CreateDebate


Debate Info

84
211
TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist) MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
Debate Score:295
Arguments:296
Total Votes:311
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist) (84)
 
 MYTH (Masonic Rizalist) (206)

Debate Creator

Ms_Vee_2021(10) pic



Rizal's Retraction Letter: Truth or Myth

The issue in history which remains unresolved is whether Jose Rizal, on the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry. 

TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)

Side Score: 84
VS.

MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)

Side Score: 211
1 point

Catholic Rizalists. Our stand is that Rizal retracted. In his exile in Dapitan, the Jesuit priest befriended Rizal. Rizal's desire to marry Josephine Bracken led him to write a denunciation of his bad convictions, which the Bishop of Cebu authorized. Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself. Which we believed is a primary sources.

The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. For that reason, we believed that Jose Rizal did retract. - Lesly Rose Estremos

Supporting Evidence: Sources (nhcp.gov.ph)
Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Hseguido(4) Disputed
2 points

Honeylyn Seguido - I strongly disagree with the argument of Catholic Rizalists stand, 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. 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. Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. 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. Therefore. I believe that Rizal's Retraction Letter is erroneous.

Supporting Evidence: Analysis Rizal's Retraction (www.joserizal.ph)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

JustineMaeBillanes- Since Rizal's retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M in 1935, it's content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. I declare myself as catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings and conduct has been contrary to my character as son if the Catholic Church. According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during exile in Dapitan , Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi. Rizal then wrote his restriction after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry bad religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

By Tomas U. Santos

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
Kayccc(3) Clarified
1 point

Kayecie B. Genonsalao

1st yr BSBA - Marketing Management

I disagree with your assertion that Jose Rizal retracted his commitment to Freemasonry due to his relationship with a Jesuit priest and his desire to marry Josephine Bracken. Firstly, there is no solid evidence to suggest that Jose Rizal ever renounced Freemasonry, and his actions throughout his life suggest that he was still committed to the ideals of the movement. Furthermore, even if Rizal did renounce Freemasonry, it is highly unlikely that it would have been due to his relationship with a priest or his desire to marry Josephine Bracken. Rizal was a strong advocate for freedom and equality and his life was dedicated to the fight for the rights of the Filipino people. As such, it is highly unlikely that he would have suddenly renounced his beliefs due to personal matters.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Kayccc(3) Clarified
1 point

Kayecie B. Genonsalao

1st yr BSBA - Marketing Management

I disagree with your assertion that Jose Rizal retracted his commitment to Freemasonry due to his relationship with a Jesuit priest and his desire to marry Josephine Bracken. Firstly, there is no solid evidence to suggest that Jose Rizal ever renounced Freemasonry, and his actions throughout his life suggest that he was still committed to the ideals of the movement. Furthermore, even if Rizal did renounce Freemasonry, it is highly unlikely that it would have been due to his relationship with a priest or his desire to marry Josephine Bracken. Rizal was a strong advocate for freedom and equality and his life was dedicated to the fight for the rights of the Filipino people. As such, it is highly unlikely that he would have suddenly renounced his beliefs due to personal matters.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Myrie052694(4) Disputed
1 point

Myrie Gene Pedrano BSBA-FM1

Rizal was not buried with a good standing. Rizal’s body was buried ten months after his death. He was also buried without a coffin in a cemetery for Anti-Catholic Church. He should have been buried properly if ever he was converted back to Catholicism.

In Father Balaguer’s statement, he said that Rizal retracted because he wanted to marry Josephine Bracken, who was a Catholic, but when he was asked to show a certificate, he was not able to present anything. It was impossible for the marriage to be the reason for retraction because there was no marriage certificate found. There was no certificate that legalizes the marriage between Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
geosonmia(39) Disputed
1 point

Buy Registered and unregistered passport, id cards ,drivers license WhatsApp:                       +16265140391

 Customer Service ';;;;;;;;;  https://documentscenterofficials.com Buy IELTS, IDP TOEFL, GMAT, ESOL, DEGREE, DIPLOMATBuy Registered Passports,Drivers license,IELTS & TOEFL, ESOL Certificates W= ithout Attending The ExamBUY PASSPORTS,DRIVERS LICENSES,ID CARDS,BIRTH CERTIFICATES,VISAS,SSN,MARRIA=

GE CERTIFICATES,DIVORCE PAPERS,US GREEN CARDBUY PASSPORTS,DRIVERS LICENSES,ID CARDS,BIRTH CERTIFICATES,VISAS,SSN,MARRIA=

GE CERTIFICATES,DIVORCE PAPERS,US GREEN CARDBuy IELTS, IDP TOEFL, GMAT, ESOL, DEGREE, DIPLOMAS

We deal and specialize in helping you to get registered TOEFL, IELTS, IDP, = ESOL, GMAT CELTA/DELTA, DEGREE, DIPLOMAS & other English Language Certifica= tes. We produce TOEFL & IELTS, ESOL, and CELTA/DELTA, DEGREE, DIPLOMAS Engl= ish Language for you with ease.

Contact Email ....... [email protected]

Websit ......  https://documentscenterofficials.com

Whatsapp ......   +16265140391

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Cherry Rose E. Dulhao 1st yr BSBA-MM

I disagree that Jose Rizal's desire to marry Josephine Bracken and his association with a Jesuit priest caused him to renounce his Freemasonry vow. Those who believe that Rizal retracted point to the letter itself as evidence. The letter, which is dated December 29, 1896, states that Rizal "retracts with all his heart whatever in his words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to his character as son of the Catholic Church." Additionally, several witnesses stated that they saw Rizal sign the letter.

However, there are also some reasons to doubt the authenticity of the letter. First, the letter was not made public until 1935, long after Rizal's death. Second, some of the handwriting in the letter does not appear to match Rizal's known handwriting. Third, there is no clear evidence that Rizal ever received the letter or that he was aware of its contents. The truth of Rizal's final religious stance remains elusive. The retraction document remains a subject of debate and interpretation.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
bwii(2) Clarified
1 point

Cherry Rose E. Dulhao 1st yr BSBA-MM

I disagree that Jose Rizal's desire to marry Josephine Bracken and his association with a Jesuit priest caused him to renounce his Freemasonry vow. Those who believe that Rizal retracted point to the letter itself as evidence. The letter, which is dated December 29, 1896, states that Rizal "retracts with all his heart whatever in his words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to his character as son of the Catholic Church." Additionally, several witnesses stated that they saw Rizal sign the letter.

However, there are also some reasons to doubt the authenticity of the letter. First, the letter was not made public until 1935, long after Rizal's death. Second, some of the handwriting in the letter does not appear to match Rizal's known handwriting. Third, there is no clear evidence that Rizal ever received the letter or that he was aware of its contents. The truth of Rizal's final religious stance remains elusive. The retraction document remains a subject of debate and interpretation.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

To retract would be a betrayal of all Rizal believed in. But he may have done it out of love. Don't dismiss love. Josephine Bracken encouragement and support as Rizal's real widow. As a result, they must marry before Rizal dies. The Jesuit friars demanded that Rizal retract first before performing the ceremony. They were married, according to some reports, so it's possible that Rizal did retract.

Supporting Evidence: Sources (www.joserizal.ph)
Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Myrie052694(4) Clarified
1 point

Myrie Gene Pedrano - BSBA-FM1

Rizal was not buried with a good standing. Rizal’s body was buried ten months after his death. He was also buried without a coffin in a cemetery for Anti-Catholic Church. He should have been buried properly if ever he was converted back to Catholicism. In Father Balaguer’s statement, he said that Rizal retracted because he wanted to marry Josephine Bracken, who was a Catholic, but when he was asked to show a certificate, he was not able to present anything. It was impossible for the marriage to be the reason for retraction because there was no marriage certificate found. There was no certificate that legalizes the marriage between Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Myrie052694(4) Clarified
1 point

Myrie Gene Pedrano BSBA-FM1

Rizal was not buried with a good standing. Rizal’s body was buried ten months after his death. He was also buried without a coffin in a cemetery for Anti-Catholic Church. He should have been buried properly if ever he was converted back to Catholicism.

In Father Balaguer’s statement, he said that Rizal retracted because he wanted to marry Josephine Bracken, who was a Catholic, but when he was asked to show a certificate, he was not able to present anything. It was impossible for the marriage to be the reason for retraction because there was no marriage certificate found. There was no certificate that legalizes the marriage between Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Borntaiga(2) Clarified
1 point

Kristine Joyce Borinaga.

I believe, Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract his statement despite the fact that he is also married to Josephine Bracken which also has no evidence of any proof that they tie the knot at the Catholic Church.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The speculation is academic.

Freemasonry is a secular organization which is open to all men of any race, color or creed.

Most brothers don't relinquish their religious beliefs ( if they have any ) when they join the fraternity of Freemasons.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Maybe he simply retracted because he was about to die and his judgment wasn't clear anymore, he was afraid of dying and all that it implies and he sought hope, something to cling onto as he walked to his end. In that case, these words aren't any more meaningful than any insult you might say out of rage but you don't mean.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

People who deny Rizal wrote it do it because they refuse to grant him even the most basic quality of humanity, they want to see him as an abstract concept made up of ideals instead of flesh, feelings, and fears. He retracted because he had doubts and was afraid the night before his death as it's perfectly relatable.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
Mica_Eborda(2) Disputed
1 point

Mica Eborda BSHM-1

Claiming that he retracted due to doubts and fear is insufficient evidence to assume that his retraction was real. Why would he jeopardize all of the writing he has conceived through his efforts simply because he is "afraid"?  The same writings that took him to the brink of execution? He was mature enough to understand the implications of his choice even before he opposed towards the Jesuits, and retraction is not an option for him.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Since Father Manuel Garcia, C.M., found Rizal's retraction letter, Its composition has remained a favorite topic of debate among scholars and Catholics since its publication in 1935. The letter was allegedly written by the National Hero himself and dated December 29, 1896.After making minor changes to the document, Rizal drafted his retraction. He disavowed Masonry and theological ideas that were contrary to Catholic teaching in his retraction.

source

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

ALONDRA JEAN LECERA:

I believe that Rizal believed in God, God's providence from start to finish. At some point in his life he may have been shaken in connection with the Catholic teachings presented by his brothers, but he never shaken his faith in God. He always believed in him, but he firmly opposed the twisted path of the brothers who led the church and government during the Spanish administration. If the signed "letter of revocation" written by

Rizal was genuine, I think he was just forced to sign it. Perhaps he or his family was threatened with this "letter of cancellation". After all, what benefits does Rizal benefit from converting to a church? And I don't think anyone like him, his words and his faith, knew that the church was bent, so he didn't get back what he said or did to the church. I think he was really under pressure and threatened because the Archbishop of Manila wanted it

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I claim myself a Catholic and on this faith wherein I turned into born and knowledgeable I want to stay and die. I retract with all my coronary heart anything in my words, writings, courses and behavior has been opposite to my individual as son of the Catholic Church

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

JOANNA CLARISSE M LENON:

According to an affidavit through Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero at some point of his exile in Dapitan, Rizal widely wide-spread a shorter retraction report organized through the advanced of the Jesuit Society withinside the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Kaye S. Manulat:

The argumentation itself whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document rests solely on the reader's judgment, as no amount of proof will likely convince the two opposing groups, the Masonic Rizalists who believe Rizal did not withdraw and the Catholic Rizalists who believe Rizal did, to agree.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

This issue was true. Rizal died as son of the Catholic. Jesuits were desperate enough to make false documents and imitations of Rizal’s retraction. The document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia was similar to the Manila News Paper, only the copies that are under the Jesuits are not similar to the 2 copies.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document produced by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi, according to Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan. After making minor changes to the document, Rizal drafted his retraction. Since Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. discovered Rizal's retraction letter, Its contents have remained a favorite subject of debate among academics and Catholics since its publication in 1935. The National Hero himself was reported to have signed the letter, which was dated December 29, 1896.

"Even though it would be easy to claim he repudiated what he wrote about the Church, his words started the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society during the Spanish period—a movement that eventually led to our independence," Torres said. "I declare myself a Catholic, and in this religion in which I was born and educated, I wish to live and die. I reject with all my heart whatsoever in my words, writings, publications, and actions has been contradictory to my character as a son of the Catholic Church," the retraction stated.- Andreana Brengelou Quijada

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I, Hanajane Tagle, stand that Rizal’s retraction letter is a truth. For starters, the Jesuits and the archbishop could have misplaced the retraction document but in 1935, archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Gracia was able to locate the "original" Rizal retraction document. It was "genuine, definitive, and final", Kalaw, a Mason and the director of the National Library at the time claimed and Kalaw's conclusions were supported by Romulo, then editor of the Philippine Herald newspaper. Moreover, Beyer, an anthropology professor at U.P. and a well-known handwriting expert concluded that "there is not the slightest doubt that every word on that sheet of paper was written by Jose Rizal.” On the subject of the differences between the text of the 1935 document and the version of the retraction that Fr. Balaguer had presented, that happened because Fr. Balaguer showed was not the original and just the reproduction of the written document of Rizal.

In the context of Moreno’s report, Fr. Balanguer’s credibility may have been undermined as a result of Moreno's report but that did not refute Rizal's retraction claim. It is stated that when Fr. March returned at 3 p.m., and Rizal presented him with a document, the document was signed by Rizal, Juan del Fresno, and Seor Maure, according to the text. In the document of retraction that Fr. Gracia discovered in 1935, these three people mentioned by Moreno were signatories of the paper. Moreno did not elaborate on the contents of the document, because he was watching the incident from afar. However, this did not stop him from assuming the document was Rizal's retraction letter.

Moreover, Rizal was not to be offered the sacraments unless he abandon his anti-Catholic ideas, according to Fr. Pio Pi and Archbishop Nozaleda's instructions. Moreno's narrative, as a neutral observer, recorded various occurrences that transpired in Rizal's prison cell that would not have occurred if Rizal had not returned to Catholicism. According to Moreno, Rizal and his lover, Josephine Bracken married early morning of the next day. The fact that the marriage took place confirms Rizal's return to his Catholic faith. Moreno further stated that Rizal heard Mass minutes before being carried to Luneta and confessed to Fr. Marched into the church, received Holy Communion, and kissed the Blessed Mother's image. All of these actions point to Rizal's death as a Catholic and may be considered testimony in support of that claim.

-Hanajane L. Tagle

Supporting Evidence: http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html (englishkyoto-seas.org)
Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Joan V. Auxtero

Catholic Rizalist, because Rizal’s “original” retraction letter dated December 19, 1896, was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia in 1935 (Santos, 2011). The translated text stated that “ I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.”

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Alvie Khim P. Timbal

belive that Jose Rizal abjured masonry and retracted his statements against the Catholic Church. The document presented to the public is a strong evidence that Rizal had truly withdrawn in masonry and retracted. Let us first addresses the documents. First, the letter of Rizal to his mother recieved on January 5, 1893. The letter says that Rizal have been going to the church on January 5, 1893. The first letter says that Rizal have been going to the church every sunday in Dapitan. Next, the testimony of the eyewitness Father Balaguer who has with Rizal and presented the retraction format prepared by Father Pio Pi, the superior of Jesuit society in the Philippines, before the execution. He stated that on Dec. 29, 1896, day before the execution, Rizal have accepted and signed the document.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
jamesebueza(2) Disputed
1 point

There are undeniable facts that tells us about the truth about the retraction of Rizal that put us in the conclusion that the retraction of Rizal was Myth

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Alvie Khim P. Timbal

I belive that Jose Rizal abjured masonry and retracted his statements against the Catholic Church. The document presented to the public is a strong evidence that Rizal had truly withdrawn in masonry and retracted. Let us first addresses the documents. First, the letter of Rizal to his mother recieved on January 5, 1893. The le

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Alvie Khim P. Timbal

I strongly agree that Jose Rizal adjourned masonry and retracted his statements against the Catholoc church. According to testimony by father Balaguer a Jesuit missionary who defended the hero during his exite in Dapitan, revealed it himself that he was the one to present their retraction letter to resolve before the day of the execution. Rizal has accepted and signed the document. The letter of retraction that has been found and translated by Friar Manuel Garcia on May 18, 1935 which strengthens the idea that Rizal retracted where he declares himself a catjolic in his religion in which he was born and educated that he wishes to live and die, he retracts with all his heart whatever in his words, writings and publications that has been contrary to his character as the son of Catholic church.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe that Jose Rizal write her retraction letter because the original document of the letter of Jose Rizal is never show in the public and there many witness that document are written and signing by Jose Rizal.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe that Fr. Pio pi, found the original document letter of Jose Rizal and he was tell the people that the document writing by Jose Rizal and the original letter was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on may 18,1935, after disappeared for 39 years from the afternoon the day when Jose Rizal was shot.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal has also a life like Christ. Where he was being mocked in trial, has been executed by the enemies and died for a noble cause. This religion is more like Christianity as the believers had different beliefs and practices but focuses on one faith. The people have seen the life of Rizal and in that situation helps them have their faith that bonds them together. They believe that Rizal is the most important saint. But Rizal has also great impact to strengthen their faith even in the midst of trial or problems but must learn how to overcome and face it.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I Milanie Labareno stands for Catholic Rizalists. They were able to lay down evidences and primary sources as to when and how Rizal wrote the retraction. It's quite believable that Rizal was able to accept Catholicism before his death and execution.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe that Jose Rizal retracted and died as a Catholic. The La Voz Española published the retraction that Rizal allegedly wrote and signed. Many people doubted the veracity of the retraction because the Catholic Church could not show the original copy of the retraction. However, they forgot to take into account the published text of retraction of the aforementioned newspaper. It was even published on the day of Rizal’s execution, along with the reports of the events in Luneta.

If you still doubt the veracity of the retraction, we should take Frederico Moreno’s account. His account is more credible than Fr. Balaguer's for he was neutral; neither a member of the Catholic Church nor a member of Masonry. Given that fact, he was stationed in Fort Santiago and saw everything that was happening in Rizal’s cell, which made him a credible eyewitness. He claimed that he saw a document written and signed by Jose Rizal. Even though he was unsure of the document being the retraction, Rizal’s actions the next day showed he truly converted back to Catholicism.

In addition, some people are questioning the marriage of Rizal and Bracken because there was no marriage contract verifying it. They use this as a piece of evidence that Rizal did not retract; because to be able to get married, Rizal must convert to Catholicism. However, Moreno stated in his account along with his confirmation of the nuptial of the Rizal and Bracken, he said that he never saw the two of them signing a marriage contract.

In conclusion, we cannot deny the existence of the retraction. There might be lapses in the accounts of the priests and the Church, yet there are also strong and credible pieces of evidence that supports Rizal's retraction.

— Jancil Joy B. Amores

REFERENCE:

Escalante, R. (2019, December 26). Vol 8, No.3, Rene ESCALANTE | CSEAS Journal, Southeast Asian Studies. Southeast Asian Studies. https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

In my judgment, he was under extreme duress or threat because this was exactly what the archbishop of Manila desired.

Is it still necessary to have a conversation on this topic in today's societal context? Some could argue that it is, but I believe we simply need to respect what Rizal has done for our country. He brought the harshness of the Spaniards to the attention of the Filipinos. He reawakened our understanding of nationalism, and that is sufficient. His achievements in the country will not be altered. "Rizal is still Rizal," senator Jose Diokno said, "the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our convictions."

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Is it still important to discuss this issue in today's society? Some may argue that it is, but I feel we must simply honor what Rizal has accomplished for our country. He made the Filipinos aware of the Spanish's cruelty. That is sufficient. He reawakened our idea of nationalism. His contributions to the country will not be diminished. Senator Jose Diokno stated, "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 principles.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

For me ,In terms of the retractionists' arguments, there were other reasons provided in addition to the evidence itself. Dr. Augusto De Viana , the head of UST's Department of History, is one of the believers who has articulated his reasons in some detail. Rizal, he argues, retreated and only rejected his freemasonry, not his nationalistic works. He further stated that forging his retraction letter is impossible because witnesses were there at Rizal's signing and that the proof speaks for itself. In terms of Rizal's character, he argues that he was a flawed human being who was bound to have weaknesses.

-Lady Mae Agot

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Augusto De Aviana ,He goes on to say that he believes Rizal wanted to die in peace, which is why there was a retraction.

-Lady Mae Agot

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Since Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. found Rizal's retraction letter in 1935, its content has become a point of contention among academics and Catholics. I declare myself to be a Catholic, and I intend to live and die in the faith in which I was born and schooled. Whatever in my words, writings, or behaviour has been antithetical to my character as a son of the Catholic Church, I apologise wholeheartedly. Rizal accepted a shorter retraction paper produced by the superior of the Jesuit society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi, according to Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who met the hero during his exile in Dapitan. After making minor changes to the manuscript, Rizal penned his restriction.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Other explanations were given by the retractionists in addition to the evidence itself. Dr. Augusto De Viana, the head of UST's Department of History, is one of the believers who has elaborated on his arguments. He claims that Rizal retreated and only renounced his freemasonry, not his nationalistic works, when he retreated. He went on to say that falsifying his retraction letter is impossible because witnesses were present when Rizal signed it and that the proof speaks for itself. In terms of Rizal's personality, he claims that he was an imperfect human being who had to have flaws.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe this is significant because truth is essential. The values for which Rizal sacrificed cannot be realized by propagating lies and exaggerations about a Philippine institution that has a significant impact on Filipinos' lives.

- Posadas, Jayven

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Since Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. discovered Rizal's retraction letter, Its substance has remained a favorite topic of debate among academics and Catholics since its publication in 1935. The National Hero himself was reported to have signed the letter, which was dated December 29, 1896.

"I declare myself a Catholic, and I wish to live and die in this religion in which I was born and schooled," it said. Whatever in my words, thoughts, publications, and behaviour has been antithetical to my character as a son of the Catholic Church, I apologise wholeheartedly."

Most people believe that Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda sent the initial draft of the retraction to Rizal's cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution at Bagumbayan. However, the document was claimed to have been rejected by Rizal due to its length. Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document produced by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi, according to Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan. After making minor changes to the document, Rizal drafted his retraction. He disavowed Masonry and theological ideas that were contrary to Catholic teaching in his retraction.

"I didn't believe he withdrew," Jose Victor Torres, a history professor at De La Salle University, said. "However, some records purchased by the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila," revealed some fascinating aspects regarding the retraction.

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila, often known as the Katipunan and Rizal Papers, is a collection of materials on the Philippine revolutions that includes confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and images from Spanish and Philippine publications.Despite this, Torres stated that even if the rumors were accurate, his opinion of the Filipino martyr would not change.

"Even if it would be easy to claim he repudiated what he wrote about the Church," Torres said, "it did not change the fact that his words set in motion the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society during the Spanish period—a movement that eventually led to our independence." "The retraction is only one facet of Rizal's life, labor, and writings."

Torres later clarified that the debate is no longer relevant. "The retraction signifies nothing in today's schools because of how Rizal is taught," he remarked.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Through his works and arts, Rizal devoted his life guarding and attempting to save Filipinos and the country itself from the hands of the colonists. It was clear that he was exposing the church's and some clergy members' corrupt lives and deeds. When Rizal was exiled to Dapitan, he did not retract his remarks or stories regarding the church's and the clergy's unethical behavior. He is also exiled because he refused to retract his remarks and stories on the Catholic Church and some clergy members. What he did when we were exiled in Dapitan, especially when he covertly addressed letters to his comrades in La Liga Filipina, was to put a halt to the revolution since it would not benefit them. He advised them to put an end to the armed uprising because he desired peace. However, he did not retract his remarks against the church's immoral behavior while in Dapitan.

- Heryl Mediano

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

TRUTH: CRISTINA A. JAVELLANA

Because Catholic Rizalist they believe that Rizal Retraction is Primary Sources. Other believe it is written Verbatim

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Truth :Cristina A. Javellana BSBA MM1- Rizal retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from his famous nationalistic works.

that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I strongly believe that Dr. Jose Rizal retracted. Many witness proves it and the event happening was very clear during his last days that he attend mass, accept holy communion and have a confession though he is a member of masonic group before because he is against negative Church doing issue but still in the end, he was able to realize that no one is perfect and we are nothing before God. For me, that's a great reason to confirm that he retracted from catholic Church with sincere and humble heart.

Cherry Love M. Ugdang :)

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The influence of many religious friars gives wisdom to our national hero. It helps him discern well and he was blessed because until his last breath, there were a lot of religious people who patiently guided him, love, support him spiritually and pray for him. Fervent Prayers are more powerful than evidence from papers, and why will the issue not trend, if there is history happening, gossip, witnesses and evidence?

Cherry Love M. Ugdang. :)

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

the researchers believe that the retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with such greatness.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Some accounts suggest that Rizal wrote and signed a retraction statement on December 29, 1896, just a few days before his execution, in which he allegedly renounced his previous writings and beliefs that were critical of the Catholic Church. I believe that Rizal's retraction letter is a truth, since the statement was witnessed by a number of priests and government officials who were present at that time.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

RUFFA MAE AUMADA:

I believed that Rizal did retract his life’s work and principles against the Spaniards.

On the other hand, whether Jose Rizal did retract or not, scholars feel that the paper reflecting his retractions was more a result of Rizal having the moral bravery to own up to his errors. Even if it is true that he repented and returned to his faith, Rizal's status as a great hero with such brilliance is unaffected. If Rizal retracts or not, it won't change what he has already done or what his works have already accomplished, as mentioned in the documentary "Ang Bayaning Third World" by Joel Torre as Rizal.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
yashrecs(2) Disputed
1 point

I believe that Jose Rizal's retraction is important because there are two organization that have been affected. Well, the friars wanted Rizal to recant since his works had a stronger influence and revealed the situation in the Philippines, especially the behavior of the friars and colonial authorities, which they wished to conceal. To basically elevate themselves, they wanted Jose Rizal to claim that nothing he said or wrote was accurate.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The issue of whether or not Jose Rizal re-embraced the Catholic faith on the eve of his death remains a subject of debate among historians and scholars.

Some historians argue that Rizal remained a Mason until the end of his life, while others claim that he renounced Masonry and re-embraced the Catholic faith before his execution.

Rizal's own writings suggest that he had a complex relationship with both Catholicism and Masonry. In his writings, he criticized certain aspects of the Catholic Church, such as its abuses of power and its failure to address social and political issues. At the same time, he expressed admiration for the positive aspects of Catholicism, such as its emphasis on morality and virtue.

Similarly, Rizal was critical of certain aspects of Masonry, such as its secrecy and elitism, but he also saw Masonry as a means to promote enlightenment, tolerance, and social reform.

There are accounts that suggest that Rizal had a spiritual awakening in his final days and that he requested the sacraments of the Catholic Church before his execution. However, there are also sources that contradict these claims, stating that Rizal remained committed to his beliefs until the very end.

Ultimately, the truth about Rizal's religious beliefs and his association with Masonry remains a subject of debate and interpretation. It is up to each individual to form their own opinion based on the available evidence and the context of the time.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I'm Arzay Dialane Fernandez

it is known that Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero, was raised in a Catholic family and was baptized as a Catholic. Throughout his life, he had a complex relationship with the Catholic Church, and he expressed criticisms of certain aspects of Catholicism in his writings. However, he also respected and appreciated the positive values and teachings of the Church. Ultimately, whether or not he identified as a Catholic is a matter of personal interpretation and belief.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Let's know what is retraction first, The aforementioned letter states that Jose Rizal announced himself as a Catholic and that he retracts all he had said, written, published and done against the Catholic Church. There would be differences of opinions on this matter because not everyone would agree. In a statement titled "The Retraction," Rizal acknowledged his Catholic faith and renounced all of his works critical of the church. Also, Father Manuel Garcia, C. uncovered Rizal's letter of retractio. in 1935 in the Manila archive of the Catholic hierarchy.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Andrian A. Fernandez: Jose Rizal's alleged letter of retraction, though controversial, should be accepted as authentic due to the overwhelming evidence supporting its validity, including eyewitness accounts and historical documents from reputable sources. Rizal's retraction should not detract from his many achievements and contributions to Philippine independence and should be viewed as a complex and nuanced aspect of his life and legacy.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Andrian A. Fernandez: While Jose Rizal was undoubtedly a heroic figure who fought for Philippine independence, his anti-Catholic sentiments were also a source of controversy and division. His alleged retraction should not be dismissed or ignored, but rather, should be viewed as a complex aspect of his personality and legacy. Acknowledging Rizal's retraction does not diminish his importance to the Philippines but instead allows for a more nuanced and balanced understanding of his beliefs and actions.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I was convinced that the Rizal retraction was not a myth but the truth because some accounts claim that Rizal penned and signed a retraction statement on December 29, 1896, just a few days before he was executed, in which he allegedly renounced his prior writings and beliefs that were critical of the Catholic church.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

“I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.” The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other. Proofs, documents History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in Bagumbayan.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizalist:The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal signed a paper a few hours before he was killed, referring to it as "The Retraction," in which he claimed to be a Catholic and renounced all of his works critical of the church. Moreover, Father Manuel Garcia, C. found Rizal's letter of retractions. 1935, Manila's Catholic hierarchy's archive. (Ac Mae Peque)

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Suffice it to say that I found this website, which has many excellent articles, to be enjoyable to read. Keep up the fantastic work that you've been doing. fnaf security breach

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I'm Dovic Meisha K. Landasan. =>The truth of Jose Rizal's retraction is still a matter of debate among historians. While some argue that the document claiming his retraction was coerced or fabricated, others believe it to be authentic. Due to conflicting evidence and the historical context surrounding Rizal's execution, the veracity of his retraction remains uncertain and subject to interpretation.Critics argue that the document may have been coerced or fabricated by Spanish authorities to undermine Rizal's influence and portray him as submissive to the Catholic Church. On the other hand, proponents of the retraction's authenticity suggest that Rizal genuinely recanted his earlier works under pressure or as a strategic move to spare his family from further persecution.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Joyline Nalupano BSED Val Ed

After giving it some thought and in light of recent events, I feel obliged to address a few issues pertaining to my beliefs and convictions. I hereby withdraw some remarks I made that might have been interpreted as going against Catholic teachings.

I understand the value of religion and the Church's function in serving as society's moral compass. I humbly declare my readiness to harmonize my expressions and actions with Church teachings, even though my beliefs and principles do not change.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I, Angel Mae Samar. There has been historical discussion on the veracity of Rizal's purported retraction letter. Some Catholic Rizalists say that it might not be an authentic representation of his genuine beliefs, suggesting that it was either completely made up or influenced by other forces. Understanding Rizal's final-hour religious reflections becomes more difficult due to the ambiguity surrounding the retraction letter.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

DaisanS. Masaloon

As a Catholic Rizalists. Our stand is that document exists, signed by Rizal, retracting his membership in Masonry and re-affirming his Catholic faith. This document was witnessed by priests and officials. Several newspapers printed the retraction letter and reported Rizal's denunciation of Masonry. They even mentioned priests present during this act. The Catholic Church officially recognizes Rizal's retraction and views him as a repentant Catholic.

Sources: Zaide, Gregorio F. (2003). José Rizal: Life, Works, and Writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist, and National Hero. All-Nations Publishing Co. ISBN 978-9716420025.

Constantino, Renato (1975). The Philippines: A Past Revisited. ISBN 971-8958-00-2.

Guerrero, Leon Maria (1963). The First Filipino: A Biography of José Rizal. Guerrero Publishing.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

CRISNA JEAN M. JULIAN BEED 1

 Good evening everyone here is my opinion about Jose Rizal's Retraction'  for me there is nothing wrong’ if it is truth or myth because there are some of articles written by many historians in the Philippines there primary and secondary resources all we to  do is to keep on reading analyzing about the issue all about.  Based on my  reading Filipino Masons launched an ongoing campaign disputing the assertion starting in 1908.

the retraction of Rizal. Upon commemorating Rizal Day each year, they would devise

actions designed to refute and make fun of the retraction story. Don Juan Utor, for instance

In the Manila Opera House, Fernandez performed a play that acted out Rizal's final moments. This time

It explicitly rejected the retraction story. The article that Herminigildo Cruz penned for La

He made a public attack on the Jesuits at Vanguardia. It was beyond his comprehension how the

A document of such great value could have been misplaced by Jesuits or the archbishop. Additional

The main defense offered by Masons against the retraction was Rizal's character. They're

claimed that Rizal was a man with a strong sense of conviction who would not easily change their mind.

Even under dire circumstances.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

l’m Shella Mae Elican=The truth of Jose Rizal restraction revolves around authenticity of the document and the motivations behind it.Scholars analyze historical context,examining wether it was sincere change of belief or a result of external pressures.The quest for truth involves scrutinizing primary sources and considering the complexities of Rizal’s circumtances during that period.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Name: Udto,Joyrin (Beed 1)

For me, I stand firmly in support of the Catholic Rizalist belief, even in the absence of concrete evidence that Jose Rizal returned to the Catholic faith before his passing. However, my conviction lies with the Catholics because various articles suggest that Jose Rizal indeed embraced his Catholic roots again. His reputation as a noble hero, coupled with his profound faith in God, reinforces my allegiance to the Catholic perspective. Furthermore, Rizal's deep respect for religious freedom and his acknowledgment of the cultural significance of Catholicism in the Philippines underscore the importance of recognizing his potential return to the Catholic faith.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The retraction letter of Rizal for Him being Catholic is very widely issue in our country, no one knows if it's real or not but the only main point of him there is that he born as a Catholic and he die as one.

Rizal born in a faithful family, we know that way back in the past we Filipinos are really faith motivated that's the reason why there is God Fearing in our Core Values, Rizal is pointing those swords towards to those who are the abuser of the power of the church not the church itself, he's very compassionate to his Faith and to his belief I remember thay Rizal aswell was an altar server and I decline that he regrets born being Catholic.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I strongly agree that Rizal retracted Masonry and reembraced the Catholic faith. Chief Inspector Federico Moreno, who is neither a member of the Catholic hierarchy nor a known Mason, reported that right after Rizal signed the alleged retraction letter, he read the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity as well as the Prayers for the Departing Soul. Moreno also reported that minutes before Rizal was brought to Luneta, he heard Mass and confessed to Fr. March, received Holy Communion, and kissed the image of the Blessed Mother. All these acts suggest, and may be considered evidence supporting the claim, that Rizal died a Catholic.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

In the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period, the Catholic Church held strict views on marriage, particularly regarding mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. Dr. Jose Rizal fell in love with Josephine Bracken, who was a Catholic of Irish descent, and asked to marry them canonically. Archbishop Nozaleda and Fr. Pio Pi’s instructions were clear: Rizal should not be given the sacraments unless he retracted his anti-Catholic beliefs. The fact that the marriage took place is a confirmation that Rizal re-embraced his Catholic faith.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

There is one issue in jose rizal’s life that historians have debated on several occasions but remains

unsettled. That issue is whether Rizal, on the eve of his death, re- embraced the catholic faith and

disassociated himself from masonry.The topic is contentious since the groups on both sides are associated with an organization that supports universal values and the discovery of truth.The pro-retraction camp is represented by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and a few other

members of the catholic hierarchy.

Since they are all ordained priests, they are assumed to be truthful in their pronouncements. Their

opponents are the members of Masonry, and organization that promotes brotherhood, integrity,

decency, and professionalism.

The Jesuit Version

Rizal’s execution on December 30, 1896 was a major political event, closely monitored by local and

international newspapers at the time. News reports that day covered not only his execution but also

what happened in his prison cell on the eve of his death. A number of them reported that he had

denounced his Masonic beliefs and re-professed his Catholic faith. Some even reprinted the retraction

letter that he wrote, in order to prove that he did indeed die a Catholic.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Ortiz,Anthonette T.

1st Year BSBA-MM

I believe that Rizal's retraction letter is the truth. To begin with, Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. Since 1935, its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics.

According to most history books, Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda sent the initial draft of the retraction to Rizal's cell at Fort Santiago the night before his execution in Bagumbayan. However, Rizal claimed to have rejected the document due to its length. Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who knew the hero during his exile in Dapitan, said that Rizal accepted a shorter retraction paper produced by Father Pio Pi, the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines. Rizal then drafted his retraction after making certain changes to the text. In his reversal, he denounced Masonry and religious ideas that contradicted Catholic beliefs. In his book The Historicity of Rizal's Retraction, Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra described the controversy as "a plain, unadorned fact of history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality.".

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST's Department of History, likewise believes Rizal retracted, claiming that the National Hero only renounced Freemasonry, not his famed nationalistic works.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I Kate Richel P. Cocon As of today, there is still an ongoing dispute regarding the controversy of Rizal’s retraction before his execution on the 30th of December, 1896. Other people insist that Rizal did retract while some says that he did not. There are different evidences that appeared to defend each side. There were four well-known reasons behind Rizal’s retraction. First, He wanted to marry Josephine Bracken and to make her his wife legally. Second, He wanted to protect his family. Third, He wanted to reforms from the Spanish Government.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The issue surrounding Jose Rizal's alleged retraction letter remains highly debated among historians and scholars. While some argue that Rizal did write a retraction letter before his execution in 1896, others contest its authenticity, citing inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence. The controversy surrounding the retraction letter continues to fuel discussions about Rizal's beliefs and the influence of colonial authorities during his time.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Princess Sandara C. Hadjiula Bsba MM

I do believe that Rizal's letter clarified that he's truly a Catholic and he disassociated himself from mansory. The original document was never shown to the public, however there are reproduction of it.

Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of

Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia found the original document. So in clarification we can assume that the letter written by Rizal was the absolute truth.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

In considering whether Jose Rizal embraced the Catholic faith on the eve of his death, it is important to examine the available evidence and perspectives. While some argue that Rizal's re-embrace of Catholicism is supported by articles, scholars, and primary sources, it is also essential to critically evaluate the context and potential biases of these sources. The letter mentioned, written by a Catholic priest and published in Spain, may provide some insight. Additionally, the connection between Rizal's last words and those of Christ is an interesting observation. However, it is crucial to approach this topic with an open mind, considering alternative viewpoints and the complexity of Rizal's beliefs and experiences. Further exploration and analysis of historical records can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Rizal's religious perspectives during his final moments.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Cheska A. Bulawin

BSBA MM

The issue of Jose Rizal's retraction letter, where it was claimed that he renounced his views against the Catholic Church shortly before his execution, has been a topic of debate among historians and scholars. I stand on the side of truth and believe that Rizal did not retract his views.

Lack of Consistent Evidence: The original copy of the retraction letter has never been found. The document presented as the retraction letter has been subject to scrutiny due to inconsistencies in handwriting. Some argue that it's not consistent with Rizal's penmanship.

Contradiction with Rizal's Beliefs: Rizal spent his life advocating for reform and expressing his criticisms of the Church's practices in the Philippines. The retraction seems to contradict his lifelong stance, leading some to question its authenticity. This stance emphasizes the importance of evidence and consistency with a person's known beliefs in assessing historical claims. It suggests that without clear evidence, it's reasonable to maintain that Rizal held onto his convictions until the end.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

how can we say that Rizal has written that letter according to your arguments that documentation that the letter was written and signed? first of all the situation how much can you be sure that piece of information is not forged please give me a claim that can support your argument.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Rhaiza Seniel

Since there are existing primary sources, including letters and documents written by Rizal himself, as well as accounts from witnesses and contemporaries, that attest to the fact of Rizal's retraction. These documents provide firsthand evidence of Rizal's intentions and actions leading up to his execution.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Rhaiza Seniel

There are several individuals who were present during Rizal's final days, including members of the clergy and Spanish authorities, corroborated the occurrence of Rizal's retraction. Their testimonies, recorded in various historical records and accounts, provide additional support for the authenticity of Rizal's retraction, reinforcing its credibility as a historical event.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I am on the side of the truth about the retraction of rizal because it will not be my history it is not true. Many also proved that it was written by Rizal because they studied it first before sharing about it. According to Teodoro Kalaw, a professional on our hero’s writings and other handwritings experts, the retraction was originally written by Rizal and it has been judged by them through their deep study. There are also prominent Philippine historians who uphold the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra, Gregorio Zaide and many more. As of them, they consider the witnesses when Rizal wrote the retraction paper, signed the book of prayers of the Catholic, and recited the prayers of the Catholic. Base on them, there were also people who saw him when he kissed the crucifix before the execution. From Rizal’s statement: "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", some says that this document is a forgery and the other are asserting that it’s authentic and Rizal was the only who wrote and signed the retraction paper. There are arguments found that depend the both claims. But the only thing is, even Rizal retracted or not, the knowledge he inculcated to us will not change.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The existence of Rizal's retraction letter demands a critical examination that transcends surface-level acceptance. By scrutinizing the historical context, ideological consistency, testimonial reliability, circumstances surrounding signing, and the ongoing debates within the academic realm, this essay seeks to unravel the enigma surrounding this controversial artifact. Only through a comprehensive analysis can we approach a more informed understanding of the authenticity and implications of Rizal's alleged retraction letter.

-leah pabro

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

On the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry epitomizes the intricacies inherent in historical analysis. This unresolved issue underscores the challenges faced by scholars as they navigate through a myriad of conflicting accounts, biases, and interpretations. While proponents of Rizal's alleged spiritual transformation argue for its authenticity as a pivotal moment in his life, skeptics question the veracity of such claims, pointing to potential political agendas or myth-making efforts. As historians delve deeper into the available evidence and scrutinize the diverse perspectives surrounding Rizal's beliefs and actions, the quest for truth remains ongoing, reflecting the complexities of understanding historical events within their broader social and cultural contexts.

-Anton James Soco

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Truth means there are real facts out there, regardless of what anyone believes. Like in math, 1 + 1 always equals 2, no matter who's doing the math. In science, we find out about the world by testing things and seeing what's true, not just what we want to be true. Knowing there's an objective reality helps us understand things better and make progress.

Support #2:

Truth isn't just about facts; it's also about being honest in life. When we tell the truth in our relationships, it builds trust and respect. In society, truth helps keep things fair and accountable. Plus, it helps us make better choices and resist lies and manipulation. Being truthful makes life simpler and helps us all get along better.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The Catholic Rizalist recognizes the importance of upholding truth in personal conduct, emphasizing virtues such as honesty, compassion, and humility as essential components of a faithful life.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

I Euginio M. Carpio was thinking about the whole thing with Jose Rizal and whether he changed his mind about the Catholic faith before he died, I kinda lean towards the idea that he did. I mean, there's this paper they found that's supposed to be signed by Rizal himself, saying he's back with the Catholic Church and not into Freemasonry anymore. People like Father Balaguer talked about it too, saying Rizal was into it. And, the way they found this paper seems legit. Like, Rizal was talking to some Jesuit priests, and then this paper came out. It kinda makes sense, you know? I get that some folks might have doubts and stuff, but I think the paper they found is probably real. And if it is, then it's a big deal 'cause it shows Rizal's last thoughts were about going back to the Catholic faith. So, yeah, I'm not super fancy with words, but that's how I see it.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Jessa Elman BSSW

Actually base on the Primary sources. They have evidence that Dr. Jose Rizal Wrote a letter of Retraction. One of the strong pieces of evidence is the statement of the "Cuerpo de Vigilancia". It is a security corporation in manila. It was established on 1895, the main goal of the organization is to keep information about the Katipuneros and their supporters. Within 3 years he made 3000 pieces of accounts and 30 accounts about Dr. Jose Rizal. The collection of documents was sold for $100,045. It was bought by the National Commission for Culture and arts. On the account about Rizal it is about his trial and last day on earth. The primary sources are telling the same thing. However, the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia is more detailed. The time they examine the letter of retraction that was found by Fr. Manuel Garcia. The experts stated that it was authentic.

I believe that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote the letter of retraction. On his last moment on earth. Because he wants to marry Josephine Bracken, his lover. And for him to do that he has to take the process in a catholic way. like confession, attending mass and so on. Rizal is still human and also he still believes in God. So if I were Rizal I would do the same thing. It's your last day on earth so why not set aside the hatred that you have on the priest and just believe in your faith. Dr. Jose Rizal is still our National Hero whether he makes the retraction or not. All the sacrifices he made for our country still matters.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
2 points

Rizal did not retract his statement. Various authors gave a variety of perspectives and facts as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, there is no proof or justification to bring the argument to a close. The assertions that follow lead to the testimonies that Rizal did not retract prior to his execution. The first was a copy of Rizal's reportedly signed retraction paper, which was kept secret and only published in newspapers. The original copy was alleged to be lost when Rizal's relatives requested it. Could the Jesuits be so negligent as to be unaware of the paper's worth? Or was it simply obfuscated? The original copy was discovered in the archdiocesan archives 39 years later. Ricardo Pascual, Ph. D., who was granted access by Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the paper, eventually concluded in his book "Rizal Beyond the Grave" that the document was a fake. The most prevalent objection to this claim is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made mistakes when manufacturing a duplicate of the original. Another piece of proof that Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer agreed to marry Jose and Josephine after Jose signed the retraction document, there was no marriage certificate or official record to back up Father Balaguer's claims. Why would Rizal withdraw when he knows he will still be executed even if he signs the retraction paper? Because the judicial process involved was strictly a military tribunal where civilian or church participation was uncommon and not authorized, the Archbishop and Jesuits are powerless to soften his sentence. Rizal was suspected of participating in filibusterous propaganda, which carries a death penalty under Spanish law. - Mary Chris Campaner

Source:

1st Source: https://www.quora.com/Did-Jose-Rizal-retract

2nd Source: https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/2247/did-rizal-really-retracted-all-his-words-and-deeds-about-the-chruch-moments-before-his-execution

3rd Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgWPbtbZaFM&ab_channel=GelineDazo

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Rizal, as a harsh critic of the Spanish colonial authority and the Catholic Church's wrongdoings, I believe he did not retract at all. This is due to the overwhelming evidence that he did not retract. Starting with the retraction document's authenticity, Dr. Rizal is said to have signed it, and the contents of the document were published in newspapers. When his family learned of what Dr. Rizal had done, they demanded to see the original document to verify if it was written by him or not, but the Jesuit priests claimed that they had misplaced it. The Catholic Church discovered what they claim to be the "authentic" copy of Dr. Rizal's will in its archives in 1935, 39 years after his execution. In the instance of the document's legitimacy alone, it's debatable whether it was truly legitimate, much less if it ever existed. Another piece of evidence that Dr. Rizal did not retract is that when he allegedly signed the document, one of his terms was to marry Josephine Bracken, which the Catholic Church claims they did the day before Rizal was executed. However, there were no public records or a marriage certificate of Dr. Rizal and Bracken to prove that he was married and did retract. If Dr. Rizal had done so, his family would have known right away because he would have told them the truth in his communication letter to them and when they saw him before his execution, but there was no mention of his retraction, which is why the family was looking for the original document because they do not believe Dr. Rizal did retract all of his life's works.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
arcega05(2) Disputed
1 point

It is all about the tradition so how other people who is conscious about the history because of many option they know so what we're here to spread some truth about that and clarify the possible things if they thought was there beliefs without guide of person who only know the truth or myths study and those people are blind at all situation is be open to all so that we have here to create a new thing to some how be people can have an freedom to choose there way to choosen

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

CLARISSA P. AGUILAR

BSBA- HRDM

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate.The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or was it just hidden?Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery. The common rebuttal ofthis argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements.Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he would stillbe executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the three priests who were garrotted years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church; they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given a proper burial.Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal’s favourite teacher from Ateneo- was sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former student’s allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez told him to retract in exchange of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos and an estate (Laubach, 1936) however Rizal rejected the offer.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
2 points

Esmiralda Bentayao: I believe Dr. Jose P. Rizal did not repudiate his comments. Many years have gone since he stood up to the truth to fight against the unsavory practices of Spanish colonization, which prompted him to form a hidden movement to educate Filipinos about various elements of life growth and to support the KKK in their efforts to bring about the Spanish revolution. These are the key pieces of evidence that show Dr. Rizal will stick to his guns, his point of view, and what he's fighting for. Despite the fact that he is married to his loving Bracken and has no evidence of any proof that they married in a Catholic church, such as a marriage certificate, he will never recant his assertion.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Myrie Gene Pedrano BSBA-FM1

Rizal was a Mason, and Freemasonry was considered a cult by the Catholic Church. Freemasonry acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being (Great Architect) but accepts all monotheistic religions (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.). And that is something the Catholic Church, being the ethnocentric Spanish bigots that they were, cannot comprehend. If Freemasonry spreads, the church will be pushed to the margins. How can they continue to enslave the people if the Spaniards can't use religion as a stick to keep the people in line? Freemasonry is also physically opposed to the Pope. As a result, the church outlawed and demonized Freemasonry because it posed a threat to their very existence.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
2 points

I think Jose Rizal after he was shot or execution he did not retract his statement and I believe the the letter he make to all the catholic church and religion was fake and the other people say that Jose Rizal there is no proof that he make a retraction letter and the document is fake so that is my opinion about Jose Rizal and yes he was execution by the Spanish revolution that's the truth but the retraction letter is no proof at all.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
2 points

Basing on what I have read I believe that Rizal's retraction is a myth. Because the authenticity of the retraction letter is questionable due to the loss of the original document and doubts about the available copies. It seems suspicious that Rizal would suddenly retract his beliefs under the imminent threat of execution. Moreover, his consistent stand against social injustices throughout his life makes it unlikely that he would have changed his views at the end. That's why it is reasonable to consider the retraction as a myth perpetuated for various reasons.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Hundreds of people leave the Freemasons every year with religion playing no part in their withdrawal.

THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS or THE KNIGHTS OF ST, COLUMBANUS are Roman Catholic organizations which are open only to men of the Roman Catholic Faith.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I, Nicol James Montero, provide a conclusion that the said retraction letter of Jose Rizal could not be real. He is a patriotic writer whose goal is to liberate his country and it's people from the foreigners who colonized the land for centuries. Rizal has never been known to submit to anyone that is why it's doubtful that he wrote a letter of retraction to the Catholic Church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
Rhaiza(4) Disputed
1 point

The authenticity of Rizal's retraction letter is supported by historical documentation and testimonies from credible sources, including witnesses present during his final days and records from Spanish authorities. These primary sources provide tangible evidence of Rizal's actions and decisions, which cannot be dismissed solely based on assumptions about his character. Ignoring this evidence in favor of a simplistic myth undermines the integrity of historical inquiry and our understanding of Rizal as a complex and dynamic figure navigating challenging circumstances.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Rizal, as a harsh critic of the Spanish colonial authority and the Catholic Church's wrongdoings, I believe he did not retract at all. This is due to the overwhelming evidence that he did not retract. Starting with the retraction document's authenticity, Dr. Rizal is said to have signed it, and the contents of the document were published in newspapers. When his family learned of what Dr. Rizal had done, they demanded to see the original document to verify if it was written by him or not, but the Jesuit priests claimed that they had misplaced it. The Catholic Church discovered what they claim to be the "authentic" copy of Dr. Rizal's will in its archives in 1935, 39 years after his execution. In the instance of the document's legitimacy alone, it's debatable whether it was truly legitimate, much less if it ever existed. Another piece of evidence that Dr. Rizal did not retract is that when he allegedly signed the document, one of his terms was to marry Josephine Bracken, which the Catholic Church claims they did the day before Rizal was executed. However, there were no public records or a marriage certificate of Dr. Rizal and Bracken to prove that he was married and did retract. If Dr. Rizal had done so, his family would have known right away because he would have told them the truth in his communication letter to them and when they saw him before his execution, but there was no mention of his retraction, which is why the family was looking for the original document because they do not believe Dr. Rizal did retract all of his life's works.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I, Nicol James Montero, believed this letter is intentionally forged by someone outside the Church to let it appear it's a confession of Jose Rizal of retracting all his diplomatic and poetic actions he used to fight his enemies. Besides, why does the letter express as if Jose Rizal had a sense of guilt for what he had done. I mean, he never even used violence all his life fighting for liberty. He only used words to convey his fight for a cause so why would he take it all back? The inquisitive message of this letter is way beyond Rizal's reasoning because I think it is not authentic enough to conclude Rizal's retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I,

Ann Secuya, doubt that the letter discovered by Father Manuel is not real. The letter that Father Manuel found is not enough evidence to prove that Rizal retracted since it can be forged.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
0 points

I, Ann Secuya, conclude that Jose Rizal did not retract at all and someone is messing him up and we should all move on and just honor and appreciate the things that Jose Rizal did to free our country.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Aunefe Sta.Juana: That issue is whether Rizal, on the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry. This issue resurrects the retraction controversy in the light of the emergence of another primary source that speaks about what happened to Rizal on the eve of his death. This document was never considered in the history of the retraction controversy because it was made available to researchers only in the past decade. The author of the report is a credible eyewitness because he was physically present in the vicinity of where Rizal was detained. His narrative is lucid and contains details that cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of earlier primary sources on which previous narratives were based. This document needs serious consideration and should be included in the discourse on Rizal’s retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Aunefe Sta.Juana: The retraction letter was a fake in the first place. It was created decades after Rizal's death, at the behest of the benefactor, the Catholic Church, to discredit Rizal and call him coward. Nobody else cares. Rizal's 'retraction' has nothing to do with the revolution as the revolution was already raging by the time he was supposed to retract. It has everything to do with his Catholic faith, which, at that moment, was virtually non-existent.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
Rhaiza(4) Disputed
1 point

Rhaiza Seniel

There is historical documentation and correspondence from various sources, including witnesses present during Rizal's final days and Spanish authorities, that attest to the existence of Rizal's retraction letter. These primary sources provide tangible evidence of the circumstances surrounding Rizal's retraction, which cannot be dismissed as a fabrication without substantial evidence to the contrary.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Jessa Mae Narciso: Dr. Jose P. Rizal, I believe, did not retract his statement. Many years have passed since he stood up to the truth to fight against the undesirable acts of Spanish colonization which pushed him also to make a secret movement to help Filipinos to know different aspects of development in life and support the KKK to have the Spanish revolution. These are the main truths of evidence that Dr. Rizal will remain true to his stand, true to his perspective and to what he is fighting for. He will never retract his statement despite the fact to also be married to his loving Bracken which also has no evidence of any proof that they tie the knot at the Catholic church like marriage certificate.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jessa Mae Narciso: Despite the fact that he was about to die, he will not change his mind and retract his statement. He will not also be afraid to remain to what he stood until his death because he has experienced a lot since the beginning of what he is fighting for and what he did is not anymore for himself. It is for the future of our country, especially to those next generation who will live as Filipino citizens. It is also clear that it was intentionally forged by someone outside the Church to make them feel that they won against Dr. Jose P. Rizal.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal did not retract. As we all know, Rizal was a strong-willed man of deep conviction and would not easily flip-flop even in critical times. And I could not understand why Rizal would retract, and if he did sign it, why can't the Jesuits show to the public the original retraction of Rizal inspite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it since it is the major proof of evidence. Basically, his retraction was a myth because nobody has ever seen this written declararion. Hence, even if he sign it or not, it would not in a way affect the court’s final verdict nonetheless he would still be executed.

When then "original" retraction document has been found, the authenticity and credibility of it was questioned. Even Pascual identified inconsistencies in the slants of the handwriting, Rizal’s signature, the inks used, the font of some words, the margin, and the way individual letters were formed. All these observations led him to conclude that the newly found retraction document was a forgery. That means, what they saw (retraction document) is a imitation done by a person who could imitate Rizal's handwritting.

Rebuttals to the opposing team:

How come Jesuits and the archibishop could have misplaced such salient document and could not even let the public see the original document for major proof and evidence that indeed Rizal had retracted? But instead they only showed a copy of it that was allegedly forgery?

If it was positively affirmed that it was there. Why is the retraction letter appeared only 39 years after Rizal's execution and then it disappears quickly?

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

There is a retraction happened but was done against in Rizal's will.The friars probably forced Jose Rizal to write that thing inorder for him to look defeated and to destroy his name.We know that Jose Rizal has some how exposed some of the inappropriate acts of the spanish government through his works and the reason why there's anger kindle against him.Also in his letters and the act of disseminating it is also suspicious because of the contents that vary from each other and the question why forge it? What is the purpose and why do people who have the original copy example the friars , did not show it in the public the day after his execution?

For me whether he retracted or not still it cannot change how we view him as our national hero and symbol of sacrifice. - Jasrell Danda

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

There’s no justification whether Rizal did or did not retract the letter. Many author give different perspective and there’s no evidence to justify the statement. The retraction paper was kept a secret and just only published on the newspaper and Torres said “The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”While De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it. He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality. But I MYRNA B. LAURON personally believe that he did not retract at all I may read many perspectives and they had some point, but I believe he won’t take it all back for he also wanted peace and liberty. The family of his also didn’t believe so it’s not authentic that he retract all of his works.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate.The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. The retraction is a lie cooked by the Catholic Church and their zealous followers.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
HTagle(2) Disputed
1 point

If the retraction letter of Rizal is a lie, then how did the acts according to Moreno's account such as Rizal confessing to Fr. Marched into the church and receiving Holy Communion occurred? When it is a fact that Rizal can only be provided these sacraments if he re-embraced his Catholic faith?

-Hanajane L. Tagle

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

Many people claim that they have the retraction well the fact that no one knows whos the one who have it and it says that all those retraction that has been shown was only an imitation and copy the writing and some are released it into public but change some sentence. So for me it is a myth although Rizal truly believes in God as a fact that the retraction of rizal was still never found or a letter that is unkwon wether it is original or an imitation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rachel Dela Cruz

Whether it's true or not, the truth will only be shown through written evidence from Rizal himself or from a witness. It would remain a myth since there is no proof that has been surfaced. And it could only be a myth to be used against or in favor of Rizal. And if it was really true, why did it take so long to get published even if there were a lot of "witnesses"?

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rachel Dela Cruz

We have found no evidence that at the time of his death, he was still seeking the purpose of his life. Rizal dedicated his masterpiece "Noli Me Tangere" not to his parents, or to his dear heart, but to a greater, more noble heart, the Philippines. Another evidence that Rizal did not retract was when Padre Balaguer agreed to marry Jose and Josephine, after Jose signed the repossession paper. The retraction of Rizal was never proven with an acceptable and valid evidence.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Roselyn Guerrero: Based on the evidence and my own impressions, I believe Rizal may not have truly retracted. The records that arose may have simply been produced and twisted in order to disprove some of Rizal's works, which have had a significant impact on indigenous' perceptions of the Spanish people. Furthermore, there are no genuine proofs that the assertions in the document were made by Jose Rizal. In another light, the friars may have threatened or forced Rizal to sign the aforementioned letter of retraction before he was assassinated in order to clarify and remove the reports of Spanish injustice that were being swallowed by the people.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Based on the data and on my own perception, I can say that Rizal may not really have retracted. The documents that arose may have just been created and manipulated in order to invalidate some of Rizal’s works which have greatly affected the image of the Spanish people in the eyes of the natives. Besides, there are no actual proofs that the statements found in the documents really came from Jose Rizal. In another perspective, we can also infer that Rizal may have been threatened or forced by the friars to sign the said letter about retraction before he was killed to be able to clear and withdraw the accounts about the Spanish injustice that are consumed by the people. In conclusion, based on what I have read and understood, the issue about the retraction may have just been generated in order to deceive the public and to stir controversy and also, to somehow free the Spanish people from the ever growing hatred of the nation.

-Kaycee Mae S. Marquez

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

To further support that Rizal’s retraction letter might have been forged, at the time, many other documents were also suspected to be fabricated in order to manipulate the public faith. Various sources state that Josephine Bracken’s document containing the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites were thought to be fabricated. Thus, the authenticity of the documents regarding Rizal’s retraction were unreliable in certain aspects due to the forging issue that is involved wherein the purpose may be to negate the existence of an independent Philippines (Uckung, 2012).

-Kaycee Mae S. Marquez

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate. Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.

source: https://puchikamalucho.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/did-jose-rizal-retract/

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements.

Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he would still be executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the three priests who were garrotted years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church; they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given a proper burial.

source: https://puchikamalucho.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/did-jose-rizal-retract/

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe Jose Rizal's retraction letter was just a fraud due to the fact that he did not agree with all the Roman Catholicism stood for as well as he made it clear in his writings that there are certain beliefs in the Roman Catholic church that are simply not acceptable and true. Furthermore, the original document of the said retraction letter was never published but only the reproductions of it. Also, when Rizal’s family have requested for the original copy of the letter, it was said that it was lost. Additionally, why would he retract when he already knew he will still be executed even if he signs the said retraction letter, and if he really retracted, then his views or perspectives in his writings about Roman Catholicism will mean nothing.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Kaye Manulat:

Because they have so little to retract, some people's retractions would be meaningless. This was not the case with Rizal, as I attempted to demonstrate in prior lectures and the argumentation. I'm more interested in Rizal's life and thought during his later years than in what transpired on his deathbed.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal did not retract his statement. Various authors gave a variety of perspectives and facts as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. However, until now, there has been no proof or justification to end the debate. The following assertions lead to testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution. The first was a copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal and was kept secret and only published in newspapers. The original copy was alleged to be lost when Rizal's relatives requested it.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Julizel A. Florenosos

It was myth because the documents of retraction were kept secret, only copies of it were furnish to the newspaper, but with the exception of one person, no body saw the original.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Honeylyn Seguido - I disagree with the argument of the pro-retraction camp, I believe that Rizal's Retraction Letter is only a myth. The original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it. Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said "The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement. Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. 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. therefore, I stand firmly that this letter is insupportable.

Supporting Evidence: Analysis Rizal's Retraction (www.joserizal.ph)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Honeylyn Seguido- Also, to support my argument to which standing tightly to Rizal's Retraction Letter as a Myth. Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila. Fr. Balaguer no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction. so with that, no witness means untestable. unaccepted criticis.

Supporting Evidence: Analysis Rizal's Retraction (www.joserizal.ph)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Honeylyn Seguido - Lastly, providing the Masonic Rizalist team's conclusion to this argument. We strongly disagree about the Retraction letter of Rizal, 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. 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.

Supporting Evidence: The_Retraction_of_Jose_Rizal (www.academia.edu)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I, Kristine Cepe, conclude that the letter of retractions of Jose Rizal, our national hero, who enlightened us of the wrongdoings of the Spanish government and led us to revolution and is the inspiration of many neighboring countries in Asia to liberalization against colonialism, was forged by a Catholic priest and is pure myth. Because it is difficult to believe that the aforementioned letter is a primary source given that it was discovered 39 years after Rizal's execution, if this letter is real, this document should have been made public at that very moment, yet it was lost after thirty-nine years. Even Rizal's family and other individuals are skeptical about this letter because it was lost after his execution. The Jesuits even pledged to present the document from its original retraction after the Mass, but it did not materialize until they split ways (Pascual 1959, 50–51). 

Dr. Ricardo Pascual, one of the people who was given permission by the archbishop to examine the document, identified inconsistencies in the slants of the handwriting, Rizal’s signature, the inks used, the font of some words, the margin, and the way individual letters were formed when he thoroughly examined and scrutinized every book Dr. Rizal had made. This led him to believe that the said document was a forgery. (Pascual, 1959, 7–30) 

In my opinion, the aforementioned document was simply another way for the priests to confess their wrongdoings in the country by casting Jose Rizal as the villain.I would not believe that a man of national honor and patriotism would retract all of his work in the final moments of his life. I believe the aforementioned primary source was made up and forged in order to corner Jose Rizal and make public this very document in order to convince the public that everything Jose Rizal did was evil.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

It is hard to believe that the retraction letter of Jose Rizal is true. Because believing it is also stating that Rizal is not a man of his words. Also, according to several accounts, there are proofs that Rizal did not really retract. His burial is an example of this. He was not buried in a Catholic cemetery and was labeled as a suicide (criminal) case, as well as a neglected body among mounds of cadaver with undetermined reasons of death. Furthermore, Rizal's retraction seemed to have come out of nowhere, given that his works were aimed at criticizing the Catholic Church, and none of his works appeared to be interested in getting along with anything associated to Catholicism. There is nothing that Rizal will gain by retracting on the eve of his death. I believe his so called retraction is a myth and hence fabricated by the said friars to tarnish Rizal's reputation even after his death.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mariel Baldelobar: The Rizal Retraction is a myth. I believe that Rizal did not retract because there is no proof or enough evidence to prove and justify the statement. The original document was never shown to the public, only the reproduction of it, and Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Also, the original document was allegedly lost when Rizal's relatives requested it. Another piece of evidence that Rizal did not retract is that when Rizal married Josephine after signing the retraction paper, however there was no marriage certificate or public record that could prove it.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mariel Baldelobar: I believe Jose Rizal's retraction letter was just a fraud because the fact that he did not agree with all the Roman Catholicism stood for as well as he clarified in his writing that there are some beliefs in the Roman Catholic church that are simply not acceptable and true. Many years have passed since he stood up to the truth to fight against the undesirable acts of Spanish colonization which pushed him also to make a secret movement to help Filipinos to know different aspects of development in life. That is why I can say that he did not retracted because this is the reason that Dr. Rizal will remain true to his stand, and being true of what he is fighting for.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Vyniece Kyle Austria: I believe that Jose Rizal did not retract the retraction, as there are no witnesses to him making it, and the said original copy of the retraction has been shown to the public 39 years after his execution.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Vyniece Kyle Austria: Jose Rizal did contend that his God was far greater, more powerful, and superior to the Catholic God. And his writings are so against the Catholic Church that they make him an enemy of the Catholic Church. So the retraction is not credible because Jose Rizal has his own God.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Myth, because Rizal allegedly retrated his Masonic by claims about

Catholism, because his reaction letter was discovered and the date was December 29,1896,it wasn’t Said to have been signed by Rizal himself.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Hazel Jimeno-It is very clear that in the word quoted by Fr. Balaquer that he received two original retraction how could one original text become two if Rizal truly retracted there is only one original text have and that text should be shown up. In addition it is very understandable that there is also word suspect means they are only suspecting either it was originally written by Rizal or It's written by someone else.

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal did not retract his statement. Various authors gave a variety of perspectives and facts as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. However, there has yet to be any proof or rationale to put an end to the argument. The following assertions lead to the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution. The copy of the reportedly signed retraction paper by Rizal was even kept secret and only disseminated in newspapers. The original copy was alleged to be lost when Rizal's relatives requested it.

Rizal did not retract because when Father Balaguer agreed to marry Jose and Josephine after Jose had signed the retraction paper, there was no marriage certificate or public record to prove Father Balaguer's statements.Why would Rizal retract when he knows he will still be executed even if he signs the retraction paper? Because the judicial process involved was strictly a military tribunal where civilian or church participation was uncommon and not authorized, the Archbishop and Jesuits are powerless to soften his sentence. Rizal was suspected of participating in filibusterous propaganda, which carries a death penalty under Spanish law.

- ELDHEN G. VALENTIN

SOURCE: Jason Alberto Pro.Forex Trader, Crypto Enthusiastic and MKT DIR.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
MALIPAYONN(2) Disputed
1 point

I respectfully disagree with your argument. What are the testimonies that support your claim? And you said that the copy of the allegedly signed retraction was kept secret yet was disseminated in newspapers. As I comprehend it, it is kind of ironic. How come they kept it a secret and still disseminated it? I know that you are aware that newspapers are distributed to the public, right? So, they did not keep it a secret then.

Another is about Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken's marriage. This event was claimed to be true by Frederico Moreno, a spy stationed in Fort Santiago. He also mentioned that the two did not sign any marriage contract. Despite Fr. Balaguer's statement being debunked by Moreno for he did not mention the aforementioned father visiting Rizal, it does not mean that Fr. Balaguer lied or fabricated his claim as this matched Moreno's report. Thus, Fr. Balaguer is a secondary source, not a primary source.

Also, the retraction letter did not state freeing Rizal from his penalty. The retraction was for him to be a Catholic again. Just like what the Fathers who visited him, it was for him to come clean to be able to be in heaven after he died. He would certainly still be executed. They just wanted to retract everything he did that oppose the Catholic Church, not to free him from execution nor lighten his penalty.

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

The first was a copy of the retraction paper reportedly signed by Rizal, which was kept secret and only released in newspapers. When Rizal's family inquired about the original copy, it was stated that it had been lost. Could the Jesuits have been so reckless as to not realize the worth of the paper? Or was it just hidden?

The original copy was discovered in the archdiocesan archives 39 years later. Ricardo Pascual, Ph. D., who was granted permission by Archbishop Nozaleda to review the document, eventually determined in his book, "Rizal Beyond the Grave," that the materials offered were a fake. The most prevalent counter to this reasoning was that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made mistakes when manufacturing another copy of the original

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
AndrianAF16(3) Disputed
1 point

The argument that the original copy of Jose Rizal's retraction letter was lost or hidden by the Jesuits is based on speculation and lacks concrete evidence. There is no proof that the Jesuits deliberately hid the original document, and the claim that it was lost may be due to factors such as poor record-keeping practices or damage caused by natural disasters.

Furthermore, while there have been disputes over the authenticity of the retraction document, the fact remains that multiple eyewitnesses testified to seeing Rizal sign the letter, and there are other historical documents that corroborate its existence. It is important to consider the totality of evidence rather than focusing solely on one aspect.

Finally, the fact that a copy of the retraction letter was released in newspapers shortly after Rizal's execution suggests that there was a genuine effort to disseminate the document at the time. It seems unlikely that the Jesuits or any other party would have intentionally released a fake or fabricated copy of the retraction letter to the public

Side: TRUTH (Catholic Rizalist)
1 point

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. (Ctto)

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Larry toralde-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. (ctto)

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal has not changed his mind about what he said. Various authors offered differing viewpoints and data on whether Rizal did or did not retract. Despite this, there is no proof or justification to bring the debate to a conclusion. The assertions that follow led to Rizal's testimony that he did not retract before his execution. The first was a hidden copy of Rizal's supposedly signed retraction paper, which was only disseminated in newspapers. When Rizal's relatives demanded the original copy, it was said to have been lost. Could the Jesuits have been so careless that they were oblivious of the paper's value? Or was it just muddled?After 39 years, the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Archbishop Nozaleda granted Ricardo Pascual, Ph. D. access to examine the paper, and in his book "Rizal Beyond the Grave," he concluded that it was a forgery. The most common counter-argument to this assertion is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made a mistake when replicating the original. Another piece of evidence that Rizal did not withdraw was the fact that there was no marriage certificate or official record to back up Father Balaguer's statements when he agreed to marry Jose and Josephine after Jose signed the retraction letter.Why would Rizal withdraw when he knows that even if he signs the retraction paper, he will still be executed? The Archbishop and Jesuits have no jurisdiction to mitigate his sentence because the judicial process involved was exclusively a military tribunal with no civilian or church input. Rizal was suspected of engaging in filibusterous propaganda, a crime punishable by death in Spain.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal’s “original” retraction letter dated December 19, 1896, was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia in 1935 (Santos, 2011). The translated text stated that

“I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die… I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as the son of the Catholic Church… make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.”

I, Jinx Elica B. Peñanueva believed and stand that Jose Rizal's retraction letter is a kind of myth and he may not have retracted it. There is no sufficient evidence that the statements found in the documents came from Jose Rizal thus, It would remain a myth since there is no proof that has been surfaced. Possibly, the documents that emerged could have been produced and manipulated only to invalidate some of Rizal’s works.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Precious Amarillo(1) The retraction of Jose Rizal continued as a myth because up until now the debate about it hasn't been end and people arr still arguing with the true story. It is also because there isn't any authentic proof that Rizal declare himself as catholic. Everything was all just a product of hearsays and no enough proof.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Precious Amarillo (2) Rizal did not retract.The "original" copy of the retraction paper, allegedly signed by Rizal, was kept secret and only published in newspapers. No one had seen or claimed to have seen the "original" copy of the retraction paper.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Lea Dagatan- I believe that Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract, he is one of the people who's against the Spanish colonization, if he is retracted then he has no stand on what he was writing against the Spanish priest and he betrayed all Filipino people who believed in him that wants to fight for their freedom if he is retracted, but I think Dr. Jose Rizal won't betray the Filipino people. On the night that he is interviewed by the Spanish priests, I think that the retraction is not true, it did come from his mouth but we don't know that it might just be reversed on what Jose Rizal said because all the witnessed are Spanish priests that they can make a story to inform the Filipino people that Dr. Jose Rizal is retracted.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Lea Dagatan - Dr. Jose Rizal won't betray his people, I didn't believe in his retraction because in the first place the original retraction paper was not found at that time so, the retraction paper that the priest wrote is not the original, so there is a possibility that the retraction paper is false. If Dr. Jose Rizal has dignity and loves his people I'm sure that he won't betray them or in our country because Dr. Jose Rizal wants the Filipino people to be free from the hands of the Spanish so that they will live with their own choice.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Edrian Owen F. Baid: I believed that Jose Rizal's retraction letter was a myth and that he did not retract it at all. There is insufficient evidence that the statements found in the documents were made by Jose Rizal, so it will remain a myth as no confirmation has emerged. Perhaps the documents that appeared were created and manipulated solely to invalidate some of Rizal's works by claiming that he retracted any writings that conflicted with the Catholic faith. Rizal's reputation and image in the Philippines appear to be unaffected by this retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

KRIZEL MAE A. STA JUANA- I prefer myth because if Rizal actually authored it, why doesn't he have his personal signature, according to the reader or whoever said it,  Maybe it's because the writers were priests who listened to what Rizal had to say and then wrote it down.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

KRIZEL MAE A. STA JUANA- Because there is no evidence or proof that this is a letter written by Rizal, and there is no specific signature of Rizal, I favor myth.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

KRIZEL MAE A. STA JUANA- They also said that if the letter was genuinely from Rizal, why isn't his signature here and another signature is? Perhaps it's the signature of a priest who stole Rizal's words.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Rizal, as an unforgiving pundit of the Spanish pilgrim authority and the Catholic Church's bad behaviors, I accept he didn't withdraw by any means. This is because of the staggering proof that he didn't withdraw. Beginning with the withdrawal archive's credibility, Dr. Rizal is said to have marked it, and the substance of the archive were distributed in papers. Whenever his family realized of what Dr. Rizal had done, they requested to see the first report to confirm in the event that it was composed by him or not, however the Jesuit clerics guaranteed that they had lost it. And also, Rizal didn't withdraw his assertion. Different creators gave an assortment of viewpoints and realities concerning whether Rizal did or didn't withdraw. Regardless, there is no verification or avocation to conclude the contention. The declarations that follow lead to the declarations that Rizal didn't withdraw preceding his execution. The originally was a duplicate of Rizal's allegedly marked withdrawal paper, which was kept mystery and just distributed in papers. The first duplicate was claimed to be lost when Rizal's family members mentioned it. Therefore, the first duplicate was found in the archdiocesan documents 39 years after the fact. Ricardo Pascual, Ph. D., who was conceded admittance by Archbishop Nozaleda to analyze the paper, in the long run deduced in his book "Rizal Beyond the Grave" that the report was a phony. The most pervasive issue with this guarantee is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi committed errors while assembling a copy of the first. One more piece of evidence that Rizal didn't withdraw is that when Father Balaguer consented to wed Jose and Josephine after Jose marked the withdrawal archive, there was no marriage declaration or official record to back up Father Balaguer's cases. Since the legal interaction included was completely a tactical court where regular citizen or church cooperation was phenomenal and not approved, the Archbishop and Jesuits are frail to mellow his sentence. Rizal was associated with taking part in filibusterous purposeful publicity, which conveys a capital punishment under Spanish regulation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi. Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

ANGELICA S. RAMIREZ - Some people questioned the truth of the claim that Rizal had reversed and repudiated Masonry just days after he was executed. In January 1897, for example, Friedrich Stahl wrote to Ferdinand Blumentritt, warning him that the retraction account was not taken seriously because no one had ever seen the written declaration, despite the fact that many people wanted to view it (Cavanna 1956, 145). Jose Alejandrino made the same point in a letter he sent to Filipino expats in Hong Kong on March 6, 1897. "The Spaniards seek to harass him even in the tomb," he said, "because they slander him by impugning admissions and retractions to him that he could not have made."

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

ANGELICA RAMIREZ - Another point is that the contents of the Mi Ultimo Adios (My Last Farewell), which sparked and ignited the lives of Filipinos to rise up and fight against the Spaniards, are diametrically opposed to the retraction document that he allegedly signed, because the Mil Ultimo Adios proves that Dr. Rizal loved his country and remained defiant until his death against the oppressors of his country and his countrymen.

With the evidence presented and analyzed, I maintain that Dr. Rizal did not retract because he remained defiant to the oppression that afflicted Filipinos' lives and proof of his conviction that he died loving his country.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

MARY GRACE DIAMANTE

Dr. José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda was a national hero of the Philippines and the first Asian nationalist. He was a multifaceted intellectual and a political activist, best known for his political writings that inspired the Philippine revolution and ultimately led to his execution by the Spanish colonizers. Many historians arguing that retracted but for me Rizal did not retract, as we all know that Rizal . Did everything for our country. And according to Fernandez, that letter could only be a denial of his retraction because Rizal knew the friars were misleading the Filipinos and he wanted to set the record straight". Rizal works of life. Death against the oppressors of his country and his countrymen. Life of the Filipinos and proof of his faith that he died loving and adoring his country.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate.The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or was it just hidden?Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

GEMMA L.BEMOS

No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate.The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution.First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or was it just hidden?Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

GEMMA L.BEMOS

Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements.Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he would stillbe executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference was uncommon and not allowed

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Ralph Justine Lozada: Rizal was not only a mason, but he was also the only leader of the Spanish revolution who qualified to be considered an international Mason because he was a member of different Masonic lodges in Spain, Germany, France, and possibly England. Some of his family members were either masons or have connections to masons which gave access to Rizal's membership.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

My stand on Rizal's Retraction letter is not have retracted. Rizal's original retraction letter dated December 19, 1896, was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia in 1935, and the text was rediscovered 39 years later maybe resurfaced, reproduced by a copyist, and it can be the handwriting of Rizal that is imitated.

To support this Rizal's Retraction letter might have been forged, at the time, many other documents were also suspected to be fabricated to manipulate the public faith. Therefore based on the data and documents I have read, it is manipulated, generated, or created solely to confuse the public and stir debate, as well as to somehow release the Spanish people from the Nation's rising animosity.

_elmie de los santos

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Criselyn Cardoza: For me, Rizal did not retract his statement. Various authors gave a variety of perspective and facts as to whether Rizal did not retract. Nonetheless, there is no proof or justification to bring the argument to a close the Original copy was alleged to be cost when Rizal s relative requested it. that letter could only be a denial of his retreaction because Rizal realized the friars were deceiving the Filipino and he wanted to clear the air.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Criselyn Cardoza : I can say that Rizal may not really have retracted the records that may have simply been produced and trusted in order to disprove some of Rizal's works, which have had a significant impact on Indigenous Perception of the Spanish people. In another light, the friars may have threatened of forced Rizal to sign the aforementioned letter of retraction before he was assassinated in order of clarify and stories.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe Dr. Jose P. Rizal did not retract his statement. It is impossible to change what Dr. Rizal believed and fought for from the beginning. He will not just change his mind for the sake of just one person to grant his desire for one last time until his execution happens from all Filipino people. And he is a Filipino who is good to his word. What undesirable acts he saw from his young life brought him to fight for the freedom of all Filipinos. (Angel Mae Narciso)

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Until now, this issue is not yet resolved because there is no such true evidence that can prove that Dr. Jose P. Rizal retracted his statement. Even the married certificate of the wedding ceremony with Josefine of Dr. Rizal is not yet seen to prove to us that they have married. In the end, the important thing is Dr. Rizal is still a hero to all Filipinos who never ever change to remain to the truth. (Angel Mae Narciso)

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

(1.) I, Lendio R, believe that Rizal retraction is only myth because it was never proven with an acceptable letter and valid evidence that make this issue remains unresolved and controversial. Also, there is a person named Ricardo Pascual who conclude that the retraction letter or document that said was discovered in 1935 is not Rizal's hand writing.

Supporting Evidence: Jose Rizal| Religion Wiki (religion.fandom.com)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

(2.) I, Lendio R, will said that Rizal retraction that discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M was just a fraud letter even though there are evidences that said Rizal is retract but we can't just make judgment to that because we did not know those resources are just came from other person and not really from Jose Rizal.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alfonso Realonda was the first Asian nationalist and a national hero of the Philippines. Many historians argue that Rizal recracted, but I believe he did not, because we all know how much he sacrificed for our nation. That letter, according to Fernandez, could only be a rejection of his retraction since Rizal realized the friars were deceiving the Filipinos and he wanted to correct the record of death to his country's and his countrymen's oppressors. Filipinos' lives and proof of his faith, as he died loving and appreciating his homeland.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. discovered a letter. It became a hot topic of debate among academics and Catholics in 1935. The National Hero himself was reported to have signed the letter, dated December 29, 1896. However, after making minor changes to the manuscript, Rizal typed his retraction. In his retraction, he denied Masonry and theological beliefs that were opposed to Catholicism.

-KessiaSongcaya

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal eventually became a member of the Acacia Masonic lodge in Madrid in 1883. His main motivation for entering the society was to enlist the Freemasons' help in his fight against abusive friars in the Philippines. Le Grand Orient de France gave him Master Mason status two years later in Paris.

-Posadas,Jayven

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Christelle Desiree Martinez

- In my opinion, Dr. Jose Rizal's words did not retract. Why? Because it is surprising that Rizal's retraction sprang out of nowhere, given that his works were aimed at opposing Catholics, and no one was interested in getting along with anything related to Catholicism based on his works such as Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Apart from that, there is no concrete proof that the statements in the documents were made by Jose Rizal. To add to the evidence that Rizal's retraction letter was faked, several additional documents were suspected of being made at the time in order to deceive the people. According to various sources, Josephine Bracken's document stating that they married in Catholic rites was forged. As a result, the authenticity of the documents pertaining to Rizal's retraction was questioned in some areas due to the forging issue, which might have been used to deny the existence of a sovereign Philippines.

And to the opposing team who stated that he might be regretting or he wants to renew, you are wrong because for a man like Rizal who holds a flame of nationalism within, people who are against his belief and who banned his novels will certainly do something to destroy his reputation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mica Eborda- Jose Rizal's letter of retraction, in my opinion, was a fabrication. And why would Rizal withdraw when he knows that regardless of whether he signs the retraction paper, he will be executed? Perhaps the documents that surfaced were fabricated and manipulated  with the express purpose of slandering Rizal's works. Additionally, when Father Balaguer agreed to marry Jose and Josephine following Jose's signature on the retraction letter, there was no marriage certificate or formal record to verify Father Balaguer's allegations.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Myth:Cristina A. Javellana BSBA MM1 Eve

Dr. Jose Rizal is an ideal man of intellect; a man of fascinating records not just in his own country but even in foreign lands. His literary contributions stirred up the spirit of nationalism which aim is to liberate a nation, not by force, but by means of intellectual revolution. His writings, his sayings, his peaceful approach to national problem, and his contributions in the field of science opened the way to win the respect and admiration of the world including those citizens of the very country that conquered his mother land. But when the man of knowledge blown his criticisms against the hypocrites of the Church, the ideal records of a hero was sealed with a shameful fate.

Some of Rizal’s writings contained expositions and direct attacks to the Catholic Church’s cruelties and hypocrisy in spite of the claim that the friars were given the authority to forgive sins. He boldly exposed the intense corruption and the selling of God’s grace by these friars as part of the gospel they preached among the unlearned subjects of their Spanish King. Since Rizal was a distinctive man, and not just a man among slaves, it would be a great shame for the Church if such talent will die living before us a bunch of writings exposing the corruptions of the Catholic Church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

MYTH:Cristina A. Javellana BSBAMM1 Eve

Because Rizal is A Masonry Leader.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Daylene Obtial: The unresolved issue of Jose Rizal in history, a controversial history about the retraction letter of Rizal, as I read the article I come up to a specific structural judge of this historical controversy. The Evidence was already mentioned which supports my opinion, a rule of a letter must have a significant authentication of the writer. The letter present in public were incomplete because the letter was shown without a signature of Dr.Jose Rizal, he was a famous writer and all of his work has its own authenticity from him. The alleged from the Spanish Jesuit was indeed clear he said " the letter was written in Spanish but it was translated into English in verbatim way" , this reason supports the mythical stand of a person, simply as, a letter from a famous writer his works were praise by people basically all of his works has an original one, even if his works has been translated into many languages. People were confused about the history of Philippine because even before prior leader were filtering it.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Edrex Dave L. Senoy

My stand about this argument is that Rizal did not retracted on the Catholic Church as Father Pi and Balaguer didn't also have the original copy of Rizal's Retraction letter. However they have a copy of it with many changes, thus I cannot prove that Rizal really retracted from the Masonry and bring back his faith on the Catholic Church. I agree that maybe there are someone who imitates the handwriting of Jose Rizal just to prove something that is not merely true. I am not that convinced by the evidence of Rizal's retraction because the evidences has many loopholes. And we can't really trust anyone, everyone can lie if they want, even the people in the Catholic Church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I, Kenji Olarte, believes that he did not retract from masonry. If he did retract, then why did they not even give him a proper Christian burial, is that not a proper way to show respect? They also did not show the document to his family even after they have waited. Also about how they "misplaced" such an important document. That is why I think its a forgery.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I think Jose Rizal after he was shot or execution he did not retract his statement and I believe the the letter he make to all the catholic church and religion was fake and the other people say that Jose Rizal there is no proof that he make a retraction letter and the document is fake so that is my opinion about Jose Rizal and yes he was execution by the Spanish revolution that's the truth but the retraction letter is no proof at all.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Name: Ivan E. Villanueva

Course/Year: BSIT 1ST YEAR

My opinion: I think Jose Rizal after he was shot or execution he did not retract his statement and I believe the the letter he make to all the catholic church and religion was fake and the other people say that Jose Rizal there is no proof that he make a retraction letter and the document is fake so that is my opinion about Jose Rizal and yes he was execution by the Spanish revolution that's the truth but the retraction letter is no proof at all.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Intizar Abdulsalam: First of all, there is no evidence that would suggest that he ever joined any Masonic lodge in his lifetime. Although some sources claim he was initiated into Freemasonry during his exile in Dapitan, there are no records of him being registered as such with any Masonic organization at all. Moreover, even if we were to accept that Rizal had become a Mason while living in Dapitan which again has yet to be proven then it stands to reason that if he did indeed renounce this association prior to dying then surely an official record should exist somewhere? Yet none have been found so far which leads me further away from believing this myth as fact. Secondly, throughout most of his life Rizal was known for maintaining strong opinions about religion and politics both topics upon which many Filipinos remain divided today but never once did those views include anything related directly or indirectly to Catholicism nor did they involve abandoning Masons altogether either. This alone speaks volumes about how much importance Jose placed on freedom of thought when compared to religious dogma; something which makes it highly unlikely for him to have changed these beliefs overnight just before passing away due simply because someone asked him too... or worse still out fear. To sum it up, the notion that "Jose re-embraced Catholic faith & disassociated himself from Masonry" on the eve of death remains nothing more than a myth, in my opinion, based on all the information that has been provided so far about his views on religion and politics up until just before his death, combined with the lack of evidence linking him officially to Freemasonry.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal did not retract. Although there were a variety of viewpoints and arguments offered by different authors as to whether Rizal had retracted or not, Rizal signed a letter titled "The Retraction" a few hours before he was fatally shot, declaring his Catholic faith and retracting all of his works critical of the church. Also, Father Manuel Garcia, C. uncovered Rizal's letter of retraction. in 1935 in the Manila archive of the Catholic hierarchy.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

According to reports, Rizal issued a statement that witnesses believe is a retraction. The main topic that has been purposefully revolving around Rizal's retraction isseu is whether he ever returned

to his lost faith in the Catholic church. Rizal's most widely debated and acclaimed cases from decades ago to the present.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Faith Oh - I believe it is a myth because isn't it suspicious that the letter was written a day before Rizal was shot, before his death. For me it would be very easy for people who has power to create something like this to influence public opinion and secure votes.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe that Dr. Rizal did not withdraw at all because of his strong criticism of the Catholic Church's abuses and of the Spanish colonial authority. This is so because there is substantial proof that he did not retract. Let's start with the retraction document's legitimacy. Dr. Rizal is said to have signed it, and the document's content was made public in the press. After learning what Dr. Rizal had done, his family asked to see the original paper so they could confirm if it was written in his handwriting or not, but the Jesuit priests said they had lost it. In 1935, 39 years after Dr. Rizal's execution, the Catholic Church discovered in their archives what they assert to be the "original" manuscript of Dr. Rizal's retraction. Dr. Ricardo Pascual requested permission from the archbishop to analyze the document. He found irregularities in the writing style and the format that indicated the document was not written in Dr. Rizal's own style, and he came to the conclusion that the document is only a forgery. It is already questionable if the paper was actually authentic or, more importantly, if it really existed in the first place, in the case of the legitimacy of the paper alone.

The family was looking for the original document because they do not believe that Dr. Rizal did withdraw all of his life's work. If he had done so, they would have known about it right away because he'd have told them the true situation in his communication letter to them and when they saw him before he was executed. However, there were no mentions of his retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rocenda Diez- I believed that Rizal retraction letter is a myth because if Rizal retracted, he would not have been executed, but Rizal was executed, so he did not retract. It has been an issue before and until now, and it is questionable because, as we can see on the document, the letter of retraction is consistent, and another proof that it is not true is that the person who created the fake document confessed to Antonio Abad on August 30, 1901. He stated there that he was ordered and paid by the priests to write a retraction and make many copies of it. And, if we consider that Rizal died on December 30, 1896, and the document was not published until 1935, and even Rizal's family did not see the retraction document, I believe it is a myth. Furthermore, there is no certificate to prove that Jose Rizal is married to Josephine Bracken, nor is there evidence that Jose Rizal has returned to the Catholic Church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Erlech Sillote

My stand is that Rizal's never be created a letter or Restraction because there is no evidences and though there's an reproduction but the significant where primary sources handed on public which people will be inform .

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Erlech Sillote

If Jose Rizal restracted then we will received the sacraments and go back into the Catholic church wherein his body never handed in the Catholic manner, which he can received pleasure, burial in cemetery and hold a mass but it's nothing happen all of them. Also, if Rizal's really restracted he will went back deepend his Faith and obligate his manner of death by receiving sacraments. But, nothing happens in Rizal's death and his burial was kept.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

MAYBEL PALMA GIL

For me there's is no retraction of Rizal because the retracction Papers were maintained a secret, and only reproductions were given to the media; nobody, with the exception of one individual, saw the original. The petition was turned down when the family of Rizal requested the original of the supposed retraction letter or a copy of it.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jizel Panduro

For me I believed that Rizal did not retract, because there were many opinions also evidences that represented in various Authors. I believed that according to The De La Salle University’s Department of History Professor, Jose Victor Torres, believes that Rizal did not actually retracted however, he stated that his perception about the Filipino martyr would not change even if the said controversies were true (Santos, 2011). To further support that Rizal’s retraction letter might have been forged, yes because at the time, many other documents were also suspected to be fabricated in order to manipulate the public faith.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jizel Panduro

Additionally, there's no retraction because he was not buried in a Catholic cemetery in Paco, and in Catholic tradition, prior to burials, the Catholics would have the masses for the dead. 

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Kitredge S. Candilas BSIT 1st Year

I believe that Jose P. Rizal did not retract from masonry, I don't think that Jose Rizal would be easily tempted/persuaded to change side because he is a man of intellect and word. The given documents or proofs are not even clear and concrete, if the Archbishops/ Fathers really had the original retraction letter signed by Rizal why would it disappear for thirty nine years? After it was found, why Jose Rizal's family did not even saw the letter? the Jesuits even promised them that they would show them the original letter but the promised has been broken. Lastly Fr. Pi and Fr. Balaguer's "copy" of retraction letter had some mismatched words to the original letter. It was even examined by Dr. Pascual who was given the authority to examine the letter and he concluded that it was forgery. If Jose Rizal retracted from masonry then what's the point about all his writings and all his revolutions for the sake of of our freedom?

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Lady Lou Salentes 1st year BSBA

For me the retraction letter of Dr. Jose Rizal is a myth. As we all know that Dr. Jose Rizal is a man full of integrity and values. He stood up to fight for what he knows is right for his countrymen. Because of his writings his countrymen awakened an inspired them to wage the first anti- colonial movement in Southeast Asia. Nonetheless, all the hearsay about his retraction are not true, because there's no concrete evidences to prove it. Even the family of Dr. Jose Rizal did not agree with the priests who said that he wrote a retraction letter before he died. When the priests insisted that he did, his family immediately asked for the original document to verify if it is really his writing or not. But, the Jesuits and Archbishop said they misplaced it. How can they misplaced such a priceless documents? so stranged. Then, year 1935 the Catholic Church announce that they found the "original and authentic copy of Dr. Jose Rizal retraction letter ", 39 years after his execution. But still the family of Dr. Jose Rizal did not saw the Authentic copy of retraction letter that they always say. So when Pascual was given an authority to examined the retraction letter of Dr. Jose Rizal he conclude that it was a forgery because Pascual identified that there is inconsistency in the slants of the hand wirtings, Rizal's signature, the inks used, the font of some words, the margin, and the way individual letters were formed is different from his former works. Also, there was the differences between the text of the documents of 1935 and the version of retraction found by Fr. Balaguer presented. Dr. Joseel Rizal died on December 30, 1986 and they said that Dr. Jose Rizal returned to the Catholic Church, then why they did not give him a proper sacraments as what the manner of being a Catholic to give a proper mass during burial.

So, I believe there is no retraction at all and until the last breath of Dr. Jose P. Rizal he fight them with principles, intellect and integrity.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal are not retracted because he know that even he retracted or not retracted ,his still die. And also his story that he write are not expose because some of members that are really wanted that Rizal are retracted for the document that they have signed. Even dough Rizal sign the documents he never retracted on their.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mariel N.Latiban : I believe Dr Jose P.Rizal that his story are not retracted because he wanted to protect the filipinos people doesn't abuse. Somehow Dr Jose P.Rizal that's why he didn't retract his two books because he wanted to know or exposed the abuse of the Spaniard on the filipinos.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mary Rose Ompay : I strongly believe that Jose Rizal's Retraction was just only a myth due to the fact that the original document of the said retraction was never shown to the public even to his very own family. Also, why would he retract when he already knew that he will still be executed? I believe that they just fabricated the retraction letter because they wanted to tarnish Rizal's reputation as a hero and as someone who contributed a lot in Philippine Independence.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jason Madrigal - Because rizal would not have been executed if he had retracted, and because rizal was executed, rizal did not retract, I thought the rizal retraction letter was a fabrication. It has been a topic of discussion in the past and continues to be so today. The letter of retraction is consistent, which is further indication that the claim that the individual who made the bogus paper confessed to Antonio Abad on August 30, 1901, is untrue. He claimed that the priest had paid him and instructed him to write a retraction and print many copies of it. Also, given that Rizal passed away on December 30, 1896, the retraction wasn't published until 1935, and even Rizal's family missed it, I think it is a hoax. Nevertheless, neither a document attesting to Jose Rizal's marriage to Josephine Bracken nor any indication that he has rejoined the Catholic Church exist.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

JOSEPH B. Hilardino believed that this letter was fabricated on purpose by someone outside the Church to give the impression that Jose Rizal was giving up all of his diplomatic and artistic tactics for overcoming his adversaries. What makes Jose Rizal appear to feel bad about what he did in the letter, and why? Even when he was struggling for independence, he never used any form of violence. He only used words to show his passion to fight for a cause, so why would he take it all back? I don't think it's plausible enough to conclude that Rizal has changed his mind, so I think the letter's curious message goes well beyond Rizal's defense.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mohammad Nurmelyn - For me, the retraction letter of Dr. Jose Rizal is a myth. there were many opinions and evidence presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract and until now there is no proof or any justification to end the debate. It would remain a myth since there is no proof that has surfaced.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jose Rizal goals at that time was to free his country to end the conqueror of his land for a century. We also recognize that Jose Rizal is a hero and wants to have a normal family and experience a stable married life with his chosen wife and get married in a formal way recognized by both the government and the church. However, Rizal was never known to submit to anyone so it is doubtful that he wrote a letter of renunciation to the Catholic Church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

John Mer Castillo- I considered Dr. Jose Rizal's retraction letter was a false statement since, if Rizal had done so, he would not have been put to death. But, Rizal was put to death, proving that he never repented of his accusations against the Catholic Church. It has been a problem up until now and is doubtful since, as we can see on the document, the letter of retraction is consistent. Another indication that it is untrue is the fact that the person who made the fraudulent paper confessed to Antonio Abad on August 30, 1901. He said that the priest gave him the go-ahead to compose it and pay him to print several copies of it. And if we remember that Rizal died on December 30, 1928, and the document was not released until 1935, even though Rizal's family. I believe it was absurd that not even Rizal's family had access to the retraction paper. Moreover, there is no documentation demonstrating Jose Rizal's marriage to Josephine Bracken, or even proof that he has converted back to Catholicism. José Rizal would not regret criticizing Catholic priests for their wrongdoings. And for this reason, Jose Rizal wrote several articles criticizing Catholic priests.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Princess Diane Antonette Codilla BSBA-HRDM1

Rizal Retraction. In my own understanding about the situations given by the source, I can say that there was no retraction happened based on the evidences given. First is about how they keep the important document and as was said that they didn't expose it to the people. Second is about the statement of the Jesuit and the Archbishop that they misplace the original copy and it was discover or it was found by the Catholic Chruch 39years after the execution of Dr. Rizal and we can conclude in that years that the document was misplace. It can be forge so that they can present a document but not an authentic one. Lastly would be the conclusion of Pacual which states that the document was forge because of the many differences from how he see the writings of Dr. Rizal. Also, even the Catholic Chruch states that they found the document but it was still not been seen by the Family of Dr. Rizal. So they may afraid to be judge about the authenticity of the document and they make way avoid it from the family of Dr. Jose Rizal. Subsequent, I can conclude that the retraction of Jose Rizal is a myth based on the scenarios given by the sources.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Kate Laurino: I believe the myth since the aforementioned retraction does not apply to me due to his writings and the manner in which it was issued the day before he passed away. It's incredibly difficult to understand and wasn't really written to persuade me that he actually authored it. I don't believe he should withdraw his works because of those Catholic priests or churches, despite the fact that he is our national hero and has become well-known in our nation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Crislie Amigos: I believe that Dr. Jose Rizal's retraction letter was a myth because there is no original copy of the said letter, and there is not enough evidence that Rizal wrote that retraction letter. That letter also contradicts the principles and beliefs of Rizal, especially since he is one of the people who fought for freedom and independence against Spaniards through his works of literature. Also, there are arguments that the retraction letter was a product of political machinations.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe that Rizal did not retract, as he was executed. If Rizal retract, he would have served as a role model for the friars' cause and been laid to as a respectable and he would have been given a decent Christian burial and not like a dead dog in Paco Cemetery. As to whether Rizal had retracted or not, several authors offered a variety of opinions and supporting data. But, as of right now, there is no evidence or justification to put an end to the discussion. I think that this is just an act of forgery which was meant to surface an issue in the society.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The MYTH (Masonic Rizalist) perspective argues that Jose Rizal remained committed to Masonry until the end of his life. The evidence supports this perspective, and it is likely that the rumors about Rizal's alleged re-embrace of Catholicism were politically motivated. Regardless of his religious beliefs, Rizal's legacy as a patriot, writer, and intellectual remains a source of inspiration for Filipinos to this day.

Because the evidence reveals that till his death, Rizal was devoted to Masonry. He included references to Masonic symbols like the "triangle," which is a symbol of the Masonic divinity, in his goodbye poetry "Mi Ultimo Adios," which he wrote on the eve of his execution.

And the Catholic Church, which at the time was the main place of worship in the Philippines, had a personal stake in undermining Rizal's reputation. As a result of their perception that he posed a challenge to their power, they sought to damage his reputation by disseminating tales about his purported renunciation of Masonry.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Kayecie B. Genonsalao

1st yr BSBA - Marketing Management

The deathbed confession of Jose Rizal disassociating himself from Freemasonry is deeply suspicious. Firstly, the idea of a Catholic ‘conversion’ is inconsistent with Rizal’s life-long commitment to freedom and democracy. He was a strong advocate for freedom and equality; for the rights of the Filipino people and for the end of Spanish colonial rule. As such, it is highly unlikely that he would have chosen that night as an opportunity to suddenly disassociated himself from the Freemasonry and to reject a movement that had been important to him throughout his life.

Another reason to doubt the deathbed confession of Jose Rizal is there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that the alleged confession is a forgery, including the fact that the original document remain unclear and that the handwriting on the copy is inconsistent with other known examples of Rizal's handwriting. As such, it is safe to conclude that Jose Rizal did not disassociate himself from the Freemasonry and that the 'deathbed confession' is far more likely was a fabrication or an exaggeration.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Raymart Cabahit-My opinion and for what I have discovered is that the supposed retraction letter of Rizal is a myth. If Rizal had truly retracted his writings, he would not have been executed. The fact that he was executed suggests that he did not retract. The controversy surrounding this issue has persisted for a long time, and it remains questionable because the alleged letter of retraction is inconsistent. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that the document is a forgery. The person who created the fake document confessed to Antonio Abad on August 30, 1901, stating that he was paid by a priest to write a retraction and make many copies of it. The fact that Rizal died on December 30, 1896, and the document was not published until 1935, suggests that even Rizal's family did not see the retraction document. Therefore, I firmly believe that it is a myth. Furthermore, there is no official certificate that proves that Jose Rizal was married to Josephine Bracken, nor is there any concrete evidence that Rizal returned to the Catholic Church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Jose Rizal didntt retract, he is one of the individuals who's against the Spanish colonization, in case he is retracted at that point he has no stand on what he was composing against the Spanish priest and he deceived all Filipino individuals who accepted in him that needs to battle for their opportunity in case he is retracted, but I think Dr. Jose Rizal won't deceive the Filipino individuals. On the night that he is met by the Spanish priests, I think that the retraction isn't genuine, it did come from his mouth but we do not know that it might fair be switched on what Jose Rizal said since all the seen are Spanish priests that they can make a story to illuminate the Filipino individuals that Dr. Jose Rizal is retracted.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

HITUTUA, JOAN G. - It's hard to believe it, but I personally believe that wether the retraction paper is true or not. No one could deny what he was done for the country, for Filipinos , you see Dr. Jose Rizal sets his own life for a purpose . Because He has wide awareness of what is happening in his time and a true patriot He wishes that all Filipinos could gain truth much as He experienced it. We don't know the real reason of this if ever he really sign the retraction but the most mportant is . He was a HERO But still a human who wishes to have a normal family and to experience the stable marriage life with His chosen wife and to be wed in a formal manner that both the Government and the church would acknowledge , but unfortunately He was being deprived of this opportunity because hiS PRINCIPLES. the thing He was fighting for from His young age up until He dies. We could not just judge a person by His single mistake . Lets look how He sacrifice and live his life to his intentions .

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Based on a study that I had read, Rizal's Retraction Letter, Jose Rizal's life has been a controversial topic due to his controversial decision to re-embraced the Catholic faith or to disassociate himself from Masonry, an organization that promotes moral values and truth. The pro-retraction camp is represented by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and a few other members of the Catholic hierarchy, while the Masonry branch promotes brotherhood, integrity, decency, and professionalism. Rizal's life has been debated on whether he re-embraced the Catholic faith and distinguished himself from Masonry. Scholars treated this as a fact, as the two major protagonists were members of two organizations that promoted moral values and the pursuit of truth. The pro-retraction camp was represented by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and other members of the Catholic hierarchy. According to the eye witness or direct sources, which is Fr. Balaguer and Fr. Vilaclara arrived at Rizal's prison cell around 10 o'clock in the morning and discussed various articles of the Catholic faith. In the study I read, it is clear that Rizal was executed by the Jesuits in 1897, but some individuals expressed their doubts over the veracity of the news that he had retracted and repudiated Masonry. Jose Alejandrino sent a letter to Filipino expatriates in Hong Kong expressing the point that the Spaniards wanted to persecute him even in the tomb, by imputing to him confessions and retractions. Trinidad, Rizal's sister, also attended a Mass offered for the eternal repose of his soul after the Mass. The Jesuits promised to show them the original retraction, but this did not materialize. Ferdinand Blumentritt, however, was among the individuals who wrote to Cavanna in 1956, informing him that people did not take the retraction account seriously. With this information that I had gathered to choose what stand should I reflect and believe would be the myth or Masonic Rizalist, the fact that he is a Mason before he went back to the Philippines. The Jesuits may have been misled by false documents and testimonies, leading to the Catholic Church claiming Rizal as their own when they realized people had learned to love and admire him. I also believe that Rizal retracted and only renounced freemasonry, not his nationalistic works.

-YASMIN MARGARETTE T. TAGALA

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

As I read the different kinds of articles about the debate, I would choose that the letter of Rizal retraction is a myth. We all know that Rizal had so much love and sacrifice in his life to protect the Filipino people from corruption. In order to expose the political and theological corruption of Philippine society, Rizal started writing Noli MeTangere in 1884. Later that year, Juan Luna and Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo, who had received gold and silver medals at the Exposición Nacional de Bellas Artes, respectively, were honored at a banquet. He gave a speech there. Rizal professed his admiration for Spain in the speech, but he also denounced the friars in the Philippines. After Rizal was ordained by the Gran Oriente de Espaa, he took the Masonic name Dimasalang. Professor of history at the Universidad de Madrid Miguel Morayta is credited with persuading Rizal to join the Masons. Activists like Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini, and numerous others in the Propaganda Movement and La Liga Filipina were Masons as well, which led to their compulsory excommunication in accordance with the law that all Catholics must become Masons. On whether or not Rizal renounced Masonry prior to his passing, there is still some debate. He reportedly had three witnesses who saw him backtrack, that several assert that prior to his execution, Rizal signed a statement of remorse and conversion.

Other people, on the other hand, think that the documents the Jesuits supplied were fakes, that they were manipulated, and that the testimony was coached. Some contend that the Catholic Church did not begin to claim Rizal as their own until they discovered that the public had grown to love and respect Rizal. Additionally, The Rizal retraction is lack of witnesses, lack of authenticity and lack of historical information.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rulie Bastasa

Lack of Authenticity: The authenticity of the letter has never been conclusively proven. The original letter has never been found, and there is no reliable historical record of its existence. The only known copies of the letter are handwritten versions that were allegedly made by witnesses, who claim to have seen the original document.

Inconsistencies in the Letter: The language and tone of the letter are inconsistent with Rizal's known writings and beliefs. The letter contains several grammatical errors and uncharacteristic expressions that suggest it may have been written by someone else. Additionally, the letter contradicts several of Rizal's key ideas and principles, such as his commitment to secularism and his opposition to colonialism.

Historical Context: The letter was allegedly signed on December 29, 1896, the day before Rizal's execution by the Spanish colonial authorities. Rizal was under extreme pressure and duress at the time, and it is unlikely that he would have signed a document that contradicted his life's work and beliefs, especially under such circumstances.

Lack of Witnesses: The witnesses who claim to have seen the original letter have provided inconsistent and contradictory accounts of its contents and history. There is no independent verification of their claims, and some of them have been shown to have dubious motives and backgrounds.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Kristine Joyce Borinaga. Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia in 1935, its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896 and was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself. It is stated that he declare himself a Catholic and in this religion in which he was born and educated so he wish to live and die. He retracts himself with all of his heart whatever in his words, publications, writings and conduct has been contrary to his character as Son of the Catholic Church. The controversy whether the National Hero wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups: the Masonic Rizalists and the Catholic Rizalists. The first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop Bernadino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell the night before his execution, but Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was too lengthy. Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The question of whether or not Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero, retracted his writings and beliefs on his deathbed is a subject of much debate among historians and scholars.

On one hand, there are historical accounts that suggest that Rizal did write a retraction letter, as well as other documents that were allegedly signed by him, renouncing his previous views and embracing Catholicism. These documents were presented to the public after his execution by firing squad in 1896.

However, there are also arguments that suggest that the retraction documents may have been forged or coerced by the authorities at the time, who were seeking to discredit Rizal and his ideas. Scholars have pointed to inconsistencies in the handwriting and language used in the retraction documents, as well as the fact that they were not witnessed by any independent parties.

Ultimately, the truth about Rizal's retraction may never be fully known. However, what is certain is that Rizal was a complex and multifaceted figure who was deeply committed to his beliefs and ideals, including the promotion of Philippine nationalism, social justice, and intellectual enlightenment. His contributions to Philippine history and culture continue to be celebrated to this day, regardless of the controversy surrounding his alleged retraction.

KAREN G. PASAJE

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

As I read the different kinds of articles about the debate, I would choose that the letter of Rizal retraction is a myth. We all know that Rizal had so much love and sacrifice in his life to protect the Filipino people from corruption. In order to expose the political and theological corruption of Philippine society, Rizal started writing Noli MeTangere in 1884. Later that year, Juan Luna and Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo, who had received gold and silver medals at the Exposición Nacional de Bellas Artes, respectively, were honored at a banquet. He gave a speech there. Rizal professed his admiration for Spain in the speech, but he also denounced the friars in the Philippines. After Rizal was ordained by the Gran Oriente de Espaa, he took the Masonic name Dimasalang. Professor of history at the Universidad de Madrid Miguel Morayta is credited with persuading Rizal to join the Masons. Activists like Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini, and numerous others in the Propaganda Movement and La Liga Filipina were Masons as well, which led to their compulsory excommunication in accordance with the law that all Catholics must become Masons. On whether or not Rizal renounced Masonry prior to his passing, there is still some debate. He reportedly had three witnesses who saw him backtrack, that several assert that prior to his execution, Rizal signed a statement of remorse and conversion.

Other people, on the other hand, think that the documents the Jesuits supplied were fakes, that they were manipulated, and that the testimony was coached. Some contend that the Catholic Church did not begin to claim Rizal as their own until they discovered that the public had grown to love and respect Rizal. Additionally, The Rizal retraction is lack of witnesses, lack of authenticity and lack of historical information.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Marichu Ernal - BSBA-FM

As I read the different kinds of articles about the debate, I would choose that the letter of Rizal retraction is a myth. We all know that Rizal had so much love and sacrifice in his life to protect the Filipino people from corruption. In order to expose the political and theological corruption of Philippine society, Rizal started writing Noli MeTangere in 1884. Later that year, Juan Luna and Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo, who had received gold and silver medals at the Exposición Nacional de Bellas Artes, respectively, were honored at a banquet. He gave a speech there. Rizal professed his admiration for Spain in the speech, but he also denounced the friars in the Philippines. After Rizal was ordained by the Gran Oriente de Espaa, he took the Masonic name Dimasalang. Professor of history at the Universidad de Madrid Miguel Morayta is credited with persuading Rizal to join the Masons. Activists like Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini, and numerous others in the Propaganda Movement and La Liga Filipina were Masons as well, which led to their compulsory excommunication in accordance with the law that all Catholics must become Masons. On whether or not Rizal renounced Masonry prior to his passing, there is still some debate. He reportedly had three witnesses who saw him backtrack, that several assert that prior to his execution, Rizal signed a statement of remorse and conversion.

Other people, on the other hand, think that the documents the Jesuits supplied were fakes, that they were manipulated, and that the testimony was coached. Some contend that the Catholic Church did not begin to claim Rizal as their own until they discovered that the public had grown to love and respect Rizal. Additionally, The Rizal retraction is lack of witnesses, lack of authenticity and lack of historical information.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Marichu Ernal - BSBA-FM

Since Masonry welcomed all people of good will who held the belief in a Supreme Being, Rizal became a Mason. This is precisely why he was drawn to the fraternity. In the Masonry, everyone was treated equally. This was contrary to Catholic Church doctrines since it was democratic.

The human ability to reason was given the most importance by Rizal. His Religion was not based on the orders of friars, nor did he adhere to the requirement to practice religious rites, sacraments, and ceremonies. God has more candles than the sun's light, he said, so He doesn't need them. He battled with the priests of the Catholic Church. I suspect that he was only intimidated into doing so. Someone might be adversely affecting him or his families for him to write that "retraction letter."

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

JARTHON BACUS BSBA MM 1ST YEAR

This said document is one of the proof that the friars claim that Rizal retracted a few days before the execution. retraction means that he is taking back what he said against the Catholic Church in the Philippines and the friars if this where true it would mean that Rizal went back to become a Catholic again after being a Mason in Europe.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Nasser, Nurul-in H: This issue of Jose Rizal remains unsettled and unsolved, as does the question of whether he retracts his statement that, on the eve of his death, he re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry. Some believed that Rizal did not retract his statement for the reason that there was no concrete evidence or justification to bring the argument to a close. In fact, various authors made a variety of claims and perspectives on whether Rizal should retract or not. There are a lot of theories, stories, and perspectives about his statement, whether it is true or not. In fact, we all know how strong Rizal is. He is a strong-willed man; he did not easily retract what he stood up for many years. Despite the fact that he is about to die that day, he will never change his mind just to retract his statement. He is well known for being a fighter and stormer. I don't understand why he would ever retract his statement when, in fact, he stood up for it and spent effort and time on it. I strongly believed that he would not easily retract his statement and would remain true to what he said. In fact, in the first place, he fought for Filipinos against those who wanted to colonize our nation. His reason is not just for his own sake but for the sake of all Filipinos and our future country. However, since we have our own perspectives, I believe that Rizal did not retract his statement. He didn’t take it all back, for he also wanted peace and liberty.

Supporting Evidence: Rizal did not retract (www.scribd.com)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I strongly believe that Rizal did not retract. Firstly, the copy of the retraction paper allegedly signed by Rizal was found to be a forgery. Secondly, there is no public record or marriage certificate to support Father Balaguer's statement that he married Jose and Josephine. It is also unlikely that Rizal would retract because he knew he would still be executed regardless of whether he signed the paper or not. Moreover, his behavior during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not indicate a religious conversion or instability. Rizal was fixated on dying for the love of his country, and his character and maturity make it unlikely that he would show a behavior consistent with a threat from death.

Bibliography:

Ricardo R. Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave, Revised Edition (Manila: Luzon Publishing Corp., 1950).

Frank C. Laubach, Rizal: Man and Martyr (Manila: Community Publishers, 1936).

Leon Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1963).

Eugene A. Hessel: Rizal’s Retraction: A Note on the Debate (Manila: The Siliman Journal, 1965

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal not retract the documents because if Rizal retract the documents why when Josephine his",wife" requested the original copy ,however it is denied. So jesuit is irresponsible to not know how to value the paper or they have hidden .

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

“I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.” The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other. Proofs, documents History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in Bagumbayan.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Christine Aldaya BSSW 1 - Retraction would be a betrayal of everything Rizal stood for. But he might have been motivated by love. Never discount love. As Rizal's life ends, Josephine Bracken offers encouragement and support. They must therefore get married before Rizal passes away. Before conducting the ceremony, Rizal was required to retract, according to the Jesuit friars. It's possible that Rizal did retract since they were reportedly married, according to certain stories.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

According to what I have learned, Jose Rizal did not retract his statement. This is despite the fact that many authors have expressed their opinions and provided evidence to support their claims, and there is still no conclusive evidence to support either side of the argument.

It would continue to be a myth as no supporting evidence has emerged. The first is how they store the crucial document and, as was stated, how they don't make it public.

Second, the Jesuits and the Archbishop claimed that they misplaced the original copy, which the Catholic Church discovered or found 39 years after Dr. Rizal's execution. Based on their claims, we can infer that the document was misplaced during those years.

It might be faked, allowing them to display a document but an untrue one.

The conclusion of Pacual, which claims that the paper was fake because of several deviations from how he perceives Dr. Rizal's works, comes last.

Even the Catholic Church claims to have discovered the document so I can say that the Retraction of Rizal is myth based on the lesson that we tackled.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

JORISA CONZON BSED MATHEMATICS 1-

I think Rizal didn't retract . The Paper or the Letter they saw might not have been true or it might be his last letter but he couldn't do it because he was executed the next day. If Rizal really retracted , Is there an evidence that can prove it right? If they only based on the Letter they say, it's not that valid and it's not that easy to trust. Letters might be written by others or so. Rizal love what he was doing, he love the Philippines more than himself, he fight silently against the Spaniards colonization, on his own way. The said retraction Isn't that trustworthy for people who believes him and who followed him.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

maria mae p. malaba BEED 1

: Rizal didn’t retract. Actually, he even revolt.The retraction letter was a fake the document is also fake .because It was created decades after Rizal's death, He wrote to revolt. His books Noli Mi Tangere and El Filibusterismo speaks about how he revealed abuses in the government. rizal fought for our freedom every book he wrote is true because rizal want to inform us how Spaniards are poisoning our minds and making us as their slaves .

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I'm persuaded by the fact that he did not retract his statements regarding how the Catholic Church is treated. It is unlikely that Rizal would change his mind since he stated in a letter to Mariano Ponce on April 18, 1889, "At the sight of those injustices and cruelties...I swore to devote myself to avenge one day so many victims," and with this idea in mind, I have been studying and this can be read in all my works and writings. One day, God will give me the chance to honor my promise.

SHAREY BALBUENA BSSW 1ST YEAR

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rey M. Alcano

As a Masonic Rizalist I strongly disagree to the fact that Rizal truly retracted. Why? simply because of these two reasons; firstly, the retraction papers were maintained a secret, and only reproductions were given to the media; nobody, with the exception of one individual, saw the original. Secondly, the petition was turned down when the family of Rizal requested the original of the supposed retraction letter or a copy of it. Additionally, if Rizal really retracted something why on earth they can't provide the original copy as requested by the family of Rizal, of course the family of Rizal knows and can recognized the penmanship of Rizal if such alleged retraction is truly written and signed by Rizal. Furthermore, if Rizal really retracted why they kill Rizal at the first place? and why on earth he was not buried in a catholic cemetery in Paco but in the ground? its simply answerable by our common sense why I don't believed on Rizal's retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

FAYE LOVELLAH BUSTAMANTE - BSSW 1ST EVENING

The retraction of Rizal is a myth because based on the different retractions that revealed, they have the different versions and they do not have atleast one similarities. Also, as the family of rizal wants to have a copy of the retraction they strictly don't allow them, because they simply might don't have the true retraction of rizal and they might scared that the family can also recognized the hand writing. Why do the retraction of rizal revealed so late after his death? Also, why do they have different version? LASTLY, IF RIZAL REALLY RETRACTED, THEN WHY THEY STILL SHOT HIM?

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The authenticity of Jose Rizal's retraction letter remains a contentious issue among scholars and historians. Here are two salient points from different sources that I gathered prove that rizal retraction is a myth. According to historian Dr. Zeus Salazar: Dr. Salazar argues that the retraction letter is a forgery. He points out that the letter was not mentioned during Rizal's trial, and there is no record of any priest being present when Rizal supposedly made his confession. Additionally, Salazar notes that the text of the retraction letter does not match Rizal's writing style, and the handwriting is different from Rizal's known handwriting. Overall, Salazar argues that the retraction letter was likely fabricated by the Spanish authorities to discredit Rizal's nationalist and anti-colonial beliefs. According to Fr. John Schumacher, S.J., an American Jesuit priest and historian, contends that the evidence supports the authenticity of Rizal's retraction. He cites the testimony of witnesses, the existence of the retraction document in Rizal's own handwriting, and the fact that Rizal had a personal motive for retracting his anti-Catholic writings, as his sister was a nun.

Therefore i believe that Rizal did not retract it but the spanish did it because we dont have the right to express our freedom over the spaniards. Sometimes it seems true to other because they have some evidence to prove that Rizal retract it.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jexy Mae Dagangon. The statements made by Dr. Jose Rizal stood. As Rizal's works were directed towards Catholics, and as a result, no one was interested in getting along with anything related to Catholicism based on his results, such as Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, it is unexpected that Rizal's retraction appeared out of nowhere. In addition, there is no hard evidence that Jose Rizal spoke the things recorded in the records. Several more documents were allegedly fabricated at the time to deceive the public, adding to the proof that Rizal's retraction letter was a fraud. Several sources claim that Josephine Bracken's document declaring that they were married in Catholic rites was a forgery.

Due to the forging issue, which could have been used to contest the existence of a sovereign Philippines, several people questioned the integrity of the papers detailing Rizal's retractions. And to the opposing team who claimed he would repent it or wish to renew, you are mistaken because for a man like Rizal, who has a flame of nationalism within, people who are against his belief and who banned his writings will undoubtedly do something to harm his name.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal refused to retract his statement. Various authors provided a variety of perspectives and facts regarding whether or not Rizal retracted. Nonetheless, there is no proof or justification to conclude the argument. The following assertions lead to testimonies that Rizal did not retract prior to his execution. The first was a copy of Rizal's allegedly signed retraction paper, which had been kept secret and had only been published in newspapers. When Rizal's relatives requested it, the original copy was allegedly lost.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The original copy was found 39 years later in the archdiocesan archives. Archbishop Nozaleda granted Ricardo Pascual, Ph. D. access to examine the paper, and he eventually concluded in his book "Rizal Beyond the Grave" that it was a forgery. The most common criticism leveled at this claim is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made mistakes when reproducing the original.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

REIGN ASTRID S. LIPORADA - 1-BSSW (EVENING)

As our country's national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal bears a great deal of responsibility. Retraction was too far and unachievable from his primary objective, as we have learned from several textbooks. If memory serves, he tyrannized his foes by using his works in a creative way. Rizal has harmed our nation more than anyone else in history. Rizal is not a self-centered individual to get rid of them. With the number of people who opposed Rizal, it's probable that they falsified his signature and accused him falsely of retracting. Despite the fact that we are all aware of the darkness that dominated his era. Inevitably, the information offered did not

convince me that he had publicly disputed his claims. On the other side, his bravery and patriotism even more amazed me. He was a martyr who is still held in high regard today. He devoted his life in defense of our freedom because of his exceptional leadership.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Neil Dexter Sobremisana. Dr. Jose P. Rizal didn't back down from his statements. Years have passed since he spoke up in favor of the reality and against the heinous Spanish colonial policies. This motivated him to establish a covert organization to aid the KKK's attempts to spark the Spanish Revolution and instruct Filipinos on many facets of personal growth. These are the critical pieces of evidence that Dr. Rizal will stand by his convictions, point of view, and the causes he supports. Although he is married to his loyal Bracken and does not have official proof that their union took place in a Catholic church, such as a marriage certificate, he would never back down from his assertion.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Ednalyn Villarino- BSSW1- I personally believe that Rizal didn't back down. However there were a variety of viewpoints and arguments put out by different authors as to whether Rizal had retracted or not. The following claims lead to the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his execution. First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal but was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. As of now, there is no proof or any reason to put an end to the debate. For me, there is no retraction of Rizal because the retractions papers were kept a secret and only copies were supplied to the media; no one, save for one person, saw the original. When Rizal's family asked for the original copy, it was claimed that it had been lost.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe my argument of Riza's retraction is valid because it is based on factual evidence and logical reasoning. Furthermore, I have consulted with experts in the field who support my interpretation of the data.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal's withdrawn letter makes it quite evident that his authorship was not verified. When Rizal's relatives asked to see the original copy, they were unable to provide it because Pi was unable to confirm that it was written by Rizal. Pi stated in his sworn statement that Rizal had "an exact copy of the retraction written and singed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don't know nor do I remember whose it is. I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. The publisher of La Voz Espanola claimed to have read Rizal's own handwritten letter that they sent to the Archbishop, but no one else has ever seen the original text. Therefore, if no one is able to confirm that Rizal actually authored it, then someone is trying to discredit Rizal.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Hannah Penelope Delima: Dr. Jose P. Rizal, in my opinion, did not retract his remarks. Many years have passed since he stood up for the truth to combat the despicable practices of Spanish colonization, which led him to create a covert movement to inform Filipinos about various aspects of life growth and to aid the KKK in their efforts to spark the Spanish revolution. These are the main pieces of proof that demonstrate Dr. Rizal will stand by his beliefs, his point of view, and the causes he champions. He will never retract his claim even though he is wed to his devoted Bracken and lacks any documentation to support their marriage taking place in a Catholic church, such as a marriage license. certificate, he will never recant his assertion.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

One of Rizal's goal for his works is to show the lives and cries of His fellow countrymen during the Spanish colonization as well as to reveal the bias treatment of corrupt and abusive officials. Therefore, it is far from his goal to suddenly retract. With this in mind along with the information that the said retraction document allegedly signed by Rizal got lost and the date on the letter itself is a day before his execution builds up a rather suspicious situation. questions to ponder on this issue; (1) how come Rizal's family was not allowed when they requested to see the original copy of the document? (2) why was there no proper burial or some sort for Rizal and there is no exact location of where he was buried? (3) If Rizal really did retract in order to legalize his marriage with Bracken, why was there no certification or documentation of their supposed marriage? Lastly, (4) why would Rizal sign a retraction letter for his works when he knows that he would be executed around the same day if not the very next day? In conclusion to my statement, I believe that there is still a lack of evidence to prove Rizal's retraction. -L.J.B

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I disagree with this issue because Rizal was executed and he was not given another chance to express himself to his fellow countrymen. He even wrote secretly including his last farewell. He did not publicize this issue instead the Spaniards did this for him. also the letter of retraction that he signed was criticize by historians which says it could be fake.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Renzi Jules Campang BSED Val. Ed. - 1 Evening

For years, historians and scholars have debated whether Jose Rizal drafted a retraction letter. However, the evidence confirming the existence of such a letter is not conclusive, and there are various rebuttals to its authenticity:

Lack of Primary Evidence: There is no primary evidence to back Rizal's retraction letter. No original copy of the letter has ever been discovered, and there are no credible eyewitness stories or contemporaneous documentation to substantiate its existence.

Contextual Inconsistencies: The claimed retraction letter emerged following Rizal's execution in 1896. Some say that its emergence was politically driven, as it served the goals of Spanish authorities seeking to discredit Rizal's nationalist movement and hinder the Philippines' rising independence movement.

Inconsistencies in Rizal's Beliefs: Throughout his life, Rizal's writings and actions continually demonstrated his commitment to liberalism, rationalism, and the fight against colonial oppression. The contents of the putative retraction letter, which purportedly renounced anti-colonial sentiments and embraced Catholic dogma, appear to contradict Rizal's well-documented convictions and intellectual stance.

According to Yap (2020), José Protacio Rizal did not issue a retraction letter. Instead, on the eve of his execution, he wrote a magnificent and moving poem to his fatherland titled "Mi Ultimo Adios" - My Last Farewell. There was nothing that suggested a retraction. If he did write a retraction, it would cast a negative light on his works and writings, but the facts would remain unchanged. Rizal embraced Filipino ideals and died as a martyr. For this, he was designated as the country's national hero, and his bust can be found in practically every town and city in the Philippines. In addition, every town has a Rizal Street or its counterpart. However, he may have caused confusion in the Filipino mentality by portraying the Spanish Friar in the figure of Padre Damaso in his twin books Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo as abusive, lecherous, racist, and so on. Most Filipinos associate the Spanish Friars with his two novels since they are required to read them in school. This is far from the real truth.

If rizal wrote the retraction letter, do you think rizals works are deemed irrelevant and futile? (n.d.). Quora. https://www.quora.com/If-rizal-wrote-the-retraction-letter-do- you-think-rizals-works-are-deemed-irrelevant-and-futile#:~:text=Jose Protacio Rizal did not,that hinted of a retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Johanie Caldena Based Val Ed

The Catholic Rizalist viewpoint:

It makes sense that Catholic Rizalists see Rizal’s retraction as an indication of contrition and salvation, but it’s important to take into account the background information and the circumstances of the purported retraction. Taking the contentious retraction letter at face value is difficult in the absence of hard proof. Rizal’s own writings and ideals also imply a strong devotion to his convictions, casting doubt on the notion of a voluntary retraction.

Argument against the Masonic Rizalist viewpoint:

It is reasonable to argue that Rizal’s rationalist ideas would have prevented him from changing his mind under pressure. Given his reputation for intelligence and steadfastness, Rizal was unlikely to give in to outside pressure—especially from religious authority. The question of whether any retraction was forced or sincere is further complicated by the events following his arrest and execution by the Spanish colonial administration.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The debate over whether Jose Rizal retracted his statements before his execution remains contentious, fueled by conflicting evidence and historical complexities. One significant piece of evidence, a purportedly signed retraction paper, was shrouded in secrecy and later published in newspapers, only to be lost amid requests from Rizal's relatives, raising doubts about its authenticity. The discovery of a Manuel copy in the archdiocesan archives years later further muddied the waters, with some experts, like Ricardo Pascual, Ph.D., asserting it was a fake. Critics counter that errors during duplication may have occurred, casting doubt on the validity of Rizal's supposed retraction. Additionally, the absence of official records supporting claims that Rizal married Josephine after signing the retraction document adds skepticism to the narrative.

Moreover, Rizal's awareness that signing the retraction paper wouldn't spare him from execution, given the military tribunal's strict proceedings and the gravity of the charges against him, adds complexity to the situation. With limited civilian or church participation in the judicial process, the Archbishop and Jesuits likely had minimal influence over Rizal's fate, especially considering the serious accusations of sedition. In conclusion, while various assertions and pieces of evidence suggest Rizal did not retract his statements, the debate persists due to the lack of conclusive proof and the intricate historical backdrop surrounding his execution.

- BELEN U. BANDILLO BEED 1

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Abebon-

When considering the purported retraction of José Rizal, the evidence supporting this claim appears to be rather scant. Despite assertions of Rizal's renouncement of his beliefs, there is a noticeable absence of concrete proof substantiating such a significant event. The primary piece of evidence often cited is a retraction letter, supposedly authored by Rizal himself. However, the authenticity of this document has been cast into doubt by historians due to uncertainties surrounding its origin and the circumstances under which it surfaced.

Moreover, there is a compelling argument suggesting that Rizal's retraction may be a fabrication propagated by historical revisionism. This perspective posits that the Spanish colonial authorities, seeking to undermine Rizal's status as a nationalist icon, may have contrived the narrative of his retraction. By portraying Rizal as a remorseful convert to Catholicism, they could tarnish his legacy and diminish the influence of the burgeoning independence movement he symbolized.

Additionally, the timing of Rizal's alleged retraction, occurring just prior to his execution, raises suspicions regarding its authenticity. It is conceivable that the authorities, recognizing the potential impact of Rizal's martyrdom on nationalist sentiment, may have sought to mitigate his influence by fabricating a retraction. This would serve their interests in pacifying Catholic sentiments and undermining the burgeoning nationalist movement.

In light of Rizal's consistent advocacy for progressive ideals and his unwavering commitment to the cause of Philippine independence, the notion of his sudden recantation seems incongruous with his character and beliefs. Rizal's writings and actions throughout his life underscored his dedication to enlightenment principles and social reform, casting doubt on the credibility of claims suggesting a dramatic reversal of his convictions.

Ultimately, the idea of Rizal's retraction appears to be more of a myth constructed to serve political and ideological agendas rather than a verifiable historical event. As such, skepticism surrounding this purported occurrence is warranted, and a critical examination of the available evidence is essential in discerning the truth amidst the complexities of historical interpretation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Burong-

I believe Dr. Jose Rizal did not withdraw his comments. He was a man of profound beliefs, and his writings and deeds continually revealed his unwavering commitment in the necessity for Philippine independence. It's difficult to reconcile this with the concept that he would abruptly refuse his convictions on the eve of his execution. Secondly, many have questioned the legitimacy of the retraction letter. The manuscript was discovered decades after Rizal died, and there are inconsistencies in the handwriting, wording, and tone. Some feel that the letter does not accurately represent Rizal's brilliant writing style. In conclusion, while we cannot absolutely determine whether Rizal retracted or not, the evidence suggests that the retraction letter is a myth.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

LUCKY JOHN NOEL G. MAGAWAY

Some historical accounts and testimonies suggest that Rizal indeed wrote a retraction letter. Documents from the Catholic Church archives and testimonies from individuals close to Rizal, including his family and members of the clergy, support the existence of such a letter.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

LUCKY JOHN NOEL G. MAGAWAY

Given the strong influence of Catholicism in the Philippines during Rizal's time and the societal pressure faced by individuals who were perceived as anti-Catholic or anti-religious, it is plausible that Rizal may have felt compelled to make a retraction to appease the authorities and secure a Catholic burial. The fear of persecution and the desire to protect his family and loved ones could have motivated him to take such action.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

LUCKY JOHN NOEL G. MAGAWAY

Questionable Authenticity: Despite the existence of purported retraction letters, scholars and historians have raised doubts about their authenticity. The circumstances surrounding the alleged retraction, including the lack of consensus among historians and the absence of concrete evidence such as Rizal's own written account, cast doubt on the validity of the retraction narrative.

Consistency with Rizal's Beliefs: Rizal's writings and actions throughout his life reflected his strong convictions, including his criticism of the Catholic Church's role in Philippine society and his commitment to rationalism and enlightenment principles. It seems incongruent with his character and beliefs for him to suddenly renounce his philosophical and ideological convictions, especially under duress.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Mariel Ann Iligan

Introduction:

The authenticity of Jose Rizal's retraction letter has been a contentious historical issue, with debates between those who believe in its truth (Catholic Rizalists) and those who consider it a myth (Masonic Rizalists). I firmly stand on the side that views Rizal's retraction as a myth, and my stance is supported by various historical considerations.

Salient Supports:

1. The circumstances surrounding the discovery of Rizal's retraction letter raise suspicions. It was found in 1935 by Father Manuel A. Gracia, but the original document was never presented to the public, only reproductions. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the accuracy of the content.

Fr. Pio Pi's report in 1907 about the verbatim copying and publication of Rizal's retraction in Spain before the official discovery in 1935 raises questions about the existence of pre-existing documents. The possibility of historical forgery or manipulation cannot be ignored.

2. The controversy surrounding Rizal's retraction is evident in the conflicting narratives between the Catholic Rizalists and Masonic Rizalists. Both groups, affiliated with organizations promoting moral values and truth, present opposing accounts, casting doubt on the absolute veracity of the retraction letter.

The fact that two groups with strong moral affiliations have differing views on Rizal's retraction highlights the complexity and ambiguity of the historical record. This divergence in perspectives suggests a lack of consensus and raises questions about the reliability of the retraction narrative.

Rebuttals to Opposing Points:

Rebuttal to Opposing Claim of Authenticity:

While supporters of the authenticity argue that the letter was discovered by Father Manuel A. Gracia in 1935, the lack of access to the original document raises concerns. Reproductions might not accurately represent the true content and context of the alleged retraction.

The fact that the document surfaced decades after Rizal's death allows room for skepticism, considering the potential for historical revisionism or manipulation.

Rebuttal to Opposing Emphasis on Moral Values:

Catholic Rizalists emphasize the moral values associated with the Catholic Church. However, this argument relies on the assumption that the Catholic Church's stance is infallible, disregarding historical instances where organizations have faced controversies or made mistakes.

Masonic Rizalists, promoting brotherhood and integrity, argue against the retraction. Their perspective questions the authenticity of the letter and the implications of aligning with an organization that might have had its own motives in presenting such a document.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Rizal was renowned for his brilliance, and as a polemicist, he wasn't even convinced with Father Pastells when he had a great debate with him trying to change his thoughts about the catholic religion. So based on the data and on my own perception, I can say that Rizal may not really have retracted. It is evident that it is a fraud, and it also undermines Jose Rizal and all of his work. The documents that surfaced might have been made and altered with the intention of discrediting some of Rizal's writings, which have had a significant impact on the locals' perception of the Spanish people.

Hanna Mae R.Saligumba (BSED-ENG)

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. Rizal is said to have signed it, and the contents of the document were published in newspapers. When his family learned of what Dr. Rizal had done, they demanded to see the original document to verify if it was written by him or not, but the Jesuit priests claimed that they had misplaced it. The Catholic Church discovered what they claim to be the "authentic" copy of Dr. Rizal's will in its archives in 1935, 39 years after his execution. In the instance of the document's legitimacy alone, it's debatable whether it was truly legitimate, much less if it ever existed. Another piece of evidence that Dr. Rizal did not retract is that when he allegedly signed the document, one of his terms was to marry Josephine Bracken, which the Catholic Church claims they did the day before Rizal was executed also Many historians argue that the documents purported to be Rizal's retraction were either coerced or fabricated by the Spanish authorities to discredit Rizal and his nationalist ideals. Without clear, incontrovertible evidence, it is reasonable to consider the retraction as a myth perpetuated for political and religious motives because of lack of evidence and Some witnesses claim that Rizal did not retract his writings and remained steadfast in his beliefs until the end. Additionally, the timing and circumstances surrounding the alleged retraction raise doubts about its authenticity.

Supporting Evidence: Retraction Letter OF Rizal (www.studocu.com)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I highly disagree on its legality because only copies of the original document were made available to the public, casting doubt on its authenticity. It is possible that the retraction letter was forged or manipulated because it was discovered only decades after Rizal passed away. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Rizal would abruptly abandon his Masonic ideas and convert to Catholicism given his personality and convictions regarding human freedom, reason, and enlightenment. Given his dedication to Masonry's tenets—truth-seeking, knowledge-building, and the struggle against ignorance and injustice—it seems unusual that he would change his mind and support an organization he considered to be an obstacle to progression.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Geneva J. Kandi BSBA-FM 1st year

The debate surrounding the authenticity of the Rizal Retraction Letter remains unresolved, with compelling arguments on both sides. Proponents of its authenticity argue that it was written by Rizal as a result of his conversion to Catholicism and his desire to reconcile with the catholic church before his execution. One of the main pieces of evidence used to support the letters authenticity is the testimony of Father Vicente Balaguer, who claimed to have received the retraction from Rizal himself. Balaguer was a respected Jesuit priest and historian, adding credibility to his account. Additionally, the retraction is consistent with Rizal's known religious beliefs and his efforts to promote national unity.

On the other hand, skeptics argue that the retraction letter is a fabrication created by the Catholic Church or Spanish authorities to undermine Rizal's nationalist and anti- colonialist ideas. they point to inconsistencies in the letter's content, language, and style compared to Rizal's other writings, some also question why the letter only surfaced after Rizal's death and was not mentioned in his trial records.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Rizal's close friends and family members, including his brother Paciano and close confidant Ferdinand Blumentritt, expressed doubts about the authenticity of the retraction letter. They believed that Rizal would not have renounced his nationalist beliefs and principles, especially at such a crucial moment.

In conclusion, while there are arguments and evidence on both sides, the authenticity of the Rizal Retraction Letter remains a subject of debate. Until concrete evidence emerges to definitively prove or disprove its authenticity, it will continue to be a contested topic among historians and scholars.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

There is no solid, indisputable proof that Rizal genuinely withdrew his writings and ideas, notwithstanding the assertions of several modern authorities. The alleged retraction letter itself has never been located, and most of its contents are still up for debate.

-Andy Zane Egut

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

There are contradictory accounts from witnesses who witnessed Rizal's execution, some of whom assert that he renounced his writings and accepted the sacraments of the Catholic Church. According to a few of these witnesses, Rizal approached his death with bravery and conviction and did not change his mind. When Rizal made his alleged retraction, he was facing extreme pressure and an impending execution. It is possible that threats or assurances of forgiveness for his family were used to pressure or influence him into releasing a retraction by Spanish officials or church.

-Andy Zane Egut

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

rebuttals to the points raised by the opposing team:

Conflicting statements: Taking note of the divergent stories provided by eyewitnesses emphasizes the ambiguity surrounding Rizal's purported retractions. The case for Rizal's retraction may be undermined by highlighting the inconsistent witness testimony, which imply contradictions in the testimonies of those who witnessed his death.

Character and principles of Rizal: Although Catholic Rizalists frequently point to Rizal's adherence to his beliefs as evidence for their belief in his retraction, it is also possible to argue that his fortitude in the face of difficulty is consistent with his resolve to remain true to his word. Stressing how strong Rizal's convictions were can cast doubt on the notion that he would have given in to peer pressure.

-Andy Zane Egut

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I Kate Richel P. Cocon my argument is that Rizal was not buried with a good standing. Rizal’s body was buried ten months after his death. He was also buried without a coffin in a cemetery for Anti-Catholic Church. He should have been buried properly if ever he was converted back to the Catholicism.

In my opinion, Rizal did not retract before his execution. After reading some of the articles, I was convinced that he did not retract. If he retracted before his execution, then why was he not buried properly? He was buried in the place for those who are against the Catholic Church. He did not even get a proper burial. If he died as a catholic, they should have given him the burial that deserves. Why would he marry Josephine Bracken if he was to die? It was said earlier that the retraction was made for Rizal to be able to marry the love of his life, which is Josephine Bracken, then why was there no marriage certificate presented. Besides, why would he even bother to marry Josephine Bracken if he will die the next

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The subject of Jose Rizal's retraction letter remains a topic of debate among historians and scholars. There are different interpretations and perspectives on the authenticity and circumstances surrounding this letter. Some argue that Rizal was pressured or coerced into writing the retraction, while others believe that it was a sincere expression of his changing beliefs.

It's important to approach this issue with an open mind and consider the various historical sources and context of Rizal's time. The ongoing discussion and scholarly debate reflect the complex nature of interpreting historical events, especially when they are closely tied to the political and religious dynamics of the era.

Ultimately, the truth or myth surrounding Rizal's retraction letter may never be definitively resolved. The continuing dialogue about this aspect of Rizal's life underscores the enduring impact of his legacy on Philippine history and the ongoing relevance of his contributions to society.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The Rizal retraction letter has been widely regarded as a myth by many scholars and historians. There is substantial evidence suggesting that the supposed retraction letter was either fabricated or coerced by colonial authorities to undermine Rizal's nationalist ideals. Additionally, inconsistencies in the letter's content and timing, as well as discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies, further cast doubt on its authenticity. This myth underscores the complex interplay between historical narratives and colonial manipulation in shaping perceptions of national heroes.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Vanessa Tapang .I think that Rizal did not retract at all. This is because based on my research there is evidences that prove he did not retract first which is with the authenticity of the retraction document, Dr. Rizal allegedly signed it and the contents of the document was published in the newspapers. Upon knowing of what Dr. Rizal did, his family requested to see the original document so that they can verify whether it was his handwriting or not and yet the Jesuit priests said that they lost the document. In the case of the authenticity of the document alone, it is already doubtable whether it was really legitimate or more if it really existed. Aside from that they may highlight Rizal's contributions to the Philippines' struggle for independence and Rizal's nationalist ideals and patriotism which have greatly contributed to our forefathers' pursuit of justice, freedom, and independence against our colonizers may view his refusal to retract as a symbol of resistance and dedication to Philippine independence he lives of Filipinos and proof of his conviction that he died loving his country.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Austine Garcia BSBA MM

I stand that Rizal hasn't really accepted Catholic religion even after he died. Even after his letter was published many people stated that there might be cases that the letter is fabricated. The people hides the truth about Rizal's true beliefs.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Dr. José Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines, was a Freemason. He was initiated into Freemasonry in 1883 in Spain, where he joined Logia Solidaridad 53. Rizal's membership in the Masonic fraternity played a significant role in his life and his fight for reforms and independence for the Philippines. However, it's also worth noting that while he was critical of certain aspects of Catholicism and the Spanish friars' influence in the Philippines, he didn't completely denounce his Catholic faith. Rizal's religious views were complex, and he was known for his tolerance and respect for different religious beliefs.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

History books recount that Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda sent the first draft of the retraction to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago on the eve of his execution. However, Rizal rejected it due to its length. Instead, he accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by Father Pio Pi, the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines. Rizal then modified this document to express his disavowal of Masonry and religious thoughts that contradicted Catholic beliefs.

Interestingly, documents known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, part of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila, shed light on the retraction. These confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers reveal intriguing aspects. Yet, even if the controversies were true, it doesn’t alter the fact that Rizal’s writings ignited the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society, ultimately leading to our independence.

In the grand tapestry of Rizal’s life, works, and writings, the retraction is but one thread. Today, how Rizal is taught in schools renders the controversy almost irrelevant. His brilliance and impact endure, transcending debates and myths.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Camille Acampado

BSBA- MM 1st year

Jose Rizal's retraction is a complex and controversial topic. The debate between the myth of the Masonic Rizalist and the truth of the Catholic Rizalist is multifaceted. The myth of the Masonic Rizalist suggests that Rizal's retraction was insincere and was a strategic move to save his family from persecution, while the truth of the Catholic Rizalist argues that Rizal genuinely retracted his anti-Catholic views. I support the myth of the Masonic Rizalist over the truth of the Catholic Rizalist due to the following reasons:

1​. Historical Context: Rizal's retraction occurred during a time of intense political and religious turmoil in the Philippines, making it plausible that he may have felt compelled to retract his views under duress.

2​. Masonic Connections: Rizal's association with Freemasonry and his exposure to liberal and anti-clerical ideas make it more likely that his retraction was a strategic move rather than a genuine change of heart.

3​. Literary Works: Rizal's literary works, such as "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo," contain criticisms of the Catholic Church, indicating a consistent stance against the institution.

4​. Lack of Evidence: The evidence of Rizal's retraction is disputed and lacks definitive proof of his genuine change of beliefs, leaving room for skepticism.

5​. Political Climate: The political climate at the time, with the threat of execution looming over Rizal, provides a compelling reason for him to make a retraction that was not reflective of his true beliefs.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe that the retraction of Rizal was definitely a myth. Historical

Inconsistencies the primary argument against the truth of Rizal's retraction

lies in the historical inconsistencies surrounding the event. There are is a lack of solid evidence, and the sources documenting the retraction are questionable, including the authenticity of the retraction letter itself. Moreover, Rizal's character and staunch beliefs make it unlikely that he would renounce his principles at the last moment. Political Interference Rizal's execution occurred during a tumultuous political period in the Philippines, marked by Spanish colonial rule and the rising Filipino nationalist movement. It is plausible that the Spanish authorities, eager to discredit Rizal and undermine the nationalist cause, fabricated the retraction story to diminish his legacy and portray him as a penitent Catholic rather than a martyr for independence.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HATES GAY PEOPLE

This one is simply wrong. The Church does not hate any group of people. Jesus commanded us to love everyone, including our enemies. That kind of radical love has no room for hatred. The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that gay and lesbian people “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” The Church makes a distinction between sexual orientation and homosexual lifestyle, however. See myth 3 for how the Church views sexuality.

THE CHURCH IS AGAINST SEX

The Church is not against sex. In fact, it affirms that sex is good, because God blesses humanity’s sexuality on the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1:28, by saying: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.” Indeed, the Song of Songs is full of the joy of sex between a man and his wife, illustrating and reflecting the love Christ has for His Church.

The Church does not merely see sex as an act between two people who feel physical attraction. Instead, the Church acknowledges the deep purpose for sexuality as willed by God in the beginning– that it be expressed solely within marriage between a man and a woman who have given their whole selves unreservedly to one another so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. The act of lovemaking is both procreative and unitive, reinforcing the permanency of the marriage vows the couple made on their wedding day- it’s hugely romantic. The Church’s view of sex is mistakenly seen as restrictive, but in fact, in upholding God’s design, in fact it shows us the path to life lived in the greatest freedom.

The Church does, however, care about everyone’s salvation and gently leads all people away from sin and towards a closer relationship with God through the sacrament of reconciliation. That includes everyone – straight, gay, married, single, parent, priest… everyone. Sexuality falls within the areas of sin that the Church cares about, because God created sexuality for a purpose that would be of most benefit to us on our journey through life towards unity with Him in Heaven. For this reason, all sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, outside of the covenant of the sacrament of marriage is considered a sin against God, because it is rejecting God’s original will and purpose in his design for humanity.

https://www.catholicvoices.org.uk

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

John Mark Gubantes -

Lack of Concrete Evidence: The authenticity of Rizal's retraction letter is surrounded by uncertainty due to the absence of concrete evidence. The original document has never been shown to the public, and only reproductions have been presented. The questionable circumstances of its discovery in 1935 and the lack of direct access to the primary source cast doubt on its credibility. The reliance on reproductions and the absence of the original document raise concerns about potential alterations or manipulations.

Historical Context and Political Motivations: Considering the historical context, Rizal's supposed retraction occurred during a tumultuous period marked by political turmoil and the Filipino-American War. The interests of powerful entities, including the Catholic Church, were deeply entwined with political agendas. The potential for the manipulation of historical narratives for political gain raises skepticism about the sincerity and accuracy of the retraction claim. Rizal's longstanding advocacy for reform and his rationalist beliefs throughout his life create doubt about a sudden and genuine re-embrace of Catholicism on the eve of his death.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Trisha May D. Ayco BSED Major in English 1st year Day Class

For years, historians and scholars questioned whether Jose Rizal wrote a retraction letter. However, the evidence supporting the existence of such a letter is inconclusive, and there are several rebuttals to its authenticity:

There is no main evidence to support Rizal's retraction letter. No original copy of the letter has ever been located, and there is no credible eyewitness testimony or contemporaneous evidence to support its existence.

Contextual Inconsistencies: The alleged retraction letter appeared after Rizal's execution in 1896. Some argue that its inception was politically motivated, with Spanish authorities aiming to discredit Rizal's nationalist movement and stifle the Philippines' growing independence movement.

According to Yap (2020), José Protacio Rizal did not publish a retraction letter. Instead, on the eve of his execution, he composed a great and emotional poem to his fatherland called "Mi Ultimo Adios" - My Last Farewell. There was nothing that indicated a retraction. If he did publish a retraction, it would reflect negatively on his work and writings, but the facts would stay the same. Rizal supported Filipino principles and died as a martyr. For this, he was named the country's national hero, and his bust can be seen in nearly every town and city in the Philippines. In addition, every town has a Rizal Street or its equivalent. However, he may have created misunderstanding in the Filipino mindset by depicting the Padre Damaso, a Spanish friar in his twin works Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, is portrayed as abusive, lecherous, racist, and so on. Most Filipinos connect the Spanish Friars with his two novels, which they were compelled to study in school. This is far from the truth.

https://www.quora.com/If-rizal-wrote-the-retraction-letter-do- you-think-rizals-works-are-deemed-irrelevant-and-futile#:~:text=Jose Protacio Rizal did not,that hinted of a retraction.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Jose Rizal, a brilliant and strategic thinker, faced immense pressure from the Spanish authorities. In order to protect his family and loved ones, he decided to publicly embrace Catholicism. By doing so, he hoped to gain favor with the authorities and shield his family from further harm. This supposed conversion may have been a clever move, allowing him to navigate a treacherous political landscape and safeguard his loved ones.

Additionally, during that time, the Catholic Church held significant power and influence. It's plausible to believe that the Church, eager to maintain its control over the Filipino people, may have exaggerated or manipulated the narrative surrounding Rizal's conversion.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Zaira Mae Manocdoc BSED-Math 1

José Rizal, who published works that men recognized, is a raging blaze that threatens the church that leads in ecclesiastical officials committing the fraud retraction letter. When his "retraction letter," which blurs his known writings where he outlines his stances with church authorities, was made public decades after his death, many questioned it and instantly accused it of being fraudulent. The foundation for Jose Rizal's retraction is the testimony of a lone Jesuit priest who asserts that he wed Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal moments before his execution, incorporating Rizal's sister as a witness. There was, however, an oversight in the Jesuit priest's justification for Jose Rizal's retraction, which was to marry his beloved. These included the following: none of Rizal's sisters went to the site that morning in the time of marriage, the priest was unaware that Rizal had written "Mi Ultimo Adios," which contains the precise time and date it was written, and the Rizal family rejected the retraction and the marriage (which is dubious because Rizal was able to communicate with his mother on the fateful day of execution scheduled at six in the morning). It is also clearly controversial that, in the event that the retraction is unable to prevent him from being executed, it is considered acceptable that he must possess a Catholic burial, which was likewise not fulfilled.

Source: https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/2247/did-rizal-really-retracted-all-his-words-and-deeds-about-the-chruch-moments-before-his-execution

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

(ACD) Benedict - BSIT-1AM

The two compelling arguments I can offer demonstrate why Jose Rizal did not retract. First, over time, at least four distinct texts containing Rizal's retraction have been discovered. The "original" text was found in the archdiocesan archives after going missing for almost forty years. The first paragraph was published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of Rizal's execution, while the second appeared in a Spanish journal named "La Juventud." Only the publishers of La Voz Española asserted to have seen this original manuscript, though. The differences between these stories cast doubt on their veracity. The second is that Rizal's renunciation of Freemasonry is not stated directly in his retraction. All he said was that he detested masonry. Why was he put to death if he had really recanted? The case for his retraction is weakened by the lack of a clear statement about his Masonic membership. Moreover, eyewitness credibility is in doubt, particularly in light of Fr. Balaguer, who asserted to have witnessed the handwritten retractions, was connected to the same religious organization as those who punished Rizal.

Sources:

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals retractiontruthvsmyth

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/cebu-roosevelt-memorial-college/bsed-english/copy-of-evidences/28744480

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals retractiontruthvsmyth

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

For me, the retraction of Jose Rizal was not confirmed because a lot of historians disagrees that he had retracted from the catholic church. I strongly say that no one knows if Jose Rizal had retracted his works because we will not fight to this debate if we have enough evidence to prove that Jose Rizal retracted from the catholic church.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Retraction is an act of formally withdrawing or disavowing previous statements or beliefs. however, in Rizal's context it seems that he did not do the retraction since the evidences presented by the Catholic Church seems fake and was just created by someone who pretended to be Rizal. There are a lot of evidences that Rizal did not do the retraction before he died. Some of the evidences are that the one who created a fake retraction document admitted that he was just told to do so and that there is a Absence of public records supporting Rizal's marriage. Regardless of whether Rizal retracted or not, it doesn't diminish his greatness as a Filipino.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

In my opinion, despite pressure from Spanish authorities to repudiate his writings and convictions, Dr. Jose Rizal decided not to do so. Rizal had faith in his concepts' ability to spur advancement and change in the Philippines. He was dedicated to promoting equality and reforms, and as a result, he was put to death for his convictions. His unwavering dedication to his beliefs and the cause of Philippine independence has been symbolized by his refusal to take back his writings and views. The friars were the ones who were fervently requesting his retraction. They even devised many formulations for retraction that he could sign.

-Clarimie Ligas

Supporting Evidence: Source (kahimyang.com)
Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

MannyBrian barbero

BSIT-1AM

There are suggestions that the dissemination of the retraction letter could have been influenced by political motives. In the charged atmosphere of late 19th-century colonial Philippines, where tensions between the Spanish authorities and Filipino nationalists were high, there may have been incentives for either side to fabricate or manipulate evidence to serve their respective agendas.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Given that Rizal is certain he would still be put to death even if he signs the retraction paper. Rizal was accused of participating in filibuster propaganda, for which the Spanish Code stipulates that the punishment is death. The Archbishop and Jesuits are powerless to lessen his sentence because the judicial process in question was solely a military tribunal, where civilian or church interference was unusual and prohibited. The three priests who had been garrotted years earlier experienced the same thing, despite the fact that they were still affiliated with the church; they were still viewed as disobedient and were not given a dignified funeral.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

The absence of corroboration between the sentiments expressed in the retraction letter and Rizal's consistent actions and writings is a salient critique. If the letter truly represents a sincere retraction, one would expect to find echoes of its sentiments in Rizal's other works or interactions. The lack of such corroboration raises questions about the document's authenticity.

-Karl Sim

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Central to the Masonic Rizalist perspective is the recognition of myth as a vehicle for conveying profound truths through symbolic language and allegorical narratives. Freemasonry, with its rich tradition of symbolism, emphasizes the importance of decoding hidden meanings and esoteric truths embedded within myths and legends.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

After looking into what Baron Fernandez and Manuel Morato talked about, it's clear to me that Rizal didn't change his mind about what he believed. Fernandez found 34 papers, including a story from someone who saw it happen, all saying Rizal didn't take back what he believed. The way they kept the papers about him changing his mind a secret, said no when Rizal's family asked to see them, and buried him in a quiet place outside Paco Cemetery all point to the idea that Rizal stuck to what he believed until the very end and didn't change his mind. Putting together what Fernandez and Morato said gives us a different way to look at the story, making us question if Rizal really took back what he believed in.

Despite the fact that different writers have offered a variety of perspectives and supporting data regarding Rizal's retractions or not. However, there is currently no evidence or reason to conclude the discussion. The original copy was discovered in the archdiocesan archives thirty-nine years later. After receiving approval from Archbishop Nozaleda to review the document, Ricardo Pascual Ph. D. came to the conclusion that it was a fake in his book "Rizal beyond the Grave." This argument was typically refuted by claiming that Father Pi or Father Balaguer had copied the original incorrectly.

-Daniel C. Galam (BSIT) DAY CLASS

https://prezi.com/zuchf8tmfjj/ways-to-proving-that-rizal-did-not-retract/#:~:text=1.,letter,

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

(Marvin Quibol) There are no definite primary sources to support the existence or content of Rizal's retraction letter. The lack of evidence may lead to it being classified as a myth until additional evidence is shown, and Dr. Rizal is a vocal critic of Spanish colonial power and the Catholic Church's wrongdoings. This raises questions about its legitimacy and veracity, which are yet to be resolved.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Sandara Antoque - As i read some articles about this argument, for me the letter was fake. It was stated that it was found decades after Dr. Rizal's dead, and there's a big possibilities that it was forged. A lot of articles believe that Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract but he revolt. Some articles also stated that it was fake since that time The Spanish friars during that time owned the press and they made it upon themselves Rizal retracted. I will only believe that it is true when there's one article that really stated and give enough proof that Dr. Jose Rizal really wrote a Retraction Letter.

https://www.quora.com/If-rizal-wrote-the-retraction-letter-do- you-think-rizals-works-are-deemed-irrelevant-and-futile

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals retractiontruthvsmyth

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

In my own understanding I disagree with the argument of Catholic stand, 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 because the missing of the reflective phrase "himself" could mean to another person. He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did from he's statement "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was. The Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the admitting that a statement or documents was false. What they were saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original is almost eaten by termite was kept by few priests. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not be able to differentiate between authentic and fake Rizal's handwriting.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

PHELIP JOHN N. BAQUERFO

HRDM 1

a myth, because they argue that Jose Rizal never re-embraced the Catholic faith nor disassociated himself from Masonry before his death. They believe that the supposed retraction document was either forged or coerced, and does not reflect Rizal's true sentiments. These skeptics often point to the inconsistencies in the available copies of the retraction document and the lack of original, signed manuscript as reasons to doubt its authenticity. They maintain that Rizal, who was a known critic of the Catholic Church, remained steadfast in his beliefs until the end.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

CHARRIE E. DELASAN - BSBA-HRDM

When Rizal's retraction letters were discovered and compared, there were inconsistencies with the words used, and Rizal's writing was copied. And when Rizal published his second novel, 'El Filibusterismo', his family was evicted from Calamba and suffered from injustice. These published novels and articles resulted in Rizal being declared an excommunicado and enemy of the state, resulting in his being exiled to Dapitan. I think that Rizal, who experienced a lot of prejudice because of his works, would be willing to renounce his works which would lead to Filipinos's freedom.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

My research and understanding lead me to assume that Jose Rizal did not recant his remarks and beliefs because he was adamant about maintaining his dignity and his words, especially when it involves his beloved country which is the Philippines. According to the secondary historical sources and materials, I've studied about Jose Rizal's beliefs, declarations, and books, he was a man of his own words and used that strength to stand up for our rights and express the desire of our nation to uphold morality. Furthermore, his remarks resulted to the majority of our fellow citizens adopted a new outlook on society, which also led to Rizal's death because his opponents saw him as a danger to their own interests.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Based on the data and on my own perception, I can say that Rizal may not really have retracted. The documents that arose may have just been created and manipulated in order to invalidate some of Rizal’s works which have greatly affected the image of the Spanish people in the eyes of the natives. Besides, there are no actual proofs that the statements found in the documents really came from Jose Rizal. In another perspective, we can also infer that Rizal may have been threatened or forced by the friars to sign the said letter about retraction before he was killed to be able to clear and withdraw the accounts about the Spanish injustice that are consumed by the people. In conclusion, based on what I have read and understood, the issue about the retraction may have just been generated in order to deceive the public and to stir controversy and also, to somehow free the Spanish people from the ever growing hatred of the nation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

I believe there is no concrete proof to support the existence of a retraction letter from Jose Rizal after his execution. Many people argue that the letter addressed to the Catholic Church and religion is fake. While it is true that Rizal was executed by the Spanish, the authenticity of the retraction letter remains uncertain.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

Myth

The circumstances surrounding Rizal's alleged retraction are highly suspicious. He was under extreme duress and likely coerced into signing the retraction letter by Spanish authorities who sought to discredit him and his nationalist ideals. Rizal was already facing execution, and the fear of further persecution could have compelled him to comply with their demands, making his retraction letter unreliable.

Rizal's own writings and actions leading up to his execution contradict the idea of a genuine retraction. Throughout his life, Rizal remained steadfast in his beliefs and advocacy for Philippine independence. His final poem, "Mi Ultimo Adios" (My Last Farewell), penned just before his execution, reaffirms his dedication to the Filipino cause, casting doubt on the sincerity of any retraction made under duress.

The opposing team may argue that there are historical documents supporting the authenticity of Rizal's retraction. However, it's essential to scrutinize the context in which these documents were produced. Spanish colonial authorities had a vested interest in discrediting Rizal and suppressing the Filipino nationalist movement. Therefore, any documents originating from them should be viewed with skepticism.

Even if Rizal did sign a retraction letter, it does not necessarily negate the validity of his earlier works and beliefs. People are complex and can hold conflicting thoughts or take actions under pressure that they later regret. Rizal's contributions to Philippine history and his impact on the nationalist movement remain significant regardless of any purported retraction.

.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
1 point

ALICANDO

BSBA-FM1

one might argue that the debate over whether Jose Rizal re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry on the eve of his death remains unresolved due to the lack of definitive evidence. Rizal's beliefs were complex and multifaceted, influenced by various philosophical, political, and social currents of his time. While some historical accounts suggest a reconciliation with Catholicism, others assert his steadfast commitment to Masonry and his principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Ultimately, Rizal's legacy transcends any single religious or ideological affiliation, embodying the spirit of intellectual inquiry, social justice, and national liberation.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
0 points

JARTHON BACUS BSBA MM 1ST YEAR

If Rizal had really retracted then he would have been given the sacraments that was mentioned . It means he would go back to his catholic faith. So, why is his body not handled in a catholic manner in the sense that he would be given some blessings, hold a mass, be buried in a catholic cemetery, so all of those did not happen.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)
0 points

As for me,base on my understanding of what I've researched about Jose Rizal retraction.That the retraction of Jose Rizal is not true, because among the 4 wishes that Rizal might want to before his execution,is why the relative's of Jose Rizal is looking for a retraction letter,an original copy.Then why Jose Rizal did not give a proper burial from the Catholic religion,under the Spanish colonialism,i.So, for me, the Jose Rizal retraction is myth.

Side: MYTH (Masonic Rizalist)