Jesus the Good Shepherd is the King of Virgins
This is my third article
debunking Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s vituperation on clerical celibacy.[1]
In my last article, I refuted Ms. Laguda-Alicaya’s first reply to a Catholic
blogger named Franklin (Niteworks). In this article, I will refute Ms.
Laguda-Alicaya’s second reply.[2] Ms.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s wordsa are in blue while mine are in black.
You see, my friend, many of the
Catholic's (sic) faithful do not
really understand what's what …
This is so nice of Ms. Cookie
Laguda-Alicaya. But look who’s talking? In my previous articles we have
unmasked this pretender, one who calls herself a “devout” Catholic, and exposed
her gross ignorance about so many things – the Bible included.
The Catholic Church is the
authoritative Church. It exercises the authority granted by its Founder.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya's newly minted, man-made "church" does not even
claim authority; hence, not the true Church
… because they only take the words given
to them by those in authority.
What’s wrong with
authority, Ms. Laguda-Alicaya? We take the words of those in authority because
the Lord gave them authority: “He who
hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me
rejects Him who sent Me” (Lk. 10:16).
All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given by the Father to the Son (Mt. 28: 18). The Lord
Jesus Christ commissioned His apostles to make disciples, to baptize and to
teach (Mt. 28:20). The apostles had their successors, the bishops (cite). So we
listen to our prelates because they have the authority to teach from no less
than the Master Himself. “Remember your prelates
who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering
the end of their conversation” (Heb. 13:7, DRV).
The true Church
founded by Christ is a Church with authority (cf. Lk. 10:16; Mt. 16:18-20; Mt. 18:17-18; 2 Cor. 10:8), unlike
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s man-made church which has no authority. Cite. Because
the Lord invested His Church with authority, we must obey and listen to the
Church: “And if he will not hear
them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee
as the heathen and publican” (Mt. 18:17, DRV).
Ms.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya does not realize that God’s Word commands submission to
the governing authorities: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority
except that which God has established The authorities that exist have been
established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Rom. 13:1-3). So,
Catholics submit to the governing authority in obedience to God and the
Scriptures.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya accuses the
Catholic Church as going around God's Word by teaching deceivingly
celibacy as a "holy calling" and is taught as allowing the individual to
"FOCUS" their devotion to Christ alone. But what does Paul say in 1
Corinthians 7:35? "I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict
you, but that you may live a right way in UNDIVIDED DEVOTION to the
Lord" (1 Cor. 7:35, NIV). I'm sure Cookie Laguda-Alicaya failed to read
that.
Hook, line, and sinker we embrace their sweetly presented
explanation that it is JUST a "recommendation" just like the apostle
Paul has mentioned.
Precisely, celibacy is a
“recommendation” and so the Catholic Church calls it (the vow of chastity) as
an evangelical counsel. I wonder if Ms. Laguda-Alicaya understands the
word counsel. My dictionary tells me its meaning as “an advice
or guidance on conduct or behavior.”[3] No
priest, religious brother or nun was ever compelled to embrace priestly or
religious vocation. They freely responded to God’s call and do not marry for
the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven based on the words of Our Lord Jesus Himself:
“For there are different
reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others,
because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the
Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so” (Mt. 19:12,
GNT).
Don't forget this, Cookie
Laguda-Alicaya: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for
the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name" (Exo.
20:7, NIV)
But if indeed it was solely for a recommended discipline, WHY
IN GOD'S NAME WOULD THEY FORBID THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PRIESTS AND NUNS
to marry if they so choose to decide to do so?
Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya
had no qualms using “God’s name.” Better be careful, Cookie: “Thou
shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain; for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exo. 20:7).
Priests and nuns make the
vow of chastity. How many times do I have to impress it in
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s narrow mind? Nobody forced these priests and nuns to
make the vow of chastity. They freely, willingly and whole-heartedly profess
their vow. And since they made a vow, these priests and nuns are expected to
fulfill or keep their vow. Biblically, vows are to be fulfilled
and performed because they are binding on those who
make them:
“I will
fulfill my vows to you, O God …” (Ps. 56:12, NLT)
“I will
perform my vows to you, O God …” (Ps. 56:12, ESV)
In my previous article, I
explained that the Catholic Church is concerned that these priestly and
religious vows be kept in much the same way that the Church is concerned that
the marriage vows be kept for which reason the Church shuns divorce. What
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya wants is to sanction double standard.
In the unfortunate event
that the priests and nuns cannot keep their vows, the Church grants them dispensation
from their vows and releases them from their ministry so they can marry. They
can’t have their cake and eat it, too.
Eastern Catholic (and Greek Orthodox) priests are married
We indeed read Paul recommending celibacy for those who have
the will to follow that path …
And so does the Catholic
Church recommends celibacy (it’s an evangelical counsel, remember?) for
those who have the will to follow that path. The Church helps in the
discernment and formation of the dates to the priesthood and religious life.
The Catholic Church follows Paul’s recommendation, but what about Cookie
Laguda-Alicaya’s church? Does it?
BUT can I ask you to read the whole chapter 7 instead of just
those plucked out verses?
Look who’s fund of
plucking verses? But if Cookie Laguda-Alicaya wants the whole Chapter 7, here
it is:
Below are the pertinent
verses (taken from the NIV) relating to celibacy and marriage according to
Chapter 7 of Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians:
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya misunderstands the Word of God
“Concerning the Unmarried
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord,(AA) but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy(AB) is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.(AC) 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.(AD) 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned;(AE) and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short.(AF) From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.(AG) 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs(AH)—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.(AI)But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided(AJ) devotion to the Lord. 36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning.(AK) They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right,(AL) but he who does not marry her does better.[c] 39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.(AM) But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.(AN) 40 In my judgment,(AO) she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya's skewed private interpretation of the Bible results to absurd, heretical and blasphemous results
My point here is this, the Bible is clear that FORBIDDING to
MARRY is a doctrine of demons.
Where is that in 1
Corinthians 7? The proper verse should be 1 Timothy 4:3.
But if we are going to take
Cookie’s word that “Bible is clear that forbidding to
marry” – without any
qualification – is a “doctrine of demons” – it will result to the
absurd conclusion that God followed the doctrine of demons when he
forbade Jeremiah from marrying:
“Then the word of the Lord came to me: “You must not marry and have sons or daughters in this place” (Jer. 16:1-2).
Such is the absurd, heretical and blasphemous
result of Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s private interpretation to suit her
anti-Catholic bias.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya: "You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God" (Mk. 12:18-27)
