On the QUESTION of Kneeling or Standing After the Consecration

On the QUESTION of Kneeling or Standing
After the Consecration Until After the GREAT AMEN
During the Eucharistic Celebration

March 19, 2016

Your Eminences and Excellencies,

During the January 2016 112thCBCP Plenary Assembly in Cebu, there was a discussion on the issue of standing or kneeling after the consecration until after the Amen. The discussion included a question on why we do not continue kneeling after the consecration until after the Amen. After a short discussion, the Permanent Council of the CBCP was tasked to look into this issue.

So, at the March 15, 2016 meeting of the CBCP Permanent Council one of the issues discussed was this issue on the posture of standing after the consecration and to keep standing or of kneeling after the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer. This is the reason for this letter.

Before the 1990s, we can still recall that we had the established practice of kneeling after the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer.

In the 1990s the practice of standing after the consecration was begun. This change in the established practice was based on the 1990 Guidelines for the Eucharist which were approved by the CBCP in January 1990. Number 3 of the 1990 Guidelines states: “The people should kneel from the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer…. If the acclamation after the consecration is sung, the people may stand for it and keep standing.” However, in reality the practice became always standing after the consecration until the Amen.

In January 2003 at the 86th CBCP Plenary Assembly, one of the proposals that the CBCP approved to include among the Philippine Adaptations to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal 2002was:“Proposed Philippine Adaptation: ‘In the Philippines, the people kneel after the Sanctus, rise for the memorial acclamation, and kneel after the Lamb of God.’”

In both instances, the 1990 Guidelines for the Eucharist and the proposed Philippine Adaptations to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal 2002, no recognitio was ever received from Rome.

Specifically for the Philippine Adaptations to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal 2002 that were submitted to Rome, no answer was ever received. Archbishop Romulo Valles, during an ad limina visit in September 2003,made a follow up at the office of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the status the Philippine proposed adaptations.After that, until up to now we have not received a formal written reply.

In February 2016, Bishop Julius Tonel, Chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Liturgy, made a query with the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments about this specific proposed adaptation. In reply to his query, it was confirmed that a formal reply or recognitio had never been given.

With the above information, we sought the advice of some of our bishops knowledgeable in the Code of Canon Law. They have responded that no answer or silence from Rome means that the recognitio has not been given. Without the recognitio the CBCP does not have the authority to make or implement any such adaptation. This being the case, we have to revert to the established practice before the request.

Based on the above documented information, the Permanent Council came to the decision that we must ABANDON the practice of standing after the consecration until the Amen as we do not have the authority to make such an adaptation nor do we have the authority to implement it. We must go back to the previously established practice of kneeling after the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer.

To go back to our established practice is very much in keeping with our current General Instructions of the Roman Missal, approved by the CBCP and given the needed recognition from Rome, published in the Philippine Edition of the Roman Missal of 2011. Number 43 states: “Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer …, it is laudable for this practice to be retained.”

Another way of saying this is that we go back our established practice where the people kneel beginning after the Sanctus and remain kneeling until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer knowing that this is in harmony with the present GIRM.

You are kindly requested to inform our clergy and Catholic faithful about this re statement of position and lead them, through liturgical catechesis, to deepen our reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament. The spirit of the law is to observe greater reverence for the Real Presence.

We remind you of some lines contained in our Pastoral Exhortation to Open the 2016 Year of the Eucharist and the Family:

Kneeling is part of our Christian culture. We cannot abandon or set aside the culture of kneeling in favor of the culture that says as freemen we must face God on our feet. Bending the knee before the tabernacle in genuflection, kneeling down at the celebration of the Eucharist, kneeling down to adore the exposed Blessed Sacrament—these are little but sublime acts of adoration that we must preserve and protect.

Sincerely yours,

+SOCRATES B. VILLEGAS


Source: http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=74706

Advertisements

Ang Paskong Kumpleto

(Isinulat ni Eric Bernardino)

Nakukulangan ako sa tuwing naririnig ko ang katagang “Ang Pasko ay panahon ng Pagmamahalan at Pagbibigayan”. Karamihan kasi ng mga tao mas napagtutuunan ng pansin ang kabi-kabilang exchange gift o monito/monita. Kadalasan may mga tema pa nga kung anong mga regalong ibibigay sa isang particular na araw, nariyan ang something useful, something long, something exciting, tapos ang makukuha mo ay towel, pamatay ng lamok at kung ano-anong mga bagay na kapagkaraan ay nakakalat lang sa bahay. Exciting nga! Parang yung isang kantang “It’s The Most Wonderful Time of the Year” na na-LSS ako sa loob ng ilang araw. Wonderful time of the year nga dahil itong panahon na ito ang pinaka-aabangan okasyon sa lahat ng mga okasyon na idinaraos sa buong mundo. Dito nga sa Pinas Setyembre pa lang may mga nagkakabit na mga palamuti pampasko. May count-down pa sa bawat TV Stations nangangahulugan lamang na kaabang-abang ang panahon ng kapaskuhan para lahat. Kaabang-abang na wonderful time of the year dahil sa walang humpay na parties, kainan, inuman, buhol-buhol na traffic, pagkukumahog sa Christmas Shopping at iba pang mapagkaka-abalahan.

Ano na nga ba ang naging pagtingin ng tao sa tinatawag na Pasko? Marahil sa sobrang busy na ang mga tao nakakalimutan na kadalasan ang tunay na diwa ng kapaskuhan – kung bakit nagkaroon ng Pasko.

Kanina ay nabanggit ko na para sa akin ay incomplete kapag naririnig ko ang “Ang Pasko ay panahon ng Pagmamahalan at Pagbibigayan” at yung kantang “It’s The Most Wonderful Time of the Year”. Ang dalawang puntos na nais kong pagbulay-bulayan sa artikulong ito.

Una, ang Pasko ay panahon ng pagmamahalan at pagbibigayan na bumubukal sa Ama na niloob na manaog ang Kanyang Anak para sa kapakanan ng pawang mga tao. Kapakanan na ang ibig sabihi’y upang masimulan ang napakagandang plano ng Diyos para sa ikaliligtas ng sangkatauhan. Ibinigay na ng Diyos ang pinakamagandang regalo – Ang Kanyang Anak na si Hesus. Ngunit, gaano ba natin na-aapreciate si Hesus na kaloob sa atin ng Diyos Ama o mas napapahalagahan pa natin ang pagkaroon ng isang mamahaling cellular phone na ibibigay bilang regalo? Kadalasan din naman yung mga regalo na naibigay sa atin ay tila napahahalagahan natin ng sobra-sobra dahil sa sentimental value na nakapaloob dito yamang ito’y mula sa ating mga mahal sa buhay. Lalo’t higit kung ating tutunghayan si Hesus na Siyang larawan ng Walang-Hanggang Pag-Ibig ng Ama. Mula pa lamang sa Kanyang pagkapanganak nakatakda ng magbata ng hirap at dusa para sa ikatutubos ng ating mga kasalanan. Bawat isa sa atin minahal Niya ng tunay sukdol man na maging kapalit nito ay ang Kanyang buhay.

Ikalawa, ang Pasko ay talagang maituturing na Most Wonderful Time of the Year di dahil sa mga materyal na bagay na natatanggap natin at sa mga pagdiriwang na dinaraos sa bawat lugar, kundi, dahil sa pag-alaala natin sa pagsilang ni Hesus at ang ikalawang pagparito Niya. Wonderful ang Pasko dahil sa pagsilang ng Mesiyas, sa pagsilang Niya nagkaroon ng liwanag ng pag-asa ang mundo nating nabalot ng kadiliman dahil sa kasalanan. Sa pagsilang Niya sumilay ang inaasahang tagumpay laban sa kamatayan. Wonderful ang Pasko dahil sa muling pagparito ni Hesus, mula nung sa Kanyang pag-akyat sa kalangitan at pagluklok sa Kanan ng Ama ipinaghahanda Niya tayo ng matitirhan sa Kanyang Kaharian at pagtapos ay kukunin na Niya tayo upang makasama sa Kanyang Gloria, tunay ngang wonderful ang Pasko.

Duc In Altum, laliman mo pa. Laliman mo pa ang pagtingin sa Pasko. Lampasan mo ang pagtingin sa Pasko na inaalok ng mundo. Focus on Jesus! Nagkaroon ng Pasko dahil sa Kanya. May Pasko dahil sa Dakilang Pagmamahal ng Diyos sa ating mga anak Niya. May Pasko dahil nais Niyang makasalo tayo buhay na kapiling Siya.

Catechism and Apologetics (Talks)

Binigyan kami ng pagkakataon ng butihing kura-paroko na si Fr. Carlos Reyes na magtrain ng mga katekista sa parokya ng Our Lady of Fatima sa Mandaluyong. Ito po ay ginaganap tuwing Lunes at Sabado, 7pm-9pm. Nagsimula ito noong November 9 at matatapos sa December 5.

Ito po ay kombinasyon ng basic catechism and apologetics. Eto po yung unang tatlong talk…

Topic: Revelation
Speaker: Berto w/ Patrick De Leon

Berto (Revelation)

Berto (Revelation)1

Berto (Revelation)2

Topic: Holy Trinity
Speaker: John Vincent Suan w/ Danilo Lampano

Vincent (Holy Trinity)

Vincent (Holy Trinity)1

Topic: Church
Speaker: Eric Bernardino w/ Jem Hao

Eric (The Church)

Tuloy-tuloy po ang training, at welcome po ang lahat na gustong dumalo.

Ito po ay ginaganap sa…

OUR LADY OF FATIMA PARISH, Mariveles Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City.

Face with these realities, there is need of widespread catechesis and apologetics. We need not apologize for apologetic catechesis. Since birth, Christianity has been subject to attacks from which it has had to defend itself…Apologetics has always been part of the pastoral and theological tradition of the church. We must today be willing and able to defend our teachings in public fora, and we need to equip the faithful so that they can defend their faith. Parish priests must encourage and support the training of lay Catholic faith defenders. (PCP II, #222)

What do Catholics Believe? – A talk by John Vincent Suan

 

Nung Sabado, October 24, 2015 inimbatahan si Vincent sa Our Lady of Fatima Parish, Mandaluyong para mag-talk sa mga parishioners tungkol sa Basic Tenets of the Catholic Faith.

10404468_1224165614267295_4675157649014868726_nAng talk ay nagsimula ng alas otso ng umaga at natapos ng alas singko ng hapon (8am-5pm).

12036596_1224165667600623_5137247646824794627_n

1st Batch: Parents and Sponsors (ng mga kukumpilan)

2nd Batch: Teenagers

2nd Batch: Teenagers

Sinamahan si Vincent nina Jem at Patrick…

11026587_1224426810907842_7448684844455650315_n 12189178_1224426814241175_7624529942729261126_nNandun doon sila para magdasal ng Santo Rosaryo habang nagto-talk si Vincent. Kelangan may back-up ng prayer ang talk. 🙂

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Talks: August 21 – September 11, 2015

Update lang po tungkol sa aming grupo…

Inimbitahan kami na mag-talk sa prayer meeting ng Catholic Charismatic Community ng Immaculate Conception Parish, Marikina. Apat na Byernes yun…

August 21, 2015: The True Church
Speaker: Berto

Note ng 9 year old na bata during my talk.

Note ng 9 year old na bata during my talk.

Berto6 Berto5  Berto4Berto3 Berto2 Berto1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 28, 2015: Back to the Basics (Mga Kadalasang Tuligsa ng ibang Sekta sa ating Pananampalataya)
Speaker: Berto

Robertson

September 4, 2015: Let the Feast Begin – Confession and Eucharist
Speaker: Eric Bernardino

Eric2

Eric with the member of the Community

Eric6 Eric5 Eric4 Eric3 Eric1 Eric September 11, 2015: Mary – Men’s First Love, God’s Eternal Love (Mariology)
Speaker: John Vincent Suan

VOCC5

Bro. Archie, a member of the community asking questions to Vincent

VOCC7

Pop quiz given by Vincent to the community

VOCC6

A member of the community who received a “prize” from Vincent after giving a correct answer for the pop quiz.

VOCC9

The “prize” for the pope quiz

VOCC10

Summary of Vincent’s talk

VOCC1

Vincent with some of the members of the community

VOCC VOCC2 VOCC4 VOCC3 VOCC8 Maraming maraming salamat po sa Immaculate Concepcion Parish Catholic Charismatic Community sa pagbibigay ng pagkakataon na maibahagi namin ang aming kaunting kaalaman tungkol sa pananampalatayang Katoliko sa kanilang community.

Four TalksMaraming maraming salamat po!

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Isang Linggong Pag-ibig (Bakit Linggo ang Sabbath ng mga Katoliko?)

PILIPINONG KATOLIKO

Hi! Musta na? Anong balita?

Matagal-tagal din akong di nag-blog. Medyo sinapian kasi ako…ng katamaran. Haha! Ngayon, eto medyo sinisipag na naman ako magsulat. At ang article na ito e tungkol sa kung bakit ba araw ng Linggo ang Sabbath ng mga Katoliko.

Kung regular kang nagbabasa ng blog na ito, malamang nabasa mo na yung article ko tungkol sa Sampung Utos ng Diyos na binago (daw) ng Simbahang Katoliko. O maaari rin naman na nagse-search ka lang sa internet tungkol sa Sampung Utos at nagkataon na sa article na yun ka napunta.

Kung di mo pa nababasa, mas maganda na unahin mong basahin yun bago mo basahin itong article na ito. Click mo dito.

Kaya ko ginawa itong article na ito e dahil yung article na yun e nakatuon sa mga utos tungkol sa idolatry, ari-arian at pag-aasawa. Hindi kasama sa natalakay yung Sabbath. Masyado na kasing…

View original post 1,682 more words

On Homosexuality

(Written by Mary Distributist)

Against Homosexuality “Gib auf nur deine Tücke Den Fisch betrügst du nicht.” Fischerweise, Schubert, 1826. (Give up your foolish trick’ry this fish you cannot cheat.)

For those homosexuals themselves and their straight friends who appear to understand their homosexuality, it is extremely hard to accept that man and woman are the only two sexes created by God. They may be asking or putting into question that truth saying, “What if there are other genders that exist apart from man and woman?” As an analyst it is so inconceivable that other genders exist because gender identity can only be distinguished upon seeing human features that were classified as to that of man (ex. penis or Adam’s apple as commonplace features) and as to that of woman (ex. vagina and unusual amount of breast as commonplace features) which can be empirically observed even at a glance and it is an infallible truth about what composes a man and a woman.

Now we go on to the super hard part of any human drama: which is the gender identity of anyone who may not classify himself as man or woman or both. It is a bitter stupidity for me that this worst drama ever is not a problem where matter of factly it is, both on these homosexuals themselves and to straight people such as myself.

As a self proclaimed actor, I am able to act as a gay person (my friends can testify to that) and make my voice effeminate like a common out and proud gay does. Upon introspection, I thought I will pass a gay test if ever one exists, except that I do not and never will have a love and affection or crush towards men unlike what I have towards women.

So introspectively speaking, I may assume a gay expression and proclaim to the world that I am indeed gay as far as my feelings I feel is concerned towards men of the same gender. Feelings! That’s the very word! To homos and their not-so-bright straight friends, gender can be identified based on feelings which I strongly believe as a stupidity indeed an animal or a mosquito could never commit.

Like the one I said in the first paragraph, gender is observable and infallibly speaking, it will always be. At the hearing of the voice; at the sight of built of the body, of the legs, of the buttocks, of the arms, of the neck, of the waist, of the back, of the chest, of the shoulders, of the face, of all the hairs of the person, of all the person’s muscles and how proportioned are these to the body or the amount of these on a given body part or the used muscles on the wrist down to the hands together with the bones, of the complexion, or any unmentioned that comprises a human body – after having these together as a complete image within even on a singular eye – one can arrive at the answer about what a person is, even at a glance or hearing of voice, within a half of a second or so, that what he sees or hears are the constitutions of either of a man or of a woman. But if the circumstances is devious, as an observer and analyst such as myself could never be deceived nor an ordinary seeker of truth, if one changes into another everything about his gender, even if it appears perfectly operated, still, very sooner or later the original gender will be revealed, even to the point of a sharp investigation of the properties of the person that must always remain hidden by the use of clothes.

Gender identification is the collection of facts of the human body part and this includes the sexual organs which were two matters so singular to each differences yet almost speaks everything about the one who has only one of these two. That is why a gender identity based on feelings is a stupidity and a delusion and you are obliged to believe so if you have many things to do with your life I mean, if you want to stop becoming ignorant, stupid. But why cannot we or should I say never we should accept feelings that may contribute to the gender identity or sexual orientation of a person?

Well it is because, aside from the common sensical fact that feelings can never change anything on your sexual organ into its opposite equal which is too hideous to conceive, it is also hidden or cannot be seen in any way so as to check and even correct if it may turn false. Yes, it can never be seen but it can be observed. Observation of mine arrives at a conclusion that homosexuals’ feeling or the feelings that make them homosexuals makes them sexual machines which devours on the desires of the flesh, and what identifies them is their hunger for a sex void of parental responsibility on future offspring and what embodies their whole lifetime is sex. What I mean is that homosexuals are narcissist in general and their narcissism means love of or sexual desire for one’s own body. The other meaning of narcissism which I had before has this meaning: it is an undue dwelling of one’s own self or attainments, which is apparently different from the narcissism of homos. Here, if one inordinately loves himself or likely to harbor a sexual attraction to his own body, there is a greater probability and no doubt that he too will be sexually attracted to persons who have the same sex like his.

All in all, the crux of homosexuality is the unseen feelings that were regarded as indicators of gender apart from man and woman. But as I said before, homosexuality and the two genders can and only be observed from an a posteriori standpoint. That’s where the detection of the problem lies. This point which I am speaking of is where we must all meet. It must be understood that homosexuality is a disorder, a havoc of identity of a personality. Don’t get me wrong for I have acquaintances and friends who were not loyal to their sexes but I do not consider them as homosexuals because they were only effeminate men. Nevertheless, they still have a disorder on their part.

So these disoriented feelings that tells that a man who feels he is more or less a woman or a woman more or less a man suggest a fact in a plainsight that the GENDER of a person may not end to the person per se but may be extended to another person where feelings or sexual attraction of his lands. Who would have thought that gender could be extended? Understand this with common sense because it ain’t hurt unless you never had it.

Moving on, I am greatly dissatisfied by an association of psychologists (and psychiatrists?) in America and their findings on homosexuality which is not a mental disorder according to them. I am not dissatisfied by the result saying it is not a mental disorder; I am dissatisfied by how they implore or use experimental science in this singular but complex problem. Experimental science deals with accuracy or exactness as much as possible if mathematics is one of its languages. Then if mental disorders were detected and classified methodically by experimental science of any branch of science, why appear to settle for a result which is against this visible problem of homosexuality? Is it just because it is not a mental disorder according to your concensus? I am not pushing that we must consider that it is a mental disorder, but nevertheless, it is a disorder only not mental as these scienctists say so. I am just pointing out so obvious a fact that were neglected especially by them that there is a problem intimate to the homosexuals, and answers or results or solutions as of now were so confusing like these homos, which is and never will be in the vocabulary of science.

Mother of God

(written by John Vincent Suan)

Probably among all the Marian Dogmas, this is the source of many confusion and objection. How can God have mother if he is the beginning and end of all creation? If God has a mother, then Mary is greater than God? And how can Mary be the Mother of God, if she is only a mere human?

Why do we need to teach and preach that Mary is the Mother of God? Is this significant in our faith and spiritual life?

Definitely it does. It is of great importance to proclaim and to understand that Mary is the Mother of God for two grave reasons:

First, it is the touchstone of orthodoxy [touchstone of orthodoxy means by this you will be able to tell and distinguish what is the right teaching versus the wrong one]

Second, it will be a great help in understanding the role of the Blessed Mother in the salvation of men and what she really is in the eyes of God.

Before we continue, I would like to clear up some misunderstanding and misconception regarding the great title of hers.

First, Mary is not the mother of the Godhead because as God, He has no beginning and no end. God is the creator of all things and Mary is a just a created being. As a created and finite being, She cannot mother an uncreated and infinite being. [Godhead means the Holy Trinity composing of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit]

Second, Mary is not the mother of God the Father. It is God the Son, who is incarnate and not the Father. [Incarnate means “took flesh” having a human body]

Galatians 4:4-7
English Standard Version (ESV)
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under
the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as
sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying,
“Abba! Father!”7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through
God.

Third is that Mary is also not the mother of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

John 15:26
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me

Now you will probably ask me…

How can Mary be the Mother of God if she is not the mother of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

In order to answer this question, we all must have a time travel adventure where we go back to the beginning of where this title was first used (formally) back in the time of the 4 th Century (341 A.D.). During those times, there were questions that arise in the Church. What is the exact nature of Christ? How can He be completely divine and completely human?

Some believe that Jesus was two persons: divine person and human person. Others believe in one person Jesus but emphasize his (Jesus has more of) divine nature than human nature, while others emphasize on his human nature rather than his divine nature. This is why there are so much confusion! (For more details of this story please read about the Nestorian Heresy).

Now, whenever there are different uncertainties regarding the faith and knowledge in the church, the Holy Spirit takes action. Whenever the bishops gather to study and discuss about the said issues the Holy Spirit take action, the gathering is called “Council of Ephesus,” named after the place of where they held it. The Council promulgated the title of Mary as “Mother of God” in Greek “theotokos” which literally translated as “God-bearer”.

As you can see, the Dogma of Mary as “Mother of God” was never meant to elevate Mary but to focus and emphasize more on Christ. This Dogma safeguards our Christological views on the person of Christ and his nature.

If you are going to ask me, why the Church boldly proclaims “Mother of God” and not just Mother of Christ? It is because this is the only title where it will never leave room for doubt on Christ’s true nature. Mother of Christ would still ask question on our minds of whether that Christ (Messiah) is just a human, or half-human half-god, or is He a divine being higher than all angels but lower to God, or is He is fully God only? Thus, the Church promulgates and proclaims that Mary is truly the Mother of God where it will never leave room for doubt since that title is saying that Christ is fully God and fully Human.

Well, it sounded like a little blasphemy for me to call Mary as the Mother of God!

Not exactly! Like what I said, this dogma is a touchstone of orthodoxy, because by teaching that Mary is the Mother of God you are actually proclaiming a truth about his Son – Jesus Christ (Aha! This is all about God, for the glory of God). You are actually telling the world in a loud voice that the Son of Mary is God! Is it blasphemy to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, more specifically the truth of the Incarnation? [Incarnation is when God became man without ceasing to be God. That’s a wonderful mystery!].

Wait! I’m confused. Isn’t Mary’s motherhood is limited only to the humanity of Christ?

Nope! Motherhood is not a matter of nature but a matter of person. Nature tells us what we can do, while Person tells us who we are. Now, what inside Mary’s womb is not just a human nature but a human and divine nature combined. [BTW, this is known as Hypostatic Union] into one person that is Jesus Christ. Mary literally carries God in her womb and gives birth to [which technically made her a mother by birth] the entire Christ which is a divine person with two natures. (That’s right folks! That fetus on her womb is God! What a profound humility it is!!! God in his greatness allow himself to be a little fetus for our sake, for our salvation!!! This is something to ponder about.)

Hence the equation “Mother of God”, can be breakdown to this

Mother = since the word mother is used, it would tell us that Christ has a human origin which is Mary

Of God = since “of God” is used, it would tell us that Mary literally carry God in her womb which is Jesus Christ fully God since the beginning of time and fully man since his humanity was brought by Mary.

In summary this simple logic will help:

Is Christ God? Yes

Is Mary, Christ’s mother? Yes

Therefore, Mary is the mother of God Thus, if Mary did not conceive and bear God in her womb then there will be no salvation for humanity as God has to assume our form, our weakness, and our frailty in order to save us.

Romans 8:3
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[a] he condemned sin in the flesh,

But is there biblical support for this Dogma?

Probably you would tell me that nowhere in the Scripture you can read the term “Mother of God” as referring to Mary. It is true you cannot read it in Scripture if you are looking for the exact word “Mother of God” as referring to Mary. But, I believe that the concept of Mary being the Mother of God has a strong deep biblical foundation. In fact, you can really read Mary as the Mother of God if you know how to properly understand the text and its context.

We can read directly the concept of Mary as the Mother of God in the Gospel of St. Luke.

Luke 1:39-46
English Standard Version (ESV)
39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah,40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be[a] a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,

You must be asking me, where is the Mother of God there?

Well, in the Gospel, St. Elizabeth regards Mary as the “Mother of my Lord”. Now, if you pay close attention to the culture and religious background of Elizabeth, you will notice that she is a Jew. For a Jew, there is only one Lord and that is God. It is evidently presented in their great Sh’ma prayer.

Deuteronomy 6:4
English Standard Version (ESV)
4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a]

Psalm 113:5
English Standard Version (ESV)
5Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high,

Not only that Elizabeth was a Jew but also during that encountered with Mary she was filled with the Holy Spirit. Whenever there is Holy Spirit, there will always be illumination of great divine mystery; that is why Elizabeth knew that Mary is carrying the Second person of the Holy Trinity.

While is it true that the word “lord” in the Scripture doesn’t have to pertain to God or to a divine person but in the Gospel context it is clearly pertaining to God. That is why St. Paul himself supported it in his letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
English Standard Version (ESV)
5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

For St. Elizabeth and St. Paul, there is only one Lord. Thus, when St. Elizabeth exclaimed “Mother of my Lord”, she is really saying “Mother of my God” since that One Lord is Jesus Christ who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Colossians 2:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily

In conclusion, it is really important to say that Mary is not just the mother of Christ, but rather she is the Mother of God, that title alone completely safeguards our Lord’s divinity and also our Lord’s humanity. It is a title of great theological deep. Therefore, I encourage every Christians on earth to never be ashamed to say that Mary is the Mother of God by doing so we are really honoring Jesus as God.

The Problem of Sola Scriptura

(by Jesus Mary Hao)

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone or Bible Alone) was believed to be an implicit interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 that says “All Scriptures is God-breathed (inspired).” It is the belief where Bible is the only authority that can be used for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (New International Version).

Protestants or any Sola Scriptura believer believes in the inspiration of the scripture because the Bible says it is inspired. They may have faith on that belief but it commits a flaw of circular reasoning fallacy where it is tantamount to saying that, “The Bible is true because the Bible says so that it is true” – where the state of being a false reasoning makes it more evident that it is wrong. It is indeed true that scripture states that scripture is inspired but scripture does not prove that it is inspired. In the Roman Catholicism, It shares the Protestant belief that all scriptures is inspired. Yet, it also made certain which of the alleged writings were really from God because historically speaking, many writings were coming from nowhere at that time where the New Testament canon [(Greek: kanon = measuring rod, rule, norm):the authoritative collection of Sacred Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Canon is the final collection of the writings in the Bible which

were declared as God-breathed or inspired.] was not yet finally completed. There was the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, and many more. Early Christians most certainly had a hard time to dispute with themselves which of the writings were inspired or not. So if one will use his commonsense by looking back to the Bible’s historicity especially on how it came about as to what it is today, he will definitely arrive at the thought of the probability that an organization had an authority to know and decide which must be considered and believed to be an inspired writing from what were not. The problem is that almost all of the Bible Alone believers could be presumed to be persons where authenticity for them can be proven when it is felt as spirit like their belief to the Bible but lacking of the authenticity of the flesh when they could not trace how the Bible came as it is for it cannot in any way made of spirit; the pages of the Bible were only made of papers. Therefore the history of the Bible can be checked, just as one investigates the origin of the papers used in a book.

2 Timothy 3:16 justifies Sola Scriptura as it is believed. However, Sola Scriptura believers never realized in history that early Christians have no compiled New Testament until year 393AD. So, the words, “All Scriptures” in 2 Timothy 3:16 as Paul meant refers ONLY to the Old Testament and was LATER ON used to include the New Testament when the early Christians closed the canon of the scriptures which they firmly believed to be inspired or God-breathed. It is uncommonsense not to notice that Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy will be believed to be included already in the New Testament when different sacred authors where on different time and places when they were writing the Word of God in scrolls or in parchments that will be included and will complete the New Testament. It may be presumed without any doubt that early Christians that Paul evangelized do not yet know that there are four written Gospels that will be included in the New Testament which were known to us today. It is ridiculous to conceive that writings at that time would be compiled in a snap making the New Testament given the long distances of the places that divides the authors geographically and was close to impossible to produce the Bible on that condition. Such implications contrary to these theories are highly unacceptable if Sola Scriptura is believed to be true and biblical.

IF SOLA SCRIPTURA IS BIBLICAL, THEN IT MUST BE HISTORICAL

If Sola Scriptura is biblical, can we trace it from the early Christians that they do believed in it and made churches like the alleged christian churches we now see today? For if it is biblical, we can see the evidence in history that many Christians who had the Bible made their own churches in order to baptize and evangelize the pagans all around the world! But there is no record in history of EVEN A SINGLE Christian church that flourished as a single fire will do in a mountain of dry grass like how Christian churches at present is flourishing by thousands after thousands of denominations. It is an asininity therefore of mine if I reasoned out that Sola Scriptura is biblical when early Christians of old never had any recorded teaching about it nor established a church that will be known to us today. And, if Sola Scriptura is true and taught by the early Christians, why there are no writings existed about it that were used to refute the “unbiblicality” of the Roman Catholicism which existed for two millennia up to now? Aside from that, Paul, Peter, John, and others were biblical personage. Therefore, they all have Christian contemporaries who believed in Sola Scriptura if they have taught it to them. But no. Never will you read Apostle John’s contemporary, Ignatius of Antioch, teaching Sola Scriptura. Even if one would do a research about the early Christians who have writings that were kept so much so that they were history of old Christians, never will that one read that they taught about Sola Scriptura unlike Matt Slick and others who have so many written piece about it.

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and unhistorical and if one will follow the train of events written in the New Testament and in the written works of the early Christians or of the early Christian Fathers, one will undoubtedly realize that Sola Scriptura is missing in their teachings. And if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you must know that you are missing the written history of everything for what is biblical must also reflect on history (although the Bible is not a historical book and does not convey precise historical information) for it is brainlessness to believe that the scriptures of God were spared from history where no one dared to say something about it and written books about it from its beginnings when it was handed on from teachers to students of the faith.

In conclusion, to be an alien about the history of the Bible and the history of the early Christians who left written teachings about it is like disproving the fact that Christ became a man of history and he was just as imaginary as a mythology. If Sola Scriptura is biblical, then it must be put to the test by checking the history of the early Christians who preached about it. If no recorded preaching, then it is unbiblical. If the claim is true, then believers must not be averse to history of the Bible and the early Christian people.


Sources:

New International Version of the Bible

Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church by Stephen K. Ray

YOUCAT: Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church by Ignatius Press San Francisco

Catechism of the Catholic Church by Word and Life Publications/ECCCE/CBCP

The Faith Explained Revised Edition by Leo J. Trese

ANG TUNAY NA LINGKOD NG DIYOS

(Isinulat ni Patrick De Leon)

Libu-libo ang mangangaral ng Salita ng  Diyos sa mundo, madami din sa Pilipinas. Dahil dyan dumami din ang relihiyon na sariling tatag ng tao. Sa dami nila sino ngayon ang pakikinggan at paniniwalaan ng mga tao. Aral ng karamihan ay BIBLE ALONE o BIBLIA LAMANG. Ang  aral na Bible Alone ay nagmula sa mga Protestante sa pangunguna ni Martin Luther. Pag wala daw sa Bibliya hindi iyon totoo. Dapat daw lahat ng aral ay galing sa Bibliya. Kaya, dapat pala yung mangangaral ay galing din sa Bibliya. Edi sumangguni tyo sa Bibliya.

TANONG:  Dapat ba ang isang mangangaral ay isinugo o sinugo ng diyos?

SAGOT:  Romans 10:15 At paano silang magsisipangaral, kung hindi sila mga sinugo? gaya nga ng nasusulat, Anong pagkaganda ng mga paa niyaong mga nagdadala ng masasayang balita ng mga bagay na mabuti!

ITO ANG NILALAMAN NG BIBLIYA:

Ayon sa aklat ng Malachi o Malakias 2:7 Sapagka’t ang mga labi ng SASERDOTE ay dapat mangagingat ng kaalaman, at kanilang marapat hanapin ang kautusan sa kaniyang bibig; sapagkat siya ang SUGO ng Panginoon ng mga hukbo.

Hebrew 7:1-3  Si Melquisedec ay Pari

Hebrew 23:1   Si Jesus ay Pari

Ayon sa hebrew 5:10  Si Jesus ay Pari ayon sa pagkapari ni Melquisedec.

Hebrew 5:10 Pinanganlan ng Dios na dakilang saserdote ayon sa pagkasaserdote  ni Melquisedec.

Si St. Paul ay isa ding Pari. Mababasa yan sa Roma 15:16. Sa ibang translation ng Bible nakalagay MINISTRO sa iba SASERDOTE. Ang Pari at Ministro ay parehas lang. Ito po ang patunay.

Isaiah 61:6  But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

Tignan pa po natin ang ibang translation ng ibang bible gamit ang Interlinear Bible:

Romans 15:16

Parallel

Parallel1

Bakit ba Father ang tawag ng mga Catholic sa mga Pari?

Judges 18:19  And they said unto him, Hold thy peace, lay thine hand upon thy mouth, and go with us, and be to us a FATHER and a PRIEST: is it better for thee to be a priest unto the house of one man, or that thou be a priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel?

Ang Pari ay Ama sa pananampalataya. Ang sinasabi na HUWAG NA PATAWAG NA AMA (matthew 23:9) ay para iyon sa mga Pariseo na kung ituring nila ang sarili nila ay AMA sila na tulad ng pagkaAMA ng diyos.

Si Saint Paul ay FATHER din. Mababasa yan sa 1 Corinto 4:15 

1 Cor 4:15 Sapagkat bagaman mangagkaroon kayo ng sampung libong mga guro kay Cristo, ay wala nga kayong maraming mga ama; sapagkat kay Cristo Jesus ipinanganak ko kayo sa pamamagitan ng evangelio.

Tignan po natin ang ibang translation ng bible sa 1Corinth 4:15 gamit

ang Interlinear Bible:

1 Corinthians 4:15

New International Version
Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

New Living Translation
For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you.

English Standard Version
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 

New American Standard Bible 
For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For you can have 10,000 instructors in Christ, but you can’t have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

International Standard Version
You may have 10,000 mentors who work for the Messiah, but not many fathers. For in the Messiah Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

NET Bible
For though you may have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, because I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
You may have countless Christian guardians, but you don’t have many [spiritual] fathers. I became your father in the Christian life by telling you the Good News about Christ Jesus.

World English Bible
For though you have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, I became your father through the Good News.

Gawain ng isang Pari from Old Testament to New Testament.

Sa Hebrew 5:1-4 at Hebrew 8:3 ang gawain ng priest mula kay Aaron at sa mga Levita sa Old Testament ay naghahandog ng alay na hayop para sa ikakapagpatawad ng kasalanan ng mga tao. Pero ang Priest sa New Testament na si Jesus ay tinapay at alak ang ginagamit.

Mababasa iyan sa:

Luke 22:19-20  At siya’y dumampot ng tinapay, at nang siya’y makapagpasalamat, ay kaniyang pinagputolputol, at ibinigay sa kanila, na sinasabi, Ito’y aking katawan,na ibinibigay dahil sa inyo: gawin ninyo ito sa pag-aalaala sa akin. Gayon din naman ang saro, pagkatapos na makahapon, na sinasabi, Ang sarong ito’y ang bagong tipan sa aking dugo, na nabubuhos nang dahil sa inyo.

Katulad ng sinabi ko ng una SI JESUS AY PARI AYON SA PAGKAPARI NI MELQUISEDEC.

Ngayon tignan naman natin ang gawain ni Melquisedec bilang isang Pari ng Old Testament. Basahin natin ang book of Genesis 14:18.

Genesis 14:18 At si Melquisedec, na hari sa Salem, ay naglabas ng tinapay at alak; at siya’y saserdote ng Kataastaasang Dios.

Roman Catholic po ang may FATHER na PRIEST na gumagawa ng mga gawain ng isang Priest tulad ni Melquisedec at Jesus Christ.

 

TUNAY NA LINGKOD O SUGO NG DIYOS AY ANG MGA PARI