Throughout the years of my professional blogging career I have been through a lot of bouts and friction with other arrogant and self-absorbed bloggers in the past. I had worst I tell you. What you see in the first 10 pages of this blog is not everything you would need to know. You have to browse and dig all of the pages in this blog to see the full history of what I’ve been through in the past just to uphold the Catholic Faith according to what my own training as a former seminarian led me. But I never thought in my wildest dreams that my worst adversary would come from the same background that I similarly have. When you browse my archives, you will never see any posts that deals with religious debate. It is my own opinion that when one tackles religious differences, it becomes futile and endless. Man is by nature spiritual and this blog, ever since its conception has respected different beliefs, but with full promulgation of the faith that I grew up with on the manner that is not enforcing nor arrogant.

The day after yesterday, Ash Wednesday, I spent the whole day with thorough reflection and came to a conclusion that its not worth it. It’s not worth succumbing to a provocation of a man who assumes supremacy over topics he deemed a matter of life and death simply because to do so would only mean that I was only fulfilling my desire to retaliate this man who I never knew from adam and kept bugging me in a war that’s not even mine.

I already wrote a 4-part series of my argument last Tuesday complete with my screen caps, and documentation, evidences, pictures and everything, but I changed my mind. I already reviewed on Wednesday the documents that I used as references and footnotes which I cant read last Tuesday night because of visual constraints but decided not to push through. Me and my fellow seminarians on email has been discussing this for weeks ever since the conflict arose yet we never saw anything wrong about the object of the issue.

Intellectual Insult

We maybe accused of being ignorant of the church documents, exhortations and encyclicals, even the said equally controversial Apostolic Letter “Summorum Pontificum” and “Ecclessia Dei” but we are not stupid charlatans.

I for one, speaking in behalf of my brother seminarian bloggers who participated in the discussion via email, cannot accept that we are stupid when it comes to Ecclesiology and even in magisterial matters because to accept such insult is to also accept that our mentors and the seedbed of our own vocations are also stupid. We are well trained, modesty aside. We are fully equipped and our resources are abundant. On my part I even have copies of newly released documents. I am a subscriber of the Vatican Information Office/Service, least to say I am well updated.

One of my brother seminarian is also in Rome studying for priesthood. While the other is in France having his pastoral exposure, some are newly ordained, and are living the secular life. Therefore I think our capability which deemed us fit to discuss such issue in a manner that is objective, and prudent gives us an equal footing when it comes to church issue like this.

Off-Tangent

But then again as we have always consulted each other, we cannot seem to find any malice on the “alleged” erroneous Guidelines of the Archdiocese of Manila on the Celebration of the Latin Mass simply because there is none. Even the Archdiocese is silent about the online criticism of the tradionalists fanatics primarily (and maybe) because everything is blown into proportion and is not an issue at all.

There may have been some technical mixed-up in the usage of terms such as the “presider” and “celebrant” nonetheless, I do not think that its an issue worth discussing.

We are not biased nor turning a blind eye on the said guidelines, its just that we never really make big deals on issues that are deemed tempest on a teapot, or in the words of my professor in the seminary, OFF TANGENT ARGUMENTS. There are more noteworthy issues to discuss in the bowels of intellectual exchange and pastoral care like the CARP issue and the Reproductive Bill Issue.

Having said, this issue is really a non-issue, at least to us TRUE Catholics precisely because

(1) the argument is just copy-pasted from a website that this man vehemently considered as more important than the office and authority of the Archbishop himself. You see, if you are really a defender of truth and faith, you won’t hide on other’s work.

For bloggers like us, or at least an authentic servant of the Catholic Church, when an issue is needed to be raised, we simply blog about our own ideas and not just copy-pastes anyone’s thought nor anyone’s statement. You must have your own conviction and that I think is a good training of a seminarian or ex seminarian alike. You learn to uphold your belief with your own words because seminarians were not trained as robots that just hide on their superiors cassocks or depend on unknown blog personalities to fight their own battles.

Simply said, the Hubris and obsessive thirst for conflict is misplaced from the very start, as well as the courage and conviction over the said statement, that having said, he uses the UNA VOCE’s acknowledgement by the Holy Father in one of his defense.

Una Voce is Una Voce. You cannot be UNA VOCE no matter how you painstakingly paint your skin with the likeness of theirs. It maybe your affiliation, but the idea and comment was not originally your own. So in the viewpoint of an intellectual, wise and prudent blogger or seminarian for that matter, what is it to rebut when the issue was just copied from other else’s brains? Why give such an abundant idea or a rich apologetic about an issue, when the instigator is only hiding on other’s work. In analogy, if you may, it’s like competing your own original song composition against an overly-used cover of a pop song. To share with a plagiarizer the product of our consensus and reflection over the issue is not even worth it.

(2) It’s a Theological, Liturgical and Pastoral Trap. The instance that we begin to mention documenst and references, which I have originally planned, will just instigate a vast interpretation for both sides, which is in itself futile, infantile and imprudent. The official documents are made public, yes. But who are we to use it on a theological, liturgical or even pastoral clash of opinions, wherein, in fact we are not even experts on that matter?

Yes we do have books, we are trained. We read from other’s blogs. We even assume that we are an authority over such petty issue, Nevertheless it never gives us the license to use them in arguments with our limited minds, least to say, with our ability to download other’s works and call it as our own as a mock defense to an issue that was never a such in the first place. The more argumentation on deep theological, liturgical and pastoral issues are set into place, the more we are bringing contempt on our own allegiance to the bishops that we solemnly pledge to obey, by whose authority is given to interpret and judge issues that are on the verge of abuse and exploitation. Those documents were written by our popes for instruction purposes of the people, for clarification and enlightenment of the faithful and not use them as a shield just to get what we selfishly want without thinking of the greater good of the majority of the faithful.

(3) Credibility is always the primary consideration when engaging in a debate and a rebuttal. The internet has given us the freedom of widespread use of its power, hence we are able to download and copy other’s ideas. Yet how can you be so sure if your opponent is really what he is when all of the signs are telling your that credibility itself is mired by illegal activities, hypocrisy and dirty tactics?

One rule in a debate. Never argue with a person who disguise as pious, devout and religious who is neither of sound mind and of sound morality for everything that will come out from his mouth are just lies and deceit, like what plagiarizers do. Its not worth it.

(4) Provocation has been his (and their) way of evangelization. They provoke arguments and quote church documents where in real life are not known to many common and ordinary catholics. It is that same provocation that initiated his desire for a rebuttal that was not even his war on the first place. It is in this same provocation that he takes pleasure to see his superiority over other people, and over other seminarians for that matter, which unfortunately, is not going to happen since not all seminarians are like him who brag what they know, arrogant as they rebut and proud from what they only knew from fanatics before him.

When a debate and religious argument is stemmed on provocation, it is considered null and void, because it is the wicked selfish pleasure to be superior (and not the desire to educate) which dominates the motivation behind. Even if such provocation was deemed valid, I for one, and I think I speak in behalf of my fellow priests and seminarians bloggers, that it’s all waste of time, especially when the opponent is nothing more than a fake copy-paste happy individual.

(5) The ultimate motivation is provocation, but the interior agenda is to size me up. I have been a psychology professor in the university, worked as an HRD in a multinational company in the past, interviewed 50 people a day, have aced my psychology classes in the seminary and mastered the area of psychiatric nursing. It would not take a rocket scientist to figure out that I am just being sized up by this charlatan in terms of my knowledge on the issue.

My friends know me. I know my credentials in black and white, hardcopied and available for all to see. Yet why prove myself of all people to him, whose own opinion doesnt even mattered to his own diocese? Why engage myself in a theological debate, whose wisdom and understanding of the nature and collegiality of the office of the bishops and cardinals are far inferior to me? Why oh why should I bow on his demand to immediately post my rebuttal where in fact I have my own freedom to post it anytime I like and any day I deemed appropriate?

The delay of this entry for days, even for weeks is done deliberately on my part, to send him the clear message that not all people would bow before him and do his requests at his beck and call, especially on a self-serving agenda that will just feed his ego.

(6) and last but not the least, it is an exercise of futility which for all we know, no one will win and will just bring scandal to the faithful, who dont even know what the real issue is.

On matters of sensitive issues like this, we try to avoid dragging the faithful to confusion. You will never see any issues on all our blogs that are deep and sensitive which our own readers would not comprehend. Prudence and responsibility are always our priority when blogging certain issues that can either enlighten the minds and hearts of the faithful or lead them to confusion which can turn them away from the real light of truth of Divine Revelation, mirrored on the Catholic Church’s teaching authority. Always we, and I for one, blog about things that will clarify the doubts and confusion of the faithful, and not subject them to the dark, then brainwash them to hate the the Catholic Church later.

No Comment

The provocation to rebut kept on going for days, even accusing me of making a comment on his copy-pasted post which I found really amusing. For how can I even waste my time in going to his blog where in fact for the record I have a busy sched which is an open knowledge to all my blog friends online. Aside from my job, I have two active blogs being maintained. 3 blogs being customized and 5 new websites that had just been acquired. Not to mention my constant communication with Honey, Kotsengkuba and IFM about career stuff. Plus the fact that I receive a minimum of hundred of emails a day from subscription, blog friends and contacts make my day busy and exhausting. Multi tasking at its finest. And yet you expect me to barge on someone else’s blog whom I have no stomach to read nor the time to waste (for in tuth it has no content at all)? Not even my blog friends receive any bloghop from me for weeks, yet would I risk my sked for an insignificant anonymous comment in a copy-pasted blog? Incredible!

My time is so precious and my attention is well sought after, that people who email me receive their reply days or even weeks later just because I cannot cope up with so many things to do. And yet will anyone believe that I even have the time to anonymously comment on his blog? The commment was not even my style of writing. The truth is, he really doesnt know me that well. I maybe feisty, but I am not cheap.

If I ever visited and thoroughly read his blog entries prior to the alleged comment, it is only now in lieu of my writing of this post.

The Devil Hates Latin

The decision to rebut, despite his constant provocation doesnt lie on his hands. It’s on my own free will. I will rebut whenever I want to and I will write my rebuttal whenever I am compeled by my moods to do so. To demand such rebuttal in such a desperate fashion is not only barbaric but also unchristian who manifests a classic example of warmongering.

No one said that the Latin mass was abrogated because it is clearly defined in the Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Vatican II, written in black and white, on the first volume of a two volume book. No one also said that the summorum Pontificum is not in effect. But what is misplaced here is not the document itself, but the selfish desire to eclipse all of the masses, even the ordinary form, with the Latin Mass, which by the way doesn’t understand by the common people.

The ridiculous defense which he posted on plurk and is pasted on the sidebar of his blog which matching face of the devil that “Even the devil hates Latin too” is as immature as his action as a 25 year old neophyte in the reality of life. For how can he be so sure that I hate Latin where in fact I even offered to teach Latin online here on my blog?

How can he or his cohorts be sure that the Devil really hates Latin, where in fact the disciples and Jesus himself cast away demons using Hebrew and Aramaic as their language? Did he even ask the devil about it? Surely, it takes one to know one.

The Devil and his minions are cast of, not by the power of Latin, nor the power of of human effort, but by the Grace and Mercy of God. For someone who claim that he is a member of the office of exorcism, he of all people doesnt even know the real power behind such anti-diabolical tasks. It’s in the Gospel last week for crying out loud.

Ignorance really has no excuse. For the greatest advantage of a wise debater, or a prudent seminarian whose into apologetics for that matter, is to know more about your opponent than know what he is not. In my defense, and let me use the Gospel as a reference, in Jesus time the language he used was not Latin but Aramaic. Some of his original disciples were fluent in Greek but definitely not Latin. Even the bible was only translated into Latin by St. Jerome during the fifth century which we now call Vulgate.

It is called in our faith as Catholics that we use Latin as prescribed by the magisterium. But it is also said in the Vatican II that the vernacular can be used especially when people need to identify and express their unique cultural heritage as long as their no pagan and supernatural beliefs attached to it. Now with all this non-sense about accusations that we VATICAN II Catholics hates Latin, and as oppressive as bishop’s Willamson’s anti-semitic sentiments, I dare ask:

1) will God turn a blind ear when we do not pray in Latin?
2) will we be expelled from heaven just because we are ignorant in Latin?
3) are we going to be judged according to the utilization of our skill in Latin?

God listens to the heart and not to the tongue. For no matter how fluent we are in Latin, yet you call your brothers fool, it is therefore more worthy to tie a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the sea.

Pharisaical

The Reason why people prefer the vernacular over Latin is well written in the Sancrosanctum Concilium, even promulgated in the PCP II of the Philippine Catholic Church. To even quote the richness of the contents of document here seems already an abuse for what is precisely written, is precisely should be done, as what the Catholic Church is doing now.

And to defend a faith, or worse call yourself a catholic, yet basing everything you hold as a conviction only on the Apostolic Letter (and not even an encyclical) Summorum Pontificum, which is just a minute part of the whole church magisterial documents, and ignoring the Vatican II documents which was agreed upon by thousands of bishops, is as same as denying the Vatican II and honoring only documents that are for their own advantages.

Let me reiterate what the Vatican Secretary of State, in behalf of Pope Benedict XVI said on February 4, 2009 regarding the lifting of the Excommunication of the Lefebvrites or commonly known as Society of St. Pius X (aka Traditionalist Catholics):

“Now [the Pope] expects that the same willingness be expressed by the four bishops, in total adhesion to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a most grave canonical penalty, but it has not changed in any way the juridical situation of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, which for the moment does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. Neither do the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it“

A true catholic obeys, without reservation, without exclusion, from Peter up to Benedict XVI, and all the magisterial documents that comes with it, ammended and superimposed as to promulgate to the current time of our church. And not just choosing a certain document as a battlecry of faith, which later can only be assumed, to be ammended if the future Popes deem it necessary.

His denial that he is not an Anti-Vatican II is misleading since, in lieu of my writing of this post that you read, and upon checking his blog prior to this publishing, he has public posts which directly and blatantly criticize the promulgation of the Vatican II including his sarcasm towards Pope Paul VI’s papacy and the changes that was implemented on the church.

It is such a classic irony that he and his cohorts is attacking the teachings of the Vatican II, the same Conciliar document that gave him the power to function and participate in the ministries of his diocese which he is now enjoying as a lay person. Without the Vatican II, you cannot brag that you are a member of the office of Exorcism nor can even have the voice to attack the authority of Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, who by the way is my former Archbishop in Lipa. Ironic but true.

The Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, but it is never the official language of heaven. It is always faith, hope and love, (and the greatest of this is Love), which is the official language of Heaven. For if one speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, he is like a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

Truth that whatever the bishops and priests bind here on earth, shall also be binded in heaven. That is why as long as the Vatican II is in effect, the preference of vernacular over Latin as was prescribed in some instances by the church, will and forver be binding on heaven and earth. And that is what we are doing right now. What he clearly wants and his cohorts is to turn all of the Catholic masses into Latin.

To give him what he wants (a rebuttal of the Una Voce statement) is like tolerating a child to eat more candy than usual. That is what he desperately wants, therefore that is what he wont get, especially from me. Because the greatest torment that one could ever experience is to be deprived of what he desperately and obsessively wants. Let him be tormented out of his own itch for conflict.

Hubris

This whole issue started when a deacon-friend was attacked on Plurk. Apparently the deacon discovered that this ex-seminarian plagiarized one of Bishop Socrates Villegas eulogy/homily for the late Cardinal Sin. When he asked me to recover the post which was deleted by the culprit due to the deacon’s expose, I analyzed the post and indeed there was plagiarism involved. The culprit replaced some thoughts in favor of his own eulogy for his deceased friend and called it his own. The structure and usage of words are very much identical that it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that plagiarism is committed.

For seminarians and ex-seminarians like us, plagiarism is a great offense since it is a form of cheating, worse calling it your own. Morally and ethically, there is already a question of credibility. If one can confidently gets away with it and then later delete it when someone discovered it, then the faith and morals is undeniably questioned. no further explanation is necessary.

When the good deacon confronted him, he retaliated by a mocking entry on plurk in tagalog. Insulting and demeaning with matching laughing icons and smilies. He then deleted the entry to show that what the Deacon is telling are lies. But what this culprit doesnt know is that even if you delete an entry on a blog, it would still be recovered in ways that common internet users doesn’t know. This is where I came in the picture.

I recoevered the entry and filed it as an evidence in case the good Deacon will need it. The original links and timestamps are still there, therefore undeniably, it can be used in court as a valid evidence if ever legal battle would arise. But instead of explaining and asking for apology to the deacon, he instead attacked him.

I for one did not like the attitude, especially when the culprit is an ex-seminarian, a self-confessed active on the church ministry and professing his faith publicly would resort into such dirty tactics.

And as an experienced psychologist and nurse-psychiatrist as I was, I tested the waters. I thought, if this guy would crack under pressure with just a single entry on plurk, general and non-specific, without any mentioning of names, therefore this guy is truly guilty. And I was right.

After I posted my plurk entry which says “I hate it when I discover dirty things, I have the tendency to tell the world”, the culprit freaked out and sent me private nasty messages which he later deleted. Fortunately I all documented it with screen captures and time stamps. All of his deleted and non deleted blog posts and plurk entries, they were all documented.

Yet instead of humility and apology for the issue, he continued his attack and provocation on plurk, this time directed towards me. Which by the way were also documented and filed. One thing led to another and until I found myself being dared and challenged for a rebuttal which is not even his own statements from the very start. Simply put it, the Philistine is trying to use Goliath as his shield against David.

Pride in all of its filth and excessiveness was showcased. I can’t even believe that I was actually waging a nonsensical war against a fellow ex-seminarian. But then again, my training as a peace maker prevailed. Instead of succumbing myself to an endless parade and charade of hypocritical show of intellectual superiority, I deleted my account on plurk just to avoid any further conflict that could arise.

In his mind I maybe a coward who folded out of the vain competition. But the truth is, when you and your opponent are not on the same footing, maturity, psychologically, spiritually and intellectually wise, the battle and war is not worth it. Knowing the temperaments of the Traditionalists, they neither accept defeat, nor back-out from any argument, even to the point of twisting the truth and beating around the bush again and again. I tell you, its endless. No matter what you say , no matter what approach you use to defend your side, they will still poison you with the same argument and sources over and over again.

I retreated from plurk not as a sign of weakness but as a sign of control. With great power comes with great responsibility, as what Uncle Ben said. Yet the greatest sportsmanship is when a person backs off from a competition, knowing in his heart that his opponent is far inferior to his ability, and will just be used by his opponent through provocation to prove that he is more superior than him. I am not the type. I maybe an asshole, but I am definitely not stupid.

Conclusion: Ritualism and Different Churches

Me and my opponent are two very different ex-seminarians and serves two different Catholic Churches.

He serves the church where only Pope Piux XII and its predecessors are the only valid Popes and starting with John XXIII, up to the present are considered anti-popes. He serves the church which only considered Benedict XVI as the righful pope when the pontiff promulgated the motu propio and lifted the excommunication of the SSPX. He serves the church where Latin is the only accepted language to express prayer and the liturgy. He serves the church who believes that only catholics will be saved and that anybody else would damn in hell for eternity even if they lived their life morally and devoutly. He serves the church whose tradition and rituals are more important than the sincerity of souls and the faith of the Latin ignorant people.

While I for one, together with some of my brother seminarians from different congregations and order, serves the church which believes in the authority of the Popes, starting from Peter up to Benedict XVI, without vacancy and in full continuity of the papal timeline. I serve the church which recognized and respected Benedict XVII starting from his reign up to the present time, and supports him even on his decisions with the motu-propio and the lifting of the excommunication, with no reservation and conditions of whatsoever. I serve the church where sincerity of heart is the official language of communion with God. I serve the Church who embraces all races, nationalities and religion, even the elder bothers in Judaisim, calling them to unity under the bosom of the Catholic Church. I serve the church whose welfare of the souls of the people comes first as a priority and not condemn them in their ignorance of the Latin language. I serve the Church who believes that the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the highest form of all worship, is meant for the unity of all Catholics and Christians alike, and not use it exclusively for those who want, desire, and celebrate it only in Latin.

For if Latin is truly an exclusive language as it was intended by the Popes, then the Popes would have never speak in other languages in public in the first place. For what the Popes and the predecessors before him desires, is to convey the Gospel and proclaim it throughout the world, in a manner that would best understood by the people according to their culture and heritage. This applies not only on the Pastoral aspect, but definitely also in the Magisterial and Liturgical aspect of the Catholic Church. Latin and the Holy Eucharist is never, and will never be mutually exclusive in terms of the salvific value of the Liturgy.

We both serve different churches. His church lives in the past, while my Church lives in the here and now of the present time. Indeed, the battle could have rendered us both losers because the Catholic Church that I know is very different from the Catholic Church he knows. Thats why in truth, to waste time in rebuttal to his sentiments is totally not worth it.

To wage war based on theological and pastoral interpretation of church documents is not worth it. Because what the bishops implement and what the College of Cardinals states as it is, is already final in itself. For the Holy Spirit continues to guide these pastors in decision making and wisdom-driven execution of Office and Authority. Its not worth it. No one will ever win in these kind of battle. Let alone the Bishops do their duties. We are only here as lay people, to obey and trust their judgment and not question their decisions whenever we perceive that they are not in favor with our whims and selfish caprices, even in the spiritual aspect of our existence in the grand scheme of things.

And with this, there is only one lesson, one message to ponder upon. Like the song playing right now in the background, let me give him an unsolicited advice:

NO MESSAGE COULD HAVE BEEN ANY CLEARER; IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE, TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELF AND MAKE THAT CHANGE!

Like St. Francis of Assisi, if you want to restore the church, don’t go build it from the outside. Do not divide then conquer. Build it from the inside so that all will not be left out on the door of the mother church . Building starts when you build yourself first.

Last Sunday, the Gospel was about Jesus’ healing a paralytic. The scribes questioned his authority to forgive sins. Jesus answered the scribes with a rhetorical question, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?” and with this, I will leave you a quote excerpted from my opponent’s own mouth, published in his blog titled “Once More” which he posted on July 31, 2008:

Crush my ego, stifle my arrogance, and asphyxiate my haughtiness.
I have become the PHARISEE, who stands near the altar,
rather than the publican who beats his chest with shame…
In my desire to be a lover of wisdom, I have become her harlot…

ending this petty argument with the quote above, I now finally rest my case…

For the Glory of all Church Councils most especially the Vatican II, in honor of its 50th year of existence.