VIRGINITAS IN PARTU [The Virginity of Mary During the Birth of Jesus] by Atty. Marwil Llasos

Mary and the Child Jesus

This article is originally published in Atty. Marwil Llasos apologetic blog dedicated to the defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Here is the link to the original site:

 http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/01/virginitas-in-partu-defense-against.html

VIRGINITAS IN PARTU: A DEFENSE AGAINST A MODERN HELVIDIUS

I opened my email only yesterday (11 January 2009 – Sunday). It is quite unfortunate that I missed the action – so to speak.

So much ink has been spilled by my post on the issue of Virginitas in Partu. I am grateful to Fr. Abe for calling my post “brilliant.” However, it did not seem to be so to at least a single soul named “Fuschia” (not his real name, to protect his identity. Hereafter, I will rerfer to him as “F” for brevity).

Expulsion

I learned lately that F had already been expelled from this group. I am sad that this had to happen. This extreme disciplinary measure had to be done, after much prayer and discernment, to protect the faith of the other members of the group who may have been scandalized by the clearly heterodox views of F.

While F’s heretical views may be refuted (as have been done by some members of this group, including Fr. A), what I find appalling is his disrespect, if not contempt, to an ordained minister of God. I am referring to F’s unwarranted attacks on Fr. A This we cannot allow.

Man’s “ontological” equality with God?

I have been monitoring F’s post in the past. While I credited him with the benefit of the doubt, I must confess that I was concerned with the novelty – nay, heresy – of his positions. For instance, he claimed that man is “ontologically” equal to God. Well, I may not be a philosopher but I know fully well that such claim is absurd and dead wrong. The claim that man can be equal to God, ontological or otherwise, is nothing but satanic presumption. The view that man can be equal to God was first expressed by the infernal serpent in the Garden of Eden. The tempter hissed: “You shall be like God” (Gen. 3:4). When man believed that canard, look what happened! Indeed, to say that man is equal to God, albeit ontologically, still blurs the distinction between the creature and the Creator. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot repackage the diabolical lie by merely coating it with high-sounding philosophical terminology.

Heresies

F’s heresies are alarming. First, he denied Mary’s title of Mother of God. That made him a Nestorian heretic. Instead of immediately recanting his Nestorian belief, he tarried until the opposition was already overwhelming. He went at great lengths justifying his proffered formula that Mary should best be called “Mother of Jesus our God” instead of what the Council Fathers decreed at Ephesus : Theotokos. Fortunately, F recanted – grudgingly.

And – ooops, he did again! This time he questioned the in partu virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What disgusted me most was the way in which he justified his denial of this aspect of the dogma of perpetual virginity. As Fr. A ably demonstrated, F went to the extent of falsifying or misrepresenting Ludwig Ott just to lend credence to his clearly erroneous view. For questioning Mary’s perpetual virginity, specifically Mary’s virginity in partu, F is clearly in league with the heresiarch Helvidius.

The decision to expel F from the group is in accord with St. Paul ’s admonition: “He who is a heretic, after a first or second admonition, reject!” (Titus 3:10). F had all the opportunity to retract his errors and retrace his steps, but his pride, I believe, stood in the way. It is not yet too late for him to repent, though. And I ask God to flood F with His grace. I offer my prayers to the Blessed Virgin in reparation for F’s blasphemous remarks against Our Blessed Mother, Virgo Castissima.

Virginitas in partu

Since I was the one who posted an article on Mary’s virginitas in partu, and in effect triggered the maelstrom that followed, I am impelled by what I perceive to be my duty to end the controversy. Allow me to add my two cents worth in this issue.

Prefatorily, I must commend applaud for Fr. A for his spirited and vigorous, yet charitable defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He led the defense through completion, almost single-handedly. I wish I was with him. As I said, I missed the action because I just opened my email yesterday. Since I have always considered myself the Knight of Mary, I deem it imperative to answer some of F’s claims since he addresses his post specifically to me and Fr. A However, I will not repeat what Fr. A had already stated.

How many Marian dogmas are there?

All of us are aware that there are only four Marian dogmas. These are –

  

1. Divine Maternity

2. Perpetual Virginity

3. Immaculate Conception

4. The Assumption

  

As F would have it, the Mary’s virginitas ante partum, in partu and post partum should be treated as three separate dogmas. So how many Marian dogma’s would there be? 4 + 3 = 7? If F would count the Marian dogmas, it would appear –

1. Divine Maternity

2. Perpetual Virginity

3. Virginitas ante partum

4. Virginitas in partu

5. Virginitas post partum

6. Immaculate Conception

7. The Assumption

Of course, that doesn’t make sense. You and I know that there is such a thing as the proposed Fifth Marian Dogma – Mary as Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix and Advocate of the People of God. If Fuschia is right, then the proposed dogma would be the Eighth.

Levity aside, there are just Four Marian dogmas. Virginitas ante partum, in partu and post partum, while each of which are de fide, are mere components or facets of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Marian scholar, Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins states: “It is the Catholic Church’s perennial belief in the three facets of this mystery which immediately touch upon the role of Our Lady that is the specific object fact that she was a virgin before (ante partum), during (in partu) and after the birth of Christ (post partum)” [Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, in Mariology: A guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Mark I. Miravalle, ed. (Goleta: CA, Queenship Publishing, 2007) p. 277]

Understanding virginitas in partu

F’s comments revolved around the difficulty of how Mary’s virginity could remain intact in childbirth. As is F’s wont, he quoted theologians who question, if not assail, Our Blessed Mother’s in partu virginity. All of us are aware of what stripe F’s favorite theologians are – modernists, liberals and materialists. These are the destructive termites in the house of God.

 I wish to state that the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a datum of Divine Revelation; hence, it must be studied using the tools of theology and not gynecology. I mentioned in my previous post that “those who cannot accept Mary’s virginity in partu are thinking in purely human terms. They are trying to explain away the mystery by way of their limited human understanding. They thus rob Divine Revelation of its content.” Then I quoted Isaiah 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.”

I find it amusing that there are people who have great difficulty in accepting a lesser miracle, i.e., how the Mother of the Savior remained a virgin at childbirth? The greater miracle is how can a virgin be pregnant without the aid of a man? If we can accept the greater miracle, then there is no rhyme or reason why we cannot accept the lesser one. To question how Mary remained a virgin in childbirth is to question the omnipotence of God. “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).

Personally, I still grapple with the dogmas and the doctrines of the Church. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Good Lord for revealing to me through His Church the truths of our holy faith. Oftentimes, the Church merely defines the ultimate truth (for example, Mary is a perpetual virgin before, during and after the birth of her Son Jesus Christ) without giving us the details. When Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, he merely said that at the completion of her earthly life, the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory without settling the question of whether or not the Blessed Mother died. The Church tells us what without telling us how.

The Incarnation, the Virgin Birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity, are God’s initiative, not man’s. These are spiritual things that are spiritually discerned. The Apostle Paul reminds us: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural (sensual) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:12-14, NKJV). Notice that only the natural (or the sensual) man that do not receive the things of the Spirit. Tell that to the Modernists and Liberals.

Indeed, God’s truths would always remain a mystery for us. Confronted with these sublime and saving truths, I couldn’t help it but be awed and prostrate myself to thank and worship the God who reveals them.

The late Holy Father John Paul II the Great says in his discourse at Capua on May 24, 1992 –

“The theologian must approach the mystery of Mary’s fruitful virginity with a deep sense of veneration for God’s free, holy and sovereign action. Reading through the writings of the holy Fathers and the liturgical texts we notice that few of the saving mysteries have caused so much amazement, admiration or praise as the Incarnation of God’s Son in Mary’s virginal womb.

The theologian, however, who approaches the mystery of Mary’s virginity with a heart full of faith and adoring respect, does not thereby forego the duty of studying the data of Revelation and showing their harmony and interrelationship; rather, following the Spirit … he puts himself in the great and fruitful theological tradition of fides querens intellectum.

When theological reflection becomes a moment of doxology and latria, the mystery of Mary’s virginity is disclosed, allowing one to catch a glimpse of other aspects and other depths” [AAS 85 (1993) 664, quoted in Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, in Mariology: A guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Mark I. Miravalle, ed. (Goleta: CA, Queenship Publishing, 2007) p. 282].

Biblical texts

In my post on the virginitas in partu, I cited prophetic text of Isaiah 7:14 and its fulfillment text in Matthew 1:23: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” I contented that these texts clearly prove not only Mary’s ante partum virginity but also her in partu virginity. I concluded that these verses – a prophetic text and a fulfillment text – tell us that the virgin shall be a virgin not only in conceiving her child but also a virgin in giving birth to her son.

F, citing his usual sources, concluded that there are no explicit nor implicit verses to support Mary’s in partu virginity! I will let Mariologist Dr. Mark Miravalle answer that point –

“Scripture implicitly affirms Mary’s virgin birthing of Our Lord in the great prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. The prophecy foretells that a virgin, beyond conceiving, will also bear a Son as a virgin: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” Therefore, it is not only a virgin’s conception, but also a virgin birth alluded to in Isaiah 7:14” [Mark I. Miravalle, Introduction to Mary ( Goleta , CA : Queenship Publishing, 2006) p. 58].

Church Fathers

Without shred of proof, F further contended that no Church Father ever cited the Bible verses I mentioned.

  

Justin Martyr, as far as I know, is a Church Father. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he discussed Isaiah 7:14 to defend the Virgin Birth.

I also cited John 1:13 using the alternative rendering footnoted in the New Jerusalem Bible in relation to Mary’s virginity in partu. “Who was born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God Himself.” Exegete and Marian scholar Ignace de la Potterie, S.J., rendered it –

He is born not of blood(s),

nor of the will of the flesh

nor of the will of man,

but he was begotten of God.

[See Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant (Staten Island, NY: St. Paul’s, 1992) p. 136].

De la Potterie, following the doctoral thesis of Peter Horftrichter, sees a scriptural indication for John 1:13 (above) for the virginitas in partu, the virginity of the birthing of Jesus. De la Potterie proved his rendering of John 1:13 by pointing out that “all the texts from the second century witnessing to our passage have the singular. An in addition, it is interesting to notice that all these witnesses, when they are localized geographically, are not concentrated in one area, but are diffused over the Mediterranean basin: in Asia Minor, most likely in Palestine (Justin), at Rome (Hippolytus), in Gaul (Irenaeus), in Northern Africa (Tertullian), and at Alexandria in Egypt. That is a very important fact because it demonstrates that it demonstrates that in the second century, during a time in which rapid means of communication did not yet exist, this text was universally read only in the singular. And this within one century of the composition of the Fourth Gospel!” [Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant (Staten Island, NY: St. Paul’s, 1992) p. 137].

De la Potterie, following the doctoral thesis of, Peter Horftrichter argues that “in several Old Testament texts and later in Jewish tradition, the word “blood” also used in the plural for the loss of blood which is linked with a woman’s period; that is with menstruation and childbirth, hence of a birth.” Thus, “in the context for the laws of purification it signifies that Jesus, in being born, did not cause an effusion of blood in his mother; in other words, at the birth of Jesus there would not have taken place any shedding of blood. There would then be here a scriptural indication for what the theologians have in mind when they speak of the “virginitas in partu,” the virginity of the birthing of Jesus” [Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant (Staten Island, NY: St. Paul’s, 1992) p. 148-149].

CONCLUSION

To deny the dogma of perpetual virginity of Mary in any of its components or facets makes one a heretic which incurs the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.

To the early Church Fathers the contrary doctrine was called “madness and blasphemy” (Gennadius, De dogm. eccl., lxix), “madness” (Origen, in Luc., h, vii), “sacrilege” (St. Ambrose, De instit. virg., V, xxxv), “impiety and smacking of atheism” (Philostorgius, VI, 2), “perfidy” (St. Bede, hom. v, and xxii), “perfidy of the Jews” (Pope Siricius, ep. ix, 3), and “heresy” (St. Augustine, De Hær. h., lvi).

St. Jerome had the most colorful words for the opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity: “I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarcely known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defending!” (Adversus Helvidium). If St. Jerome were still alive and would write a treatise against F and his theologians, I wonder if he would also call each of them an “ignorant boor.” Without meaning to offend our dear brother F, I was just wondering…

I wish to end by pointing to the lot of A. Mitterer, the theologian quoted by F with gusto. Dr. Albert Mitterer’s 1952 study Dogma und Biologie which questioned Our Lady’s physical integrity and the absence of pain resulted in a monitum issued by the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) stating that “theological works are being published in which the delicate question of Mary’s virginity in partu is treated with a deplorable crudeness of expression and, what is more serious, in flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church and to the sense of respect the faithful have” and thus prohibiting the publication of such dissertation in the future. Mitterer’s work is condemned!

Fuschia can opt to stay on the side of Helvidius, or of Mitterer and his favorite theologians. We at apologia should stay on the side of Our Holy Mother the Church. As defenders of the faith, we can do no less. We should be part of the solution, not the problem.

The Church understands Mary’s virginity during the birth of Christ as an absence of any physical injury or violation to Mary’s virginal seal through a special divine action of the all-powerful God. This divine act would safeguard Mary’s physical virginity which is both a symbol and part of her perfect, overall virginity; a virginity both internal and external, of soul and of body.

The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the “miraculous birth” of Jesus that resulted in no injury to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s physical integrity. St. Augustine stated that “it is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity” (Sermo 189, No. 2; PL 38, 1005).

Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas defended the miraculous and painless nature of Christ’s birth (ST, III, Q. 28, a. 2).

The Magisterium of the Church teaches it in no unmistakable terms. Pope St. Leo the Great in his famous Tome to Flavian made it clear that Mary’s physical virginity was protected in the process of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ: “Mary brought Him forth, with her virginity untouched, as with her virginity untouched she conceived Him” (Enchiridium Patristicum 2182).

Pope Paul IV, in Cum quorumdam hominum, admonished all who deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary “did not retain her virginity intact before the birth, in the birth, and perpetually after the birth.”

The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) continued the succession of papal and conciliar teaching on how Jesus was born without injuring Our Lady’s virginity and without any experience of pain: 

“For in a way wonderful beyond expression or conception, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity. As he afterwards went forth from the sepulcher while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled, although “the doors were closed” (Jn. 20:19), or, not to depart from natural events which we witness every day, as the rays of the sun penetrate the substance of glass without breaking or injuring it in the least: so, but in a more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from His Mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity…

To Eve it was said: “in pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen/ 3:16). Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”

Vatican II reiterates the traditional teaching of the Church: “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception … then also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it … (LG, No. 57).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies that “the deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man” (CCC No. 499).

PRAYER

I end this rejoinder with a prayer I borrow from St. Jerome , the great defender of Mary’s perpetual virginity:

“I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her Son was born” ( St. Jerome , De perpetua virginitate Beatae Mariae adversus Helvidium. Migne, Patrology, PL 23, 183-206).

Santa Virgen de las virgenes, ruega por nosotros!

Madre purisima, ruega por nosotros!

Madre castisima, ruega por nosotros!

Madre virginal, ruega por nosotros!

Madre sin mancha, ruega por nosotros!

Madre inmaculada, ruega por nosotros!

Ave Maria purisima, sin pecado concebida!

Viva Jesus y Maria!

Viva la Virgen!

Viva Señor San Jose!

Source: VIRGINITAS IN PARTU [The Virginity of Mary During the Birth of Jesus] by Atty. Marwil Llasos

RH REFLECTION | In Thailand, teen pregnancies rise despite wide access to contraceptives by Mar Domingo

 

 File photo of pregnant teens in the Philippines. Erik de Castro, Reuters BANGKOK – As the Philippines clears the way for the implementation of a hardfought Reproductive Health Law, it may find that reaping all the benefits for which the law is intended will continue to demand holistic, complicated interventions. On the battlefront against teen pregnancies, for one, experience in Thailand suggests that greater access to contraceptives will not necessarily or immediately bring down alarming figures.

 When Mallika, a young Thai woman, told her parents she was pregnant at 17, they pulled her out of school and ordered her to marry the baby’s father. But the marriage didn’t happen and the one-time aspiring singer now cares for her baby girl alone.

 “I love her, but at the time I hid in shame,” said Mallika, now 23 and a vendor of cheap, made-in-China clothing at a weekend market in Thailand’s capital, Bangkok.

 “The boy’s family wanted to pay me to shut up and stay away from them. We were both children ourselves,” she added, sitting in her dilapidated apartment overlooking a highway on the outskirts of Bangkok.

 Mallika’s situation is, sadly, far from unusual. Thailand’s teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Southeast Asia after neighbouring Laos, according to the Bureau of Reproductive Health at the Thai Public Health Ministry.

 This, despite the fact that unlike the predominantly Catholic Philippines, Thailand had long ago allowed easy access to contraception and birth control pills, with condoms and most other contraceptives readily available and sold over the counter.

 In fact, even though the overall birthrate is dropping, teen births are on the rise. Out of every 1,000 live births, 54 are from teen mothers aged 15-19 – higher than in the United States and ten times higher than Singapore’s teen pregnancy rate.

 What’s more, it’s rising fast. The number of live births by Thai teenage mothers aged 15-18 increased 43 percent between 2000 and 2011, a Thai annual public health report shows.

 Though there are many factors responsible, health experts put weight on cultural mores that make frank discussion of the issue difficult, whether in an official context or a personal one. This is complicated by gender issues.

 “Women are told to protect their virginity but Thai men who have multiple sexual encounters are seen as cool,” said Visa Benjamano, a commissioner at the Thai National Human Rights Council (NHRC).

 “If men sleep around, their image is not at stake whereas a woman’s image is. Women are generally more afraid to discuss their sexual health needs in public.”

 LACK OF DISCUSSION
 Although sexual education is part of the national school curriculum, teaching is clearly insufficient. The Education Ministry limits instruction on the subject to eight hours a year despite changing attitudes towards sex among the young.

 “Teachers are prudish and out of touch with Thai kids today and they approach the topic like a biology class rather than talking about the emotional issues involved,” said Visa.

 The consequences of unplanned pregnancy are often left out of classroom teaching too, despite a lack of legal options.

 A 2011 report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Thailand’s National and Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) shows the number of women hospitalised in connection with abortions increased by over 16 percent between 1994 and 2009, hitting 60,000 in 2009.

 Yet abortion is illegal in Thailand except in cases of rape or incest, to save a woman’s life or preserve her physical or mental health, and if the woman is under 15 years of age.

 Under Thai law the penalty for performing illegal abortions is up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 10,000 baht ($340). Despite this, illegal clinics and back street abortions abound.

 In 2010, Thai police found 2,000 foetuses on the grounds of a Bangkok Buddhist temple.They were believed to have been sent there from illegal abortion clinics.

 The discovery left the Thai public grappling with the reality of a highly charged religious and social issue. Abortion is recognised as a “sin” in the Theravada Buddhism practiced by up to 95 percent of the population.

 But when it comes to teenage girls getting them, social stigma gets in the way.

 Kanya Musiket was 15 when she started a physical relationship with a boy in her neighbourhood. But when she ventured to a local shop to buy condoms, shopkeepers would look at her “disapprovingly,” making her feel ashamed.

 Looking elsewhere

 In a bid to find solutions, a Thai delegation visited Britain in November 2012, looking to emulate programmes there.

 The number of babies born to teen mothers in England dropped by 27 percent between 2000 and 2010 and overall conception by teens fell by 25 percent between 1999 and 2010. Some areas, like Hackney in East London, showed reductions of over 40 percent.

 This was due largely to a 1999 government plan aiming to halve England’s under 18 conception rate by 2010. The plan used local grants and guidelines, government funds to improve access to contraceptives and media campaigns to raise awareness.

 By contrast, Thailand issued a population strategy plan in 2012 that focuses on reducing teen births but does not include either target reduction goals or concrete ways to do so.

 There are university-led sexual health awareness programs, and the UNFPA is trying to raise awareness through both civil and private networks. Yet the most fundamental measure is the hardest to achieve: changing attitudes.

 “This is about trusting the moral standards of those young people whom we have invested years of education and nurturing – our children,” said Caspar Peek, UNFPA Representative for Thailand and Country Director for Malaysia. 

 “We need everyone … to see this as a challenge to development and not just something bad that happens to teenagers because they do ‘bad’ things.”


Sources: RH REFLECTION | In Thailand, teen pregnancies rise despite wide access to contraceptives by Mar Domingo
RH REFLECTION | In Thailand, teen pregnancies rise despite wide access to contraceptives

Banca ride leads family to Sto. Niño (A Conversion Story: From Protestant to Catholic)



The Miraculous Image of Sto.Niño de Cebu



A BANCA ride in the 2001 fluvial procession of the Sto. Niño set the Seville family on a one-year journey to embracing the Catholic faith.

Rasty Seville, 62, and his wife Lilibeth, 52 , said they were Protestants when they attended their first Sto. Niño fluvial procession in 2001.

A friend invited them to join them in a banca ride with 20 people on board in barangay Pasil, Cebu City.

Out of curiousity, they went along. The overloaded banca wasn't even registered for the fluvial procession.

Still, Rasty said it encouraged him to hire a bigger boat the following year.

Cebu Daily News found the Seville family, all dressed in red, set to join last Saturday's fluvial procession at the Ouano wharf in Mandaue City, their 11th trip.

Rasty's wife, Lilibeth , recalls how she ended up owning her first Sto. Niño figurine.

In a visit to a Catholic store in a mall, the store keeper called her attention to a Sto. Niño image similar to the one at the Basilica Minore del Sto. Nino.

The tenant whispered to her that the Sto. Niño wanted her to buy the icon.

Lilibeth said she hesitated because as Protestants, they didn’t approve of what they viewed as the worship of images.

The storekeeper said she would regret not getting it. Lillibeth left the store, bothered by the statement.

She met her husband Rasty who went to a bank and withdrew P3,000 to buy a table fountain.

Lilibeth told him about the encounter in the store and described the Sto Niño icon displayed near the glass window.

They instead returned to the store and bought the icon for P2,800.

Lilibeth admitted that she felt awkward holding the image of the Hold Child for the first time.

She said the Sto. Niño appeared to her in dreams calling her "Mommy Beth.”

"I asked him, why of all people did you choose me? I was surprised when he answered. He told me in my dreams that he chose me because I have a pure heart," she told CDN..

A year later the couple decided to convert to the Catholic faith.

Lilibeth said their new faith has bonded their family closer together.

The Sto. Niño has become a part of their family and is considered their "baby.”

A sanctuary in their home is dedicated for the Sto. Niño where they offer flowers and fruits every Thursday and Sunday.

The icon, dressed in red velvet pants and upper clothes, has become the family’s 'guide', whom they credit for many blessings.

Lilibeth said their daughter Sunshine passed the nursing board exam as well as her interview for a job in the United States.

Their Gisangag Express and construction business are doing well while their son Kris Jordan won the Sinulog Idol tilt.

Now residing in a two-storey house in barangay Cansojong in Talisay City, southern Cebu, the Seville couple and their children joined the 2013 Sto. Niño fluvial procession. The showed up in red shirts and dresses.

They rented a bigger boat this time and brought their “Baby Niño” for the fluvial procession, their 11th time in a row. /Carmel Loise Matus, Correspondent

Source: Banca ride leads family to Sto. Niño

Biblical Evidence for Holy Water (Nicholas Hardesty)

Holy Water Container

My friend Nick Hardesty has made a great biblical argument for holy water, in debate with an anti-Catholic. Some of the input initially came from myself, as he asked my advice on some ways to go about arguing it (particularly from my paper on sacramentalism), but the lion's share is his work, from his opening statement in the debate. Any further words below (apart from Scripture and very minor editing for this version) are his own (Bible verses: RSV).

* * * * *

God Uses Created Things In Order to Produce Supernatural Effects In Our Lives

There are many examples in Scripture where Jesus and the apostles use created things to produce supernatural effects in the lives of human beings. Jesus’ garment healed the woman with the hemorrhage:

Matthew 9:20-22 And behold, a woman who had suffered from a hemorrhage for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment; for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well.

His saliva mixed with dirt (along with water from the pool of Siloam) gave sight to the blind man:

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Silo'am" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Many were healed by being anointed with oil:

Mark 6:13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Revelation 3:18 Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich, and white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.

Paul’s handkerchiefs cured disease and expelled evil spirits:

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

Elijah’s mantle parted the Jordan:

2 Kings 2:8,14 Then Eli'jah took his mantle, and rolled it up, and struck the water, and the water was parted to the one side and to the other, till the two of them could go over on dry ground. . . . Then he took the mantle of Eli'jah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, "Where is the LORD, the God of Eli'jah?" And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Eli'sha went over.

The bones of his apprentice, Elisha, brought a man back to life:

2 Kings 13:21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli'sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli'sha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

Of course, the Lord wrought innumerable miracles through the rods of Moses (cf. Exo 4:2-4; 9:23; 10:13; 14:16; 17:9-11; Num 20:11) and Aaron (cf. Exo 7:10-12,20; 8:5-6,17; Num 17:8) as well.

In Scripture, Water is Used to Cleanse, Purify, and Heal Human Beings

Believe it or not, there are examples of holy water in Scripture:

1) Water that has been blessed:

Exodus 23:25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

2) Priest using “holy water”:

Numbers 5:17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

3) The unclean remain so until the “water for impurity” is sprinkled upon them:

Numbers 19:9,13-20 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin. . . . Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.

Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel; then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean. "But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.

4) Elisha makes the water “healed” (KJV) or “purified” (NASB) or "wholesome" (RSV):

2 Kings 2:19-22 (KJV) And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth: but the water is naught, and the ground barren. And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him. And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land. So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.

So, the idea of “holy water” and its use is not foreign to Scripture. Notice from the third passage that a person remained unclean until water was sprinkled upon him. This points to an important 3-fold purpose for water in Scripture:

Cleansing: cf. Lev 14:8-9,50-52; 15:5-27; 17:15; Num 8:7; 19:12,18-19; 2 Ki 5:12; Psa 51:7; Ezek 16:4; 36:25; Eph 5:26; Heb 10:22

Purifying: cf. Exo 29:4; 40:12,30-32; Lev 11:32; 16:4,24,26,28; 22:6; Num 19:7-8; 31:23; Deut 23:10-11; 1 Ki 18:33-34; Jn 2:6; Heb 9:19

Healing: cf. 2 Ki 5:14; Isa 35:5-7; Jn 5:4 (KJV); 9:6-7.

This is very significant, considering that demons were considered “unclean spirits” (cf.Mt 10:1; 12:43; Mk 1:23,26-27; 3:11,30; 5:2,8,13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:25; Lk 4:33,36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:42; 11:24; Acts 5:16; 8:7) and any person was unclean if possessed by one. It only makes sense that something that cleanses, purifies, and heals can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.

THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF CHRISTMAS CAROLS

The Angels announcing to the shepherds that the Savior is born

The origin of the Christmas Carol tradition is obviously the re-enactment of the Angelic Jubilation on the Birth of the Messiah found in Luke chapter 2. That is the reason why both Catholic and Protestant authors composed music of excellent quality proclaiming the Glorious Birth of the Savior and King combined with the joyous singing of the Choir of Angels. Examples of these are: O COME ALL YE FAITHFUL, JOY TO THE WORLD, HARK THE HERALD ANGELS SING and many others. Obviously this Biblical Chapter is the origin of such a holy custom:

Luke 2:8-20 The Shepherds and the Angels

 8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” [The Angel prophesied that the Birth of the Messiah will bring great joy for all the people. Well, this is true first and foremost among Catholics who celebrates the Birth of Jesus with great celebrations and festivity. Others do not celebrate it at all – like the pagans… THOSE WHO ARE CLAIMING TO BE CHRISTIANS AND YET DO NOT CELEBRATE THE NATIVITY OF THE LORD JESUS WITH REJOICING ARE ACTUALLY PAGAN-LIKE in their belief and position.]

13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14″Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” [In Latin Vulgate: “Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis…” See, the Latin inscription in the Belen is literally derived from the Bible.]

15When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Source:

THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF CHRISTMAS CAROLS