Friday, October 28, 2016

The ONLY Two People Without Sins

Image result for Jesus and Mary

An anonymous commenter made the following comment (the bold is mine): 

Diana, the church acknowledges that we are sinners without Jesus. But with Jesus, everything has changed! We are not sinners anymore, especially not when we take the Holy Eucharist on our tongues!

If mankind is irredeemably sinful then saying that Mary and Jesus did not have sin would deny their human character! Jesus is fully human and fully divine. Both of it. If he is fully human then he fully shares our plights as human beings. That is why NCW says Jesus is also a sinner.

Now, the question is here: how can you call yourself a Catholic if you claim that Jesus is a sinner?! Here is the bare reason people of Guam want to rid of NCW from here. They don't want to be converted to a belief that Jesus is a sinner. Either Jesus is a sinner and then faith in him means nothing. Or Jesus is not a sinner and whoever says otherwise is from the devil.

Do you agree, Diana?
This is my reponse:

I disagree.  First of all, we NEVER taught that Jesus is a sinner.  That is a false accusation coming only from the jungle.  We believe that the only two people who did not have any sins were Jesus and Mary.  We believe in the Immaculate Conception; therefore, Mary was born without original sin.  We believe that Jesus is God; therefore, He did not have any original sin nor did He commit any personal sins.  Mary also did not commit any personal sins.  Jesus is fully man and fully God.  He is the New Adam or the second Adam.  Mary is the New Eve who did not fall into sin.  Therefore, you want to get rid of the NCW simply because you were misled by the jungle into believing a lie.  This kind of manipulations is very common in the jungle.  See my post on Let The Truth Be Known. 

As for those who believe that no one has ever said that they want to eliminate the NCW, anonymous 11:26 am above is the evidence.  He/she already stated in his/her comment that the people of Guam wants to get rid of the NCW.  So, there you have it.  

Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that we are sinners....Period. Most of the prayers we say remind us that we are sinners.  Our Father......forgive us our sins as we forgive......   Hail Mary......pray for us sinners......  These are common prayers that Catholics say almost daily.
We receive sanctifying grace at our baptism, but that does not mean that we are no longer sinners.  A person who commits a venial sin does not lose sanctifying grace.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 
CCC 1863  .......However venial sin does not break the covenant with God.  With God's grace it is humanly reparable.  "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." 

Mortal sin, on the other hand, is a different story (See CCC 1861).

The Holy Eucharist can take away venial sins.  However, a person with a mortal sin is not allowed to consume the Body and Blood of Christ.  He/She must first receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving Holy Communion.  This is why the priest is always available thirty minutes before Mass starts.  During that time, he hears confessions.  There are certain conditions in which one cannot receive Holy Communion regardless of whether you receive it on your hand or tongue.  For example, an unmarried couple living outside the sanctity of marriage cannot receive Holy Communion.  


  1. this "Jesus was a sinner" came from a RMS instructor, a Fr. Somebody, giving a class to Deacon candidates. His statement that is on tape.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:58 am,

      No, it did not. It came directly from the jungle. Tim Rohr spread the false rumor that my blog claimed that Father Miguel would be the new bishop. That was false. He did the same thing with RMS instructor. The RMS instructor was talking about two people, of whom one was Abraham, and Tim presumed that he was talking about Jesus.

    2. Diana, it was caught on tape! An NCW professor gave the lecture at the RMS saying that Jesus was a sinner. The footage is available at JW.

      You may deny this, Diana, but even Apuron felt embarrassed when this came into light. He, as a consecrated bishop could not agree with something to be accepted by all neo members!


      here you go..

    4. October 29, 2016 at 6:05 PM
      Dear Anonymous at 1:11 pm,

      I heard the tape and read the transcript. Despite his weak English, he spoke about Abraham AND Jesus, but NOWHERE did the professor "named" Jesus as having sins. It was Tim Rohr who put the NAME "Jesus" where the professor used the pronoun "he."

      Archbishop Apuron was not embarrassed. He was surprised when he heard it.

    5. Diana, whatever is on tape, it is just consequential of neo ideology that Jesus is a sinner! If man is nothing but a sinner and Jesus is the Son on Man, then Jesus also must be a sinner. He was fully human. If Jesus did not share in our human condition then he cheated us and never truly suffered for us. God cannot suffer because God is invincible. If he did not suffer as a human being then how could he be a Savior for the humankind?

      Being fully human means everything a man is doing. Without our human character, frailty and suffering Jesus would not be what he is.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 7:48 am,

      That is not what we teach. That is what YOU teach. Please read the OP. I have already stated that the only two people who did not have any sins were Jesus and Mary.

    7. Having the original sin does not mean you are a sinner.

      St Therese of Lisieux was not a sinner, although she was definitely born with the original sin. But she manifested the saving power of the blood, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by becoming a saint and doctor of the Church.

      This is about the failed ideology of remaining a sinner for a life time in the neo.

    8. Dear Anonymous at 8:21 am,

      We Catholics believed that the ONLY two people without sins were Jesus and Mary. We Catholics believe that Jesus and Mary were the only ones who were NOT sinners. Everyone else including St. Therese of Lisieux were sinners. At one time, ALL the saints were sinners. This gives us hope. All saints were once sinners; therefore, it is possible for sinners to become holy saints, but only with God. We cannot become holy saints on our own.

  2. Let me quote here the relevant teaching from the catechism:

    CCC 602
    Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake." Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

    CCC 1367
    The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.

    CCC 1393
    Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

    For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins.

    Well, it is the catechism of the Catholic church, not the catechism of Kiko!

    1. Ridiculous argument being used. You are already contradicting your statement in CC 1393.
      "Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from FUTURE sins". This means future sins can and indeed do occur. God never goes against the free will of men.
      Although the bread and wine cleanses past venial sins the bread and wine signify our desire to be one in the same nature as Christ. His power gives us the possibility of having his same nature in that we can die unjustly for he who does evil to us as he also died for those who killed him. Every time we take communion we partake in this nature which has only been possible because he (Christ) being fully God paid for all our sins.
      First one must define what is a sin.
      CC 1850
      Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it.

      God's love for us can also be defined as the plan he has of happiness for our life. When we sin we deny God as being good and enact an act to make that denial tangible. Thus we enter a state of death by cutting with God's plan of happiness for us.
      Venial sins do not have such an effect because they do not enact such a tangible act but only surface as thoughts, intentions, and ideas. Mortal sin however is a tangible act in which we do an action to deny God and his plan of love for us. Ex: Adultery, murder, Promiscuity. Such an act goes against the nature of Christ and thus goes against the Eucharist as a sacrament. It is a contradictory act.
      A sacrament is the opposite of sin it is a tangible act that enacts that which it signifies. Which in this case would by the death and resurrection of Christ. We celebrate that he dies showing us what sin does, and resurrects to forgive our sins and give us his same nature.
      However mortal sin as a tangible act, and the eucharist as an equally tangible yet contradictory act go against each other.
      By taking communion in the state of mortal sin, you are mocking the sacrament of the eucharist and thus taking a sacrament meant to give you his same nature of total acceptance of the father's will and turning it into a contradictory statement to which you are actually stating that it can not give us the possibility to love like he does enacted and made present in the sacrament. Thus using the sacrament ignorantly to condemn yourself.
      The catechism you quote is not wrong, the way you contextualize the catechism for your own ideal (which is not approved by the catholic church unlike the teachings of the NCW) is what's wrong.
      Also if the Eucharist is meant alone to cleanse our sins, then you make the sacrament of reconciliation useless and unnecessary. We believe in all the sacraments as a whole.

  3. "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers... with the precious blood of Christ!" The Blood of Jesus is not to be taken lightly, Diana. It is very powerful, it has all the cleansing power of the blood of the Lamb.

    "God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." How could the righteousness of God have sin in it, Diana? This is impossible! As soon as we become the righteousness of God, we cease to be sinners.

    "This sacrifice is truly propitiatory." Only the Blood of Jesus has the power to expiate the sins of the world! To question this would mean to doubt the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice on the cross.

    "The Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins." If you are not separated from your sin even at the Holy Eucharist, then you are an irredeemable sinner, indeed. I'll pray for you.

  4. A side note re Hon letter to the clergy put out yesterday: he never publicly chastises the CCOG for their disgusting protests which cause scandal in the church. Is Hon in favor of CCOG?

    1. agree. Why does Archbishop Savio Hon not chastise CCOG Jungle nation? They are rude . Priests operating in background supporting Jungle.

    2. Canyou post a link to the letter? I haven't seen it yet Thanks


    3. what are you talking about. There are no priests in Jungle. I don't see priests marching Cathedral Basilica sunday morning. There all saying Mass. I don't see priests carrying signs marching.

    4. you dont think priests are operatives in the Jungle? hmmmm


  5. Archbishop Hon supports Church Unity above all. However, after reading his letter I was left wondering if he really supports Jungle nation at heart.

  6. Diana you told us we must love Archbishop Hon. We will. we do not agree with him. we find he caused disunity. we do not see him as Archbishop of Guam in spite of him reminding us in his pastoral letter.