Daniel Veridiano needs financial aid

Daniel Veridiano used to be the breadwinner in his family until doctors diagnosed him to be suffering from end-stage renal disease in 2008.

Since then, the 34-year-old bachelor has stopped working at New Era University to make way for his dialysis sessions at New Era Hospital which, like the university, is also run by the Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious sect of which he is a member.

“My father and I now rely on my sister who has a family of her own,” Veridiano, resident of Sta. Cruz, Manila, said in Filipino.

According to him, he and his family used to manage but money has become tight. Right now, they cannot afford the cost of his 12-times-a-month dialysis sessions which cost P2,500 per treatment.

“I had hoped to be able to work again so that my father and I won’t be a burden anymore to my sister,” he said.

Those who want to help him can call 0939-3911600. Donations are welcome through his Security Bank account with account number 0051-236646-337.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/54239/sick-man-needs-financial-aid#ixzz2msWBEkzb

VICARIUS FILII DEI USED TWICE BY POPE PAUL VI IN OFFICIAL PAPAL DECREES

I will show you an evidence that the title "Vicarivs Filii Dei" was once used by the pope

VICARIUS FILII DEI USED TWICE BY POPE PAUL VI
IN OFFICIAL PAPAL DECREES

Vicarius Filii Dei was used twice by Pope Paul VI in documents found on the Vatican's web site. These are Apostolic Constitutions, which are the highest form of official Papal decree in the Roman Catholic Church and are issued with binding legal authority. Historically these decrees were known as papal bulls, the name referring to the lead metal seal (bulla) attached to authenticate the document. As a general rule, the superscription that opens papal bulls typically reads:

NAME (without ordinal number) EPISCOPUS, SERVUS SERVORUM DEI, AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM

So, the following Apostolic Constitutions begin:

PAULUS, EPISCOPUS, SERVUS SERVORUM DEI, AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM
PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, FOR EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE OF THE MATTER

Bafianae (January 11, 1968), Decree of Paul VI elevating the Prefecture Apostolic of Bafia, Cameroon, to a Diocese:

Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, vol. LX (1968), n. 6, pp. 317-319. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. ISBN 8820960680, 9788820960681.
Scans: Title page - 317 - 318 - 319.

Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator, quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit, ...
As the worshipful Son of God's Vicar and Caretaker, to whom the eternal divine will has given the highest rank of the holy Church, ...

Church attendance in the Philippines is declining

Catholics' corruption of Morals as attested by a Catholic priest

 

“ I am SORRY TO CONFESS that CORRUPTION OF MORALS is too often found among professing CATHOLICS. We cannot close our eyes to the painful fact that too many of them, far from living up to the teachings of their Church, are sources of melancholy scandal.

“It must be that scandals come, but woe to him by whom the scandal cometh.” I also admit that the SIN OF CATHOLICS IS MORE HEINOUS IN THE SIGHT OF GOD than that of their separated brethren, because they abuse more grace. ”

—— James Cardinal Gibbons, FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

Nearly one of 10 Pinoy Catholics thinking of leaving Church, poll finds

Pollster Social Weather Stations' February survey has found that 9.2 percent, or nearly one out of every 10 Catholics who are registered voters, "sometimes think of leaving the Church."

Though they have no data from the past which would show a trend of Filipino Catholics renouncing their religion, pollster Social Weather Stations said Sunday that its recent survey gave credence to the assertion of Jesuit priest and university president Fr. Joel Tabora SJ that "people have been leaving the Catholic Church," partly as a result of "theological bullying."

SWS said it took the survey on its own account, "as a public service" in response to a blog post by Tabora who also wrote, “It is time, I think, for [SWS president] Mahar Mangahas to take out his social survey tools to help us understand what is happening.”

Broken down, of the Catholics who sometimes think of leaving the Church:

- 4.9 percent considered themselves very religious
- 9.1 percent considered themselves somewhat religious
- 16.1 percent considered themselves not very religious
- 57.3 percent said they have no religious belief.

The pollster conducted a poll among 1,200 registered voters from February 15 to 17 which dealt with four matters:

- thinking about leaving the Catholic Church (asked of Catholics only)
- church attendance
- self-comparison of church attendance at present with attendance five years ago
- self-assessed religiosity

SWS said Tabora "had no hand” in designing the questionnaire.

Of the 9.2 percent of Catholics who sometimes think of leaving the Church, 2.5 percent said they "strongly agree" and 6.7 percent "somewhat agree" with the statement, "Sometimes I think that I might leave the Catholic Church."

This was the first time SWS fielded such a question and thus it did not have earlier data that would establish if there was a trend.

However, the poll did reveal that thoughts of leaving the Catholic Church are more common among Catholics "who do not consider themselves as very religious, who attend Church monthly at most, and whose church attendance is less now than five years ago."

In terms of church attendance, Catholics who sometimes think of leaving the Church included:

- 5.4 percent among weekly churchgoers
- 7.1 percent among those who attend several times a month
- 12.9 percent among those who attend once a month
- 14.5 percent among those who attend several times a year
- 18.0 percent among those who attend once a year at most.

The survey covered not only Catholics but other religions. Of the 1,200 voters surveyed, 81 percent were Catholics, 6 percent Protestants, 3 percent Iglesia ni Cristo, and 3 percent of other Christian denominations.

And the "slightly downward" trend of religious-service attendance applied to Catholics, Iglesia ni Cristo members and Muslims as well.

The exceptions are the Protestants and other Christians among whom more attend “more frequently” than those who do “less frequently.”

Church attendance

The SWS survey showed 43 percent of respondents attend church/masjid at least once a week, while 22 percent attend church/masjid two or three times a month.

Another 21 percent attend once a month, nine percent attend two to 11 times a year and 5 percent attend once a year at most.

"Only 37 percent of Catholics attend church weekly. In comparison, there are nearly twice as many of other Christians who are weekly churchgoers: 64 percent among Protestants, 70 percent among Iglesia ni Cristos and 62 percent among other Christians," it said.

It added 75 percent of Muslims attend masjid at least weekly.

SWS said that in 70 SWS surveys of church attendance from 1991 to 2013, weekly attendance was always lower among Catholics in general.

The SWS said the highest recorded weekly church attendance among Filipinos was 66 percent in July 1991, the first time SWS asked the question.

It added the highest recorded weekly church attendance among Catholics was 64 percent, also in July 1991.

Among all Filipinos, the 43 percent weekly church attendance in February 2013 matches the 43-percent low first recorded in March 2008.

The SWS added the latest 37 percent weekly church attendance of Catholics in February 2013 matches the all-time low 37 percent weekly church attendance of Catholics in March 2008.

It added the decline in Catholics' weekly church attendance from 1991 to 2013 is highly significant, statistically speaking.

Five year trend

The survey also revealed that 54 percent of Catholics said their frequency of church attendance is the same now as it was five years ago, in 2008.

But 18 percent said they attend church more frequently in 2013 than in 2008, while 28 percent said they attend less frequently in 2013 than five years ago, for a net difference of -9.

Among Protestants, 26 percent attend church more frequently now, while 14 percent said they do so less frequently now, for a net difference of +12.

Among Iglesia ni Cristos, 14 percent attend church more frequently now, while 36 percent attend less frequently now, for a net difference of -22.

Among other Christians, 26 percent attend church more frequently now and 25 percent attend less frequently now, for a net difference of +1.

Among Muslims, 14 percent attend masjid more frequently now, and 40 percent attend less frequently now, for a net difference of -26.

Religious affiliation

From 1991 to 2013, SWS said the average annual percentage of adults identifying themselves as Catholics in the SWS surveys varied between a high of 88 percent in 1997 and a low of 80 percent in 2007.

It said this indicates "a very slight, but statistically significant, downward trend in the 22-year period."

SWS said that in 1991 and 1994, 85 percent of adults reported themselves as Catholics, and 87 percent in 1996 and 88 percent in 1997.

But this declined to 83 percent in 1998, went up to 85 percent in 1999 and 2000, 82 percent in 2001, and 84 percent in 2002.

"From 2003 to the present it has fluctuated narrowly between 83 percent and 80 percent. The latest proportion of 81 percent in 2013 is statistically less than the initial 85 percent of 1991," SWS said.

Self-assessed religiosity

In the survey, only 29 percent of Catholics consider themselves very religious, compared to 50 percent among Protestants, 43 percent among Iglesia ni Cristo and 41 percent among those from other Christian denominations.

Among Muslims, 38 percent consider themselves very religious.

"Compared with other religious groups, Catholics are the least religious," the SWS said.

The February 2013 Pre-Election Survey was conducted from February 15 to 17, using face-to-face interviews of 1,200 registered voters divided into random samples of 300 each in Metro Manila, Balance of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

Sampling error margins of ±3% for national percentages and ±6% for area percentages applied to the survey. — DVM/HS, GMA News

Taqqiya of Islam on befriending Christians

* ISLAM'S "TAQIYAH" WAY OF BEFRIENDING CHRISTIANS...!!!

*** IS THAT WHAT "FRIENDS" ARE FOR???

Abu Ad-Darda [a companion and pupil of Muhammad] said:

"We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah [or taqqiyah, deception on behalf of Islam] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'"

*** Thus you have a mainstream pious Islamic idea of "friendship" with non-believers.

* Ibn Kathir - "In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly."

Underneath the Vatican EVIDENCE SATANIC

Catholic Heresy Replacing Christ with Mary! 2011

4 Stages of Islamic Conquest in a nation

 STAGE 1: INFILTRATION

Muslims begin moving to non-Muslim countries in increasing numbers and the beginning of cultural conflicts are visible, though often subtle.

• First migration wave to non-Muslim “host” country.
• Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the host society.
• Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful & Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism (even though Islam is not a ‘race’).
• High Muslim birth rate in host country increase Muslim population.
• Mosques used to spread Islam and dislike of host country & culture.
• Calls to criminalize “Islamophobia” as a hate crime.
• Threatened legal action for perceived discrimination.
• Offers of “interfaith dialogue” to indoctrinate non-Muslims.

How many nations are suffering from Islamic infiltration? One? A handful? Nearly every nation? The Islamic ‘leadership” of the Muslim Brotherhood and others wish to dissolve each nation’s sovereignty and replace it with the global imposition of Islamic sharia law. Sharia law, based on the koran, sira and hadith, condemns liberty and forbids equality and is inconsistent with the laws of all Western nations. As the author and historian Serge Trifkovic states:

“The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history.”

STAGE 2:   CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

Muslim immigrants and host country converts continue demands for accommodation in employment, education, social services, financing and courts.

• Proselytizing increases; Establishment and Recruitment of Jihadi cells.
• Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population to Islam.
• Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
• Efforts to destroy historic evidence that reveal true Islamism.
• Increased anti-western propaganda and psychological warfare.
• Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (communists, anarchists).
• Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint.
• Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslims.
• Efforts to introduce blasphemy and hate laws in order to silence critics.
• Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and immigration.
• Use of charities to recruit supporters and fund jihad.
• Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of host society from within.
• Development of Muslim political base in non-Muslim host society.
• Islamic Financial networks fund political growth, acquisition of land.
• Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
• Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes.
• Greater demands to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
• Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives in hidden locations.
• Overt disregard/rejection of non-Muslim society’s legal system, culture.
• Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions including and especially Jews and Christians.

Is there a pattern here? Theo van Gogh is murdered in the Netherlands for ‘insulting’ Islam; the Organization of the Islamic Conference demands ‘anti-blasphemy’ laws through the United Nations; France is set afire regularly by ‘youths’ (read Muslims); the rise of (dis-) honor killings…holocaust denial…anti-Semitism…deception re the tenets of Islam; hatred toward Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists.  The pattern for all to see is the rise of Islamic intolerance and the covert/cultural jihad to remake host societies into sharia-compliant worlds – to remove host sovereignty and replace it with Islamic sharia law.  Sharia law that condemns earthly liberty and individual freedom, that forbids equality among faiths and between the sexes, that rejects the concept of nations outside the global house of Islam, that of dar al-Islam.

STAGE 3: OPEN WAR w/ LEADERSHIP & CULTURE

Open violence to impose Sharia law and associated cultural restrictions; rejection of host government, subjugation of other religions and customs.

• Intentional efforts to undermine the host government & culture.
• Acts of barbarity to intimidate citizens and foster fear and submission.
• Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.
• All opposition is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.
• Mass execution of non-Muslims.
• Widespread ethnic cleansing by Islamic militias.
• Rejection and defiance of host society secular laws or culture.
• Murder of “moderate” Muslim intellectuals who don’t support Islamization.
• Destruction of churches, synagogues and other non-Muslim institutions.
• Women are restricted further in accordance with Sharia law.
• Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, bombings.
• Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
• Imposition of Sharia law

The website www.thereligionofpeace.com keeps track of the number of violent jihad attacks as best it can. The site lists more than 14,000 attacks since September 2001. It is worth a visit. What is occurring, however, that is likely inestimable are events where muslims are bullied by other muslims for not being “muslim enough,” where non-Muslims are intimidated into doing or not doing what they desire, where remnant populations are in a death spiral simply for being non-muslim in a predominantly muslim area. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists Animists and Atheists meet with death, property destruction or confiscation, forced conversion, rape, excessive taxation (the jizya), enslavement, riotous mobs and various other forms of islam (in-) justice at the hands of muslims in Sudan, Philippines, Kenya, Malaysia, India, etc.  And let us not forget ‘death to Apostates’ the world over.

STAGE 4: Totalitarian ISLAMIC “THEOCRACY”

Islam becomes the only religious-political-judicial-cultural ideology.

• Sharia becomes the “law of the land.
• All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
• Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.
• Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.
• All religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed.
• Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, populations and symbols in country (Buddhas, houses of worship, art, etc).

The House of Islam (“peace”), dar al-Islam, includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, to the soul crushing, liberty-condemning, discriminatory law of Sharia. The rest of the world in in the House of War, dar al-harb, because it does not submit to Sharia, and exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of ‘Allah.’ No non-Muslim state or its citizens are “innocent,” and remain viable targets of war for not believing in ‘Allah.’ The Christian, Jewish, Coptic, Hindu and Zoroastrian peoples of world have suffered under subjugation for centuries. The Dhimmi-esque are forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair existing ones, economically crippled by the heavy jizya (tax), socially humiliated, legally discriminated against, criminally targeted and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness, fear and vulnerability by Islamic governments.
It should be noted that forced conversions (Egypt) and slavery (Sudan) are still reported. Homosexuals have been hung in the public square in Iran. Young girls are married to old men. Apostates are threatened with death. “Honor” killings are routine. Women are legally second-class citizens, though Muslim males insist they are “treated better” than in the West. These more obvious manifestations may distract from some less obvious ones such as the lack of intellectual inquiry in science, narrow scope of writing, all but non-existent art and music, sexual use and abuse of youth and women, and the disregard for personal fulfillment, joy and wonder. Look into the eyes of a recently married 12 year old girl to see the consequence of the moral deprivation spawned by Islam.

Jewish rabbi testifies that Catholic praying for the dead is against the Torah

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Vatican - owner of world's biggest banks and top companies

Refuting Catholic defense on so called sacred images

ONE OF THE GREATEST ALIBI:  Ezekiel 41:19 The face of a man was toward the palm tree on one side, and the face of a lion was toward the palm tree on the other side: set forth through all the house round about. (Douay Rheims Version)

Catholic Apologists say that in the temple there was a face of the man, they already concluded that in verse 19 that It is okay to make images of men and soon they pray and kneel down on it.

ANSWERS TO THIS ALIBI:

First refutation: read verse 18. It was written there that every cherub had two faces.

Ezekiel 41:18 And there were cherubims and palm trees wrought, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub, and every cherub had two faces.

so in verse 19, one of them has face of a man. AND NEVER REALLY AN IMAGE OF A MAN LIKE WHAT WE CAN SEE ON THE CATHOLIC ALTARS.

but look at this Catholic altar, are these cherubs? NO!

Second refutation: This is not part of the Christian era. They should read from the New Testament that Christians made images and bow down and pray to them but where?

Third refutation: The temple mentioned is not a Temple of Christians but of the Jews.

Fourth refutation: God himself said not to bown down on images. God knows that these images will be made by men but not for the purpose of worshipping it by praying and kneeling down on it but as decorations.

Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

Sixth refutation: You cannot read that these images should be worshipped.

But Catholic Cathechism says to worship the images of Christ, saints and of Mary.

“13. Is the worship of the saints confined to their persons?

 No; it extends also their relics and images…

15. Ought we to worship holy images?

-- We should have, particularly in our churches, images of our lord, as also of the blessed Virgin and the saints, and we should pay them due honor and veneration.”

(Catechism of Christian doctrine, no. 3, p. 87) 

Eduard Syndicus, a Jesuit Priest says:

“Moreover, following other schoolmen, Thomas also showed in a wonderful section of his summa Theologica, his understanding of the irrational element in the cult image and its veneration: When one turns to an image, he says in so far as it is a thing—either a painting or a statue—it deserves the same reverence as Christ himself. ‘Since Christ is worshipped with humble veneration, it follows that his image, too, must be worshipped with (relatively) humble veneration’ ”

(Summa Theol. III, pu. 25, art. 3)(Early Christian Art, p.151)

Seventh refutation: God himself in the Old Testament said that the altar for Him has no images but the Catholic altars have it.

Exodus 20:23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.  

Exodus 20:24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

These gods of silver and gold have body parts of human but they cannot see, hear, touch etc.

Psalms 135:15 The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

Psalms 135:16 They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;

Psalms 135:17 They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.

Psalms 135:18 They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.

Christians were commanded not to worship the idols but to flee from it. so they should not use images while worshipping God.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Idolatry will make them not inherit the Kingdom of God as mentioned in Galatians 5:20-21.

Because Jesus taught them to worship God in Spirit as mentioned in John 4:24.

A Spirit has no form to be seen. They must worship God w/o visual aids like images or pictures.

LAST GREATEST ALIBI: Joshua 7:6 And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads.

ANSWERS TO THIS ALIBI:

First refutation: Catholics did not imitate Joshua. they did not fell to the earth before the ark of the LORD.

Second refutation: This is not part of the Christian era. They should read from the New Testament that Jesus or his apostles commanded to make some images and soon fell to the earth upon their faces on those images.


Third refutation: God did not accept Joshua's action in Joshua 7:6.

Joshua 7:10 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?

Because God knows that He commanded not to bow down on images made by men even the 2 golden cherubs were commanded by God to be created (of course not for the purpose of worshipping it but AS A DECORATION)

Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

Fourth refutation: There is only one golden ark and sadly you cannot see an Ark of the covenant in the Catholic churches where Catholics bow down on it.

Instead what you can see there are images not of gold and Catholic saints and not 2 golden cherubs in the Ark.

Fifth refutation: God forbade the Israelites to have images near his altar.

Deuteronomy 16:21 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.  

Deuteronomy 16:22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.

The reason why God hated Mannasseh for putting an image inside the Temple. Putting an image that God never asked to make like the bronze serpent, images in the Temple of Solomon as mentioned in 1 Kings Chapter 6 and 7 and 2 cherubs on the Ark of the Covenant.

2 Chronicles 33:7 And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:

2 Chronicles 33:2 But did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

This is what the Catholics did. they instead make graven images which is abominable to Him. Images which he never commanded to make like the bronze serpent, 2 cherubs in the Ark of the Covenant and Images in the Temple of Solomon as mentioned in 1 Kings Chapter 6 and 7 which you cannot even see in a Catholic church.

Deuteronomy 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract as testified by his great grand nephew

From: http://pinoynewsmagazine.com/2011/12/jose-rizal-retraction-part-ii/

Jose Rizal retraction, Part II

December 29, 2011

(Editor:This is Part II of the lecture delivered at the Chicago’s Newberry Library on June 18, 2011. The author is a great-grand nephew of the Philippine National Hero whose 150th birthday was marked on June 19 of this year. Dr. Rizal was sentenced to die by musketry on Dec. 30, 1896 after a brief mock trial by a Spanish military court in Fort Santiago, Manila.)
By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.

L-R: Berth Salvador, Cultural Officer, Philippine 

Consulate General, Dr. Reagan F. Romali, President of Truman College, Philippine Consul General Leo M. Herrera-Lim and Dr. Ramon G. Lopez, direct descendant of Dr. Jose Rizal.

“How could this be?” we ask.  It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived.  It COULD BE, for there was no other recourse.  It COULD BE, for the moth had burned its wings!  Twenty-four years after the garroting of the Filipino clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom and intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and frailocracy had now sensed its own death. It had to continue, for it wanted to display its final domination of a reawakened people.  However, it would not be completely so!  The man they had just martyred was a man whose politics and faith were unshakeable and timeless.  As we know, and as History recounts, it also projects.

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine scholar, patriot, and former President of the University of the Philippines regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, “the document obtained under moral duress and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of history.”  Dr. Rafael Palma, a respected jurist of his time, was an author on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal meticulously.  Of this he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race about Dr. Jose Rizal, “His defense before the court martial is resplendent for its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious manner in which the fiscal had treated him.”  For in man’s own tribunal, the tribunal and trial that condemned Dr. Jose Rizal to die was a sham; his execution, a foregone conclusion.

A portrait of Jose Rizal as a Mason. His membership in the fraternity had caused his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. His retraction is a subject of controversy.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four years he was exiled in Dapitan.  He truly loved her.  They had desired a canonical marriage but were presented with a pre-condition retraction of Rizal’s anti-ecclesiastical writings and beliefs.  As we may know, he was never anti-God or anti-Church.  He was anti-cleric to those who abused their mission and hid behind their pretentious cloak of religiosity.  He knew there were those who practiced religion but did not worship God.  Neither the retraction nor the marriage occurred.  He and Josephine were parents to a son, though he sadly passed.  We know that Dr. Jose Rizal had immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem which we now refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi alegria…”  As Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute quotes, “To accept Rizal as having married Bracken is to accept his alleged retraction of religious error.”  From Austin Coates, British author and historian:  “Before God, he (Dr. Rizal) had nothing to retract.”  And from Dr. Jose Rizal himself, I quote: “I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen, no oppressors… where faith does not slay… where He who reigns is God.”

Fraudulent Premise

From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church attempted to redirect his beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit unsuccessfully.  A succession of visits from Fathers Obach, Vilaclara, and Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting.  He had decided to remain ecclesiastically unwed, rather than recant his alleged “religious errors.”  Now, there seems to be a “disconnect”, or even a divide among historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his apparent errant religious ways as claimed by the friars and the Jesuits.  Since a retraction of alleged “religious errors” would have begotten a marriage to Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent.  Austin Coates’ book entitled Rizal – Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from his own personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal family.  To wit:

1.Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters.  The Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that fateful morning.  Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.
2. Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of the execution.

3. Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could “describe” a wedding?  Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March to corroborate the occurrence of a marriage ceremony?  Or was there really even one at all?

4. In Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.

5. In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.

6. In Josephine Bracken’s litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose Rizal’s valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila stating that she was indeed Rizal’s widow would have bolstered her claim.  She did not pursue this.  Why not?
7.  In 1960, inquiry at the Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-Bracken marriage was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the religious.  Likewise, we ask the question, “Why?”

“Unconfessed” Martyrdom”

From the dark days of exile in Dapitan, to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the Catholic Church had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could be performed.  In this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime, it was always proclaimed that “the Indio always retracted”, as he walked to his execution.  Austin Coates states in his book: “The Spaniards publish the same thing about everyone who is shot… Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact that a number of people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop.”  I say that if there was no marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose Rizal met his martyrdom “un-confessed”:

1. Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died impenitent.  The entry made in the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the page for those buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but on a special page, as ordered by the authorities.  Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page between a man who burned to death, and another who died by suicide – persons considered “un-confessed” and without spiritual aid at the time of death.

2.    Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a Christian burial, but they did not.  They must have known that no retraction was made.  Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a sack, without a coffin.  This was the onus of the “un-confessed.”

3.   One must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to his parents dated December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage.  A message with that important information would have been of great consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected dearly.
4.   Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family after the execution, no letter of retraction could be produced.

5.   The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to eleven days after the execution, a mass for the deceased would be said, after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family.  Though the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of retraction was shown.  They were told that the letter had been sent to the Archbishop’s palace, and that the family would not be able to see it.

6. The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former student) did not celebrate any mass for his soul, nor did they hold any funerary rites over his body.  I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits against the friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed pupil did not abjure!

7.   The apparent “discovery” of an obviously forged autobiography of Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a  handwriting that bore no resemblance to Josephine’s and had glaring errors in syntax, which revealed that the perpetrating author’s primary language was Spanish (not Josephine’s original language), thus  proving that the document was  manufactured and disingenuous.

8.  Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year, he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a retraction letter.

9.       In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in their book Forgery of the Rizal Retraction and Josephine’s Autobiography, made an exposé of six different articles and books that purportedly presented Dr. Jose Rizal’s “document of retraction” as copied from the so-called “original” testament of retraction.  Intriguingly enough, even to this day, the claimed “original” document from which the facsimiles have arisen have not been seen by anybody.  Blatant in these six different presentations were differing dates and notes that had been doctored, traced-over, and altered, when these facsimiles were supposed to have come from the same “original” document!  This book of Runes and Buenafe was published by the Pro-Patria Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.

Though the issue of “Retraction” remains contentious for some people, it is my personal opinion that there is no controversy; that Dr. Jose Rizal did not make any recantation of his writings and beliefs.  The arguments to the contrary made by his detractors are all smoke screen and “retreads” of the dubious accounts of the sycophantic Father Balaguer and his gullible minions.  Let us not allow for the sands of time to cover the blunder of this ignoble and impious event.  Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this fraudulent claim.  As had been vigorously proposed then, and again now, let the document of retraction be examined by a panel of the world’s experts in hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made.  Let this hidden document come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see, and to judge, and to know what is truthful.

When this comes to pass… in this 21st century, in this age of an “evidence-based” society that demands transparency and full-disclosure, it can be stated that with the now enlightened and reformed Catholicism, and in the spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the Jewish people for the millennia of misdeeds by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the victims of pedophilia and other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, then it should not be beyond the Catholic Church to NOW admit the pious fraud it had committed in saying that Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his writings and beliefs, when all evidences point to the fact that he did not!

False prophecy of INC 1914: After Felix Manalo's death is end of the world

INC people call Ka Erdie Tatay or Father

They always use Matthew 23:9 to disprove that the Catholics calling their priests FATHER is ungodly but they are doing the same.