CATHOLIC APOLOGIST PARABANOG VS. ADD APOLOGIST ON JOSE RIZAL

The Church in Dresden. It was visited by Dr. Jose Rizal during his visit and attended the Holy Mass there. This house of worship was heavily damaged during the World War II but later restored to its former glory.

*******

This exchange originally posted in the Blog of an ADD Blogger named Jane Abao. The ADD members were trying to use our beloved National Hero, Jose Rizal, to malaign the Catholic Church. It caught the attention of Bro. Parabanog who engaged the ADD poster in an exchange. Our friends requested that they be posted here since there are very few materials in our Catholic Apologetics explaining Rizal's life dispelling the black myths of anti-Catholic bigotry.

The exchange is long but the presentation of positions from each side are short, precise and stated in simple manners. It will be easier for many readers to read and to enjoy. Here it is:

********

Mase:

I’m against with what ur stated about the difference between Rizal & Bro. Eli…You were saying that Rizal was there to face the prayle while bro. Eli was gone to abroad and left his case…

Hey! The reason why lumabas siya ng Pilipinas dahil ayaw niyang madamay ang kapatiran ng Ang Dating Daan dahil sa threaten ng mga INC. Sino ka para magsalita against Bro. Eli? You don’t know things behind it.

Parabanog:

You are against with what I said and yet you failed to deal with my arguments head on. What I have stated is true. Jose Rizal faced his accusers in a military court. While Soriano fled. That's the difference. Your "palusot" that Soriano went out of the country for the reason that he didn't want your kapatiran to be involved is what differentiates him from Rizal even more. You see, Rizal returned in the Philippines after many years living in abroad, for the simple reason of sparing his relatives from the abuse and maltreatment which they incurred out of the Spanish Government’s hatred to Rizal. This is reflected in his letter he wrote on June 20, 1892 in Hongkong prior to his returne to Philippines. He entrusted the letter to Dr. Marques with proviso that it should only be open after his death:

"Malugod kong itataya ang aking buhay para iligtas ang maraming walang sala - maraming pamangkin, maraming anak ng mga kaibigan, at mga anak ng mga di ko kaibigan - na nagdurusa dahil sa akin. Ano nga ba ako? Isang binata, walang pamilya at masasabing walang alam sa buhay. Marami na akong kabiguan at ang aking hinaharap ay madilim, at magiging madilim kung ang ilaw ay di masisindi sa bukangliwayway ng aking lupang tinubuan. Sa kabilang dako, maraming tao, na puno ng pag asa at ambisyon, ANG MAAARING LUMIGAYA KUNG AKO AY MAMAMATAY, AT INAASAHAN KONG ANG AKING MGA KAAWAY AY TITIGIL NA SA PAG-USIG SA MARAMING WALANG-SALA." [Jose Rizal, Gregorio & Sonia Zaide (Centennial Book), pp. 257-258.]

That is the proof. Rizal returned to the Philippines ready to bear the brunt of his enemies' reprisal and die so that his relatives and friends will be spared from persecutions. Soriano, on the other hand, fled to save himself. That's the difference.

Mase:

Acutally, parabanog ung sinasabi mong case against bro. Eli hinarap niya yan it so happened na ung accuser wlang matibay na evidence. Ung nagfile ng case against bro. Eli ang talagang nangrape…kaya the case was closed.

Parabanog:

Case was closed? Eh di umuwi na sya dito sa Pilipinas kung totoo yang sinasabi mo na wala syang kaso. There is a strong evidence against Soriano that is why a warrant of arrest was issued against his person and he is being pursued by the elements of the Law.

Mise:

In the topic we are discussing, it’s about Rizal’s language and Bro. Eli’s language speak the same – by being courageous and unafraid to speak the truth. Bro. Eli, speaks the truth about salvation, about bible, about Christ doctrines.

Parabanog:

There is still difference. Rizal is a polyglot while Soriano is not. Rizal is ready to die for his convictions and belief, while Soriano simply can't. That is why he fled out of the country.

In Rizal's letter dated June 20, 1892, he wrote:

"Ang bawat tao ay kailangang mamatay para sa kanyang tungkulin at mga prinsipyo. PINANININDIGAN KO ANG BAWAT KAISIPAN NA ITINATAGUYOD KO PARA SA KALAGAYAN AT KINABUKASAN NG ATING BANSA, AT KUSANG-LOOB AKONG MAMAMATAY PARA RITO, at mas mamatamisin kong magsakripisyo para makamtan ang katarungan at kapayapaan para sa inyo." [Jose Rizal, Gregorio & Sonia Zaide (Centennial Book), p. 257.]

Si Soriano ba pinanindigan niya ginawa niya? Hindi. Tumakas eh. While Rizal died for his beliefs.

Mise:

Don’t just accuse when you don’t have enough evidence and proof.

Parabanog:

And don't just disagree without backing your statements with facts.

Whit:

Parabanog,

I am not good in any country’s history nor I am good in the life story of Rizal. Firstly, because I am not a Historian by profession and secondly history is the least of my favorite subjects.

Parabanog:

Then stop pretending to be one.

Whit:

Rizal did not believe in the Catholic dogma that salvation was only for Catholics and that outside Christianity, salvation was not possible even if Catholics composed only a small minority of the world’s religious groups.

Parabanog:

The Catholic Church does not claim that salvation is only for catholics. The Catechism states:

CCC 847:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE ETERNAL SALVATION.

So stop progating lies. And stop using Rizal to malign the Church. Rizal didn’t join the ADD group nor any protestant sect. Dream on.

Whit:

Nor did he believe in the Catholic observation of fasting as a sacrifice, nor in the sale of such religious items as the cross, medals, rosaries and the like in order to propagate the Faith and raise church funds.

Parabanog:

Please kindly show us proofs that Rizal hated fasting. Come on. Give us proofs. Are you against fasting yourself? Does the Bible prohibits fasting?

Mt 6:17-18 (Ang Biblia)

17 Datapuwa't ikaw, sa pagaayuno mo, ay langisan mo ang iyong ulo, at hilamusan mo ang iyong mukha;

18 Upang huwag kang makita ng mga tao na ikaw ay nagaayuno, kundi ng Ama mo na nasa lihim: at ang Ama mo, na nakakikita sa lihim, ay gagantihin ka.

The Bible states that those who fast will receive a reward.

With regards to the selling of religious items, what is wrong with that? Do you expect everyone to be free? Pano naman yung mga artisan na gumawa nyan? Saan kukunin yung pangtustos nila? Yung lumpia ba ni Soriano libre?

Whit:

He also lambasted the superstitious beliefs propagated by the priests in the church and in the schools. All of these and a lot more are evidences of Rizal’s religious philosophy.”

Parabanog:

Please enumerate those superstitious beliefs your are saying. Kanina ka pa eh. Didn’t you know that the Catholic Church prohibits superstitions?

CCC 2110:

The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

This is my advice to you Whit:

Ex 23:1 (Ang Biblia) Huwag kang magkakalat ng kasinungalingan: huwag kang makikipagkayari sa masama, na maging saksi kang sinungaling.

Please back up your statements with facts. Don’t just propagate age-old lies recycled from time to time.

How about Soriano? Soriano believe that urine is good for health. Is that ok for you? I think that is superstition. A medical myth to say the least.

Whit:

You were wrong when you concluded “Hanggang sa kamatayan, karamay ni Rizal yung mga paring heswita” (until death the Jesuits helped Rizal) to back up the writings of Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

Parabanog:

Where is the wrong there? Priests not ADD workers were the ones that accompanied Rizal during his last days. If Rizal is really incompatible with the Catholic Church, he should have sent away the priests and ask for a protestant pastor instead. But that is not the case. Even at his last moments, Catholic priests were at his side. That’s the plain truth that you have to accept. Live with it.

Whit:

I am not disclaiming the writings of Gregorio and Sonia Zaide I am just going to expound more on the reason why the Jesuits were there marching with Rizal on his last day. The two Jesuits were there to fulfill their service to the Roman Church. What kind of service you may ask, Jesuits were to encourage Rizal to return to the fold. History will attest that from the day Rizal was brought to Dapitan in the province of Zamboanga a peninsula of Mindanao in July 1892, “the Jesuits mounted a great effort to secure his return to the fold led by Fray Sanchez who failed in his mission. The task was resumed by Fray Pastells” please refer to this book “The Rizal-Pastells Correspondence” (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1996) authored by Raul J. Bonoan, S.J.

Parabanog:

Don’t act as spokesperson for the two Jesuit priests. They are there to support Rizal during his last moments. Don’t you know that before the execution, Rizal attended a Catholic Mass and not Pasasalamat of ADD? He even received a communion which is given to faithful sons of the church. (heretics are barred from receiving it) Why? Because Rizal have already returned to the catholic fold!

“3:00 ng umaga ng Disyembre 30, 1896, NAKINIG NG MISA SI RIZAL, NANGUMPISAL, AT NANGUMUNYON.” [Jose Rizal (Centennial Book), Gregorio & Sonia Zaide, p. 328.]

That’s the truth that your kind simply can’t accept. Rizal lived and died a Catholic. Not a protestant. And obviously not as member of your religion.

Whit:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Governor-General Eulogio Despujol issues a decree dated 7 July 1892 banishing José Rizal to Dapitan, Zamboanga. It contains Despujol’s reasons for issuing the

decree, which includes Rizal’s publication of various books and proclamations that introduces ANTI-CATHOLIC or ANTI-MONASTIC views. The decree also prohibits the introduction and circulation of all the works of Rizal in the Philippines. //www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=R2009LMC0093)

therefore, you are wrong again on claiming that Rizal remain faithful to Catholicism.

Parabanog:

You are misleading us. That is still 1892. But what is Rizal’s stand in 1896? Rizal died a Catholic. He heard a mass and received a communion prior to his execution - tangible proof that he returned to the fold.

Whit:

Records will show that Jose Rizal’s writings specially his novel, “El Filibusterismo” sparked so much fury to the Roman Church. According to “Nationalista Party History”, Rizal dedicated the said novel to the 3 Filipino martyr priests who were executed at Bagumbayan on Feb. 17, 1872. In memory of the three Filipino priests; Mariano Gómez, José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora.

Parabanog:

But those three priests are Catholic Priests. Not ADD church workers. So dream on. And as far as I know, El Filibusterismo is a political and not a religious novel. Rizal attacked the defects of political and social systems of his time. But he didn’t disprove any Catholic dogma. I challenge you to enumerate Catholic Dogmas that Rizal refuted in El Filibusterismo if there is any. C’mon, show it to us.

Whit:

The Catholic Church influenced Rizal’s execution according to them,

Parabanog:

Where is your evidence? Stop spewing lies. It is the Spanish Government that carried out Rizal’s execution, not the Catholic Church.

Whit:

Rizal was an inciter of revolution. During his trial before a court-martial for rebellion, sedition, and conspiracy the Catholic Church wanted Rizal to retract from his anti-Catholic writings which they failed this led to his conviction of rebellion, sedition, and conspiracy and was sentenced to death on Dec. 30, 1896.

Parabanog:

Lies again. You have it in reverse order. Rizal was already a condemned man when he retracted. Rizal was given a death sentenced by a military tribunal on December 26. Gov Gen Polavieja signed the decision on December 28. Rizal signed his retraction on December 29. So review your history.

“10:00 ng gabi ng Disyembre 29, ang burador ng pagbawi na ipinadala ng arsobispong anti-Pilipino na si Bernardino Nozaleda (1890-1903) ay isinumite ni Padre Balaguer kay Rizal para lagdaan, ngunit hindi ito ginawa ng bayani dahil napakahaba at di niya ito gusto. Ayon sa testimonya ni Padre Balaguer, ipinakita niya kay Rizal ang mas maikling burador na inihanda ni Padre Pio Pi, Superyor ng mga Heswita sa Pilipinas, at ito’y nagustuhan ni Rizal.PAGKARAAN NG ILANG PAGBABAGO, ISINULAT NI RIZAL ANG KANIYANG RETRAKSIYON, NA KUNG SAAN ITINATAKWIL NIYA ANG MASONERYA AT MGA RELHIYOSONG IDEYANG ANTI-KATOLIKO.” [Jose Rizal (Centennial Book), Gregorio & Sonia Zaide, p. 327.]

Whit:

I agree with what Victor said that “Rizal, being a linguist, read the Bible in it’s Original tongues in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic to equipped him in his fight against aristocracy particulary the Friar’s who held sway on the Spanish regime…” as a man of intelligence Rizal, surely read different translations of the bible (you will see proofs in his letters to Pastells, he mentioned there that his favored translation was in Latin) to back up his fight against the Friars.

Parabanog:

Rizal fought the abusive friars who used the Church for their own benefit and not the Catholic Church itself. His attack is focused on their wrong doings rather than the official Catholic dogma. So dream on. In Rizal’s letter to Blumentritt dated March 05, 1887 he wrote:

“Inalisan ko ng takip sa mukha ang pagbabanal-banalan, na sa pamamagitan ng relihiyong ginagawang kanlungan, ay nagpahirap at nagpalagay sa aming parang mga hayop. Sinikap kong ipakilala ang pagkakaiba ng tunay na relihiyon sa di-tunay. Itong huli – and di-tunay na relihiyon – ay nagpapausbong ng pamahiin at gumagamit ng mga banal na salita upang maakit an gaming salapi, UPANG MAPAPANIWALA KAMI SA MGA BAGAY NA DI-MAAARING MATANGGAP NG RELIHIYON KATOLIKA KAILANMA’T AABOT SA KANYANG KAALAMAN.” [Noli Me Tangere 5th Ed., Jose Rizal (isinalin ni Guzman-Laksamana-Guzman)]

Rizal knew very well that the Catholic Church does not approve the wrong doings perpetrated by some abusive friars in the Philippines. Rizal directed his attacks to these friars and not the Catholic Church. He knew all along that the Catholic Church is the true Church entirely different to the false religion of some of the abusive friars.

Whit:

That is the reason why he wrote to Priest Pastells in Nov. 11, 1892 “As to my being a Protestant, Your Reverence would not say such a thing if you only knew what I lost for not declaring myself in agreement with Protestant tenets. Had I not always respected religious ideas; had I regarded religion as a science of conveniences or an art of enjoying life; I would now be a rich and free man crowned with honors, instead of being a poor deportee.

Rizal, a Protestant! Something in me moves me to laughter, but I am restrained by my respect for all that you say.”

The reason why he refused to be converted to the Protestant faith, as Nellie demanded because he was in the fight to correct the Catholic religion’s practices and traditions that is the reason why he said “had I regarded religion as a science of conveniences or an art of enjoying life; I would now be a rich and free man crowned with honors, instead of being a poor deportee”

Parabanog:

He should be more effective in doing so if he converted to Protestantism. But Rizal didn’t. He remained a Catholic. He attacked the abuses perpetrated by some leaders of the Church in the hope that they will change their ways. But Rizal didn’t leave the Catholic Church. That’s a fact that you have to accept.

Whit:

Rizal died as a Hero while searching for the true Church which God had founded.

Parabanog:

Wrong. Rizal died a hero and a Catholic. Not as a protestant. Not as a member of ADD.

Whit:

You started your post with this argument: “Stop pretending to be one”. Funny but true that you are not thinking before you write. First and foremost what I said was very clear. I am not good in any country’s history nor I am good in the life story of Rizal…I should feel grateful when you wrote “Then stop pretending to be one” because I CAN NOT stop pretending to be not a Historian by profession and I CAN NOT stop pretending that history is the least of my favorite subjects”.

Parabanog:

Your claim that you are not a historian is just a ruse. It is an alibi just in case you got busted, which indeed happened during our latest exchanges. It is so obvious that you are using Rizal to malign the Catholic Church. I’ve used sources from official references and you purposely avoided dealing with them. So unless you refuted them point by point, my arguments stands.

Whit:

You have a lengthy reply, which is literally dragging. You are barking at a wrong tree in your succeeding 3 arguments, therefore your arguments are foul and to enumerate:

Parabanog:

It becomes lengthy because you raised a lot of points during your last post. I dealt with them one by one. I avoided nothing. Is that a problem to you?

On the other hand, you are evading my arguments. So between us too, I am the one who should have been complaining. You don’t know how to argue. You just disagree without supporting your blather with facts.

Whit:

1) I gave you the information of the link where I quoted Rizal’s “religious philosophy” so you are arguing with Answers.com and it’s source.

Parabanog:

Oh no. The fact that you’ve used the source from Answer.com means you are in agreement with what it states. Since I’m talking with you, you now have the obligation to defend your position. Don’t be like Pilate who tried to avoid responsibility. Be man enough to defend your position.

Whit:

Your source for the benefit of the readers of Less Traveled Road was:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

in your arguments with Answers.com. It is The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes the corrections promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 8 September 1997. (next time you quote sources: give us the link or better yet the title of the book, author and year published).

Corrections which he summoned in the midst of an extraordinary session of the International Synod of Bishops way back in 1985. here is the link:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/NCOFCC.HTM

which I will quote as saying “In 1985, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, summoned an extraordinary session of the International Synod of Bishops. This was to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council, which concluded in 1965.”

Parabanog:

So what’s your point? You’ve claimed that the Church teaches that salvation is only for Catholics. I quoted from the Catechism that what you have stated is false. Others can also receive eternal salvation. (CCC#847) And FYI, I have a copy of the book. It’s a definitive edition published by the CBCP. At any rate, you failed to disprove my argument. You are propagating an age-old lie.

Whit:

2) Your source as not only having weak credibility because it emendated it’s original writings but also it was written after 93 years of Rizal’s death. You are being unfair to Rizal.

Parabanog:

Oh really? Between you and me, I have used official references to buttress my arguments. You, on the other hand, relied on your saliva. Since you cannot refute my arguments, you are discrediting my sources. Unfortunately, Zaide has more credibility than you as far as history is concerned. This is aside from the fact that you are a self-confessed ignoramus when it pertains to history.

Whit:

3) You are misrepresenting the catholic church and likewise I should not defend in behalf of Answers.com

Call the attention of the catholic authorities here so you will not be wasting my time and likewise I will contact Answers.com that someone by the funny name (which even sounds like cartoon character from a cheap tabloid newspaper) of Parabanog has arguments with them.

Parabanog:

Misrepresenting? You are the one who is misrepresenting the Church. I don’t see any semblance of wit in you Whit. All of your arguments are recycled trash. He he he

Whit:

But I will reply on every last paragraph of every arguments you wrote because:

1) My sources are not lies. It’s history, based from facts and documents rightly fit on the said events, not like you who back-up your twisted writings with documents 93 years after Rizal’s death. I am not dreamin’ on dude!

Parabanog:

Sources? Since when you’ve learned to use credible sources? I disprove every points you’ve raised against the Church. You on the other hand failed to refute my arguments. I think you are not reading posts thoroughly. I’ve used actual letters of Dr. Rizal. I quoted the very words of Rizal to disprove your points and show your utter ignorance in history. So between us, you are definitely the one who is dreaming.

Whit:

2) I am not against fasting, who is? who are you talking to? Answers.com? again you are barking at a wrong tree here Brownie.

Parabanog:

If you are not against fasting then what’s all the fuss? The fact that you’ve quoted answers.com to disprove my arguments means you are in agreement with it. So be man enough to defend your position when it is being microscopically scrutinized. What you are doing is passing the responsibility. That is cowardice.

Whit:

3) Bro. Eli’s belief in urine therapy is not superstition for your information. That’s just what you think and it’s not a medical myth to say the least. I will quote Educate-Yourself The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought as saying

“There are a number of alternative healing therapies that work so well and cost so little (compared to conventional treatment), that Organized Medicine, the Food & Drug Administration, and their overlords in the Pharmaceutical Industry (The Big Three) would rather the public not know about them. The reason is obvious:

Alternative, non-toxic therapies represent a potential loss of billions of dollars to allopathic (drug) medicine and drug companies.”

In 1945, John W. Armstrong published a book called The “Water of Life, A Treatise on Urine Therapy” and Martha Christy also published a book on this topic titled our Own Perfect Medicine in the late 1980’s.

Parabanog:

Then I challenge you to drink your own urine. Let’s see if you can do it. The notion that urine is good for your health is more of a staple in pseudoscience circles. Nature has its reason why urine is being expelled in the body. Like what Christ said:

Mk 7:15 (Ang Biblia)

Walang anomang nasa labas ng katawan ng tao, na pagpasok sa kaniya ay makakahawa sa kaniya; DATAPUWA’T ANG MGA BAGAY NA NAGSISILABAS SA TAO YAON ANG NANGAKAKAHAWA SA TAO.

Those things which are being expelled by the body are the ones that make the person unclean. That includes urine. So urine-taking makes a person unclean and can damage one’s health. To teach that urine is good for one’s health is clearly a superstition. It is not a established truth and even the bible is against it.

Whit:

I will quote it again as saying: “Of course, we normally think of both urine and stool elimination as waste, but urine, unlike feces, is totally sterile. Mind you, it’s the filtrate of your own blood. Many people in normal health drink urine daily in order to keep their health and maintain physical beauty. Get the books and read them. In the event of survival difficulties, this simple technique can save your life”.

Parabanog:

Read this:

They say the concentration of nutrients will take more water to get rid of than is present in urine - it will dehydrate you rather than keeping you hydrated.

"There are no health benefits to drinking your own urine, and in fact, I think it could be quite detrimental," said Helen Andrews of the British Dietetic Association.

"Each time you put it back it will come out again, even more concentrated, and that is not good for health.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=vn20060330123123578c624717&page_number=2

While urine does contain vitamins, this is because the body has taken in a greater quantity of said vitamins than it needs, and is now purging them. No scientific studies have concluded that the consumption of urine has any health benefits whatsoever.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5794180_urine-good-drink_.html

Whit:

4) You wrote: “Hanggang sa kamatayan, karamay ni Rizal yung mga paring heswita. Kaya wag nating gamitin si Rizal para atakihin ang Simbahang Katoliko. Tingnan ninyo ang buong buhay ni Rizal, nabuhay at namatay na katoliko. Hindi nagpaconvert sa ibang sekta.” You’re losing your track, you don’t know what’s wrong.

Parabanog:

Well, I’m just trying to hammer to your senses that Rizal is a Catholic to the end. So your strategy of using Rizal to undermine the Church falls flat in your faces.

Whit:

Read again on my reply on why the Jesuits where there? I did not say that ADD workers were the ones who accompanied Rizal and your accusation of me being a spokesperson of the jesuits is totally abusrd. The plain truth parabanog is that you’re not thinking, and analyzing the replies before you write back. Live with it.

Parabanog:

I know what’s wrong. You are trying to show that the two priests were just there just to convince Rizal to return to the Catholic fold. Well he already did. Because prior to his execution and the march to Bagumbayan, Rizal heard a Holy Mass and had taken a Communion. Well, of course ADD have no hand in the matter. Your religion is a newly invented religion. Live with it.

“3:00 ng umaga ng Disyembre 30, 1896, NAKINIG NG MISA SI RIZAL, NANGUMPISAL, AT NANGUMUNYON.” [Jose Rizal (Centennial Book), Gregorio & Sonia Zaide, p. 328.]

Whit:

5) Review history again and reference other books to thoroughly understand what happened between 1892 to 1896 of Rizal’s life. Based on fact, Rizal declared himself as a deportee in 1892. I am not misleading the public you are.

Parabanog:

Oh no. You are the one misleading us. You are quoting things in 1892 to show that Rizal is not faithful to the Catholic Church. But how about Rizal’s views in 1896 during the hero’s last days? Records shows that Rizal has returned to the Catholic Church. One clear proof is that he heard a mass and received a communion before his execution on December 30, 1896. You cannot received a communion if you are not faithful son of the church. One more thing, records shows that Rizal signed his retraction:

“10:00 ng gabi ng Disyembre 29, ang burador ng pagbawi na ipinadala ng arsobispong anti-Pilipino na si Bernardino Nozaleda (1890-1903) ay isinumite ni Padre Balaguer kay Rizal para lagdaan, ngunit hindi ito ginawa ng bayani dahil napakahaba at di niya ito gusto. Ayon sa testimonya ni Padre Balaguer, ipinakita niya kay Rizal ang mas maikling burador na inihanda ni Padre Pio Pi, Superyor ng mga Heswita sa Pilipinas, at ito’y nagustuhan ni Rizal. PAGKARAAN NG ILANG PAGBABAGO, ISINULAT NI RIZAL ANG KANIYANG RETRAKSIYON, NA KUNG SAAN ITINATAKWIL NIYA ANG MASONERYA AT MGA RELHIYOSONG IDEYANG ANTI-KATOLIKO.” [Jose Rizal (Centennial Book), Gregorio & Sonia Zaide, p. 327.]

The fact that you are using materials in 1892 then concluding that Rizal is not a faithful catholic (in the process bypassing his later views in 1896) shows your deceitful way of argumentation.

Whit:

6) You’re totally absurd again on claiming that I wrote GOMBURZA as ADD workers. and I did not say that “El Filibusterismo” is a religious novel. You must be really out of your mind!

Parabanog:

I’m just trying to hammer to your senses that you cannot use the GOMBURZA to malign the Catholic Church because first and foremost, they are Catholic priests and not ADD workers, proof that your religion is newly invented. I’m just stating a fact. Do you have any problem with that? Your insinuation that the Catholic Church has a hand in the execution of the GOMBURZA is lame. You failed to provide proofs for your tsismis.

Don’t you know that it is the Archbishop of the Catholic Church that pleaded to the Spanish Civil Government to spare the lives of the three priests because the Church believe that they are innocent:

“KAYA KAHIT NA MISMO ANG ARSOBISPO ANG HUMIHINGI NG KAPATAWARAN DAHIL ALAM NIYANG INOSENTE ANG TATLONG PARI, ipinabitay ang Gom-Bur-Za (Gomez, Burgos, at Zamora) noong bukangliwaywa ng Pebrero 17, 1872, SUNOD SA UTOS NI GOBERNADOR HENERAL IZQUIERDO. Ang kanilang pagkamartir ay ipinagluksa ng mag-anak na Rizal at maraming makabayang pamilya sa Pilipinas.” [Jose Rizal (Centennial Book), Gregorio & Sonia Zaide, p. 30]

So stop insinuating that the Church has any hand in the execution of the GOMBURZA. Even Rizal acknowledges the fact that the Catholic Church believes that the three martyrs were innocent:

In Rizal’s dedication to the three martyr priests in his El Filibusterismo, he wrote: “Sa alaala ng mga paring sina Don Mariano Gomez (85 taong gulang), Don Jose Burgos (30 taong gulang), at Don Jacinto Zamora (35 taong gulang). Binitay sa Bagumbayan noong ika-28 ng Pebrero, 1872.

ANG SIMBAHAN, SA PAGTANGGING PAWALAN KAYO NG DANGAL, AY NAGPASUBALI NG KRIMENG IPINARATANG SA INYO; ang pamahalaan, sa paglalambong ng hiwaga at karimlan sa inyong poaglilitis, ay nagbigay dailan sa paniniwalang may pagkakamali sila sa maselang pagkakataong ito,…” [Jose Rizal (Centennial Book), Gregorio & Sonia Zaide, p. 236.]

You see that? Rizal admitted himself that the Church believed that the GOMBURZA were innocent. The Catholic Church is not responsible for their execution. You’re busted again, Whit.

Whit:

Why would you challenge me on something that I did not write in the first place? Brownie, you are again barking at a wrong tree. Read my previous post again to peruse your twisted mind.

Parabanog:

But it is part of your counter-argument so be man enough to defend your position, Witless. You see, it is so easy to fabricate lies but proving it is a different matter. You keep on stacking lies one after another. When you are asked to prove it, you are abandoning your position and you are washing your hands from the issue. What do you call that? That’s cowardice. So ano? Mai-enumerate mo ba yung mga Catholic dogma na binaka ni Rizal sa El Filibusterismo?

Whit:

7) Retraction issues of Rizal are debated for how many years between Historians. Zaide as historian favored on Rizal’s retraction, research on it since you always refer on Zaide’s writings.

Parabanog:

But we have documents and facts to support our position. How about you? What is your proof that Rizal died an anti-Catholic? Show us your evidence. Sawa na ako sa mga daldal mo eh.

Whit:

You quoted my post based on the fact of Rizal’s letter to Pastells in 1896 and then you replied with a letter of Rizal to Blumentritt dated March 05, 1887. Those 2 letters are for 2 different people in 2 different situation, and in 2 different times. You are again misleading the public.

Parabanog:

Oh no. I think you are the one who is not reading well. I quoted Rizal’s letter dated March 05, 1887 as a response to your statement expressing agreement with Victor. (i.e., that Rizal read the bible in its original language) I quoted said letter to show to everyone that Rizal is not an anti-Catholic. Rizal knew all along that the Catholic Church is the true religion and that the Church will not agree on the abuses of some friars in the Philippines. Rizal attacked the abuses of the friars, not the Catholic Church itself.

So I think you are the one misleading us to hide your inability to deal with my arguments point by point.

Whit:

9) Your opinion as Rizal being more effective in being converted to Protestantism is because he’s not out of his sane mind to do so, Rizal as an intelligent man will not convert himself on something he doesn’t believe in..

Parabanog:

So Rizal remained a Catholic. He didn’t consider other religion as viable or true that is why he remained a Catholic. And he didn’t join your cultic group. That’s a fact. Live with it.

Whit:

The fact that you have to accept parabanog is that Rizal refuted the catholic church until his last breath

Parabanog:

Documents please. Where is your proof?

We on the other hand have proofs that Rizal died a Catholic. (i.e., retraction, Rizal receiving the Holy Communion prior to his death, etc.) How about you? What is your proof that Rizal died an anti-catholic? You should know better. Statements without a shred of facts are trash. And since you are so fond of trashy statements, it speaks volume about your person, Witless.

Whit:

10) You are in the nth time barking at a wrong tree here brownie. I did not say that Rizal died as a protestant and a member of ADD.

Parabanog:

I know because to say so is suicide on your part. I’m just simply stating an obvious fact. That Rizal died a Catholic and not a protestant, much more an ADD member. That’s a fact that you have to live with. Accept it.

Whit:

My advise to you parabanog; next time that you reply on any one’s post do these first: read, analyze and reference rightful documents before you post.

Parabanog:

My advice to you, Witless; next time, you should accompany your statements with facts. Don’t evade my arguments and try to be man enough and defend your position instead of to pointing others. Lastly, avoid making lies. God hate liars,

Kawikaan 12:22 (Ang Biblia) “MGA SINUNGALING NA LABI AY KASUKLAMSUKLAM SA PANGINOON: nguni’t ang nagsisigawang may katotohanan ay kaniyang kaluguran.”