COMPENDIO HESTORICO DE LA RELIGION

COMPENDIO HESTORICO DE LA RELIGION

Ni Adonis Tungcab sa PAGLILINAW (Sa Paniniwalang Katoliko) (Mga File) ·

• Compendio Historico de la Religion. 1932, p. 501.]
  
  

  Adonis Tungcab:

  Nakatakot na thread. Ang mga tao nito at mga audience makasabi hindi ba kaya ito blasphemy pagkastoryaha, emagine na si Maria anak sa Dios na Ama, Ina ng Dios na Anak, at asawa pa or esposa sa Espiritu Santo. Ang mga taga palingke sa merkado nito lalo na sa mga matatanda sa tubaan makamuni hindi kaya kayu napangbaliw diyan sa inyung storya na di tunay.____Segi atin tung hinayon sa pagsagot kay nandiyan mang kaya yan sa libro. Sinulat man kaya ni sa Pari. Compendio Historico de la Relihiyon p. 501. Sinabi na itong pagkasulat diyan hindi yan isa ka CARNAL RELATION tinatawag itong Mystical Relation ang pagkakaroon ng isang espirituwal na kahulugan sa pagkaugnayan ni Maria sa Trinidad. Nandiyan sa Juan 1:12 na ang tumanggap ni Cristo maging anak sa Diyos na Ama. So si Maria tumanggap man ni Cristo! Klaro na siya anak sa Dios at saka si Hesus na kayang inaanak Dios man(tinatawag na Lord of the Lords, King of Kings panginoon sa mga Panginoon Pahayag 17:14 Hari sa mga hari ay nakatiltulo sa kanya Col. 2:9) deba malinaw na siya ina ng Diyos na anak, tas ang nagbigay sa kanyang kapangyarihan paglikha sa katawan ni Hesus na naamag naforma sa tiyan ni Maria sa Espiritu Santo man yang kapangyarihan de nakatulad si Maria na Sposa ibig sabihin asawa. Peru di man yan letteral kay ang letteral na asawa ni Maria lang ba si Joseph man si Jose man hehe magsisilos si jose kung mao man yang pagka storyaha, modemanda si Jose sa Spiritu Santo kaya di yan totoo.. Ang meaning diyan ang Spiritu santo nagbigay ng power kang Maria parang husband ba para yung binhi, seed or petus sa matris ni Maria naporma na merong katawan sa pamamagitan ng kapanyarihan ng Spiritu. Kaya hindi yan mali ang pagkasabi sa katoliko sa librong Compendio Historico de la Relihiyon p.501 na si Maria naging anak ng Diyos at si Santa Maria Ina ng Diyos na anak, at ng si Santa Maria nakatulad na parang Esposa ng Spiritu Santo.

DECEMBER 25

(1) Ang unang teorya hold na pagkatapos ng masusing pananaliksik, Julius (337-352), Bishop ng Roma, tinutukoy na Kristo ay ipinanganak noong Disyembre 25, o hindi bababa sa siya natukoy na Disyembre 25 ay ang pinakamahusay na napatunayang petsa sa tradisyon. John Chrystostom nagpapahayag ito sa isa sa kanyang mga kasulatan (John Chrysostom, Homil Diem Natal, 2;. Pl, 49, 552ff). Chrysostom claim na Julius, pagkatapos siya ay hiniling sa pamamagitan ng Cyril ng Jerusalem, ay ang opisyal na talaan ng Roman senso na sinusuri at natukoy na Disyembre 25 ay ang tamang petsa. Bilang Weiser POINTS ang, gayunpaman, may ay walang katibayan upang i-back up ito; sa katunayan, "hayagang ito ay nakasaad sa Roma na ang aktwal na petsa ng ang Tagapagligtas ng kapanganakan ay hindi kilala at na ang iba't ibang tradisyon prevailed sa iba't ibang bahagi ng mundo" (F . Weiser, Handbook ng Christian Feasts at Customs - New York: Harcourt, Brace, at Kumpanya, 1958, 61).. (2) Ang pangalawang teorya nagpapahayag na ang Iglesia ng Roma sadyang pinili Disyembre 25 bilang ang petsa ng kapanganakan ni Cristo upang i-on ang mga tao ang layo mula sa isang paganong kapistahan na na-obserbahan sa parehong oras. Dahil ang oras ng ang Roman Emperor Aurelian (270-275) empire ay bantog sa kapistahan ng sun diyos (Sol Invictus - ang Unconquered Sun) sa kung ano ang inisip nila ay ang taglamig kalayuan ng araw. Disyembre 25 ay sinusunod bilang "ang kaarawan ng araw." Dahil ang sun diyos ay identifed may Mithra, isang napaka-tanyag na diyos sa panahon, ang paganong pagdiriwang naganap sa buong imperyo (makita ang mga Milya ng Clement A., Pasko, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912, 23). Ang Iglesia sa Roma ay tila na napili ang petsang ito upang humadlang ito paganong kapistahan ng diyos ng araw at sa halip na i-on ang mga tao sa ang "Araw ng katuwiran sa paglunas sa Kanyang mga pakpak" (Malakias 4:02; Lucas 1:78). O maglagay ng isa pang paraan, Julius pinili Disyembre 25 upang ang ang Anak ng Diyos sa halip kaysa sa sun diyos ay sumamba. Kahit na walang direktang katibayan na nagpapatunay na ang Iglesia ng Roma sadyang pinili Disyembre 25 upang ang ng kapanganakan ni Cristo ay palitan ang "ang kaarawan ng sun," namin sermons mula sa mga ama ng simbahan na sa lalong madaling panahon pagkatapos ito ginagamit ito linya ng pangangatwiran. Halimbawa, Augustine (354-430) sa kanyang sermon 202 at Leo ang Great (440-461 - pl 54 Pinagmumulan ng chrtiennes 22) nagbibigay ito linya ng pagdadahilan. Samakatuwid, ang pangalawang teorya ay tila ang maaaring magkatotoo. Disyembre 25 ay pinili hindi dahil sa paanuman ito ay napatunayan mula sa mga dagdag na-bibliya na pinagmumulan na Kristo ay tiyak na ipinanganak noong Disyembre 25. Kaysa petsa ay pinili humadlang isang napaka-tanyag na paganong holiday na ay na-occuring sa petsang ito. May mababasa ba sa bible na exactong december 25 ang b day ni jesus christ. MY REPLY: Actually we can trace with sufficient degree of accuracy in the Bible that Jesus was born on December 25. Here it is: Start reading Leviticus 23:23-24 where it says that "the feast of the trumpets starts mid-September and the day of atonement follows nine days later" (Living Bible). Mid-September would naturally be September 25 and adding 9 days will lead you to September 24 which is the day of atonement. It is on this day that Zachary entered into the temple to make his offering (Luke 1:8ff) and on this day the angel Gabriel announced to him that his wife Elisabeth will bear a son whom he shall call John. After six months, the angel appeared to Mary to announce to her that she will bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26). If you count six months from September 24 this will lead you to March 24 of the following year which the Catholic Church fixes as the Day of Annunciation. Now Jesus was in the womb of Mary for nine months (Galatians 4:4) and if you count nine months from March 24 you will arrive at December 24. Since we believe that Jesus was born past midnight so we counted his birth on December 25. It is quite true that the practice of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was not universally adopted in the early centuries but to say that it has no basis in Scripture and that no early christian church celebrated his birthday on this date is also simply false. Catholics, just like the people of God in the Old Testament, celebrate certain days which marked very important events in salvation history. Now the birth of Jesus is evidently one of the most important event in salvation history. Angels do not usually abound on earth on ordinary days but during the first Christmas the angels were singing the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" (Luke 2:13-14). The birth of Jesus is called "pasko" since for us Catholics it is a feast, a day of rejoicing, a day to celebrate for on this day God entered into human history and therefore fulfilled what He has foretold through the prophets regarding the work of redemption that He is going to accomplish. Rochelle here objects to December 25 as the day of Christ birth so the question may be asked: If Jesus was not born on this date, then can she give us the correct date based from the Bible and Church history so that that would be the day which we will celebrate? Granting that Jesus did not give any explicit command that Christians should celebrate the day of his birth but what's wrong with assigning a specific day to commemorate the birth of our Lord? Jose Rizal did not give us any explicit command either to dedicate a day in his honor but because of what he has done for our country and for the example of patriotism which he has bequeath on all the generations of Filipinos we declare and acknowledge him to be our national hero and assign a specific day for him and we erect statues and monuments, we name streets, places, schools, buildings in his honor. Why should we do less when it comes to our Lord since He has done even more marvelous deeds? Without the declaration of the Catholic Church for all Christians to celebrate the birth of Christ then we would have missed a lot of songs and poems composed by the generations of Christians to honor Jesus such as O Come All Ye Faithful, O Little Town of Bethlehem, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Silent Night, O Holy Night and the more recent Christmas in Our Hearts and countless others. Does not these songs inspired by the Christmas season warm our hearts and thoughts and move us to recall, reflect, and contemplate on that wondrous moment when Jesus was born? PAGTOTOL: Kung gusto ninyong mag celebrate ng Dec 25 wala kaming pakialam po. Gusto ko lang ibahagi na ang celebration ng Dec 25 as Christmas ay galing sa pagano. Kumo galing sa kaugaliang pagano, e bakit naman ako mag celebrate pa, lalo na isasali ko pa ang pangalan ng Panginoong Jesus. Huwag na. Ito ang basahin ninyo. REPLY: commits here is simply a fallacy of non sequitor. Similarity does not imply descent. If that were true then let me ask this question: Who among the pagans celebrate the birth of Jesus as Son of God and Messiah to all the world? If the pagans happen to celebrate their feast in honor of the sun god on December 25 and Catholics celebrate their feast to honor Jesus who is the true sun of justice on December 25 this does not make the Catholic celebration pagan. Let me illustrate by another example. The pagans use water in their religious rituals and Christians also use water in their religious rituals. Does this make us pagans? Also, the name of the day called Saturday which SDA's observed to be their day of rest is taken from pagan origin since Saturday literally means day of Saturn which is a pagan god. Does this make the SDA's pagan? Of course not! The main difference is that while pagans observe their feasts to honor false gods, Christians celebrate their feasts to honor Jesus who is Son of God and true God. There is a whole world of difference to this so that those who fail to see this is either blind or pretending to be blind. PAGTOTOL:Sa totoo lang po ay walang mababasa na nag celebrate ng birthday ang mga unang kristiano REPLY: One does not have to be taught to celebrate a love one's birthday. I suspect that SDA's also exchange rings during their weddings and they also celebrate their wedding anniversaries. Where in the Bible is this taught? None. But is this wrong simply because it is not found in the Bible? Not by any means. It is simply naturally for us to give gifts to persons we love, whether you are a pagan or a Christian. However, giving gifts is not the only way to show our love for others. We can also do this by celebrating anniversaries of special events in our lives. For Catholics, Jesus is very special for He is our savior and no amount of ranting from anti-Catholics will prevent us from commemorating his birth. In his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people hailed him "Hosanna" and the pharisees in hypocritical indignation told Jesus to tell the crowd to be silent and Jesus answered them that if they will be silent the stones themselves will shout (Luke 19:40). Did Jesus command the people to acclaim him and give him praise? No. They acted on their convictions that Jesus is the promised Messiah although their notion of it was wrong. The truth is that you don't always have to be explicitly told in order for you to do what is right. The fact that it is not explicitly written in the Bible that the Christians during apostolic times celebrate the birth of Christ does not mean that they didn't. Not everything which the early church practiced is explicitly recorded in the Bible as St Paul himself admonished them to be "steadfast with the traditions which we have handed down to you by our oral preachings or in our epistles" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The above question rest of a false premise that everything that the apostles did and taught are recorded in the Bible. There is no biblical proof to this assumption. If Marion thinks there is I will be glad to hear it.  PAGTOTOL: Yang mga birthday na yan ay turo ng mga nagnenegosyo ng relihion. Kasi ang mga fanatics sa kaugaliang itinuro ng mga negosyante ng relihion, tuwing mag birthday ay magpapamisa o ang tawag nila ay mag pa bless. Siyempre may bayad yon at medyo malaki ang bigay ng mag birthday kasi nga ang aral ay magpasalamat dahil birthday.   REPLY: This is nothing but a distortion of the Catholic teaching and practice. It is true that there are abuses committed by some Catholics in the name of the Catholic religion. But such are abuses and the Catholic Church condemns any deliberate and unreasonable profit and taking advantage of others in the guise of religion. Is Marion here aware of what Catholics call as the sin of simony and usury? But there is a saying that "an abuse is no valid argument against the proper use." If one policeman uses his gun for revenge it does not justify that we will disarm all the policemen. There is no law in the Catholic Church whereby a Catholic is obliged to pay for the services rendered to him by a minister of the Church. On the contrary, we Catholic give our priests a certain amount of money in exchange for his services as a matter of justice since according to St Paul himself those who serve at the altar will live from the offerings (1 Corinthians 9:13-14). Our priests have left everything (inheritance, the comfort of family, wife and children) in order to dedicate themselves entirely for the sake of God's kingdom in answer to the call of Jesus (Matthew 19:11-12) and the injunction of St Paul (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). It is a matter of justice that the people whom they serve will also support them in their financial and material needs as St Paul acknowledged (2 Corinthians 8:7). And we Catholics understand this that is why we give happily and voluntarily as an act of justice and an act of love. Is Marion here jealous that we give our money to our priests and not to him or to his pastors? Are we not entitled to give our money to whom we will? Are not our priest entitled to receive material benefits from us who receive from them spiritual blessings? PAGTOTOL:  Yang celebration ng mga kung anu-ano na yan ay mga turo ng katoliko na minana na rin ng mga ibat-ibang relihion na hindi nag research. Bakit hindi nag research?? E kung nag research sila di sana ay hindi nila ginaya yang mga turong mali. Pakibasa na lang ang website sa baba para makita ninyo kung paano ba nagsimula yang celebration ng Christmas na yan, na hindi itinuro ni Cristo at ng mga apostol.  REPLY: Modesty aside, I think I have studied very well my Catholic religion. I have studied many arguments raised against her from science, from the Bible, and from history. And I also studied her answers to these objections and I have seen that each time the Catholic Church's position seems impregnable than ever. The accusations hurled against her by her enemies only serve to demonstrate the solidity of her fortress. If Marion thinks he has done enough research I suspect that he still misses a lot. My suspicion is that he is informed about the Catholic Church only from those sources which are hostile to her and therefore just like any other haters of the Catholic Church he hates the Catholic Church not for what it is but for what he thinks it is. But Marion here has not excuse for if he really wanted to know about the Catholic religion then he should read her Catechism, study her history not only as portrayed by her enemies but also by her faithful children who were reknowned for their holiness and for offering their lives to the truth to which they testify. He should study Church history not only from books written solely by protestants but also from standard references such as the Encyclopedias and the Almanacs. I will offer Marion a deal: I will read every book against the Catholic Church which he wants me to read provided he also reads a Catholic Apologetics book which I will ask him to read. And of course, each of us shall check if the other is doing his homework. Fair enough.

BIBLIYA BA LAMANG ANG TAMANG PANIWALAAN

PAGTOTOL;

Ang mga KATOLIKO nakaawa ng mga malaking kamalian sa kanilang pangaral na diyan sa Bibliya na hindi sapat sa Kaligtasan. Narito ang sinabi sa AWTORIDAD ng KATOLIKO: "The Bible cannot be the sole guide of our salvation.  It does not contain all necessary truhts of our salvation" 
 (My Catholic Faith by Bishop Morrow page 123) Sa Tagalog: Ang Bibliya hindi maari na itoy sapat na GABAYAN sa ATING Kligtasan. Kay HINDI  LAHAT sa LOOB nakapasok diyan ang LAHAT na mahalagang KATOTOHANAN sa ating KALIGTASAN" Ayon pa kay Mons. Jose Abriol, paring Katoliko. SAPAT  NA BA SA KALIGTASAN ANG BIBLIYA? Hindi sapat sa kaligtasan ang Bibliya. Hindi maaring basihan sa paniniwala lamang itong babasahin. (Ang Bibliya) mahirap unawain," Pananampalataya ni Mons. J Abriol, pahina 140). Ayun din ni Padre John Obrien, "The Bible does not contain all the teachings of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all duties of its members. The Bible alone is not safe and competent guide, because it does not contain all the truths of the Christian religion" (The Faith of Missions by Fr. J Obrien, page 138).

PAGBANGON MO SA BANIG "SINASAMBA KITA"

UTOS DAW NG PARI NA SAMBAHIN ANG MGA LARAWAN

“ PAGBANGON MO SA BANIG AY AGAD KANG MANIKLUHOD SA HARAP NG ISANG KRUS O ISANG MAHAL NA LARAWAN. Kung maninikluhod ka sa tapat ng Altar magwika ka ng ganito: Sinasamba kita,” [Catesismo, ni Padre Luis de Amezquita, pahina 79 at 82].

“KUNG ATING SINASAMBA ANG LARAWAN ni Kristong napapako sa Krus, dinadasal natin: ‘Sinasamba kita at pinupuri, Panginoon kong JesuCristo,…” [Siya ang Inyong Pakinggan: Ang Aral na Katoliko, sinulat ni Padre Enrique Demond, inilathala ng Catholic Trade School, may imprimatur ni Jose Bustamante, pahina 12 ]

“We Catholics acknowledged readily, without any shame, nay with pride, THAT CATHOLICISM CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED SIMPLY AND WHOLLY WITH PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY, NOR EVEN WITH THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn.” [Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, page 2]

“Moreover, A WRITTEN BIBLE IS A DEAD BOOK. Nor is it an easy book, it does not explain itself.” (Catholic Belief, p. 4)
Dapat tayong magkaroon lalo na sa ating mga simbahan, ang mga larawan ng ating Panginoong, tulad ng sa pinagpalang Birhen at mga santo, at dapat natin silang bigyan ng kaukulang paggalang at pagsamba”. [Salin sa Filipino mula sa Cathecism of Christian Doctrine, inilathala ng De La Salle College, pahina 9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 MAY NAG-POST po ng PANINIRA sa MGA KATOLIKO sa COMMENTS ng ARTIKULO NATIN na "PAGLILINAW (Sa Paniniwalang Katoliko)

 Ang laging Mag-POST NIYAN dahil ang REPERENSIYA na GINAMIT DIYAN ay GINAMIT DIN ng SAKSI NI JEHOVAH., IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ANG DATING DAAN, SEVEN-DAY ADVENTISTA

Heto po ang POST ng sa ARTIKULO NATIN, sa ARAW at ORAS na "10:10 pm. NOBEMBER, 28, 2012

"Sabi ni Fr. Syndicus at Fr. De Amezquita ay dapat sambahin ang larawan.

"Pagbangon mo sa banig ay agad kang manikluhod sa isang krus o mahal na larawan.

Kung maninikluhod ka sa tapat ng Altar, magwika ka ganito: "Sinasamba kita,"

Catesismo; Tinagalog ni Padre Luis de Amezquita p. 79 at 82."

Adonis Tungcab:
Maraming Katoliko at CFD po ang nagHaHanap sa  REPERENSIYA na IYAN at NAPATUNAYAN KONG PEKE ang SINASABI ng NANINIRA sa ATING MGA KATOLIKO.

NAGBANGGIT SIYA ng TAMANG CATESISMO na ISINALIN sa PILIPINO ni PADRE LUIS DE AMEZQUITA pero SININGITAN NIYA ng PEKENG PAHAYAG.

Ang PAMAGAT po ng CATESISMO na ISINALIN ni Fr. AMEZQUITA ay "Catecismo: na pinagpalamnan ng mga pangadyi at maikling kasaysayan na dapat pag-aralan nang taong cristiano."

INILIMBAG po iyan noong 1933 ng LIBRERIA Y PAPELERIA de P. Sayo Vda. De Soriano, sa Rosario No. 225, Binondo y Azcarraga, No. 552, Tondo, Manila, I.F.



DALAWA po ang PEKE sa REPERENSIYA na GINAMIT ng UMAATAKE sa KATOLIKO.

Una, ang SABI po ng NANINIRA sa KATOLIKO ay NASA PAHINA 79 at 82 raw ng CATESISMO ni Fr. AMEZQUITA ang REPERENSIYA NIYA.

KASINUNGALINGAN po IYAN.

NARITO po ang LINK sa PAGES 79 at 82 ng CATESISMONG ISINALIN na FR. AMEZQUITA at HINDI NINYO IYAN MABABASA RIYAN.

Heto po ang PAGE 79.

Narito naman po ang PAGE 82.

Paki BASA at SURI pong MAIGI at MAKIKITA po NINYO na WALA RIYAN ang SINASABI ng NANINIRA sa KATOLIKO.



Ngayon, ang GINAWA po ng UMAATAKE sa KATOLIKO ay SUMIPI SIYA ng KAPIRASO sa ISINALIN ni Fr. AMEZQUITA at DINUGTUNGAN IYON ng KASINUNGALINGAN.

Ang SINIPI ng NANINIRA sa KATOLIKO ay MAKIKITA sa PAGE 96 ng CATESISMONG SALIN ni Fr. AMEZQUITA.




Ngayon, IKUMPARA po NATIN ang SINABI ng NANINIRA sa KATOLIKO sa AKTWAL na SINABI sa SALIN ni PADRE AMEZQUITA.

Ganito po ang SABI ng NANINIRA sa KATOLIKO:

"Pagbangon mo sa banig ay agad kang manikluhod sa isang krus o mahal na larawan.

"Kung maninikluhod ka sa tapat ng Altar, magwika ka ganito: "Sinasamba kita,"

GANITO po ang MABABASA sa CATESISMO na ISINALIN ni AMEZQUITA.

"Sa Pangbangon" [PAMAGAT po iyan]
"Pagbangon mo sa banig ay agad kang manikluhod sa harap ng isang Cruz o isang mahal na larawan. Mangyaring mag Ang tanda ka muna at saka magdasal ng tatlong Ama namin sa Santisima Trinidad. Sa Dios Ama, ay hihingi ka ng pananampalataya ..."

Paki SURI NINYO ang AKTWAL na SINABI ni PADRE AMEZQUITA.

MAY SINABI ba RIYAN na "Kung maninikluhod ka sa tapat ng Altar, magwika ka ganito: "Sinasamba kita"?

WALA po.

IDINAGDAG LANG nung NANINIRA sa KATOLIKO ang mga salitang "SINASAMBA KITA" para MAPALABAS NIYA na DINIDIYOS ng mga KATOLIK ang mga REBULTO.

Sa TUNAY pong REPERENSIYA ay HINDI IYAN SINABI.

ANO po ang IPINAKIKITA at PINATUTUNAYAN NIYAN?

SINUNGALING po at MANLOLOKO ang GUMAGAMIT ng PEKENG REPERENSIYANG IYAN.

WALA SILANG MAIPINTAS sa KATOLIKO kaya KAILANGANG MAG-IMBENTO NA SILA ng KASINUNGALINGAN upang MASIRAAN ang MGA KATOLIKO.

NATURAL na NATURAL po sa KANILA ang MAMBALUKTOT at MAGSINUNGALING.


SINO-SINO po ba ang GUMAGAMIT ng PEKENG REPERENSIYA na IYAN?

ISA na po iyang NAG-POST sa ATIN. TINATAGO KO LANG ang kanyang PANGALAN.

( TALUNIN NATIN SILA )

ANG KAHULOGAN NG KATHOLIS O CATHOLIC AY UNIVERSAL

Ang kahulugan ng Katholis o catholic ay universal, ngayon kung basahin natin ang San Marcos 11:17 ganito ang nakasulat "nasusulat ang aking bahay (iglesya) ay TATAWAGING bahay-DALANGINAN ng LAHAT NG MGA BANSA" ANO RAW ANG ITATAWAG SA KANYANG IGLESYA? ay TATAWAGING bahay-DALANGINAN ng LAHAT NG MGA BANSA" ang salitang "lahat ng bansa" sa english ay international o universal. Catholic is universal. sa bibliyang latin mababasa natin ang universal church Roma 16:23 "salutat vos cajus hospes meus, et UNIVERSA ECCLESIA"

WALANG NAKASULAT SA BIBLIA NA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA

"Walang nakasulat sa biblia na Apostolika Romana"

Ang apostolika at romana ay may mga marka sa tunay niyang iglesya - apostolika ay mababasa sa Efeso 2:20 "Kayo'y itinayo rin sa saligan ng mga apostol" 

kaya ang unang Papa sa Roma ay si san Pedro ika 265 si Pope Benedict xvi... apostolika in the sense na ang kasaysayan lang ng iglesya katolika ang ma trace back pabalik sa mga apostol, at sa mga apostol maabante sa panahon natin ngayon. 

Romana dahil ang iglesya na itinayo ni Cristo sa jerusalem ay inilipat sa roma, San Mateo 21:43, Gawa 23:11 at dun sa roma unang lumaganap ang kanyang iglesya. kaya romana! 

Itutuloy kung walang naius mag komento++++++

BAKIT “GINOONG” MARIA?

Icon of the Annunciation wherein the Angel Gabriel greeted the Virgin Mary, "Hail, Full of Grace"

ABA, “GINOONG” MARIA!


Mr. Ben Douglas, an American Catholic apologist emailed me sometime in 2006 asking for some information about Mr. Eliseo Soriano of Ang Dating Daan. At that time, Ben Douglas was preparing an article on Soriano and his Ang Dating Daan. Among others, Mr. Douglas wanted to refute Soriano’s accusation that the Tagalog version of “Hail Mary” (“Aba Ginoong Maria”) is erroneous. Being an American, Mr. Douglas is not very much conversant on Tagalog. Hence, he requested me to provide him some information about the language, specifically about the Aba Ginoong Maria translation.

Mr. Douglas wanted to react to Soriano’s tirades against Filipino Catholics for praying the Aba Ginoong Maria. In a Bible exposition, Soriano, froth in the mouth, lamented: “If you were a woman, how would you feel about being addressed as Ginoo? (mister)? Wasn’t she the wife of Joseph? Why don’t you call her Ginang Maria instead?”

To help a fellow Catholic apologist, I replied to Mr. Douglas’s email on April 26, 2006 explaining that in classical Tagalog, both “ginoo” and “maginoo” were applied to both men and women. Mr. Ben Douglas prepared a well argued article debunking Soriano.

 In addition, he referred to a secular site to prove our case. In the Wikipedia, it categorically states: “Kung mapapansin ang "Ave Maria" sa Tagalog ay tumukoy sa "Ginoo" imbes na "Ginang o Binibini" ito ay dahil sa Lumang Tagalog, ang mga "kalalakihan" ay may "mataas" na pagkilala kumpara sa kababaihan. Ipinilit na gamitin ang "mataas na pagkilalang ito" sa kalagayan at katauhan ni Maria, na ayon sa Romano Katoliko ay Ina ng Diyos.”

There’s no need to change the wording of Aba Ginoong Maria as there is no need to bring coal to Newcastle. When aint broke, don’t fix it. Even if we amend the Aba Ginoong Maria to placate anti-Catholics, would they stop attacking our Marian devotion?

The Aba Ginoong Maria is part of classical religious literature. There’s certainly no need to update it. Would King James-only Protestants ever wish to change the archaic words in the King James Version? I don’t think so. Should we modernize the language of Shakespeare? Definitely not. The same holds true for the Aba Ginoong Maria as it has already been part of the unique Tagalog heritage, language and culture long before the advent of Protestants and fundamentalists in our land.

Going back to the request for references from the 1800’s, I already pointed out in my blog that our National Hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal, mentioned in his letter Sa Mga Kababayang Dalaga ng Malolos: "Pukawin ninyo ang sigla at sipag, maginoong asal, mahal na pakiramdam at huag isuko ang pagkadalaga sa isang mahina at kuyuming puso” [Jose P. Rizal, Sa Mga Kababayang Dalaga ng Malolos, Nilo S. Ocampo, ed., Si Rizal at ang Wikang Tagalog (Quezon City: UP Press, 2002) 526]. I argued, “Malinaw na para sa pambansang bayani, ang maginoong asal ay hindi lamang para sa mga lalaki bagkus ay marapat din para sa mga babae. Sa madaling sabi, ang mga babae ay dapat na mga maginoo rin. Ang sulat ni Dr. Jose Rizal sa mga dalaga ng Malolos, Bulacan ay hindi lingid sa kaalaman ng mga mag-aaral sa mataas na paaralan at kolehiyo sapagkat ito ay isinasama sa mga babasahing itinatakda ng mga guro sa asignaturang Ang Buhay, mga Gawa at mga Sinulat ni Rizal na bahagi ng kurikulum sa ating mga paaralan. Lumalabas na ang tunay na kahulugan ng ‘Ginoo’ ay marangal o ikinararangal, maging lalaki man o babae.”

In Panganiban’s Diksyonario Tesauro Pilipino-Ingles, it is stated in p. 443 –

“Note: Noceda & Sanlucar report in 1860 that ginoo referred to ‘a lady in rank,’ while maginoo was ‘gentleman of rank.’ The Tg. Version of Ave Maria (Hail, Mary!) starts with Aba, Ginoong Maria. But today both ginoo and maginoo are masculine.”



In Yirmeyah.Net, Filipino Catholic (an apologist from Davao) finally posted my article “ABA, GINOONG MARIA! ABA PO, SANTA MARIANG HARI!” in the forum. That to settle the matter and put the issue at rest. Filipino Catholic concluded, “Is it permissible to call a lady “GINOO”? We already proved na pwede. Even Dr. Jose Rizal called the ladies of Malolos as GINOO. … So … do you agree na pwedeng tawaging GINOO ang babae? Will that "somebody" apologize for calling Bro. Marwil "INCOMPETENT?” (http://yirmeyah.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=661&start=30).