Buteos Team. Bagang mga taga Africa ini. mga haralaba [no pun intended] nan mga maniwang [again, no pun intended]
Monday, May 30, 2005
Buteos Team
Buteos Team. Bagang mga taga Africa ini. mga haralaba [no pun intended] nan mga maniwang [again, no pun intended]
Da Ospreys
another picture of the Ospreys team, kaupod an kakanam ni Eric, Ian Renovalles. [he he he]
Sunday, May 29, 2005
the pic
ooops, forgot to acknowledge that the ospreys pic came from the batch87 blog, sorry for that
Ospreys Team
this picture reminds me of the passion and drama of every intrams, year after year we put on a new team shirt and boastfully shows it off in a parade around town. here's a bit of trivia, of the many faces you see in this pic, who among them became my teammate for three years. dong bolunia told me that i'm forever doomed to suffer the agony of defeat by being cursed to be his teammate. sorry dong, though i never won a basketball championship after my first year (the sorcerers), i'm forever greatful to this guy who became a good buddy, but we did win the brain battle championship. this guy is no other than rinofel's bro, cho.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Alter Christus - Reflections on the byways of a Sacred Vocation by Kit Gacias
I initially wanted to become a priest.
In fact, for a time, I thought I would eventually become one. I spent more than thirteen years inside the “hallowed” walls of the seminary and at least, as far as my spiritual director was concerned, that was more than enough proof that I was indeed being called for the priesthood, that that was more than enough initiation to be able to join the men of the cloak, and ultimately, that I was indeed destined to become an “Alter Christus.”
Perhaps I did not give an ear to my vocation and eventually lost it. Or perhaps I had no vocation in the first place. Vocation, from the Latin word “vocare” implies the proper co-ordination among a three member team: the Caller, the one being called and, the calling. And just like the triangle that needs three points to determine a plane, each one is indispensable to effect a harmonious interplay.
Did one member of the team then err in its function? Did something go wrong?
Surely, the Caller cannot be faulted here. For presuming that it is God Himself, he cannot therefore admit any impediment. Perhaps I was at fault and solely to be blamed. Or in the Aristotelico-Thomistic jargon, perhaps the calling remained “in potencia,” a frozen delight and was never translated into “actus.” Or perhaps other outside factors are to be blamed, like other persons, the surrounding circumstances, or more often than not, an imposing system. Nevertheless, wherever the buck stops, the fact is, I am now in the “outside world.”
It is said that not all flowers are for the altar. In the same manner, not everyone that is called is chosen. Yet the vocation to priesthood has always been a curious thing. Everything about it, from its origin to its finality, can be brought forward and questioned in the arena of debate.
First and foremost, the nature of the motivation that moves a person to enter a seminary can already be highly debatable. Is it divine or human? Is it inspired by a divine juggernaut or moved by something else? And what for all intents and purposes is the yardstick that should be employed to be able to determine its nature? For apparently, not all seminarians, and priests for that matter, derive their inspiration from the grace of the Holy Spirit. In fact, many see other factors, from the deadening influence of parents and relatives to false ambitions and selfish vested interests, as their prime movers. Many are in fact forced the don the habit. Even Rizal, a hundred years ago, was able to note this fact and wrote about a priest who was forced to become one by his parents. It is sad, but in this case, the seminarian or the priest becomes the victim of other people’s wishes, a sacrificial lamb minus the theological or mystical touch. It is also strange but in this case, it is the parents and relatives instead who should have been ordained by the bishop. After all, the vocation was theirs. Each of them should have been the ones instead who should have been proclaimed “Tu es sacerdos magnos in aeternam.”
Secondly, the act of choosing as distinct and separate from the act of calling can yet stir another controversy. It is a joke circulating among many ecclesiastics that the latter task is usually attributed to God while the former has already assumed an anonymous identity. Yet as far as formation to priesthood is concerned, it can be technically assumed that the seminary formators already took this divine task to themselves. God calls, the seminary formators choose. It is a fact that it is a matter delegated to seminary formators to testify before the congregation during ordinations whether a particular candidate for the priesthood is worthy or not.
And what when someone unworthy or undeserving turns out to become a priest? Did the Holy Spirit err, as some ecclesiastics would sometimes blaspheme? Or more blasphemously - yes, how they love to blaspheme! - was the Holy spirit bribed? Is the Paraclete rubbing salt unto a wound by allowing undeserving priests to become leaders of the Church which has already suffered long enough from scandals committed by its erring ministers?
Everything happens out of necessity, so the Stoics believe. Following this thesis, it isn’t therefore necessary at all that the Church be led by good and worthy ministers alone; Rather, it is necessary that scandalous and erring priests also occupy its highest ranks. It isn’t necessary that, as far as vocation to priesthood is concerned, the priests be free from any outside influence and vested interests; Rather, it is necessary that some priests fall victim to other people’s wishes and caprices - and that they remain so. It isn’t necessary at all that the inspiration to become a priest be divine and should come from the Holy Spirit; Rather, it is necessary that it would sometimes proceed from a wrong source.
Now, I do not completely subscribe to this. Yet I cannot dispute it either. Indeed, I am more inclined to favor Hume’s position: I do not subscribe to it because first and foremost, it denies the existence of free will. Secondly, experience does not give a good score in favor of this thesis. But I cannot dispute it since ironically, experience does not prove that it cannot happen either. Indeed, it appears that paradoxically, experience only proves that it really does happen.
Perhaps a better if not the best way of explaining this irony is by looking at it sub specie aeternitatis - from the point of view of eternity. For I still I believe that Divine Providence, much like a silico sapien in perfect operation, is at play and at the top of things. Mysterious and boggling to the human mind yet undeniably a force that compels this squalid mundacity to deviate from its vacuous poise, a maelstrom that satiates the insufficience of this perfunctory world.
Divine Providence. Another curious thing. Yet perhaps the only key that could unlock the many doors that veil whatever remains elusive to the human mind. The concept that all things are subject to the divine government and that divine goodness is both the first effecting cause and the ultimate final cause of everything. Pushing it further, perhaps it even extrapolates the Grand Unification Theory which the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has been relentlessly laboring on.
This may be too simplistic and I am perhaps taking a quantum leap from a valid logico-epistemic proposition into the absurd. Perhaps I am merely invoking the notion of Divine Purpose as a useful trick of reasoning to arrive at an epistemological dead-end and be able to cover-up the limits of reason. For as Feodor Dostoevski succinctly puts it, “we degrade Providence too much by attributing our ideas to it out of annoyance at being unable to understand it.”
Yet how else should we scratch off layers from the skin of life to be able to understand its oddities and ironies? How shall we run our fingers on the anatomy of physical evil for instance? Under what light shall we explain its very existence? How shall we overcome a paradox, and more concretely, this theological nay, existential paradox?
Perhaps Providence is really the straw that stirs the drink. Perhaps it answers the questions that shroud the nature of vocation to priesthood, justifies the presence of scandalous ministers in the Church and, as far as I am concerned, makes clear why after having been called, I wasn’t chosen.
I am now striving to make a good life outside. Providence has led me to a life of battles, perhaps less in wits and intellectual depths but definitely more in guts and principles. I have chosen to hand down my habits to someone who I pray would be worthy of spreading the sanctity which they signify. Most of my contemporaries in the seminary are now priests. I hope they will all persevere and be happy albeit one or two have already expressed sorrow and regret at a belated realization of having wrongly chosen their paths.
I pray for all of them though. And I pray for more vocations to priesthood - the true vocations - that the Lord will send more laborers in His vineyard. And somehow, by striving to make a good life and with the Lord’s mercy, I pray that I will yet become an “Alter Christus” - however lower now in its form and distinct in its meaning.
And wherever Providence would lead me, my only prayer is “Pater, in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum (Father, into your hands I commend my spirit).”
Kit wrote this wonderful reflection sometime in 1997. He says it's about some of his reflections about failed vocation. It was originally published in "The Thomasian Philosopher," UST Faculty of Philosophy's official publication.
In fact, for a time, I thought I would eventually become one. I spent more than thirteen years inside the “hallowed” walls of the seminary and at least, as far as my spiritual director was concerned, that was more than enough proof that I was indeed being called for the priesthood, that that was more than enough initiation to be able to join the men of the cloak, and ultimately, that I was indeed destined to become an “Alter Christus.”
Perhaps I did not give an ear to my vocation and eventually lost it. Or perhaps I had no vocation in the first place. Vocation, from the Latin word “vocare” implies the proper co-ordination among a three member team: the Caller, the one being called and, the calling. And just like the triangle that needs three points to determine a plane, each one is indispensable to effect a harmonious interplay.
Did one member of the team then err in its function? Did something go wrong?
Surely, the Caller cannot be faulted here. For presuming that it is God Himself, he cannot therefore admit any impediment. Perhaps I was at fault and solely to be blamed. Or in the Aristotelico-Thomistic jargon, perhaps the calling remained “in potencia,” a frozen delight and was never translated into “actus.” Or perhaps other outside factors are to be blamed, like other persons, the surrounding circumstances, or more often than not, an imposing system. Nevertheless, wherever the buck stops, the fact is, I am now in the “outside world.”
It is said that not all flowers are for the altar. In the same manner, not everyone that is called is chosen. Yet the vocation to priesthood has always been a curious thing. Everything about it, from its origin to its finality, can be brought forward and questioned in the arena of debate.
First and foremost, the nature of the motivation that moves a person to enter a seminary can already be highly debatable. Is it divine or human? Is it inspired by a divine juggernaut or moved by something else? And what for all intents and purposes is the yardstick that should be employed to be able to determine its nature? For apparently, not all seminarians, and priests for that matter, derive their inspiration from the grace of the Holy Spirit. In fact, many see other factors, from the deadening influence of parents and relatives to false ambitions and selfish vested interests, as their prime movers. Many are in fact forced the don the habit. Even Rizal, a hundred years ago, was able to note this fact and wrote about a priest who was forced to become one by his parents. It is sad, but in this case, the seminarian or the priest becomes the victim of other people’s wishes, a sacrificial lamb minus the theological or mystical touch. It is also strange but in this case, it is the parents and relatives instead who should have been ordained by the bishop. After all, the vocation was theirs. Each of them should have been the ones instead who should have been proclaimed “Tu es sacerdos magnos in aeternam.”
Secondly, the act of choosing as distinct and separate from the act of calling can yet stir another controversy. It is a joke circulating among many ecclesiastics that the latter task is usually attributed to God while the former has already assumed an anonymous identity. Yet as far as formation to priesthood is concerned, it can be technically assumed that the seminary formators already took this divine task to themselves. God calls, the seminary formators choose. It is a fact that it is a matter delegated to seminary formators to testify before the congregation during ordinations whether a particular candidate for the priesthood is worthy or not.
And what when someone unworthy or undeserving turns out to become a priest? Did the Holy Spirit err, as some ecclesiastics would sometimes blaspheme? Or more blasphemously - yes, how they love to blaspheme! - was the Holy spirit bribed? Is the Paraclete rubbing salt unto a wound by allowing undeserving priests to become leaders of the Church which has already suffered long enough from scandals committed by its erring ministers?
Everything happens out of necessity, so the Stoics believe. Following this thesis, it isn’t therefore necessary at all that the Church be led by good and worthy ministers alone; Rather, it is necessary that scandalous and erring priests also occupy its highest ranks. It isn’t necessary that, as far as vocation to priesthood is concerned, the priests be free from any outside influence and vested interests; Rather, it is necessary that some priests fall victim to other people’s wishes and caprices - and that they remain so. It isn’t necessary at all that the inspiration to become a priest be divine and should come from the Holy Spirit; Rather, it is necessary that it would sometimes proceed from a wrong source.
Now, I do not completely subscribe to this. Yet I cannot dispute it either. Indeed, I am more inclined to favor Hume’s position: I do not subscribe to it because first and foremost, it denies the existence of free will. Secondly, experience does not give a good score in favor of this thesis. But I cannot dispute it since ironically, experience does not prove that it cannot happen either. Indeed, it appears that paradoxically, experience only proves that it really does happen.
Perhaps a better if not the best way of explaining this irony is by looking at it sub specie aeternitatis - from the point of view of eternity. For I still I believe that Divine Providence, much like a silico sapien in perfect operation, is at play and at the top of things. Mysterious and boggling to the human mind yet undeniably a force that compels this squalid mundacity to deviate from its vacuous poise, a maelstrom that satiates the insufficience of this perfunctory world.
Divine Providence. Another curious thing. Yet perhaps the only key that could unlock the many doors that veil whatever remains elusive to the human mind. The concept that all things are subject to the divine government and that divine goodness is both the first effecting cause and the ultimate final cause of everything. Pushing it further, perhaps it even extrapolates the Grand Unification Theory which the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has been relentlessly laboring on.
This may be too simplistic and I am perhaps taking a quantum leap from a valid logico-epistemic proposition into the absurd. Perhaps I am merely invoking the notion of Divine Purpose as a useful trick of reasoning to arrive at an epistemological dead-end and be able to cover-up the limits of reason. For as Feodor Dostoevski succinctly puts it, “we degrade Providence too much by attributing our ideas to it out of annoyance at being unable to understand it.”
Yet how else should we scratch off layers from the skin of life to be able to understand its oddities and ironies? How shall we run our fingers on the anatomy of physical evil for instance? Under what light shall we explain its very existence? How shall we overcome a paradox, and more concretely, this theological nay, existential paradox?
Perhaps Providence is really the straw that stirs the drink. Perhaps it answers the questions that shroud the nature of vocation to priesthood, justifies the presence of scandalous ministers in the Church and, as far as I am concerned, makes clear why after having been called, I wasn’t chosen.
I am now striving to make a good life outside. Providence has led me to a life of battles, perhaps less in wits and intellectual depths but definitely more in guts and principles. I have chosen to hand down my habits to someone who I pray would be worthy of spreading the sanctity which they signify. Most of my contemporaries in the seminary are now priests. I hope they will all persevere and be happy albeit one or two have already expressed sorrow and regret at a belated realization of having wrongly chosen their paths.
I pray for all of them though. And I pray for more vocations to priesthood - the true vocations - that the Lord will send more laborers in His vineyard. And somehow, by striving to make a good life and with the Lord’s mercy, I pray that I will yet become an “Alter Christus” - however lower now in its form and distinct in its meaning.
And wherever Providence would lead me, my only prayer is “Pater, in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum (Father, into your hands I commend my spirit).”
Kit wrote this wonderful reflection sometime in 1997. He says it's about some of his reflections about failed vocation. It was originally published in "The Thomasian Philosopher," UST Faculty of Philosophy's official publication.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Monday, May 16, 2005
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Wanted: 6 Ninongs
mga padi, nabanggit palan ni gabby na bibinyagan an batit nya sa june. naghahapot siya kun sino an mavolunteer na ninong. he needs 6 ninongs. so far ang nagvolunteer ay sina:
1. jason
2. jet
3. junie
4. gojie
5. sanni
6. kit
hehehe, siguro pwede pa man kahit more than six. so sino pa kaya gusto? the binyag pala according to gabby is tentatively sked on june 12, and will be held sa edsa shrine. the reception will be somewhere in robinson galleria.
gabby will post the final details later.
1. jason
2. jet
3. junie
4. gojie
5. sanni
6. kit
hehehe, siguro pwede pa man kahit more than six. so sino pa kaya gusto? the binyag pala according to gabby is tentatively sked on june 12, and will be held sa edsa shrine. the reception will be somewhere in robinson galleria.
gabby will post the final details later.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Best friends Eric & Mervs (or "buds" as they called themselves)
MAGBARKADANG TUNAY. C Mervs nan Eric hard labor para sa intrams. C Jay, foreman. **Junie
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Mervs and Family
Mervs and his family: wife Marie Angeline Lee, (related to Collins) from Magallanes, Vincent Angelo (7) and Patrick (1year and 8 months). Awat na sa States c Mervs. By July, they would have moved to 18323 Berwick Terrace, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. **Junie
Wiron
Happy Birthday on May 8, 2005. Good luck on your new "parish assignment, " Tayuman, Manila.**Junie
An mga taga-Gubat
standing from left: Tony "Perta"Co, businessman based in Gubat; Melchor Bañaga, former videographer at Extra! Extra! now office worker at GMA 7; Gene Totañes (hain ka na?); Glen Escobedo, medical technologist and US immigrant; Benedicto Buenaventura, Manila-based trial lawyer; Dr. Gerardo "Jerox" Pura, Cardiologist with a clinic at St. Luke's; Romeo Escandor Jr.,magurang ni Vic na nasa Manila man Seated from left--Victor; Christian "Isong" Villaroya, nasa Manila man; Jomar Fajardo, Manila-based lawyer; William "Boboy" Yrureta, Gubat-based; Jesus "Bong" Sañez, US-Based lawyer, having passed the Bar there; Fr. Eduardo Fulay, parish priest of San Nicolas de Tolentino in Bentuco, Gubat; and Henri **Junie**
Sa wakas nakontak na si Mervs
finally we got Merv's email address right. He is now living pala in maryland - says they will move to a new house this month.
Hopefully Mervs can take the time to fill us up on the goings on in his life. haven't heard from him for around 17 years.
mervs, kwento at pics naman dyan :-)
Hopefully Mervs can take the time to fill us up on the goings on in his life. haven't heard from him for around 17 years.
mervs, kwento at pics naman dyan :-)
Monday, May 09, 2005
Ambush Reunion at Junie's House
Ambush Reunion at Our House. The raiders arrived around 7 pm on May 4, 2005, over an hour after I received the call that they're coming and about an hour after I frantically searched every nook and corner of our marketplace for something special to prepare for these VIPs. Here, they're inside our house, taking a tour of our blogspot site. **Junie**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)