Welcome to Pinoy Defensor Fidei – Catholic Christian Brotherhood

Pinoy Defensor Fidei – Catholic Christian Brotherhood

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Asians Are Politically Conservatives but they just dont know it.

leave a comment »

If people check the party principles and history of the Republican and Democratic Party I know most will identify themselves as Conservatives and therefore will register as Republicans especially Asians.

Most Asians have Conservative values therefore they will find their values in common with the Republicans.

I am very familiar with why most Filipinos and other Asians have registered Democrats. Back in the Philippines the word “Democratic” or “Democracy” is a familiar word by Filipinos because it means Freedom and Capitalism.

Another reason why they registered Democrats because when Filipinos come over here in the US, they did not know that the majority of the media is Liberal. So when we watch TV news and read newspapers all you will learn is that the Conservatives are a bunch of racists, fascists and etc. The liberal media even report false news against Conservatives and they won’t correct it because they know that Liberals believe anything the Mainstream media will report.

This daily news from the Left will eventually brainwash new immigrants into thinking that the Republicans or Conservatives are bad and the Liberals or Democrats are the good ones. So when they become US citizens then obviously they register Democrats.

I also discovered that most Filipinos are Politically Conservatives but they don’t know it is because after I shared with them the Conservative principles and most of them admitted they share the same conservative values, and then I told them Now you know you are really a Conservative and not a Liberal.

The difference between the Liberals (Democrats) and Conservatives (Republicans)
Republican party’s Conservative Principles:

Against all kinds of Abortion or Pro-Life:
Supports LEGAL Immigration BUT against ILLEGAL Immigration.
For Lower taxes, Tax cuts
Pro Traditional family
Believes that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Maintaining the core family values that helped establish our great country
Believes in Free market economy
Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
Individual rights or liberty
Government money does not belong to government. It belongs to the taxpayers who worked hard for it,
and who had funds deleted from their paychecks even before they got to see them.
As it pertains to the constitution, a conservative believes in what is called “original intent.”
Believes in personal responsibility. You work instead of relying on Govt support like Welfare.
Opposes welfare or entitlement (welfare, SSI. Section 8 etc) except for those who really need them.
Supports Strong national defense through a strong military (Peace through Strength)
For Limited government or Smaller government for less restriction and control of the people.
Favors Free enterprise (Capitalism) and limited governments are the heart and soul of the Republican Party.
Democratic party’s Liberal Principles:

Supports all forms of Abortion and Late-Term Abortion
Supports Illegal Immigration.
For High Tax for High Fees
Supports Taxpayer Money to Pay for Contraceptives
Supports Taxpayer Money to Pay for Abortions
Supports Gay Marriage
Anti Military (cuts Military budget and weakens the Military)
Supports non- traditional family
Supports big Government or more Government control
Supports Govt Socialized Healthcare
Supports welfare even to those people who are able to work, but chose not to.
Supports all kinds of Tax Increase (they believe that it is necessary to raise taxes to feed the poor, even these people can work if they want to but chose not to and instead rely on taxpayers’ money to feed them

I was able to enlighten them more people when I told them that the original racist party was the Democrat party, it was the Democrat party who opposed freeing the Slaves, that all KKK members were Democrats, Lincoln was a Republican who freed the slaves, those times the party of the Blacks is the Republican Party, etc. Almost all Pinoy Democrats by default do not know the history. I was once one of the Democrat by default because of the Mainstream media and naive of the history, when I learned about the history and the conservative principles I discovered I was a Conservative

If you search for the History of the Democratic Party you will discover that they the one who is the racist Party.



Abolition of slavery in  1865

Citizenship for Blacks  1866

Voting Rights for Black 1869 

The Republican Party is the one who fought to abolish slavery, citizenship for the Black people,  and Voting Rights for the Black People.

Also, the First Black US Senators and Congressmen were all Republicans only 3 years after the Republican Party abolished Slavery.

Rep. John Willis Menard (R) Louisiana 1868.

Rep. Joseph Rainy (R). South Carolina 1869 – 1878.

Senator Hiram R. Revels (R). Mississippi 1860 – 1870. First Black Senator in US History.

Rep. Jefferson F, Long (R). Georgia  1869 – 1870

Rep. Robert C. DeLarge (R). South Carolina 1871 – 1872

Rep. Robert B. Elliot (R). South Carolina 1871 – 1872, 1873, 1874

Rep. Benjamin Turner (R) Alabama 1871 – 1872

Rep. Josiah T. Walls (R) Florida 1871 – 1876

Rep. Richard Cain (R) 1873 – 1874, 1877 – 1878

Rep. John Lynch (R) 1873 – 1874, 1875 – 1876, 1881 – 1882

Rep. James Rapler  (R). Alabama 1873 – 1874

Rep. Alonzo J. Ranzier (R). South Carolina 1873 – 1874

Senator Blanche K. Bruce (R)    Mississippi 1875 – 1880

Rep. Jeremiah Haralson (R). Alabama 1875 – 1876

Rep.  John Hayman (R). North Carolina  1875 – 1876

Rep. Charles Nash (R). Lousiana 1875 – 1876

Rep. Robert Smalls (R). South Carolina 1875 – 1978, 1881 – 1886

Rep. James O’hara   (R) North Carolina 1883 – 1885, 1885 – 1886

Rep.  Henry Cheatham    (R)  1889 – 1890, 1891 –  1892

Rep. John Langston (R). Virginia 1889 – 1890

Rep. Thomas Miller (R). South Carolina 1889 – 1890

Rep. George Murray (R) South Carolina 1893 – 1894, 1895 – 1896

Rep.  George White  (R) 1897 – 1898,  1899 – 1900


Twenty-Two Black Republicans were elected in the congress by 1900.

The Democrats did not elect Blacks to Congress until 1935.


Blacks were a majority of the population in many congressional districts across the South. In 1870, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming the first directly elected black member of Congress to be seated.[2] Blacks were elected to national office also from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

All of these Reconstruction era black senators and representatives were members of the Republican Party. The Republicans represented the party of Abraham Lincoln and of emancipation. The Democrats represented the party of planters, slavery and secession.



The Fake “big switch”

If you actually look up the party affiliations of all of the southern “Dixiecrats,” you can see that most never even switched sides. Al Gore, Sr.? Never switched. Robert Byrd? Never switched. Bull Connor, a.k.a. the arch-nemesis of MLK, jr.? Never switched. In fact, out of all the politicians that were “Dixiecrats,” (there were 18 in total), only two ever switched. There was never a mass exodus of southern Democrats from the Democrat Party, and there’s definite proof to back up that statement. Saying they all became Republicans is the epitome of revisionist history, and it’s a shame how many people are buying it.?

By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper Midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.

In 1856 the Republican party was founded and John Fremont became the first candidate of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States.

Democrats called them Black Republican party because the Republican was based on the abolition movement designed to help blacks Americans and free the slaves and keep them free in the Northern Territories.

Next election in 1860 cycle Lincoln won the election and the 7 states of the Confederacy in the deep south were out of the Union before Lincoln took office because they knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America.

The National Union Party was the temporary name used by the Republican Party for the national ticket in the 1864 presidential election which was held during the Civil War. … The party nominated incumbent President Abraham Lincoln and for Vice President Democrat Andrew Johnson, who were elected in an electoral landslide.


The Liberal Media Bias (CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, AP, REUTERS, etc)

The liberal media will not report anything good done by Conservatives, most of the reports they make are negative towards sand the Republican Party.


The Effect of the Liberal Media to new Asian immigrants in America.

The biggest advantage of the Democrat party is their Liberal Media who are constantly reporting bias, and half-truth against Republicans. Many immigrants are being brainwashed into thinking that Conservatives and Republicans are not good and a bunch of racists people which is actually the other way around if you know the history of slavery and emancipation.

I used to be a supporter of Duterte but I changed my mind after I discovered a lot of issues about him

leave a comment »

I am a native of Mindanao and I used to support Duterte but I changed my mind because I discovered a lot of issues about his principles and history.

# Duterte supported Misuari the creation of Bangsa Moro Islamic state of Mindanao and Palawan.

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte expressed his support on the declaration of independence by Moro leader Nur Misuari and the creation of the Bangsamoro Republik with Davao City as its capital. Misuari declared himself president of the Bangsamoro Republik, a federal state that includes the whole of Mindanao and Palawan As well as Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia.

Read news report http://davaobreakingnews.com/dutertes-support-misuaris-declaration-of-independence/

# Duterte admitted he CANNOT resolve crime twice – not in weeks or 6 years

6/23/2015 – FLASHBACK – Before he decided to run for President he ADMITTED he CANNOT resolve crime even in 6 years.


2/3/2016 – Flip Flop – When he decided to run for President suddenly he said he can resolve crime in only 3-6 months?

Duterte has been repeatedly saying he will END criminality, drugs, and corruption in government in 3 to 6 months.


4/11/2016 – Flip Flop – Then now he ADMITTED again that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to STOP crime

I can promise you, I will suppress crime – HINDE ‘STOP,’ that’s impossible – not in months, but in weeks,” he told a crowd of thousands in Taguig City on Monday.


It is obvious that Duterte is just fooling the people.

# – It is NOT correct that Davao city is one of the Safest City.

1. 2010 – 2015 Davao City has to the highest recorded murder incidents, a whopping 1,032. Quezon City followed at 961

2. Davao City ranked second on the list of chartered cities nationwide rape cases with 843 recorded incidents. Quezon City still took the top spot at 1,122.


# Duterte admitted he is a Communist, a Socialist and a Leftist and he will not kill any NPA criminals who killed innocent christians. This is crazy because he is committed to kill criminals but not NPA terrorist who are criminals! Thousands of innocent civilians were killed since the 70s and continuing up to now.

Duterte in Bohol: I’m leftist, I wouldn’t kill NPA members


Duterte admitted he is a communist – said he possessed “the same view of the government and politics” with the COMMUNISTS but “without the armed struggle” involved. Read news report http://kickerdaily.com/duterte-my-dream-of-being-president-died-with-ka-parago/

Read news reporth http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/704460/duterte-defends-allowing-heros-burial-for-slain-npa-leader

Duterte admitted he is a Socialist – Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Communism is a further development or “higher stage” of socialism.


# – Duterte on Friday admitted that he coddles communist rebels NPA terroristshttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/727436/duterte-admits-coddling-reds-calls-palparan-a-bigot

Human Rights Watch: The rebel New People’s Army (NPA) in the Philippines should immediately end unlawful killings and detention of civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. The NPA, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines, has admitted to gunning down civilians and detaining others in recent months.

For four decades the New People’s Army has offered excuses for cold-blooded killings of civilians,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Recent attacks show that there has been no real departure from this illegal practice.

# Duterte said he would even personally invite CPP founding chair Jose Maria Sison and other communist leaders to join his cabinet.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-says-npas-welcome-in-malacanang-if-he-becomes-president/#0kqZFYr8SGd4gZGc.99

# Duterte wanted his best friend NPA leader Parago to be his vice President not Cayetano – In his weekly Gikan sa Masa program, the tough-talking mayor of Davao City revealed he had wanted the legendary New People’s Army (NPA) commander to be his vice president if ever he decided to run for the country’s top post in 2016. Duterte earlier allowed Parago’s funeral procession to be conducted by his supporters in the city. Read news report http://kickerdaily.com/duterte-my-dream-of-being-president-died-with-ka-parago/

# Duterte ‘s Doctrine – Killing suspected criminals without Due Process in Davao, many children got murdered.

In the April 2009 UN General Assembly of the Human Rights Council, the UN report (Eleventh Session Agenda item 3, par 21) said, ‘The Mayor of Davao City has done nothing to prevent these killings, and his public comments suggest that he is, in fact, supportive.’

Human Rights Watch reported that in 2001-2002, Duterte appeared on local television and radio and announced the names of ‘criminals’, some of whom were later executed. In July 2005 at a crime summit in the Manila Hotel, the politician said, ‘Summary execution of

criminals remains the most effective way to crush kidnapping and illegal drugs’.

In 2009 Duterte said: ‘If you are doing an illegal activity in my city, if you are a criminal or part of a syndicate that preys

on the innocent people of the city, for as long as I am the mayor, you are a legitimate target of assassination

# – Duterte Supports BBL and Federalism

Duterte said BBL a foundation for federalism – Duterte pointed out that the BBL could be a precursor for federalism and assured Iqbal he would be willing to talk about federalism in the Bangsamoro.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-backs-bangsamoro/#vhGxMceLvXfHXqbD.99
Read http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-backs-bangsamoro/

BBL and Federalism will be the key for Mindanao to secede into a Bangsa Moro Islamic Country. In Federalism there is always a danger of the federating units breaking away from the federation.

Just recently, Texas wanted to secede from the Federal govt. A year ago this week, more than 125,000 people signed a secession petition asking the Obama administration to “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

This is what happened in the USA in 1860’s when the southern states started civil war to break away from the federation. Similarly in the very recent past East Pakistan broke away from federation and became Bangladesh. Kosovo and Russian federating units’ case are other examples.

Federal system: (If you want more taxes, choose federalism. Why? Look at federal states. The United States has federal income tax and state income tax. In Malaysia as well. All of the federal systems around the the world have taxes at the national and local levels. In the Philippines, we have a unitary system, it’s just one tax and these taxes are remitted to local governments.)

# – Corruption – Duterte also linked to P2.9 billion missing assets in ‘COA report’ –

The alleged Commission on Audit (COA) report questioning the hiring by Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte of 11,000 contract workers pales in comparison to another ‘COA report’ alleging a billion-pesos anomaly hurled at the city mayor in the run-up to the 2010 election.

The missing assets charge  gained circulation in the 2010 mayoral race between then Vice Mayor Sara Duterte, the mayor’s daughter, and then House Speaker Prospero Nograles.

In its audit report, COA questioned the necessity and regularity of 4,754 job orders, which were all for the mayor’s office.

State auditors discovered that of the 14,499 person on the city government’s payroll, only 3,253 hold regular positions. Their salaries were charged to the city’s personal services budget.

The salaries of the 6,081 contractual employees and 5,165 job orders, meanwhile, came from the fund for maintenance and other operating expenses.

Read politics.com.ph/coa-says-80-percent-of-dutertes-staff%E2%80%8E-could-be-ghost-employees/

Written by pinoyteaparty

December 16, 2015 at 8:30 pm

Posted in Politics

Semiramis and Tammuz

leave a comment »


One of the major themes of Chick tracts is the attempt to portray Catholicism as a form of paganism. According to Chick’s mythology, ancient Babylonian paganism spread all over the world, with deities taking new names in different cultures but remaining fundamentally the same. He holds Catholicism to be one of its expressions and devotes many pages to showing that the Catholic Mary is actually the ancient Babylonian queen Semiramis and that the Eucharist is based on the worship of ancient sun gods.

Unfortunately, Chick gets his mythology all wrong. For example, he claims that “in ancient Babylon, they worshiped the sun god, ‘˜Baal.’ Then this religion moved into Egypt using different names.”[72] In reality, ancient Babylonians worshiped the sun god Shamash. Baal was neither a Babylonian deity nor the sun god. In fact, he was the Canaanite storm god. Chick could not have had his ideas more muddled.

The source Chick depends on for his mythological ideas is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, an eccentric nineteenth-century Anglican clergyman. Chick essentially recycles Hislop’s central thesis of Catholicism being a revival of Babylonian paganism. This allows him to identify the Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon.

Yet the book lacks credibility. Hislop was writing when anthropology and archaeology were in their infancy, and the idea that all world religions spring from a common source (especially one in Babylon) has been completely disproven. We have knowledge of multiple mythologies from all over the world that are unrelated to Babylonian paganism. Fundamental differences between them are easy to illustrate. For example, Indo-European paganism (to which Babylonian mythology is related) typically has the sky deity being male and the earth deity as female. But in Egyptian mythology this is reversed: The sky deity is female and the earth deity is male.

The most thorough refutation of The Two Babylons was written by one of its chief twentieth-century popularizers. As a young man, Ralph Woodrow wrote a book called Babylon Mystery Religion, which introduced many to Hislop’s ideas. It was very popular in Fundamentalist circles. Yet with time Woodrow realized that Hislop’s claims and logic were deeply flawed, and he wrote a new book—The Babylon Connection?—to refute them.


Chick makes a lot of the conventional anti-Marian arguments that are common in Fundamentalism: that Mary is not the Mother of God, that we are not to ask for her intercession, that statues of her should not be venerated, that she was not preserved by God’s grace from sin, etc.[67]

What is distinctive about Chick’s approach is his is claim that “the ‘˜Mother of God’ that Catholics worship is not the Mary of the Bible. Satan has tricked them into worshiping a counterfeit goddess.”[68] The basis for this claim is a story he borrowed from Alexander Hislop, according to which there was a queen in ancient Babylon named Semiramis. She married her son, Nimrod. After his death, she claimed to have had a virgin birth of another son, Tammuz, who was Nimrod reincarnated. This pair of Semiramis and Tammuz was often depicted in artwork as a mother and child. They form the basis of all of the mother-child statues in the different religions of the world, and when Catholics worship Mary and the Baby Jesus, they are actually worshiping Semiramis and Tammuz.

What is one to make of this? Setting aside the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary, it is still complete nonsense. Hislop’s wild ideas cannot be substantiated historically.[69] We have mother and child images from cultures that predate Babylon. Further, if you want to depict a famous mother, a good way of doing it is by picturing her holding her child. Thus before literacy became widespread Christians often would picture Mary holding the Baby Jesus, and it became an established image in Christian art.



In a series of EMBRASSING RETRACTIONS, Woodrow abandoned his original views.
He CONFESSED that his previous studies had been SHALLOW and UNPROFESSIONAL:


As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was NOT A RELIABLE HISTORIAN, I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program.  Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject.  As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary PIECING TOGETHER OF ANCIENT MYTHS.  He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man.  His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes.  But she was a backslider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy.

He said that the Babylonians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I CANNOT FIND A RECOGNIZED HISTORY BOOK THAT CAN SUBSTANTIATE THESE AND MANY OTHER CLAIMS.

The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.”  Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopædia, The Catholic Encyclopædia, The Worldbook Encyclopædia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” – NOT ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT NIMROD AND SEMIRAMIS BEING HUSBAND AND WIFE. THEY DID NOT EVEN LIVE THE SAME CENTURY. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz.


After considerable work in finding old reference books to which Hislop referred, it was not uncommon to find things taken out of context.  He sought to link the round communion wafers of the Roman Catholic Church with paganism, for example, by citing Wilkinson’s ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

But Wilkinson also said the Egyptians used oval and triangular cakes, folded cakes, cakes shaped like leaves, animals, a crocodile’s head, etc.  But

Because many of these teachings were interwoven in my book, it could not simply be a case of producing a revised edition.  Honesty, despite the financial loss to our ministry, demanded a correction of this teaching. For this reason, we now publish a 128-page book “THE BABYLON CONNECTION?” which explains all that is involved in this, and includes 60 illustrations and 400 footnote references.

We believe the best way to combat errors in the Roman Catholic Church (or any other group) is by the Scriptures themselves – not by trying to find pagan parallels in ancient mythology.  Things that are indeed pagan should be rejected, of course; but we should not brand things as being pagan when this is really not the case.


On September 17, 1859, The Saturday Review openly castigated Hislop in a stinging rebuttal of his arbitrary hypothesis:

In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing.

Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen.

The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it.

Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin.  Accidental resemblance in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.

Thirdly, Mr. Hislop’s reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted … into something totally different.

Fourthly, Mr. Hislop’s argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system…

We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable.

If more Christadelphians had been aware of this review, Hislop’s book might not have succeeded in gaining the (entirely undeserved) support that it now enjoys within our community.

Hislop’s FAILED to meet these conditions.
– the similarities between the Catholic distinctive and the alleged pagan source must be material, significant, and pervasive enough to suspect derivation;
– the similarities must be of such a nature as to either require borrowing, or be best explained by borrowing;
– there must be a historically plausible explanation of how the borrowing occurred;
– the borrowing hypothesis must more persuasive than the alternative Catholic explanation;
– there must be a historically plausible explanation for the origin of any significant differences between the Catholic distinctive and the alleged pagan source;
– there must be demonstrable means, motive and opportunity for the Catholic Church to foist the pagan baggage upon an unsuspecting public.

Besides, what a lot of people don’t realise is that Christians believed December 25th was the date of the birth of Christ before the Roman emperor Aurelian instituted the pagan feast of Sol Invictus (see William H. Tighe, Calculating Christmas: The Story Behind December 25).

Replacing a pagan feast with a Christian one that supersedes would be is a way to defeat paganism, not surreptitiously embrace it.  And it seems to have worked, as overtly sun-worshipping pagans seem rather scarce these days.

Hislop criticises the “skilful adjustment of the calendar” that allowed Easter to take the place of solemnities.  However in fact, the date of Easter has nothing to do with paganism, but instead is based on Christ’s resurrection in its Jewish-Passover context. Since Passover was always on or after the first full moon after the Spring equinox, and since the Resurrection was the first Sunday after Passover, Easter is always the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 (historically, the Spring equinox).



All about Rome and Peter

leave a comment »

To those who do not believe in St. Peter as being authority of the Apostles:

bullet Consider of all the Apostles, Our Lord chose to give a permanent new name ONLY to St. Peter by saying, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter” Matthew 16:18. Note Our Lord did not give the other Apostles an additional new names, only Peter, which signifies Peter’s authority among the Apostles. And if we look elsewhere in Scripture, other name changes have signified a change of status, such as with Abraham in Genesis 17:5 and Jacob in Genesis 32:28.
bullet Consider the verse, “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” Luke 22:31. When Our Lord was about to establish the faith in His Church, He specifically prayed for St. Peter as head. Scripture does not show Our Lord saying this to any of the other Apostles. Is this not to place him as responsible for all? And it is also equally clear that having prayed specifically for St. Peter, the head of the others, it was so St. Peter might not fail, who was to assist with supplying the others with the faith as well.
bullet And when Our Lord says, “being once converted” that St. Peter should “confirm thy brethren“, does this not clearly state that St. Peter is head of the others? Our Lord could not have given St. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care over them.
bullet Also consider the verses, “When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.” John 21:15. Our Lord again, only said these words to St. Peter and not to the other Apostles because St. Peter alone was the authority among them. There is no confusion on whether Our Lord was speaking to St. Peter alone here for the part “more than these” shows Our Lord referring to the other Apostles, and only St. Peter was grieved. And what does it mean to give someone charge of feeding the sheep but to be their pastor, ruler and shepherd? In many places in Scripture to “feed” and to “rule” are used interchangeably as well so there is no confusion here.
bullet And when Our Lord said, “As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.” John 10:15, Our Lord was not referring to specific sheep, but ALL of His sheep. Some Protestants have argued that Our Lord was referring to only specific “lambs” and “sheep” in John 21, but this is illogical for if He was, why did He not specify the specific lambs and sheep?
bullet In addition, Our Lord first says, “Feed my lambs” twice, then “Feed my sheep” once. What was the purpose of this? This was to clearly give St. Peter charge not only over the people but the pastors and Apostles themselves for the sheep nourish the lambs.
bullet We also have proof of St. Peter’s authority over the other Apostles based on any time either all or part of the Apostles are referenced in Scripture, St. Peter is always listed first, and in each of these instances, the other Apostles’ names that follow are not in any particular order.
bullet We also note in numerous places in Scripture where there is occasion for the Apostles to speak, St. Peter is known to speak for the group. “Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” John 6:68. Notice St. Peter speaks for the group and also says “and WE have believed“, speaking for all. Only one in authority speaks for a group.
bullet Consider the verse, “And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” Acts 15:7. This verse clearly shows St. Peter publicly exercising his authority over the other Apostles.
bullet Some Protestants have been known to say that all the Apostles are equal, with St. Peter having no authority over them. Looking at the verses just referenced above, Our Lord clearly bestowed this right on St. Peter for the good of the Church; to avoid schisms like we see in the Protestant churches today!
bullet To further expand on this point, in several other locations in Scripture there are references to Peter and the other Apostles without naming them, such as “Peter and they that were with him” (Luke 9:32) and “Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him” (Mark 1:36) which clearly indicate St. Peter as head. St. Peter is also named separately when referencing all of the Apostles on several occasions such as “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee” (Mark 16:7), and “But Peter standing up with the eleven” (Acts 2:14), and “and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles” Acts 2:37. What more can be said on this subject?
bullet Here we see St. Peter being first to convert others to the Church; “They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls” Acts 2:41
bullet Here we see St. Peter performing the first healing; “But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise, and walk. And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and forthwith his feet and soles received strength” Acts 3:6-7
bullet St. Peter was the first of the Apostles to raise the dead; “Peter kneeling down prayed, and turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, she sat up. And giving her his hand, he lifted her up. And when he had called the saints and the widows, he presented her alive.” Acts 9:40,41. There is simply no doubt as to St. Peter’s authority over the other Apostles.
bullet The Protestant reformers have also denied St. Peter was originally the first head of the Church. How can anyone deny this when so many writings from the first three centuries from renowned people contain references to St. Peter being first head of the Church and head of the Apostles? For example we have in the middle of the third century St. Cyprian saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). In the first quarter of the 3rd century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. About the same period, Hippolytus in  “Clement of Rome”, 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops. In addition writings from St. Jerome quote St. Peter as “Head of the Church” and a writing from St. Hilary as “Happy foundation of the Church” and many, many other examples not listed here. There is simply no doubt as to St. Peter being the first Bishop of Rome.


21. To those who do not believe St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and that he had successors that continued to lead the Church:

bullet Our Lord clearly said, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Matthew 28:19-20.  It is very clear from these verses that the Apostles in their lifetime could not have taught ALL nations themselves, hence Our Lord continued the SAME thought with the word “and”, stating that He would be with them to the end of the world. This can only refer to successors.
bullet Also consider the verses, “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:16-17. Here Our Lord clearly states the spirit of truth would “abide with them forever”, which indicates their successors as well. How were the Apostles to fulfill Our Lord’s words in the verses above without Apostolic successors? It is clear Our Lord knew they could not finish teaching all nations in their lifetime and that He was promising to be with their successors, guiding them until the end of the world. How else can these verses be interpreted?
bullet Furthermore we can immediately see that “teaching all nations” would not be limited to the Apostles alone, for we see St. Paul in his Epistles sending Bishop Titus and Bishop Timothy to finish the work he had begun in spreading the faith. Furthermore, we see St. Paul instructing Bishop Titus to further pass on this position to others; “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee” Titus 1:5
bullet As we mention elsewhere on this page, Our Lord clearly established St. Peter as His vicar and administrator of the Church on earth. If Our Lord was to establish a head of His Church back when the Apostles were alive and were so steadfast and so strong, how much more today is the Church in need of a head when there are so many weaknesses and infirmities in the members of the Church?
bullet As for St. Peter having successors, several ancient writings exist from the first, second, and third centuries from St. Clement, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Dorotheus, Optatus of Milevis, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, ALL which make reference to St. Peter being first Bishop of Rome who later handed succession to St. Linus, St. Anacletus, and St. Clement. Some of the writings about these three successors conflict with each other with respect to the order of these successors, due to the fact that St. Clement was first offered to be successor of St. Peter as Bishop, but he initially refused it until the deaths of St. Linus and St. Anacletus, who took the role before him. Nevertheless all ancient writings agree on these three as being successors of St. Peter. So why do the Protestant reformers choose to ignore the writings of all antiquity?
bullet The Protestant reformers have stated that the Catholic Church was still pure during the first six or so centuries, and writings from countless Saints and others during those same centuries all coincide in that St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome, who later handed off that succession to other Bishops of Rome, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, and St. Clement. So why do the Protestant reformers choose to deny this? And to those who agree St. Peter had successors but that those successors were not the Bishops of Rome, the early General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Chalcedon contradict you, all indicating the Bishops of Rome were successors.
bullet In short, never in the early centuries of the Church were there bishops who claimed they were head or superior over the rest other than the Bishop of Rome. On what grounds then do the Protestant reformers have to challenge what is so plentiful in ancient writings?
bullet It is also interesting to note that some of the Protestant reformers chose to deny St. Peter was ever in Rome, which is contrary to ancient writings. Calvin, seeing this denial would oppose antiquity, instead chose to believe St. Peter was “not long” Bishop of Rome instead. It is interesting to see the immediate conflicts in opinion that arose between the Protestant reformers before the reformation even got off the ground. It is clear from ancient writings that St. Peter spent the majority of his life in Rome, and some years in Judea and Antioch.
bullet As for Protestant reformers challenging the term “pope” used for the Bishop of Rome because it is not found in Scripture,  it is simply a term that means “chief father” or “grandfather”. There are many other terms that people use for the Bishop of Rome such as “His Holiness” and “Holy Father” which are not in Scripture either, but they do not have to be as they are simply a choice of terms. We see reference to the term pope in writings of St. Jerome and the Council of Chalcedon (which was held while the Church was still “pure” according to the Protestant reformers) and in other writings, but the choice of the term is insignificant as it simply refers to the head Bishop of Rome.
bullet We all agree that the books of the Bible contain the inspired Word of God. These books of the Bible also contain the many writings of St. Peter such as 1 St. Peter and 2 St. Peter, and we all believe them to be inspired and the infallible Word of God. Why then do the Protestant reformers find it so far above reason to also believe in St. Peter’s infallibility acting as head of the Church?


22. To those who do not believe in the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and His authority over the Church:

bullet First let us consider the term “rock” used so frequently in Scripture. If we look throughout Scripture, “rock” has always been used to refer to Our Lord and no one else. Our Lord by His excellence is called the rock, because He is the foundation of the Church. This we all agree on.
bullet Now let us go back to the primary verses in Scripture which the Protestant reformers disagree with the meaning of, which are, “And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18. Some Protestant reformers choose to believe that Jesus was speaking to St. Peter, but starting with “and upon this rock” they claim Our Lord was no longer referring to St. Peter. Why would Our Lord bother to mention or refer to St. Peter in the verse if He was about to speak about something else? We answer it is illogical to think Our Lord said the sentence beginning with “Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-jona…” in order to say nothing more than “thou are Peter” afterward, then suddenly change the subject mid-sentence to refer to something else. The verse only makes sense when all is referring to St. Peter.
bullet Note that at that time, “Peter” was not the proper name of a man as we know it today, but was only then appropriated to Simon Bar-jona by Jesus, and this name was not given to anyone else. This forces the question, if the name Peter was never used before this time, why would Our Lord suddenly give Simon the name Peter? What could have been the meaning or purpose of this name change other than implying Simon was equivalent to what “Peter” meant, which is rock?
bullet Note also that when Jesus first met St. Peter He said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” John 1:42. Note here that the name Cephas also translates to the word “rock”, as does Peter. In other words Cephas and Peter and rock all have the same meaning. So this is the same as saying, “thou art rock; and upon this rock…”. Now considering that the term “rock” has always been attributed to Our Lord only throughout Scripture, what do you think it signifies when Our Lord now calls St. Peter “rock”?
bullet In addition we can clearly see the early Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries referring to St. Peter as the rock. For example Tertullian writes, “Peter, who is the rock whereon the Church was to be built, and who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (De Praes., 22). St. Cyprian also writes, “Peter, whom the Lord chose as first, and upon whom He built His Church” (Epis. 71, Ad Quintum).
bullet Next we see the verse immediately following “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” with the verse “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Matthew 16:19. Notice “thee” which is referring to St. Peter alone. Also, verses 18 and 19 clearly go together and are a continuous thought separated by “and”, contrary to some of the Protestant reformers who would illogically try to separate the verses under unrelated thoughts. And to confirm, the belief as explained above has been maintained by the Catholic Church from Her earliest days, and was confirmed at the Council of Chalcedon, when even the Protestant reformers admit the Catholic Church was the true Church.
bullet Also consider Our Lord, upon stating “upon this rock I build my church” is comparing His Church to a building, and when He says He will build it on St. Peter, He is referring to St. Peter being the Church’s visible foundation here on earth. This in other words makes St. Peter head and superior of this Church. In other words, Our Lord is the foundation, founder and builder, while St. Peter is only the foundation from an administrative point of view. Our Lord is the Church’s master, while St. Peter only has management of it on earth.
bullet It is true that Scripture teaches us that there is no other foundation than Our Lord, though it also teaches us that St. Peter is also a foundation, and further that the Apostles are as well. It is incorrect and illogical to give up the belief that Our Lord is foundation after we read that St. Peter is also foundation or that the Apostles are. Rather all three beliefs remain, and instead we focus on the degree in which they are each considered foundations. Consider the verse from St. Paul, “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Ephesians 2:20. Here St. Paul clearly implies all of the Apostles are foundations, with Our Lord having a notable difference among them as corner stone of the foundation. The Apostles are also called foundations but from a different perspective; simply because it is they that lay the foundation of the Church everywhere by their preaching. Prophets are mentioned in this verse for the same reason; we know they are not foundations of the Church but we can refer to them as such in another sense because of their doctrine.
bullet The Catholic Church has always believed that Our Lord is the only foundation of the Church and our faith. No one has ever doubted this. Though some Protestants will ask why then Catholics place Peter as foundation. And we answer that it is not WE that placed him there, but Our Lord who did so in verses 18 and 19 as we mention above. If anyone besides Our Lord had placed St. Peter as part of the foundation of the Church, we and the rest of the Catholic Church would protest. “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid” 1 Corinthians 3:11. Our Lord simply approved this Himself so who are we to deny it? Note that St. Peter and the Apostles are not foundations BESIDE Our Lord, rather they are foundations subordinate to Our Lord.
bullet And to those Protestants who claim Our Lord also said the same to the Apostles as to St. Peter; “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” we agree fully. But notice nowhere in Scripture does Jesus say “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to anyone other than St. Peter.
bullet Some Protestants also like to claim that the Catholic Church considers St. Peter as a successor to Christ. They are incorrect. Rather St. Peter is a vicar of Christ and should in no way be compared to Christ who is God. Just as a King gives his son power to chastise, grant favors, and give gifts, his son does not have the scepter, but only exercise of it. What the King’s son does will be valid, be that does not make him King. This relationship is similar to that of Our Lord and St. Peter, and to that of St. Peter and the Apostles.
bullet In summary, all of the Apostles are referred to as foundations of the Church, but in authority and government, St. Peter precedes. St. Peter is foundation, not founder of the whole Church, and he is a foundation, but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord. St. Peter is the foundation (not founder) of the Church on earth, and is the administrator of faith, hope, charity, the Sacraments, and of the Church on earth, but he is NOT the Lord of them.


23. To those who do not recognize and do not have respect for the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope):

bullet First, we see on many occasions in Scripture where there is occasion for the Apostles to speak, St. Peter is known to speak for the group. “Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” John 6:68. Notice St. Peter speaks for the group and also says “and WE have believed“, speaking for all. Also consider the verses, “Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:15 and “And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?” Matthew 19:26. Also consider at the election of St. Matthias it is St. Peter alone who speaks and determines. There are many other examples in Scripture where St. Peter speaks for the group of Apostles. Simply put, it is usual that the head should speak for the whole body, and that what the head says is considered to be said by all the rest. And it is this reason that St. Chrysostom and Origen have called St. Peter “the mouth and crown of the Apostles”. “Amen, amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me.” John 13:20
bullet When St. Peter was placed as foundation of the Church, and the Church was certified that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, was it not enough to say that St. Peter as foundation-stone could not be crushed with infidelity or error, which is the principal gate of hell?
bullet If the head shepherd can conduct his sheep into venomous pastures, the flock is soon to be lost. So if the head shepherd, with no other visible head available, can wander, who will set him straight? If there are no other head shepherds to lead and the sheep are not capable of guiding, how can this head shepherd guide his flock with a guarantee that hell will not prevail, unless supernatural assistance exists?
bullet Consider the great authority of Moses who sat and judged all the differences among the people, and all difficulties which occurred in the service of God. He appointed judges for issues of lower importance and the greater doubts were reserved for him. God spoke through him for decisions of that time and we all believe this. Why then do the Protestant reformers doubt a similar situation with the head of the Catholic Church? Considering Moses, is this situation THAT far above reason? Clearly it is not. If God had such providence over the religion of the Jews to establish them a supreme judge in whose sentence they were bound to consent to, there is no doubt that God provided Christianity with a similar judge or pastor who has the same authority to remove doubts and disagreements concerning the Scriptures.
bullet Even Luther originally believed in the authority of the Pope as we can see in his letter to Pope Leo X in 1518 where he actually presents six reasons for proof of authority of the Holy See in Rome and states that Scripture supports these reasons! Calvin himself originally believed in the authority of the Holy See as well, stating the Ancients have honored and revered it. So on what grounds do these Protestant reformers change from being Catholics, scrapping their beliefs to start a whole new doctrine?
bullet It is clear looking at the history of the Catholic Church that She does not believe the Pope can err or mislead the faithful in regards to faith and morals, which is based on Our Lord’s words that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Outside of decisions on faith and morals and in all private decisions, the Pope is susceptible to mistakes just as anyone else. Simply put, everything a king says is not law and does not become law, but only that which the king pronounces as king and legislator. So goes the same with the Bishop of Rome; he can make errors outside the chair of Peter, as a private individual by writings and bad example, but with pronouncements on faith and morals in the chair of Peter, Our Lord’s promise holds.
bullet If all are bound by the Lord to believe the teachings of the Apostles and their successors or be condemned, and those teachings could contain error, what confusion would occur in Christendom with some parties considering one teaching good, another bad, and others occupying themselves in controlling the decisions of their superiors?
bullet Consider the verse, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.” John 16:13. How does the Holy Spirit teach, but through the Pastors of the Church?
bullet Consider St. Ignatius, early church Father and Bishop of Antioch, who sent his Epistle to the Trallians around the year 107 AD. In it he writes, “For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ…” and in the same paragraph writes, “It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ“. This was in the earliest time of the church shortly after the death of the last Apostle. Clearly St. Ignatius here openly states that a Bishop should be obeyed as to Christ himself, and that we should also be subject to the presbytery (priest) as to the Apostles. How much more would this apply to the head bishop of the church in Rome?
bullet To Protestants who rather consider Luther an authority, how can you look to a man who blindly excommunicates the Pope, and the Bishops, and the entire Catholic Church in one written Bull while completely ignoring all the facts as presented on this page? Such decisions can only be made out of anger or frustration and not of intelligent facts. And what are we to think about Luther writing to the King of England claiming, “I will be the enemy of the papacy, burnt I will be thy enemy.” Are these the words of a Christian? Of an authority? Consider the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformers which are filled with vulgarities, calumnies, insults, detraction and ridicule. Are these really the words of a Christian with a mission from God to “reform” the Church? What does this all mean than that they have nothing else to say and are unable to keep from ill-saying? No one sent from God would do or say such things as these reformers have.




To those who say the Catholic Church perished or went apostate , which brought about the need for a reformation:

leave a comment »

To those who say the Catholic Church perished, which brought about the need for a reformation:

bullet To say that the Church perished or went apostate is blasphemous against the Passion of Our Lord. Didn’t Jesus undergo His passion and death for us that He could establish His Church for all of us? Of what sense does it make that Our Lord should let go of His Church which cost Him so dear right after He established it? Of what sense would it make that He would take it back from us after giving it to us? How could He have abandoned the Church, which cost Him all of His blood? Do you think that Jesus is weaker than His adversary, the devil, and was overcome by him?
bullet In Scripture Jesus clearly made promises on promises pertaining to the perpetuity of His Church. To say the Church perished is to call Jesus a liar. “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18)
bullet Who gave Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn promises which Our Lord made of His Church? Did Our Lord not say of His Church, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? (Matt 16:18) And didn’t He say, “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” Matthew 28:20? And didn’t Our Lord say “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever” John 14:16? And don’t we see repeated mention in the New Testament that Our Lord will be with us? How can all of these promises stand if the Church perished or went apostate? And if the true Church is to last forever as Christ told us, how can it have failed or went apostate for a thousand years as the Protestant reformers claim?
bullet He who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator of the Catholic Church attributes to himself the honor due to Jesus alone, and makes himself greater than the Apostles. The Apostles preserved the Church by their ministry after Our Lord instituted it. He who says that he has found the Church dead and raised it to life himself is the most audacious human alive.
bullet If the Church did perish and the Protestant reformers were the ones to truly resuscitate the Church back to a true state, that would make them greater than the Apostles. But never have they shown any signs or wonders of such greatness in their lives as the Apostles did!
bullet To say that the Church perished sometime after the first five or six centuries as the Protestant reformers say is to imply nothing else than our predecessors for nearly 1000 years before the reformation are damned, for outside of the true Church there is no salvation.
bullet And lastly, there is no doubt there were problems in the Church before the Reformation. The Church has always had problems in every century and has always been persecuted, as Our Lord told us would be the case. We also see in Scripture that Our Lord said He would be with His Church forever and that it would never fail. Looking at the history of the Church, whenever problems had arisen, the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, always called together General Councils and corrected the problems. If there were problems in the Church before the Reformation, it was not up to unknown men like Luther and Calvin to try and correct them on their own without any authority when it was well known that the Church had always used General Councils to correct problems for the 1500 years prior.


To those who do not believe in veneration of statues, pictures, crucifixes and other images of Christianity

leave a comment »


To those who do not believe in veneration of statues, pictures, crucifixes and other images of Christianity

bullet We must first note here that it can readily be seen from the very beginning that Christians adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the Saints, and of scenes from the Bible, including parts of Our Lord’s Passion such as His crowning.
bullet Next we note many ancient writings which reference pictures and statues commonly used by Christians in the early centuries of the Church including St. Ambrose (d. 397) and St. Augustine (d. 430) each referring several times to pictures of our Lord and the saints in churches, St. Jerome (d. 420) also writes of pictures of the Apostles as well-known ornaments of churches, Gregory of Tours (d. 594) says that a Frankish woman, who built a church of St. Stephen, showed the artists who painted its walls how they should represent the Saints out of a book. St. Nilus in the fifth century blames a friend for wishing to decorate a church with profane ornaments, and exhorts him to replace these by scenes from Scripture. St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) was also a great a defender of icons in the Church. These are just a few examples.
bullet The conclusion here is that the principle of adorning chapels and churches with pictures dates from the very earliest Christian times. Centuries before the Iconoclast troubles they were in use throughout Christendom. So also all the old Christian Churches in East and West used holy pictures constantly.
bullet Next we note the Council of Nicaea II (787) approved of veneration of images, and forbade adoration of them. The Catholic Church and Orthodox churches have always followed decisions of this Council since.
bullet As additional proof that Catholics do not “worship” or idolize such images, we can clearly see in the document “Veneration of Images” in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm) that the Catholic Church has always allowed ONLY veneration but never worship of pictures, statues and the like.
bullet Some non-Catholics may still somehow insist that veneration of a picture or statue is somehow idolatry or superstition regardless of the proof we provide above. To this we ask, do you have pictures of loved ones around your home as reminders of them? If so, do you love the actual pictures and frames they are in, or do you love who the pictures remind you of? And if you kneel to read a prayer from a prayer book, are you worshipping the prayer book or just using it as an aid? I think we all know the answers to these questions.
bullet Now let us consider the definition of prayer from “A Catholic Dictionary” (1958) which states that prayer is the “raising of our mind and heart to God”. Hence anything that raises our thoughts heavenward is prayerful.
bullet Let us now consider the average Christian home today. Many do not have a single symbol of Christianity in any room, but rather are filled with modern art that appeal to sensual rather than the spiritual side of our nature. The Catholic home (especially the devout Catholic home) will be filled with pictures and/or statues of Our Lord, or crucifixes instead of modern art. The result? Looking around a home such as this will constantly “raise the mind and heart to God” for everyone in the family, which is what prayer does. This is clearly not worship but rather an aid. While a family who owns a home filled with modern art will always be thinking on “earthly” levels and will scarcely give Our Lord a second thought throughout the day. Scripture tells us to pray often, so a prayerful home is much better than a non-prayerful home.
bullet In summary, statues, pictures and the like are a constant inspiration to pious thoughts. They are not ornaments or objects of idolatry or superstition, but prayer aids. Even a short look is an effective means of prayer! Not to have any pictures or statues is a denial that Jesus is master of our households.  We all know what Our Lord thought of those who refused to publicly acknowledge Him. No amount of prayer aids is too many, and makes the task of raising our children in the love of God that much easier



For Members Only and For Open To Everyone

leave a comment »

1393477_532543706836235_1882773616_nFor Members Only and For Open To Everyone

Written by pinoyteaparty

November 11, 2013 at 2:46 pm

Posted in Politics


with one comment



Written by pinoyteaparty

November 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Posted in Politics


leave a comment »


Matt. 6:7 – Jesus teaches, “do not heap up empty phrases” in prayer. Protestants use this verse to criticize various Catholic forms of prayer which repeat phrases, such as litanies and the Rosary. But Jesus’ focus in this instruction is on the “VAIN,” and not on the “repetition.”

Matt. 26:44 – for example, Jesus prayed a third time in the garden of Gethsemane, saying the exact same words again. It is not the repetition that is the issue. It’s the vanity. God looks into our heart, not solely at our words.

Luke 18:13 – the tax collector kept beating his breast and praying “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” This repetitive prayer was pleasing to God because it was offered with a sincere and repentant heart.

Acts 10:2,4 – Cornelius prayed constantly to the Lord and his prayers ascended as a memorial before God.

Rom. 1:9 – Paul says that he always mentions the Romans in his prayers without ceasing.

Rom. 12:12 – Paul commands us to be constant in prayer. God looks at what is in our heart, not necessarily how we choose our words.

1 Thess. 5:17 – Paul commands us to pray constantly. Good repetition is different than vain repetition.

Rev. 4:8 – the angels pray day and night without cessation the same words “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.” This is repetitious prayer that is pleasing to God.

Psalm 136 – in this Psalm, the phrase “For His steadfast love endures forever” is more repetitious than any Catholic prayer, and it is God’s divine Word.

Dan. 3:35-66 – the phrase “Bless the Lord” is similarly offered repeatedly, and mirrors Catholic litanies. (JS)

Written by pinoyteaparty

April 4, 2013 at 10:05 am

Posted in Politics

Tagged with

The harlot of Babylon that is spoken of in chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation

with one comment

There are a lot of folks who have been taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon that is spoken of in chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. These folks point to two main verses to “prove” that the woman (the harlot) is indeed the Roman Catholic Church. Those verses are: 1) Rev 17:9…”This calls for a mind with wisdom; the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated,” and 2) Rev 17:18…”And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.”

“See,” they say, “the seven hills means Rome, which is a city that sits on seven hills. The Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome. And, Rome was the great city that had dominion over the kings of the earth. Therefore, the harlot of Babylon is a world-wide religion that is based in Rome.”

How to answer that? Well, the main strategy that I employ in this instance is the “But That’s My Interpretation” strategy. That strategy is this: Protestants believe that we should go by the Bible alone in determining what is and is not authentic Christian teaching. Furthermore, they believe that each person has the right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves to determine what is and is not authentic Christian teaching.

What I do is give them my interpretation of these passages, and, if they try to tell me that my interpretation is wrong, I simply ask them if, according to their theology, I have the right to read and interpret Scripture for myself so as to determine what God is saying to me through Scripture. And they say, “Of course you do.” Then I tell them, “That is MY interpretation!” They can disagree with my interpretation if they want to, but, by their own theology, I have a RIGHT to my interpretation. Therefore, they cannot say my interpretation is wrong…the best they can do is disagree with it.

This is a very important point to remember…they, by their own theology, cannot tell me my interpretation is wrong, unless they wish to be hypocrites. They can disagree with my interpretation, but they cannot say it is wrong…not if they believe in the right of each individual to read and interpret Scripture on their own so as to determine true and false teaching. And, remember, you can use this strategy every time you discuss the Bible with a non-Catholic, regardless of the particular doctrine or dogma you are talking about.

However, I’m not going to simply leave it at that. I am going to give you scriptural support for my interpretation which will hopefully make them re-think what they have been taught about the harlot of Babylon. Remember, though, that I am not saying my interpretation is THE correct interpretation…the Church has not, to my knowledge, defined exactly what these passages refer to, so I am free to interpret these passages within the overall parameters of Catholic teaching. So, again, I’m not saying that I am 100% right, all I’m saying is that what follows is my interpretation, to which I am entitled to by Protestant theology – in an absolute sense, and by Catholic theology – as long as it does not contradict Church teaching.

What I’m going to do is just go through chapter 17 and comment on a few of the verses here and there to show why the harlot of Babylon is not the Catholic Church, and why I believe it is the city of Jerusalem. That’s right, my interpretation is that the harlot of Babylon is a symbol of the city of Jerusalem.

Verse 1: “…’Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters.'” How is the nation of Israel often referred to in the Old Testament? As a harlot. Why? Because Israel quite often would forsake worship of the one true God, and would turn instead to the worship of false gods. Quite often the relationship between God and Israel is described in marital terms. Therefore, when Israel would forsake her true Spouse, she was described as a harlot…a whore. Hosea 9:1, “Rejoice not, O Israel! Exult not like the peoples; for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. You have loved a harlot’s hire upon all threshing floors.” So, we see from the Old Testament that Israel is often referred to as a harlot.

Verse 3: “…and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.” And, verse 9-10: “This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come….” What do we see here? We see that the seven hills pertain to the beast on which the woman is seated, not the woman herself. I believe, as do most folks I’ve read…Catholic and Protestant…that the beast is symbolic of Rome and the Roman Empire. So, again, the seven hills are referring to the beast the woman is seated upon, not the woman herself. And, if Rome is the beast, then that “proves” the woman sitting on the beast is the Catholic Church, right? Not so fast.

Let’s look at the last verse of the chapter again…verse 18: “And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.” Wait a minute here. Let’s think about this. We are told that the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth is Rome. And, since it is Rome, that “proves” that the harlot of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church. But, big problem: I’ve already shown that the beast the woman is seated upon is Rome. If verse 9, which refers to the beast the woman is seated upon, is referring to the city of Rome; and verse 18, which refers to the harlot, is also referring to the city of Rome, then the beast and the harlot are one and the same. Both are the city of Rome. But, these are clearly two separate entities, so if one is Rome, then the other has to be something else. This is a bit of a problem for the harlot of Babylon folks.

Now, someone may say, “Well, of course the beast is Rome…the city on seven hills…but, the harlot is the city within the city – Vatican City, where the Catholic Church is headquartered.” But, there are a whole bunch of problems with that. First and foremost, that’s not what the Bible says. I don’t see anything that mentions Vatican City or a city within a city. So, let’s not add words to the Bible, right? Second, is that there was no such thing as Vatican City until the early 20th century. In other words, it didn’t exist until almost 1900 years after the Book of Revelation. Therefore, it could not, and did not, have dominion over the kings of the earth when John wrote the book. And, remember, the Bible was speaking about the harlot in the present tense: “…IS the great city which HAS dominion over the kings of the earth.” Third, while you can argue that the Catholic Church did, in a sense, have dominion over the Catholic kings of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa at different points in time; it has never had dominion over all the kings of the earth. It never even had dominion over a majority of the kings of the earth. And, today, it has dominion over pretty much none of the kings of the earth. Heck, there are hardly any kings left on the earth over which to have dominion!

Furthermore, the harlot is clearly identified as a city, not a Church. Catholics are often accused of “adding” to the Bible…well, here is a perfect example of adding to the Bible. The harlot of Babylon is a city. Nowhere does the Bible say it is a church. Do these folks take the Bible literally, or not?

What else can we glean from chapter 17? Let’s look at verse 16: “And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh, and burn her up with fire.” Does that mean that Rome will burn Vatican City? (There goes a bunch of tourist revenue!) Ask these harlot of Babylon folks exactly what that means? Make them give you an interpretation, and listen and see if that interpretation doesn’t stretch the bounds of credulity. If, however, the beast is Rome (or the Roman Empire), and the harlot is Jerusalem, then we can see here a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, by Rome, which sacked and burned Jerusalem in 70 A.D. – leaving her naked and burned up with fire, just like the Bible says.

Verse 6: “And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Let’s turn to Matthew 23:33-38. Here Jesus is speaking to the scribes and Pharisees. “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah…O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you…Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.”

Notice Jesus says that He sends these folks where? To Jerusalem. And what’s going to happen to them? They will be killed and crucified and scourged and persecuted. Sounds like Jerusalem will be drunk with the blood of the martyrs and saints of Jesus, just like the harlot of Babylon, doesn’t it? And compare verse 38, about Jerusalem being forsaken and desolate with Rev 18:21-24…these verses describe a city that is pretty much forsaken and desolate, don’t they? And, look closely at verse 24: “And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth.” Well, if the blood of all who have been slain on earth are found in the harlot of Babylon; and the blood of all the O.T. prophets and wise men and scribes, and the blood of those sent by Jesus who are yet to be crucified, killed, scourged, and persecuted are upon Jerusalem (Matthew 23), then it looks, again, like Jerusalem is the harlot of Babylon.

One more major point to make. The harlot of Babylon is referred to as the “great city,” in 17:18 and in a few verses in chapter 18. Knowing that, let’s turn to Rev 11:9, “…and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the GREAT CITY which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.” Hmmm. The “great city” is where their Lord was crucified. Now, I could be wrong, but wasn’t the Lord crucified in Jerusalem? So, is the “great city” Jerusalem in Rev 11, but then all of a sudden it becomes Rome in Rev 17? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but then, I am just an ignorant Catholic.


Written by pinoyteaparty

February 22, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Posted in Politics

Tagged with ,