0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What can you say about the retraction on Jose Rizal?
The retraction of Jose Rizal refers to the document where he supposedly withdrew his heretical beliefs before his execution. There is historical debate over the authenticity of the retraction as some claim it was coerced. It remains a controversial issue among historians and scholars.
Did Rizal really return to catholic church?
no. the retraction was a forgery
Did Jose Rizal really retract why?
Yes, Jose Rizal did submit a retraction letter on December 29, 1896, a few days before his execution. However, there is still debate among historians about its authenticity, as some believe it was coerced by Spanish authorities.
Is the story of the Jesuit regarding Rizal's retraction is true?
the real wuestion is do you beleive in jesuit
What are the controversies about Jose Rizal?
Controversies that still linger years after his death are those pertaining to his becoming the national hero of the Philippines, and his retraction or non-retraction from the Catholic faith.
Who is fr Balaguer?
he is the Jesuit priest who visited Rizal's cell at around 10 pm.. who is controversially involved with about the document pertaining to Rizal's retraction document.. whether it is true or not.
Has the retraction document of rizal saved from the destruction after Battle of Manila in February 1945?
There are no document yo be saved for the document is not existing...
Did Rizzal return to Catholicism before his execution?
There has been considerable arguments made on both sides that before he died, he wrote out a retraction and died a good son of the Church. There have been others who contend that the retraction was a forgery. Most of those who deny the retraction are Masons who deny that anyone would return to the faith..from Wikipedia:After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister; Austin Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.On the other side are prominent Philippine historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol and Austin Craig. They take the retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario, both of UP.Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.Supporters see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his mistakes," his reversion to the "true faith", and thus his "unfading glory," and a return to the "ideals of his fathers" which "did not diminish his stature as a great patriot; on the contrary, it increased that stature to greatness." On the other hand, senator Jose Diokno stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs'."
Did rizal retracted or not?
No. Jose Rizal did not retract because he never went against Christian/Catholic doctrines at all. All his works focused on abuses of both the Spanish civilian authorities in the Philippines as well as the religious friars ... his attacks focused on people and not doctrines.
Account of the incidents of rizal's retraction from masonry?
At least four texts of Rizal's retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal's execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal's execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal's handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don't know nor do I remember whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal's execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi's copy of Rizal's retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal's retraction in the Manila newspapers.Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal's) own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only Rizal's family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal's handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal's retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal's retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits' and the Archbishop's copies. And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits' copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").Second, the Jesuits' copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.Third, the Jesuits' copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer's text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer's copy has eleven commas.Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer's copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal's retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer's earliest account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal's conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi's short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest account of Rizal's retraction.Where did Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don't know nor do I remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made"; the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes") is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of the Church" - the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal's addition of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi's short formula.The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes' that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer's copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right..."In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest's letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal's handwriting while the original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal's handwriting.Source(s):http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html
What are the evidences taht rizal did not retract?
-The retraction document is flawed. The first sentence says "I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die". Rizal only had seven hours to live at that time the retraction was made and it was night time, the friars suggested that he had slept that time. The words to live and die is wrong.-The second sentence says that he is retracting to the Church. Rizal would never retract to the Church, because the Church was never his enemy, his enemies were the friars alone.-The place where Rizal was buried was where enemies of the Church was buried. There were two cemeteries, one for Christians and one for the sinners. If Rizal retracted, why was he not buried in the cemetery for Christians.-Trining, his sister, said that he did not retract.-The document was found 30 years after Rizal's death.
What is the proof that Rizal did not retract?
There is no concrete proof that Rizal did not retract his beliefs, as historical records are inconclusive. However, some argue that Rizal's actions and writings leading up to his execution suggest he did not retract. Rizal's demeanor during his trial and his refusal to ask for pardon are often cited as evidence that he stood by his convictions.
