On November 26, 2011, I attended a forum at the Sarangani Study Center along Dos Castillas St., Sampaloc, Manila near the University of Santo Tomas Campus. It was an awesome experience to be with some of the noted members of the Philippine Congress including former Senator Francisco "Kit" Tatad and the current representative of BUHAY Party List Irwin Tieng, as well as a noted physician Dr. Edna Monzon.
Sen. Tatad expalined the Legal-Constitutional Implications of the Reproductive Health/Responsible Parenthood Bill, simply RH Bill. He started the talk by emphasizing the bill's desire to get away with a government which respects morality and religious beliefs. He said that the RH Bill wants to imitate the communist and totalitarian countries. He further explained why the RH Bill is anti-family and showed that it does not show any regard for marriage. The purpose of marriage is PRO-CREATION while the purpose of the RH Bill is CONTRACEPTION.
"Congress can not pass a law that is against the Constitution", he said, reading Article II Section 12 from the Philippine Constitution. "The State recognizes
the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family
as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural
and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for
civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the
support
of the Government." (emphasis by Sen. Tatad)
The emphasis made by Sen. Tatad himself made me wonder, "Will the State trample on this part of the Constitution if it says 'protect the unborn from conception'? After all, contraception, per se, works before conception." But I was enlightened when the former senator articulated that the Constitution does not say that the State shall protect the unborn provided that he survives the State's contraception. I can only agree with him. Truly, the Constitution does not say that!
Following the Principle of Non-Contradiction, the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought, he further stated that the State can not be the 'preventer' and 'destroyer' of conception.
Article III of the Constitution covering the Bill of Rights says in Section 5, "No law shall be
made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious
test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."
Frequently heard these days is the cry that Catholics should not impose their religious beliefs on non-Catholics. "But the opposite appears to be the case," said Sen. Tatad. Commenting on Art III Section 5, he said that even a single person should not be discriminated if he has his own religious beliefs. What more for the overwhelming majority of the population? The free exercise and enjoyment of the Catholic's religious profession will be discriminated, should the bill be passed.
"The State shall
defend the right of spouses
to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and
the
demands of responsible parenthood." (Art XV, Sec 3(1), Constitution)
Of the two conditions set by the Constitution, the first one surely disrespects the Catholic couple's religious convictions within the context of the RH Bill! As for the second condition, Sen. Tatad believes that many have misunderstood the terms "responsible parenthood".
Overall, Sen. Tatad ended with the words: Assuming that they [pro-RH] were right on "10 women die a day" and "the environment is being destroyed by the 7 billion people", can they pass this bill under this Constitution? The answer is NO!
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Leges Sine Moribus Vanae
Motto of the University of Pennsylvania
"Leges sine moribus vanae"
Laws without morals are useless
A legislation with no moral foundation, an RH law will be useless.
Reject the RH Bill.
USAP-USAP. ISIP-ISIP.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Never Again Elect an Anti-Life President
A big group of Catholics across the country has urged members of their alliance and other voters from various religious sects and organizations not to commit again what they called a “grievous blunder” of electing an “anti-life” President.
“Never Again should the Filipino voters elect a President who is anti-God and anti-Life” Catholic Vote Alliance (CVA) Secretary General Julius Jereza told members of the Catholic faith after prolife groups delivered speeches last July 25 on the “State of the Soul of the Nation”, the groups’ version of the second State of the Nation Address (SONA) of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III.
Jereza was referring to President Aquino (P-Noy) who he accused of being “anti-life” following his open endorsement of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill now pending approval in Congress.
The measure has stirred a protracted controversy and has created a wide swath of divisions among several sectors of the citizenry due to its advocacy of compelling the masses to use contraceptives such as condoms, pills and even vasectomy obviously to control the country’s growing population.
Under the RH bill, parents would lose control of their daughters who are victims of rapes and sex education will be part of the school curriculum from Grade 5 to high school, provisions pro-life groups denounced as immoral and anti-Christian. “These will open the floodgates for indiscriminate sexual intercourse even among the young students and lead to pre-marital birth and eventually to the legality of abortion and divorce,” said Jereza.
Jereza warned that if approved, those who violate the “anti-life” RH law would be fined or imprisoned.
The “Never Again” phrase became popular during the post-Marcos dictatorship when P-Noy’s mother, the late President Corazon C. Aquino, asked Filipinos never again to tolerate totalitarian rule to prevail in the country. For this feat, President Cory was named “Woman of the Year” by Time magazine for “restoring democracy” in the country.
In asking Filipinos “never again” to elect an “anti-life” president, Jereza said P-Noy’s endorsement and support for the passage of the RH bill is “diametrically opposed” to the Christian Faith of his parents President Cory and the late Senator Benigno “Ninoy Aquino Jr., both devoted Catholics.
“His open campaign for the approval of the RH is an absolute betrayal of his parents’ Catholic faith and even his own claim of being a member of the same faith,” Jereza stressed adding that he is dragging the country to moral ignominy.
He pointed out that the reason why P-Noy skipped mentioning the RH bill in his recent SONA was that he was afraid the RH measure may drew more support from God-fearing, Catholic members of the Congress and the general public.
Jereza revealed that a majority of the Filipinos are increasingly disgusted over P-Noy’s undue interference on church affairs which, he said, is the root cause of his “poor performance ratings.”
He added that P-Noy should better focus his attention to the generations of jobs and income for the poor and to do away with the dole-out mentality as this kills initiative, rather than dip his hands into purely spiritual matters that have nothing to do with his duties and functions.
The Philippine Catholic Herald p.1 & 10, August 2011
“Never Again should the Filipino voters elect a President who is anti-God and anti-Life” Catholic Vote Alliance (CVA) Secretary General Julius Jereza told members of the Catholic faith after prolife groups delivered speeches last July 25 on the “State of the Soul of the Nation”, the groups’ version of the second State of the Nation Address (SONA) of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III.
Jereza was referring to President Aquino (P-Noy) who he accused of being “anti-life” following his open endorsement of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill now pending approval in Congress.
The measure has stirred a protracted controversy and has created a wide swath of divisions among several sectors of the citizenry due to its advocacy of compelling the masses to use contraceptives such as condoms, pills and even vasectomy obviously to control the country’s growing population.
Under the RH bill, parents would lose control of their daughters who are victims of rapes and sex education will be part of the school curriculum from Grade 5 to high school, provisions pro-life groups denounced as immoral and anti-Christian. “These will open the floodgates for indiscriminate sexual intercourse even among the young students and lead to pre-marital birth and eventually to the legality of abortion and divorce,” said Jereza.
Jereza warned that if approved, those who violate the “anti-life” RH law would be fined or imprisoned.
The “Never Again” phrase became popular during the post-Marcos dictatorship when P-Noy’s mother, the late President Corazon C. Aquino, asked Filipinos never again to tolerate totalitarian rule to prevail in the country. For this feat, President Cory was named “Woman of the Year” by Time magazine for “restoring democracy” in the country.
In asking Filipinos “never again” to elect an “anti-life” president, Jereza said P-Noy’s endorsement and support for the passage of the RH bill is “diametrically opposed” to the Christian Faith of his parents President Cory and the late Senator Benigno “Ninoy Aquino Jr., both devoted Catholics.
“His open campaign for the approval of the RH is an absolute betrayal of his parents’ Catholic faith and even his own claim of being a member of the same faith,” Jereza stressed adding that he is dragging the country to moral ignominy.
He pointed out that the reason why P-Noy skipped mentioning the RH bill in his recent SONA was that he was afraid the RH measure may drew more support from God-fearing, Catholic members of the Congress and the general public.
Jereza revealed that a majority of the Filipinos are increasingly disgusted over P-Noy’s undue interference on church affairs which, he said, is the root cause of his “poor performance ratings.”
He added that P-Noy should better focus his attention to the generations of jobs and income for the poor and to do away with the dole-out mentality as this kills initiative, rather than dip his hands into purely spiritual matters that have nothing to do with his duties and functions.
The Philippine Catholic Herald p.1 & 10, August 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
"Batang-Bata Ka Pa"
On Sex Education
House Bill 4244: Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development Bill
Section 3(o)
This Act declares it a guiding principle that a comprehensive reproductive health program addresses the needs of all people throughout their life cycle.
Are people always thinking about sex all the time 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 365 days a year, beginning from their conception
up to their natural death? I beg to disagree that a new-born infant
needs a reproductive health program. A new-born baby does not
yet even have a good eyesight to see the things around him/her.
Why should a kid be addressed with a reproductive health program
by the State throughout his life cycle?
Section 4
Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education refers to a lifelong learning process of providing and acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information and education on reproductive health and sexuality through life skills education and other approaches
What are these life skills education? Is demonstrating how to put
on a condom using their mouths a "life skills education"? Is making
your pupil curious about how to insert an IUD in his classmate's
private organ also a "life skills education"?
Is penalizing your moral teachers including your parents, brothers
and sisters, and all the people who truly love you (whom you
consider as "maliciously engaging in disinformation" about the
provisions of this Act), with one to six months of imprisonment
or ten thousand to fifty thousand peso-fine or both such fine and
imprisonment "an other approach" for you to acquire information
on reproductive health and sexuality?
Sec. 16.
Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal education system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life skills and other approaches.
Should your grade 5 son or daughter be taught about sex at
school at a time when you are detached from him/her, at a time
when you are out of sight? Is your fourth year brother or sister
ready to face the challenges of parenting, or abortion, when they
become pregnant out of curiosity on the "family planning" tools
called contraceptives, or through contraceptive failure? Do you
want your children, and all the other parents' children to be
taught sex and sexuality at a time when these innocent-minded
children still lack judgment on family, sexual and parenting life?
Do you want everyone in high school, who still need yet all the
wisdom of their parents, to disrespect them and their elders
because they, being high school students taught with Sex
Education, believe that they have all the right to have sex and
pretend to know everything about sex without asking the opinion
of their parents, by being secretive to their parents and not telling
them that these are what they are taught at school?
A page contained in the proposed Sex Education Module teaching a child that
he does not need to ask for permission from his parents.
Sec. 16.
Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects.
Sex Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects? In
Mathematics? In Chemistry? In Physics? In English? In Filipino?
In Araling Panlipunan? In Values Education? In Home
Economics? In Physical Education and Sports? Will the State
tell the students that all he has to learn while inside the classroom
is sex, sex, and more sex? That all he has to apply in his daily life
and "throughout his life cycle" is sex, sex, and more sex.
Are they going to have practicums also? How will the examinations
go? If they were allowed not to enter sex ed classes because of
their parents' convictions, does that mean that the pupils will
never have to attend any lecture or any examination of any subject
at any school at anytime anymore because Sex Education shall
already be integrated in all relevant subjects?
Sec. 16.
The DepEd, CHED, DSWD, TESDA and DOH shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children.
Is the State not yet contented with its meddling with parents'
primary right to teach their children on sexuality education?
Does the State still want to "indoctrinate" them with its suggested
ultra-liberal ideas and information (which may have come from
another country, not our own mother country) by providing them
with materials on the manner of teaching reproductive health
education to their children?
Sec 28(a)(2)
The following acts are prohibited: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall refuse to extend health care services and information on account of the person's marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work.
On account of the person's age? Will the State imprison a
healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who will
refuse to give a 15-year-old girl with contraceptive pills on
account of the girl's young age? Will a nurse be imprisoned
because she will refuse to give an IUD to an 11-year old? Will
a doctor be imprisoned because he/she refuses to perform tubal
ligation to an under-aged girl, or vasectomy to a boy of minor age?
Will the public official or employee suffer the accessory penalty of
dismissal from the government service and forfeiture of
retirement benefits because, he/she will have to refuse to be a
part of the team who distributes condoms at a place near a
reputable elementary or high school on the 14th of February
(St. Valentine's Day)?
"Batang-Bata Ka Pa at Marami Ka Pang
Kailangang Malaman at Intindihin sa Mundo..."
No to Sex Education Bill.
No to RH Bill.
House Bill 4244: Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development Bill
Section 3(o)
This Act declares it a guiding principle that a comprehensive reproductive health program addresses the needs of all people throughout their life cycle.
Are people always thinking about sex all the time 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 365 days a year, beginning from their conception
up to their natural death? I beg to disagree that a new-born infant
needs a reproductive health program. A new-born baby does not
yet even have a good eyesight to see the things around him/her.
Why should a kid be addressed with a reproductive health program
by the State throughout his life cycle?
Section 4
Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education refers to a lifelong learning process of providing and acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information and education on reproductive health and sexuality through life skills education and other approaches
What are these life skills education? Is demonstrating how to put
on a condom using their mouths a "life skills education"? Is making
your pupil curious about how to insert an IUD in his classmate's
private organ also a "life skills education"?
Is penalizing your moral teachers including your parents, brothers
and sisters, and all the people who truly love you (whom you
consider as "maliciously engaging in disinformation" about the
provisions of this Act), with one to six months of imprisonment
or ten thousand to fifty thousand peso-fine or both such fine and
imprisonment "an other approach" for you to acquire information
on reproductive health and sexuality?
Sec. 16.
Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal education system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life skills and other approaches.
Should your grade 5 son or daughter be taught about sex at
school at a time when you are detached from him/her, at a time
when you are out of sight? Is your fourth year brother or sister
ready to face the challenges of parenting, or abortion, when they
become pregnant out of curiosity on the "family planning" tools
called contraceptives, or through contraceptive failure? Do you
want your children, and all the other parents' children to be
taught sex and sexuality at a time when these innocent-minded
children still lack judgment on family, sexual and parenting life?
Do you want everyone in high school, who still need yet all the
wisdom of their parents, to disrespect them and their elders
because they, being high school students taught with Sex
Education, believe that they have all the right to have sex and
pretend to know everything about sex without asking the opinion
of their parents, by being secretive to their parents and not telling
them that these are what they are taught at school?
he does not need to ask for permission from his parents.
Sec. 16.
Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects.
Sex Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects? In
Mathematics? In Chemistry? In Physics? In English? In Filipino?
In Araling Panlipunan? In Values Education? In Home
Economics? In Physical Education and Sports? Will the State
tell the students that all he has to learn while inside the classroom
is sex, sex, and more sex? That all he has to apply in his daily life
and "throughout his life cycle" is sex, sex, and more sex.
Are they going to have practicums also? How will the examinations
go? If they were allowed not to enter sex ed classes because of
their parents' convictions, does that mean that the pupils will
never have to attend any lecture or any examination of any subject
at any school at anytime anymore because Sex Education shall
already be integrated in all relevant subjects?
Sec. 16.
The DepEd, CHED, DSWD, TESDA and DOH shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children.
Is the State not yet contented with its meddling with parents'
primary right to teach their children on sexuality education?
Does the State still want to "indoctrinate" them with its suggested
ultra-liberal ideas and information (which may have come from
another country, not our own mother country) by providing them
with materials on the manner of teaching reproductive health
education to their children?
Sec 28(a)(2)
The following acts are prohibited: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall refuse to extend health care services and information on account of the person's marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work.
On account of the person's age? Will the State imprison a
healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who will
refuse to give a 15-year-old girl with contraceptive pills on
account of the girl's young age? Will a nurse be imprisoned
because she will refuse to give an IUD to an 11-year old? Will
a doctor be imprisoned because he/she refuses to perform tubal
ligation to an under-aged girl, or vasectomy to a boy of minor age?
Will the public official or employee suffer the accessory penalty of
dismissal from the government service and forfeiture of
retirement benefits because, he/she will have to refuse to be a
part of the team who distributes condoms at a place near a
reputable elementary or high school on the 14th of February
(St. Valentine's Day)?
"Batang-Bata Ka Pa at Marami Ka Pang
Kailangang Malaman at Intindihin sa Mundo..."
No to Sex Education Bill.
No to RH Bill.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Condoms does not prevent you from HIV!
Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his
research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves
(published in Rubber World, June, 1993).
Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good
scientists who have no political agenda."
Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size
(a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a
syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.
The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage
through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in
Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below).
Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms
tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents
such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."
Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can
see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in
natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."
And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized
particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89
condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland
says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage
rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this]
study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public
health and welfare." The federal government's standard tests, he adds,
"cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus." Such tests
are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity
of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as
many as 100,000 HIV particles."
As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a
condom like a bullet through a tennis net."
It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different
manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns
deep." More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels,
penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said
the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."
For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada
test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent
tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort
to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the
condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an
"improved" 28% rate.
as posted in http://www.mombu.com/medicine/medicine/t-editor-of-rubber-chemistry-and-technology-on-condoms-condoms-syphilis-virus-sperm-2227806.html
1 26th January 07:11
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his
research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves
(published in Rubber World, June, 1993).
Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good
scientists who have no political agenda."
Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size
(a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a
syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.
The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage
through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in
Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below).
Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms
tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents
such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."
Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can
see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in
natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."
And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized
particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89
condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland
says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage
rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this]
study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public
health and welfare." The federal government's standard tests, he adds,
"cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus." Such tests
are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity
of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as
many as 100,000 HIV particles."
As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a
condom like a bullet through a tennis net."
It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different
manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns
deep." More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels,
penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said
the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."
For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada
test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent
tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort
to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the
condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an
"improved" 28% rate.
as posted in http://www.mombu.com/medicine/medicine/t-editor-of-rubber-chemistry-and-technology-on-condoms-condoms-syphilis-virus-sperm-2227806.html
1 26th January 07:11
External User
Posts: 1
Monday, August 22, 2011
LETANIA LAURETANA ed CATAOAN TIN STA. MARIA (The Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Pangasinan dialect)
Cataoan, Abaguey Mo cami.
Cristo, Abaguey Mo cami.
Cataoan, Abaguey Mo cami.
Cristo, denglen Mo cami.
Cristo, talineng Mo cami.
Dios Ama ed taoen, Casian Mo cami.
Dios Anac a Mananundod talba, Casian Mo cami.
Dios Espiritu Santo, Caasian Mo cami.
Sancasantosan a Trinidad a Sacsaquey a Dios, Casian Mo cami.
Santa Maria, Picasi Mo cami.
Santan Inay Dios,
Santan Virgen day Virgenes,
Yna nen Cristo,
Ynay madivinon gracia,
Ynan sancasimpitan,
Ynan sancaadiaan,
Ynan ag naoman,
Ynan nasnaspot,
Ynan andi tilol,
Ynan araroen,
Ynan macapaquelao,
Ynay maong a bilin,
Ynay Manamalsa,
Ynay Mananguilaban,
Virgen a sancabintaan
Virgen a mapagalang,
Virgen a dayrayeoen,
Virgen a macapaniari,
Virgen a mapangasi,
Virgen a matoor,
Salming na catonungan,
Ayamay cacabatan,
Nanlapoay liquet mi,
Pananguinay casantosan,
Pananguinay cagalangan,
Pananguinay caralitan,
Bolaclac a mangatataoen,
Torre nen David,
Torren garing,
Abung a balitoc,
Caban na saray insipay Dios,
Pintoy taoen,
Cabuntatalad cabuasan,
Abig day mansasaquit,
Salimbeng day managcasalanan,
Managliglioay maermen,
Mananolong day cristianos,
Reina ray Angeles,
Reina ray Patriarcas,
Reina ray Profetas,
Reina ray Apostoles,
Reina ray Martires,
Reina ray Confesores,
Reina ray Virgenes,
Reina ray ganaganay Sasantos,
Reinan tinmoon ag atilulay casalanan a taoir,
Reinay Sancasantosan a Rosario,
Reina na cadeenan,
Corderoy Dios ya macapaandi casalanay talba, Ipaliis Mo cami caatapan Cataoan.
Corderoy Dios ya macapaandi casalanay talba, Magayaga Ca pan ontalineng ed sicami Cataoan.
Corderoy Dios ya macapaandi casalanay talba, Casian Mo cami.
Picasi mid Sica, Cataoan, ta paslec mo pay graciam ed camarerua mi,
Pian sicamin acapicabat na intooy Jesucriston Anac Mo, ya lapud inpanguipaampay Angel, iacad cami comon a lapud incairirap tan Cruz to ed gloriay quiolid bilay lapu met lan lamang ed Cataoan min Jesucristo.
Ontan comun.
Jose Lee B. Flores on Monday, August 22, 2011 at 5:10pm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)