Purgatory: Rebuttal on Gerry Soliman's Blog

Gerry Soliman

There is no problem there. Nothing unclean will enter Heaven. Those who die as unbelievers will go to hell. But if you die as a believer, you're Heaven bound. No problem there. [Soliman]

Revelation 21:27New International Version (NIV)

²⁷ Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

If we follow Soliman's argument, we can conclude that those people who died (unbelievers of Jesus) are all in hell.

Mahatma Gandhi for example was unbeliever of Jesus... Soliman means that Gandhi is already in hell.

I posted a question on the comment box few weeks ago. But he never approved it or showed it on his blog.

The question was:

How about people who died (unbelievers of Jesus) who lived a VIRTUOUS life? Are they in hell?

Unfortunately, he never leave a reply.

Let us analyze the verse:

St. John said:

Nothing impure will ever enter it...


NOBODY CAN ENTER HEAVEN if he is "DEFILED."


but on the next premise John said:

"nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful"

It is very clear as daylight that no one can enter heaven if he does what is shameful or deceit

If we apply this to the unbelievers of Christ who lived a VIRTUOUS Life or who Lived their Life like a TRUE Christian... then Mahatma Gandhi is in hell. If we follow what Soliman had said...

But St. John told us that no one can enter heaven if he "does what is shameful or deceitful," Rev.21:27

Was Gandhi lived his life deceiving people? or does he lived a shameful life?


Okay, granting for a moment that I am an Arminian I have no problem that can salvation be lost. If I die separated from Christ, I go to hell. So what's the relevance of this to Purgatory? Nothing. [Soliman]

Soliman believed that salvation can be lost... (because of sin, I presume).. but he forgot that there are sins that less shall we say and there are grave sins. The Catholic Church calls these kinds of sins venial and mortal.

The Bible explicitly supports these kinds of sins:

1 John 5:16-17New International Version (NIV)

¹⁶ If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

That is why Catholics believed in the concept of purgatory its because there are sins that are pardonable by God through prayers... and there are sins that leads to death (unpardonable sins).

For example:
If your brethren died in an accident, he is not prepared for this death. He wasn't able to repent. But he never committed a mortal sin...

Is he already in hell? Nope. Why?

We have to remember that Nothing unclean can enter heaven. Though how small the sin he committed still his is unclean. So he needs to be purified and the Church calls this state PURGATORY...

Jesus taught us that we must strive to be perfect like our Heavenly Father is perfect...Mat.5:48

Imperfections are not allowed in heaven...

We feel unworthy in facing God if we have sin just like what Isaiah felt when he saw a vision of God..

Isaiah 6:1-7 New International Version (NIV)

¹ In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. ² Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. ³ And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

⁴ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

⁵ “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

⁶ Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. ⁷ With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Isaiah was cleansed through the live coal. His guilt was taken away and his sins was forgiven. Isaiah experienced a purgation (or cleansing; purification).

If someone died in a state of venial sins he must undergone purification so that he may be worthy to live with God in heaven.

The Israelites believed in praying for the dead...Most of the questions might arise from protestants will ask where in the Old Testament that Israelites pray for their dead? or Did Moses prescribed the praying for the dead?

Let us read an article from the internet:

Death and Mourning: upon the death of a Jew, the body is ritually washed and placed in a coffin for burial, generally the day after death. Loved ones observe a seven-day period of mourning called Shiva at which time religious services are held in the home of the bereaved. The anniversary of the death of a parent (Yahrzeit) is observed by lighting a candle and saying a prayer (Kaddish) in memory.

(source: Who are the Jews?)

And I think that nowhere in the Bible that Moses condemned this practice. The same in the New Testament Jesus never mention that praying for the dead is not allowed.

But I remembered a passage in the Bible that Jesus prayed for the dead

John 11:38-44 English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁸ Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. ³⁹ Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” ⁴⁰ Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” ⁴¹ So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. ⁴² I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” ⁴³ When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” ⁴⁴ The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Protestants don't agree with the canonicity of the book of Maccabees. [Soliman]

Of course, you will not accept the canonicity of the book of Maccabees its simply because it opposes your stand... ehehehehe!

In fact, it can be used as a reference for our doctrine... eheheheh!.. Why? because it is a Historical Book..

But many protestant scholars admit the canonicity of the books in the bible that is being dropped by Luther...They accepted the septuagint where the book of Maccabees is found..But we will not take up this topic for the sake of Purgatory...


The Jews whom Judas Maccabeus is praying for is guilty of idolatry. [Soliman]

Then, you admitted that Judas Maccabeus is praying for the dead... ehehehehe! And it was their tradition to pray for their dead in order to be cleansed from their sinfulness and God will forgive those people who committed idolatry...



Purgatory - where God's mercy and justice meet.




P.S.
Red texts signifies Mr.Soliman's arguments...
"Gerry Soliman"

ANO ANG IBIG SABIHIN NG SUSI NG KAHARIAN NG LANGIT NA BINIGAY KAY SAN PEDRO?

St. Peter the Apostle

Anonymous Feb 25, 2012 03:18 AM

Ano ba iyang susi na sinasabi mo na ibinigay kay Pedro, bakit nagbibigay ka ng mga opinyon na wala ka namang binabasa na batayan sa Biblia na nagpapaliwanag kung ano iyang susi ng kaharian ng langit.

Fr. Abe, CRS Feb 26, 2012 01:51 AM

[Ano ba iyang susi na sinasabi mo na ibinigay kay Pedro, bakit nagbibigay ka ng mga opinyon na wala ka namang binabasa na batayan sa Biblia na nagpapaliwanag kung ano iyang susi ng kaharian ng langit.]

ANONG WALANG BATAYAN E PINALIWANAG NA NI CRISTO NA ANG SUSI AY POWER TO BIND AND TO LOOSE. IT REFERS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE KEEPER OF THE KEYS IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND IN THE CHURCH. IBIG SABIHIN IPINAGKALOOB NG PANGINOONG JESUS KAY SAN PEDRO ANG AUTORIDAD NA MAGDESISYON WITH FINALITY PARA SA SANTA IGLESIA AT SIYA ANG HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH AFTER THE KING WHO IS NO OTHER THAN THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF.

NGAYON, ANO ANG KAHULUGAN NG MGA SUSI NG KAHARIAN NG LANGIT PARA SA INYO AYON SA BIBLIA?

Source: ANO ANG IBIG SABIHIN NG SUSI NG KAHARIAN NG LANGIT NA BINIGAY KAY SAN PEDRO?

VATICAN II AND CHANGE - REFUTING THE CLAIMS OF THE SSPX Part 1 By: Fr. Abe, CRS

Blessed Pope John XXIII in full regalia... Did St. Peter the Apostle and St. Linus clothed with the same jewelled Tiara, pectoral and ring? Is wearing the Tiara a Dogma of the Faith for the Popes?

Anonymous said...

What Has Changed?

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented number of changes have been implemented in the Church. Not only was the ancient rite of Mass changed ("for the first time in history, a manufactured liturgy was imposed upon the faithful"), but there was also a new canon law, a new catechism, new prayers/songs, a new liturgical calendar, a new Bible translation, new canonization procedures, new rites for ordination and baptism, new exorcism procedures, indulgences were changed, etc.

Although not all changes were authorized or called for by Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council may be considered an impetus for such change. In fact, not just external practices have changed since this revolutionary council, but the entire orientation of the Church has changed. The changes, while not revising infallible dogmas - which, of course is impossible - have nonetheless given the impression that the Church has changed entirely.

In fact, some have referred to the Church after the Second Vatican Council not as the "Catholic Church", but as the "Post-Conciliar Church". This terminology is interesting especially in light of the fact that some post-conciliar documents from the highest levels of the Church may appear as if the Church itself started with Vatican II. As Amerio has stated, "This conviction that a great innovation has occurred in the Church, attested by the universal change in everything from ideas to material objects to terminology, is also apparent in the continual reference made to the faith of the Second Vatican Council, while abandoning reference to the one Catholic Faith, which is the faith of all the councils." In any event, the Church after the Council has clearly presented a "new face" to the world.

November 16, 2011 7:04 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[What Has Changed?]

WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE CHURCH ARE THINGS THAT ARE CHANGEABLE AND IT IS THE POPE WHO DECIDES IF THEY ARE TO BE CHANGED OR NOT. YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH IN OPPOSITION TO THE POPE.

[In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented number of changes have been implemented in the Church.]

AND IT IS RIGHTLY SO. THE BISHOPS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD GATHERED TOGETHER UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD THE CHURCH IN FACING THE MODERN WORLD. AND THE BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE DECIDED WHICH THINGS TO BE CHANGED AND WHAT CANNOT BE CHANGED.

YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE COWARDLY SIT DURING THE FOUR YEARS OF THE COUNCIL NEVER ONCE RAISED HIS VOICE INSIDE THE COUNCIL TO OPPOSE. HE WAS TOO COWARDLY AND SENILE TO DO THAT. BUT, THE ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, CARDINAL SANTOS DEBATED CARDINAL KOENIG IN LATIN FOR A SEPARATE DOCUMENT ON MARY. HE LOST THE VOTE BUT ACCEPTED IT GENTLEMANLY. CARDINAL OTTAVIANI ALSO LOST IN THE DEBATES AFTER HE VALIANTLY DEBATED HIS OPPONENTS BUT HE ACCEPTED DEFEAT WITH GRACE AND CHARITY. BUT LEFEBVRE ACCEPTED THE LOST WITH BITTERNESS SIMILAR TO WHAT LUCIFER FELT AFTER BEING THROWN FROM HEAVEN. LIKE LUCIFER HE STARTED DECEIVING OTHERS TO REBEL AGAINST THOSE CHOSEN BY GOD. UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE DECEIVED. SORRY FOR YOU.

[Not only was the ancient rite of Mass changed ("for the first time in history, a manufactured liturgy was imposed upon the faithful"),]

LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. THE TLM IS NOT THE ANCIENT RITE OF THE MASS. EXCUSE ME. THERE ARE RITES OLDER THAN THE TLM. THE TLM IS ACTUALLY A NEW RITE - A MANUFACTURED LITURGY IMPOSED UPON THE FAITHFUL BY THE POPE - IF YOU WANT TO USE THAT LANGUAGE.

IN QUO PRIMUM, POPE ST. PIUS V HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE TLM IS A NEW RITE MADE BY A COMMISSION THAT HE FORMED. THAT WAS EXACTLY THE WAY POPE PAUL VI, OF BLESSED MEMORY, HAD DONE FOR THE PAULINE MASS:

"We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere." [QUO PRIMUM of Pope St. Pius V 1st & 2nd par]

IF YOU ARE ANGRY AT THE REVISIONN OF THE MISSAL AND OF THE COMMISSION RE-EDITING AND REVISING IT THEN YOU SHOULD HATE POPE ST. PIUS V WHO DID THE SAME FOR THE TLM. HOW COME WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE 16TH CENTURY CHURCH CANNOT BE DONE FOR THE 20TH CENTURY CHURCH?

THE TLM IS A NEW RITE:

"This NEW RITE alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding." [QUO PRIMUM par 4]

THE TLM WAS A NEW RITE WAY BACK IN THE 16TH CENTURY. IT WAS NOT THE RITE OF THE MASS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ROMAN MARTYRS AND OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS BUT THE GREEK MASS.

IF HAVING A NEW RITE IS EVIL THEN THE TLM WAS EVIL WHEN IT WAS NEW. IN FACT, IT WAS ALSO A FINISHED PRODUCT OF A COMMISSION FORMED BY THE POPE.

[but there was also a new canon law, a new catechism, new prayers/songs, a new liturgical calendar, a new Bible translation, new canonization procedures, new rites for ordination and baptism, new exorcism procedures, indulgences were changed, etc.]

THANKS BE TO GOD THAT THERE ARE THESE BLESSINGS. WHERE IS IT IN THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH THAT THE CALENDAR, THE CANON LAW, THE PRAYER BOOKS AND THE RITE OF EXORCISMS CANNOT BE REVISED OR EDITED OR BE RENEWED? WHERE? WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT THESE THINGS CANNOT BE REVISED, EDITED AND BE RENEWED? TELL ME... TELL US.

IF YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT OF HISTORY THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR OF THE CHURCH WAS THE JULIAN CALENDAR BUT IT WAS LATER CHANGED INTO THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR. AND IF YOU ARE NOT A FOOL YOU KNOW TOO WELL THAT EVERY TIME THERE IS THE NEWLY CANONIZED SAINT THE LITURGICAL CALENDAR IS BEING REVISED TO INCLUDE THE FEAST OF THAT SAINT. HE HE HE...

IF YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT IN CHURCH HISTORY AND IF YOU ARE NOT BLIND YOU WILL REALIZE THAT IT WAS THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, POPE ST. PIUS V AND THE QUO PRIMUM THAT TAUGHT US THAT THE MISSAL, BREVIARY, CATECHISM, ETC. CAN BE REVISED. IT IS THERE IN QUO PRIMUM:

"For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God's help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper - for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass - We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible." [QUO PRIMUM par 1]

HA HA HA... YOU SEE YOU SON OF THE DEVIL. YOU ARE HIDING THESE THINGS TO OUR FAITHFUL SO THAT YOU CAN DECEIVE THEM IN YOUR LUCIFERIAN AND PROTESTANT-LIKE REBELLION AGAINST THE CONTEMPORARY POPES.

IF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT STIPULATED THAT THESE THINGS CAN BE CHANGED SO DID THE VATICAN II. IF POPE PIUS V CAN REVISE AND RE-EDIT SO DID POPE PAUL VI. THE POWER THAT BINDS IS THE POWER THAT LOOSES. THE POWER THAT CLOSES IS THE POWER THAT OPENS. THAT POWER IS THE POWER OF THE POPE. IN THE BIBLE IT IS CALLED "THE POWERS OF THE KEYS OF PETER".

[Although not all changes were authorized or called for by Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council may be considered an impetus for such change.]

ARE YOU REALLY OUT OF YOUR MIND. ARE ALL CHANGES AFTER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AUTHORIZED AND CALLED FOR BY TRENT? NO. THE SPECIFIED DETAILS DEPENDED UPON THE POPE AND THE HOLY SEE WHO WORKED UNDER HIM.

THE VATICAN II IS THE IMPETUS OF CHANGE THAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD JUST LIKE TRENT WAS THE IMPETUS OF THE CHANGE THAT HAPPENED AFTER IT. BOTH COUNCIL PRODUCED CHANGE. BOTH EFFECTED CHANGES IN THE RITE OF THE MASS, THE MISSAL, THE BREVIARY, THE CATECHISM, ETC. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?

[In fact, not just external practices have changed since this revolutionary council, but the entire orientation of the Church has changed.]

THE SSPX IS THE REVOLUTIONARY ONE. BUT THE VATICAN II IS NOT REVOLUTIONARY. IT ONLY FOLLOWED THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF TRANSLATING THE BIBLE FROM GREEK TO LATIN AND SO IF THE BIBLE CAN BE TRANSLATED THEN THE CATECHISM, THE MISSAL AND THE BREVIARY CAN BE TRANSLATED AS WELL. LATIN WAS FORMERLY A VULGAR LANGUAGE BUT IT WAS USED BY THE CHURCH. IF TRENT CAN REVISE VATICAN II CAN REVISE ALSO. WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TOLD YOU THAT THE POWER TO CHANGE OR REVISE OR EDIT IS EXCLUSIVE ONLY OF THE TRENT ERA? IF THE BIBLE CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO VULGAR LATIN THEN THE MISSAL CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO VERNACULAR LANGUAGE. IS THE MISSAL MORE CANONICAL THAN THE BIBLE?

[The changes, while not revising infallible dogmas - which, of course is impossible - have nonetheless given the impression that the Church has changed entirely.]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ADMITTING THAT THE DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH WERE NOT CHANGED. HOW NICE OF YOU. DO YOU WANT COFFEE, A BURGER, A COOKIE OR A HUG EVEN A KISS FOR THAT? HA HA HA... YOU SEE EVEN THE DEMONS DO ADMIT THE FIDELITY OF THE CHURCH. HE HE HE...

CONCERNING IMPRESSION, WELL THAT IS ONLY YOUR IMPRESSION. BUT YOUR IMPRESSION IS NOT OUR IMPRESSION. ITS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. YOU CAN GO TO HELL FOR YOUR IMPRESSION BUT WE KEEP OUR FIDELITY TO THE POPE AND TO THE TRUTH OF THE FAITH. THE ESSENCE OF THE FAITH IS CHANGELESS AND THE SAME SEMPER ET UBIQUE, BUT THE ACCIDENTS CAN BE CHANGED. AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE POPE FOR THOSE CHANGES. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN DIE IN YOUR DISGUST AND ENJOY YOUR PAIN TILL KINGDOM COME. IF YOU DON'T WANT ETERNAL PAIN THEN SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

[In fact, some have referred to the Church after the Second Vatican Council not as the "Catholic Church", but as the "Post-Conciliar Church".]

I DON'T KNOW WHO ARE THESE SOME. MAY BE YOU'VE GOT SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MALIGNANT SPIRITS AROUND THAT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF. HA HA HA... BUT ON OUR PART, OFFICIALLY AND LITURGICALLY AND CANONICALLY WE REFER TO THE CHURCH ALWAYS AS "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH". THAT IS WHAT WE ARE RECITING IN THE CREED. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? HA HA HA...

IF YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT OF HISTORY, THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND OF ANY INSTITUTION IS USUALLY SUBDIVIDED BASED ON VERY IMPORTANT EVENTS. FOR INSTANCE, THE PRE-CIVIL WAR AMERICA AND THE POST-LINCOLN AMERICA. AND SO, THE TERM 'POST-VATICAN II CHURCH' DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CHURCH IS NO LONGER THE SAME CHURCH AFTER VATICAN II BECAUSE THERE IS ALSO A TERM CALLED 'THE POST-TRENT CHURCH' OR THE POST-NICAEAN CHURCH OR THE POST-PATRISTIC CHURCH OR THE POST APOSTOLIC CHURCH. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? THESE ARE MERE DISTINCTIONS OF HISTORICAL PERIOD.

YOU SSPX ARE VERY PHARISAICAL. EVEN IN GOOD THINGS YOU ARE SEEING EVIL. REPENT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOUR SOULS.

[This terminology is interesting especially in light of the fact that some post-conciliar documents from the highest levels of the Church may appear as if the Church itself started with Vatican II.]

ONLY IDIOTS WILL THINK LIKE THAT. BECAUSE THE VATICAN II NEVER TAUGHT THAT THE CHURCH STARTED ONLY WITH THE VATICAN II. THAT IS YOUR HALLUCINATION AND DELUSION. THAT IS A CLAIM THAT YOU INVENTED BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY IOTA OF PROOF FROM THE DOCUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL ITSELF. YOU ARE SPITTING US WITH YOUR LIES AND WE WANT TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN BECAUSE YOUR LIES ARE TOO OBVIOUS TO BE HIDDEN.

[As Amerio has stated,]

AMERIO WHO? WHO IS THIS ANIMAL? I DON'T KNOW HIM? HE IS NOT MY SHEPHERD AND HE IS NOT THE VICAR OF CHRIST. I ONLY RECOGNIZE AND OBEY THE VOICE OF OUR SHEPHERDS. YOU CAN GO TO HELL WITH THAT ANIMAL.

["This conviction that a great innovation has occurred in the Church, attested by the universal change in everything from ideas to material objects to terminology, is also apparent in the continual reference made to the faith of the Second Vatican Council, while abandoning reference to the one Catholic Faith, which is the faith of all the councils."]

HA HA HA... THIS SSPX FOOL AND DECIEVER IS JUST COPY PASTING ARTICLES MADE BY HIS FELLOW TRAITORS INTO THIS BLOG. HA HA HA... LET US THROW THEIR ARGUMENTS BACK AT THEM.

IF THIS AMERIO IS NOT AN IDIOT HE IS SURE AWARE THAT THE PRE-VATICAN II CARDINAL AND NOW BLESSED JOHN HENRY NEWMAN WROTE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH AND ITS ESSENCE ARE ONE AND THE SAME BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEM DEVELOPS. SO THAT EVEN CREEDS HAVE EXPERIENCED DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE AND TERMINOLOGIES. IS POPE LEO AND GREGORY THE GREAT AWARE OF "TRANSUBSTANTATION" AS A TERMINOLOGY FOR THE EUCHARIST? DID ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE WROTE USING THE TERMINOLOGIES: CONSUBSTANTIAL, THEOTOKOS, ONE BEING THREE PERSONS, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, ASSUMPTION OF MARY BODY AND SOUL INTO HEAVEN... THE TRUTH OF FAITH IS ONE AND THE SAME BUT IDEAS AND TERMINOLOGIES ARE DEVELOPING.

WHAT IS DEMONIC WITH SSPX IS THAT INSTEAD OF SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT THEY PROHIBIT IT. SO IMPLICITLY THEY ARE AGENTS OF THE DEVIL - THE FATHER OF LIES.

[In any event, the Church after the Council has clearly presented a "new face" to the world.]

EVERY COUNCIL THE CHURCH PRESENTED A NEW FACE TO THE WORLD BUT THE SAME DOCTRINE. DEFINITELY THE APOSTLES DIDN'T WEAR THE EXTRAVAGANT AND POMPOUS CLOTHES OF SSPX IN TLM DURING THEIR MASSES. ALSO THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS IN THE CATACOMBS. THE FACE OF CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING THE CATACOMBS ERA IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FACE OF THE CHURCH DURING THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA AND DURING THE TRIDENTINE ERA. WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE FAITH.

THE FACT THAT THE POPE CHANGES FROM PERIOD TO PERIOD PROVES THAT THE FACE OF THE CHURCH CHANGES. HE HE HE... HOW ABOUT THE SSPX DID THEIR FACE DIDN'T CHANGE? OF COURSE THEY DID. BEFORE IT WAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF LEFEBVRE THE WACKY OLD FOOL NOW IT IS UNDER FELLAY.


JUST STUDY THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CHURCH AND YOU WILL SEE THE GLARING CHANGE OF THE FACE OF THE CHURCH: BYZANTINE, GOTHIC OR BAROQUE, ETC. THERE ARE CHANGES BUT THESE CHANGES ARE GOOD. IN MUSIC, DID ANY OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ATTENDED THE MASS WITH THE MUSIC OF PALESTRINA OR THE KRONUNMESSE-DIES IRAE OF MOZART BEING PERFORMED BY THE CHOIR? HA HA HA...

Source: VATICAN II AND CHANGE - REFUTING THE CLAIMS OF THE SSPX Part 1

On Images: Idolatry?

The Ark of the Covenant

It is so clear that no images are necessary for the worship of God because God is omnipresent. People can worship him without the use of images, including those in the ark. [Soliman]

If the Ark was NOT NECESSARY for the worship of God.

Then why God COMMANDED to make an Ark???

Where can we read that the words spoken (commanded) by God was NO USE or NOT NECESSARY??

ehehehehe!!


And where can you read that Jesus abolished the ark in the temple during this time up to this present??? [my question... quoted from his blog]

His answer was...

The question goes back to you, do you have the ark in your possession? If not, that very much answers your question. [Soliman]

See? He asked another question just to prove that his answering the question...or just to prove that Jesus was abolishing the Ark..



The way he answered it shows also that Jesus did not abolish the Ark in the temple.

Does the act of Joshua of bowing before the image in the Ark of Covenant really similar to Roman Catholics bowing before their images of Christ, Mary, and the saints? Not in a million years. Only the careless and gullible would believe that. [Soliman]


Ano tawag mo dun??? not similar?? ehehehehe!

Can you cite a verse that Roman Catholics bowing before an image of a saint is NOT SIMILAR to what Joshua did?? Chapter and verse please... ehehehehe!!

Unlike the ark, the images used in Roman Catholic "veneration" represent saints (so they say, but in reality it is idolatry). The distinction between the ark and the Roman Catholic images are miles apart. [Soliman]

Huli ka!. ehehehehe! images of the saints are only REPRESENTATIONS...the words were coming from you kuya... ehehehe! It proves that images of a saint represent the person and it represent to someone who lived a virtuous and holy life ...and Catholics ask for their intercessions not to the IMAGE ITSELF but to the person it represents...

The Ark of God was a REPRESENTATION of God's presence... the Ark was NOT GOD per se... if they (Joshua & Israelites) worship the Ark itself then they committed IDOLATRY....

Remember the story of Baal the pagan god?? ehehehe! I know you read a lot so no need to post what chapter and verse...

The followers of Baal WORSHIP the IMAGE ITSELF and according to St.Paul:

1 Corinthians 8:4(NIV)

⁴ So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world”

Why Paul said that an idol is NOTHING at all in the world its because it REPRESENTS NOTHING...was BAAL REALLY EXISTS???...

How about the saints??? Were they exist??? YES!.

What the Church teaches about veneration of the saints???

Let us read the official document of the Church the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."⁷⁰ The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: (CCC #2132)

PURGATORY: An Answer from Gerry Soliman's Blog

Paul and Onesiphorus

Here is a very short article in a Catholic website about Onesiphorus. He is a believer in Christ who help the apostle Paul in the ministry. His feast day is September 6 year 81. It's understood that he died in the year 81 AD (also stated in Wikipedia).[Soliman]

He give an unreliable reference just to justify his lies...but one of his lolos are admitting that Paul was alive when he greeted the household of Onesiphorus...

let us read what his lolo said:

J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) (Anglican):A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, London: A&C Black, 1963, p. 171:
On the assumption, which must be correct, that Onesiphorus was dead when the words were written

Kuya Gerry's conclusion was...

But from what we just read earlier, Paul died in year 64 (or 67) AD while Onesiphorus died in year 81 AD. So common sense will tell us that Paul died first before Onesiphorus. Therefore, Paul was praying for a man who was still very much alive. [Soliman]

Paul greeted the household of Onesiphorus the question might arise:

How could a dead person write his greetings??

Let us read the Bible:

2 Timothy 1:16-18 (NIV)

¹⁶ May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. ¹⁷ On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. ¹⁸ May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.

Another question will arise:

If Paul died EARLIER than Onesiphorus. How did you know that Paul was praying for Onesiphorus?? Because it is written..right?

Then Paul foresaw the future that he would die earlier than Onesiphorus that's why he wrote this greeting more earlier??

FEMMINIST GROUP GABRIELA ADMITTED THAT THE RH BILL IS NOT PRO-WOMEN AND PRO-POOR

MANILA,

Feb. 2, 2012–In a statement released Saturday, Gabriela party list
admitted that the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, pending in both
chambers of Congress, is neither pro-poor nor pro-women.

“The RH bill cannot be genuinely pro-poor and pro-women for as long
as it espouses population control, which blames poverty on women’s
bodies, fertility and population” Gabriela stated in its Facebook page.

This development took place after renewed interest in dialogues
surfaced following Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle expressed his
personal view that he is open to the he is open to the possibility of
discussing RH with government representatives as long as a true spirit
of dialogue will guide the discussions.

“Ako naman, ito personal [opinion] ko na ito, not CBCP. Kung may opportunities pa for study and dialogue, sana nga matuloy pa.”

Gabriela Rep. Luz Ilagan expressed interest
particularly in the issue of maternal deaths stating, “The DOH reports
50 maternal deaths were recorded in Metro Manila in January alone. This
prompts us to resume deliberations and pass the RH bill without delay.”

However, this is in stark contrast to ‘11 maternal deaths per day’ which was the basis of RH advocates’ call to push the bill to address maternal deaths.

The party list group admitted its preference forthe removal of population control provisions in the legislative measure.

According to Ilagan, “the population control provision defeats the
objective of creating a health-based, rights-based RH policy.”

The solon further expressed the urgent need to address maternal health care.

“Women, especially those in poor, far-flung
communities need access to reproductive health care services ranging
form maternal care, pre-natal care and post-natal care as well as
menopausal care that go beyond the distribution of contraceptives and
population control mechanisms.” (CBCP for Life)

PASUGO NG IGLESIA NI MANALO NAGPAPATUNAY NA IGLESIA CATOLICA ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIANG TATAG NI CRISTO by C. Pio

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem

Anonymous Feb 9, 2012 08:12 PM

at ito naman para sa PASUGO NYO

PASUGO Setyembre 1940,
"Dapat malaman ng lahat, ayon sa Bagong Tipan, ang tunay na INK ay si Cristo ang nagtatag nito."

The TRUE CHURCH is founded by Christ, [that is TRUE]
But which is the TRUE CHURCH founded by Christ?

Pasugo Magazine, July – August 1988 pp. 6. “Even secular history shows a direct time link between the Catholic Church and the Apostles, leading to the conclusion that the true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”

PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: "Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia niCristo."

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the TRUE CHURCH [it was your cult who said this. Lolz

PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7: "Ang tunay na INK ay iisa lamang. Ito ang Iglesiyang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay hindi tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi HUWAD lamang."

Pasugo Magasin, March – April 1984 pp. 14. “Christ, therefore, is the foumder of his church, the true church. Hence, a church established by any other founder means a bogus or false church.”

The TRUE CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST; IN 1914 there was a Cult puffed-up and registered its name in Securities and Exchange Commission as Corporation Sole under the name “CHURCH OF CHRIST” and according to your teaching, I will quote “Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay hindi tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi huwad lamang."

Pasugo Magasin, April 1955 pp. 36. “The truth – the church built by Christ is the true church. There can be no other else. It began in Jerusalem.”

PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9: "Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."

Your cult church is founded here in the Philippines not in Jerusalem, right? lolz

Pasugo Magasin, May 1997 pp. 11. “Way back on July 27, 1914, the Church of Christ was registered with the Philippine government. The registration papers state among other things that Brother Felix Y. Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo.”


sagot ko ito sa isa nyo ring tuta nung bumisita sya sa blog ko hehehehe


Source: "PASUGO NG IGLESIA NI MANALO NAGPAPATUNAY NA IGLESIA CATOLICA ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIANG TATAG NI CRISTO"