With Mary by my side...

The "Lipa Experience"

2009-06-07T07:18:00.000-07:00

Our Lady of Mediatrix of All Grace

When the Lord calls you to a specific vocation, you have but one choice -- obey. This is what happened when a friend, sister Zelfa Fabregas, decided to enter the religious life as a Carmelite nun in Lipa Carmel. She entered the Carmelite Monastery as an observer for 3 months. I don’t know if she personally chose the date when she entered, but if she did, she chose the perfect date -- May 31, 2009. In the old liturgical calendar, May 31 is the feast of Our Lady of Mediatrix of All Graces. As we all know, the Carmelite Monastery in Lipa is also the place where the Blessed Mother is believed to have appeared to a young local girl who was newly admitted in that monastery.

The Fabregas family together with Bro. Marwil Llasos on their way to Lipa

And so that day, the Fabregas Family together with Bro. Marwil Llasos, a close friend who also happens to be the spiritual director of the praesidium in the Legion of Mary where sis Zelfa belongs to, headed to Lipa to accompany sister Zelfa in her admission to the Monastery. Bro. Mars asked me if I could join them and I readily agreed. At first, I thought it was just another pilgrimage to a Marian site that their praesidium is making but when bro. Mars told me that sister Zelfa is entering the monastery that day, I became even more excited to come. I went to Lipa as quickly as I could. I arrived there shortly after the Fabregas family, just in time for lunch. We were delighted over the sumptuous meal that the monastery staff prepared. Bro. Mars asked me if I brought my camera --- Oooops! I forgot. Hmmm, I had a funny feeling that bro. Mars already sensed that we will be needing a camera for a very important event that was yet to unfold before all of us. Good thing bro. Joel brought his’.

Sister Zelfa and family having lunch at the monastery's refectory

After lunch, we hurried to the Church to attend Mass. It was celebrated by Fr. Melvin Castro, a prominent figure in the Pro-life Advocacy movements and one of the leading proponents of the Apparition in Lipa. After the Mass, I and bro. Mars approached Fr. Melvin for a souvenir picture taking. Fr. Melvin whispered to Bro. Mars that the visionary of the Lipa apparitions is present that day. We were surprised to know that the Visionary, Sr. Teresing Castillo, was the little charming lady behind us! Our eyes opened wide and we were speechless the moment we knew of her presence. She was right there behind us! It felt like the heavens opened and the angels started to blow their trumpets in a heavenly harmony!

Me, Fr. Melvin Castro, Sr. Teresing Castillo, and Bro. Mars

So that’s what the camera is for. We took some pictures with her, said a little prayer, then waved goodbye to her. That was really wonderful! I told Bro. Mars that it was like seeing the seers of OL of Fatima or St. Bernadette in person! He joyfully nodded in agreement.

The time came for sister Zelfa to enter the Monastery. We anticipated it to be a dramatic event so I and Bro. Mars decided to give the family a little privacy by staying outside. To our surprise, Sister Zelfa requested us to be present in the event. We went inside to witness that painful but fulfilling episode of her life. We were happy to know that the whole family, by then, was ready to give their blessing to Zelfa. The Mother Prioress opened the door to the convent to receive their new observer. It was a double jackpot for us because as we were rejoicing for sister Zelfa’s entry to the monastery, we were also lucky to have the chance to view once more the apparition site. The last time we went to carmel, we were also given the chance to see the garden where the Blessed Virgin appeared but only from afar.

Sister Zelfa when she was being admitted by the Mother Prioress of the Monastery. Notice the garden at the background. It is the place where the Blessed Virgin appeared to Sr. Teresing.

We quickly took a picture of it, although the mother prioress was a little bit uneasy with the idea. The picture was too dark that the garden was merely visible. This time, the view was much clearer and the grills were opened. Bro. Joel prepared to take a picture of sister Zelfa’s reception to the convent with the apparition site as the background but suddenly --- toot toot toot, battery empty. Of all the shots, why in this one did the battery go empty?? Bro. Joel tried again but to no avail. Maybe it’s the Blessed Virgin’s way of telling us that she prefers everything about the apparitions to be private to the nuns until the church finally approves of it. And I think that's not very far from now. We said our goodbyes to sis Zelfa then we left Carmel, Lipa.

On our way home, we decided to drop by at a Capuchin-run retreat center also in Lipa.

It is also where a capuchin seminary is located. You can see there its distinctly Franciscan touch because of the emphasis in nature. The garden there is a paradise on earth! Unfortunately, it was raining hard so we weren’t able to stroll around the park. We visited the chapel instead.

The Mama's boys

We prayed there for a while, took picture, then we went back home. It is really wonderful to experience Lipa.

Mary Worship Angers God!!! -by. Bro. Marwil LLasos

2009-04-30T01:42:00.000-07:00

Mary Worship Angers God!!!

The article The Pagan Origin of Mary Worship which appears in a virulently anti-Catholic website (http://www.abcog.org/mary4.htm) asserts that Mary worship angers God.

I agree. Indeed, to worship Mary or any other creature is hateful to God – that would be rank idolatry, plain and simple. That’s why we Catholics don’t worship Mary. We simply honor her.

Last time I checked Church History, the Catholic Church excommunicated a group that worshipped Mary – the Collyridians. I will discuss this extensively later.

The writer of the article comments that as far as Catholic theology is concerned, it is technically impossible for Catholics to "worship" Mary. He says that "worship" has been defined as applying only to "God.” He adds: “the worship of Mary is termed "hyperdullation" (sic) or "veneration," and of the Saints, "dullation.”

The ignorance of the anti-Catholic writer with regard to Catholic teaching is clear as daylight. What on earth is “hyperdullation” and “dullation”? Perhaps, the writer meant hyperdulia and dulia. He didn’t get it right.

Notice, too, that the writer does not provide the definition of hyperdulia and dulia (which he erroneously called hyperdullation and dullation, respectively). Yet, he attacked the Catholic veneration of Mary even if he doesn’t know what is exactly meant by veneration. Nevertheless, he states that “Catholics do not ‘pray to’ Mary,” rather “they ‘ask Mary to pray for us.’” And his conclusion: “But to any non-Catholic, this is exactly the same as praising and praying to someone, i.e., worshipping them.” His basis? Shakespeare’s famous cliché: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

For the anti-Catholic writer, “praising” and “praying” mean “worshipping.” This is clear Biblical illiteracy. While it is true that we praise God when we worship Him, it is equally true that we can praise fellow human beings. That is certainly not against the Bible as it clearly shows that humans may be praised. And Mary herself is praised in the Bible: “Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord?” (Lk. 1:42-43, JB). Applying the (false) logic of the anti-Catholic writer, it would seem that the Bible itself encourages the worship of Mary because it praises her!

Praying also doesn’t always mean worshipping. To “pray” only means to “ask,” “beseech” or “request.” For instance, we read in Acts 8:34: “And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or some other man?” In the Old Testament, we find the patriarch Jacob addressing the angel: “And Jacob asked him, and said; Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed them there” (Gen. 32:29).

The original meaning of prayer as “request” survives to this day in legal jargon. A lawyer ends his pleading with a “prayer” where he requests the Court to give his client the relief sought. The lawyer pleads: “Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court…” Does this mean that the lawyer worships the Court by praying to it? I don’t think so.

Praying to Mary, the angels and the saints is talking to them as our intimate friends and family members and asking them to pray for us to God. After all, we belong to the same “household of faith” (Gal. 6:10) and we are “but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

Placed against the backdrop of Sacred Scripture and plain common sense, the Catholic bashing of the anti-Catholic yet Biblically illiterate author holds no water.

The Queen of Heaven

The anti-Catholic writer quotes Jeremiah 7:18: “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN...that they may provoke me to anger.” He uses this verse to assail the title with which Catholics call Mary – The Queen of Heaven. He argues –

Let's continue our look into darkness - the worship of Mary as the queen of heaven and CO-REDEEMER with JESUS CHRIST [Lord have mercy, Jesus].

The statement is riddled with errors and false accusations against the Catholic Church. First, Catholics don’t worship Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ. While we do use these titles in reference to Mary, still these do not mean that Mary is in equal footing with Christ. We are clear about what the titles of Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix signify. They don’t make Mary a goddess.

First of all, the Mary of the Catholic religion is NOT the Mary of the Bible. They have simply taken her name and superimposed it on top of a pre-existing goddess.

This is a baseless assertion. The Catholic Mary is the Mary of the Bible, and not the Mary of sola scriptura. Catholic teachings on Mary are all Bible-based and are taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

I have already discussed and refuted the oft-recurring canard that our Mary is a superimposed pagan goddess in my article “Pagan Goddesses and Mary.” You may read it here: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Goddess.

The above passage from Jeremiah was written hundreds of years BEFORE Mary was born – the queen of heaven was already being worshipped and the people were making God mad.

The Queen of heaven surrounded by a legion of Angels

The “Queen of Heaven” in Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17 actually refers to the pagan goddess Ishtar or Astarte, a near-Eastern goddess of fertility. God had all the reason to get mad at what the people are doing – they were worshipping a false god! Look at what they were doing –

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger (Jer. 7:18).

But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil (Jer. 44:17).

So, the people really worshipped Ishtar by making cakes to her and pouring out drink offerings to her. Do we do that to Mary? No. In fact, as I said, the last time I checked Church History, the Catholic Church condemned and excommunicated those who did. St. Epiphanius of Salamis condemned the Collyridians in the 4th-century Arabia who worshiped Mary. He writes:

Certain women there in Arabia have introduced this absurd teaching from Thracia: how they offer up a sacrifice of bread rolls in the name of the ever-Virgin Mary, and all partake of this bread (Panarion 78:13)… It is not right to honor the saints beyond their due (Ibid. 78:23) … Now the body of Mary was indeed holy, but it was not God; the Virgin was indeed a virgin and revered, but she was not given to us for worship, but she herself worshiped him who was born in the flesh from her.... Honor Mary, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshiped, but let no one worship Mary, . . . even though Mary is most beautiful and holy and venerable, yet she is not to be worshiped (Ibid. 79:1, 4).

Catholics do refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven but in a much different sense than the pagan goddess Ishtar. Our position is quite simple: Mary is Queen because Jesus is King. Mary is Queen of Heaven because her Son is the King of Kings whose “kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36).

The fact that a title is improperly and erroneously applied to a pagan deity does not mean that it cannot be properly and validly applied to someone else.

The title “King of Kings” was a pagan title applied to Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12. However, the same title is applied to God in 1 Timothy 6:15 and to Christ in Revelation 17:14 and 19:16. The same title was used for Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37. Of course we know that Jesus Christ is the true King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

Another example is the title “Morning Star.” The title was used for Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. The angels of God are also referred to as “morning stars” in Job 38:7. In Revelations 22:16, Jesus is called the “bright morning star.”

It is clear that a title wrongly applied in one case can be used correctly and validly in the proper case.

Catholics are not the only ones who use the title of Queen of Heaven to Mary. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, considers the title “Queen of Heaven” as “true enough name and yet does not make he a goddess” (Luther’s Works 21:327).

Evangelical scholars admit the validity of Mary’s title of Queen of Heaven. In his survey of Johannine literature, Prof. Tim Perry concluded: “In the Gospel, Mary symbolizes God’s people. In Revelation, at least in its canonical context, she retains her corporate referent and is exalted as the Queen of Heaven” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 113].

This is the Bible talking, we're not looking at history books, we are looking at God's holy word. Blessed be the Lord Who hath preserved His word so that we don't have to be deceived.

The Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth

God’s Holy Word – the Bible – do points out to Mary’s role as the true Queen of Heaven. Thus, Mary is the true Queen of Heaven because her Son is King whose kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).The Seer of Patmos discloses that he saw that “there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1). This Woman who wears a crown of 12 stars is none other than Mary, the Mother of the King who is destined to rule the world with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5; cf. Ps. 2:9). Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry states that “[f]or the seer, she [Mary] is the exalted Heavenly Queen who is Eve and the persecuted faithful at once” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 114].

Let us indeed thank the Lord for preserving His Word. And He made use of the Catholic Church, His Church, to precisely do that task!

I’ve heard Catholics say things like, "I don't really pray to Mary, I just talk to her. She helps me and she can talk to Jesus for me." What is praying but talking to the Lord?

This is Scriptural blindness, pure unadulterated prejudice and absolute ignorance. Yes, praying is talking to the Lord. But it doesn’t mean we can talk (call, or pray) to our brothers and sisters to ask for their prayers to the Lord.

As early as Old Testament times, there have been holy people – servants of God – who invoke or pray to the saints or holy ones of God. One such example was Job, a righteous and honest man who feared God and shunned evil (Job 1:1). The Bible tells us that he invoked the saints as in fact he was taunted for this by his friend Eliphaz saying, “To which of the saints will you call?” (Job 5:1). This only reveals that Job had the constant practice of invoking God’s saints. We are certain that Job was doing the right thing considering that he was a righteous man compared to his evil friends. The anti-catholic writer is like Eliphaz who taunts Catholics who, like Job, invoke the saints.

Where do you read in the Bible that you are supposed to ask Mary for anything? You can't find that command anywhere in the Bible because we are supposed to ask Jesus Christ Himself.

This is the height of sola scriptura. It is not necessary for us to read in the Bible to ask Mary for anything. It is enough that the Bible commands us: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1). We must ask others to pray for us - it is a Biblical imperative. Asking Mary (the angels and the saints) fulfill that command.

Yes, Mary can hear our request. She may not be omniscient as God, but certainly she is aware of what is happening to us in this world. The testimony of Scripture is clear: the saints in heaven, including Mary, are aware of what is happening here below and they are able and willing to help us through their prayers. Our Lord taught us to pray that the will of the Father be done on earth as it is in heaven (Mt. 6:10). Since it is the will of the father that we pray for each other on earth, we are assured that it is also the will of the Father that we pray for each other even in heaven.

While it is true that we can ask Jesus Christ Himself, yet it is also perfectly alright to ask the righteous to pray of our behalf because “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16).

But then I get an answer like, "Well, it doesn't exactly say that we have to pray to her, but ...” If it don't (sic) say it, then we don't have the liberty to add it in!

There’s absolutely no way for us to validate the anti-Catholic author’s claim that he received an answer from a Catholic who allegedly said that the Bible doesn’t exactly say that we have to pray to Mary. Yes, but we’re not adding to what the Bible says when we pray to Mary. We simply follow what the Bible means when it enjoins every Christian to pray for each other (1 Thes. 5:25; James 5:16; 2 Thes. 3:1; Acts 8:24; Col. 1:9, 4:3, 12; 2 Thes. 1:11; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 6:18-19; Heb. 13:18). The point is clear: we need to pray for each other. And we ask Mary (and the saints), our fellow Christian, to pray for us when we pray to her.

This IS what the Bible says: "For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." - 1st Timothy 2:5

Indeed, that is what the Bible says. I just don’t think that the anti-Catholic writer knows what the Bible means.

1 Timothy 2:5 should not be isolated from the context. The verse does not refer to exclusivity of mediation of Jesus Christ. It does not rule out other mediators with Christ. The Bible testifies that God allows his creatures to participate in His scheme of salvation.

Contrary to what the anti-Catholic writer had done, 1 Timothy 2:5 should not be singled out of Chapter 2 of the First Letter of Paul to Timothy. The entire chapter actually deals with our participation with the mediatorship of Christ. If we start reading from verse 1 on to verse 7, we realize that Paul is actually commanding Christians to be mediators and intercessors for all because God is one God for all, and Christ is Mediator for all. Again, it should be emphasized that 1 Timothy 2:1-7 must be read as a unit. We must not isolate the text in 1 Timothy 2:5 from the rest of the chapter.

It is clear from the original Greek text that “heis” in 1 Timothy 2:5 means “pre-eminence” or “primary.” It suggests inclusiveness. It admits other mediators with Christ. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:1 commands all Christians “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.” Praying for someone is an intercessory prayer, which is an act of mediation.

"But tradition and Pope Pious the so-and-so says..." Hold it right there. Let's break it down to see what Jesus Christ thinks about the tradition of men:
And he said unto them, "Full well ye REJECT the commandment of God, that ye may KEEP your own tradition ... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." - Mark 7:9, 13.

Is there any question about what the Lord thinks of tradition?

In my reply above, I haven’t quoted any papal document or even cited the Tradition of the Church. And by the way, was there ever a Pope “Pious the so-and-so” in the catalogue of the Popes? The anti-Catholic writer’s ignorance and prejudice rear its ugly head all too often.

At any rate, let me respond that the anti-Catholic writer misused Mark 7:9, 13 in attacking Sacred Tradition. Misuse of God’s Holy Word is sacrilege, sin.

Does Mark 7:9,13 condemn all traditions, as the anti-Catholic writer would have us believe? No.

Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s Word. The anti-Catholic writes uses this to condemn all tradition. He fails to realize, however, that these verses have nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the Apostles. The Pharisees, in their human tradition of the Corban, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents. This voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother as pointed out by Our Lord in verses 7:10-11 and also in Matthew 15: 4-5.

The Bible does not condemn all traditions. In fact, it unequivocably commands us to obey Sacred or Apostolic Tradition:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thes. 2:15).

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thes. 3:6).

“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“But the new catechism has changed things." No it hasn't. The Catholic religion is the same heretical cult, leading its followers straight to hell with its false sacramental gospel--incidentally, there is no purgatory and no outward activity like belonging to an organization can save your soul. According to the 1992 catechism, Mary is sinless, a perpetual virgin, the mother of God (God ain't got no mother!), queen of heaven and co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ [Lord, have mercy, Jesus] (see articles 491,494,495,508,964,966,968,969)--the same ol' stuff.

Of course, the Catechism doesn’t change the consistent teachings of the Church. Truth does not change.

The above statement from the anti-Catholic writer if full of regurgitated accusations against the Catholic Church. Notice that the anti-Catholic writer, froth in the mouth, has not proven anything against the Church’s doctrines on purgatory, the sacraments and the Church’s teachings on Mary as the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Perpetual Virginity. We have already answered the attack on Mary’s title as Queen of Heaven above. We shall also explain Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix below.

What surprises me is that the anti-Catholic writer merely rehashes old, long-answered and already-debunked accusations. Now wonder, the anti-Catholic writer takes his cue from his father and master, the accuser of the brethren in Revelations 12: 10: “the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night.”

How can she be co-redeemer with Jesus Christ when the Bible says (speaking of Jesus): Neither is there salvation in ANY other: for there is NONE other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. -Acts 4:12. You can't get clearer than that.

Here, the anti-Catholic writer bashes a Catholic doctrine he doesn’t know anything about. Notice that he does not even define what is meant by Co-Redemptrix. Neither does he even bother to check on what we Catholics mean by that title.

We don’t deny that Jesus is our one and unique Savior. Without Jesus no one can be saved, including Mary. Truly, the redemptive sacrifice of Our Savior Jesus Christ was completed in Calvary (objective redemption). The application of the redemptive sacrifice, however, will continue in history (subjective redemption). St. Paul clearly emphasizes this point in Colossians 1:24: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.”

By the solemn words of Our Lord Jesus, we can all participate and cooperate with Him in the salvation of souls as He said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me, you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). Thus, we too can save (Jude 24; James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16). Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is the sole Principal Cause of salvation by His life, passion, death and resurrection. We who belong to His Mystical Body who cooperate with Him in saving our fellowmen are but “instrumental causes” of salvation.

Truly then, we are co-redeemers with Christ. But Mary’s co-redemption is qualitatively distinct because of its maternal dimension. As the Mother of the Redeemer, she suffered most with Him. Her suffering as the one most intimately related to Christ was prophesied by holy Simeon, “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed“ (Lk. 2:35). The ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy was in Calvary where the Savior redeemed us by His Cross. And at the foot of the Cross there stood His Mother (Jn. 19:25). If St. Paul could say: “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20), how much more Mary? She was there at the foot of the Cross witnessing the suffering of her Son.

"But, the immaculate conception..." That's not in the Bible. "But she was sinless..." That's not in the Bible. "But she is our intercessor to Jesus..." That's not in the Bible. "But she's the mother of God..." That's not in the Bible.

These are all in the Bible. It’s just that the opaque blindness, prejudice and bias of the anti-Catholic writer prevent him from seeing the truth even if it is right there in his very Bible. The problem with the anti-Catholic writer is that his sole authority in matters of faith is his own personal and private interpretation of the Bible. And that is not in the Bible!

"But she suffered as much as Jesus did on the cross..." That's not in the Bible. "But she's more compassionate than God--like your mom is more compassionate than your dad..." That's not in the Bible.

This is a red herring. Catholics don’t believe these things. So, it is clear that the anti-Catholic writer is bashing Catholics for something that they don’t believe. What can be more unjust than that?

"But my family is catholic..." Your family does not determine your eternal salvation--your relationship with Jesus Christ does: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” -2 Corinthians 6:17-18

Indeed, but the Lord Jesus Himself commands us to honor our father and our mother (Mt. 15:4-6). And He condemned the Corban rule because it nullifies this Commandment (Mt. 15:6, Mk. Mk. 7:9-11).

Notice also that the verse (mis)quoted by the anti-Catholic writer has nothing to do with rejecting the family per se. It refers to fleeing from iniquity: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what part have righteousness with iniquity? What fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:14-15).

The chopping of Biblical passage by the anti-Catholic writer is meant to deceive. Worse, it is sacrilegious misuse of God’s Sacred Word.

Jesus said, "They that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in TRUTH." God will not accept your worship based on a lie. Repent or perish.

Yes, truly. God will never accept worship based on a lie. That’s why he will not accept any worship from the anti-Catholic writer and his ilk. We have proven that all the accusations of the anti-Catholic writer are false, hence, blatant lies. The Bible says: “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness” (Exo. 23:1). Beyond doubt, the anti-Catholic writer did bear false witness against his neighbor in gross violation of God’s commandment (Exo. 20:16; Dt. 5:20).

The Queen Mother crushes the head of the serpent.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. Was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies!” (Jn. 8:44).

My Graduation

2009-04-27T18:43:00.000-07:00

It has been a long time since I last updated my blog and I apologize for that. I just want to share another great victory of mine. The joy in my heart is over-flowing so I felt the need to share this to all of you. After 4 painstaking years in the university, I've completed my bachelor's degree in Computer Science. I must say, this is my biggest achievement at this point of my life! I am very, very happy.

Me and my batchmates Alice, Irish, and Kayvee.

The commencement exercise was held in the D.L. Umali Freedom Park. Rain or shine, the event would've not been postponed. 'Fortunately' enough, IT RAINED.... HARD, ha ha ha. Good thing they set up tents [those brightly colored ones that made the venue look like a circus] just a day before the event. Just imagine all the graduates holding their umbrellas while marching! Our shoes were covered with fresh mud. It was really funny :D

The venue of the graduation covered with colorful tents.

My family arrived just in time for the event. I really appreciated their effort of coming all the way to Los Banos even if the weather is not that good. They were all out in their support, cheering when my name was called.

My very supportive family

Of course, the happiest of them all -- my mama.

Picture taking after graduation

I want to thank everyone who prayed for me, most especially to Our Lady whose intercession I always sought. I offer this success to Our Lord, Jesus.

Now, the next challenge for me is to find a decent job... Prayers Please. :-D

BRO. MARS ANSWERS RODIMUS OF THE BEREANS

2009-03-02T03:45:00.000-08:00

BRO. MARS ANSWERS RODIMUS OF THE BEREANS

Since Rodimus of the Bereans published in his blog his email to me, an otherwise private communication, it behooves me to publicly post my response as well. Below is my answer to his questions. Rodimus’ words are in red while mine are in black.

Dear Atty. Llasos:

Greetings!

I am one of the moderators in the discussion forums of the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (BARM). My codename is Rodimus but you can call me by my real first name, Gerald. I have actually communicated with your teammates in Defensores Fidei Foundation like Mr. Henry Siy, Mr. Carlos Palad, and Mr. Dick Boncan. You may ask them of me.

Thank you for your private email last December 1, 2008.

I wrote to state my comments in your blog concerning Mary's Perptual Virginity but focusing on your response on the Greek terminologies adelphos and anepsios as used in the Bible.

The subject of your email was “Perpetual Virginity – A Response.” Your email actually was more of a query rather than a response. In fact, you merely asked me about the use of “adelphos” and “anepsios” in the Bible.

It seems to me that you evangelicals have the questions while we Catholics have the answers.

But before I continue, I would like to first inform you that BARM does not endorse the book of Mr. Anthony Pezzotta against Roman Catholicism. Personally, I have not read his book. However, I share in his belief that after Christ was born, Mary had other children. Let’s now proceed:

In your email, you informed me that the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans) does not endorse the book of Mr. Pezzotta against Roman Catholicism. You even told me that you have not even read his book. You did not tell me the reason why Bereans does not endorse the book of Mr. Pezzotta.

Nevertheless, you were categorical in saying that you share Mr. Pezzotta’s belief that after Christ was born, Mary had other children.

Mr. Pezzotta is not the first person to hold that view. Several others way, way before him also believed that Mary had other children after Christ’s birth. These were the Antidicomarianites, the Ebionites, certain Arians, Eudocius, Eunomius and Helvidius. You can learn about them from church history and the writings of the early church fathers.

On the other hand, early Christians like Origen (AD 248), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 354), Athanasius (360), Epiphanius of Salamis (AD 374), Didymus the Blind (AD 386),
Ambrose of Milan (AD 388), Pope Siricius I (AD 392), Jerome (AD 420), Leporius (AD 426), Augustine (AD 428), Cyril of Alexandria (AD 430) and Pope Leo I (AD 450) believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

You must have also known that the reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Catholics are in synch with what the Christians – the early church fathers and classical reformers – believed for centuries long, long before you were born.

Please note that the early Christians and the reformers have read the same Bible as you do. In fact, the church fathers (especially those from the East) must have read the New Testament in the original Greek. Yet, they don’t share your conclusion that Mary had other children aside from Our Lord.

In your email, you pleaded me to “let the Bible speak for itself.” By all means.

You contended that “after Christ was born, Mary had other children.” Let us now allow the Bible to speak for itself. You have to show me the verse in the Bible that specifically says that “after Christ was born, Mary had other children.” You have to tell me, based on the Bible, how soon after Christ was born did Mary give birth to her next child.

Let me now answer your questions:

1. I often quote Matthew 13:55 and other similar verses to prove that Mary had other children.

Your reliance on Matthew 13:55 and “other similar verses” (you did not give them) to prove that Mary had other children are inconclusive on the matter. Evangelical David Gustafson said: “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 69]. Hence, if the Gospel accounts (like Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3) are not absolutely decisive (as admitted even by your fellow evangelical) on whether Mary had other children, then you have to show me verses that are absolutely decisive on the matter. I have always insisted that you show me verses in the Bible that say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus” and “Mary is the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.” These, I believe, would be absolutely decisive on the matter.

I know about the Roman Catholic defense about the Jews having the same Hebrew terminology for brother and relatives, ach.

Good for you! At least it shows that you are researching on the Roman Catholic defense. As I pointed out to Dr. Pezzotta (which you omitted in your quote), “[t]he word “brother” or “sister” was a common Hebrew expression which had an encompassing meaning. There was no term for cousins in Hebrew. They were only “ach” (Hebrew) or “ah” (Aramaic) which refers to brothers, cousins, close relatives or kinsman.”

We know very well that the New Testament was written in Greek and adelphos is the term they use to refer to a brother while anepsios for relatives.

In the New Testament, which was written in Greek, adelphos is the term used for “brother.” But “brother” refers to so many things, not just siblings. Hence, your statement is inaccurate.

You also demonstrated ignorance of Biblical Greek when you said that anepsios is used for relatives. If you researched a little bit more, you could have easily ascertained that anepsios literally means cousin and not relative. Also, you would have known that the Greek for relative or kinsman is suggenis.

Despite the Greek word used and the context, you still contend that it is not referring to uterine brothers.

I already explained that the Greek word used, adelphos, refers to so many things. That Greek word has various meanings and cannot be restricted to uterine brothers (siblings) alone. My contention is that the word “brother” is not always referring to uterine brothers. I think that you agree with me because in your conclusion you categorically admitted –

I do agree that the word brother does have a lot of meanings in the Bible. But, we simply cannot pick one definition because it suits our beliefs. Let the Bible speak for itself.

It is you who are picking one definition over the others because it suits your beliefs.

What exactly is the context of Matthew 13:55-56 which you did not bother to explain?

My understanding of the context of the pericope in Mathew 13:55-56 and its parallel in Mark 6:3 is as what R.T. France puts it: “To the people of Nazareth, Jesus is the local boy, and they know of no reason why he should have turned out to be any different from the rest of his family” [The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002) p. 242].

Prof. Tim Perry likewise states:

“The simplest understanding is best. Jesus is “the carpenter, the son of Mary,” a local manual laborer whose father had died some years back. We may paraphrase their exclamation to reflect its small-town gossipy nature: “Who is this guy? Is he not the carpenter? You know, Mary’s boy?” The description says little about Mary ...” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 38].

You argued:

It should be borne in mind that it is part of the culture in Palestine even to this day that people who are related by blood live in a given community. They practice communal living (“kibbutz” system).

The Evangelists and other New Testament writers simply wrote down the common expression of the Jews. They had the Jewish mindset although they wrote in Greek. In other words, the Evangelists were using the common parlance among the Jews at that time. Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon simply called each other “ah.” They knew that Jesus was an only child and assumed every body else knew.

Indeed, I provided the cultural note above. If you don’t agree with that, please show me proofs to the contrary. Prove to me that –

1. It is not part of the culture in Palestine even to this day that people who are related by blood live in a given community;

2. That the people in Palestine do not practice communal living (“kibbutz” system);

3. The Evangelists and other New Testament writers did not simply write down the common expression of the Jews;

4. That they did not have the Jewish mindset although they wrote in Greek;

5. The Evangelists were not using the common parlance among the Jews at that time;

6. That Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon did not simply call each other “ah;”

7. That the Evangelists and New Testament writers did not know that Jesus was an only child and assumed every body else knew.

You that you did not deny, much less refute, the cultural note that I provided. Instead, you said –

If your argument is based on the kibbutz system, then Matthew left something out in 13:55 and 56? It mentions Christ's parents and proceeds to detail his supposedly cousins. If neighbor’s account of Christ’s family was indeed based on communal living like you theorized, how come the parents of James, Joses, Judas, Simon and the sisters are not mentioned? Did the neighbor who questioned (sic) Jesus forget about Cleophas and his wife Mary whom you said are the parents of James and Joses? It's a bit illogical to mention Christ's parents and then proceed immediately to cousins by overlooking the parents of those cousins who are supposed to be in the kibbutz system.

I said that people [in Palestine] who are related by blood live in a given community. Do you object to Mary, Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon living in the same community? Where else would they have lived?

The parents of James, Joses, Judas as well as the sisters of Jesus are not mentioned because it is not necessary to do so. If Matthew left them out, it simply means that it was not his intention to list down all the relatives of Jesus who lived in the same community as His. Matthew was not doing a census of all those who lived in Jesus’ community! It sufficed for Matthew (as well as for Jesus’ neighbors Matthew quoted) to name at least some of Jesus close relatives who were at least clearly identified with Him (perhaps belonging to the same age group). If indeed it was the intention of Jesus’ neighbors (and Matthew) to name each and every relative of Jesus, they should have named his sisters as well. These sisters have never been identified. Why have they been left out if the purpose Matthew was to detail or enumerate all the members of Christ’s family? Have the neighbors of Jesus forgotten their names? Did they also forget the name of Joseph, the Lord’s putative father?

For not mentioning the name of Cleophas and his wife Mary, the parents of James and Joses, did the neighbor of Jesus forget them? Not necessarily. It was not their intention to mention or enumerate every Tom, Dick and Harry in Jesus’ family tree. If they did not bother to mention the names of Joseph and the sisters of Jesus, then it would be expecting them too much to mention Jesus uncles and aunts. In that case, you would have to amend Matthew 13:55-56, thus: “Isn’t this the son of Joseph the carpenter? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his bother James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Isn’t Cleophas his uncle and Mary his aunt? Isn’t not Joachim his grandfather and Anna his grandmother? Aren’t all his sisters Aida, Lorna and Fe with us? Where did this man get all these things.”

You argued that “it’s a bit illogical to mention Christ's parents and then proceed immediately to cousins by overlooking the parents of those cousins who are supposed to be in the kibbutz system.” Where’s the illogicality there? What canon of logic has been violated? As already stated, it was not the intention of Jesus neighbors to list all the possible relatives of Jesus but just a representative of them, those that Our Lord may have been best identified with. Jesus’ neighbors were not taking a roll call or doing a census.

To follow your line of reasoning, it is even more “illogical” to mention first Christ’s “cousins” (James and Joses) before His real “brothers” or siblings. If at least the first two of the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are actually his cousins, your contention that all the “brothers” of Christ in Matthew 13:55-56 are His siblings is severely diluted, nay refuted.

2. Moving on, one of my tendencies (sic) to quote Paul for using anepsios in Colossians 4:10 to say that the NT writers in fact made a distinction between siblings and relatives despite of their audience …

Again, your ignorance of Greek shows. Anepsios literally means cousin and not relative. The Greek word for relative is suggenis and not anepsios. That you made this blunder twice in your email indicates the very low quality of your research.

Granting that your translation of Greek is correct (that anepsios indeed translates to relatives), you made a sweeping statement and hasty generalization when you argued that Paul’s use of anepsios in Colossians 4:10 proves that “the NT writers” (plural) “made a distinction between siblings and relatives despite of their audience.”

Can you explain grammatically why one person (singular) could qualify as “New Testament writers” (plural)?

… but you had this argument:

It should be borne in mind that it is only in Colossians 4:10 that the word anepsios is used. Remember that the Epistle to the Colossians was written by the Apostle Paul, a Jew from Tarsus (Acts 21:39, 22:3) who was in fact a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25 -29). The Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians (who were certainly not Jews but Gentiles) in their own Greek language.

The Jews, unlike the Greeks, use circumlocution to express their idea or concept of cousin for the simple reason that they have no word for cousin.

I made those observations. Which of these do you find incorrect or objectionable:

1. Anepsios is used only in Colossians 4:10;

2. The Epistle to the Colossians was written by the Apostle Paul;

3. Paul was a Jew from Tarsus (Acts 21:39; 22:3);

4. Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-29);

5. The Colossians were not Jews but Gentiles;

6. Paul wrote to them in their own Greek language;

7. The Jews, unlike the Greeks, use circumlocution to express their idea or concept of cousin;

8. The Jews have no word for cousin.

Which of the foregoing is wrong?

I also note that you chopped off the remainder of my paragraph where I gave an example of circumlocution in Leviticus 25:49 which mentions “uncle’s son” instead of cousin. In the following paragraph, I cited Acts 23:16 which mentions “Paul sister’s son” instead of “Paul’s nephew.” Also, in Judges 9:3 I noted that “mother’s brethren” is mentioned instead of “uncles” and “aunts.”

As I understood it, you argue that if the NT writers are speaking to Jews they use circumlocution, while not so if speaking to Gentiles.

As you understood it! Well, your understanding is WRONG! If you’ve only read my statement carefully, there is nothing there that says that when the NT writers are speaking to the Jews they use circumlocution while not so if speaking to Gentiles. Your assumption is simply false.

Since your understanding is wrong, then all your conclusions are wrong.

For me, your argument has gone too far to the point of being biased.

That is your opinion. Your accusation that I am biased has no leg to stand on because you started from the wrong premise.

I don't think you will be consistent when your theory is compared with other verses.

This is already nonsense considering that you started from erroneous premise. Since the water cannot rise higher than its source, perforce all the rest of your arguments are wrong.

If I were to quote Galatians 1:19 which says: But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother (adelphos) of the Lord, how come Paul made use of adelphos instead of anepsios to the Greek-speaking Galatians? Why only to the Colossians did Paul make use of anepsios?

Because James has been known in the early Church as the “brother of the Lord” and there was no need or reason for Paul to change that appellation. Moreover, my reading of early Church history yields no indication that the early Christians understood James’ title of “brother of the Lord” to mean sibling [cf. Eusebius, The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1989) pp. 30, 35-36, 107].

The reference to James as adelphos of the Lord in Galatians 1:9 is not conclusive proof that James is the Lord’s uterine brother. Prof. Tim Perry admits –

“It is, after all, widely agreed that the semantic range of adelphos encompasses meanings ranging from the common ideological and religious adherences to various family relations. While Paul is not using “brother to refer to James and Jesus’ common religion, it is not clear that he means uterine brother; legitimate alternatives are “cousin” or “stepbrother.” Context (Gal. 1:11-24) does not permit a final determination. That James and Jesus are from the same family is indubitable; that they are both children of Mary is possible but not established. Thus this verse alone does not refute ancient beliefs regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. On the other hand it underscores Paul’s assumption that the Savior is, in fact, a human being” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) pp. 27-28].

Furthermore, why was James called as “the brother of the Lord”? You never mentioned the reason.

I think I did. I mentioned that “Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon simply called each other “ah” (“brother”). I also said that James was known as “the Brother of the Lord” to the early Christian community in Jerusalem. Hence, Paul referred to him as such. But then again, there is no indication that the early Christians understood James’ title to mean that he is Jesus’ sibling.

How about Luke? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia he is both Greek and Gentile.

I doubt it if you’ve really read the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you did, you should have cited the volume and the page so we can verify your source. Nevertheless, go ahead and read it online at www.newadvent.org.

A Greek is always a Gentile. It’s either you are a Jew or a Gentile. So, if you are Greek, you are automatically a Gentile! Isn’t that so?

The Catholic Encyclopedia would not have made that mistake as you did. I thought that you merely committed a typographical error. However, when you posted in your blog your email to me, I noticed that you did not correct it. So, I am of the impression that you really think that Luke is indeed both Greek and Gentile! I checked the online Catholic Encyclopedia but I couldn’t find anything there that says that Luke is “both Greek and Gentile” as you alleged (see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm)

The Catholic Encyclopedia informs us: “St. Luke was a native of Antioch, the capital of Syria. He was by profession a physician; and some ancient writers say, that he was very skillful in painting. He was converted by St. Paul and became his disciple and companion in his travels, and fellow-labourer in the ministry of the Gospel. He wrote in Greek, about twenty-four years after our Lord's Ascension” (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk000.htm)

His books were written to Theophilus, who may be another Greek.

That Theophilus as you said “may be another Greek” is a mere supposition. You did not adduce proof that Theophilus is indeed Greek.

Theophilus may have been a Roman official –

“The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus with the expression: “most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3). This phrasing indicates that Theophilus was a Roman official, and not merely a friend or associate of Luke.

Luke's Gospel and Acts are both addressed to the same Roman official, Theophilus. Luke uses the formal term “most excellent” to address Theophilus in his Gospel (Lk 1:3). This language was commonly used in addressing Roman officials. Examples of this same expression are found in Acts, where it is used to address both Felix and Festus (Acts 24:2; 26:25). But, at the beginning of Acts, Luke no longer calls Theophilus “most excellent Theophilus,” instead he calls him “O Theophilus” (Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1). This indicates that Theophilus was no longer in office by the time that Luke was writing, or had completed writing, Acts. Yet Luke still addresses Acts to Theophilus. Luke must still have been living in the same area, where Theophilus still had continued respect and some unofficial authority. Minor Roman officials often held office for only a year. Theophilus could have been proconsul of Achaia, the region in which Saint Jerome tells us Luke was living when he wrote the Gospel, or he could have held some other office within the region of Achaia or Boeotia (but there is no direct historical evidence as to where Theophilus held office).” (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-Luke.htm)

It also possible that Theophilus may be a codename for all those who love God –

“Why would Almighty God allow two inspired works of Sacred Scripture to be addressed to a minor Roman official named Theophilus? From a spiritual point of view, the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles were both addressed to the name 'Theophilus' because of the meaning of that name, not because of the individual with that name. The name Theophilus means “one who loves God;” 'Theo' refers to God (as in 'Theology'), and 'philus' is from the Greek word 'philos' meaning 'to love.' So, Luke's Gospel is addressed, in the spiritual sense, not to one Roman official, but to all those who love God. Luke's Gospel was not written only or primarily for the Hebrews, who converted to Christ, but for all who love God, including the Gentiles.” (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-Luke.htm)

If we read Acts 1:14 it appears that he didn't use anepsios like Paul did in Colossians.

Luke used adelphoi in Acts 1:14. He also used the same word in Acts 1:16 when Peter addressed the 120 believers (Acts 1:15). If the word “brothers” would always be taken to mean as siblings of Jesus and children of Mary, it would appear that Mary had 120 children other than Jesus! What a reproductive and gynecological feat for Mary!

Levity aside, the use of adelphoi and not anepsios in Acts 1:15

Since Luke is both Greek and Gentile, don’t you think he would use anepsios more often than the Jewish NT writers?

Here, you repeated the same blunder that Luke is both Greek and Gentile.

Nevertheless, it is picayune to nitpick on Luke’s diction, especially his choice of adelphos over anepsios in reference to the blood relatives of Jesus Christ. In fact, as you miserably failed to realize, anepsios doesn’t even mean relative – it literally means cousin. Nevertheless, Luke’s use of adelphos rather than anepsios to refer to the blood relatives of Jesus does not conclusively refute our position that the so-called brothers of Jesus in Acts 1:14 (and elsewhere) are not His siblings. For at any rate, even scholars admit that legitimate alternatives for brother (adelphos) are “cousin” or “stepbrother” [See: άδελφός in James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930), pp. 8-9]. Prof. Tim Perry also concedes that it is “grammatically possible to argue that adelphoi means “cousins” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 35].

3. You also made an account of the supposedly cousins of Jesus. About Jude, you mentioned that he was a brother of James and a son of Mary the wife of Cleophas.

I did. I stated that Jude (Judas) is identified as the brother of James in Acts 1:13 who was in the Upper Room together with the other apostles after the ascension of Our Lord. Jude never identified himself as the “brother of Jesus” but merely as the “brother of James” (Jude 1:1). I posited that if Jude wanted to establish his credibility with the early Church, he should have name-dropped Jesus by calling himself the “brother of Jesus” and not merely the “brother of James” because being a brother of Jesus is certainly more prestigious than being a mere brother of James.

I stated in my footnote that early Church historian Eusebius of Caesaria mentioned that Hegesippus “says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Savior, whose name was Judas, who after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has already been recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign” [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:32, see: Eusebius, The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1989) p. 95].

I concluded that Jude’s mother was also Mary, the wife of Cleophas and not Mary, the mother of Jesus. Hence, he, too, is Jesus “brother” because he is his “cousin.”

But how come he wasn't mentioned in Mark 15:40 but only James and Joses?

Because that is not necessary for Mark’s purpose. Mark’s purpose was merely to identify the women who were watching from a distance the crucifixion scene. “Some women were watching from a distance, among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40). It is not the intention of Mark to name all the children of Mary. It suffices for his purpose to identify who that Mary is. Just because Mary is said to be the mother of James and Joses doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s no longer the mother of Jude.

Let's also not forget about Simon. Your sources tell you that he was also a son of Mary the wife Cleophas.

No, we aren’t forgetting Simon. You are correct that my sources tell me that he was also a son of Mary the wife of Cleophas. I based my conclusion that Simon is also a son of Mary the wife of Cleophas from early church history.

The historian Hegessipus mentioned that Simon, son Cleophas, one of the Lord’s brothers, replaced James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem. Eusebius of Caesaria quotes Hegessipus: “In the course of it Symeon [also spelled Simon], son of Clopas [also spelled Cleophas], the second to be appointed Bishop of Jerusalem, as already stated, is known to have ended his life by martyrdom. The authority for this statement is the writer to whose history I have appealed several times already, Hegessipus” [Eusebius, The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1989) p. 95].

Church historian Eusebius of Caesaria further reports that “after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord” [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4:22; see: The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1989) p. 129].

Eusebius narrates that “Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown. The same historian (Hegessipus) says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Savior, whose name was Judas, who after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has already been recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign” [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:32; see: The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1989) p. 95].

The same early church historian further states that “Symeon ruled the Church of Jerusalem affter the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all the directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel makes mention, to be the worthy of the Episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, they say, of the Savior” [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:11; see: The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1989) p. 79].

Again, how come Mark left him out in 15:40? Can you explain that?

I can. As I stated earlier, Mark’s purpose in 15:40 was merely to identify the women at the crucifixion scene. It was not the intention of the evangelist to list all the children of Mary. His intention was to identify who that Mary is and to differentiate her from the other Marys at the foot of the cross. Just because Mary is said to be the mother of James and Joses doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s no longer the mother of Simon.

Again, Mark’s concern was to identify the women and not all their children.

You seem to be fond of the “left out” argument without realizing that it boomerangs on you. Applying your own argument, why is Mary referred to only as “the mother of Jesus” (John 2:1,3; Acts 1:14)? Did John and Luke forget that Mary had other children, namely James, Joses, Jude and Simon? Why did these two evangelists leave out James, Joses, Jude and Simon?

If you are correct that James, Joses, Jude and Simon were also children of Mary, why did John and Luke say that Mary is “the mother of Jesus” when they can very well say that Mary is “the mother of Jesus, James, Jude, Simon, et al.?” Can you explain that?

Remember that all throughout the New Testament, Mary has often been referred to as the mother of Jesus (John. 2:1,3; Acts 1:14) or His mother (Matthew. 1:18; 2:11,13,14,20,21; 12:46, 51; Mark 3:31; Luke. 2:33,34,43,48; 8:19; John. 2:5,12; 19:25,26) and the mother of My Lord (Luke 1:43). Nowhere in these instances is Mary ever called the mother of anyone. So my challenge to you still remains. Cite to me verses that say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus” and that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus.”

I do agree that the word brother does have a lot of meanings in the Bible. But, we simply cannot pick one definition because it suits our beliefs.

My point precisely. It’s you who limit “brothers” to siblings because it suits your beliefs.

Let the Bible speak for itself.

I say Amen!

That’s all what I have for now. Should you feel like responding please take your time. God bless you.

Sincerely,

Gerald

Thank you for allowing me to take my time to respond to your questions. Like John, “I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face” (3 John 13).

Thus, I look forward to debating you personally on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I authorize the Chairman of Defensores Fidei Foundation to negotiate with you or the Bereans to work out the details of our debate.

Until then.

In Christ,

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos

To Rodimus of Bereans

2009-02-15T07:17:00.000-08:00

CATHOLIC ANSWERS VERSUS DEFENSORES FIDEI?

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos’ Reply to Rodimus of the Bereans

It all started when I posted in my blog a critique of Chapter 11 of Dr. Anthony Pezzotta’s Truth Encounter. After some time, I learned that the evangelical Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans) disclaimed that it is endorsing Dr. Pezzotta’s book. This disclaimer was published in the Bereans forum. Also, one of the moderators of the Bereans informed me through email that his group is not endorsing Dr. Pezzotta’s book against Roman Catholicism. This disclaimer from the Bereans meant a little victory for this Catholic apologist. I realized that Dr. Pezzotta is virtually alone in his fight against the Catholic Church considering that his brothers in the Bereans do not even take up his cudgels.

However, the same moderator of the Bereans, one who hides behind the pseudonym RODIMUS, raised some questions regarding the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I welcomed his email with delight as in fact I told him that I was delighted to receive an email from him. Despite my initial hesitation to respond to his email because his true identity was shrouded in utmost secrecy, I replied to his email by acknowledging it and honored him as a “brother.” In that email, he specifically told me to take my time in answering back. So I did. That was how much I trusted this Christian brother. I never had any reason to doubt his word. I accorded him full faith and credit. In the first place, he seemed to be very respectful and nice.

I was genuinely sincere when I told him that I was delighted to receive his email. I told myself that finally I would have a dialogue partner who may be reasonable, fair and a sincere seeker for the truth. What I had in mind was entering into an honest and scholarly dialogue with an evangelical friend. That way, I believed that we would be raising the standard of apologetics in this country – far different from what the ADD and INC are doing.

My idea was to imitate the exchanges between MR. DWIGHT LONGENECKER (Catholic) and MR. DAVID GUSTAFSON (Evangelical). Theirs was a friendly debate – sans the acrimony and rancor that are usually noticed in religious discussions. The antagonists in fact published their discussion. The output was the book Mary: A Catholic Evangelical Debate published by Brazos Press in 2003. I purchased that book immediately after I received the email from RODIMUS. I intended to pattern our discussion to the style and manner of those two respected gentlemen. Mr. J.I. Packer, an evangelical who wrote a Foreword in the book says –

“I liked this book, and commend it, for several reasons.

First of all, I appreciated its tone. It is a fine example of a literary form that is deservedly popular nowadays in Christian circles, namely the friendly debate. In debates of this kind, which are more than formal dialogues or informal chat while remaining less than all-out war, empathy moderates argument, the significance of positions to their protagonists is probed, and the verdict that each is partly right and partly wrong becomes possible. Such interaction gets readers further faster than old-fashioned polemics can do, and this is doubly so when, as here, questions are set at key points to draw them into the conversation on their own account. Full marks, then, for attitude and angle. And the exchange itself is well-informed, fair-minded, and clearheaded. Full marks again” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 13].

I also purchased the book Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) by Tim Perry. I like Prof. Tim Perry and his book a lot. Although I disagree with him on so many points, I respect his honesty and scholarship. Prof. Tim Perry’s credentials are by any standards superior to RODIMUS. Prof. Perry is an Associate of Theology in Providence Collge (Manitoba, Canada), columnist for Faith Today and a published author.

I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position. My sense of justice and fairness as a human rights lawyer cannot permit anything less.

Sadly, my romantic notion of a beautiful and amicable discourse vanished in thin air. I was jolted by a rude reality check.

This happened last February 6, 2009 when I again received an email from the same Bereans moderator, RODIMUS. He sent me another query regarding the position of Mr. Jason Evert of Catholic Answers. He nicely told me that he was not following up on my answer but was just giving another question.

Little did I suspect that, while not yet waiting for my answer (in fact even before he emailed me his question) RODIMUS already posted in his blog an article with a very catchy title: CATHOLIC ANSWERS VERSUS DEFENSORES FIDEI. The impression he was obviously trying to convey is that the two Catholic apologetics organizations, one in the U.S. and the other in the Philippines, are opposed to each other. He said: “However, I have noted conflicting positions from two Roman Catholic apologists. One is from the USA, Jason Evert, a writer of Catholic Answers. And the other is Atty. Marwil Llasos, a resource person for Mariology of the Defensores Fidei Foundation in the Philippines.” RODIMUS also concluded: “The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many.”

To be honest, I was hurt, nay, felt betrayed. All the while I thought that he would wait for my response before he would post anything. I was wrong. It turned out that even before he got my answer, he already made his mind and posted in his blog his accusations and conclusions against me and Defensores Fidei Foundation of which I am a member, the Catholic Church, and more importantly, the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity.

I felt bad by this “sneak attack,” if I may call it that. I was not upset by his accusations because I know in my heart of hearts that I can answer them. What I resent was the manner by which he wanted to deliver his point or message across. Upon reading his blog, I posted a comment there reminding him of his promise: “I remember you said that I can take my time and you will wait for my response patiently. I am holding on to that assurance from you. However, I didn't know that you already posted the issue here in your blog.”

I also pleaded to his readers to suspend their judgment before I have responded to the issues raised by RODIMUS. I wrote: “To those who may have read your blog, may I appeal that they withold their judgment before I have given my piece.” For good measure, I quoted Proverbs 18:13 from God’s Word Translation that says: "Whoever gives an answer before he listens is stupid and shameful.”

Sadly, the acutaions of RODIMUS reminded me of what the Japanese Empire did at the outbreak of WWII. While Japanese ambassadors were talking peace and professing friendship at Washington, DC, the Japs were already attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. That prompted US President Franklin D. Roosevelt denounced such perfidious and cowardly attack: “This is a day of infamy.”

I believe that what RODIMUS did was rather perfidious and sly. I don’t expect it from the hands of a Christian brother. With all due respect, I found it to be un-Christian. Last time I checked the Sacred Scriptures which we both profess to be the Word of God, treachery is not one of the Christian virtues. I was really very much disappointed.

At any rate, let me respond briefly to the attacks of the Berean’s RODIMUS.

My initial impression of RODIMUS’ article is that it is more polemical rather than scholarly. It is even amateurish and puerile, to say the least.

The first tactic that I noticed is the classic Divide and Conquer Tactic. RODIMUS skillfully made it appear that the US-based CATHOLIC ANSWERS and our very own DEFENSORES FIDEI contradict each other’s position. Nothing can be farther than the truth. As I will explain, the supposed contradiction is more apparent rather than real.

I understand why RODIMUS employed that tactic. Misery loves company. I think that he is privy to the divisions, if not contradictions, extant in evangelicalism that he is now trying with all his might to prove that Catholics are also divided as the evangelicals are. This is the case of the pot calling the kettle black.

RODIMUS harped on Mr. Evert’s caveat: “Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: ‘Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.’ That’s not the Catholic position.” He pitted Mr. Everet’s statement to my argument that James, Joses, Judas and Simon mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Mathew 13:55-56 are the “brothers” of Jesus because they are His “cousins.”

I noticed that RODIMUS was only interested in my conclusion. He did not even bother to contest, much less refute, the premises on which I predicated my conclusion. It seems to me that my friend’s desire is merely to involve me in contradiction.

As I stated earlier, the contradiction in the mind of my good friend RODIMUS is only apparent rather than real. Mr. Evert merely stated his conclusion that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are actually His cousins. It simply means that the Lord’s brothers should not always be taken to mean as His cousins simply because the word “brother” in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic have a more encompassing meaning. The Bible offers various meanings to “brothers” which cannot be restricted to siblings alone. Thus, it is equally true that it is not the official position of the Catholic Church that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus may not be His “cousins.” May I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church –

“Against this doctrine [of perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.” [par. 500, Catechism of the Catholic Church (Manila: ECCE Word and Life Publications, 1994) p. 124]. (emphasis added)

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Everet is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.” The Church’s canon law as well as our own Family Code prohibits marriage between cousins up to a certain degree because of the close blood relationship that exists between them. Thus, as far as I’m concerned, my cousins are my close relatives. I just don’t know if RODIMUS considers his cousins as distant relatives.

Again, let us read Mr. Evert’s statement –

“Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: "Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins." That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

RODIMUS made a serious misreading of Mr. Evert’s statement. RODIMUS claims that Mr. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception.” RODIMUS’ conclusion is not accurate. He clearly misrepresents Mr. Evert’s view. Mr. Evert did not categorically say, as RODIMUS would have us believe, that Jesus brothers are not His cousins. In fact, all that Mr. Evert is saying is that “we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins.” Furthermore, Mr. Evert theoretically argued that “the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would have not been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins.” Finally, Mr. Evert pointerd out: “If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

Mr. Evert and I are in full agreement that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are not the children of Mary. Mr. Evert was categorical: “All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary.” Where’s the contradiction there? In my critique of Dr. Pezzotta, I also mentioned that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not said to be the “children of Mary.”

RODIMUS never realized that the arguments in support of Catholic teachings constitute a vast arsenal. There are many weapons in that arsenal. Catholic apologists may choose the weapon that best suits them. There are so many ways to skin a cat.

What is necessary in this discussion is that Catholics, apologist or not, agree on essential things. It’s enough that we are united in our belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The thesis to be proven, which the Church affirms and both I and Mr. Evert are unanimous about, is that the so-called “brothers” of Our Lord are not the children of Mary. There is so much room for argumentation on how one arrives at that conclusion. As I said, we are free to choose from our arsenal the weapon that best suits us.

In disputations, there is such a thing as “alternative argumentation.” This is case where we argue “assuming ex gratia argumenti” or “assuming arguendo.” In English, it goes something like “granting for the sake of argument” or “granting without admitting.” This is a valid form of argumentation.

That is what Mr. Evert and I precisely did! We presented alternative arguments. These alternative arguments in no way compromise the thesis that the “brothers” of the Lord were not children of Mary.

I don’t know what makes it difficult for RODIMUS to see that. Maybe, his anti-Catholic bigotry already clouded his thinking which I hope not.

Notice how Mr. Evert constructed his argument:

1. The Church affirms that they were not children of Mary;

2. We can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins;

3. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage;

4. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins.

5. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi" covers the situation.

6. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.”

It is clear that Mr. Evert used alternative arguments as can be noticed in the words he employed: “could have been;” “probably would not have been,” “if even” (or “even if” – i.e., “assuming for the sake of argument”).

Thus said, the sweeping and hasty conclusion of RODIMUS that “The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many,” is utterly baseless. It has no leg to stand on.

Without having proven anything, RODIMUS categorically concluded that Mary had other children aside from Jesus. He said: “They (sic) way I see it, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is impossible to be proven because the New Testament has many verses that proves that Mary had other children after giving birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55 and 56 is very comprehensive about it.”

This is assumptio non probata. RODIMUS claims that Mary’s perpetual virginity is impossible to be proven because the New Testament has many verses that proves (sic) that Mary had other children after giving birth of Christ. What are these many verses? Rodimus mentioned only Matthew 13:55-56 which is allegedly “very comprehensive about it.”

I’m sorry to state that RODIMUS statement that Mary had other children is an UNBIBLICAL assertion. Now I want RODIMUS to show me only two (2) verses in the Bible to prove his point:

(1) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”

(2) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”

Not unless RODIMUS can show these two verses, he has failed to debunk the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I have other questions to ask but I will reserve them in some future time. It would suffice for the moment for RODIMUS to give me these two verses.

RODIMUS reliance on Matthew 13:55-56 as the supposedly “very comprehensive” verse that proves that Mary had other children is misplaced. The verse does not say say that the “brothers” of Jesus are the children of Mary. In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

Without any shred of proof acceptable to the reasonable mind, RODIMUS concluded that the “the Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them.” This brazen accusation holds no water.

Who are these desperate Roman Catholics who concocted the “spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

When did these desperate Roman Catholics concoct the spurious “spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

I want RODIMUS or any of his colleagues in the Bereans to tell me the exact day, month and year when the Catholic Church concocted the “theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Exodus 23:1 says: “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”

I am also bothered by RODIMUS fixation on the Catholic Church as though it is the only church that teaches Mary’s perpetual virginity. It creates the impression that only Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. My friend must have forgotten that there are also such things as the Orthodox churches who believe the same dogma as we Catholics do.

I studied the history of the early Church and I found out that we Catholics who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity are in good company. Early Christians, we call them Church Fathers, believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. These men of learning and piety include Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius: Epiphanius of Salamis Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Leo I.

Jerome, the great Scripture scholar, stingingly rebuked Helvidius in a treatise on Mary’s perpetual virginity: “I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarcely known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defending....! I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her Son was born” [St. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate Beatae Mariae adversus Helvidium. Migne, Patrology, PL 23, 183-206. For more excerpts on the topic, see: William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. II (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1979) 190-191].

On the other hand, I also found out that the early opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity were known as the Antidicomarianites. These were an Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400. They were so designated as the “opponents of Mary.” The other heretics who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity were the Ebionites. They were the first to maintain that Our Lord was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents. Later on, they modified it so as to teach that, although Our Lord was born of Mary through the Holy Spirit, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children (modern Protestants and evangelicals like RODIMUS follow this view). The sect denied the formula “ever-Virgin Mary” used in the Greek and Latin liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940). Certain Arians, Eudocius and Eunomius – all heretics! – were great supporters of the teaching. The sect attained its greatest development in Arabia towards the end of the fourth century, and the name Antidicomarianites was specifically applied to it by St. Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote vigorously against them in an interesting letter giving the history of the doctrine and presenting proofs of its falsity (St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Contra Haeres., lxxviii, 1033 sqq.). [Cf. Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1999) 122-123].

Beware of the company you keep, RODIMUS.

Why did the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, teach the heretics the truth which He did not teach mainstream and orthodox Christians?

Even the Reformers believed the “concocted spurious theory” of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

John Calvin (1509-1564):

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531):

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

These Reformers read the same Bible as RODIMUS and other evangelicals read. How come they had a different conclusion? In fact, my question to modern day Protestants is why they do not anymore believe in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, a doctrine which was asserted and defended even by their very own founders. The contradiction it seems lies in the position of the Reformers and modern evangelicals.

In believing Mary’s perpetual virginity, were the Reformers heretics? If so, Protestantism (and all its offshoots) was founded by heretics. If they were wrong on Mary’s perpetual virginity, they can be wrong on so many things.

If the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is not heresy, then what is my good friend and brother RODIMUS crowing about?[emphasis mine]

STOP ABORTION

2009-02-04T05:02:00.000-08:00

HAVE PITY ON THE LIVES OF THE INNOCENT ONES!

image source: http://www.principledpolicy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/fetus1.jpg

Millions of helpless souls are being denied of their rights to live. Because of indifference to abortion- that evil act comparable, if not, even more horrible than murder -- people are being more and more heartless and irresponsible! They are being made numb of their unconcern to these niños inocentes. Spiritlessness to defend these "Little Ones" makes a good show only the EVIL ONE can enjoy!

Woe to you murderers!

Woe to you killers!

Woe to you unethical doctors!

Woe to you medical malpracticioners!

Imagine the lives you've ruined and will be ruining! Have pity...

Let's not forget our duties to God and to our fellowmen.

Birthday of the founder of Opus Dei

2009-01-08T22:53:00.001-08:00

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Today, January 9, is the birthday of St. Josemaria Escriva. He is the founder of Opus Dei and is one of my favorite Saints. I like him because through his teachings, he shared to a lot of people the value of ordinary works in our lives. Through this ordinary, everyday works, we can all be Saints. All we need to do is to sanctify them, make them holy.... for we are all called to be Holy. I always pray to him and ask for his intercession. You should, too! =)

Long live his Legacy!

Happy New Year!

2008-12-31T11:51:00.000-08:00

2008 is already over. Let's have a review of what happened to me and what events that took place during the year (at least those that I can remember, he he he):

I've started, although not regularly, attending meditations and recollections given by the Opus Dei (Maynilad Center).
I attended an Archdiocesan Marian Congress (Archdiocese of Lipa), where Bro. Marwil gave a talk on how to defend Mama Mary.
We visited the palace of Archbishop Ramon Arguelles and he gave me a rose-scented rosary blessed by the Pope!
We had a class field trip -Destination: Ilocos. We visited many old Churches there.
Latin Novus Ordo mass became regular at St. Therese Parish, Los Banos.
I had my very first Blogsite-this Blogsite!
The fourth Annual Apologetics Class by Defensores Fidei Foundation was succesful. It was attended by more or less 90 participants!
I met several veteran apologists of Manila(Bro. Gerry Valenzuela, Bro. Cenon Bibe Jr., and many others).
We visited Makati city jail.
The very first Nationwide Apologetics Convention was sucessfully held at Pinaglabanan, San Juan. It was attended by veteran apologist from all over the Philippines!
I attended a 3-day retreat at Laguna hills, Laguna. Our retreat master is Fr. Henry Bocala, an Opus Dei priest.

I am having a hard time remembering other events that happened this year but this is enough to remind me how wonderful this year was for me. Let us give thanks to God for giving us such blessings!

Happy New Year to All!!!

A Mother's Touch

2008-10-30T09:06:00.000-07:00

A Mother's Touch

Me and my dearest Lola

It has been almost a year since my beloved grandmother passed away. I always remember the times when I visit her at her home. When she sees me approaching, I can see her face brighten up with a smile. She never forgets to welcome me with her warm embrace. Lola - that's how I call her, with the strong puntong Batangan(Batangueno accent) which almost sounded like Looola.

For almost half of my childhood years, she was there to advise me, to care for me. Every time I’m on vacation from school, I always stay at her house. In return, I acted as her PA(Personal Alalay). I support her for she was suffering from her weakened body. In spite of that, we rarely hear her complaining about the pain she is enduring. When she was a bit younger, she suffered from a series of brain strokes. The doctors even thought that it was a miracle that she was still alive because 3 strokes are already fatal – she suffered from 7, not including the minor ones!

She taught me things that I think a grandmother can teach best, like how to properly behave in front of others and how to respect elders, especially my parents. She was also a good example for us of a God-fearing person. She has been a great but humble servant of the Lord even until her body wouldn’t permit her to move much anymore.

She was a mother not only to her sons and daughters, not only to her family, but also to the people she spent her life with. As a matter of fact, she is called “Mother Lily” in our place. Even the children fondly calls her “Ka Mother”.

I fully realized her being a true mother when her death came. People from different places came to visit her. I’ve heard all sorts of testimonies to my Lola, all of them giving praises to her and all her wonderful deeds. I’m so happy to know that my Lola touched the lives of many and I myself am so blessed to have been given that Mother’s Touch…

Thank you, Lola! You will always be in my heart!

I pray that the Blessed Mother will guide your way to his Son...

Kapatid na Marwil on Mama Mary

2008-10-27T05:18:00.000-07:00

Campaign Against Reproductive Health Bill

2008-10-20T07:09:00.000-07:00

Stop wasting time! Do something!!!

We should do everything we can to prevent this house bill(Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)) from being passed. Please help our country by signing this petition.

Offer a rosary. Kill the Bill.

Priesthood by Fr. Abe

2008-10-19T06:46:00.000-07:00

Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila

2008-10-11T22:02:00.000-07:00

Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary
La Naval de Manila

This is the Image of Our Lady of the Rosary. Every year, a procession is being held to commemorate the victory of the Spanish galleon against Dutch war ships. The victory, which can be considered as a miracle, is attributed to the praying of the rosary! Good thing they won. Otherwise, the Philippines would have been a protestant country.

image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davyop/2529799569/

Apologetics session continues!

2008-10-11T18:47:00.000-07:00

Bro. Carlos Palad giving a lecture on Church History

Last weeks session (Oct. 4) was held at the Layforce auditorium in San Carlos Seminary and the speaker was San Carlos (Carlos Palad, hehehe). The topic was Church history. The favorite question of the crowd was about the infamous inquisition -- the spanish inquisition. Bro. Caloy debunked the "dark age myths" one by one.

Yesterday (Oct 11), the session was moved back to the Mary the Queen parish, San Juan. The room there is, I think, more conducive for learning but expensive. The speaker was Bro. Mars and he talked about the first set of sacraments. He discussed it lengthily, exposing a handful of passages that answers the objections of other sects about the sacraments.

Bro. Marwil Llasos on Sacraments

Q&A portion with Sir PV as the Moderator

In the question and answer portion, there were many questions usually posed by protestants. I suppose many people who attended wants to get them answered so that the next time they will be asked, they can already defend. Bro Mars noticed, as I did, that the usual attacks to the Catholic Church are for the non-essential things, or the instruments the Church makes use of. Anyway, essential or non- essential, the Church still has the answers. Have a nice day! =)

4th apologetics session in greenhills

2008-09-27T18:47:00.000-07:00

TOPIC: PAPACY

The Audience -Mary the Queen Parish, San Juan

Sis Claire and Sir Henry

The zeal of the crowd in last Saturday's apologetics session didn't seem to have faded even a bit. What I saw in the 1st session, I still saw there. The audience kept growing every week. This is a good sign. I can sense that after many year of taking their faith for granted, they started to realize how important it is to know more about their faith. They are starting to dig deep into rich Catholic heritage. I remember the 1st time I attended (That was maybe a year ago). I was also like them. I hope to see all of them until the end of this series.

The speaker - Bro. Mars - proved that he's not only a Mama's boy but also Papa's boy!

As usual, there is the question and answer portion and as expected, the favorite question is about the anti-popes. With the tandem of Bro. Mars and Bro.Caloy, no question can be left unanswered. Bro Caloy gives the Historical perspective while bro Mars the Biblical basis. What more can you ask for?