Is the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical? Part 2: A Response to Beltran’s Rebuttals

By Heavens Knight

In relation to the first topic we prepared, a rebuttal was then posted by one of Mr. Abe Arganiosa’s minion, named Beltran, to defend his belief. It was proven that Mr. Arganiosa, a Catholic priest, has almost failed to agree in a peaceful confrontation between him and Bro. Eli Soriano, winner of “The Most Educational to Follow” category in the recently held Open Web Awards by Mashable.com.

Unfortunately, Mr. Arganiosa and his company were tempted to use some trash talking to survive the issue. They kept on making some insults and accusations to put off their opponent. Sadly, Beltran even chose to entitle his masterpiece with an intention to offend.

Beltran wrote: REFUTATION ON THE FOOLISHNESS OF CHRISTIANACCUSER

Beltran may not be aware in his attacking. When he used Christian Accuser, he might be attacking Christian Defender, an owner of this blog. It is not Christian Defender who wrote the first article about church’s name but your servant Heaven’s Knight, a contributor on this blog. Obviously, Beltran is barking at the wrong tree.

Anyway, readers are intelligent and fair enough to discern an ad hominem or personal attack like what was used by Mr. Arganiosa’s minion. Their devices could hinder them in establishing respect, I’m not sure I would use the same. Perhaps they are not aware of the danger of their trash talking. All I can say is keep up your trash talks Beltran!

Search and read – no more, no less

Let us have first some basic knowledge regarding proper usage of the Bible. What is the discipline taught by God regarding the rightful Bible usage? (Isaiah 34:16)

Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

(2 Peter 1:20)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

It is clearly commanded that the scripture or the book of the Lord must be searched and read; it didn’t demand any private interpretation for it is complete, no one of these shall fail, and none shall want her mate. Also, being apostolic, we must conform to apostles teachings. Apostles, and even prophets, neither permitted to omit nor to exceed to what was written. St. Paul said, (1Corinthians 4:6)

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Jeremiah, according to the Lord, wrote that it is prohibited to diminish a word in the scriptures. (Jeremiah 26:2)

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Anyone proven to do otherwise is introduced in the Bible as liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Thus, the Bible must be searched and read without adding or omitting words from it. If not, one may be found a liar.

Exegesis vs Eisegesis

Another important thing to consider, we must know how to exegete when reading or using Bible passages. According to The Religion Book, exegesis is the science (some would call it an art or method of interpretation) of determining exactly the meaning of a particular passage of writing. This technique is used by all who study any writing, but especially by those who study religious scripture.

http://www.answers.com/topic/exegesis

The antonym of this rightful method is called eisegesis. Eisegesis, on the other hand, according to Wordsmith Words, is an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

http://www.answers.com/topic/eisegesis

Therefore, to get the right interpretation of a passage, we must not put our idea over the scripture but rather we must get our idea from the scriptures. Being exegetic could be better.

Counterarguments against Beltran’s rebuttals

Now, let us examine the arguments raised by Beltran if those can prove him right. We don’t claim that we are experts in debates, yes, we know a little. But I am afraid if the word intelligent will be given to someone who is, we may say, idiot.

It could also help if we will read Christian Defenders article about definitions of fallacy to cope with some terminologies used in my write up.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/the-fallacies-in-arguments-of-abraham-arganiosa/

Let us start, please observe the humble saying and intelligence of our opponent.

Beltran said: We really don’t know if this guy is in the right manner to THINK. neither, we know, if HE HAS A BRAIN. in his comments above, he showed at least eleven verses in the Bible which says the name of the church is “church of God”.. is he insane?

It is so sad that someone who doesn’t even know how to punctuate rightfully or spell his words is the one claiming to be a thinker or intelligent. Anyway, I am just an unworthy servant who is dependent on God’s mercy and help; I don’t have anything to be proud of.

Church of God or Roman Church?

First, Beltran tries to invalidate our stand by stating the name, Church of God, used by apostles eleven times was not the official name. He didn’t even substantiate his right to nullify it and sadly, there seems to be an eisegesis. Let us examine.

Beltran wrote: All of those verses which ADD use as a proof that theirs is the TRUE Church were invalid evidences to justify that the apostles gave the official name “Church of God” to the true followers of Christ. The said passages merely emphasize that Christian Church is OF GOD. it denotes OWNERSHIP. as a matter of fact, Jesus said,

“You are Peter, upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH” (Matthew 16:18)

Beltran is aware that the term Church of God can be read in the Bible eleven times; the whole term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, none. He was trying to nullify the validity of the term Church of God being its official name by limiting its usage as mere ownership only.

Let us follow his argument. Let’s say it is not the official name, for the term Church of God only denotes God’s ownership of the church. Could that prove that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is the official name used by the apostles?

Beltran even used the term Church of Roman (a.k.a. Roman Church). To have a parallelism and to be fair, we can also say that Church of Rome is not an official name for the term Roman Church only denotes ownership of Rome. To avoid being mistaken for having an artificial, straw-man question, let us quote what Beltran said.

Beltran wrote: Another IGNORANCE OF THIS ACCUSER is that, the CATHOLIC CHURCH does not limit herself with the Church of Rome. The Seat of Authority is in ROME but we also have Churches who does not want to be called “Roman”. we have the BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH,. MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH, URKANIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and so forth. However, these Churches were ALL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ROME.

Take note of the emphasized phrases. Our opponent clearly believes that the word Roman was inserted to signify the authority of Pope in Rome. That means the seat of power or authority is centered in Rome.

If the term Roman Church or Church of Rome was accepted by Beltran, that is to denote the seat of power in Rome, why can’t he accept the term Church of God being the official name wherein the ownership of power must be attributed to God? Which is better, Church of God or Church of Rome? If the power or authority must be attributed to the pope in Rome instead of God, how can we be courteous in yearning the Lord’s Prayer? (Matthew 6:9-13)

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

It says “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever”. It didn’t say for thine power or seat of authority is in the pope in Rome. Glory, power and kingdom must be attributed to the one who deserves it – God.

Beltran may say that they just avoid using God’s name for it was used by God’s enemies (Psalms 139:20).

Beltran wrote: If one would think properly: A man’s mistress would often claim to be the latters LEGAL WIFE, on the other hand, the real spouse would NO LONGER CLAIM to be such, because she has all the proof. in the sameway, Why we have to be NAMED, “CHURCH OF GOD” if we are really the true Church? We must not USE GOD’S NAME in order to justify ourselves. consider the following analogy:

1) Mike Arroyo is known to be the “Son of the President”, but he need not CLAIM IT OPENLY that he is the Son of the President.

2) If the true Church was officially named by the apostles as “Church of God”. then why during old testament era, Jews wasn’t officially named as “PEOPLE OF GOD?” they are called “people of God” but the OFFICIAL NAME of the Jewish nation is ISRAEL. Elijah is called “MAN OF GOD” , but his name is “Elijah”. The Lord Jesus is called “The Son of God” but his name is “Jesus”. The Holy Spirit is called “The Spirit of God” but his name is “Holy Spirit”. furthermore, THE BIBLE TESTIFIED THAT THOSE WHO USE THE NAME OF GOD WERE HIS ENEMIES.

Thine ENEMIES take thy name in vain” (Psalms 139:20)

See? who then between the Catholic Church and Members, Church of God International, who use God’s Name???

It is true that enemies of God use His name; but not all. We cannot accept that apostles and penmen are enemies of God for they used God’s name in introducing the church name not once but eleven times. Beltran may also say that it was also said in the Bible that thou shall not used God’s name in vain (Exodus 7:20). Of course, God will hold someone guilty upon immoral use of God’s name. But it will be otherwise if we will use God’s name according to His will. The problem with our opponent is that he didn’t qualify who are those who use God’s name in vain and not. This logical fallacy of dicto simplicitir or sweeping generalization must be thrown out of the discussion.

Where did the apostles got the name of the church they preached? Did they get it in Rome? Let us read in writings of Paul to Ephesians. (Ephesians 3:14-15)

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,oOf whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Being apostolic, remember, we must learn from apostles like St. Paul. Apostle Paul said that for this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul is pertaining to the God, our Father in heaven. Then he said, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named… Therefore, the name of the whole family, the household of faith, the church, must be named after God. The house of God in the Bible was none other than the Church of God. (1Timothy 3:15)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The people of God were even called by God’s name. For this, they can achieve God’s forgiveness and listening. (Daniel 9:19)

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

(2Chronicles 7:14)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The people of God called by His name are also those who were introduced as the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, holy nation, a peculiar people, called out of darkness, spiritual house, holy priesthood. (1Peter 2:9, 4-5)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

And the house of God in Christian dispensation is none other than the Church of God (1 Timothy 3:15).

Therefore, which is better, Church of God or Roman Church?

Another obvious factual error committed, Beltran said that Mike Arroyo is known to be the “Son of the President”.

Beltran wrote:

1) Mike Arroyo is known to be the “Son of the President”, but he need not CLAIM IT OPENLY that he is the Son of the President.

I think this time Mike Arroyo must prove it openly to Beltran that he is not the son of the president. He is, indeed, the husband of the president, the first gentleman. I know of someone named Mikey Arroyo as the son of the president, I hope our intelligent opponent also know that.

In Beltran’s next rebuttal, I request you dear readers to pay more attention on this. Compare what I wrote and Beltran’s version.

My version: The term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not familiar to early Christians. It was also never used and mentioned by the apostles in preaching the true congregation established by God. They used the term Church of God.

Beltran’s version: Is this guy really knows and read the Bible? or was just deceived by PAPA Eli?

Does the term “Catholic” unfamiliar to early Christians? why did the new testament writers used the term “KATH’OLES” ?? kath’oles is the ROOT of the english word CATHOLIC.

I am consistent in saying that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not familiar to early Christians. In order to refute, four words become one. Beltran trimmed down what I said to single word. This straw man’s objection is too weak for he hadn’t refuted my argument but, his caricatured version of his own argument.

Another problem we may encounter, if we will use Beltran’s chopping style, many other church’s name can be proven right. He sliced the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church then read every single word in the Bible.

His argument goes like this.

Catholic can be read in the Bible.

Apostolic can be read in the Bible.

Romans can be read in the Bible.

Church can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is Biblical.

I think this could surely reduce to argumentum ad logicam or argument to logic, a kind of fallacy. It doesn’t follow that if, granting, you can read the word catholic in the Bible, the word apostolic in the Bible, the word Roman, and the word church, it automatically means that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is the official name to be used. Non sequitur, Beltran, non sequitur.

Why is that so? We can also read baptist in the Bible. Does that mean the name of the church could also be Baptist Church?

Baptist can be read in the Bible.

Church can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Baptist Church is Biblical.

What is more horrible about Beltran’s argument is satan can also be read in the Bible. Does it follow that the church of satan is also an official name?

Satan can be read in the Bible.

Church can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Church of satan is Biblical.

Church of satan can also be proven an official name if we use Beltran’s slicing style. Thus, if that could be the legal and valid way of proving the official name of the church, more so, we can also prove our stand – Church of God!

The phrase Church of God can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Church of God is Biblical.

How then can you discard our stand now, Beltran? Hay, reductio ad absurdum…

The term Church of God must not be disregarded. It was actually used by apostles and penmen in their writings almost as early as 50 A.D. We may better used terms familiar to apostles and early Christians than that those terms officially accepted and used almost 1,800 years after. We cannot even read a single verse in the Bible that proves apostles claim the title Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the official name. What we can read based from Catholic’s publication, the name Roman Catholic Church, before being accepted, was rejected first by bishops.

Catholic

It was only made official in 1870 after a unanimous decision made by bishops who assembled at the Vatican Council. It was not the apostles who decided to use the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church but bishops of Rome. I suggest to our opponent to have a review of his church’s name history to avoid hasty rebukes. That could help him, I think.

Therefore, I am at my wits when I say that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is neither familiar to apostles nor early Christians. I would suggest Beltran to try to defend other stand other than the name once rejected by his bishops and just made official after revision last 1870 so it could be more comfortable for him. I would suggest defending the name Church of God for God’s glory.

We cannot even deny that the name Church of God taught by apostles is official. Were apostles able to teach unofficial terms especially if they learned it from God? What teaching or word of God is unofficial? In Psalms it says, (Psa 119:160)

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The word of God is true from the beginning: and every one of His righteous judgments endured forever. Can we sought a word or teaching from God that is not official?

Define Universal

We are afraid that the one claiming to be a thinker or intelligent has an inconsistent definition of the word universal. And even his definitions had added merits to our stand that the church during the first century A.D. couldn’t be catholic for it will be an anachronism.

Anachronism, according to Wordsmith Words, means

1. The error of placing a person, object, custom, or event in the wrong historical period.

2. A person, thing, or practice that does not belong in a time period.

http://www.answers.com/topic/anachronism

Beltran, if intentional, has forcibly defined universal in many ways.

Beltran wrote:

Catholic means Universal, (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)

…and Universal means OF ALL NATIONS.

UNIVERSAL means PRESENT EVERYWHERE…

… UNIVERSAL ALSO MEANS “THROUGH OUT”

… When we say UNIVERSAL, it COULD MEAN “FOR ALL PEOPLE OF EVERY NATION” meaning, EVERY ONE IS INVITED OR WELCOME. AND IT IS BIBLICAL!! (REVELATIONS 5:9-10)

We thank Beltran for giving us his definitions of the word universal, for that, we can gauge his true knowledge regarding this matter. I’m sure Mr. Abe Arganiosa will be proud of him. In his description of the church way back first century A.D., he said it best that the church is universal. Meaning, it can be found to all nations, present everywhere, for all people of every nation, everyone is invited or welcome.

If we will examine the scripture, is it true that the church during the time of the apostles was present everywhere? Can it be found in all nations? Let us read information from the Bible so that we will not be misinformed. (Matthew 10:23)

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

It was told by Jesus Christ that the apostles had not finished the cities of Israel. Meaning, there were places that were not gone through by apostles’ preaching. So, how come the church during the first Christian era was introduced as universal if there were towns not gone over by apostles? Is it true now that the church is universal or catholic? Apostles never even reached the Philippines, so how come that the church in their time was of all nations?

Even in our present time, there are countries that Catholicism is not entertained. I think our friend needs to review the reference I gave for missing it will make him look inattentive.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108492.htm

Maybe he will say that being for all nations also means that all are welcome or invited (like one of the definition he gave). Is it true that the church taught by the apostles is inviting all people? Let us read in Galatians 1:8, it says,

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Anyone who will come in the church and will scarcely bring other gospel other than what Apostle Paul taught is not welcome. Using Beltran’s definition only proves that the church mentioned in the Bible is not the Catholic Church. The Church of God taught by apostles has delicadeza, not everyone is welcome.

Another thing we will not let pass, Beltran is making interpretation where he is injecting his own idea rather than expressing the meaning of the word universal.

Please examine dear readers the definition he supplied and his own conclusion.

Beltran wrote:

UNIVERSAL – 1)Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or ALL within the world; WORLDWIDE:

– 5) applicable or occurring THROUGHOUT or relating to the universe;

(Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universal)

See? WHO ARE YOU TO ACCUSE US OF USING THE TERM CATHOLIC? WHEREAS YOUR TERM INTERNATIONAL HAS THE SAME ESSENCE OF THE WORD CATHOLIC!!

MOREOVER, This guy DESPERATELY ATTEMPT to make a DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TERM” THROUGH OUT ALL” BEING USED IN ACTS 9:31 WITH THE TERM “CATHOLIC” as proven by a NON-BIASED WEBSITE PROVIDED ABOVE. UNIVERSAL ALSO MEANS “THROUGH OUT”

He said in his conclusion that the word universal means throughout. But if we will review his reference, his conclusion is very far from the dictionary’s definition. Let us check.

UNIVERSAL – 1)Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or ALL within the world; WORLDWIDE:

– 5) applicable or occurring THROUGHOUT or relating to the universe;

The word universal’s fifth definition means applicable or occurring throughout or relating to the universe. In Beltran’s version, he trimmed it down to “throughout”. He threw out eight words from the definition he gave. This chopping style could be his ineffective and remarkable signature device.

Another thing to remember, universal is an adjective but, throughout is used as an adverb or proposition according to the dictionary Beltran used.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/throughout

The proof that throughout doesn’t mean universal can be read in Acts. 9:31 (ISV).

So the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria enjoyed peace. As it continued to be built up and to live in the fear of the Lord, it kept increasing in numbers through the encouragement of the Holy Spirit.

According to the verse, the church enjoyed peace throughout all nations? No. It was enjoyed throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria.

Therefore, the first century Christian Church was not present everywhere, not universal, not catholic.

Test of Evidence

I was surprised that there are some reckless assertions done on Beltran’s part, frankly saying. He even used evidences not that so much reliable. Using titles added by Catholic publishers cannot be used against us for we may simply question their materials’ neutrality. Even if you can read the name Catholic in the title of James writings, that couldn’t prove the validity of what Beltran defends for titles of the books in the New Testament were not found in early manuscripts.

Quick Fact: The original New Testament books did not have titles, section headings, or verse and chapter divisions. These were developed over the years as “helps for readers”. The Ammonian Sections were an early system of division written in the margin of many manuscripts. The Eusebian Canons was a series of tables that grouped parallel stories among the gospels. After 400 were used κεφαλαια.

Source: Script and Other Features, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Manuscript_construction

Examine his arguments.

Beltran wrote: See WHAT ACCUSATION IS BEING STATED BY THIS LIAR!! Christian ACCUSER by the name “Christian defender” is a CERTIFIED LIAR!!! Catholic could be found in old Editions of Latin Vulgate of Douay-Rheims Version!! (a more ANCIENT TRANSLATION than KJV and Ang Biblia)

JAMES 1:1 “Catholic Epistles of St. James the Apostles” (Douay Rheims Version)

ANOTHER ACCUSATION, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT GUILTY FOR BURNING VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE TO DEVIATE FROM BIBLICAL DOCTRINES, THE CHURCH HAS NEVER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO TEACH ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. It is also a LIE to say they burned believers who pursued to TRANSLATE BIBLE IN UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGES!! FOR YOUR INFORMATION, EVEN BEFORE THE TIME OF REFORMATION MADE BY LUTHER, THERE ARE ALREADY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE HOLY BIBLE, IT SO HAPPENED DURING THOSE TIMES, GUTTENBURG PRINTING PRESS WAS’NT ESTABLISHED YET!. What Comics you have got this information?

I have provided materials or links to suffice evidence on what I wrote. Sadly, our opponent failed to present counterevidence to refute what I presented. He, then, simply disproved my statements by just saying “it is not true”, “it’s a lie”, “he is a certified liar”, “we are not guilty…” His circulus in demonstrado or circular argument is too weak for he is trying to tell us that my statements are wrong by just saying it is not true. But, he has yet to tell us why it is not true.

Until now, he hasn’t still presented sound rebuttals regarding the issue of burning Bibles and believers. Nevertheless, we showed the inefficacy of our opponent’s circular argument.

On the last part of Beltran’s rebuttals, he ran down his church’s testimonies about the Bible. This could be quite not useful for his church’s testimonies having neutrality being disputed are not advisable to be used as counterevidence. Of course, somebody who believes Catholic Church will present their own testimonies in accordance to their faith, but not in debates or discussion. For then, self-serving can be avoided

Never used an ineffective attack twice

Another point to consider, our opponent obviously wants to substitute real arguments with repetition of what he already laid down unproven. We had disproved his chopping style, thus, no matter how many times he used the same refuted argument, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Beltran wrote: hahahaha.. as proven Above, Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is biblical, if you wish, let us find it out:

(After this, he then will start again his chopping style).

Notice dear friends, Beltran told us that their church is biblical, their church is biblical, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can’t and won’t merit this discussion for him because he had given us no justification for his bald assertion!

Holic or Catholic?

I didn’t admit that the term Catholic means universal (or else, I am even not Christian Defender). I just quoted what Parabanog, another Mr. Arganiosa’s minion, wrote. Quoting something doesn’t necessarily means accepting or admitting the validity of a claim.

Beltran wrote: Now, in addition to your ignorance. CHRISTIANACCUSER ALREADY ADMIT that the term Catholic means “UNIVERSAL” now, do we have a proof that the term Universal Church is mentioned in the Scriptures? The answer is YES!! . however, in order to escape from the TRUTH. These guy attempts to debar the argument of calling the Church as UNIVERSAL or CATHOLIC (kath’oles) because , he said, “its not adjective”. Now let us give this guy A BIT of knowledge

Another thing, I think Beltran needs to review what I did say and what I didn’t say. I clearly said that the word “throughout” is not an adjective, it is an adverb so it is wrong to translate it as catholic which is an adjective. What is funny about Beltran? He changed what I said in order to refute then celebrated for his, we may say, poor eyes.

Beltran also drew verse/s/ from Latin translation to prove his theory. He read in Romans 16:23 the phrase universa ecclesiae which for him means catholic church. He then concluded that the term catholic church is Biblical.

But, let us examine the verse Beltran used to prove his theory in Latin rendition. (Romans 16:23)

Salutat vos Gaius hospes meus et UNIVERSA ECCLESIAE salutat vos

If you noticed, the word universa is used. If we will go back to the earlier language of the verse, we can see the discrepancy of the thought. In Greek rendition, the word used for whole or Latin word universa was holes, not kata holos.

Aspazetai humas gaiaos ho xenos mou kai tes ekklesias holes aspazetai humas erastos ho oikonomos tes poleos kai kourtaos ho adelphos

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom16.pdf

Beltran claims that the word catholic or universal came from the Greek word kata holos. Using Romans 16:23, and even Romans 1:8 in Greek, to support his theory will only bring incongruity of his stand. Notice that the Greek word for whole in the verse is holes, very much different from kata holos. It may not sound Catholic Church now but, holic church. Following Beltran’s argument will cause another name for his church – Holic Church (we don’t have idea if it is alcoholic or what).

Another Case of Eisegesis

Beltran tries to prove their church as being apostolic. He then defined apostolic without using any dictionary nor he exegetes, instead,  he only based on his preconceived idea. For him, it means that the church is founded upon the apostles. He didn’t get the definition but, he added his definition of apostolic to Ephesians 2:20. Observe.

Beltran wrote: “Apostolic” – implies that the Church is founded upon the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20)

On the contrary, in Ephesians 2:20, we can never read that the church was founded upon the apostles. (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

This could be a serious mistake for Beltran. The household of God was not built upon the apostles but rather, it was built upon the foundation of the apostles.  In which, the foundation are not the apostles but our Lord Jesus Christ.(1 Corinthians 3:11)

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Notice the differences:

Right: built upon the foundation of the apostles (the foundation here are not the apostles)

Wrong: built upon the foundation who are the apostles

Terribly wrong: built upon the apostles (the foundation here are the apostles)

Therefore, using Ephesians 2:20 to prove Beltran’s church being apostolic is quite ineffective for he may have lapses in using verses with good faith and without incorporating his preconceived idea. In short, it is a forced definition.

Conclusion

We have provided counter evidences and arguments to rebuke Beltran’s rebuttals. We have a firm stand that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was neither been used by the apostles nor the early Christians for it only became official in 1870. It was made official by Catholic bishops and not by apostles. What was used by apostles as the official name of the church is Church of God. It must also be the church where we must be affiliated for God’s forgiveness, attention, listening, care are given to the church or people called by his name.

Some arguments of Beltran are not worthy to be refuted for they have no bearing at all and some are just trash talks. We don’t need to cut the twigs one by one if we already cut down the timber from the root.

Thus, our proposition still stand, the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is unbiblical. Beltran’s arguments are flawed.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

42 Responses

  1. hahaha!! hei there! did you miss me?? hahaha.. i’ll be responding soon!!😛

  2. hei Christian Accuser!! you have’nt answered yet my questions ??😛 are you hiding something??

  3. Hmmm…

  4. You need to read and understand the whole write up, dude. Thus, your question answered.

  5. wew! i wish i could see personally the bloggers of christiandefenders.wordpress.com in ADD Convention Center, so that i could learn in the Bible from them also, God’s willing…

    Your brother in Christ,
    John Benedict Bondoc

  6. This another interesting article made by a fine student of a fine preacher.

    Thanks be to God!

    • All Glory belongs to God!

  7. Happy New Year to all ADDdefenders, we have a long way of discussions. . .

  8. Nothing in this world can surpass the wisdom and knowledge given to Bro. Eli Soriano. The evidence of that knowledge is reflected on his followers.

    Praise God!

  9. I understand that the Catholic Defenders here is on a difficult situation right now. Their claim that the Catholic Church can be read on the bible will not stand as proven by the article. My advice to my fellow Catholics is to admit that you are wrong and learn to accept the truth. Learn to be man enough to accept that you really are at fault.

    I am now under indoctrination in the locale of Cubao. The doctrines which I’ve heard from Bro. Eli is very different from the teachings that I’ve heard from Priests when I was still attending mass. I can say that I’ve learned a lot.

    I thank God for giving us Bro. Eli and Bro. Daniel!

    • You are very welcome bro!

    • We Will accept we are on the wrong part. IF YOU CAN SHOW US THAT YOUR CHURCH CAN BE TRACED HISTORICALLY FROM THE FIRST CENTURY. now do it😛

      • The basis that you are trying to use is wrong base on biblical standards. The Christian Church is not the only one that existed during the first century. Keep in mind that the antichrists also existed with the apostles as testified by the Apostle John.

        (1 John 2:18)

        Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

      • Sorry Mr. Beltran, ADDdefender cannot present even one. They only have a full record from SEC wherein the church was founded by a person and established in the Philippines. It is a factual record that they could not deny. . .

        • Another Delusion.

          • Yes delusion on your part since you could not even give any documents that your church was the one founded by Jesus on the first century . . hehehehe. . .
            How could you challenge to any CFD or DFF member if your reasoning is so very weak and without supporting DOCS. . .

          • The Lord Jesus Christ refers to the written scriptures each time he debates with the Scribes and Pharisees during his time. In the same manner, Bro. Eli Soriano was able to refute the teachings of the Catholic Church on his debates. Don’t be misled by your coward priest. We don’t even have a claim that we are the church which was founded by Christ on the first century. How can your defenders ever win in a debate and gain honor if you don’t even know the belief of your adversary? You’ve just invented issues that we did not even assert in order to have something to bash.

          • And the Catholics are the scribes and pharisees of today.

            Lk 20:46 Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

        • bro noel, YOUR CHURCH CAN NEVER BE TRACED EITHER IN THE BIBLE BUT RATHER IT CAN BE READ IN THE BIBLE THAT IT WAS THE REALLY THE ROMANS THAT BRUTALLY MURDERED THE BIBLICAL JESUS CHRIST.

          “Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” -John 18:28

          IGNORANT IDOL WORSHIPERS! YOUR IDIOTIC CHURCH TRADITIONS CAN NEVER SAVE YOU FROM THE FIRES OF HELL! YOU CAN SHOVE YOURSELF WITH YOUR DESPERATE FOOLISH CLAIMS.

  10. Bravo! I hope that you can still come-up with more interesting articles like this one.

    I’m hoping to see you soon inside the ADD Convention Center.

    To God Be The Glory!!!

  11. This article obviously supersedes the boring sermons of Catholic Priests. This is another write-up worth reading and I never felt asleep despite of its length. May the Lord continue to shower you wisdom.

  12. This is better than the ad hominem arguments made by Abe Arganiosa. When will they ever write something as good as this? It is obvious that writers of this blog have become experts of their field. I have nothing more to say but… Thanks Be to God!

  13. Heavens Knight says:

    We have a firm stand that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was neither been used by the apostles nor the early Christians for it only became official in 1870.

    Manny says:

    You are probably right when you said that the NAME (meaning the PROPER, TECHNICAL,or OFFICIAL NAME)”Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” was never used by the apostles to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ.

    The reason is very simple. THE APOSTLES DID NOT BOTHER TO GIVE THE CHURCH ITS “OFFICIAL NAME.” It’s a NON-ISSUE for them. Where in the Bible did it say that “the Church had an OFFICIAL NAME?” Or that the apostles debated and fought for such a name and then gave it their apostolic seal of approval, and then proclaimed it to all Christians all over the world?

    The eleven verses that you cited said nothing near like that. The phrase ‘church of God’ was mentioned there, and then Heaven’s Knight made the conclusion that it is the OFFICIAL NAME of the Church, simply because it is there in the Bible. That’s JUMPING TO CONCLUSION… well, let me add CARELESSLY.

    And worse, that conclusion was DEFINITELY only Eli Soriano’s private interpretation of those verses. Heavens Knight even had a fancy name for it. He called it EISEGESES.

    That’s the hard truth that Heavens Knight grossly forgot in his article.

    On the other hand, the Church was also called “Household of God,” “church of the first born,””mystical body of Christ,” etc. Why then did you OMIT these phrases in what you believed to be the OFFICIAL NAME of the Church of Jesus?

    But, did the apostles believe that the Church is ONE? Of course. HOLY? Of course. Did they build the Church on their authority as apostles of Christ, and thus APOSTOLIC? Of course. Did they believe that the SCOPE of their mission is for all people, for all times, for all places, and for all eternity, and thus UNIVERSAL or CATHOLIC? Of course. Did they believe that the Church of Rome holds the primacy when it comes to authority? Of course. The Church in Rome was established by Peter, whose bishops were considered as his direct successors. And so the apostolic office of Peter as the de facto head of the apostles and the universal church flowed from the church of Rome, thus ROMAN.

    Hence, if we are to give the Church its OFFICIAL name, the most fitting would be “ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC, ROMAN CHURCH?

    But, the big question is, DID THIS NAME REALLY BECOME THE OFFICIAL NAME OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

    The document that Heavens knight cited said yes. A group of bishops at Vatican 1 proposed and approved it. But if you examine carefully the FIVE documents of VATICAN 1, THERE WAS NO MENTION AT ALL OF AN “OFFICIAL NAME” OF THE CHURCH.

    In the entire Vatican l documents, the terms HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC, and ROMAN, appeared together only one time, in the document titled “Profession of Faith” (Session 2 – January 6, 1870). Here’s what Pope Pius said:

    “I affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that their use is eminently beneficial to the christian people. I acknowledge the
    0. holy,
    1. catholic,
    2. apostolic and
    3. Roman
    church, the mother and mistress of all the churches.”

    There was no mention at all about the OFFICIAL name, because the Pope did not intend it to be. He only intended to give a DESCRIPTION of the important characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ. The OFFICAL NAME as proposed by the bishops simply BECAME a NON-ISSUE at Vatican Council l, just like how it was during the time of the apostles.

    Given these facts, we can say that Heavens Knight conclusions in the Article need a major overhaul. The entire article really stinks.

  14. To Manny,

    Thanks for saying that the apostles never used the name ”Catholic Apostolic Roman Church”. I also agree for that. I am just curious how your friend, Beltran, will react about your acknowledgment for he firmly believes that that name was used by apostles. I think you need to have an agreement first.

    Like I said, being apostolic, we must not exceed to what apostles taught us. (1 Corinthians 4:6) For that, I praise you. Church’ name unknown to apostles such as yours cannot be official .

    You are also right when you said that apostles didn’t bother to “give” the church it’s official name. If you will review, I also asserted that in my article. They rather “got” the name of the church from God’s name, not gave. (Ephesians 3:14-15) I wonder if you had read that part.

    Dahil dito ay iniluluhod ko ang aking mga tuhod sa Ama.

    Na sa kaniya’y kumukuha ng pangalan ang bawa’t sangbahayan sa langit at sa lupa.

    Apostles never got the church’ name from Romans; they got it from God. The difference, Catholic bishops gave its name for their church and even attributed its authority to Rome, not to God. Isn’t it ironic?

    Manny wrote: (It’s a NON-ISSUE for them. Where in the Bible did it say that “the Church had an OFFICIAL NAME?” Or that the apostles debated and fought for such a name and then gave it their apostolic seal of approval, and then proclaimed it to all Christians all over the world?)

    By the way, where in the Bible can you read that the Church has no official name? Though, I already explained why we believe that the term Church of God used by officials or authority of the Bible is the official name. Did you mean that apostles have shortcomings in introducing it’s official name?

    I also advised you Mr. Manny that when making such cross exams, it could be better if you will base it from the main argument I asserted and it is also important to ”sit down first and count the cost.”

    I even asked Beltran these, “Were apostles able to teach unofficial terms especially if they learned it from God? What teaching or word of God is unofficial?”

    Maybe if you are more knowledgeable than Beltran, you may answer it first if he will permit you, just for the sake of courtesy. I just wonder why Parabanog, your cum laude and valdictorian, became silent about this issue. Anyway, Beltran is there, and now you are.

    Manny wrote: (The eleven verses that you cited said nothing near like that. The phrase ‘church of God’ was mentioned there, and then Heaven’s Knight made the conclusion that it is the OFFICIAL NAME of the Church, simply because it is there in the Bible. That’s JUMPING TO CONCLUSION… well, let me add CARELESSLY…

    …On the other hand, the Church was also called “Household of God,” “church of the first born,””mystical body of Christ,” etc. Why then did you OMIT these phrases in what you believed to be the OFFICIAL NAME of the Church of Jesus?)

    Church of Jesus? Did you mean Church of God? Well, at first, I am expecting that Mr. Manny could be fair unlike his first cohorts, but I am a little bit disappointed about his accusation. Where in my articles I omitted phrases such as “church of the first born” etc.? Can you prove I said that? Can you quote that statement you used? If none, Mr. Manny’s accusations now describe him jumping to conclusion, carelessly.

    Manny wrote: (But, did the apostles believe that the Church is ONE? Of course. HOLY? Of course. Did they build the Church on their authority as apostles of Christ, and thus APOSTOLIC? Of course. Did they believe that the SCOPE of their mission is for all people, for all times, for all places, and for all eternity, and thus UNIVERSAL or CATHOLIC? Of course. Did they believe that the Church of Rome holds the primacy when it comes to authority? Of course. The Church in Rome was established by Peter, whose bishops were considered as his direct successors. And so the apostolic office of Peter as the de facto head of the apostles and the universal church flowed from the church of Rome, thus ROMAN.

    Hence, if we are to give the Church its OFFICIAL name, the most fitting would be “ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC, ROMAN CHURCH?)

    I think there’s a lot of problems Mr. Manny has needed to solve first before” jumping to his conclusion”. The assumptions behind his question are simply false or maybe questionable. Apostles didn’t build the church, Rome doesn’t hold the primacy of authority, it was never even been established by Peter in Rome etc. Mr. Manny needs to get his facts first or build his case before interrupting us again.

    This complex question, a logical fallacy used by Beltran must be handled with care. If someone will try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch this kind of fallacy, someone will look stupid.

    Manny wrote: (But, the big question is, DID THIS NAME REALLY BECOME THE OFFICIAL NAME OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

    The document that Heavens knight cited said yes. A group of bishops at Vatican 1 proposed and approved it. But if you examine carefully the FIVE documents of VATICAN 1, THERE WAS NO MENTION AT ALL OF AN “OFFICIAL NAME” OF THE CHURCH…

    There was no mention at all about the OFFICIAL name, because the Pope did not intend it to be. He only intended to give a DESCRIPTION of the important characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ. The OFFICAL NAME as proposed by the bishops simply BECAME a NON-ISSUE at Vatican Council l, just like how it was during the time of the apostles.)

    I really thank you for saying that, Mr. Manny. If it is not an issue, why then you are trying to refute the term used by the apostles being its official name and defend the name you belief? That is if it’s not an issue. I wonder how will you react if you met the apostles. Do you believe that the term proposed and revised by bishops is the one to be official instead of the name used by apostles?

    Does the Roman primacy supersedes the name (Church of God) already recognized by early Christians?

    I remind you Mr. Manny, we just want to be apostolic so we used terms known and taught by apostles instead of an unprecedented spin-off product.

    I also advised you to have an agreement first between you and Beltran regarding your stand. Is the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church used by apostles or not? Is that term an official name used by early Christians or not?

    It seems that Beltran affirms; but you deny. That is my opinion.

  15. Thanks be to our God!for He has sent able teachers on the person of Bro. Eli and Bro. Daniel.
    Kawikaan 13:20
    Lumalakad ka na kasama ng mga pantas na tao, at ikaw ay magiging pantas; nguni’t ang kasama ng mga mangmang ay mapapariwara.
    Able teachers produces able students!More power to the owners of this blog!

  16. Adlib Vai,

    The passage you cited is true. Your interpretation that says “Able teachers produces able students” with an allusion to your famous Bro. Eli and Daniel is simply that: YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT. You have to remember that even the greatest teacher of all, Jesus Christ, had one FAILED student in the person of Judas. Many more failed students followed Judas. They are the heretics, schismatics, false teachers and false prophets, and founders of false religions and sects that proliferate all the more in our present time, as predicted by Jesus Himself. They have deceived many. Don’t be counted among them.

    • Those false teachers that you are citing did not follow Judas. Instead, they followed Satan.

      (1 Timothy 5:15)

      For already some of them have gone astray, following Satan.

      I’m sure that we did not follow Satan. We completely adhere to the gospel of Christ written in the bible.

  17. Pls. ask Fr. Abe and his cohorts to debate ADD OIC, District Servants and MICs.

    I think they will be permitted.

    I want these of my Catholic bros to be put to shame more.

    • Bro. Eli still has the primary responsibility to face anyone in a debate. That can still be done through modern technology.

  18. Pls. next time do not erase the trashtalking of my Catholic brothers so that the observers and truth seekers shall see how rude and uneducated they are.

    I received a message from one of Fr. Abe’s minions that Fr. Abe is telling to you that ADD forumers was defeated by him so that he and his minions’ posts was not accepted here.

    for short, you are doing some magic to this blog. you accept what it favors the ADD faith but rejects posts that are contrary to ADD teachings.

    Just notify the ADD brethen not to make a side comment to this trashtalking posts. Even I an emotional will follow. I promise not to trashtalk, threathen or curse someones ADD opponents.

    If I did not adhere, God will put me into Judgment (James 5:12) I spent a long time having a badmouth because I forgot this verse but from now on, I will remember this verse and instead to get angry to negative posts, I should laugh and smile for Christ ordered me to be happy when I am persecuted especially to the ones I consider totally my co believer but not at all.

    • Many people are reading this blog and we want their time to be used for a worthy cause. Remember, most of them are busy people.

  19. Again, you deleted another one of my comments. THANKS FOR SHOWING YOU CANT HANDLE A GOOD CRITIQUE. YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. LIES ARE WHAT YOU ARE GOOD AT.

    • The Philippines is a free country. You have the “freedom of delusion” if you choose to be deluded.

  20. Christiandefenders;

    My comments that you DELETED are all saved. I can repost them here when I feel like it.

    OK, its just a joke! BUT I KNOW YOU ARE SCARED OF THEM BECAUSE THEY TOLD THE TRUTH OF YOUR ERRORS AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

    • Really? If you believe so, then prove it.

      (Proverbs 17:20)

      He that hath a froward heart findeth no good: and he that hath a perverse tongue falleth into mischief.

  21. Christiandefenders said:

    “The false teachers that you are citing did not follow Judas. Instead, they followed Satan.”

    MANNY SAID:

    This is another case of you misunderstanding a simple sentence. “To follow” does not always mean “to be a disciple, follower, student, (etc) of” as implied in your comment. It could also mean “to come after.” The context of my statement clearly denotes the second meaning. As to why or how this escaped your notice, only you knew.

    It does not take so much brain cells to understand that these false teachers, founders of false religions and splintered sects, schismatics, and heretics, are traitors of the true Gospel. Just like Judas before them, they all betrayed the Lord. It could even be argued that these traitors did more damage to the Church that what Judas did. For they stole many of the flock away from the true faith. In effect, they deceived many souls into perdition.

    Moreover, these self-proclaimed, self-styled messiahs and messengers gravely inflict a serious wound to the unity of the One Body of Christ. They go around preaching the Bible with all their might and eloquence, not knowing that all they knew was their own PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of the Word of God. They have to rely on their own understanding because they had rejected the TEACHING AUTHORITY of the Church, which is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of the TRUTH (1Tim3:15)

    These false teachers come around looking like they are serving God, but they really serve only their own appetites, enriching themselves in the process. Interestingly, these modern Judases are never shy about their wealth. Just look around and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

    • When I replied to your comment, it was clearly base on the verse that I have cited that these people followed Satan referring to what was written by St. Paul.

      (1 Timothy 5:15)

      For already some of them have gone astray, following Satan.

      You cannot change the meaning of the word simply because it suits your argument.

      Definitely, false prophets have gone out to the world as foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

      (Matthew 24:24)

      24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before.

      However, the false prophets will not tell you that their religion is false. All of them will proclaim that what they are preaching is of God. The next concern however, is to know how to determine who is telling the truth or not, who is really sent by God and who is just preaching the Gospel out of good will. The apostle Paul acknowledges that there are different intentions on why some people preaches the word of God.

      (Philippians 1:15)

      15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

      A person has no right to preach unless he is sent by God.

      (Romans 10:14-15)

      14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

      Fortunately, the Lord Jesus Christ provided a guideline on how to determine who is being sent by God or not.

      (John 7:17)

      17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

      That is the guideline. Whoever is just speaking out of himself instead of cleaving to the words of God is not sent. Otherwise, whoever is preaching the words from God is on the side of the truth. It cannot be true for those people who chooses to teach man made doctrines base on traditions because it doesn’t come from God. Most of the teachings of the Catholic Church does not come from God, therefore the Catholic Church is not the church that is of God. This is testified by not less than the Catholic Church itself for they admit that their teachings are base on traditions that they formulate in Vatican.

      In fact, the invalidity of the Catholic doctrine is testified by the Philippine National hero who is claimed by the Catholic church as loyal to them.

      I quote his letter to the Young Women of Malolos.

      “With the regard to church alms, using God as the pretext, is there anything in the world which does not belong to and is the creation of God? What would you say to a servant who gives to his master alms consisting of a piece of rag borrowed from the same rich master? Who is the vain and foolish man who will give alms to God and believe that his miserable gift will clothe the Creator of all things? Blessed is he who gives the needy, helps the poor, and feeds the hungry , but cursed and censurable is he who is deaf to the entreaties of the poor, who stuffs those who are satiated, and lavishes his money on silver hangings for the altar, on alms of the church or the friar who is swimming in riches, on Masses with music and rockets, while he squeezes this money form the bones of the poor and offers it to the master with which to by the chains to bind him and to pay his executioners. Oh, blindness and shortsightedness.

      True piety is obedience to what is right, happen what may. “Deeds and not words are what I ask of you”, said Christ. “He is not the son of my father, my father, but her who lives according to the will of the father.” Piety does not consist in a worn-out nose nor in Christ’s successor known for giving his hand to be kissed. He did not fatten the rich and proud scribes. He did not mention scapulars, he did not require the wearing of rosaries, he did not ask money for Masses, and he did not charge for saying prayers. St. John did not ask to be paid for baptizing on the Jordan River nor Christ for preaching. Why is it that now priests ask to be paid for every move they make? And still hungry, they sell scapulars, rosaries, belts, and other things to entice money and to hurt the soul; because even if you wear a scapular all the rags on earth, wear as rosaries all the wood in the forests, gird around your waist all the skin of animals and over all of them all the priests in the world take pains to make the sign of the cross and to murmur prayers, and sprinkle them with all the water of the sea, they cannot cleanse the dirty heart, they cannot absolve the unrepentant of sins. Likewise, for their covetousness they forbid many things, such as eating meat, marrying one’s cousin, compadre, and the like, which however are permitted if one pays. Why, can God be bought and is He dazzled by money like the priests? The thief who pays for a bull for composition can rest assured that he has been forgiven. Therefore, God wants to partake of stolen goods? Is it true that God is so needy that He imitates the carabineer or the civil guard? If this is the God that the friars worship, I turn my back to such a God.”

      Just like what you’ve said, “These false teachers come around looking like they are serving God, but they really serve only their own appetites, enriching themselves in the process.”

      However, don’t get wrong. I do not believe that Catholic Priests are enriching themselves simply because Rizal said that they are taking money from the poor. I do believe they are enriching themselves because that is also my observation base on experience. Fortunately, former Catholics like me are blessed to have found the right path to salvation which is absent from our former religion.

  22. To Christiandefenders:

    I dont object when you said that these false teachers followed Satan. They did. But you corrected my statement without understanding it properly. I simply meant that these false teachers “came after” Judas. It was clear enough from the context. Your correction is therefore unmerited.

    You quoted Rizal and made it appear that he renounced his Catholic faith. Yes, he may have some difficulties in grapling with the abuses and false religiosity of his contemporaries, but he is wise enough TO PRESERVE HIS CATHOLIC FAITH.

    Fr. Marciano M. Guzman, a direct descendant of Rizal’s sister Soledad, had this to say:

    “From time to time, some individuals try to challenge the truth about Rizal’s final conversion as well as his retraction of religious errors before his execution.

    “These attempts to deny our national hero’s conversion and retraction are made without conclusive and documented evidence. They normally do not transcend the psychological arguments devised by the blatant disbelief and stubbornness of some members of masonic lodges

    . . .

    Those who wish to deny Rizal’s conversion in the last hours of his life go against solid historical evidence.

    Facts of the Case

    The most formidable proof is the document of Rizal’s retraction of errors and profession of faith, duly signed and drawn in his own handwriting from beginning to end.

    J.M. Cavanna, CM, in his book Rizal and the Philippines of His Days, summarized the hard facts connected with this document. Several eyewitnesses were present when Rizal wrote this holograph. They included three Jesuit priests, four lieutenants of the army, three soldiers of the artillery corps, and a colonel of the Manila Garrison who acted as Judge Advocate in Rizal’s trial . . .

    On the day of Rizal’s death, the full text of the retraction document was published in four leading Manila papers of the widest circulation in the country. On the following days, another Manila newspaper and three Madrid papers with direct correspondents in Manila, together with at least six other Madrid dailies, four Spanish magazines and one Portuguese periodical in Hong Kong published the text of the document with many details about how it was written and signed by the national hero. One of these correspondents declared that “a sister of Dr. Jose Rizal gave him the news about the conversion and retraction of the glorious convict.”

    Besides, as a proof of his unconditional acceptance of the Catholic faith, Rizal, on his own initiative, signed a Catholic prayer-book with a long, detailed, and explicit profession of faith. He did this after reciting publicly, on his knees before the altar, and in the presence of all the witnesses of his retraction, an act of faith followed by two other prayers of Christian hope and charity. Four eyewitnesses corroborated this fact, and 3 qualified witnesses, 4 newspapers of Manila and Madrid at that time, and 4 historians and writers confirmed their testimony.

    It is on record that the national hero received the sacrament of Penance 4 times and received Holy Communion fervently during a Mass, before proceeding to Bagumbayan for the execution. At Bagumbayan, moments before his death, in the presence of a “compact multitude which filled Luneta’s esplanade,” Rizal, renewing his contrition for sins already confessed and for whatever he might have forgotten, again asked for forgiveness, kissing the crucifix presented to him by the priest, and for the last time received sacramental absolution.

    • In the first place, I don’t believe that all the preachers that you are referring to either “came after” or “follow” Judas in whatever context you wish to place it to fit your argument. They may be former Catholics like me but they were never affiliated with the Church of God. Judas the Iscariot was an Apostle of Christ which clearly establishes the fact that he turned-away from the true faith. The preachers you are referring to however, came from a false faith which is not the same thing that happened to Judas. Your argument is faulty which can only come from a faulty mind of a faulty person.

      I did not even made it appear that Rizal renounce his Catholic Faith. If you will just look at the first sentence which I have written prior to my quote of Rizal’s letter, I stated that Catholic’s have a claim that Rizal was loyal to them which I did not refute. I simply quoted his words and agree to everything that he said about the Catholic Church because we have the same observation as a former Catholic. Your straw man argument which means “a fallacy committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position,” does not prove that Catholic Priests does not require payments on Baptism, Mass, “they sell scapulars, rosaries, belts, and other things to entice money and to hurt the soul.” Those words came from a man whom Catholics claim to be loyal them. However, I completely agree with what Rizal said, not because of the person who stated it, but because of the same analysis that we had. That is still the fact no matter who said it.

      On the other hand, Rizal’s retraction letter which is part of your straw man argument has been debated to be a forgery, and I will not give my own analysis to that for the meantime. Instead I will give some links and quotes from available websites for the sake of brevity.

      http://joserizal.info/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm

      “The strongest argument was the character of Rizal. It was but a few months before that he had rejected Father Sanchez’ offer of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate if he would retract; and he had declared that he could not be bought for half the Philippines.”

      http://joserizal.info/Reflections/retraction.htm

      (1) The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the document itself.

      (2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:

      http://www.inquirer.net/saturday/nov99wk2/spc_3.htm

      The film holds that Rizal did not retract, because it would run counter to everything he believed and wrote about the church’s complicity in the subjugation of Filipinos

      http://www.backpackingphilippines.com/2007/12/on-jose-rizals-retraction-great-debate.html

      There no records of marriage between Rizal and Josephine Bracken as a reward if Rizal did retract. The love birds earlier sought this while Rizal was exiled in Dapitan (FYI, there’s also a version of an earlier Dapitan retraction that Rizal signed but withdrawn at the right time. some sort of retraction retracted)

      The “original” retraction document was never submitted to an independent testing body for authentication.

      The blown-up picture of Rizal’s execution, now displayed at the Manila City Hall, shows Rizal without a rosary in his hand like what Fr. Balaguer and biographers Guerrero and Cavanna have written.

      All these arguments and counter-arguments continue to fuel one of the greatest debates on history and possibly the greatest hoax in history.

      http://www.dapitan.com/rizalsadapitaninsert.htm

      The streamer Cebu which brought Rizal to Dapitan carried a letter from Father Pablo Pastells, Superior of the Jesuits parish priest of Dapitan. In this letter, Father Superior Pastells informed Father Obach that Rizal could live at the parish convent on the following conditions:

      1.”That Rizal publicly retract his errors concerning religion, and make statements that
      were clearly pro-Spanish and against revolution”.
      2.”That he perform the church rites and make a general confession of his past life”.
      3.That henceforth he conduct himself in an exemplary manner as a Spanish subject and
      a man of religion.”

      Rizal did not agree with these conditions. Conse- quently, he lived in the house of the commandant, Captain Carnicero.

  23. Christiandefenders said:

    You’ve just invented issues that we did not even assert in order to have something to bash

    Manny Cruz said:

    That”s exactly what you are doing to the Cathoic Faith. You vigorously attacked what you WRONGLY BELIEVED to be the teachings of the Catholic Church. Bishop Fulton Sheen is right.

    Another thing: would it be better if you pointed out what are those issues that I “invented” against you? Otherwise it would appear as though you were just plucking issues out of thin air.

    Oh by the way, I’ll have to give you full credit for saying something very TRUTHFULL. You said:

    “We don’t even have a claim that we are the church which was founded by Christ on the first century.”

    What boggled my mind though is that if your SECT cannot claim to be the Church that Jesus founded on the first century, then why remain as a member of such a SECT? Is it not reasonable to join the true Church that is the PILLAR AND BULWARK OF THE TRUTH?(1 Tim 3:15)? Why settle for a FAKE CHURCH founded by a man just a few years ago when you can have the TRUE CHURCH that Jesus founded and is STILL EXISTING as he promised since it was founded more than two thousand years ago?

  24. The Church of God was already established.

    Ps 1257:1 A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD shall build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD shall keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain.

    Is it catholic church that was established by Christ? Of course not? What we will do is to established fellowship with the already established.

    1 Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

  25. i can’t believe these Catholics can’t accept the truth!
    I have no doubt about it…….

    2Th 2:11-12 KJV And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: