARE IMPROPER AND SIGN OF LACK OF EDUCATION. THIS IS NOT ONLY FOR WOMEN BUT ALSO FOR MEN. THAT IS WHY WE FREQUENTLY SEE THE LATE PRINCESS DIANA, THE QUEEN, THE LATE QUEEN-MOTHER WEARING BEAUTIFUL HATS.
[ is this true?]
IN THOSE COUNTRIES YES. BUT IN PHILIPPINES, SALAKOT AND OTHER HEAD COVERINGS ARE NOT FOR SOCIALS BUT FOR PLANTING RICE OR FOR LONG TRAVELS BY FEET.
[ if she has long hair, then is it ok not to wear veil? or hat? or any covering?]
ReplyDeleteLONG HAIR OR NOT THE VEIL MUST BE THERE. BECAUSE THE VEIL DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE HAIR. IT IS NOT JUST FOR COVER BUT A SPIRITUAL MANIFESTATION OF HUMILITY AND AN EXPRESSION OF PURITY.
[ if women has long hair, is she exempted to wear a covering?]
NO. UNLESS THEY MAKE A VERY LARGE DESIGN OF THE HAIR MAKING IT LIKE A LARGE CROWN ON TOP OF THE HEAD. BUT EVEN ON THAT THE VEIL IS SIMPLY PUT ON THE TOP. LIKE IN THE CASE OF MAJESTIC AND ROYAL BRIDES IN GREAT MARRIAGES.
[ how long is a long hair?]
IT IS IMPROPER FOR A GENTLEMAN TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE WOMEN ARE SENSITIVE ABOUT THEIR HAIR'S LENGTH. LET US FORGET THE MEASUREMENT AND INSTEAD ENCOURAGE OUR WOMEN TO PUT THE VEIL WHETHER THE HAIR IS LONG OR SHORT. USUALLY THOSE WITH SHORT HAIR ARE USING THE SHORT VEIL AND THE LARGE, LONG VEILS ARE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LONG HAIR. MAMA MARY IS USING LARGE VEIL BECAUSE HER HAIR IS VERY LONG.
[ women are prohibited to wear spaghetti or sleeveless (that's what the priest told us in our parish), which i kept on telling my wife so she would obey.]
HA, HA, HA...
[ you see, my wife is having a hard time obeying this, but recently she started obeying kasi nagagalit na ako.]
HA, HA, HA... BROD, SOMETIMES CARESS IS MORE EFFECTIVE FOR THE HUSBAND THAN RAISING THE VOICE OR GETTING ANGRY. CALL THAT 'PERSUASION'... WHICH IS A CHRISTIAN VIRTUE AND GIFT. HE, HE, HE...
[ bawal din po ba ang tight fitting garments na pantaas at pambaba?]
YES. THAT ONE IS FOR GYM OR FOR THEATER IF SHE WILL PLAY BALLET OR THE PROTAGONIST IN THE BROADWAY SHOW 'KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN' OR ONE OF THE FELINES FOR 'CATS' OR FOR MOVIES, EITHER AS CATWOMAN OR VALENTINA OF DARNA. HA, HA, HA...
[ how about outside the church (mass), pwede na ba magsleeveless ang babae? or tight clothes, or short shorts?]
SLEEVELESS PWEDE PA KASI MAINIT ANG PANAHON AND SEEING THE ARMPIT IS GENERALLY NOT SO LIBIDO PROVOKING FOR MOST OF MEN. BUT TIGHT CLOTHES ESPECIALLY IF THE BODY CURVES ARE CLEAR AND THAT THE CLOTHES ARE LIKE A SECOND SKIN ALREADY THEN IT IS ALMOST LIKE APPEARING NAKED.
SHORT SHORTS IS UNDERSTANDABLE IN BEACH OR IN SPORTS BUT AS A GENERAL MANNER OF DRESSING IN PUBLIC IS IMPROPER. THERE ARE SHORTS DESIGNED BEAUTIFULLY THAT USUALLY PEOPLE WEAR ENTERING RESTAURANTS OR MALLS. IT IS A LONG SHORT. A SHORT SHORT MUST BE WORN AT HOME WHERE THE WIFE CAN LOOK PLEASING FOR HER HUSBAND AND SHE CAN MOVE EASILY TO DO THE HOUSE TASKS.
[ how about in social parties, women usually wear sexy clothes.]
ReplyDeleteTHE GOAL OF A CHRISTIAN WOMAN IS NOT TO MAKE HER BODY DESIRABLE FOR ALL. DOING THAT SHE IS CHEAPENING HERSELF AND IS MAKING HERSELF A SEXUAL OBJECT FOR MALES TO LUST FOR.
THE GOAL OF A CHRISTIAN WOMAN IN SUCH A PARTY IS TO APPEAR DECENT, ELEGANT AND BEAUTIFUL, YES, TO GIVE HONOR TO HER HUSBAND. THERE ARE GOWNS THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL, ELEGANT, ETC. WHICH PRESERVES THE CHRISTIAN VALUE OF A WOMAN. SHE MUST CHOOSE THIS KIND.
[how about in swimming, is it a sin for women to wear tight fitting and very thin swim wear na halo labas na ang dibdib?]
IF THERE IS A RULE IN THE RESORT OR IN THE BEACH AREA THAT WOMEN MUST WEAR SWIM SUIT THEN SHE CAN DO SO. SUGGESTION IS THAT IF SHE IS NOT SWIMMING WRAP THE LARGE TOWEL OR A LARGE SCARP AROUND HER WASTE OR AROUND HER BREAST AREA. THEN, WHEN IT IS TIME TO SWIM THE COVERINGS ARE BEING REMOVED.
[aren't these violations of the bible verses in 1 Timothy 2:9-10? how then should my wife comply in the said occasions? eto na kasi ang nakaugalian ngayon.]
THE MORALITY OF CLOTHING IS NOT AS STRICT AS THE MORALITY ON ABORTIONS, CONTRACEPTION, ETC. NATURALLY, FASHION AND CLOTHES KEEPS ON CHANGING. BUT ST. PAUL HAS ALREADY GIVEN THE KEY IN THAT VERY PASSAGES: 'MODESTY', SIMPLICITY AND AVOIDANCE OF EXTRAVAGANCE AND GIVING SCANDAL BY MAKING THEIR BODIES AN OCCASION OF SINS FOR OTHERS.
JUST BE SIMPLE AND BE MODEST.
[ what i mean is that if these women wore this modern fashion during the olden times, i think malaswang malaswa ang dating sa mga kalalakihan kasi hindi sila sanay. but if they wear it today hindi na masyado malaswa. only those na may sombrang laswa ang isip ang siyang gumagawa ng pambabastos sa kababaihan. but on the other hand if women will just wear more decent clothings, then could help men not to sin. and again, on the other hand, even if women would wear decent clothes they can still be victims of men's sinful eyes. really confused. please enlighten me father.]
WHETHER WOMEN DRESSED PROPERLY OR NOT SOME MEN AS YOU'VE STATED ARE PRONE TO USE THEM FOR THEIR SINFUL IMAGINATIONS. HOWEVER, IF THEY ARE DRESSED DECENTLY THE SIN IS PURELY THE FAULT OF THE GUY. BUT IF THE WOMAN OR GIRL INTENTIONALLY WEAR CLOTHES WHICH IS DESIGNED TO SEDUCE, TO CATCH THE EYES OF MEN TO MAKE HER APPEAR LIKE A SEX OBJECT THEN, WHEN THE MEN ARE TEMPTED IT IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE FAULT OF THE MAN BUT SHE IS PART OF THE TEMPTATION. SHE IS NOT JUST A VICTIM BUT A TEMPTER HERSELF.
[also, is it a sin to wear expensive clothes, watches, bracelets, earrings? how do you define expensive?]
ReplyDeleteIT IS NOT A SIN TO WEAR EXPENSIVE CLOTHES IF THEY ARE NECESSARY. IF YOU ARE A CORPORATE HEAD THEN YOU NEED TO WEAR BUSINESS SUITS AND USUALLY THEY COSTS BY THOUSANDS IN PESOS. ALSO IF YOUR BUDGET CAN PROVIDE FOR THAT AND IT WILL NOT DEPRIVE YOUR FAMILY OF FOOD AND BASIC NECESSITIES. BUT IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO BUY THOSE THINGS DON'T FORGET ALSO TO SHARE TO OTHERS ESPECIALLY TO THE POOR.
WEARING EXPENSIVE CLOTHES IS APPROPRIATE IF YOU ARE WORKING IN COMPANIES BUT IT IS A SCANDAL IF YOU ARE DOING IT TO SHOW OFF TO THOSE WHO ARE LESS PRIVILEGED. ANYWAY, IN ALL CASES THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUE CALLS FOR MODERATION AND SIMPLICITY. WOMEN WITH CLASS AND DIGNITY CAN LOOK ELEGANT, BEAUTIFUL AND STUNNING EVEN IF THEY ARE WEARING SIMPLE CLOTHES. THEY GOT CLASS AND STYLE AND CHARISMA. I HAVE BEEN IN MAKATI AND IN AYALA ALABANG AND HAVE BEEN WITH THE RICH AND THE FAMOUS FROM TIME TO TIME BUT THEY LOOK SIMPLE. LIKE GRETCHEN COJUANGCO, WIFE OF DANDING, AND IMELDA COJUANGO, MOTHER OF TONY BOY. THEY ARE VERY SIMPLE BUT ELEGANT. THEY PRESERVE THEIR TIARAS AND BLING BLINGS FOR SPECIAL OCCASIONS ONLY.
THE EVITA OR IMELDIFFIC TYPES ARE MORE PROPER FOR VAUDEVILLE SHOWS.
[ when does it become expensive.]
WHEN ONE IS COMPELLED TO BUY BEYOND ONE'S BUDGET OR SIMPLY WANTS TO ACCUMULATE EVEN IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY.
[we have clothes, watches, jewelries, etc. which are, for me, expensive, but for others, like the rich people, they are cheap. are we sinning if we wear this things?"]
HEIRLOOMS SUCH AS THE JEWELRIES YOUR PARENTS HAVE GIVEN TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE, PLUS TO HAVE SOME DECENT MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR ESPECIAL OCCASIONS ARE NOT EVIL.
IF YOU ARE A BUSINESSMAN AND YOUR WIFE HAS A GOOD JOB IT IS NOT A SIN TO ENJOY THE FRUIT OF YOUR LABOR FROM TIME TO TIME. SO, USUALLY A THRIFTY WIFE USUALLY PRESERVES HER RING OR NECKLACE GIVEN BY THE HUSBAND DURING ESPECIAL OCCASION. THEY ARE NOT SINFUL THESE ARE ENJOYMENT OF THE FRUIT OF YOUR HARDWORK. BUT OF COURSE AFTER ABOUT 15 YEARS TOGETHER SHE WOULD HAVE COLLECTED FEW SETS OF JEWELRY. THESE ARE NOT BAD EITHER. THESE ARE STILL REASONABLE, A BUDGETED DECISION AND AN EXPRESSION OF LOVE.
IT WILL BECOME EVIL IF THE WIFE WANTS TO COLLECT, AND WILL DEMAND HER HUSBAND TO BUY JEWELRIES JUST TO SATISFY HER CRAVINGS. THE SIN IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY EXCESSIVE DESIRES AND TOO MUCH GLORIFICATION OF THE BODY.
THE CHRISTIAN WIFE OF A CAN AFFORD HUSBAND IS HAPPY WITH HER WEDDING RING ALONE. THEN, IF SHE NEEDS SOMETHING SHE INFORMS HER HUSBAND WHO PROVIDES FOR HER OR SHE WAITS THAT HER HUSBAND GIVES HER A GIFT ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS OR THE GROWN UP CHILDREN OFFER HER SOME AS AN EXPRESSION OF LOVE.
EVERYTHING THAT IS EXCESSIVE MUST BE AVOIDED AND THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUE OF MODERATION AND SIMPLICITY MUST BE THE GUIDE IN EVERY SITUATION. SOMETIMES THE MIDDLE CLASS ARE MORE CAPRICIOUS THAN THE VERY RICH.
father, i see there are more women going to church without veil. are they sinning? is it mandatory to wear veil?
ReplyDeletemost women want their hair braided or curled? is this a sin? other religions say it's against the bible. how about catholics? i hope rebond and cellophane are ok because my wife is scheduled to have them next week. thanks!
richard
Brother, wearing veil is a pious practice. We become better person when we do it but we are not sinning when we do not. Like Novena or wearing scapular. It is recommented to wear scapular but we are not obliged.
ReplyDeleteIT IS NOT A SIN TO CURLE THE HEAR UNLESS THE ACT IS OBSCENE OR IMMORAL BY NATURE OR THE INTENTION IS TRULY TO SEDUCE ANOTHER MAN. Arranging hairs for comfort and fashion is not a sin. Sin is disobedience to God. Beautifying one self is actually neutral, it is neither good or bad morally speaking. If the intention is for comfort or self-realization then it could be OK, but if it is to seduce leading to adultery then it is evil.
The Catholic Church principle in matters of beauty, looks and clothes are reasonable and moderate. The Church does not prohibit altogether, but the Church also reminds us to be moderate, simple and appropriate. It means the focus is on virtue not only on particular piece of cloth or action.
Rebond is OK because it simply makes the hair shiner and straighter. No immorality contained therein unless the dear wife intends it for someone else rather than the husband. In that case it is not the rebond that is at fault but the desire to be unfaithful. The same with cellophane. Ha, ha, ha...
follow up...
ReplyDeletethanks for the explanation. then if these hairstyles are just fine, then can you please explain to me what do the bible verses, 1 timothy 9-10 and 1 peter 3:3, mean?
also, 2 years ago, i had a gold necklace made for myself, and instead of having the usual designs for the pendant, i decided to have a design same as the scapular so that it would have the 2 purposes, 1 as fashion and another as scapular. is this ok? will this golden scapular serve the same purpose as the original one? years ago my scapulars has always deteriorated and smelled bad that's why i wanted something that will not get ruined by my sweat again. thanks!
richard
[then if these hairstyles are just fine, then can you please explain to me what do the bible verses, 1 timothy 9-10 and 1 peter 3:3, mean?]
ReplyDeleteTHE FIRST CITATION IS NOT SO CLEAR BRO. 1 TIMOTHY IS ONLY UNTIL CHAPTER 6. NOW GOING TO THE SECOND PASSAGE:
1 Peter 3:3-4 (New International Version)
3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.
THIS PASSAGE DOES NOT ACTUALLY PROHIBIT BRAIDING ONE'S HAIR. INSTEAD, THE WOMEN ARE BEING REMINDED TO BE VIRTUOUS... TO LOOK AT INNER BEAUTY RATHER THAN THE SUPERFICIAL ONE. ST. PAUL IS TEACHING THAT THE REAL BEAUTY COMES FROM OUR COMMUNION WITH GOD AND OUR PURITY OF HEART. BUT, THERE IS NO CATEGORICAL PROHIBITION OF BRAIDING ONE'S HAIR. LOOKING BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD FOR WOMEN AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT TURN INTO VANITY.
[also, 2 years ago, i had a gold necklace made for myself, and instead of having the usual designs for the pendant, i decided to have a design same as the scapular so that it would have the 2 purposes, 1 as fashion and another as scapular. is this ok? will this golden scapular serve the same purpose as the original one? years ago my scapulars has always deteriorated and smelled bad that's why i wanted something that will not get ruined by my sweat again.]
THE SCAPULAR IS BY NATURE A PIECE OF CLOTH SO I CONSIDER IT INAPPROPRIATE. IF YOU WANT A MEDAL THEN WEAR A MIRACULOUS MEDAL. THE SCAPULAR MUST BE A TWO PIECE CLOTH AND SINCE IT IS A CLOTH IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT IT DETERIORATES AFTER SOME YEARS. THEN ITS TIME TO GET A NEW ONE.
[thanks!
richard]
WELCOME BROD.
thanks father. but how about the other passage, 1 timothy 2:9-10? (sorry for the previous error) does is it prohibit braiding or curling hair?
ReplyDeletemay i also ask which animals are we allowed to kill? i always see ants in our kitchen and dining table even though i clean them everyday. i kill them with spray. somehow i felt guilty because they were defenseless and they were just doing their job in looking for food. same with spiders. but at second thought i also felt that they are enemies, because they (ants) would bite if they get contact with you. happened a lot of times. i also hate stray cats who always sleep on top of my car in the garage. they scratched the window shield, hood, sides and roof. i shot and killed one of them in anger. when i was younger, i also remember shooting a stray cat as target practice, then i got scared.
richard
[but how about the other passage, 1 timothy 2:9-10? does is it prohibit braiding or curling hair?]
ReplyDeleteLET ME READ THE PASSAGE:
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
ONCE AGAIN, BROD THIS IS NOT A PROHIBITION AGAINST ADORNMENT BUT A REMINDER NOT TO ENGAGE IN SO MUCH ADORNMENTS OR AVOIDING TO COSTLY SELF ADORNMENTS.
INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON PROHIBITION THESE VERSES FOCUS ON THE VIRTUE OF MODESTY. THUS WOMEN CAN ADORN THEMSELVES. BUT THEY HAVE DO TAMPER WITH WITH SIMPLICITY AND MODESTY.
OF COURSE, CIRCUMSTANCES WILL ALSO AFFECT WHAT IS SIMPLE. IF YOUR WIFE IS ATTENDING A FORMAL DINNER IN A FIVE STAR HOTEL OF COURSE HER CLOTHES WILL BE MORE THAN THE USUAL. BUT WE STILL EXPECT HER NOT TO BE IMELDIFFIC OR EVITA LIKE. THERE IS NO NEED TO BE EXTRAVAGANT. EVEN AMONG THE RICH: BEA ZOBEL AND THE WIFE OF HENRY SY ARE MOSTLY WEARING SIMPLE CLOTHES. ELEGANT BUT SIMPLE.
ALSO, AS REGARDS JEWELRIES THERE ARE APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS AND EVENTS FOR THEM. AND USUALLY WE DO NOT BUY NEW ONES. WE USE THE INHERITED PIECES OR THE ONE BOUGHT YEARS AGO.
AGAIN, MODESTY AND SIMPLICITY. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT PROHIBITION BUT EVERY CHRISTIAN MUST PRACTICE THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR STATUS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
[may i also ask which animals are we allowed to kill?]
ReplyDeleteTHOSE WHO ARE TO BE EATEN OR TO BE SERVED AS FOOD AND THOSE WHO POSES DIRECT DANGER OR DETRIMENT TO THE LIFE OF HUMANS. IN THE HIERARCHY OF LIFE, HUMAN LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT OF ANIMALS.
[i always see ants in our kitchen and dining table even though i clean them everyday. i kill them with spray. somehow i felt guilty because they were defenseless and they were just doing their job in looking for food. same with spiders. but at second thought i also felt that they are enemies, because they (ants) would bite if they get contact with you. happened a lot of times.]
PART OF THE CYCLE OF LIFE IS COMMON HABITATION BUT ALSO THE DELINEATION OF TERRITORY. THE ANTS MUST BE TAUGHT NOT TO ENTER OUR HOUSES BECAUSE DOING SO THEY ARE TRYING TO CONQUER OUR HUMAN HABITAT. THAT IS A DECLARATION OF WAR. SO THEY WILL BE EXTERMINATED THEN. AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN OUTSIDE THE HOUSE THEN THEY ARE FREE TO LIVE AS THEY WANT. WE RESPECT THEM BUT THEY MUST RESPECT US ALSO.
IF YOU WILL NOT DECLARE WAR ON ANTS INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME THEN IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO LETTING THEM TAKE OVER YOUR PROPERTIES. THEY WILL MAKE ANTHILLS INSIDE YOUR DINING HALL AND BEDROOMS.
[i also hate stray cats who always sleep on top of my car in the garage.]
IF THE CAT IS NOT DESTROYING OR HARMING THE CAR THEN LET THAT SKIMBLESHANK STAY THERE. BUT IF HE IS SCRATCHING OR LEAVING THE CAR DIRTY WITH HIS FURS THEN DISCIPLINE HIM ALSO. HE MUST BE SENT AWAY. IF THE TROUBLE COMING FROM HIM IS TRULY BURDENSOME THEN IT CAN BE KILLED.
[they scratched the window shield, hood, sides and roof. i shot and killed one of them in anger.]
IF IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO THEN IT MUST BE DONE. THIS IS TRUE FOR STRAY DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS WHO ARE CREATING TROUBLES AT HOME OR IN THE COMMUNITY.
[when i was younger, i also remember shooting a stray cat as target practice, then i got scared.]
IF THERE IS NO DANGER, DAMAGE OR TROUBLE BEING GIVEN BY THESE ANIMALS THEN THEY MUST NOT BE SHOT. THEY MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO LIVE IN PEACE.
hello father! i was wondering if you received my question regarding lotto. thanks!
ReplyDeleterichard
I think I do Brother but I am too occupied now. As you can see even the Blog has fewer posts. He, he, he...
ReplyDeletegood afternoon father! i saw 1 video of an islam leader saying our bible is not true. he tells one of the reasons why: in the last part of the book written by Moses, it says, "...moses died..." the islam leader then said how can a man who died have written that he died? it should have been. if he was the writer of that book, the it should have been "... I died...." but then again how can he write if he's dead?. father, this is just one of his reasons. can you enlighten me please. thanks!
ReplyDelete[good afternoon father!]
ReplyDeleteGOOD AFTERNOON TOO.
[i saw 1 video of an islam leader saying our bible is not true.]
THAT ISLAM LEADER DEFINITELY IS WRONG.
[he tells one of the reasons why: in the last part of the book written by Moses, it says, "...moses died..." the islam leader then said how can a man who died have written that he died?]
THAT IS HIS MISTAKE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT TEACHING THAT THE SO-CALLED BOOKS OF MOSES AS WE HAVE THEM NOW ARE WRITTEN BY MOSES VERBATIM. RATHER WE ARE TEACHING THAT THE TEACHINGS AND IDEAS WERE HANDED DOWN BY GOD THROUGH MOSES. THUS, IT CONTAINS VALUABLE INFORMATION THAT ONLY MOSES RECEIVED FROM GOD.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ARE ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE HISTORICAL NARRATIVES CONTAINED IN THOSE BOOKS. THOSE PARTS MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY HISTORIANS OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE OR PRIESTLY SCHOLARS IN THE TEMPLE LATER ON. THUS, THERE ARE PASSAGES THAT SIMPLY NARRATES WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO MOSES AS IF HE WAS A MERE SUBJECT OF THE NARRATIVE RATHER THAN THE ONE WRITING A PERSONAL TESTIMONY.
IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR US CATHOLICS. IN FACT, EVEN THE GOSPELS OF JESUS WERE NOT WRITTEN PERSONALLY BY JESUS. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES WERE NOT ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BY THE ACTUAL TWELVE APOSTLES.
TO INSINUATE THAT A THING IS WRONG BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRITTEN BY THE PERSON CONCERNED IS ILLOGICAL. BECAUSE EVEN IN COURT TESTIMONIES OF OTHERS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED AND THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY. OTHERS COULD WRITE SOMETHING WHICH IS A VALID TESTIMONY ABOUT A PERSON EVEN IF THE ACTUAL PERSON WAS NOT THE AUTHOR ITSELF.
[it should have been. if he was the writer of that book, the it should have been "... I died...." but then again how can he write if he's dead?. father, this is just one of his reasons.]
THAT IS WHY THE CHURCH IS TEACHING US THAT IN INTERPRETING THE SACRED SCRIPTURES WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS. IN THE PENTATEUCH OR THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES THERE ARE PARTS PRESENTING THE ACTUAL WORDS OF MOSES AND THERE ARE PARTS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY LATER HISTORIANS OR SCHOLARS WHOSE WORKS HAD BEEN INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
THE ARGUMENT IS VALID ONLY IF WE ARE TEACHING THAT MOSES WROTE PERSONALLY THE ACTUAL BOOK. NO, WE ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE COLLECTIONS OF THE FAITH TESTIMONIES OF MOSES AND THE HEBREW PEOPLE OF THAT TIME.
can you enlighten me please. thanks!
hello father, it's been a while. i have a question about Jesus' resurrection. why do we celebrate it on a Sunday? shouldn't it be Monday, the third day, counting from his death on friday? shouldn't it be 3 days and 3 nights just like what is written in Matthew 12:40? or maybe it's because He died on a thursday? i'm confused. thanks!
ReplyDeleterichard
... and on some articles, they say he died on a wednesday 3pm. wandered for 3 days in paradise where he is busy moving souls to heaven then he went back to his tomb to be one with his earthly body and rose on saturday, not sunday.
ReplyDeleterichard
[hello father, it's been a while. i have a question about Jesus' resurrection. why do we celebrate it on a Sunday? shouldn't it be Monday, the third day, counting from his death on friday? shouldn't it be 3 days and 3 nights just like what is written in Matthew 12:40? or maybe it's because He died on a thursday? i'm confused. thanks!
ReplyDeleterichard]
Dear Richard,
O nice to hear from you again.
The confusion is rooted in our modern manner of counting days which was different from the manner of counting during the time of Jesus and the Apostles.
Let us always bear in mind that our modern education, enriched already by advanced technology and scientific discoveries, counts the day as 24 hours based on the orbit of the earth around the sun every year and the revolution of the earth daily for which there is a night and day. This is given to us by our watches, either hanging on our wall, carried on our wrists or on our cellphones.
We have to bear in mind though that the people of Jesus' time do not have the privilege of a modern clock. They count things by looking at the sun.
Jesus died on Friday 3:00pm when the sun was still high. So, it was one day for them. Then darkness followed and the sun rose the following day, that is second day for them. Then that second day disappeared with the coming of the darkness and early the next day Jesus rose from the dead. So, it was on the third day. It is a simply way at counting based on practical understanding of the simple people.
We must avoid using our modern way of thinking on the people of two millennium before us. Surely it wont fit in.
The Gospels are categorical in stating that Jesus rose from the dead on the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK [SUNDAY] AFTER THE SABBATH [SATURDAY]. Here are the Biblical passages with the Commentary from Barnes:
Mat 28:1
In the end of the sabbath - The word “end” here means the same as “after” the Sabbath - that is, after the Sabbath was fully completed or finished, and may be expressed in this manner: “In the night following the Sabbath, for the Sabbath closed at sunset, as it began to dawn,” etc.
As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week - The word “dawn” is not of necessity in the original. The word there properly means as the first day “approached,” or drew on, without specifying the precise time. Mark says Mar_16:1-2 that it was after “the sabbath was past, and very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun” - that is, not that the sun “was risen,” but that it was about to rise, or at the early break of day. Luke says Luk_24:1 that it was “very early in the morning;” in the Greek text, “deep twilight,” or when there was scarcely any light. John Joh_20:1 says it was “very early, while it was yet dark” - that is, it was not yet full daylight, or the sun had not yet risen. The time when they came, therefore, was at the break of day, when the sun was about to rise, but while it was yet so dark as to render objects obscure, or not distinctly visible.
The first day of the week - The day which is observed by Christians as the Sabbath. The Jews observed the seventh day of the week, or our Saturday. During that day our Saviour was in the grave. As he rose on the morning of the first day, that day has always been observed in commemoration of so glorious an event.
[... and on some articles, they say he died on a wednesday 3pm. wandered for 3 days in paradise where he is busy moving souls to heaven then he went back to his tomb to be one with his earthly body and rose on saturday, not sunday.
ReplyDeleterichard]
That Jesus rose from the day on Sunday is already settled and uncontested. Both Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Protestant scholars unanimously agree on that. That is historically established. Never mind some people giving their different opinions otherwise.
The belief that Jesus went to the abode of the dead during 3 days is attested to by Sacred Scriptures:
1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water."
The Catholic Creeds states that after Jesus suffered, died and was buried He descended into the dead or in Hell... for what? to preach to the dead. To declare even there that He has defeated Sin and Death... And to those who are in Purgatory to announce the victory of God over Sin and that Paradise has been re-opened.
Still, the Resurrection Day is Sunday and not Saturday.
thank you so much!
ReplyDeleterichard
Welcome Bro. Richard.
ReplyDelete