hanep an japorms san duwa didi na taga-gubat. mga angelito ano :Dpix courtesy of sano ronny y. (b85)
Saturday, December 03, 2005
kinder junie and vic
hanep an japorms san duwa didi na taga-gubat. mga angelito ano :Dpix courtesy of sano ronny y. (b85)
Monday, November 21, 2005
MAELSTROM
BY YAYES BASARES
We were 29 when we entered OLPS way back in 1982 – about a thousand hairs ago. Only one became a priest. Some left early, others almost made it. Some (may) have shed tears, for others a feeling of frustration, still others resignation.
I left early and carried the mark of an ex-seminarian like a stigma attached to an identity of failure. I tried, in vain, to go back. Truth to tell, every single soul who entered the portals of OLPS and stayed there for at least a year carried with him in his heart the burning desire of becoming a priest. I am no exception.
Nothing outside could offer the same feeling of joy and happiness OLPS did. There was always a void space inside, an empty feeling. Joy and happiness inside OLPS was joy and happiness rooted in faith. It was this joy and happiness from where MAELSTROM was born.
Now in the midst of my agony of dwindling hairs and early manifestation of memory gap (Jesus H. Christ) I could no longer recall the names of all the girls I have loved before (hehehe) nor the names and faces of all my classmates in high school and college, but MAELSTROM remains embedded.
For MAELSTROM is special. It speaks of bonding in diversity; of respect and concern, of friendship between distance; of family through ages.
I am proud I am MAELSTROM. I am proud I am SANO.
I told my son, “when you finish your elementary please enter OLPS. By that time you need not call me daddy, call me SANO.”
My son smiles back. As always in his most mischievous manner. God help me!
We were 29 when we entered OLPS way back in 1982 – about a thousand hairs ago. Only one became a priest. Some left early, others almost made it. Some (may) have shed tears, for others a feeling of frustration, still others resignation.
I left early and carried the mark of an ex-seminarian like a stigma attached to an identity of failure. I tried, in vain, to go back. Truth to tell, every single soul who entered the portals of OLPS and stayed there for at least a year carried with him in his heart the burning desire of becoming a priest. I am no exception.
Nothing outside could offer the same feeling of joy and happiness OLPS did. There was always a void space inside, an empty feeling. Joy and happiness inside OLPS was joy and happiness rooted in faith. It was this joy and happiness from where MAELSTROM was born.
Now in the midst of my agony of dwindling hairs and early manifestation of memory gap (Jesus H. Christ) I could no longer recall the names of all the girls I have loved before (hehehe) nor the names and faces of all my classmates in high school and college, but MAELSTROM remains embedded.
For MAELSTROM is special. It speaks of bonding in diversity; of respect and concern, of friendship between distance; of family through ages.
I am proud I am MAELSTROM. I am proud I am SANO.
I told my son, “when you finish your elementary please enter OLPS. By that time you need not call me daddy, call me SANO.”
My son smiles back. As always in his most mischievous manner. God help me!
Friday, November 18, 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Pix from Collins
mga padi! collins has uploaded new pix via flickr today! galing ni collins nafigure out kaagad yung flckr :D
lots of pix, some are private which u can only view by logging in using our pass :-)
here's the pix of that cool beach resort in butag. going up the parking lot.
a lovely landscape shot by collins. bulusan volcano maybe?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
De Sacerdotalis Caelibatus
by Kit Gacias
(Diary Entry: 02-14-93)
I have just received a Valentine card from a lady and it was really touching. I really had a very pleasant time reading and re-reading her message. Some words which she had written started to bother me, however. May I quote the words thus:
“By Jove, are you really going to become a priest? You are so sweet and thoughtful – traits that are better found not among ordained ministers but among future husbands. For your sweetness and thoughtfulness are just as spontaneous as the flowing rivers and oftentimes your thoughts are just as immeasurable as the deepest sea. I know you could be a greater lover than a priest. And it is no wonder at all that you’ve made a special place for yourself deep in my heart.”
Very flattering words, they indeed are. Especially made tempting since they come from a very beautiful lady. But that someone would remark that I am better as a lover than as a seminarian – or as a future priest really disturbs me a whole lot. While I admit that I am indeed flattered – and really tempted - with the remark, it nonetheless bothers me more. It offers me something to reflect on. I ask myself, why can’t I be both, a priest and a lover – especially in the emotional and physical sense - at the same time? Sayang, I could have enjoyed life more, couldn’t I?
This may sound apologetic but the question seeks a scape-goat, something which it can lay the blame upon, something whose very nature could offer a possible answer or at least simulate one convincing explanation. And obviously, it all redounds to the issue of celibacy – that priests are not allowed to marry and concurrently, that seminarians – those who contemplate of becoming priests – should not indulge in premarital relationships.
Albeit I have considerably studied the subject in the seminary, and albeit I have already consigned myself to the prevailing and accepted contention that it is an essential element of priestly discipline, still I cannot but entertain some questions that pertain to its nature, effects and relevance. Somehow, I cannot but ask myself, is the priest, by professing the vow of celibacy and by being entrapped by the clerical environment, also being put in the wrong place and is excluded from normal life, something like a square peg in a round hole? Is he deprived, bypassed and denied of one basic need and luxury of humanity? Does he outrightly reject his humanity or his masculinity for that matter by professing the vow of celibacy? Or does celibacy produce a good effect in him after all? And finally, what really is celibacy and why should it be demanded of priests?
Nominally, the word celibacy came from the Latin “coelebs” which means “single” or “alone.” Strictly speaking, however, this word applies to everyone who has not contracted matrimony regardless of his motivations. The Italians for instance, call “celibe” a man who is not married.
However, the practice of celibacy, strictly speaking, implies religious motivation. In this case, the word “celibacy” may be qualified with the adjectives “ecclesiastical,” “clerical,” or “priestly.”
Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus” defines priestly celibacy as “the voluntary renunciation of the natural and lawful desire of man to love a woman and to raise a family for the sake of the kingdom of God.” In this light, the celibate ordained minister not only is and remains unmarried but also endeavors to forego all directly willful indulgence in the pleasures of genital sex, whether with others or alone.
The practice of celibacy can be seen already existing among the sacred ministers in Christian antiquity. Tertullian, Ephiphanius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem and many others can be cited as witnesses to the fact that innumerable clerics have remained unmarried for the Lord’s sake. From a biblical perspective, the New Testament foundations for celibacy as a Christian way of life can be gleaned from the example of St. Paul. Christ, accordingly, also did not marry.
But all of these are still highly debatable. To date, for example, no one could still authoritatively dispute the possibility that Christ had a woman, or more far out, even had children. On a biblical basis, the Church calls St. Paul to the defense of celibacy but she does not explain what the Saint meant in his first letter to the Corinthians: “Concerning celibacy, I have no commandment of the Lord.” Or, in that same letter: “Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” Or in his first letter to Timothy: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife… one that rules his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.”
At the most, there is only one biblical passage that is brought forward in defense of clerical celibacy. It is the text of Matthew 19:10: “If that is the case between man and wife, it is better not to marry. Jesus replies: Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given to do so. Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth; some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign.”
But even so, it can still be argued that while Christ and St. Paul might have regarded celibacy as superior and thus embraced that life-style, still nowhere in the Scriptures did Christ or St. Paul demand celibacy of anyone. And of course no one will find in it any mention of recent studies that claim that St. Paul, unlike the other apostles, vouched for celibacy and remained unmarried because he might have been suffering from sexual impotence.
For our discussions here, I would like to point out that based on present ecclesiastical setup, there are two forms of clerical celibacy. The first is clerical celibacy as an option. Here, celibacy is freely chosen and freely accepted particularly for the love of God. This we may see in the lives of Mother Theresa, St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, Pope John XXIII and St. Theresa of Avila. This form of celibacy is the true celibacy for it is a gift and gifts are not always given to everyone. The text of Matthew 19:10 is very clear: “Only those to whom it is given…”
The second form of clerical celibacy is the compulsory celibacy. Here, celibacy is not a gift but a mere form of discipline, something which is imposed by a system or a superior order. This form is introduced and developed by the Church throughout its history. And this form of celibacy is, I believe although I am quite afraid to accept it, the kind of celibacy that most of our priests now seek to profess.
As we may see, the distinction offered above is very important for our understanding of the subject not only because it is thought of before that there was only one form of celibacy, but more importantly, because the two were often confused and muddled. I believe, for instance, that in the text of Matthew 19:10, Jesus was only referring to the first form of celibacy (for there was only one form then), that is, celibacy as an option and gift, although it will be seen that the Church would later use it to address also the second form of celibacy, that is, celibacy as a compulsory discipline. In other words, what Christ has excluded, the Church later on included.
Of course, as already mentioned, in the beginning, there was only one form of celibacy, that is, celibacy as an option and gift. It is said that the communal practice of celibacy entered Christianity via monasticism. It appears that the first attempts to legislate celibacy on the clergy may be traced back to the practice of instituting common life among ordained ministers on a more or less monastic pattern. However, according to Edward Schileebeeckx in his book “The Church with a Human Face,” celibacy originated in a partly pagan notion of ritual purity. Accordingly, in the fourth century, a law forbade a married priest from having sexual intercourse the night before celebrating the Eucharist. When the Western Church began to celebrate the Eucharist daily, this abstinence became a permanent condition for married priests. And a priest was obliged to live with his wife as if she were a sister, which became more and more intolerable. Finally, in 1123 at the first Lateran Council, the Church forbade altogether the marriage of priests and declared such marriages null and void. It is the first recorded ecumenical council to require celibacy of all the clergy. Thus, enters the second form of celibacy, i.e., as a compulsory form of discipline.
It is noteworthy however, that the first recorded case of a law on celibacy occurs in the Synod of Elvira in Spain (c. 306). Likewise, while the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 did not impose celibacy on all priests, it nonetheless forbade marriage after diaconate.
A different but parallel and equally convincing account on the origin of compulsory celibacy as imposed by the Church is likewise raised by Sidney Ehler in his book “Twenty Centuries of Church and State” wherein he states that celibacy was imposed in the eleventh century during the ascendancy of the Church in the feudal society. Accordingly, the feudalization of the Church involved the selling of benefices to the highest bidder by the patrons of various churches. Since there was a tendency to make the church benefices hereditary because a great number of the clergy were married and had children quite openly, clerical marriage became the root cause of such evil. Reformers formed in Rome, headed by Cardinal Hildebrand. Their principal aim was the dematerialization of the Church, concentrating on stamping out the two greatest evils: clerical marriage and simony. Then, in 1073, Hildebrand was elected pope under the name of Pope Gregory VII. And that was the beginning of the Gregorian Reformation, considered as one of the most glorious chapters in the history of Christianity.
Parenthetically, it is highly significant that throughout these centuries of canonical legislation on clerical celibacy, the popes of succeeding generations promoted, defended and restored ecclesiastical celibacy even when they met opposition from the clergy itself. As A.M. Stickler observes in his book “Priesthood and Celibacy,” “it was solely the Roman primacy that succeeded in regaining full observance of the ancient discipline as a rule of life (p. 550).”
Now, in the foregoing discussions on the historical development of clerical celibacy, it may be noted that the Church’s canonical legislations on the subject were concerned merely with the second form of clerical celibacy – celibacy as a compulsory discipline. It willfully neglects to acknowledge the first form, that is, celibacy as a free option and gift.
It is with such a history that, no longer at ease in the old dispensation, thousands upon thousands of priests are now rising and walking out of the ministry. The records say it all: more than thirty thousand priests have walked out of the priesthood since 1975! If all priests in earlier centuries could marry, why can’t they now? Isn’t it that celibacy from the very beginning was merely optional and never compulsory? Isn’t it that Christ Himself merely referred to celibacy as a gift and hence, optional rather than a compulsory discipline?
And they’re there, and they’ll wait it out, pushing every system and every person concerned to change the whole thing.
As for me, I am convinced that priests should be given the freedom to choose. Two options are clear: Celibacy as a free option and gift and celibacy as a compulsory discipline.
Dear Reverend Father: Which one would ye choose?
Postscript: “I made the vow of chastity, but did nothing to remove the strength of desire, to which I have succumbed in passing fashion.” – Abbe Pierre, 93-year-old Roman Catholic priest and one of France’s most revered public figures, suggesting he has had sex, in a book excerpted last week.
- from Time, November 7, 2005 issue, page 9.
Sources
1. Msgr. Antonio Rañola, DD, “Priestly Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church,” Boletin Ecclesiastico de Filipinas, ed. by Vicente G. Cajilig, OP, Manila: Santo Tomas University Press, Vol. LXVI, nos. 728-729, July-august 1990, pp. 395-400.
2. A.M. Stickler, Priesthood and Celibacy.
3. ______________, Valentine Card, 4 February 1993.
(Diary Entry: 02-14-93)
“Do I regret that I have never been married? Do I miss having children and grandchildren? Is there something absent in my life because there has never been a relationship of long term sexual passion with a woman? The answer to those questions is yes.”
Fr. Andrew M. Greeley, in “Confessions of a Parish Priest”
Fr. Andrew M. Greeley, in “Confessions of a Parish Priest”
I have just received a Valentine card from a lady and it was really touching. I really had a very pleasant time reading and re-reading her message. Some words which she had written started to bother me, however. May I quote the words thus:
“By Jove, are you really going to become a priest? You are so sweet and thoughtful – traits that are better found not among ordained ministers but among future husbands. For your sweetness and thoughtfulness are just as spontaneous as the flowing rivers and oftentimes your thoughts are just as immeasurable as the deepest sea. I know you could be a greater lover than a priest. And it is no wonder at all that you’ve made a special place for yourself deep in my heart.”
Very flattering words, they indeed are. Especially made tempting since they come from a very beautiful lady. But that someone would remark that I am better as a lover than as a seminarian – or as a future priest really disturbs me a whole lot. While I admit that I am indeed flattered – and really tempted - with the remark, it nonetheless bothers me more. It offers me something to reflect on. I ask myself, why can’t I be both, a priest and a lover – especially in the emotional and physical sense - at the same time? Sayang, I could have enjoyed life more, couldn’t I?
This may sound apologetic but the question seeks a scape-goat, something which it can lay the blame upon, something whose very nature could offer a possible answer or at least simulate one convincing explanation. And obviously, it all redounds to the issue of celibacy – that priests are not allowed to marry and concurrently, that seminarians – those who contemplate of becoming priests – should not indulge in premarital relationships.
Albeit I have considerably studied the subject in the seminary, and albeit I have already consigned myself to the prevailing and accepted contention that it is an essential element of priestly discipline, still I cannot but entertain some questions that pertain to its nature, effects and relevance. Somehow, I cannot but ask myself, is the priest, by professing the vow of celibacy and by being entrapped by the clerical environment, also being put in the wrong place and is excluded from normal life, something like a square peg in a round hole? Is he deprived, bypassed and denied of one basic need and luxury of humanity? Does he outrightly reject his humanity or his masculinity for that matter by professing the vow of celibacy? Or does celibacy produce a good effect in him after all? And finally, what really is celibacy and why should it be demanded of priests?
Nominally, the word celibacy came from the Latin “coelebs” which means “single” or “alone.” Strictly speaking, however, this word applies to everyone who has not contracted matrimony regardless of his motivations. The Italians for instance, call “celibe” a man who is not married.
However, the practice of celibacy, strictly speaking, implies religious motivation. In this case, the word “celibacy” may be qualified with the adjectives “ecclesiastical,” “clerical,” or “priestly.”
Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus” defines priestly celibacy as “the voluntary renunciation of the natural and lawful desire of man to love a woman and to raise a family for the sake of the kingdom of God.” In this light, the celibate ordained minister not only is and remains unmarried but also endeavors to forego all directly willful indulgence in the pleasures of genital sex, whether with others or alone.
The practice of celibacy can be seen already existing among the sacred ministers in Christian antiquity. Tertullian, Ephiphanius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem and many others can be cited as witnesses to the fact that innumerable clerics have remained unmarried for the Lord’s sake. From a biblical perspective, the New Testament foundations for celibacy as a Christian way of life can be gleaned from the example of St. Paul. Christ, accordingly, also did not marry.
But all of these are still highly debatable. To date, for example, no one could still authoritatively dispute the possibility that Christ had a woman, or more far out, even had children. On a biblical basis, the Church calls St. Paul to the defense of celibacy but she does not explain what the Saint meant in his first letter to the Corinthians: “Concerning celibacy, I have no commandment of the Lord.” Or, in that same letter: “Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” Or in his first letter to Timothy: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife… one that rules his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.”
At the most, there is only one biblical passage that is brought forward in defense of clerical celibacy. It is the text of Matthew 19:10: “If that is the case between man and wife, it is better not to marry. Jesus replies: Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given to do so. Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth; some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign.”
But even so, it can still be argued that while Christ and St. Paul might have regarded celibacy as superior and thus embraced that life-style, still nowhere in the Scriptures did Christ or St. Paul demand celibacy of anyone. And of course no one will find in it any mention of recent studies that claim that St. Paul, unlike the other apostles, vouched for celibacy and remained unmarried because he might have been suffering from sexual impotence.
For our discussions here, I would like to point out that based on present ecclesiastical setup, there are two forms of clerical celibacy. The first is clerical celibacy as an option. Here, celibacy is freely chosen and freely accepted particularly for the love of God. This we may see in the lives of Mother Theresa, St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, Pope John XXIII and St. Theresa of Avila. This form of celibacy is the true celibacy for it is a gift and gifts are not always given to everyone. The text of Matthew 19:10 is very clear: “Only those to whom it is given…”
The second form of clerical celibacy is the compulsory celibacy. Here, celibacy is not a gift but a mere form of discipline, something which is imposed by a system or a superior order. This form is introduced and developed by the Church throughout its history. And this form of celibacy is, I believe although I am quite afraid to accept it, the kind of celibacy that most of our priests now seek to profess.
As we may see, the distinction offered above is very important for our understanding of the subject not only because it is thought of before that there was only one form of celibacy, but more importantly, because the two were often confused and muddled. I believe, for instance, that in the text of Matthew 19:10, Jesus was only referring to the first form of celibacy (for there was only one form then), that is, celibacy as an option and gift, although it will be seen that the Church would later use it to address also the second form of celibacy, that is, celibacy as a compulsory discipline. In other words, what Christ has excluded, the Church later on included.
Of course, as already mentioned, in the beginning, there was only one form of celibacy, that is, celibacy as an option and gift. It is said that the communal practice of celibacy entered Christianity via monasticism. It appears that the first attempts to legislate celibacy on the clergy may be traced back to the practice of instituting common life among ordained ministers on a more or less monastic pattern. However, according to Edward Schileebeeckx in his book “The Church with a Human Face,” celibacy originated in a partly pagan notion of ritual purity. Accordingly, in the fourth century, a law forbade a married priest from having sexual intercourse the night before celebrating the Eucharist. When the Western Church began to celebrate the Eucharist daily, this abstinence became a permanent condition for married priests. And a priest was obliged to live with his wife as if she were a sister, which became more and more intolerable. Finally, in 1123 at the first Lateran Council, the Church forbade altogether the marriage of priests and declared such marriages null and void. It is the first recorded ecumenical council to require celibacy of all the clergy. Thus, enters the second form of celibacy, i.e., as a compulsory form of discipline.
It is noteworthy however, that the first recorded case of a law on celibacy occurs in the Synod of Elvira in Spain (c. 306). Likewise, while the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 did not impose celibacy on all priests, it nonetheless forbade marriage after diaconate.
A different but parallel and equally convincing account on the origin of compulsory celibacy as imposed by the Church is likewise raised by Sidney Ehler in his book “Twenty Centuries of Church and State” wherein he states that celibacy was imposed in the eleventh century during the ascendancy of the Church in the feudal society. Accordingly, the feudalization of the Church involved the selling of benefices to the highest bidder by the patrons of various churches. Since there was a tendency to make the church benefices hereditary because a great number of the clergy were married and had children quite openly, clerical marriage became the root cause of such evil. Reformers formed in Rome, headed by Cardinal Hildebrand. Their principal aim was the dematerialization of the Church, concentrating on stamping out the two greatest evils: clerical marriage and simony. Then, in 1073, Hildebrand was elected pope under the name of Pope Gregory VII. And that was the beginning of the Gregorian Reformation, considered as one of the most glorious chapters in the history of Christianity.
Parenthetically, it is highly significant that throughout these centuries of canonical legislation on clerical celibacy, the popes of succeeding generations promoted, defended and restored ecclesiastical celibacy even when they met opposition from the clergy itself. As A.M. Stickler observes in his book “Priesthood and Celibacy,” “it was solely the Roman primacy that succeeded in regaining full observance of the ancient discipline as a rule of life (p. 550).”
Now, in the foregoing discussions on the historical development of clerical celibacy, it may be noted that the Church’s canonical legislations on the subject were concerned merely with the second form of clerical celibacy – celibacy as a compulsory discipline. It willfully neglects to acknowledge the first form, that is, celibacy as a free option and gift.
It is with such a history that, no longer at ease in the old dispensation, thousands upon thousands of priests are now rising and walking out of the ministry. The records say it all: more than thirty thousand priests have walked out of the priesthood since 1975! If all priests in earlier centuries could marry, why can’t they now? Isn’t it that celibacy from the very beginning was merely optional and never compulsory? Isn’t it that Christ Himself merely referred to celibacy as a gift and hence, optional rather than a compulsory discipline?
And they’re there, and they’ll wait it out, pushing every system and every person concerned to change the whole thing.
As for me, I am convinced that priests should be given the freedom to choose. Two options are clear: Celibacy as a free option and gift and celibacy as a compulsory discipline.
Dear Reverend Father: Which one would ye choose?
Postscript: “I made the vow of chastity, but did nothing to remove the strength of desire, to which I have succumbed in passing fashion.” – Abbe Pierre, 93-year-old Roman Catholic priest and one of France’s most revered public figures, suggesting he has had sex, in a book excerpted last week.
- from Time, November 7, 2005 issue, page 9.
Sources
1. Msgr. Antonio Rañola, DD, “Priestly Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church,” Boletin Ecclesiastico de Filipinas, ed. by Vicente G. Cajilig, OP, Manila: Santo Tomas University Press, Vol. LXVI, nos. 728-729, July-august 1990, pp. 395-400.
2. A.M. Stickler, Priesthood and Celibacy.
3. ______________, Valentine Card, 4 February 1993.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
da holy men!
hehehe, rino, dante, jason and tyrone looking good and saintly with the big boss, Bishop Arturo Bastes 
Friday, October 28, 2005
in da chapel
relaxing in the chapel which is still under renovation. i kinda miss the old chapel with its heigh ceilings and long pews. it looked spacious and felt light then. not cramped and kulob as it is now 
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Help build Fr. Peewee's church!
Fr. Peewee needs support to finish the construction of the parish church in Butag, Bulan. 
the construction is about halfway through now, with the roof, walls, side doors, some windows done.
but a lot of things still has to be done with the "finishing" phase projected to be needing our most support.
Pls call or text Fr. Peewee at 0918-410-2502 for more details.
the construction is about halfway through now, with the roof, walls, side doors, some windows done.
but a lot of things still has to be done with the "finishing" phase projected to be needing our most support.
Pls call or text Fr. Peewee at 0918-410-2502 for more details.
Monday, October 24, 2005
got milk? beware da Bak-car!
hehehehe, our friendly dairy guy in the coolest car on the lot during the homecoming. whose is it by the way?bagay daw saiya sabi ni henri :-)
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Viva Peñafrancia, Sisenta! -- 60 years of Ministry
I really enjoyed every single moment of our Homecoming last week-end (Oct. 15-16, 2005) Same time last week, we were all parading proudly, robustly and regally within the Sorsogon City proper…batchmates in tow with all our flashy “trampoline” banners and Maelstrom shirts…After that, we went around our alma mater…dorm to dorm…classroom to classroom… kitchen, refectory and Chapel…like a “band of brothers” we were inseparable…united in all our sked, activities and itinerary…
I’m sure, we all wished it could have been forever…But the truth of the matter is, “life must go on…”
However, the next question would be, How? Why?
Allow me to share my mind as to “why.” Well, we all witnessed the OLPS 60th Alumni Homecoming…Viva Peñafrancia, Sisenta!...Sixty years of Ministry…that’s sixty years of molding, forming, and training “stout-hearted boys to become stout-hearted men” (no pun intended…hehehe). As our OLPS Seminary Hymn has put it, we were all being prepared to have hearts full of love in the service of the Lord thru our families, neighborhood, parish and community…
For all the Sorsogon Clergy, this is their calling…this is their clear commitment…For all the rest of us who were called but were “frozen”, I mean not chosen, this is also our Ministry…our life-time vocation in the outside world by virtue of our OLPS history and in honor of our Ina, Our Lady of Peñafrancia, ad majorem Dei gloriam!The “HOW” part is very much the way we live our lives right now. Just looking at every single alumnus proved God’s faithfulness all over the years for all the gifts of protection, good-health, love, graces, blessings and material abundance…What remains questionable would only be our faithfulness to God in return…
This is what I would like to invite all of you, my brothers, to reflect upon…Because 19 years ago, when my biological family migrated to Manila, I know I left an important part of myself behind in the person of my Maelstrom batchmates…After different seminary communities & classmates all throughout my philosophy years will never come close to the years of fun and learning we had…in all the ups (kisame) and downs (coprahan)…
I really missed a lot in all those years…and I’m sure the same goes to most of us who were not able to touch-base for a long time…I admit to not being able to share my time and my self with the bunch I consider as my brothers…to be not at your service in my own little ways…as a shoulder to lean on…a hand in times of struggles and distress…
While in hindsight I consider our batch to be unified by so many individual and separate anecdotal experiences, collectively we celebrate and cherish all of them as a group…we practically shared the ownership of these memories to every Maelstrom in the batch…this is what we went though…this is how we felt then…this is what binds US together…an “irresistible force” because we are all for one…and one for all…
Let’s now move forward, my brothers…never to let anything come between us…let’s make a difference in this world…in our community…in our parishes…in our family…For we are after all, Maelstrom…All the Best and God bless to all! I love you 3 x a day!!!
May God bless us all!...
Bro Rino
Road Trip
rinos revo "fully loaded" baga. in the hands of tyrone this sedate toyota revo magically transforms into a screaming fast, 4x4 "toyota land cruiser" hehehe.three things i learned during that mad dash to tivo's house:
1. tyrone's got some driving skillz. he can drive fast. really fast
2. my super tight grip can do no damage to rino's leather front seats
3. rino is a very cool guy, considering.... ;-)
Road trip
arriving at around 10 pm in sorsogon (in normal driving mode courtesy of rino), we proceeded to fatima where the ever gracious host fr. paquito monje prepared us a dinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)