http://www.amateurcatholicapologist.blogspot.com/, http://www.onegodjesuschrist.com/doc/BookOneGod.html, http://akoykapa

Know the Truth, Capital (2026)

29/04/2024

Anyone who reads the Bible yet ignores Jesus' Church, is not a true Christian but is someone who concocts his OWN brand of Christianity. He is not a believer, he makes his own beliefs.

05/01/2024

Live po tayo in 15 minutes. Papacy noon 300 AD, 500AD, 600 AD Lang saw? Ano ba talaga frater?

02/01/2024

Protestant SOLA SCRIPTURA “ is there any proof from the early church fathers”?

Our Protestant friends try to find evidence of their Sola Scriptura from Early Church Fathers. Can they find one?

Here are their lists. Let's find out!

1. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202)

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3.1.1)

My comment:

St. Irenaeus states that the gospel of Christ came to us in two forms, that is through public preaching of the apostles, and then the inspired writers also wrote them down, thus the written form came later. What is handed over or the Traditions; Oral or written is the gospel of Christ taught by the apostles themselves (by the Catholic Church ), according to Irenaeus is the ground and pillar of our faith.

St. Irenaeus said this concerning the church of Rome.

“For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

Why? He knew that many heretics misuse and abuse Scripture. Thus he points us to where to get the true understanding of Scripture-the pillar and foundation of faith proclaimed by the Church- the foundation and pillar of TRUTH.

2. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–235) [in defending the truth of the Trinity against the heretic Praxeas:]

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)

My commentary:

It must be noted that Tertullian made use of Deuterocanonical writing as proof for the Trinity. With that, we Catholics possess that Scriptures, furnish us with our rule of faith,
Yet NOT as the sole rule of faith.

3. Hippolytus (d. 235)

There is brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Against Heresies, 9)

My comments:

Indeed, let's read the Scriptures! As Catholics, we need to do as St. Hippolytus said. Why? So we can refute those who are twisting the Holy Scriptures. Not only that, but also for us to live a holy life, knowing the will of God and obeying Him.

4. Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 265):

We did not evade objections, but we endeavoured as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures. (Cited from Eusebius, Church History, 7.24.7–9)

My comments:

Yes! We need to have the same approach, PRIVATE opinions MUST not be our rule of faith. We must listen to the Holy Scriptures according to the teaching of the Church established by Christ, not just anyone from the street corner who just purchased a Bible.

5. Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) [After outlining the books of the Bible, Athanasius wrote:]

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

My comment:

St. Athanasius mentioned the instance wherein Jesus told the Sadducees saying “Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures”. The Sadducees made use of Deuterocanonical writing as a “proof of Scripture” against resurrection. With that, Jesus told them basically that they didn't understand that passage of Scripture. Yet, funny enough our Protestant friends would deny that Deuterocanonical writings inspired Scripture.

It's also evident that having Scriptures, like the Pharisees and Sadducees could err BIG TIME as Jesus told them concerning the truth about the resurrection.

6. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) [After defending the doctrine of the Holy Spirit]:

We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say. (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff)

My commentary:

St. Cyril encourages the use of Scriptures but he never prescribes “use Scripture alone”. If you read above what he said in all his writings he never made use of the Protestant idea of “Bible alone”.

7. John Chrysostom (344–407)

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things, and have learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honour, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.” (Homily on 2 Corinthians, 13.4)

My comments:

Amen! We can read and learn what St. John Chrysostom mentioned from Scripture. But it's important to notice what he said and what is not. He never taught “Scripture alone”.

8. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; so that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2)

My commentary:

Yes and Amen! Why? He said that Scriptures as “a rule” and NOT THE RULE.

Where do we get the words of the Master? From the preaching of the apostles and from the written words of God, hence there’s no such thing as sola scriptura there at all.

Augustine (again):

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (Augustine, Letters, 148.15)”

My commentary:

I agree with St. Augustine! Yes, when a Christian even if he is in the hierarchy his writings are not on par with the written words of God. Moreover, if he contradicts the teachings of Scripture according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, then we must reject his teachings, even if they cite verses of Scripture.

Clearly, the doctrine of sola Scriptura was NEVER taught in Scripture, nor believed and practice by the early church fathers. This new teaching was only invented by Martin Luther in the 16th century AD.

25/10/2023

Mysterium Fidei

And pagkaalis ba ng mga salitang “mysterium fidei” sa konsekrasyon sa misa ay para maalis ang paniniwala sa real presence? Ating lilinawin.

Ang salitang “mysterium fidei” ay nag ugat po sa sinabi ni San Pablo sa 1 Timoteo 3:9.

“... they must hold the mystery of faith with a good conscience”

Kung kailan po naidagdag sa “words of consecretion” ayon kay Father Joseph Jungmann na isang historian ng Roman mass Rite ay ito ang kanyang sinabi:

“The phrase is found inserted in the earliest text of the (Latin) sacramentaries, and mentioned even in the seventh century. It is missing only in some later source.... How or why this insertion was made, or what external event occasioned it, cannot be readily ascertained.” (The mass of the Roman Rite, pp. 421-422.

Kung babalikan natin any lahat ng kasulatan sa Bagong Tipan na kung saan mababasa ang mismong sinabi ni Cristo ay WALA po sa words of institution na ginamit ang “mysterium fidei”.
Wala din po sa mga iba pang valid na formula na nirerecognised ng Simbahan. In short, ay HINDI PO REQUIREMENTS ang mga salitang ito para valid ang kosekrasyon.

Sa New Order of the Mass (Novous ordo), dahil HINDI ito kasama sa sinabi ni Cristo sa unang misa. Kaya naman ang salitang “mysterium fidei” ay inilagay after ng konsekrasyon para ideklara ang ating ang naganap at paniniwala sa Eucharistia.

May mga taong nagtuturo sa panahon ni Pope Paul VI kontra sa paniniwala sa Tradional na turo ng simbahan ayon sa Council of Trent na definition ng “real presence”, kaya naman noong 1965 siya ay naglabas ng isang encyclical na may titulong “Mysterium Fidei”!
Dito ay pinalakas at pinatibay ang ating paniniwala tungkol sa Eucharistia bilang katawan at dugo ni Cristo.

Eto po ang parte ng kanyang sinabi sa encyclical:

“Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvellous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ.”

2nd 📝

Ang Quo Primum ba ginawang permanente ang Tridentine Latin mass at bawal nang mareporma ang liturhiya?

Eto po ang mga crucial na nilalaman Ng Encyclical na ito.

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.”

Dapat siguro na alamin natin kung anong uri ang encyclical ang Quo Primum para mas maiintindihan natin ang kontexto Ng usapin na ito. Ang encyclical na ito ay hindi po ito doctrinal document at matatawag natin ito na isang disciplinary encyclical. Paano natin malalaman? Unang una, hindi po siya nagdedefine ng isang doktrina or affirming a doctrine. Pangalawa, ito ay nanawagan na gawin uniforme ang rito ng misa. Consequently ay hindi na gagamitin alinman rito na ginagamit nila dati kahit gaano man katanda ay kailangan itigil yong paggamit nito. Dito rin sa encyclical ay napapaloob yong sanctions kapag hindi sinunod ang nilalaman nito. So, maliwanag po na isa itong disciplinary instead of a doctrinal one.

Kung ganun ay dapat unawain at tanggapin natin sa kontexto na isang disciplinary (changeable) document as oppose to a doctrinal (permanent )document ang nilalaman.

Mula sa pasimula (quo primum), ay klaro po na may development o reformation ang Liturhiya sa misa at ang isang example po ay ang pagkakaroon Ng Bagong rito (New Rite) noong 1570 at ito yong tinatawag natin “Tridentine Mass. Kaya alam ni Pope Pius V na hindi doktrina ang kanyang encyclical.

Moreover, mismong rito Ng Tridentine mass ay nagkaroon Ng mga pagbabago matagal na bago nagkaroon Ng New Order of the mass ni Pope Paul VI.

Sabi ni Father Jungmann:

“Some real changes since the 16th century in the rubrics and in the text of the missal of Pius V have resulted in certain instances from papal orders. For instance, in the new edition of the missal under Clement VIII (1604), the biblical chant pieces, which in some printing had been arbitrarily changed in favour of the new Vulgate, were restored to their original state, and and new regulations were made regarding the final blessing. In another new edition of the Mass book under Urban VIII (1634), the wordings of the book was greatly improved and the revision of the hymns already accomplished in the breviary was also in the few hymns in the missal.”

Di to palang ay maliwanag na po na sa labas Ng CORE o PINAKA ESSENTIAL sa konsekrasyon na itinuro at sinalita ng ATING Panginoon ay maaring marevised with the keys of Peter.

PAANO naman natin unawain Ng Tama ang phrase sa encyclical na “now and forever”?

Bsahin natin
This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders –

Sinasabi Ng kautusan ay “aplikado sa panahon idineklara (now) at magpa sa walang HANGGANG.” Kung babalikan natin, ang ATING mga languahe at expression Ng pananampalataya ay mula sa mga Hudyo. Sa kanila ay may natanggap na moral law, doktrina at mga disciplinary laws, gaya ng pagngilin sa araw ng Sabado at pag circumcise. Itong examples na ito ay na express sa “for ever” o “magpakailanman”. Alam natin na hindi nagpatuloy ito sa atin mga cristiano dahil sa kapangyarihan Ng unang Santo papa na si San Pedro.

Kung ang isang Papa ay nagbigay ng disciplinary law ay hindi na ba pwedeng palitang, tanggalin o bawiin? Sa aral po natin Katoliko ay CHANGEABLE po ang lahat Ng disciplinary laws. Kaya naman mula din sa encyclical na ito ay ABSENT ang panukalang nagbabawal sa sinoman future pope na mag reform/update/revise ang liturhiya. Ang klaro ay ang mga cardinals o mga patriarchs o mga founders Ng congregations o May mataas na ranko MALIBAN sa pope ay HINDI pwedeng irevise ang ritong ito, yan ang mensahe. Alam natin bilang mga katoliko na natanggap po ng simbahan at ang Papa ang mga susi na nagbubukas at nagkakalag at hindi po basta kanino na lang.

Matatandaan natin na sa Council of Trent nangaling ang order para nagkaroon Ng New Rite noong 1570 na maskilala sa tawag na “Tridentine Latin Mass”. Pagkalipas po nga 400 years mula din sa Council Ng simbahan ang Vatican II at otoridad ng successor ni San Pedro ay nagkaroon Ng Novous Ordo.

Pero Alan nation and Nakaraan, mula po sa council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) at sa pasimula ng kasaysayan ng simbahan ay nagkaroon ng PAG AKLAS against the Catholic Church sa BAWAT valid Catholic Council. Sila yong hindi tumatanggap sa turo, hindi kumikilala sa authority ng mga councils. Most of them ay humiwalay po sa simbahan. Sa ating panahon ngayon at mararami din hindi nila matanggap ang pinaka well attended na council, ang Novus Ordo, at hindi din nila matanggap as valid popes ang mga Papa pagkatapos ni Pope Paul VI. Pero sila naman po ay ayaw na ayaw nilang umalis sa mahal nilang Inang Simbahah, kaya kailangan ng tamang pakikipag usap at pakikitungo sa kanila tungkol sa ating paniniwala. Ipag pray natin sila at huwag awayin.

Quo Primum - Papal Encyclicals

25/10/2023

One of our brothers who is supposed to be a defender of the Catholic Faith shared his article on his wall. This is about consuming blood as food and said that the prohibition is BINDING to us Catholics. He contradicted our Catholic Faith and quoted or shall I say misquoted paragraph 2148 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I inquired where he got his citation, and to my dismay, I received no response or any message to clarify his position, but his article soon got deleted. That could well be another way of him saying that he made a mistake. Your guess is as good as mine.

For clarity and not for any other purposes we will post his article and refute it for the benefit of the faithful.

Here is his article in its entirety, with our responses:

DOES THE LAW FORBIDDING TO CONSUME BLOOD STILL BINDING TO US eq26’?
-Bro. Denmar Santiago, CFD.

In the Book of Acts of the Apostles, we see that the apostles, gathered in the Council of Jerusalem to address the issue of whether to require the Gentile Christians to observe the Mosaic Law. In their decision, they emphasized certain prohibitions including abstaining from blood:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts 15:28-29)

This decision was made to promote unity among the early Christians and to avoid causing scandal or offence to Jewish converts who were accustomed to these dietary restrictions. The prohibition on consuming blood was seen as a way to respect the sacredness of life and to avoid participating in pagan rituals that involved the consumption of blood.

============================

Our response:

At the Council of Jerusalem, the Church addressed a few issues concerning both the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians which were rooted primarily in the question of whether the Gentiles were required to follow Jewish laws (circumcision, dietary and others) to be saved.

It’s important to know the backdrop to understand the context. The inclusion of the Gentiles is something new and unexpected to the early church. In the mind of Jews, the Messiah would be a saviour for the Jews only. However, God allowed the inclusion of the Gentiles. Consequently, questions arose, and they thought that Gentiles must convert, be circumcised and become a “Jew”, and thus must adhere to the laws of Moses. Consumption of blood as food therefore must also be prohibited, that’s of course the opinion of some of the early Jewish Christians. They have Old Testament scriptures to back them up. Do the Gentiles need to become Jews to be saved? Is the prohibition of eating blood applicable to Christians? These were the dubia that needed answers and clarifications.

At the Council, St. Peter the Pope dogmatically defined that OT laws and Mosaic laws are not required for salvation nor for a Gentile to be converted to a Jew to be saved because it’s through Christ and his grace that we are saved.

Please read:

Acts 15:

Background:

1 Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

The Question/Dubia:

5 But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” 6 So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter”

Here is the dogmatic declaration from St. Peter:
8 And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith.

10 Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Our comment:

In short, the Gentiles don’t need to follow the works of the Law, including the dietary laws. Of course, what is left and will remain are the moral laws.

The pastoral guidance by St. James:

13 When they had finished speaking, James declared, “Brothers, listen to me! 14Simona has told us how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people to be His own.

19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and blood. “

Notice that it’s been defined that it’s no longer necessary for Christians to follow the Mosaic laws. But why is it that St. James seems still prescribing some form of it?

If we look at the “prohibition” it was intended for the Gentiles and asked them not to consume blood, strangle animals and of course sexual sins. Why? The Church is not two but one. It’s one community or a family of God. When the Jewish Christians and the Gentiles are gathered together, the Gentiles are prescribed not to eat blood and strangled animals. This is so because the Jews used to consider these as unclean and of course, they could not change their practice and how they viewed these foods instantly. Therefore, it’s not a case of prohibiting these foods because they are unclean, but rather, so that they would not offend the Jews.

====•=•••••===============•••••=

Bro. Denmar said:

In the Old Testament, the prohibition on consuming blood is found in various passages, such as Leviticus 17:10-14, where God commands the Israelites not to eat the blood of any creature. This command is part of the broader dietary laws given to the Jewish people.”

Leviticus 17 is a dietary law found in the OT. Christ however said that he will make all things new. He made the old obsolete

Hebrews 7:18
8 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.”

Why?

St. Paul explains:

Colossians 2:16-17
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or concerning a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

1 Timothy 4:4-5
4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

For our Lord and Master says:

18“Are you still so dull?” He asked. “Do you not understand? Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, 19because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” (Thus all foods are clean.)i
20He continued: “What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For From within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,j 22greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. 23 All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.”

Bro Denmar said:

The Catholic Church upholds the teaching that it is forbidden to consume blood, as it is a precept reaffirmed in both the Old and New Testaments:

"The Old Testament attests that God commanded his people to abstain from eating blood. This prohibition is reiterated in the New Testament as the law of the Apostles." (CCC par. 2148)”

Our Response:

Nowhere in the Catholic teachings from the moment of its foundation has the Church taught what our brother said above. Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2148 never mentioned such a statement above. Is this a made-up statement?

Here is the complete paragraph 2148 of CCC:

2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honourable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce people to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin

Bro Denmar said:
The Church recognizes that the prohibition on consuming blood is a moral and religious precept that reflects the sacredness of life and the reverence due to God. It is not a disciplinary or cultural practice that can be adapted or changed.”

Our response:

As we stated earlier, there’s no such prohibition in the teachings of the Church. While it’s true that the OT ( Leviticus 17:14) says, “ life is in the blood “, this points to the understanding of the blood of Christ we drink when we receive the Eucharist during mass. Now, we are invited to drink blood!

Jesus says:

John 6:53-55:

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Bro. Denmar said:

The Catholic Church understands this prohibition as applying to the blood of all animals. Therefore, Catholics are called to respect and adhere to this teaching, understanding it as part of the Church's moral tradition and the consistent interpretation of Scripture. This prohibition is still observed today, and Catholics are expected to abstain from consuming blood in any form.”

Our response:

I would like to personally remind our dear brother and friend that it’s dangerous to make things up, especially when you are attributing to the church a teaching contrary to its official teachings. It’s not good for the soul! There’s never been the teaching nor part of the Catholic tradition of such prohibition as you assume.

16/08/2023

Some people don't understand that Jesus established THE CHURCH to baptise, TEACH and make disciples of all nations. He did not intended that the Bible to be read then debate against the magisterium he established to teach you. Instead, you must listen to her.

12/05/2020

https://youtu.be/PVjO3jwvNuk

Know the Truth

29/04/2024

05/01/2024

02/01/2024

25/10/2023

25/10/2023

16/08/2023

12/05/2020

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category