Monday, May 31, 2010

PAGLASPAG SA KAYABANGAN NG MGA MANOLISTA, Part 1

The minister of God, the priest of the Old Testament dressed almost like a Catholic priest offering Incense to God through the Ark of the Covenant.

Anonymous said...

hahahahahahaha! matatalo lang kayo. babaliktarin nyo lang ang istorya na natalo nyo daw kami huhuhahahahahahahahaha!

pero tanggap namin yan. pero bago kayo gumawa ng istorya na natalo nyo kami eh dapat may video rin kayo niyan.

so kung magkeclaim kayo na natalo nyo kami eh may supported video. kasi kung wala, eh meaning mga talunan kayo.

sa mga Protestante palang talo na kayo. what's more sa amin na maraming tinalong mga Protestante.

back to the topic tayo ano? we dont believe that masama gumawa ng larawan.

ang masama ay gumawa ka ng larawan tapos sasambahin mo at sinasalita mo mga dasal mo sa harap ng larawan.

yung sa Ark of the Covenant, decoration lang yun. wala kang mababasa sa Torah na magdadasal mga taga Israel sa harap ng Ark of the Covenant.

alam nyo idaan ko rin lang sa paliwanag nyo eh bagsak sa Bibliya yang argumento nyo.

di raw nyo sinasamba ang rebulto pero yung nirerepresent ng rebulto.

WOW! tama ba na irepresent si Cristo at ang DIOS Ama na mukhang lolo na rebulto? pasagutin natin si Apostol Pablo. (Gawa 17:29)

Paano yan, di dapat isipin na ang pagkaDIOS ay katulad sa pilak, ginto o bato na inukit ng kabihasnan ng tao.

kabisado naming mga INC ang taktika ng Simbahan Padre. kung matalo namin yan mga CFDs nyo ay sasabihin nyo ay di sila LICENSED kundi nangahas lang. LOL

kaya di nangangahas ang Simbahan na lumaban ang 1 pari gaya mo laban sa ibang relihiyon kasi kung matalo ay wala kayong maiaalibi. lilitaw mga bobo talaga kayo sa Bibliya.

sa ADD lang talo pa rin kayo pero mas magaling kami sa mga ADD.

kayong mga Katoliko at Orthodox ang pinakabobo sa bibliya sa mundo. pero kami ang pinakamahusay kasi ang Iglesia namin ay reformed ng sinugo ng itaas mula sa pagkawasak.

o ito Padre para matuto ka, batayan sa Bibliya na mawawasak ang Iglesia (Gawa 28:29-30)

Padre, magministro ka na lang sa amin. puwede ka pang mag asawa. saka mas maganda sumama ka sa Ang Tamang Daan para labanan si baklang Soriano para sa amin kung ministro ka na.

January 16, 2010 9:07 PM

Anonymous said...

hoy, suriinmo ang sarili mo kung tama ang ginagawa mo. lahat ng ginagawa ninyo puro kadimonyuhan. aminin mo sa sarili mo na walang kwenta ang pinagtuturo mo. di ka ba na ngingilabot sa mga ginagawamo. kaluluwa ang nakasalaylay dito. buhay ka pa sinusunog na ang kaluluwa mo sa impyerno. maawa ka sa mga taong gustong maligtas hwag mong iligaw ng tamang pananampalataya.

January 26, 2010 4:40 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

Ikaw ang dapat matako sa iyong kaluluwa, kasi sinasamba nyo ang larawan ni Manalo. Pinagawaan nyo ng rebulto at may mga paintings pa kayo ni Manalo at Eranyo na malalaki tulad ng naka display sa lobby ng New Era Hospital at sa inyong mga Pasugo.

Pati bangkay ni Eranyo nilagay nyo sa Tabernaculo. Hindi ba aral ng demonyo yon? Saan nakasulat sa Biblia na libingan ang Tabernaculo ng Dios?

January 26, 2010 9:28 PM

Anonymous said...

father anong verse ang nakasulat na iniuutos ng panginoon na gumawa c moses at si solomon ng rebulto sa tabernakulo???

March 31, 2010 4:45 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

Exodus 25:17-22 and 1 Kings 8:5-7 and 2 Chronicles 5:8

March 31, 2010 4:53 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[hahahahahahaha! matatalo lang kayo.]

O GANON NAMAN PALA E. BAKIT HINDI TINANGGAP NI VENTILACION ANG HAMON NI PATRICK MADRID NG CATHOLIC ANSWER FOR A SECOND DEBATE AFTER THE KEATING-VENTILACION DEBATE? KASI TAKOT ANG INC CENTRAL. IMAGINE, NAGPUNTA PA MISMO SA CENTRAL SI PATRICK MADRID PARA IPAHATID ANG KANYANG HAMON.

[babaliktarin nyo lang ang istorya na natalo nyo daw kami huhuhahahahahahahahaha!]

KUNG PANALO KAYO BAKIT HINDI NYO IPALABAS NG BUONG BUO ANG MGA DEBATE NG MGA PASTOR NYO. ANG PINAKIKITA LANG AY YUNG PARTE NA NAGSASALITA ANG MGA PASTOR NYO. HE, HE, HE...

ANG KEATING-VENTILACION DEBATE AY BUONG BUO NA NIRECORD AT IPINAKITA NG CATHOLIC ANSWERS SUBALIT ANG MGA DEBATE NYO TINATAGO NYO.

[pero tanggap namin yan.]

MABUTI NAMAN NA TANGGAP NYO NA TALAGANG TALO KAYO. HA, HA, HA...

[pero bago kayo gumawa ng istorya na natalo nyo kami eh dapat may video rin kayo niyan.]

TALAGANG MEROON. YUNG SOC FERNANDEZ-SANTIAGO DEBATE AY NABUGBOG DUON ANG INC DEBATER. GAYON DIN SA KEATING-VENTILACION DEBATE. NAKITA ANG KASINUNGALINGAN NI VENTILACION.

[so kung magkeclaim kayo na natalo nyo kami eh may supported video.]

MERON TALAGA.

[kasi kung wala, eh meaning mga talunan kayo.]

MERON NGA KAYA TALUNAN KAYO E.

[sa mga Protestante palang talo na kayo.]

NILALAMPASO NG MGA CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS ANG MGA PROTESTANTS NGAYON. MAHIGIT 2,000 PASTORS NA ANG LUMIPAT NG CATOLICO SA U.S. PA LANG. NOW THEY ARE DEBATING FOR THE CATHOLIC CHRUCH.

[what's more sa amin na maraming tinalong mga Protestante.]

HA, HA, HA... TALAGA? NASAAN ANG VIDEO. PAKILABAS NGA NG BUONG BUO. HA, HA,HA... TINATAGO NYO E.

[back to the topic tayo ano?]

SIGE, BACK TO THE TOPIC. HE, HE, HE...

[we dont believe that masama gumawa ng larawan.]

PAPANO YAN ANG SABI NG DIOS WAG GAGAWA NG ANUMANG LARAWAN NG NASA LANGIT O NASA LUPA... NGAYON PALA E HINDI MASAMA. ANO BA TALAGA? MASAMA O MABUTI? HA, HA, HA... E DI NAGBAGO KA NA NG POSISYON. HA, HA, HA...

[ang masama ay gumawa ka ng larawan tapos sasambahin mo at sinasalita mo mga dasal mo sa harap ng larawan.]

E BUANG KA PALA E. HINDI NGA SINASAMBA E. YUNG PAGDADASAL SA HARAP NG LARAWAN, NAGDADASAL KAMI SA HARAP NG ALTAR O SA LOOB NG TEMPLO. ANG PINAG-UUKULAN NG PANALANGIN AY ANG DIOS HINDI ANG LARAWAN. KAYO NGA E SA HARAP NG PASTOR NAGDADASAL E DI DIOS-DIOSAN NYO ANG PASTOR NYO NA NASA GITNA NG TEMPLO AT DUON KAYO NAKAHARAP. YAN AY BUHAY NA DIOS-DIOSAN, ANTI CRISTO.

TAPOS NAGDADASAL DIN KAYO SA HARAP NG BANGKAY NI MANALO NA NAKALIBING MISMO SA INYONG TABERNACULO. YAN AY PAGSAMBA SA NAAAGNAS NA BANGKAY.

[yung sa Ark of the Covenant, decoration lang yun.]

SAAN NAKASULAT SA BIBLIA NA DECORATION LANG ANG ARK OF THE COVENANT? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HE, HE, HE...

[wala kang mababasa sa Torah na magdadasal mga taga Israel sa harap ng Ark of the Covenant.]

ANONG WALA E DUON KINATATAGPO NI MOISES ANG DIOS:

Ex 25:21-22 "And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel."

SAAN MAKAKATAGPO NI MOISES ANG DIOS SA PAGITAN NG 2 ESTATWA NG KERUBIN NG ARK OF THE COVENANT. E DI PAG NAKALUHOD SI MOISES AT KAUSAP ANG DIOS NAKAHARAP SYA SA ARK OF THE COVENANT AT SA 2 ESTATWA.

MAGING SI JOSHUA AY LUMUHOD SA HARAP ANG ARK OF THE COVENANT:

Josh 7:6 "Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel. And they put dust on their heads."

[alam nyo idaan ko rin lang sa paliwanag nyo eh bagsak sa Bibliya yang argumento nyo.]

SAAN NAKASULAT SA BIBLIA NA DECORATION LANG ANG ARK OF THE COVENANT? HE, HE, HE... TIGNAN NATIN KUNG SINO SA ATIN ANG BABAGSAK SA BIBLIA.

[di raw nyo sinasamba ang rebulto pero yung nirerepresent ng rebulto.]

PALPAK. ANG SINASAMBA NAMIN AY ANG DIOS. KUNG HINDI DIOS ANG NIREREPRESENT NG REBULTO E DI HINDI NAMIN YON SINASAMBA, ANG REBULTO AT ANG NIREREPRESENT NITO.

ANG PAGSAMBA AYON SA DOCTRINANG CATOLICO AY EXCLUSIVO SA DIOS LAMANG AT SA PANGINOONG JESU-CRISTO.

[WOW! tama ba na irepresent si Cristo at ang DIOS Ama na mukhang lolo na rebulto?]

PALPAK NA NAMAN. HINDI LOLO ANG REPRESENTASYON KUNDI "AMA". HA, HA, HA... AT TAMA NA IREPRESENT NA AMA ANG DIOS SAPAGKAT SIYA ANG DIOS AMA.

[pasagutin natin si Apostol Pablo. (Gawa 17:29)

Paano yan, di dapat isipin na ang pagkaDIOS ay katulad sa pilak, ginto o bato na inukit ng kabihasnan ng tao.]

WALA NAMAN KAMING ARAL NA ANG PAGKA DIOS AY KATULAD NG PILAK, GINTO O BATO NA INUKIT NG KABIHASNAN NG TAO. ANG REBULTO ANG KATULAD NG PILAK, GINTO O BATO NA INUKIT NG KABIHASNAN NG TAO, HINDI ANG PAGKA-DIOS. YAN AY HALUSINASYON MO LANG. HA, HA, HA...

[kabisado naming mga INC ang taktika ng Simbahan Padre. kung matalo namin yan mga CFDs nyo ay sasabihin nyo ay di sila LICENSED kundi nangahas lang. LOL]

KELAN NYO NATALO ANG CFD's? KELAN? ILABAS NYO NGA ANG MGA DEBATE NYO SA CFD. BINUGBOG NI SOC FERNANDEZ SI SANTIAGO, KUMAIN NG ALIKABOK SI RAMIL PARBA KAY WENDELL TALIBONG.

[kaya di nangangahas ang Simbahan na lumaban ang 1 pari gaya mo laban sa ibang relihiyon kasi kung matalo ay wala kayong maiaalibi. lilitaw mga bobo talaga kayo sa Bibliya.]

HINDI LUMALABAN ANG MGA PARI DAHIL HINDI NAMIN PANDEBATE ANG MGA PARI.

PAKUNWARI KA PA E ANG MGA PASTOR NYO ANG PURO DUWAG. HINDI LUMALABAN NG DEBATE ANG MGA LOCAL NA PASTOR. KAPAG HINAMON ANG LUMALABAN LANG NAMAN AY DALAWA: SI VENTILACION AT SI PARBA. ANG IBA PURO NA DUWAG. ANG CENTRAL ANG NAMIMILI NG MGA DEDEBATE SA INYO AT HINDI YUNG HINAHAMON.

[sa ADD lang talo pa rin kayo pero mas magaling kami sa mga ADD.]

KAYA PALA TAKOT ANG MGA PASTOR NYO NANG HINAMON NI SORIANO. IT TOOK YEARS BAGO NYO TINANGGAP ANG HAMON.

[kayong mga Katoliko at Orthodox ang pinakabobo sa bibliya sa mundo.]

MGA GUNGGONG. UTAK KALABAW LANG KAYO. ANG MGA CATOLICO AT ORTHODOX ANG PINAKA MATAAS ANG BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP SA BUONG MUNDO. KAYA NGA KAMI ANG MGA PINAPAYAGANG MAGTAYO NG MGA UNIVERSITIES AT MAGLATHALA AT MAGSALIN NG BIBLIA KASI MAS MATATALINO KAMI KESA SA INYO. ANG MGA PASTOR NYO KULANG SA PINAG-ARALAN.

[pero kami ang pinakamahusay kasi ang Iglesia namin ay reformed ng sinugo ng itaas mula sa pagkawasak.]

KAYO ANG PINAKAMAHUSAY SA MGA TANGA. IMAGINE, SINUGO DAW MULA SA PAGKAWASAK. SAAN SA BIBLIA NAWASAK ANG SANTA IGLESIA? SAAN? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE.

[o ito Padre para matuto ka, batayan sa Bibliya na mawawasak ang Iglesia (Gawa 28:29-30)]

Act 28:29 At nang masabi na niya ang mga salitang ito'y nagsialis ang mga Judio, at sila-sila'y nangagtatalong mainam.

Act 28:30 At tumahan si Pablo na dalawang taong ganap sa kaniyang tahanang inuupahan, at tinatanggap ang lahat ng sa kaniya'y nagsisipagsadya,

GUNGGONG. SAAN DYAN ANG NAGSASABI NA MAWAWASAK ANG SANTA IGLESIA? SAAN? HA, HA, HA... SINUNGALING. SINUNGALING.

[Padre, magministro ka na lang sa amin.]

HE, HE, HE... AYOKO NGA. AYOKONG MAGING UTO-UTO SA MGA MANALO.

[puwede ka pang mag asawa.]

SI CRISTO AT ANG MGA APOSTOLES AY HINDI NAG-ASAWA. SI PEDRO AY INIWAN ANG LAHAT PARA KAY CRISTO.

[saka mas maganda sumama ka sa Ang Tamang Daan para labanan si baklang Soriano para sa amin kung ministro ka na.]

NILALABANAN KO NA ANG BAKLANG SI SORIANO. PERO HINDI AKO SASAMA SA INYO KASI PEKENG DAAN KAYO E. NASA DAAN KAYO NG KA-DILIMAN.

May 31, 2010 6:18 PM

CEBUANO PASTOR, ANTI-CATHOLIC DEBATER AND FOUNDER OF RELIGION CONVERTED TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Former Protestant Pastor Danny Cugtas, now proud to be a Roman Catholic.

100% KATOLIKONG PINOY! Danny Cugtas, also known as Dan, is then an evangelical pastor in Cebu and is a founder of an evangelical sect named "Jesus the Church." Dan, in his pastor-hood, is an arduous debater against other religions. With the Bible as his basis, he pinned down many leaders and pastors with the genius of his oral delivery emphases. With regard...s to the Catholic Church, he strongly condemns the Church and her doctrines. He is an avid assaulter for the Church's use of images and for the Church's veneration of Mary and the saints. He is utterly convinced that the Catholic Church is of the Devil.

Dan then decided to barge in and continued on assaulting the Catholic Church by dealing with Bro. Socrates Fernandez, a catholic apologist, in the latter's catholic radio program. Questions were hurled and Bro. Soc answered them accurately. Unsatisfied and unconvinced, Dan then challenged Bro. Soc into a formal debate. Dan did his best to pin down the catholic apologist with his anti-catholic arguments, but Bro. Soc bore everything patiently, and with his distinctive calm voice, answered everything just accurately. When it is the turn of Bro. Soc to do the rebuttal, Danny is surprised to know that there are aspects of the Church that he did not fully understand.

At the end of the day, Danny is completely convinced and he decided to leave the religion he founded.

"What opened my eyes is the humility that Bro. Soc. showed" Danny said in an exclusive interview. "I had neglected this Christian virtue in my reputation as founder and bible debater. And I realized, to be fully humble, you must let yourself be subjected to the truth. Pastors like me then tend to cover up what is false in us by projecting ourselves boldly, while in the Catholic Church, you had no sense to push yourself up, for the truth is in this Church, and sooner and later a God will be there to judge you to reward or punish you. Sooner or later, you will be found in the same place of truth, everyone of us in this Church, and you will be judged on how you used yourself for the service of the truth."

Danny Cugtas is now back home to the Catholic Church. He joins Socrates Fernandez and co. in their radio and television broadcasts and in special events, Danny offers himself to witness on his conversion.

A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

The Most Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Eternal Praise and Glory, forever and ever. Amen.

1. Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed ). And when you have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep, before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so as it may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulness obliterate what care has delivered, let your memory be your record-roll: what you are about to hear, that are you to believe; and what you shall have believed, that are about to give back with your tongue. For the Apostle says, “With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” For this is the Creed which you are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which you have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when you have been born by the church as your Mother.

2. Of this, then, you have now received, have meditated, and having meditated have held, that you should say, “I believe in God the Father Almighty.” God is Almighty, and yet, though Almighty, He cannot die, cannot be deceived, cannot lie; and, as the Apostle says, “cannot deny Himself.” How many things that He cannot do, and yet is Almighty! Yea therefore is Almighty, because He cannot do these things. For if He could die, He were not Almighty; if to lie, if to be deceived, if to do unjustly, were possible for Him, He were not Almighty: because if this were in Him, He should not be worthy to be Almighty. To our Almighty Father, it is quite impossible to sin. He does whatsoever He will: that is Omnipotence. He does whatsoever He rightly will, whatsoever He justly will: but whatsoever is evil to do, He wills not. There is no resisting one who is Almighty, that He should not do what He will. It was He Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, invisible and visible. Invisible such as are in heaven, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, archangels, angels: all, if we shall live aright, our fellow citizens. He made in heaven the things visible; the sun, the moon, the stars. With its terrestrial animals He adorned the earth, filled the air with things that fly, the land with them that walk and creep, the sea with them that swim: all He filled with their own proper creatures. He made also man after His own image and likeness, in the mind: for in that is the image of God. This is the reason why the mind cannot be comprehended even by itself, because in it is the image of God. To this end were we made, that over the other creatures we should bear rule: but through sin in the first man we fell, and are all come into an inheritance of death. We were brought low, became mortal, were filled with fears, with errors: this by desert of sin: with which desert and guilt is every man born. This is the reason why, as you have seen today, as you know, even little children undergo exsufflation, exorcism; to drive away from them the power of the devil their enemy, which deceived man that it might possess mankind. It is not then the creature of God that in infants undergoes exorcism or exsufflation: but he under whom are all that are born with sin; for he is the first of sinners. And for this cause by reason of one who fell and brought all into death, there was sent One without sin, Who should bring unto life, by delivering them from sin, all that believe in Him.

3. For this reason we believe also in His Son, that is to say, God the Father Almighty's, “His Only Son, our Lord.” When you hear of the Only Son of God, acknowledge Him God. For it could not be that God's Only Son should not be God. What He is, the same did He beget, though He is not that Person Whom He begot. If He be truly Son, He is that which the Father is; if He be not that which the Father is, He is not truly Son. Observe mortal and earthly creatures: what each is, that it engenders. Man besets not an ox, sheep besets not dog, nor dog sheep. Whatever it be that begets, that which it is, it begets. Hold ye therefore boldly, firmly, faithfully, that the Begotten of God the Father is what Himself is, Almighty. These mortal creatures engender by corruption. Does God so beget? He that is begotten mortal generates that which himself is; the Immortal generates what He is: corruptible begets corruptible, Incorruptible begets Incorruptible: the corruptible begets corruptibly, Incorruptible, Incorruptibly: yea, so begets what Itself is, that One begets One, and therefore Only. You know, that when I pronounced to you the Creed, so I said, and so you are bounden to believe; that we “believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son.” Here too, when you believe that He is the Only, believe Him Almighty: for it is not to be thought that God the Father does what He will, and God the Son does not what He will. One Will of Father and Son, because one Nature. For it is impossible for the will of the Son to be any whit parted from the Father's will. God and God; both one God: Almighty and Almighty; both One Almighty.

4. We do not bring in two Gods as some do, who say, “God the Father and God the Son, but greater God the Father and lesser God the Son.” They both are what? Two Gods? You blush to speak it, blush to believe it. Lord God the Father, you say, and Lord God the Son: and the Son Himself says, “No man can serve two Lords.” In His family shall we be in such wise, that, like as in a great house where there is the father of a family and he has a son, so we should say, the greater Lord, the lesser Lord? Shrink from such a thought. If you make to yourselves such like in your heart, you set up idols in the “one soul.” Utterly repel it. First believe, then understand. Now to whom God gives that when he has believed he soon understands; that is God's gift, not human frailness. Still, if you do not yet understand, believe: One God the Father, God Christ the Son of God. Both are what? One God. And how are both said to be One God? How? Do you marvel? In the Acts of the Apostles, “There was,” it says, “in the believers, one soul and one heart.” There were many souls, faith had made them one. So many thousands of souls were there; they loved each other, and many are one: they loved God in the fire of charity, and from being many they have come to the oneness of beauty. If all those many souls the dearness of love made one soul, what must be the dearness of love in God, where is no diversity, but entire equality! If on earth and among men there could be so great charity as of so many souls to make one soul, where Father from Son, Son from Father, has been ever inseparable, could They both be other than One God? Only, those souls might be called both many souls and one soul; but God, in Whom is ineffable and highest conjunction, may be called One God, not two Gods.

5. The Father does what He will, and what He will does the Son. Do not imagine an Almighty Father and a not Almighty Son: it is error, blot it out within you, let it not cleave in your memory, let it not be drunk into your faith, and if haply any of you shall have drunk it in, let him vomit it up. Almighty is the Father, Almighty the Son. If Almighty begot not Almighty, He begot not very Son. For what say we, brethren, if the Father being greater begot a Son less than He? What said I, begot? Man engenders, being greater, a son being less: it is true: but that is because the one grows old, the other grows up, and by very growing attains to the form of his father. The Son of God, if He grows not because neither can God wax old, was begotten perfect. And being begotten perfect, if He grows not, and remained not less, He is equal. For that you may know Almighty begotten of Almighty, hear Him Who is Truth. That which of Itself Truth says, is true. What says Truth? What says the Son, Who is Truth? “Whatsoever things the Father does, these also the Son likewise does.” The Son is Almighty, in doing all things that He wills to do. For if the Father does some things which the Son does not, the Son said falsely, “Whatsoever things the Father does, these also the Son does likewise.” But because the Son spoke truly, believe it: “Whatsoever things the Father does, these also the Son does likewise,” and you have believed in the Son that He is Almighty. Which word although ye said not in the Creed, yet this is it that you expressed when you believed in the Only Son, Himself God. Hath the Father anything that the Son has not? This Arian heretic blasphemers say, not I. But what say I? If the Father has anything that the Son has not, the Son lies in saying, “All things that the Father has, are Mine.” Many and innumerable are the testimonies by which it is proved that the Son is Very Son of God the Father, and the Father God has His Very-begotten Son God, and Father and Son is One God.

6. But this Only Son of God, the Father Almighty, let us see what He did for us, what He suffered for us. “Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.” He, so great God, equal with the Father, born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, born lowly, that thereby He might heal the proud. Man exalted himself and fell; God humbled Himself and raised him up. Christ's lowliness, what is it? God has stretched out an hand to man laid low. We fell, He descended: we lay low, He stooped. Let us lay hold and rise, that we fall not into punishment. So then His stooping to us is this, “Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.” His very Nativity too as man, it is lowly, and it is lofty. Whence lowly? That as man He was born of men. Whence lofty? That He was born of a virgin. A virgin conceived, a virgin bore, and after the birth was a virgin still.

7. What next? “Suffered under Pontius Pilate.” He was in office as governor and was the judge, this same Pontius Pilate, what time as Christ suffered. In the name of the judge there is a mark of the times, when He suffered under Pontius Pilate: when He suffered, “was crucified, dead, and buried.” Who? What? For whom? Who? God's Only Son, our Lord. What? Crucified, dead, and buried. For whom? For ungodly and sinners. Great condescension, great grace! “What shall I render unto the Lord for all that He has bestowed on me?”

8. He was begotten before all times, before all worlds. “Begotten before.” Before what, He in Whom is no before? Do not in the least imagine any time before that Nativity of Christ whereby He was begotten of the Father; of that Nativity I am speaking by which He is Son of God Almighty, His Only Son our Lord; of that am I first speaking. Do not imagine in this Nativity a beginning of time; do not imagine any space of eternity in which the Father was and the Son was not. Since when the Father was, since then the Son. And what is that “since,” where is no beginning? Therefore ever Father without beginning, ever Son without beginning. And how, you will say, was He begotten, if He have no beginning? Of eternal, coeternal. At no time was the Father, and the Son not, and yet Son of Father was begotten. Whence is any manner of similitude to be had? We are among things of earth, we are in the visible creature. Let the earth give me a similitude: it gives none. Let the element of the waters give me some similitude: it has not whereof to give. Some animal give me a similitude: neither can this do it. An animal indeed engenders, both what engenders and what is engendered: but first is the father, and then is born the son. Let us find the coeval and imagine it coeternal. If we shall be able to find a father coeval with his son, and son coeval with his father, let us believe God the Father coeval with His Son, and God the Son coeternal with His Father. On earth we can find some coeval, we cannot find any coeternal. Let us stretch the coeval and imagine it coeternal. Some one, it may be, will put you on the stretch, by saying, “When is it possible for a father to be found coeval with his son, or son coeval with his father? That the father may beget he goes before in age; that the son may be begotten, he comes after in age: but this father coeval with son, or son with father, how can it be?” Imagine to yourselves fire as father, its shining as son; see, we have found the coevals. From the instant that the fire begins to be, that instant it begets the shining: neither fire before shining, nor shining after fire. And if we ask, which begets which? The fire the shining, or the shining the fire? Immediately ye conceive by natural sense, by the innate wit of your minds ye all cry out, The fire the shining, not the shining the fire. Lo, here you have a father beginning; lo, a son at the same time, neither going before nor coming after. Lo, here then is a father beginning, lo, a son at the same time beginning. If I have shown you a father beginning, and a son at the same time beginning, believe the Father not beginning, and with Him the Son not beginning either; the one eternal, the other coeternal. If you get on with your learning, you understand: take pains to get on. The being born, you have; but also the growing, you ought to have; because no man begins with being perfect. As for the Son of God, indeed, He could be born perfect, because He was begotten without time, coeternal with the Father, long before all things, not in age, but in eternity. He then was begotten coeternal, of which generation the Prophet said, “His generation who shall declare?” begotten of the Father without time, He was born of the Virgin in the fullness of times. This nativity had times going before it. In opportunity of time, when He would, when He knew, then was He born: for He was not born without His will. None of us is born because he will, and none of us dies when he will: He, when He would, was born; when He would, He died: how He would, He was born of a Virgin: how He would, He died; on the cross. Whatever He would, He did: because He was in such wise Man that, unseen, He was God; God assuming, Man assumed; One Christ, God and Man.

9. Of His cross what shall I speak, what say? This extremest kind of death He chose, that not any kind of death might make His Martyrs afraid. The doctrine He showed in His life as Man, the example of patience He demonstrated in His Cross. There, you have the work, that He was crucified; example of the work, the Cross; reward of the work, Resurrection. He showed us in the Cross what we ought to endure, He showed in the Resurrection what we have to hope. Just like a consummate task-master in the matches of the arena, He said, Do, and bear; do the work and receive the prize; strive in the match and you shall be crowned. What is the work? Obedience. What the prize? Resurrection without death. Why did I add, “without death?” Because Lazarus rose, and died: Christ rose again, “dies no more, death will no longer have dominion over Him.”

10. Scripture says, “You have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord.” When we read what great trials Job endured, it makes one shudder, it makes one shrink, it makes one quake. And what did he receive? The double of what he had lost. Let not a man therefore with an eye to temporal rewards be willing to have patience, and say to himself, “Let me endure loss, God will give me back sons twice as many; Job received double of all, and begot as many sons as he had buried.” Then is this not the double? Yes, precisely the double, because the former sons still lived. Let none say, “Let me bear evils, and God will repay me as He repaid Job:” that it be now no longer patience but avarice. For if it was not patience which that Saint had, nor a brave enduring of all that came upon him; the testimony which the Lord gave, whence should he have it? “Have you observed,” says the Lord, “my servant Job? For there is not like him any on the earth, a man without fault, true worshipper of God.” What a testimony, my brethren, did this holy man deserve of the Lord! And yet him a bad woman sought by her persuasion to deceive, she too representing that serpent, who, like as in Paradise he deceived the man whom God first made, so likewise here by suggesting blasphemy thought to be able to deceive a man who pleased God. What things he suffered, my brethren! Who can have so much to suffer in his estate, his house, his sons, his flesh, yea in his very wife who was left to be his tempter! But even her who was left, the devil would have taken away long ago, but that he kept her to be his helper: because by Eve he had mastered the first man, therefore had he kept an Eve. What things, then, he suffered! He lost all that he had; his house fell; would that were all! It crushed his sons also. And, to see that patience had great place in him, hear what he answered; “The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so has it been done; blessed be the name of the Lord.” He has taken what He gave, is He lost Who gave? He has taken what He gave. As if he should say, He has taken away all, let Him take all, send me away naked, and let me keep Him. What shall I lack if I have God? Or what is the good of all else to me, if I have not God? Then it came to his flesh, he was stricken with a wound from head to foot; he was one running sore, one mass of crawling worms: and showed himself immovable in his God, stood fixed. The woman wanted, devil's helper as she was not husband's comforter, to put him up to blaspheme God. “How long,” said she, “do you suffer” so and so; “speak some word against the Lord, and die.” So then, because he had been brought low, he was to be exalted. And this the Lord did, in order to show it to men; as for His servant, He kept greater things for him in heaven. So then Job who was brought low, He exalted; the devil who was lifted up, He brought low: for “He puts down one and sets up another.” But let not any man, my beloved brethren, when he suffers any such-like tribulations, look for a reward here: for instance, if he suffer any losses, let him not perhaps say, “The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord;” only with the mind to receive twice as much again. Let patience praise God, not avarice. If what you have lost you seek to receive back twofold, and therefore praisest God, it is of covetousness you praise, not of love. Do not imagine this to be the example of that holy man; you deceive yourself. When Job was enduring all, he was not hoping for to have twice as much again. Both in his first confession when he bore up under his losses, and bore out to the grave the dead bodies of his sons, and in the second when he was now suffering torments of sores in his flesh, you may observe what I am saying. Of his former confession the words run thus: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away: as it pleased the Lord, so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.” He might have said, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; He that took away can once more give; can bring back more than He took.” He said not this, but, “As it pleased the Lord,” said he, “so is it done:” because it pleases Him, let it please me: let not that which has pleased the good Lord misplease His submissive servant; what pleased the Physician, not misplease the sick man. Hear his other confession: “You have spoken,” said he to his wife, “like one of the foolish women. If we have received good at the hand of the Lord, why shall we not bear evil?” He did not add, what, if he had said it, would have been true. “The Lord is able both to bring back my flesh into its former condition, and that which He has taken away from us, to make manifold more:” lest he should seem to have endured in hope of this. This was not what he said, not what he hoped. But, that we might be taught, did the Lord that for him, not hoping for it, by which we should be taught, that God was with him: because if He had not also restored to him those things, there was the crown indeed, but hidden, and we could not see it. And therefore what says the divine Scripture in exhorting to patience and hope of things future, not reward of things present? “You have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord.” Why is it, “the patience of Job,” and not, You have seen the end of Job himself? You would open your mouth for the “twice as much;” would say, “Thanks be to God; let me bear up: I receive twice as much again, like Job.” “Patience of Job, end of the Lord.” The patience of Job we know, and the end of the Lord we know. What end of the Lord? “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” They are the words of the Lord hanging on the cross. He did as it were leave Him for present felicity, not leave Him for eternal immortality. In this is “the end of the Lord.” The Jews hold Him, the Jews insult, the Jews bind Him, crown Him with thorns, dishonor Him with spitting, scourge Him, overwhelm Him with revilings, hang Him upon the tree, pierce Him with a spear, last of all bury Him. He was as it were left: but by whom? By those insulting ones. Therefore you shall but to this end have patience, that you may rise again and not die, that is, never die, even as Christ. For so we read, “Christ rising from the dead henceforth dies not.”

11. “He ascended into heaven:” believe. “He sits at the right hand of the Father:” believe. By sitting, understand dwelling: as [in Latin] we say of any person, “In that country he dwelt (sedit) three years.” The Scripture also has that expression, that such an one dwelt (sedisse) in a city for such a time. Not meaning that he sat and never rose up? On this account the dwellings of men are called seats (sedes). Where people are seated (in this sense), are they always sitting? Is there no rising, no walking, no lying down? And yet they are called seats (sedes). In this way, then, believe an inhabiting of Christ on the right hand of God the Father: He is there. And let not your heart say to you, What is He doing? Do not want to seek what is not permitted to find: He is there; it suffices you. He is blessed, and from blessedness which is called the right hand of the Father, of very blessedness the name is, right hand of the Father. For if we shall take it carnally, then because He sits on the right hand of the Father, the Father will be on His left hand. Is it consistent with piety so to put Them together, the Son on the right, the Father on the left? There it is all right-hand, because no misery is there.

12. “Thence He shall come to judge the quick and dead.” The quick, who shall be alive and remain; the dead, who shall have gone before. It may also be understood thus: The living, the just; the dead, the unjust. For He judges both, rendering unto each his own. To the just He will say in the judgment, “Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world.” For this prepare yourselves, for these things hope, for this live, and so live, for this believe, for this be baptized, that it may be said to you, “Come ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” To them on the left hand, what? “Go into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Thus will they be judged by Christ, the quick and the dead. We have spoken of Christ's first nativity, which is without time; spoken of the other in the fullness of time, Christ's nativity of the Virgin; spoken of the passion of Christ; spoken of the coming of Christ to judgment. The whole is spoken, that was to be spoken of Christ, God's Only Son, our Lord. But not yet is the Trinity perfect.

13. It follows in the Creed, “And in the Holy Ghost.” This Trinity, one God, one nature, one substance, one power; highest equality, no division, no diversity, perpetual dearness of love. Would ye know the Holy Ghost, that He is God? Be baptized, and you will be His temple. The Apostle says, “Do you not know that your bodies are the temple within you of the Holy Ghost, Whom you have of God?” A temple is for God: thus also Solomon, king and prophet, was bidden to build a temple for God. If he had built a temple for the sun or moon or some star or some angel, would not God condemn him? Because therefore he built a temple for God he showed that he worshipped God. And of what did he build? Of wood and stone, because God deigned to make unto Himself by His servant an house on earth, where He might be asked, where He might be had in mind. Of which blessed Stephen says, “Solomon built Him a house; howbeit the Most High dwells not in temples made by hand.” If then our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, what manner of God is it that built a temple for the Holy Ghost? But it was God. For if our bodies be a temple of the Holy Ghost, the same built this temple for the Holy Ghost, that built our bodies. Listen to the Apostle saying, “God has tempered the body, giving unto that which lacked the greater honor;” when he was speaking of the different members that there should be no schisms in the body. God created our body. The grass, God created; our body Who created? How do we prove that the grass is God's creating? He that clothes, the same creates. Read the Gospel, “If then the grass of the fields,” says it, “which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God so clothes.” He, then, creates Who clothes. And the Apostle: “You fool, that which you sow is not quickened except it die; and that which you sow, you sow not that body that shall be, but a bare grain, as perchance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God gives it a body as He would, and to each one of seeds its proper body.” If then it be God that builds our bodies, God that builds our members, and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, doubt not that the Holy Ghost is God. And do not add as it were a third God; because Father and Son and Holy Ghost is One God. So believe ye.

14. It follows after commendation of the Trinity, “The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are you.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

15. “Forgiveness of sins.” You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. Let none say, “I have done this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me.” What have you done? How great a sin have you done? Name any heinous thing you have committed, heavy, horrible, which you shudder even to think of: have done what you will: have you killed Christ? There is not than that deed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing better. What a dreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews killed Him, and many afterwards believed on Him and drank His blood: they are forgiven the sin which they committed. When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.

16. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, “Our Father,” who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?

17. We believe also “the resurrection of the flesh,” which went before in Christ: that the body too may have hope of that which went before in its Head. The Head of the Church, Christ: the Church, the body of Christ. Our Head is risen, ascended into heaven: where the Head, there also the members. In what way the resurrection of the flesh? Lest any should chance to think it like as Lazarus's resurrection, that you may know it to be not so, it is added, “Into life everlasting.” God regenerate you! God preserve and keep you! God bring you safe unto Himself, Who is the Life Everlasting. Amen.

CHANT, Music for Paradise by The Cistercian Monks of Stift Heiligenkreuz

Cover Art of the Recording of the Cistercian Monks

Another recording I've been listening to this summer is the popular recording of the Cistercian Monks of Stift Heiligenkreuz. This is not Gregorian Chant at its best but the recording is great and serves the purpose of leading the listener to thoughts of God and heavenly things. The singing is impeccable and the music so pure from the impurities of these world. No heavy orchestrations but a gentle sound like a breeze of fresh air touching our face in one wonderful morning of spring.
The songs are popular for Gregorian Chants afficionados or for those who are liturgically literate:

1. Antiphona 'In Paradisum' and Psalm 121
2. Responsorium 'Subvenite'
3. Responsorium 'Libera Me'
4. Stift Heiligenkreuz Bells
5. Requiem (Missa Pro Defunctis)
6. Completorium
7. Stift Heiligenkreuz Bells
8. Hymnus 'Veni Creator Spiritus'
9. Introitus 'Spiritus Domini'
10. Communio 'Factus est repente'

This recording gives us the opportunity to taste the Spiritual Font arising from the liturgical treasury of the Cistercian Monks. Enjoy it.

ALMA MATER, Music from the Vatican

Cover Art of the Recording

I've been listening to the digital recording of ALMA MATER, Music from the Vatican. It features popular and well-loved Marian Hymns such as Sancta Dei Genetrix, Mater Ecclesiae, Advocata Nostra, Benedicta Tu, Causa Nostrae Laetitiae, Auxilium Christianorum, Regina Coeli and Magistra Nostra with the orchestration of Christus Vincit at the finale.
It's so heavenly. Very beautiful. So soothing to the heart, the mind and the entire soul. I highly recommend it. Much more it is helpful for prayers and meditation and mental relaxation. It is indeed a masterpiece combining the benefits of modern technology and the ancient musical treasures of the Church. It is further enriched by the melodious voice of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI together with the magnificent Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. This music is simply breathtaking.

NEW BATTLE AGAINST THE RH BILL IS RISING

The Virgin Mary visits her cousin St. Elizabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist. Today we are celebrating the Feast of the Visitation of Mary. May the Lord through the intercessions of Mary, St. Elizabeth and St. John the Baptist grant us total victory against the RH Bill.

What is really going on
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
Updated May 31, 2010 12:00 AM

Even as the dusts of the last electoral battle have not yet fully settled down, the advocates of the RH bill are already making lots of noises. They are beating their breasts and bragging that most of the politicians who are staunch supporters of the bill were reelected thereby showing that the Church campaign against them and against the RH bill was a failure. This is however misleading and not entirely correct.

These politicians mainly won not because of their favorable stand on the RH bill. To be sure they may not have even explained to their constituents what the RH bill is all about or successfully convinced them of the bill’s merits. It is highly improbable that those who voted for them were fully apprised of the pros and cons of the bill. Actually these politicians won mainly because of thousands and even millions of other reasons or “considerations” that are usually the main ingredients of winning elections in this country where politics are no longer based on principles but on money, machinery, and dynasty.

Apparently the bill’s advocates and supporters are once more engaging in some form of deception and misinformation which characterizes their advocacy of the RH bill. They are even putting a twist and other meaning to incoming President Noynoy Aquino’s stand on the bill to the extent of engaging in double hearsay by quoting from a source who allegedly told them what Aquino told him.

To be sure Aquino’s core concern is the eradication of poverty which is very laudable. So his apparent support for the bill stems from a belief that controlling population can eradicate poverty; that reducing our population, which is euphemistically called by its authors as “population management” and “responsible parenthood, will spur economic growth. But when Noynoy adopted that ringing campaign pitch in the last election “kung walang corrupt walang mahirap”, he obviously saw that corruption, not overpopulation, is the main cause of poverty in this land; that well known economists and demographers have long discredited the Malthusian myth about population growth as stunting the economy. He must have seen (or should see) from official government data “that since a population control program was put in place here in the 1970s — with billions of public money spent to fund it — our population growth has been declining and continues to do so today, yet poverty has not been reduced”.

With his family and educational background, Noynoy Aquino would certainly not endorse a bill on population control to eradicate poverty because this is also like saying that we must reduce our human resource especially the poor to eliminate it. He would not support a bill on “reproductive health” that considers pregnancy as a disease which should be prevented by “teaching women—married or single—all methods and techniques to prevent it including abortion or the killing of an innocent and defenseless human being in the mother’s womb as confirmed by the authors themselves during committee deliberations when they denied the beginning of human life at fertilization.

The Pink Sisters who have been praying for Aquino would certainly not wish: that he supports a bill giving sexual rights to young people and requiring mandatory child sex education; that he promotes a measure imposing fine and imprisonment on parents, spouses and health workers who impede sexual and reproductive rights; that he endorses a bill creating a program for fertility control by encouraging the limitation of family size to two children and giving incentives to two child families.

The recent noises and blusters of the RH bill sponsors and advocates undoubtedly confirm that there is a war going on between secularism and Christianity. In an article published on March 19, 2010, in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, President of the Italian Senate from 2001 to 2006, Marcello Pera, described this secularism as aimed at the “destruction of religion” which “will not be the triumph of secular reason but the introduction of a new barbarism” that on the ethical plane is the barbarism of those: who kill the foetus because its life will be detrimental to the mental health (reproductive health) of the mother; who say that an embryo is a blob of cells suitable for experiments; who kill an old person because he no longer has a family to take care of him; and who hasten the death of a child because it is no longer conscious and is incurable”.

In said article entitled “Paedophile priests and the Pope”, Mr. Pera wrote that “secularists know that if mud were splashed in the white robe, it would stain the church, and if the church is stained, so would the Christian religion” Hence, several papers in the U.S.A. have recently come out with stories of sexual abuse of minors by priests which were blown out of proportion and used to attack the “three pillars of the Catholic system: its moral authority, the priests and the Pope”.

The papers in the US particularly the New York Times has not been so honest in presenting the case. “Accusations are gathered since 1940 to come up with a figure of 4,000 paedophile priests in the U.S… In that country of 300 million people, over 2.5 million students and 763,000 university students in Catholic centers and 20,000 parishes, that is only a little less than 8 reported cases per year (and fewer each time) of paedophile priests reported over half a century (Josep Ardevol, La Vanguardia).

Three horrible cases in the US involving a priest in Wisconsin, two priests in Arizona and one priest in California which all happened in the 1970s where the police were informed and acted, the priests suspended by their bishops and later on defrocked, were revived in an effort to implicate Pope Benedict XVI or Cardinal Ratzinger whose only involvement was when a request for defrocking landed on his desk. He was accused of cover-up or collusion because in a 2001 letter, he asked the parties to observe secrecy and confidentiality during the trial so that the victims could give their evidence freely and the accused protected until proven guilty. Obviously the letter was not a cover-up or collusion as misreported.

These are pointed out here so that as Catholic lay people we know what is really going on and be ready to defend the truth against those who engage in deception and distortion of facts.

E-mail Atty. Jose Sison at jcson@pldtdsl.net

Saturday, May 29, 2010

MAJOR CHURCH PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE BIBLE

Ancient Bible Manuscripts in Greek

Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible

Pentecost (30/33AD)
The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.

Vatican I Council (1869-1870)
Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."

Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903
Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies. Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."

Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914
Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.

Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922
Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.
_______________________
Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958

Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no freedom interpreting the Scriptures.

Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958
Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives

Vatican II Council (1962-1965)
The decree, On Divine Revelation, declares that there is one source of Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ; that there are two modes of handing on revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition : "in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end," and "it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed." Concerning Inerrancy of Scripture: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. "Emphasized that "in order to see what God wanted to communicate in Scripture, we must investigate the intention of the sacred author, and one way to do this is by paying attention to the literary form employed by the sacred writer."

http://www.facebook.com/l/9c9c1;www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm