Part I [paki-click]
[Asan ang verses na sinaasabi mo? Maski yong si Haydock na sarili nyong commentarista sinasabing lihis ang interpretasyonmo sa verses na binanggitmo tapos sasabihinmo narefutemo ang sinasabi ko? ]
no on can serve two masters. Have you read that? And by the way, I already gave you the exegesis sa Mark na ginamit mo. Ano na ngayon ang sagot mo? Meron ba? Wala. Remember Proverbs 3:5
btw, Haydock did not mention anything in negation to the stand of the church to protect its people from the immoralities that the PRO RH would want to pin down in the minds of the people especially that majority of this nation are Catholics and you have to understand the situation. I have replied already to your post regarding his commentary but it seems you are misrepresenting the inner interpretation in his statement. And even If you think he negates to the stand of the church [as if naman kung totoo], he is not the magisterium of the church. Intiendes?
Let me go on where in the church’s teaching that she is involved when it comes to political affairs especially morality, The clearest articulation of this is found in Pius XI’s social encyclical, Quadraqesimo anno, promulgated in 1931, when the world was in the throes of a depression. In paragraphs 41-3, Pius explains. The Church proclaims the moral order of the human universe. She is to proclaim and explain every aspect of the moral order. The moral order is something like the plan of an architect for a great project. God is the architect, and the human race is His great project. God has a design for His human universe. We are free agents, with intelligence and free will. We can discover the moral order and choose to abide by it, or we can ignore it and make up our own plan. Attempting to improve upon God’s moral order is a dangerous undertaking. We have seen many examples of social engineering in this century alone, and know the disastrous results of Nazism, Fascism, and Marxism. See? The church is against any political oppression when it comes to negating the church in their Moral stand and you cannot deny that the RH Bill throw over the morality that the church teaches concerning contraception.
[May sagot ka ba sa mga clear na clear na pronouncements na mga disipulo kasali si Pedro na ayon sa inyo e unang Pope na mga ito na nagsasabing di dapat makisawsaw ang mga Kristiyano sa politiiko?]
let me go on talking about St. peter about the law of men Acts 5:29,But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. Why did St. Peter said this? Because he knows that politics or the law of men is temporal so rather than following the law of men, follow what God had told us to do, and this generation, the church is advocating to not follow the RH Bill because it is a law of men and is not God-breathed. Understand?
[“Let every soul be subject to government authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-3).]
come on, this speaks on Civil Obedience. This also explains that man must be obedient on the forms of legal laws that are in connection to the law of God. Other versions uses not government authorities but HIGHER AUTHORITIES. Pastor Anderson of the Baptist Church explains that the higher Authorities is not meant that the Church have no role in maintaining the spiritual and moral life of the people. In the verse you quoted, it even affirms that the eternal authority can only be seen in God. Meaning, according to Pastor Anderson, there is a domino effect on which a man is being appointed by God to rule the people either in the government or in the church. So meaning, they both share the same goal of which is to make the people obedient in the society and the Church that molds their moral and spiritual well-being [obviously, this can be contained in the Philippine Constitution]
[“Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme. Or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (I Peter 2:13, 14).]
fine! read the verse, it says “…for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good”, are you not reading the verse you quoted? It says for the punishment of evildoers. So since the Church proclaimed that RH Bill is an evil thing in moral aspects, then we submit to the government our opposition in the RH Bill. The church already proclaimed that Contraception is evil, so why the heck it is not understandable for you? Continue reading verse 15-17
“For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. “
so now, is the RH Bill honoring God according to the Church’s principle? Tell me.
[Eto ang pangontramo sa ma maliwanag na verses na mga iyan:
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.
Marunong ka bang magbasa? Naiintindihanmo ba na si Haydock e dalubhasa nya sa Bibliya, iho? Kung sabagay di kita masisisi dahil seaman ka nga sabi mo.]
again you are misleading the people, since Jesus said that what is Caesar is to Caesar and what is God is to God,this only shows the boundaries of the church and state in governance to the people. The governance of the civl government is temporal and that includes financial, physical and developmental forms of leading the people while the church governs the moral and spiritual aspect of each human being. That does not defy the stand of the church against the RH bill because that may even affirm to what the church is advocating for so long. Don’t you get properly what the verse is really about?
[Nagpapasalamat ako sa iyo, Mr. Seafarer, at napasok ko ulit ang kuta nyo at magkaroon ulit ako ng tsansa na ipamukha sa inyong lahat sa Facebook group nyo na hindi turo ni Kristo ang paghimasok ng mga diumanoy mga alagad nya sa mga usaping politika. ]
talaga lang ha. Kakasagot ko lang. Busy ako lately kaya hindi mo maasahan ang automatic na reply ko.
[Maliwanag nga mga pinagsasabi nong mga verses na nabanggitko sa last post ko at kayo naman almost one month nang di makahanap ng isang legitimate verse to counter the verses I have cited. To highlight the untenability of your position, naghagilap ka pa ng kung ano-anong verse dyan na wala namang kinalaman sa usaping church and state at dineklaramong refuted na ako. Lukr 16:13 depensa laban sa bumabatikos sa Roman Catholic sa kanilang paghihimasok sa government affairs? Talagang out of this world ka, Mr. Seafarer. Sa Linggo, tanunginmo sa pare sa parish nyo kung tama yong citation mo.]
nasagot ko na dre, akala ko ba marunong ka ng exegesis. lol
[Sa palagayko ang nangyari dito e homemade ang defensemo. Hindi mo nakita sa website. Dalhin mo rin yong mga verses na naquoteko specifically “Let every soul be subject to government authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-3). “Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme. Or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (I Peter 2:13, 14). Tanungin siya kung may counter ang simbahan laban doon para hindi ka naman magpulot kung saan pahina ng Bibliya at sabihing yon ang counter-reference doon. ]
nasagot ko na yan. Self-refuting ang mga bersikulong gusto mong iparating. Sino ba pastor mo, hindi ka yata marunong ng exegesis. Proverbs 3:5 puwede bang basahin?
[May payaman ng simbahan at yaman ni Caesar ka pa kung ano man ang ibig sabihin mo don. Para naman maimprove ang mga argumento mo baka sakaling may makasalubong kang tumutuligsa sa interference ng simbahan nyo sa purely government matters, punta ka sa Wikipedia. Hanapin mo kung anong sinasabi nya sa “Render unto Caesar.”]
aba, hindi mo kasi masagot dahil obvious naman ang ibig sabihin diyan. It is self-explanatory, you are trying to assume that what you posted is ok lang kahit ililiteral mo. Hmm..doesn’t even know exegesis eh. Contextual analysis ang kelangan diyan. Gets?
[Aran Cabreros My question to you is to whom does legislation pertain – to the state or to the church? Now if you say it’s the state’s, how come you insists interfering when it is clear from what St. Athanasius wrote that the two spheres should not overlap? (St. Athanasius quotes the following strong words from an epistle of the famous confessor Hosius, to Constantius, the Arian emperor: “Cease, I beseech thee, and remember that thou art mortal. Fear the day of judgment, and meddle not with ecclesiastical matters; neither do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn them of us. To thee God hath committed the empire; to us he hath committed what belongs to the Church. And as he who, with a malicious eye, hath designs upon thine empire, opposeth the ordinance of God; so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written, Give to Cæsar, &c. Therefore, neither is it lawful for us on earth to hold the empire, neither hast thou, O emperor, power over incense and sacred things.”) And Pope Clement XIV said that Christians should accord respect to temporal authority: “Be careful,” says he, “that those whose instruction in the law of the gospel is committed to your charge, be made sensible from their very infancy of their sacred obligation of loyalty to their kings, of respect to their authority, and of submission to their laws, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.” There are no ifs and buts in the text like you want to make it appear. The pope merely echoes what the Bible says that Christians should submit to temporal laws. ]
the temporal laws shall also abide on the teachings of the Church which is God breathed, I told you already that the Church have the power to condemn what is wrong for the nation-building. Take for example the propagation of Marxism in the Communist countries, why did Pope Pius XI wrote Quadraqesimo anno in response to the social responsibility of each Catholic clergies and Catholics as well in protecting their rights especially that Marxism had brought many Catholics and other theists into atheism because of the massive indoctrination and inhumane actions of their leaders? Why? Are we not allowed also to do that in this nation where the church wanted to protect the people from being indoctrinated on the culture of Contraception of which the church teaches to the people that it is actually wrong?
In the case of the legislation of the RH Bill, the state have the right to legislate because we all know that it is their responsibility to make laws that are beneficial but do not contradict on all sectors of our society[except for evil-doers]. But it is your misfortune that this country is predominantly Catholic and nowhere you can find any legislation that should only fit for certain groups-alone. Read properly what St. Athanasius said: “ so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written” this can be applied to the state promoting what is evil in the eyes of the church. Again, since the church saw that the government had OVERLAPPED their role which is to meddle the morality of the church concerning Contraception, it shows the church have the advantage to that,not the state. Intiendes?
[Granting that your Atty. Abbas is correct about his interpretation of Article II Section 13 and 1986 Constitution, just where is the specific republic act which defines the specific role of the church in this context? Now, when and if Congress passes such law to define the role of the church, I doubt if it will include a portion whereby it says the church can participate in legislation because it is clear that the act of legislation belongs to the state and just like I already pointed out to you, the same Constitution states that the separation of state and church shall be inviolable. ]
again, who builds the spiritual aspect of the church? Would that still be the state? Who will teach the people about the moral values of the people? Would that still be the state? Can the state teach that? Tell me., that is an obvious reality of which you are trying to get things literal in the social understanding of the context. What the separation of the church and state only clears out that the state doesn’t own the treasures of the church and vice versa that the church doesn’t own the treasures of the state. Intiendes?
[Aran Cabreros (nasagot ko na dre, akala ko ba marunong ka ng exegesis. Lol)
Pakiulit ang sagot mo. Diko maalaala. Pakibigay na rin yong exegesis ng Luke 16:13 tapos kung sinong authority gumawa. Alam mo naman, tayong mga magkatunggali sa RH Bill, we tend to make self-serving explanations and analysis. Kaya kailangan natin ng authority di ba? Fair enough?]
nandoon na ok,let’s go talking about Luke 16:31 ready?
Ok, verse 31, this speaks on the difference between God and money. According to Challoner, Mammon signifies riches. They are here called the mammon of iniquity, because oftentimes ill gotten, ill bestowed, or an occasion of evil; and at the best are but worldly, and false; and not the true riches of a Christian. Now, let me connect it to the case of the church and state, the state wanted to implement the RH Bill in order to earn something from the people. They wanted shortcut progress without considering the impact of this by confusing the people [especially Catholics] in giving them a choice of doing those provisions that are evil in the church’s teaching. Meaning, we are making a double standard life in the society and the faithful will be given the choice to do something inhumane even if the church already condemned it. Get the sense?
[(nasagot ko na yan. Self-refuting ang mga bersikulong gusto mong iparating. Sino ba pastor mo, hindi ka yata marunong ng exegesis. Proverbs 3:5 puwede bang basahin?)
Let’s see your exegesis and interpretation of the above verses. Interesado ako tapos we go to available commentaries available in the Internet para maliwanag sa ating dalawa at saka sa mga kapanaligmo sa Facebook page nyo.
(aba, hindi mo kasi masagot dahil obvious naman ang ibig sabihin diyan. It is slef-explanatory, you are trying to assume that what you posted is ok lang kahit ililiteral mo. Hmm..doesn’t even know exegesis eh. Contextual analysis ang kelangan dahil ang sinasabi diyan is not literally explained by symbolism. Gets?)
To have a meeting of minds, hindi naman masama kung punta ka sa Wikipedia. Neutral naman yon at hindi homemade and explanations nila. ]
sure, I already answered, how about you?