Thursday, September 30, 2010

VATICAN II AND THE PRESERVATION OF LATIN IN THE CHURCH

Old Gregorian Chant Hymnal
Anonymous said...

How about obedience to the Church. Vatican II mandates that "the use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites..." and that "care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them..." You are saying that we must obey the Council but now you are contradicting one of the Council's decrees. I thought you were Vatican II fans but now you are "disobeying" or "criticizing" Vatican II... Vernacular languages are PERMITTED by Vatican II but the contrary is happening now. It seems that the vernacular languages are MANDATED by Vatican II and the Latin language DISCARDED. But when we read Sacrosanctum Concilium it is clearly stated there that we must still USE, PRESERVE, STUDY, BE TAUGHT (by our priests/RE teachers), SAY or SING in LATIN. It is very sad that even our priests and apologists are saying something negative about the Church's use of Latin. I can still remember when we were still young (here in Mindanao, province area) we can understand Latin as if mystically even if we did not have any training on it. We can understand and grasp more the grandeur of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form that when it is in the vernacular. Look at some of our churches: the Mass can now be understood but few Mass goers. During the era of the Tridentine Mass: the Mass in Latin, "very foreign," but greater participation, learning, awe, solemnity, etc.

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[How about obedience to the Church.]

THE SSPX IS DEFINITELY DISOBEDIENT TO THE POPE AND THE CHURCH. THAT CANNOT BE REFUTED BY GOOBLEDYGOOK REASONING OF THE SSPX SUPPORTERS.

[Vatican II mandates that "the use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites..."]

IT IS PRESERVED IN THE CHURCH.

ALL THE MAJOR DOCUMENTS IN THE CHURCH SUCH AS THE ENCYCLICALS, THE CANON LAW, THE DECREES OF VATICAN II ARE IN LATIN.

THE MASSES OF THE POPE ESPECIALLY THOSE BROADCAST AND AIRED UNIVERSALLY ARE IN LATIN. THERE ARE LATIN MASSES IN THE CATHEDRALS, MONASTERIES, SEMINARIES AND GREGORIAN CHANT IS POPULAR NOW A DAYS.

[and that "care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them..."]

THAT IS NOT A DOGMATIC DECREE BUT A PASTORAL ONE. HA, HA, HA... ISN'T THAT YOUR FAVORITE REASONING? HA, HA, HA...

INDEED, THE CHURCH PRESERVES LATIN AND MANY PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH CAN SING THE GLORIA, SANCTUS AND PATER NOSTER IN LATIN. HOWEVER, IN THE LOCAL SITUATION NOT ALL PARISHES ARE GIFTED WITH MUSIC TEACHER TO TEACH THE GREGORIAN CHANTS AND THE SONGS OF PALESTRINA. THE LOCAL SITUATION CALLS FOR GREATER USE OF THE VERNACULAR. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

LATIN WAS FORMERLY A VULGAR LANGUAGE FOR BARBARIANS AND PAGANS SUCH AS OVID, JULIUS CAESAR, ETC. HOWEVER, THE CHURCH ABANDONED GREEK TO FAVOR LATIN FOR PASTORAL REASON. NOW THAT LATIN IS NO LONGER WIDELY USED AS BEFORE IT IS UNPASTORAL TO INSISTS ON A DEAD LANGUAGE IN THE LOCAL LEVEL.

BUT, YOU CANNOT CLAIM THAT LATIN IS TOTALLY ABANDONED. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CHURCHES WHEREIN LATIN, GREGORIAN CHANTS, POLYPHONIC SONGS ARE SUNG IN THE CHURCHES, CHAPELS, MONASTERIES AND SEMINARIES. EVEN THE POPULAR EWTN TV WHICH BROADCAST TO ABOUT 500 MILLION PEOPLE PROMOTES LATIN: THE HOLY MASS AND THE GREGORIAN CHANTS AND THE ORATORIOS. THE SSPX ARE NOT DOING THAT.

BESIDES THE MASS OF POPE PAUL VI IS ALSO ORIGINALLY IN LATIN. AND MANY OF US PRIESTS USE IT FROM TIME TO TIME.

[You are saying that we must obey the Council but now you are contradicting one of the Council's decrees.]

WE OBEY THE COUNCIL AND WE DO NOT CONTRADICT IT. THE CONTRADICTION IS EXISTING IN YOUR MIND BECAUSE OF PROBABLY IGNORANCE OF HOW THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PROMOTES AND PRESERVES LATIN ALL OVER THE WORLD. IN FACT, LATIN IS A REQUIREMENT SUBJECTS IN OUR SEMINARIES AND ECCLESIASTICAL DEGREES. FOR SURE WE HAVE MORE SEMINARIANS AND PRIESTS AND THEOLOGY STUDENTS THAN THE SSPX. HE, HE, HE...

[I thought you were Vatican II fans but now you are "disobeying" or "criticizing" Vatican II...]

YOUR THOUGHTS ARE NOT MY THOUGHTS. SO, BETTER FOR YOU TO ATTUNE YOUR THOUGHTS.

[Vernacular languages are PERMITTED by Vatican II but the contrary is happening now.]

IT IS PERMITTED. AND WHEN IT WAS PERMITTED IT BECAME VERY POPULAR THAT IT SWEPT THE WHOLE WORLD. THERE ARE ALSO CLAMOR FOR LATIN IN THE MASSES AND IN THE SONGS. BUT THE GREAT MAJORITY ARE ALSO LOVING AND ENJOYING THE VERNACULAR.

WHEN IT WAS PERMITTED THEN IT IS PERMISSIBLE AND A GOOD THING TO USE. SO, WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH IT? ANY PROBLEM?

IF YOU WANT TO PRESERVE LATIN THEN TELL YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY AND PARISH TO SPEAK IN LATIN DAILY SO THAT YOUR PARISH PRIEST WILL MAKE IT THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE IN THE MASSES THERE. HA, HA, HA...

[It seems that the vernacular languages are MANDATED by Vatican II and the Latin language DISCARDED.]

LATIN IS NOT DISCARDED. IT SIMPLY NATURALLY DIED OUT AS A LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE. IT IS THE NATURAL COURSE OF HISTORY THAT KILLED LATIN NOT THE LITURGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. YOU JUST SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT LATIN HAS FADED AWAY. THAT REALITY IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF EVERYONE. WHEN ENGLISH FADES LATER ON THE CHURCH WILL ALSO REPLACED IT WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE. THAT IS THE REALITY OF LIFE.

STOP YOUR DELUSIONS IN FAVOR OF REALITY. THE CHURCH PRESERVES LATIN BUT IT IS OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT LATIN HAS FADED AWAY.

[But when we read Sacrosanctum Concilium it is clearly stated there that we must still USE, PRESERVE, STUDY, BE TAUGHT (by our priests/RE teachers), SAY or SING in LATIN.]

IT IS BEING DONE. HOWEVER, THAT COMMAND IS NOT DOGMATIC BUT PASTORAL. THE VERNACULAR BLEW LATIN AWAY IN THE PRACTICAL LIFE OF THE CHURCH ON THE GRASSROOTS. BUT OFFICIALLY, THE CHURCH STILL EXERTS EFFORTS TO PRESERVE IT.

[It is very sad that even our priests and apologists are saying something negative about the Church's use of Latin.]

EXCUSE ME. I LOVE LATIN MORE THAN YOU. I AM ONE OF THE FEW PRIESTS IN THIS COUNTRY CELEBRATING THE TRIDENTINE LATIN MASS AND TOGHETHER WITH MY BROTHER PRIESTS WE ARE CELEBRATING THE PAULINE MASS IN LATIN. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE DIOCESAN HOUSE FOR THE CLERGY OUR BISHOP, ARTURO M. BASTES, SVD, DD CELEBRATES THE LATIN MASS WITH PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS WEEKLY IN ORDINARY FORM. THE SAME IN OUR SOMASCAN SEMINARY IN PAMPANGA AND IN TAGAYTAY.

[I can still remember when we were still young (here in Mindanao, province area) we can understand Latin as if mystically even if we did not have any training on it.]

PRAISE THE LORD FOR YOUR MENTAL PROWESS BUT I HOPE YOU WILL ALSO DENY THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME MENTAL ABILITY THAT YOU HAVE. YOU UNDERSTAND IT PROBABLY BECAUSE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE TEXT BUT NOT REALLY HAVING AN INSTINCTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF ITS GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, EXPRESSIONS AND THE RICHNESS OF ITS EVERY VOCABULARY. STILL YOU WERE VERY MUCH IMPAIRED.

UNLIKE THE MASSES TODAY WHO ARE TRULY UNVEILED TO THE EARS AND THE HEART AND THE MIND OF THE WORSHIPERS.

[We can understand and grasp more the grandeur of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form that when it is in the vernacular.]

O I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH. I HAVE TALKED TO MANY FORMER ALTAR BOYS WHO ARE NOW OLD. THEY TOLD ME ABOUT THE JOKES THEY WERE DOING WHILE THE PRIESTS WERE CELEBRATING WITH HIS BACK ON THEM. THEY WERE TELLING ME OF OLD PEOPLE JUST RECITING NOVENAS AND ROSARIES DURING CONSECRATIONS AND ALSO SLEEPING BECAUSE OF THE PROLONGED SILENCE.

HAVE YOU HEARD HOW THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THOSE TIMES JOKED ABOUT 'SAECULA SAECULORUM'? THEY WERE SINGING ON THE STREETS ACCORDING TO MY LOLO: "KOLORUM, KOLORUM... KINULA ANG KOLORUM'. HA, HA, HA... HOW ABOUT THE 'SPIRITUM FACTUM' BEING USED AS A JOKE: "IMPAKTUM, IMPAKTUM...". DO YOU KNOW THAT? HAVE YOU HEARD THAT? IF YOU THINK THAT THE LITURGY OF PRE-VATICAN II WERE ALL GLORY AND BEAUTY YOU ARE OUT OF REALITY. EVEN DURING THE APOSTOLIC TIMES THERE WERE ABUSES.

I HAVE TALKED TO MANY OLD PRIESTS WHO ARE SO HAPPY THAT THE RIGID AND METICULOUS RITE WAS REPLACED BY A MORE SIMPLE ONE. AND THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT THE RICHLY DECORATED VESTMENTS OF THE PRIESTS SCANDALIZES THE POOR IN THEIR POVERTY AND SIMPLICITY.

AS A YOUNG SEMINARIAN I ALSO INTERVIEWED A LOT OF OLD PRIESTS AND MONSIGNORI, AS WELL AS OLD FOLKS. I ASSURE YOU MORE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE. ONLY WHEN I STUDIED IN PHILOSOPHY DID THE SSPX ISSUE CAME TO ME BUT IT WAS NOT A BIG FACTOR FOR ME THEN BECAUSE OUR PEOPLE LOVES THE VERNACULAR MASS.

DON'T JUST LOOK AT THE GRANDEUR ALSO LOOK AT PASTORAL REALITY.

[Look at some of our churches: the Mass can now be understood but few Mass goers.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY LYING HERE. I'VE VISITED SO MANY PLACES OF THE COUNTRY AND EVERYWHERE I GO THE CHURCHES ARE FILLED EVERY SUNDAY. MANY CHURCHES HAVE SEVERAL MASSES IN EVERY PARISH. HA, HA, HA... MAY BE THERE ARE ONLY 1O HOUSES IN YOUR HOMETOWN THAT IS WHY. HE, HE, HE...

THAT IS A COMMON LIE OF THE SSPX. THAT THE CHURCHES ARE GETTING EMPTY. IN EUROPE MAY BE. BUT NOT HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES. I WAS TOLD THAT IN INDONESIA THE FERVOR OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MASS IS SO GREAT THAT WHILE SINGING THEY WERE EVEN CRYING WITH TEARS OF JOY. THE SAME THING IN AFRICA.

THE EMPTINESS OF CHURCHES IN EUROPE IS CAUSED NOT BY VATICAN II BUT BY PORNOGRAPHY, ABORTIONS, HOMOSEXUALITY, DRUGS, VICES, BUSINESS, ETC.

[During the era of the Tridentine Mass: the Mass in Latin, "very foreign," but greater participation, learning, awe, solemnity, etc.]

THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE WERE ALSO ABUSES BEFORE. THERE WERE PRIESTS ACCORDING TO OUR OLD PRIESTS WHO WERE CUTTING THE PRAYERS OF THE MASS TO MAKE IT SHORT. THE HOMILY WAS ONLY PURE SHOUTING DECLARING THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE AS IF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY ARE ALWAYS IN MORTAL SIN.

THERE WERE ALSO PRIESTS IMPREGNATING WOMEN BEFORE AND MOLESTING BOYS. BUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE VICTIMS PREFER TO BE SILENT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MEDIA THEN TO EXPOSE THE EVIL DONE.

DON'T PRETEND AS IF THERE WERE NO MORTAL SINS DURING THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH. EXCUSE ME. SEXUAL, LITURGICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, POLITICAL ABUSES ARE PRESENT IN THE WORLD OR IN THE CHURCH DURING THE TIME OF POPE PETER, POPE PIUS V [THAT IS WHY THERE WERE REFORMATION THEN DUE TO ABUSES AND SCANDALS] OR PIUS XII OR BENEDICT XVI.

THE CHURCH IS ALWAYS COMPOSED OF SAINTS AND SINNERS FROM THE FIRST CENTURY UNTIL NOW. DON'T TELL ME THAT YOUR ERA IS HOLIER THAN OUR AGE TODAY. THE SINS OF THE WORLD TODAY ARE BROADCASTED BY TV AND RADIO. DURING THOSE TIMES THEY ARE SIMPLY KEPT IN SECRET. PADRE DAMASO IS NOT A VATICAN II PRIEST BUT A PRE-VATICAN II. PHILIPPINE HISTORY CAN ATTESTS TO THE CORRUPTION AND EVIL AND IMMORALITIES PRESENT IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE SOCIETY DURING THE PRE-VATICAN II ERA.

EXCHANGE WITH SSPX FOLLOWER, Part 9 Bro. Ednard Kim la Rosa Refutes Illicit Bishop la Galarreta of SSPX

The Lord Jesus saved St. Peter on the water. The Lord will not allow Peter to be swallowed by the storms and the waves.
Ednard Kim said...

[Bishop de Galarreta's arguments in favour of the doctrinal discussions currently taking place between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. ]

So that formerly EXCOMMUNICATED Bishop de Galaretta is having dialogue with the Rome. Why? Because he knows they have NO CANONICAL STATUS with the Catholic Church despite the fact that pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunication. It is in Rome of the past, the Same Rome of today and the Rome of future that the we look to safeguard the purity of our faith not to Bishop Galaretta who is clearly NO CANONICAL STATUS in the Church.

[this was once argued that there is little hope of any agreement coming out of the discussions, on the grounds that you cannot mix oil and water. If you shake furiously a bottle containing both, the oil and water will mingle for as long as the shaking goes on, but as soon as it stops, the oil and water separate again. It is in their nature. Being lighter, oil is bound to float on top of water.]

That oil is the corrupted teachings of SSPX whch came from Lefebvre who interpreted the tradition apart from the Legitimate Successor of Peter while the water is the Chair of Peter where it is guaranteed that it cannot fall into Heresy (cf Pastor Aeternus). Unless they continue to reject or have some reservation with the Teaching Authority of Vatican II it is impossible for them to enter into FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church for an ecumenical council like that of the Second Vatican for “the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891).

[It is likewise in the nature of the true Church's divine doctrine and neo-modernism's humanistic doctrine to be able to mingle but not mix. The "letter" or documents of Vatican II made them mingle, but not even Vatican II's masterpieces of mingling, e.g. "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious liberty, could get the two to mix.]

Diginitates Humanae does not teach RELIGOUS LIBERALISM (a philosophy that a religion is good than the other one) but man’s right to RELGIOUS FREEDOM. In fact the same declaration affirms that “this (the Catholic Church) one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men” ( Dignitates Humanae, paragraph 1) . So you claim on “RELIGOUS LIBERTY” is inaccurate. What do you want to do? Force our separated brethren to enter the Catholic Church and burn them at stake if they do not want to? The fathers of the Council affirm that “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” (Dignitates Humanae, paragraph 2)Why did the council declare this so? Because man has always free will even God himself does not force men to love him and that freewill is inviolable. Jesus himself did not even force the people that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink (cf John 6:55) and allowed the people to leave him and “returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him” (John 6:66). If they enter the Catholic Church because of coercive power then their entrance is not true.

If you are so angry with “Dignitates Humanae” you have Lefebvre to thank for that. You see that disobedient bishop rejects that document and claims he did not signed it. But the thing is, HE SIGNED ITS APPROVAL SHEET. On the contrary he claims what he sign is “THE ATTENDANCE SHEET”. Poor Lefebvre, he could not even distinguish what is the difference between “APPROVAL SHEET’ and “ATTENDANCE SHEET”. Whatever he claims, the fact remains HE SIGNED THE APRROVAL SHEET and therefore when the counting for those who approved it, HIS SIGNATURE WAS INCLUDED IN THE COUNT and this is confirmed by the Archive custodian of the Vatican . If you want proof see the previous post of this blog where you can see Lefebvre and Castromayer’s signature

[The aftermath of Vatican II, in accordance with its "spirit", demonstrated this. That "spirit of the Council" is still tearing the Church apart. Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" is a recipe for continuing to shake furiously, or should we say resolutely, but the religion of God and the religion of man will still not mix. They still fly apart.]

So it is clear that you DO NOT ACCEPT THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME! HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE HIM OF “SHAKING THE RELIGION OF GOD AND RELIGION OF MAN”? Excuse me, it is Benedict XVI as successor of Peter and those bishops in communion with has the supreme right to teach and interpret the Sacred Tradition, the writings of the Sacred Scriptures and the teaching declaration of the Church. Not Lefebvre and definitely not Bishop de Galaretta or the other three disobedient bishops who were ordained with him. Benedict XVI is not shaking the religion of man and religion of God because he is the visible head of the Church which Christ Built. We look to him as the protector of the purity of our Apostolic faith and not Lefebvre, Castromayer, de Galaretta, Williamson or Fellay because they are NOT IN COMMUNION WITH HIM.

[Then why did some quote Bishop de Galarreta favouring the discussions ? For two reasons. Firstly, as to the discussions' main effect, in none of his arguments - read them carefully - did he expect or hope that oil and water can be made to mix. On the contrary, when he said that he looked forward to the discussions being terminated in the spring of next year, he surely implied that the shaking of the bottle should not go on indefinitely, especially if that were to foster in anybody the illusion that oil and water can eventually be made to mix.]

If Bishop de Galaretta hopes that in spring the talks with SSPX and Rome would be discontinued fine. If the SSPX does not want to accept Vatican II so be it. Rome is still Rome without them and that Diocese where Peter shed his blood shall not be overcome with the minions of hell. SSPX on the other hand by stepping out from the Church by rejecting her magisterial authority in Vatican II will be easily swept away by the errors of heresy just like the Old Catholic Church in Utretch who rejected papal infallibility in Vatican I. As long as the SSPX lacks to the trust of Christ to Peter they will lost the orthodoxy of the faith.

[ Secondly, all of his arguments mentioned side-effects of the discussions, whereby the contacts which they bring about between Rome and the SSPX act as anti-freeze, both in the radiator of Romans wishing to freeze off the SSPX, and in the radiator of SSPX wishing to freeze off Rome.]

If Lefebvre had only honour his promises with the Holy See then there is no need for such argument but he broke it so I won’t be surprise if these 4 bishops will do the same if they ever reach an agreement with Rome. We look to the Pope of Rome as our protector of our tradition not to the SSPX

[others has the honour of agreeing with his colleague that Rome-SSPX contacts are good for the Universal Church, so long as there is no question of the SSPX failing in its Providential mission of helping to guard from today's Rome the Deposit of the Faith for when tomorrow's Rome will come back to its Catholic senses. "Heaven and earth shall pass away", says Our Lord, "but my words shall not pass away" (Lk.XXI,33).]

The Pope wants them back because he values the unity. But the thing it is they who are out of Rome. Are you saying that the Rome of today has fallen to heresy? Excuse me, the Rome of yesterday, today and tomorrow will be the SAME. And Rome shall never fall into heresy “because this See of St. Peter ALWAYS REMAINS UNBLEMISHED BY ANY ERROR, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren”. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus) This promise of our Lord has “Never passed away” even up to the present time. SSPX needs the Bishop of Rome to obtain the purity of the faith, not the other way around.

[Kyrie eleison. ]

Will you stop that “Kyrie eleison” because it only shows how cynical and hypocrite you are. begging for God’s mercy but you are attacking the Representative of his Son. DO you know what Jesus said to his disciples when they are being rejected? "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16) That applies to the Successor of Peter and the Successor of the Apostles who are in communion with him but not to the SSPX bishops.

EXCHANGE WITH SSPX FOLLOWER, Part 8 The SSPX Politics of Treachery

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI looks lovingly at the representative of the Universal Church gathered in St. Peter's Square.
Anonymous said...

While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, together with a rumour from Rome spell danger for traditionalist Catholics. That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine.

a few months ago a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. If - repeat, if -- this is true, it is very serious. Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church. Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre . They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.especially to BASTARDS like you hehehe...

Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement. Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them.

Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well - and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.

The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.

Kyrie eleison.

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, together with a rumour from Rome spell danger for traditionalist Catholics.]

THE SSPX DIDN'T RUN INTO A BRICK WALL. IT SIMPLY BANGED ITS HEAD ON A ROCK CALLED 'PETROS'. LUCIFER AND LEFEBVRE COMBINED WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DESTROY THIS ROCK.

[That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine.]

WE ARE NOT AFTER POLITICAL DEAL WITH ANYONE MUCH MORE WITH SSPX. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONFRONTED AND FOUGHT WITH KINGS AND THE POWERS OF THIS WORLD AND IT NEVER CAPITULATE. NOT WITH THE PAGAN ROME OF NERO, NOT WITH NAPOLEON, NOT WITH ELIZABETH 1 OF ENGLAND, NOT WITH THE TSARS OF RUSSIA, NOT WITH THE SOVIETS AND ESPECIALLY NOT WITH THE SSPX BASTARDS. He, he, he...

[a few months ago a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions.]

LARGE? I THINK YOU ARE BLIND SO THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS LARGE AND WHAT IS MEDIUM AND WHAT IS SMALL. HA, HA, HA... WHEN WE TALK OF LARGE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES IT IS THE GATHERING OF MININUM 2 MILLION BAPTIZED CATHOLIC IN THE LUNETA GRANDSTAND IN A NOVUS ORDO MASS. NOT IN YOUR HYPOCRITICAL, BORING MASS FULL OF EXPENSIVE CLOTHES JUST TO COVER YOUR SCHISMS AND HERESIES. YOUR PRIESTS ARE LIKE DEMONS PRETENDING TO BE ANGELS OF LIGHT. HA, HA, HA...

[If - repeat, if -- this is true, it is very serious.]

HA, HA, HA... AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED MORE AND MORE OF SSPX PRIESTS AND FOLLOWERS ARE RETURNING TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AFTER SEEING THE HYPOCRISY INSIDE THE SSPX. THEY COULD FEEL THE EMPTINESS OF SUCH A POPELESS SOCIETY.

THEIR LARGEST MASS I THINK WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO GATHER AROUND 200 PEOPLE. HA, HA, HA... SOME OF THEM ARE SIMPLY DECEIVED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS. HA, HA, HA...

[Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church.]

THERE IS ONLY ONE ROME AND THAT ROME IS THE TRUE ROME. WHAT APPEARS TO BE ROMAN ARE THE ILLICIT PRIESTS OF THE SSPX WHO ARE FAKES AND LITURGICAL BASTARDS. SONS OF THE WACKY OLD FOOL NAMED LEFEBVRE.

[Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre .]

THE TOMB OF JOHN PAUL THE GREAT IS VISITED BY ABOUT 20,000 PEOPLE A DAY AND THOUSANDS ALSO VISIT THAT OF BLESSED JOHN XXIII BUT THE TOMB OF LEFEBVRE IS A GARBAGE IN COMPARISON. SURELY, THE CALL OF SANTO SUBITO IS UNIVERSAL FOR JOHN PAUL II AND SILENT FOR THE WACKY OLD FOOL, LEFEBVRE.

[They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.especially to BASTARDS like you hehehe...]

HA, HA, HA... WE ARE AWAKE AND SINCE WE ARE AWAKE WE WILL NOT JOIN ANIMALS LIKE YOU. YOU CAN JOIN LEFEBVRE IN HELL WHEN YOU AND YOUR MEMBERS PASS AWAY BUT WE ARE NOT FOOLS TO JOIN IN YOUR MADNESS.

[Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion,]

WELL IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN THE FACT THAT THE SSPX APOINTED A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE DIALOGUE WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A PROOF OF YOUR DOCTRINAL HYPOCRISY AND POLITICAL STRATEGY. IT IS ALSO VERY STRIKING THAT BERNARD FELLAY CALLS OUR POPE 'HOLY FATHER'. HA, HA, HA... BY YOUR STANDARD YOUR SSPX AND YOUR LEADERSHIP ARE COMMITTING POLITICAL MOCKERY OF YOUR OWN POSITION.

[unity before truth, man before God.]

NICE WORDS BUT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, THE BODY OF TRUTH HANDED ON BY CHRIST IS ENTRUSTED TO PETER AND NOT TO LEFEBVRE, YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL. THUS, WE PARAPHRASE THE WORDS OF ST. THOMAS MORE, "WE MAY BE LOYAL TO THE ARCHBISHOP BUT GOD FIRST!"

WE HAVE CHOSE THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF GOD OVER A WACKY OLD FOOL.

[God before man means truth before unity,]

THE TRUTH OF FAITH IS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NOT IN THE SOCIETY OF THE POPELESS WHERE YOU BELONG. HE, HE, HE...

[religion before politics]

YOUR WILLIAMSON IS A STUPID POLITICIAN WHILE YOUR GALARRETA IS A SERPENTINE POLITICIAN. HA, HA, HA... IMAGINE, SPEAKING OF OIL AND WATER. HA, HA, HA...

[and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement.]

WE DOT WISH TO HAVE ANY NON-DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT WITH YOU. WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT YOU BUT YOU CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT US. YOU ARE PARASITES WHO ARE SUCKING BLOOD FROM US WHILE ATTACKING YOUR OWN SOURCE OF LIVING.

[Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall.]

IT IS FORESEEN. HOWEVER, OUR POPES ARE VISIONARIES WHILE YOUR LEADERS ARE VENOMOUS POLITICIANS. ONE TIME THEY ATTACK AND ONE TIME THEY PLEAD MERCY. ONCE MERCY IS GIVEN THEN THEY ATTACK. HA, HA, HA... YOU EASILY LEARNED THE ART OF DIPLOMACY AND POLITICS.

[ Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them.]

THANK GOD WE DO NOT WISH ANYTHING FROM YOU.

[Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II]

THE CHURCH OF BENEDICT XVI IS NOT NEW BUT OLD. IN FACT, HE ADVOCATES THE THEOLOGY OF RETURN TO THE SOURCES SUCH AS THE PATRISTIC STUDIES. UNLIKE YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL WHOSE CONCEPT OF THE CHURCH IS ONLY FROM 16TH CENTURY.

[which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith.]

HA, HA, HA... THIS IS THE MOST STUPID ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD FROM AN SSPX. HA, HA, HA...

DEFINITELY THE POPE DO NOT ACCEPT ALL MEN INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITHOUT BELIEVING THE ONE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. HA, HA, HA... THE MOSLEMS AND THE PROTESTANTS AND THE ANGLICANS BECOMING ROMAN CATHOLICS ARE BEING GIVEN THOROUGH CATICHESIS AND ARE BEING BAPTIZED INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

THE SSPX IS USELESS AND STERILE IN BRINGING PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITH INTO THE CATHOLIC FOLD. LIKE LUCIFER... LEFEBVRE IS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT HIS REBELLION BUT NOT ON CONVERTING SOULS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

THOSE WHO ARE CONVERTING THROUGH APOLOGETIC WORKS THE CULT MEMBERS HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES AND IN THE UNITED STATES ARE THE CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS BELONGING TO THE VATICAN II FAITHFUL.

[Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well - and he does not normally have too much longer to live !]

HA, HA, HA... WHEN THE POPE DIES ANOTHER POPE WILL LIVE. AND THAT POPE WILL NOT BE IN NEED OF SSPX TO REALIZE HIS PASTORAL PLAN FOR THE CHURCH. THE SSPX IS ALREADY LIKE A ROTTEN CORPSE . MORE AND MORE CATHOLICS ARE COMING OUT IN THE OPEN TO DENOUNCE ITS EVIL AND HYPOCRISY.

[So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him.]

THE POPE IS NOT WORRY OF ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE. MUCH MORE THE SSPX. HIS VIRTUE OF HOPE IS TOO STRONG THAT THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH ARE BEING SURPRISED BY HIS STEADFAST SPIRIT. THE MORE HE GETS OLD THE MORE HIS WISDOM SHINES. UNLIKE LEFEBVFRE AND WILLIAMSON, THE MORE THEY GET OLD THE MORE THEY BECOME SENILE AND FOOLISH.

[He must be looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE.

[It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU HAVE FED UP YOURSELF WITH SO MUCH CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT YOUR OWN LIES HAVE SUNK DEEP WITHIN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS. YOU ARE SO CONVINCED OF YOUR OWN INVENTED LIES. HA, HA, HA...

[The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all,]

HA, HA, HA... YOU KNOW THERE ARE ANOTHER TERM FOR YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES: RUMORS AND GOSSIPS. HA, HA, HA... THAT IS HOW CHEAP YOUR SSPX IS.

THERE IS FREEDOM OF DELUSION IN THE WORLD AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU ARE UPHOLDING IT. HA, HA, HA...

MY SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU STOP WAITING FOR THAT MOTU PROPRIO BUT INSTEAD WAIT FOR 'MULTO PROPRIO' OF WILLIAMSON. HA, HA, HA...

[yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way.]

WELL, IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT VATICAN II DON'T ACCEPT IT AT ALL. AND THE NEW MASS WILL BE BETTER LEFT AS IT IS FREE FROM THE PRESENCE OF LITURGICAL FOOLS LIKE THE SSPX WHO VIEWS EVERYTHING AS EVIL EXCEPT THOSE THEY ACCEPT.

I HAVE SEVERAL COPIES OF CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND YET NONE OF THEM EVER SPEAKS OR UTTER A SOUND. IT IS SURPRISING THAT YOU REFER TO IT AS MODERNIST IN A QUIET WAY. HA, HA, HA...

[Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU CAN ALL WALLOW INTO THE OLD SYSTEM OF REBELLION STARTED BY LUCIFER... THE OLD... THE ANCIENT DRAGON WHO DECEIVED THE WORLD AND WHO DECEIVED YOUR FOUNDER LEFEBVRE WHO IN TURNED DECEIVED YOU.

[Kyrie eleison.]

KYRIE ELEISON. THE LITURGY IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY LATIN. ONLY FOOLS TEACHES 'LATIN ONLY'.

DEFENDING THE BLESSEDNESS OF MARY AND THE UNIQUENESS OF HER FAITH AGAINST A DATING DAAN MEMBER, Part 3 Repy of Bro. Marwil Llasos, O.P.

Mary of Nazareth - the Mother of God - the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ

JC of MCGI said … Faith and blessedness of Mary is not questionable. It is your (RCC) doctrine regarding Mary is refutable.

You said: 1. Mary is the most blessed than other apostles and/or members of the church.

Bible says: (Luk 11:28) But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

[It is your understanding of the verse that is LAUGHABLE. In Luke 11:28, does Jesus mean that His Mary did not hear the word of God and keep it? There is nothing of that sort. It exists only in your mind.

In fact, in Luke 11:28 elevates Mary’s blessedness not because of her being Jesus mother but because she heard the word of God and keep it. “And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Lk. 1:38).]

JC of MCGI said … None in the Bible “most blessed” has been said to anyone, except one:

(Psa 21:6) For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance.

[We have already answered this. At para ka nang sirang plaka kasi wala nang bago sa argumento mo. You are setting a straw argument here. Fr. Abe never said that Mary is “most blessed” including God. No, no, no. There was never any statement of that sort. You are just barking at the wrong tree. If you are shadowboxing with an invisible opponent, just go ahead.]

JC of MCGI said … You said: 2. Mary is actually the first believer and most steadfast in faith.

Bible says:

(Heb 11:1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(Heb 11:4) By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

(Heb 11:5) By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

(Heb 11:6) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

(Heb 11:7) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

(Heb 11:8) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

(Heb 11:9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

(Heb 11:10) For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

(Heb 11:11) Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

(Heb 11:12) Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

(Heb 11:13) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

(Heb 11:14) For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

(Heb 11:15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

(Heb 11:16) But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

(Heb 11:17) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

(Heb 11:18) Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

(Heb 11:19) Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

(Heb 11:20) By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

[WHAT A GROSS MISUSE AND ABUSE OF SCRIPTURE!!! We don’t have any problem with the verses you cited. It’s your wrong use of them that we don’t like.

In the Bible verses that you cited, is there anything that says that Mary is not the first believer (in Christ)? Which of these verses say that Mary was not steadfast in her faith? NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.

Ang dami-dami mong talatang ginamit. Pero wala naman ni isa ang nagsasabi na si Maria ay hindi unang mananampalataya kay Cristo. Wala ni isa mang talata ang nagsasabi na si Maria ay hindi nagpunyagi sa pananampalataya. Katanuyan, ang silbi ng talata mo ay nagpapakita lamang na bukod kay Maria marami ang may pananampalataya ngunit hindi sinasabi kahit na minsan na ang Mahal na Birheng Maria ay walang pananampalataya at hindi nanatili sa pananampalataya. Kaya lahat ng sinabi mo ay sapantaha mo lamang na walang pinagbabatayan sa Biblia maging sa mga sitas na ginamit mo.]

JC of MCGI said … And with Bro. Eli, on what all you have said to him:

(Mat 5:11) Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

He (Bro.Eli) is blessed as well.

[Eto naman talaga ang lundoy mo na si Bro. Eli mo ay pinagpala. Puwede ba? Huwag ka ngang ipokrita. Tingnan mo nga kung mang-upasala, manungayaw at mang-usig sa aming mga Catoliko iyang si Bro. Eli mo. Alam mo ang Mateo 5:11 ay sa amin natutupad. Bakit? Aba’y pinagtutulungan ninyo kami. Sama-sama kayo ng mga Iglesia ni Cristo, Saksi no Jehovah, Sabadista, Born Again, at samu’t-saring Protestante. At kung anu-ano ang mga ipnantatawag ninyo sa amin.

Blessed ba kamo si Bro. Eli dahil inuusig? Batas ang umuusig sa kanya kaya siya nagtatago at hindi makauwi ng bansa. Ano ang sabi ng Banal na Kasulatan? “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion” (Prov. 28:1). Pasukuin mo muna si Blessed Eliseo Soriano bago mo ipagbantog. Ang mga Apostol humarap sa paglilitis at nagpapabilanggo. Bakit di tularan ni Blessed Eliseo Soriano? Ang sabi ng Panginoong Jesus sa mga tunay na alagad na inuusig, The Bible says, “But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. This will be a time for you to bear testimony. Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death; you will be hated by all for my name's sake” (Lk. 21:12-17). Hindi ito kinakitaan kay Blessed Eliseo Soriano mo.]

JC of MCGI said... May God open your heart Mr. Abe and all the readers of this blog.

[Our heart is open to God. Unlike you, a blind follower and believer in Blessed Eliseo Soriano. “This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man” (Jer. 17:5).]

If your objective in blogging is good, you will post all my comments as it is. Thanks be to God always.

[Our objective in blogging is good that’s why we post all your comments are they are – with bonus, our answers! Don’t be malicious in thinking that we don’t post your comments. They are even placed in the main wall. “Walang katutubong pagibig, mga walang paglulubag, mga PALABINTANGIN, mga walang pagpipigil sa sarili, mga mabangis, hindi mga maibigin sa mabuti” (2 Tim 3:3).]

REFUTING A DATING DAAN MEMBER ON PRAYER, Part 2 by Bro. Marwill Llasos, O.P.

The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Bicci di Lorenzo
jc said...

the meaning of prayer was already defined well and pattern was given in the Bible, if you think that the definition made is limited, it is your opinion and I respect you opinion but not your belief.

(You pray because you want something from Him. The focus is more on what you get from that relationship – and not what you give.)

I found your quoted statement above hypocrisy. Requesting is acknowledging your being incapable of something, that we are nothing, that we are only dust. God is delighted when we pray to Him.

granting without accepting that Hail Mary is a kind of prayer,intercession prayer as you have implied, how many times you recited it? 10 x 5= 50 times. Isn't that repitition? Is your god deaf? That you really need to repeat your prayer at that moment? You have not follow the pattern given by Lord Jesus.

(Psa 115:5) They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

(Psa 115:6) They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

(Psa 115:7) They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

You missed the real thought of what I tried to implied when I said you passed the burden to Mary to pray for you, it is the task or the service (G5413) and not the one you thought. Since you missed the thought, your judgement is incorrect as well. And i admit I really dont have idea whats in heaven aside from the one written already.

Granting w/o accepting again, Hail Mary is a prayer, how sure are you that she will make a prayer for you. Her spirit is already with God's hand.

(Job 12:10) In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

(Rev 6:9) And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

(Rev 6:10) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

(Rev 6:11) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

I believe St. John in saying that those souls were resting.

so the creed is your profession of faith. is reciting the creed show your one faith?

(Eze 33:31) And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.

even the unclean spirit acknowledged that Jesus is te son of God:

(Mar 5:1) And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.

(Mar 5:2) And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

(Mar 5:3) Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:

(Mar 5:4) Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.

(Mar 5:5) And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.

(Mar 5:6) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

(Mar 5:7) And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

(Know this: even publicans, Pharisees, and evil men pray to God to Him for something. And it seems to me you are in good company.)

Yeah I knew that, know this as well:

(Mat 6:5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

jc said...

i forgot to say thank you for replying my previous comment, i hope the second one will be posted. thanks again.

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos said...

jc has left a new comment on your post "PANALANGING PAULIT-ULIT, LABAG BA SA BIBLIA?":

jc said… the meaning of prayer was already defined well and pattern was given in the Bible

[You are selective in the scripture citations that you posted the last time. The only kind of prayer defined in your quotes are prayers of supplication. They don’t deal with other forms of prayer which are also taught in God’s Word. ]

jc said… if you think that the definition made is limited, it is your opinion and I respect you opinion but not your belief.

[Sorry, but it is not only my opinion or belief. And you got me wrong. Review my previous comment and understand it well. It is your definition of prayer that is limited, and not the Bible’s. You arrived at that limited definition because of the selective quotations that you chose. If you review your Bible thoroughly, you’d find other forms of prayer other than prayer of supplication. ]

jc said…

(You pray because you want something from Him. The focus is more on what you get from that relationship – and not what you give.)

I found your quoted statement above hypocrisy.

[Please don’t be judgmental? Review what I posted and don’t chop it. This is what I said: “Prayer of REQUEST or SUPPLICATION is only one type or kind of prayer in the Bible. And there are many types of prayer though. So your view of prayer is severely limited to one kind only and doesn’t do justice to all the others taught in the Bible. I am afraid that your view of prayer – as one merely of request or supplication – is very transactional. While in itself is not wrong, as in fact it too is taught in the Bible, singular emphasis on it results in lopsided relationship with God. You pray because you want something from Him. The focus is more on what you get from that relationship – and not what you give.” Your quoted portion is just an amplification or elucidation of what I mentioned as “transactional” view of prayer. Note that I said that it is not wrong per se as it is also taught in the Bible. I only made a caution, though let me state that it was not intended to be directed to you personally, that singular or lopsided emphasis on asking God for something could focus more on what we get than for what we give.

Then you accuse me of hypocrisy? What is your basis in saying so? Do you have any idea of what my personal prayer life is like? Again, lest I be misconstrued here, I am not against asking God for something (I do that very often!), it’s just that we also need to balance our prayer life by thinking of what I too can give to God, i.e., praise, worship, thanksgiving, etc. Isn’t that what relationship is like? Give and take?]

jc said… Requesting is acknowledging your being incapable of something, that we are nothing, that we are only dust.

[Yes, this is true. And it was never my intention to shun prayer of request. Far from it. Yet, as you yourself admitted, even Pharisees, publicans, evil men pray thus too. And you said that you knew that very well. And you gave a beautiful verse for that.

I just wonder if the Pharisees for example really acknowledge their incapability, their nothingness before God? Or are they propped up with the feeling of self-sufficiency and pride? I don’t want to judge. But as you said, they already had their reward.]

jc said… God is delighted when we pray to Him.

[Who objects to this? Surely not me. God is a loving Father who delights in the prayer of His children. ]

jc said… granting without accepting that Hail Mary is a kind of prayer, intercession prayer as you have implied, how many times you recited it? 10 x 5= 50 times. Isn't that repitition?

[Do we say that it’s not repetition? It is repetition. But is there a Biblical prohibition against repetition of prayer? You have to cite me one.]

jc said… Is your god deaf?

[Definitely not. Do we claim that God is deaf? When we praise God, we do that often – repeatedly, do we? Is God deaf not to hear our praise? No. He relishes it . That’s why we read in the book of Psalms, “Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments” (Ps. 119:164). Why do it seven times a day when once would be enough? ]

jc said… That you really need to repeat your prayer at that moment?

[Why not? Again, does the Bible prohibit repetition? I need a verse that says that repetition per se of prayer is wrong. ]

jc said… You have not follow the pattern given by Lord Jesus.

[Of course we do. And no less than Our Lord engaged in repeating a prayer. The evangelist Matthew reports , “So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing” (Mt. 26:44). Is Jesus’ God deaf that it had to take Jesus pray for the third time saying the same thing? I don’t think so.]

jc said…

(Psa 115:5) They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

(Psa 115:6) They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

(Psa 115:7) They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

[What have these verses got to do with the topic on prayer?]

jc said… You missed the real thought of what I tried to implied when I said you passed the burden to Mary to pray for you, it is the task or the service (G5413) and not the one you thought.

[It’s because you did not make yourself clear. Nevertheless, your accusation that we pass on to Mary to pray for us is inaccurate because we do pray for ourselves (I often pray for my self) and of course ask the prayers of other Christians (and Mary is certainly one of these Christians we ask to pray for us).]

jc said… Since you missed the thought, your judgement is incorrect as well.

[Because you failed to make yourself clear.]

jc said… And i admit I really dont have idea whats in heaven aside from the one written already.

[That’s why. Thank you for this admission.]

jc said… Granting w/o accepting again, Hail Mary is a prayer, how sure are you that she will make a prayer for you.

[The testimony of answered prayer. For me, it’s no a question that she will pray for me; it is a matter of fact that she does pray for me. My experience, as well as of millions of Catholics (and others), prove that she prays for us and her intercession before God is powerful. All that I have asked the Lord God through the intercession of Mary have been obtained. ]

jc said… Her spirit is already with God's hand. (Job 12:10) In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

[Precisely. And since her spirit is already with God, she is already in close union with the Divine will. And what is the will of God? “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).

And what did Our Lord Jesus teach us? To pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Mt. 6:10). If it is God’s will on earth that we be save, it is His same will in heaven. And Mary who is with God knows that and her will is attuned to God’s will. Hence, she too is concerned with our salvation and so with the rest of the “great cloud of witnesses” in heaven (Heb. 12:1).]

jc said…

(Rev 6:9) And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

(Rev 6:10) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

(Rev 6:11) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

I believe St. John in saying that those souls were resting.

[Sad to say, your belief is wrong. The verses that you cited refute you. The souls re not resting, they are crying with a loud voice asking God to avenge their blood on those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 6:10). This is a form of an imprecatory prayer – which is actually an intercessory prayer for the just against the unjust. The words “rest yet for a little season” in the translation that you chose simply means to wait a little longer, as is made clear in the NIV, “Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed” (Rev. 6:11, NIV).

The souls in heaven are not paralyzed nor inactive. On the contrary they are more alive and active now that they are with God. Contrast your view with what the Bible clearly reveals:

8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song:

"You are worthy to take the scroll

and to open its seals,

because you were slain,

and with your blood you purchased men for God

from every tribe and language and people and nation.

10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth" (Rev. 5:8-10).

See? They worship the Lamb, they offer incense which are the prayers of the saints on earth, they sing songs, etc. They are alive and active!]

jc said… so the creed is your profession of faith.

[Yes, precisely.]

jc said… is reciting the creed show your one faith?

[Did I say that? Please don’t put words in my mouth. This is what I said: “What about the Creed? It is not storytelling but our profession of Faith, as St. Paul instructs us, “let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (Heb. 10:23). With the Creed, Catholics are in “one faith” in which with “the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10). St. Jude tells us to “contend for the faith that is once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith that is once and for all delivered to the saints may be found in the Apostles Creed.

The Creed has it’s counterpart in the Shema of the Old Testament People of God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord Our God is one Lord” (Dt. 6:4). Deuteronomy 26 informs us that the Lord God instructed the Israelites that when they speak to Him, they should narrate the wondrous works He has done for them (Dt. 26:5-9). Read the verse for yourself. Then you’d realize that that’s story-telling precisely.

Christians on the other hand recite the twelve articles of their Faith contained in the Apostle’s Creed. One of the earliest creedal formulations is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 which now forms part of the Apostle’s Creed. All the twelve articles of faith found in the Creed are Biblical. They are the synopsis of what the New Testament people of God believe and proclaim in which “we all come in the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13).]”

jc said… (Eze 33:31) And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.

[If an individual shows love by mouth yet his heart goes after covetousness, that is his problem. We cannot generalize.

“Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men” (Isa. 29:13). It is important that while we honor God with our mouth, it is all the more important that our heart should not be far from Him.]

jc said…

even the unclean spirit acknowledged that Jesus is the son of God:

(Mar 5:1) And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.

(Mar 5:2) And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

(Mar 5:3) Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:

(Mar 5:4) Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.

(Mar 5:5) And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.

(Mar 5:6) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

(Mar 5:7) And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

[Your scripture citations are irrelevant here. So what if the devils acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God? Jesus really IS the Son of God and even the devils acknowledge that. More so. James tells us, “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19).

Just because the devil believes in God does that mean we are not to believe in God? And just because the devil acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God we are no longer to proclaim that He is? “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 16:16-17).

Finally, Romans 10:9 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

You see, what is important here is both the actual confession of the mouth and the faith in our heart.]

jc said… (Know this: even publicans, Pharisees, and evil men pray to God to Him for something. And it seems to me you are in good company.)

Yeah I knew that, know this as well:

(Mat 6:5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[My point precisely. Thank you for admitting this.]

jc said… i forgot to say thank you for replying my previous comment, i hope the second one will be posted. thanks again.

[Thank you too. Your comment is posted with my reply.]