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

Some of the Sacred Things To Be Used For The Nat'l Thanksgiving Mass

 The ceriales

 The Gospel Book

 The Bacculo of H.E. Ricardo J. Card. Vidal for the Nat'l Thanksgiving Mass

 The shepherd looks familiar? Yup! It is the shepherd in your Catechism of the Catholic Cover Page

On the bacculo the Palm is engraved with the map of Cebu and below is the Coat of Arms of the Archdiocese of Cebu.

The Function Hall of the Newly renovated Commission on Worship office

 This cross set on the staff was bought from Europe during the Canonization Rites

The new office of the Archdiocesan Liturgist

The Mass Propers for the Nat'l Thanksgiving Mass in Honor of San Perdro Calungsod

Missa Coral Pio X

Kyrie Eleison by Julian Velaseca and arranged by Msgr. Rudy Villanueva

Gloria

Credo

This the tone of the Sanctus of Missa Pio X: Sorry if this is different from above coz the arranged composition is not yet uploaded.

And finally the Agnus like the Sanctus is not yet uploaded and it is not available in Youtube. But luckily, the Agnus has the same tone with the Kyrie just change the lyrics. ^_^

Cebuano Bible now available to public

The Front Cover of the Bible

Monday, November 19, 2012

A CEBUANO translation of four gospels of the Holy Bible is now available to the public.

The book “Ang Ebanghelyo” was launched last Saturday night at the Cebu Cathedral Museum.

It took a team of nine Bible scholars 12 years to finish the translation of the original Greek text to Cebuano.

Ricardo Cardinal Vidal said he was elated when the translation was completed.

“For me, it’s a very good translation, though I’m not a Cebuano,” he said.

He admitted that he was skeptical about the project at first because he knows the difficulty of translating the gospels into the local language.

“Your work has been guided by the Holy Spirit,” he told the Bible scholars during the launching at the Cebu Cathedral Museum garden.

L-R: Archbishop Jose S. Palma, Rev. Fr. Carmelo Diola & Archbishop-Emeritus of Cebu Ricardo J. Card. Vidal. During the launching of the Ang Ebanghelyo (from the Original Greek to Cebuano)

Vidal said he brought a copy of the book for Pope Benedict XVI when he went to Rome for the canonization rites of St. Pedro Calungsod, but he was not able to hand it to the Pope personally.

“Ang Ebanghelyo” is the only direct translation of the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from the Biblical Greek to Cebuano by a team of Catholic Bible scholars, said Fr. Carmelo Diola, who is part of the team that worked on the project.

The book, Diola said, is ideal for personal study as well as group Bible study or group sharing.

The work has footnotes and incorporates grammatical, spelling and accent rules of the Akademyang Bisaya, which is the standard accepted by the Department of Education. It was also reviewed by lay people, Diola said.

“We also consulted language experts,” he said.

Diola said they printed limited commemorative copies.

The popular edition can be bought for P150 at the Dilaab Foundation Office in the Seminario Mayor de San Carlos in Mabolo, Cebu City.

Last Saturday’s launching started with a 5:30 p.m. mass celebrated by Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma.

“When we read (the Bible in our local language) the effect is such that the word will automatically become part of our system and our life,” Palma told reporters.

“The ways and actions of Jesus are best known through the written word… We will certainly encourage the use of what is most expressive of our own language and mindset,” he added.

Diola said he and the other Bible scholars started the project while they were studying at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. He said a teacher challenged them to translate gospels to their local language.

Source: Cebuano Bible now available to public

Since Jesus prayed to God does it mean He is not God?

Jesus at Gethsemane

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Ramon Gitamondoc

Abdul Aziz Manzano posted: 

Hebrews 5:7 “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.” Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face with loud cries and petitions? Was it himself? Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ Jesus was praying to “the only true God.” Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God?

MY REPLY: The verse you cited only proves that Jesus is truly human but this does not prove that He is not God.  Jesus was not praying to himself but to the Father.  He can do this since Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons.  In his incarnate form Jesus prayed to the Father in order to teach us humility in prayer and to show to us that his human will is in complete dependence and submission to the divine will. As man Jesus humbled himself as St Paul testifies: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:6-8). In the same letter to the Hebrews which you quoted as to disprove the divinity of Jesus, St Paul also writes: “in these days, has spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:2-3) and also “But to the Son: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of your kingdom” (Hebrews 1:8). But of course you will not accept this verses which will only show your selective quotations of certain Biblical passages which will serve your purpose. This manner of yours will also show how your religion has mutilated the Word of God as revealed in Sacred Scriptures. If you will attempt to quote the Bible to disprove the divinity of Christ then be sure you are ready to confront all the other verses which proves that He is divine.

Source: Since Jesus prayed to God does it mean He is not God?

REFUTING ELISEO SORIANO

A picture of an Angry Eli Soriano (Presiding Minister of ADD, MCGI, Iglesia ni YHWH etc.) 
during his debate with William Sarago (Pastor of Kingdom of Jesus Christ)


Refuting Eliseo Soriano on the Papacy of Peter

When I was surfing the internet I accidentally stumble into Mr. Eliseo Soriano’s blog the leader of the infamous Ang Dating Daan (The Old Way). Upon exploring his blog I got into his archives and found few articles that malign the Catholic Church so I decided to copy his article and refute it.

Written in black is his article and in red is my refutation (Isahel N. Alfonso).

The claim that Peter was the first pope and the rock whereupon the church was built is erroneous and can not be substantiated, either in history or in the Bible.

Dream on can not be substantiated??? Is that all you can say? It can be substantiated both in history and the Bible; Mr. Soriano can not just accept that fact. The World Almanac Book of Facts 2009 (we can not say that this book is bias since it is not owned by the Catholic Church, this is standard reference) has a complete list of popes from peter to Benedict XVI this book can not be called “Book of facts” if it contains error Mr. Soriano refuse to accept this facts. Biblical proof? No problem Mt.16:16-19, Christ change Simon Bar-jona’s name to Peter, in the Bible it only happens if God gave someone a mission which is for the salvation of his people, like Abram to Abraham. Secondly Christ build the church upon Peter “though art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”. Lastly Christ gave Peter the keys to bind and to loose, the keys signify authority Is.22:22, Christ is the King the successor of the Davidic throne, before Christ ascended to heaven he gave the over all authority to Peter to govern and guide the church. Peter the rock? Well let Jesus Christ answer this question John 1:42 “And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” Cephas is an Aramaic word for ROCK. To whom shall we believed that Peter is the rock? Mr. Eliseo Soriano who is just a man or Jesus Christ who is God?

How can Peter be a pope when such title was first used 400 years after the death of Peter?

Where is your logic Mr. Soriano? The existence of a person, thing or office doesn’t depend on when their title was invented. For example the word stone was first used 3 billion years after the stone was created does that mean that the stone only existed when the word stone was invented? Using your logic we would end up in a funny conclusion “How can a stone be a stone when such a word (stone) was first used 3 billion years after the stone was created?

Biblically, Peter can not be a pope! It is prohibited by Christ to the original twelve disciples to be called ‘rabbi’ or teacher because their only teacher was Jesus Christ.

(Matthew 23:8) “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.” 

They were also forbidden to address anybody on earth their father because (religiously speaking) they have only one Father, which is the Father in heaven.

(Matthew 23:9) “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.”

Mr. Soriano how do you address the husband of your mother? Bruno? Doggy? or father? I had already explain Mt.23:8-9 on my previous post, it simply means that don’t give honor to a man what belongs to God alone. Lk, 16:24 He called out Father Abraham have pity on me.. what did he called Abraham?

So, we can safely conclude that Peter did not ever hold the position of pope, biblically and historically, according to the Bible, and to official documents from the Catholic Church itself.

We have already proven that Peter holds the position pope historically and Biblically. Mr. Soriano even have the guts to claim that in the official documents of the Church, Peter was never taught as holding the position pope this is laughable gross ignorance to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. CCC 882

Mr. Soriano, Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of Peter, then what is Peter?

But was he the rock upon which the Church was built?

Of course! Who else is the rock on Mt.16:16-19?

Note that the Church was founded on a ‘petra’ — in the feminine gender, and not on a ‘petros’ ( a stone), the name ascribed to Peter.

There is no problem in this word game. Petros is masculine and petra is feminine either/or the meaning is the same ROCK says Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionary. The Greek name/word is very gender sensitive when you are talking about a male the words you use in Greek should be masculine, that is why Jesus called peter petros not petra. If Jesus said “though art petra and on thispetra” etc. our first pope will be a laughing stock, imagine his name will be petrina instead of Peter! And besides if petra was used it will confuse Greek readers they might think that Peter is a female since Christ called him petra. Furthermore if we read it in Aramaic we will be reading “though art kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.”

It was not only Peter which was called a stone, but Peter himself called the members of the first century Church as lively stones.

(1 Peter 2:5) “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.”

Members of the first century Church were called by Peter as ‘lively stones’ or‘lithos’ in the original Greek tongue.

There is no big deal about this, if we read Mt.16:16-19 in context it clearly refers to Peter as the Rock not other Christians or apostles. Peter was talking metaphorically here about the “lively stones”, while Jesus was talking about a literal stone Peter on Mt.16:16-19. The word rock does not only or exclusively used in one person:

· in Ephesians 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church;

· in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is called the foundation of the Church.

· In 1 Corinthians 3:12, the faithful build upon the foundation;

· in Matthew 16:18, Jesus builds upon the foundation.

· In 1 Peter 2:5, the faithful are called the stones of God’s spiritual house;

· in Acts 4:11, Jesus is called the stone of God’s house.

· In 1 Corinthians 3:16, the faithful are the temple of God;

· in Apocalypse 21:22, Jesus is the temple of God.

· In Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the bishops of the flock;

· in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Bishop of the flock.

This only demonstrates Mr. Soriano’s lack of understanding and gross ignorance on exegesis.

They, Peter, other Apostles, and the members, altogether formed the edifice founded on the rock or ‘petra’.

This is an erroneous conclusion, did Jesus change the names of the other 11 apostles to Kepha/Petros?

(Ephesians 2:20) “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…”

Note that the Apostles (including Peter) and prophets are built upon the foundation(they are not the foundation), the chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Mr. Soriano misses the metaphor In Eph. 2:20 Paul is the builder and Christ is the foundation in Mt.16 Jesus is the builder and Peter is the foundation. How poor are you on your exegesis Mr. Soriano.

Anybody who will build a church, and make Peter or any other man its foundation is rejecting Christ and building it in vain.

Don’t eat your own words Mr. Soriano “anybody who will build a church”, who founded Ang Dating Daan again? Your saying that Christ is building in vain? It was Jesus who made Peter the Rock foundation in Mt.16 remember?

(1 Timothy 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.”

God built it upon Christ — the real foundation.

(Hebrews 3:4) “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.”

(Psalams 127:1) “Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

Mr. Soriano don’t eat your words again the Catholic Church can trace its origin to the time of Jesus Christ, standard references attest to this World Almanac Book of Facts, World History by O’brien and many more. However Dating Daan or Church of God International didn’t even make it to the standard references.


Source:REFUTING ELISEO SORIANO

Infallible teaching on artificial contraceptives By Bernardo M. Villegas

Even before the “limits to growth” hypothesis broke out in the 1970s, as an economist I had always rejected any attempt to resuscitate the completely discredited theory that Thomas Malthus first proffered more than two centuries ago. My training at Harvard under Nobel Prize winners like Simon Kuznets inoculated me once and for all against the Malthusian germ. Over the last half century, the Malthusian theory has been disproved time and time again. Population growth does not lead to mass starvation given the unlimited propensity of the human mind to increase the productivity of the earth’s resources. What limits human resources is the propensity of the human will to evil. But that’s another thing.

No matter how convinced I am about my economic theory concerning population and poverty, however, I try to have the intellectual humility to admit that I could be wrong since economics is a very inexact science. Of course, the population controllers could also be wrong. That is why I want to turn in this instance to a science—theology—in which freedom from human error is possible. I am absolutely sure that the Reproductive Health bill can do much damage to Philippine society because it promotes artificial contraceptives which are intrinsically evil. I have the infallible authority of the popes who pronounced many times that “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil (Humanae Vitae, 14). Under this declaration, contraceptive pills, condoms, IUDs, tubal ligation, vasectomy and other forms of artificial contraception are intrinsically evil from the moral point of view.

Before a few Catholic priests or lay people can object that this pronouncement of the popes is not infallible because it was not made ex cathedra, let me remind them of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (the 50th anniversary of whose opening we celebrated last Oct. 11).  As any one can read in the document “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (Lumen Gentium) promulgated on Nov. 21, 1964, “Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra (emphasis provided) in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated (Lumen Gentium, 25).”

In short, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Supreme Pontiff, is infallible every time he teaches on matters of dogma or morals, even if he does not teach ex cathedra.  His ordinary teaching authority is enough to oblige Catholics to adhere to his teachings.

Some local pundits have made much of the fact that the Pontifical Commission of experts summoned by Pope Paul VI to advise him before he wrote Humanae Vitae had a majority of its members in favor of artificial contraceptives. The Pope’s decision to disregard the majority opinion is actually a dramatic illustration that Jesus Christ appointed one and only one person to hold the key to infallibility, and that was St. Peter and his successors in the papal throne. Moral truth is not determined by majority vote.

I have news for Catholics—whether priests or lay people—who maintain that they can still be good Catholics while rejecting the teaching about the intrinsic moral evil of artificial contraceptives. You may not be excommunicated (considered today as too extreme a solution to doctrinal error). But you are violating the obligation to “submit to your bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals.”  You are willfully refusing to adhere to a teaching on morals (not economics or politics) with  a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. In short, you can consider yourself a Catholic of good standing only by a wide stretch of your imagination. If you have influence on others because of your position or social standing, you are doing a great damage to the souls of others.

I am very glad that Catholic bishops in the Philippines have been very vocal about the infallible doctrine concerning the intrinsic evil of artificial contraceptives. As Lumen Gentium further states, “Although the  bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.”

Bernardo M. Villegas is senior vice president of the University of Asia and the Pacific. For comments, e-mail bernardo.villegas@uap.asia.

Source: Infallible teaching on artificial contraceptives