Basketball player is Filipino saint’s face

February 24, 2012

A painting of Blessed Pedro Calungsod by Alfredo Esquillo at the Loyola House of Studies (Photo: John Francis Lagman)

A PROFESSIONAL basketball player has become the face of Blessed Pedro Calungsod, a Filipino who will be proclaimed saint by Pope Benedict XVI in October.

Ronald Tubid from Iloilo province was used as a model for the image of Calungsod, said Jesuit Father Catalino Arevalo.

“If you look at the portrait carefully he was the one used as model,” said Father Arevalo during a seminar at the Loyola School of Theology on Wednesday.

He said Tubid is a Visayan like Calungsod and was only 17 years old when he posed as a model for the future saint.

“We asked everybody who knew him if he was a good candidate, of good moral character, and everybody said yes. So we used him as the official face of Calungsod,” Arevalo said.

Tubid plays professional basketball for the Barako Bull Energy team at the Philippine Basketball Association. He used to play for the University of the East and the Philippine Basketball League during his younger years.

You church’s doctrine: “Holy Mary MOTHER OF GOD“. Seriously? Your god has a mother? If that is so, is the mother also a god? And wouldn’t that run contradictory to other doctrines which states God has no beginning? So…does your church’s doctrine make sense?

Abe Arganiosa’s proclamation on his blog

Church buys Rylands Hall

reposted. Original is here: http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/11529-church-buys-rylands-hall.html

30 Apr 2012, 13:48

Rylands Hall, Stretford has been bought by Iglesia ni Cristo the worldwide Church of Christ, which plans to return the building to its original use as a church with spiritual study centre, residential accommodation and ancillary offices.

The organisation paid vendor the Leck Group £750,000 for the building in Edge Lane, Stretford. Since its conversion into 7,378 sq ft of offices in the late 1980s, it has been occupied by St Vincent’s Housing Association. The housing association is now based in Brindley Road, Old Trafford.

Daniel Lee, of Regional Property Solutions, acted for the Leck Group. He said: “John Rylands took a leading role in the erection of this building for the Union Church for Congregationalists in 1867 so it is very appropriate to see it being returned to its intended purpose and as such the ‘change of use’ approval was quite straight forward.”

Carlito Apostol, a minister of the church, said: “This building will be used as a place of worship for the members of the Church’s local congregation of Manchester, District of Northern Europe. Members gladly share their faith to everyone and guests are welcome to attend bible study sessions and worship services.”

Most Rev. Ramon Arguelles, D.D.

It’s 2010. Knowledge and understanding as well as the means of disseminating it grows by leaps and bound. In this age of instantaneous information transfer, anyone living near the edges of a suburb would have the same equal opportunity for wisdom as any other inside the city. And so it bothers me to find out and read about this row concerning of all things prophylactics, or a condoms.

What’s the row?

Catholic Church Opposed Use of Condom as HIV/AIDS and VD Shield

A Philippine lawmaker is being criticized by the influential Catholic bishops for supporting a bill in congress that would promote the use of condom as a way of protection from the spread of HIV/ AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases.

The Roman Catholic church in the Philippines is opposing the Philippine reproductive health bill being supported by a congresswoman who is also a medical doctor. Rep. Janet Garin said the Catholic church is misleading the public by claiming that the use of condom will not guaranty users against unwanted pregnancy, transmission of AIDS/ HIV and sexually-transmitted diseases. On the contrary, the lady physician and lawmaker said that the World Health Organization (WHO) has even recommended the use of condoms for the protection of HIV and sexually-transmitted diseases. In the Philippines, the use of condom is being supported by the government to prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. The Department of Health had in fact spearheaded the use of condom in its recent valentine day campaign where condoms were given free to couples who bought flowers in a popular flower shop in Manila. Some government officials also claimed the use of condoms controls population growth in slum areas and in the countryside

read more here

Why does the Roman Catholic church oppose the use of condom not only for Family Planning purposes but also for the prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS? This is what they said:

Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles and other bishops take the position that condom distribution promotes promiscuity and that it leads to the increase of AIDS as the use of condoms is not an absolutely fail-safe protection, suggesting that abstinence is the best policy. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) even wants a total ban on condom advertisements and condom distribution announcements, clearly a violation of constitutionally protected free speech rights.

Condoms promotes promiscuity? really? You mean Filipinos will be far more promiscuous because of condoms? If you believe that then I have a bridge I can sell you for cheap. I have a question for the good Archbishop which beg and answer. Isn’t promiscuity a moral issue, not medical one? And aren’t moral issues learned and instilled in the minds of people, in the home first by their parents and secondly in church by their religion? If so, then the question of promiscuity should be addressed in the homes and in the church, and not by the government but by religious leaders. Given that in the Philippines majority of the people are Roman Catholic then it falls into the control of Catholic parents and Catholic priest. It they’re doing their jobs, we wouldn’t need condoms.

What do you think?

God, the Father

• Bible: one God, the Father in heaven
• Iglesia ni Cristo: one God, the Father in heaven
• RCC: trinity, based on pagan Babylonian triune god

God, the Father

• Bible: one God, the Father in heaven
• Iglesia ni Cristo: one God, the Father in heaven
• RCC: the Pope

Holy Father

• Bible: God, the Father
• Iglesia ni Cristo: God, the Father
• RCC: the priest, bishops, cardinals, the Pope
  

Nature of the Lord Jesus Christ

• Bible: Jesus Christ is man
• Iglesia ni Cristo: Jesus Christ is man
• RCC: Jesus is God as of 325 AD by order of the Council of Nicaea chaired by Emperor Constantine.

Head of the Church of Christ

• Bible: Christ is the Head of His body, the Church
• Iglesia ni Cristo: Christ is the Head of the Church of Christ, Iglesia ni Cristo
• RCC: Pope is the Head of the Church.

Who to worship

• Bible: Worship only God and Christ
• Iglesia ni Cristo: Worships God and Christ. Only.
• Roman pagan: Worships Mama Mary, St. Joseph, St. Peter, all saints, angels,  including their statues, pictures, relics.

Mediator between God and man

• Bible: one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ
• Iglesia ni Cristo: one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ
• RCC: “Virgin Mary” and all the “Saints” are intercessors

Prohibition in the eating of blood

• Bible: prohibition on eating blood.
• Iglesia ni Cristo: prohibition on eating blood
• Catholic: No prohibition on eating blood

Abstain from eating meat

• Bible: No abstinence from meat
• Iglesia ni Cristo: No abstinence from meat
• RCC: Abstain from meat at certain dates

Forbidding to marry

• Bible: No prohibition to marry
• Iglesia ni Cristo: No prohibition to marry
• RCC: Priest are prohibited to marry once they take their vow

The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called “the Christian Church,” either. – Kenneth Whitehead http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

Catholicdefender2000 AKA Ivatan blogger AKA losav

Ivatan Blogger AKA Wakay AKA Catholicdefender2000 is jealous! Yup. And also furious. Why? Because his beloved church, the Roman Catholic church dropped the ball big time. In his blog post at catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com he’s asking if the name if the church is indeed Church of Christ. Well, that is what is written in the bible.

Acts 20:28 Lamsa version

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.

Why is he jealous and furious? Well, he couldn’t understand why his beloved church, which claims to have compiled the bible named itself the Holy Roman Catholic church which does not appear even remotely in the bible or to put it bluntly, the name is unbiblical. It specially bothers him that some Catholic writers agree with the Iglesia ni Cristo that the name of the church built by Christ is indeed Church of Christ.

When did the Catholic church get its name? Around the year 107 AD, Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church“. No steadfast follower of the Lord Jesus and the Apostles would allow themselves to be called by any other name than the name of the Lord Jesus himself. It was in the Council of Nicaea, however, that the name of the Catholic church became official.

And another funny thing with the Catholic is the confusion among Catholics themselves. Its simply hilarious. Catholics has a so-called “creed” which they recite every time they go to mass wherein the name they recite is “one holy catholic apostolic church” and some Catholics swear that this, “one holy catholic apostolic church” is the name of their church. But not all call themselves this. They would rather call themselves Catholics. Still others want to be called Roman catholics even if they not even from Rome. It’s a whole bowl of confusion. I’m not going to dwell on the how and when the confusion started but I can tell you it was caused by self-proclaimed infallible Popes (see Second Vatican Council). Still some Catholic writers insist the name of the church is Catholic church. Members of the Catholic church are mostly called Catholics and sometimes Romans.

We all know that church built by Christ is called Church of Christ, emphasis on Christ.

On his blog, Mr Abe Arganiosa posed this question:

Is It True That the Miter of the Pope and Bishops Is Patterned After Egyptian Paganism?

To which he proudly answered this:

ANSWER: DEFINITENLY NOT! THE EPISCOPAL MITER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TAKEN FROM THE HOLY GARMENTS WORN BY THE HIGH RANKING MINISTERS OF GOD IN THE TEMPLE AND THE MEETING TENT OF ISRAEL:

He then proceeded to quote bible verses from the book of Exodus that seemed to say that indeed the mitre was used by God’s ancient servants. The verses talked about ceremonies in which the priest wore a headgear. The verses he quoted from the book of Exodus were: 28:4. 28:37, 39:31, 28:39, 29:6, 39:28.

So the assertions of Mr Arganiosa on his blog are:

1. The mitre used by the Catholic church is based on God’s ancient peoples, specifically ancient Israel.
2. The mitre was used by the ancient people of God, ancient Israel.

Let examine Mr Arganiosa’s claims and see if they have some substance.

Abe Arganiosa

A casual check of the verses he quoted revealed that not all bible version render the verse to say “mitre”! Actually a good majority of bible versions render the headgear as “turban”. So, the second assertion of Mr Arganiosa that the people of God in the time of Moses wore a mitre is on a shaky foundation. He should have consulted other versions of the bible to make sure he is right but he obviously did not do this and now he’s in danger of being inadequate in his research. Or maybe he did to intentionally mislead?

The Turban, wound as a "Mitznefet" (left) for the Kohen Gadol and as a "Migba'at" (right) for the ordinary Kohen

What exactly is in the Hebrew rendition of the verses he quoted? Again a cursory check of the bible reveals that the Hebrew word which was translated to both mitre and turban by different version is “mitsnepheth“. Mitsnepheth means a piece of cloth woven around the head. One has to agree that even today, people in the middle east wear some sort of headgear wrapped around their head to keep the sun and heat away. So it won’t be too far fetched to think that a turban is the most likely headgear used by the early inhabitants of the Middle East. In fact, some Hebrew websites describe the apparel of ancient Hebrews to include a turban.

Clearly, even common sense dictates that the “mitre” quoted by Mr Arganiosa is a turban similar to the graphic at right and is a long piece of cloth wrapped around the head. Now let’s compare this to the mitre used by the Catholic church.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org):

Mitre of the Catholic Church

The mitre is a kind of folding-cap. It consists of two like parts, each stiffened by a lining and risingto a peak; these are sewn together on the sides, but are united above by a piece of material that can fold together. Two lappets trimmed on the ends with fringe hang down from the back. The mitre is, theoretically, always supposed to be white. The official “Cæremoniale Romanum” distinguishes three kinds of mitres: the mitra pretiosa, auriphrygiata, and simplex. The first two differ from each other only in the greater or less richness of the ornamentation; the mitra simplex, or simple mitre, is one of white silk or white linen entirely without ornament. The fringe on the lappets at the back should be red.

Origin

The pontifical mitre is of Roman origin: it is derived from a non-liturgical head-covering distinctive of the pope, the camelaucum, to which also the tiara is to be traced. The camelaucum was worn as early as the beginning of the eighth century, as is shown by the biography of Pope Constantine I (708- 815) in the “Liber Pontificalis”. The same headcovering is also mentioned in the so-called “Donation of Constantine”. The Ninth Ordo states that the camelaucum was made of white stuff and shaped like a helmet. The coins of Sergius III (904-11) and of Benedict VII (974-83), on which St. Peter is portrayed wearing a camelaucum, give the cap the form of a cone, the original shape of the mitre. The camelaucum was worn by the pope principally during solemn processions. The mitre developed from the camelaucum in this way: in the course of the tenth century the pope began to wear this head-covering not merely during processions to the church, but also during the subsequent church service. Whether any influence was exerted by the recollection of the sacerdotal head-ornament of the high-priest of the Old Testament is not known, but probably not—at least there is no trace of any such influence. It was not until the mitre was universally worn by bishops that it was called an imitation of the Jewish sacerdotal head-ornament.

source: newadvent.org

Need I say more? A folding cap is not at all similar to a long piece of linen cloth wrapped around the head. The Catholic encyclopedia has more than enough information contradicting Mr Arganiosa’s claims. Too bad that Mr Arganiosa seems to not even know the history of his own religion.

To recap, we’ve just established that both of Mr Arganiosa’s claim are not true and also established the following:

1. The mitre used by the Catholic church is not based on the turban used by the ancient people of God.
2. A turban was used by the ancient people of God.

But then we’re still left by the question posed to Mr Arganiosa, which is

Is It True That the Miter of the Pope and Bishops Is Patterned After Egyptian Paganism?

"St". Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, wearing a mitre

As is stated by the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Pope’s mitre is of Roman origin! Read again, Roman origin, NOT Christian origin. It is derived from camelaucum. What is a camelaucum? Again, the Catholic encyclopedia tells us that the camelaucum was first used by Pope Constantine during his reign in the 8th century and was part of the supposed donation of Emperor Constantine.

Suffice it to say, we can safely assert with much authority that Mr Arganiosa doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that the mitre used by the Catholic church is of pagan influence.

Ask yourself this: do you think a supposedly Christian religion is well justified in using a pagan instrument in its practices?

Anti-INC Catholic bloggers are at it again. This time, jealous of the massive show of force the Iglesia ni Cristo display in its Grand Evangelical Mission on February 28, 2012, tried to spin it saying it wasn’t as big as promised. They then tried to compare it to the Catholic mass held by their future “saint” John Paul 2 in 1995 during what they call as World Youth Day. First of all, before starting to compare two things, you need to at first know some important details about what are being compared. So, let’s just see what we know about the two mass gatherings.

1. “World” vs Local. The RCC had a “World” Youth day. This means some the attendees were from other countries to attend. The Grand Evangelical Mission of the INC held at the Quirino Grandstand was limited to members who lives in the vicinity.
2. Percentage of the Philippine population that belong to each religion – RCC, 80%, INC 2%
3. The RCC did not limit the number of members who can attend the WYD. The INC limited the number to the GEM to 100 per local congregation around the vicinity of Quirino Grandstand.
4. The WYD was held in only one place, the Quirino Grandstand. The INC GEM was help not only at the Quirino Grandstand but also in Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu and Bacolod, San Jose town in Tarlac, Ilagan town in Isabela, and Pili town in Camarines Sur.

Now if the homosexual prostitute cum Catholic Apologetic insist in comparing, they I’ll gladly concede the RCC is larger than the INC. That does not bother me. Why? Having a huge number of adherents does not mean you are the true church. On the contrary even the Holy Scriptures state that those who will burn in hell are as many as the sands of the sea. So then, you can have the numbers if you want.