AN APPEAL TO GERRY SOLIMAN

by Atty. Marwil Llasos, O.P. 

Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics, also a moderator or the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, published an article in his blog pointing to a contradiction between Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and myself regarding how the identity of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary is literal or not.

            Mr. Soliman capitalized on Fr. Abe’s statement that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary literally and juxtaposed it to my statement that we don’t take Revelation 12:2 literally. He then concluded that there was a contradiction.

            In an article, I pointed to Gerry Soliman that there was no contradiction at all because Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing different issues. Fr. Arganiosa’s statement which Mr. Soliman cited addressed the question of who is the woman of Revelation 12 (verse 1, to be exact). My statement on the other hand is focused on the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12 verse 2. Everyone can read my articles below and check the links on Gerry Soliman’s blog.

            Immediately after my article was posted, Mr. Gerry Soliman took issue with the part on the canon of scripture and promised to prepare a “counter-argument” on my article over the weekend. I was of course looking forward to Gerry Soliman’s article.

            I was sorely disappointed by Gerry Soliman’s answer. As a Christian, I expected him to own up to his mistake and apologize for something wrong. Instead, Mr. Soliman conveniently skirted the main issue and proceeded to go delve on other points. 

I understand a person’s need to save one’s face and dignity. But admitting that one committed a mistake and apologizing for it would not make you anyone lesser person. Christianity does not think that way.

Despite the animosity between us, I believe that Gerry Soliman is capable of recognizing his mistake and apologizing for it. Rodimus did that. And we where deeply humbled by that truly magnanimous gesture.

I will respond to the points raised by Mr. Gerry Soliman, but I wish to focus first on this issue to that we will not be sidetracked from the real score.

The issue is: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog?

That issue was squarely raised in my previous articles. Although this issue stared at Mr. Soliman in the face, he cavalierly ignored it. Indeed, Mr. Soliman skirted it and went at great lengths to evade it.

This may be unsolicited, but let’s help Gerry Soliman appreciate the issue. I hope he will be open-minded and Christian enough to see his mistake. And we are Christian enough to accept an apology.

Mr. Soliman quoted precisely these words from Fr. Arganiosa:

“I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.” (emphasis added)

And then he quoted me:

“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” (emphasis added)

What was Mr. Soliman’s conclusion? A contradiction! What was his basis? Tunog system! Because Father Arganiosa’s statement said that the woman clothed with the sun refers to Mary literally and my statement mentioned that we don’t interpret it (Rev. 12:2) literally, there must be a contradiction, right? WRONG!

I already explained how Fr. Arganiosa and I were taken out of context. The specific statements Gerry Soliman quoted from us were discussing two (2) different issues. Fr. Abe’s statement was concerned about the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1. My statement was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2. I accused Mr. Soliman of “intellectual dishonesty” because he knew fully well that my statement was discussing “birth pains” because I was responding the very question that he asked me.

More than that, I would like to believe that as a “Bible Christian,” Mr. Soliman knows his Bible very well.

He knows that the expression “woman clothed with the sun” (which Fr. Arganiosa was identifying in the statement quoted from him by Gerry Soliman) is found in verse 1 of chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:

 “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” (Rev. 12:1, NIV).

On the other hand, the verse I was specifically commenting on is verse 2, chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:

“She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth” (Rev. 12:2, NIV).

And what did I say regarding that? Mr. Soliman quoted it, thus:

“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.”

Notice my dear readers that in the quoted statement of Mr. Soliman, I categorically stated NOT JUST ONCE BUT TWICE that what I don’t take literally is verse 2 of Revelation chapter 12. And what was that about?  The “birth pains” of the woman. I was not concerned in that statement, as Fr. Arganiosa was in his, about the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun.”

Gerry Soliman did not deny that I was responding to his query on the “birth pains” in Rev. 12:2. In fact, in his answer, he categorically admitted:

“I asked him if the birth pains in verse two would in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception since God punished Eve with increased birth pains due to sin. For those who don't know the issue yet, Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation. The problem with the chapter is on verse twowhere the woman is found to be in labor pains while giving birth to a child.” (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html)

Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.”  I would like to hear from you about this.

I appreciate Mr. Soliman’s other arguments and will gladly respond to them only after my good friend Gerry will face this issue squarely.

*

I already told you Atty. Mars's credentials, right?

The Opening of UST's Jubilee Door

Yesterday, the Thomasian Community and other Catholic faithful witnessed a once-in-a-lifetime event--the start of the Quadricentennial Jubilee Year of the University of Santo Tomas. The door was opened by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, who is also the Main Celebrant and Homilist.

I was there, and guess who did I met....

Yes. The Formator of the Company of St. Dominic himself--Atty. Marwil Llasos, O.P.

Wanna see more of the pics of this event? Fr. Nilo Lardizabal, O.P. gives us his view behind the lens.
And with great gratitude, I also would like you to see Atty. Mars's post.

So, does this mean I have bragging rights to my friends? Maybe....

Gerry Soliman's Intellectual Dishonesty

(Facebook note of Atty. Marwil Llasos, O.P.: to be seen here) 

 A fellow Catholic apologist emailed me a link from the defunct blog of FRANKLIN LI accusing me and Reverend Father Arganiosa, CRS of conflicting views. Franklin Li is not original in his attacks; he merely parroted his master GERRY SOLIMAN’s ideas hook, line and sinker. The real culprit is Gerry Soliman.

In an article Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical (sic) or Literal?posted in his blog with only two (2) followers, Mr. Soliman pitted my statement against Fr. Arganiosa’s to create the impression that we don’t agree on the identity of Mary as the woman clothed with sun in Revelation 12, and whether that identity of Mary is literal or symbolic. Here is what he said in his blog (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html):

“Let the infallible Church of Rome tell you. According to Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Roman Catholic apologist specializing on Mariology:

*To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally.

*I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.

*According to Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, another Roman Catholic apologist and comrade of Atty. Llasos:

*I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.”

The intellectual dishonesty of Gerry Soliman is all too apparent to be ignored. He concealed the fact that Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing two (2) different issues. Yet, Gerry Soliman, taking each of us out of context, made it appear that we were discussing one.

My comment, which Gerry Soliman fully knew, was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pangs” [or “birth pains”] in Revelation 12:2. Gerry Soliman cannot feign ignorance of that fact because he was totally aware that I was responding to his question which he posted in my blogs comments section on November 4, 2009. This is what he asked: “Your article here identifies Mary as the woman in Revelations 12:1ff. I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.” Again, on November 10, 2009, responding to Fr. Arganiosa’s comments, Mr. Soliman reiterated his question: “Right now, just like Sir Mars, I am still gathering some info. That's why asked him if the birth pains would affect the Immaculate Conception dogma.” [See:http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2009/10/mary-mother-of-church_30.html].

In my response dated November 9, 2009 to Mr. Soliman’s query, I said in part: “This early, there are points of agreement already between his position and ours. However, there are also divergences. These will be expounded on the article I will post.”

Hence, from the very start, there is not the least iota of doubt that Mr. Soliman and I were discussing the “birth pains” mentioned in Revelation 12:2. My answer dealt with that issue, thus –

“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.”

It is obvious from the context that I was explaining “birth pains” and not the identity of the apocalyptic “woman.” This is made clearer by the immediately preceding and succeeding paragraphs. Any one with at least an average reading comprehension skills would understand that. But not Gerry Soliman.

I invite the reader to validate for himself what I am saying by reading my article in toto athttp://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html. This should unmask the mendacity and intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Soliman which has further eroded whatever is left of his credibility in the field of apologetics. I understand that Mr. Soliman is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Internal Auditor, professions that demand the highest standards of accuracy and honesty. More than that, Mr. Soliman is a Christian and Scripture tells us that “a truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies” (Prov. 14:5).

Let’s now proceed to the statement of Fr. Abraham Arganiosa which allegedly conflicted with my statement. This is what Fr. Arganiosa said: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.”[http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-woman-clothed-with-sun.html].

Any objective reader will note that Fr. Arganiosa’s concern in that statement is the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12. He was not discussing the interpretation of “birth pains” as I did.

Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS was answering the question asked by a reader “if we will argue that Woman is sometimes Mary, because it has similarities with Mary...” to which Fr. Arganiosa replied,“I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” Clearly, the question that Fr. Arganiosa answered was the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12.

Gerry Soliman is once again unmasked for his intellectual dishonesty. There seems to be no end for this discernible pattern in Mr. Soliman’s style of apologetics. Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso, RN of the Catholic Faith Defenders of Davao also disclosed this foul tactic of Mr. Gerry Soliman, CPA, CIA. [http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/solutions-finder-apologetics-finds-no.html].

No doubt, when Gerry Soliman disdainfully complained that his head was aching, well, it was to his own making. He was comparing apples with oranges. And here’s another reason for his head to ache.

Evangelicals are on a collision course regarding the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12. Mr. Soliman and his cohort Franklin Li absolutely denies any Marian reference to Revelation 12. Yet, fellow evangelicals with better academic credentials disagree.

Theology professor and published scholar Prof. Tim Perry admitted that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. According to this author of Mary for Evangelicals, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].

I could hear Gerry Soliman’s rebuttal: “But Tim Perry is ecumenical!” So what? He reads the same Bible as you do but how come he arrived at a different conclusion? That should give you more head ache.

If you don’t accept an “ecumenical” Evangelical author, then what about an anti-Catholic and avowed critic of Catholic Mariology? Here’s what World Evangelical Fellowship categorically said:

 “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1). Both depict the birth of Christ” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92].

Who is telling the truth? The World Evangelical Fellowship debunked Mr. Gerry Soliman’s thesis. I already raised this issue before but Mr. Soliman has yet to prove that his and the WEF’s view are not at war with each other. They read and interpret the same Bible verses but the conclusions they arrived at are diametrically opposed. More aspirin for Gerry Soliman, please!

Gerry Soliman concluded that “Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching.” But what did the World Evangelical Fellowship say? ““In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told ofthe woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1).” Whose words should I take? I’m having a head ache, too!

Another point that Mr. Soliman raised the issue that the Roman Catholic Church “didn’t have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity.” This is another manifestation of Mr. Gerry Soliman’s internal mental inconsistency, if not intellectual dishonesty. Mr. Soliman has vehemently maintained that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist for the first 300 years of Christianity; yet, now he is asking for an official and infallible interpretation of that Church which he said did not exist for the first 300 years! As Rodimus, Gerry Soliman claimed that the “the Church of Rome was founded only after 300 A.D.” [http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-are-neither-here-nor-there.html].

Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!

In A Handbook of Christian Faith, John Schwarz stated that “[t]he final recognition and acceptance of the books of the New Testament cannot be dated precisely, as with the Old Testament, but it appears that as early as the middle of the second century there was already general agreement on twenty of the twenty-seven books – all except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude andRevelation” [John Schwarz, A Handbook of Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bethany House Publishers), 2004]. (emphasis added)

In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D.  reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church” [see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm].

Given the foregoing historical background, Evangelical professor and author Dr. Tim Perry concluded:“It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].

One final point. Mr. Gerry Soliman posited that “none of the church fathers during that time ever interpreted the woman as Mary. Some of the church fathers referred the woman as Israel, the people of God but never on Mary.” Mr. Soliman has suddenly become interested in the Church Fathers!

This point of Mr. Soliman is a non-issue. As already stated, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated! Even if there is no mention of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 in the earliest of the fathers who were closest in time to the composition of Revelation, yet the identification of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 is “well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church.” The first extant citation is from the fourth century in Epiphanius. Steve Puluka explained that “this silence of the early evidence is as much a reflection of the dearth of material interpreting Revelation at all from the time period. The references to any aspect of the book are few and far between in the extant literature. But the tepid mention by Epiphanius demonstrates that the existence of a Marian identification of the woman in the same time period was widespread enough that he could not pass the text without comment on it.” [http://puluka.com/home/index.php?id=51#_ftn41].

Steve Puluka further notes: “Typical of later interpretation of the fathers is Oecumenius; indeed he is likely the source for many later fathers. Oecumenius clearly takes the woman as Mary. She is robed in the Sun of Justice, the moon at her feet is Moses and the Law which becomes the lesser light on the coming of Christ” (ibid., citing Oecumenius, 141-42).

Protestant Bible scholar Hilda Graef supports this. She records that Quodvultdeus, a disciple of Augustine, writing in the mid- to late- fifth century, made the first overtly Marian identification of the woman of Revelation 12. Graef likewise adds that it is not until the first half of the sixth century that Oecumenius, in his commentary on Revelation (the earliest extant commentary on the whole book), read the woman exclusively as Mary [Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1963) pp. 131-132; see also:footnote 61, Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113].

Mr. Gerry Soliman’s conclusion that “Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching”has no leg to stand on. Even the World Evangelical Fellowship says exactly the opposite of the unfounded claim of Mr. Soliman: “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1)” [Paul G. Schrotenboer,Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92)].

That’s it, folks. Gerry Soliman is intellectually dishonest as he is unscholarly. Scholarship and intellectual honesty go hand in hand; and so is the opposite. And we see that opposite precisely in Mr. Gerald John P. Soliman, CPA, CIA. 



Blogger's Note:
--Atty. Llasos is the Formator of the Company of St. Dominic (hence the O.P. in his full name), which is a recognized secular religious organization in the Archdiocese of Manila.

As an apologist, he is a member of the Catholic Faith Defenders and various Marian organizations; and as a lawyer (hence the title before his name), he works as a partner at the Dasal, Llasos, and Associates Law Firm and as an Associate Lawyer at the Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Service; and is also a Professor of Law at the Centro Escolar University School of Law and Jurispudence.

Atty. Llasos finished his Bachelor's degree in Political Science at the Bicol University College of Arts and Sciences. He also got his Bachelor of Laws at University of the Philippines-Diliman and his Master's degree at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. Recently, he was featured in Baby Nebrida-Ballesty's program "Heart to Heart Talk" aired every Saturday on the National Broadcasting Network (NBN) Channel 4. 

Condolences to the Arganiosa Family

I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to Fr. Abe Arganiosa, the blogger of The Splendor of the Church, in the demise of his father--Mr. Salvador Arganiosa, Sr. He is to be remembered because Tatay Salvador offered to God his only son to the priesthood and to the defense of the Faith. What's good about it is that it was Fr. Abe who administered to his dad the Last Sacraments, and the latter died in the state of sanctifying grace. Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine: et Lux Perpetua luceat eis.

The Q Short Film Festival

Take note of the Awards Night!

I'm no film critic. But due to the nature of my course, I'll play one for now....

After our 11am dismissal last Friday, I had four options: 

1. Go home early--because it was a Friday and it went with the hype of the Nazareno feast on Sunday; 

2. Stay at our office at Pax Romana for no concrete reason at all; 

3. Help out and chat with my colleagues at TOMCAT till I get bored; or 

4. Watch the film entries of the Q Short Film Festival--besides, January 7 is the last day of public screening for Thomasians.... 

Of all these, I chose the last out of curiosity. 

And because I watched the film entries of the different colleges (unfortunately, only a half of them), I'm compelled to pick the Top Five of my list: but that doesn't mean I rank 'em according to order! 

Anyway, let's start.... 

Lakbay (Journey) 

Produced and Directed by Christian de Leon 

Entry of the Conservatory of Music 

Basically, it's a story of a poor kid who aspires to be the greatest of violinists, and despite the barriers that block his dreams, he succeeds in doing so in a step-by-step matter. (Blogger's Note: the actress behind the character of the protagonist's mother--Ma. Antoniette "Tata" Cruz--is a friend of mine....) Winning factor: the music the fiddler played was AWESOME!

Guys...Baha Na! (Guys...It's Flooding!) 

Produced and Screen-played by Jayson So 

Entry of the College of Science 

As every Thomasian knows, the Sampaloc area--where the University stands--is a catch-basin of rainwater in downtown Manila; and in the mini-flick, a group of students are supposed to conduct their experiment should their professor show up, which didn't. Rain fell hard and floods rose and now, the group were trapped inside the Main Building, which is believed to be the most haunted of all structures in the campus due to its antiquity. What seemed to be a misfortune was aggravated and turned into a fight for survival, as they were abducted by an unknown ghost one by one, until they were nowhere to be found. Lesson: When in doubt, stick together.(?) Winning factor: The Ondoy experience was still fresh in the minds of those who were trapped inside the campus when the real thing happened; and So saw to it that the horror theme aggravates the psyche of the viewer.

Nelson 

Produced and Directed by Efraim Fernandez 

Entry of the College of Rehabilitation Sciences 

Nelson is a fictional(?) character who is an uneducated social outcast that lived outside UST's premises. Despite his illiteracy, he is trying hard to learn and study by himself. He also has one wish that he writes in a piece of paper and sends it into the air with a baloon: "Gusto kong mag-aral." (I wanted to study.) Winning factor: The quality of the clips and the message of social awareness that Fernandez attached in it. 

Krus (Cross) 

Directed by Rajiv Kalbit and Jake Bonnie Briones 

Entry of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery 

Kalbit and Briones' film is very Catholic among the entries because they interspersed parts of the Holy Mass in the individual sub-plots that transpired the short film: a Med student who didn't passed the Board Exam while the Kyrie is sung; a Tigress (specifically a female athlete on Volleyball) who is torn between reputation and responsibility with the Alleluia and Gospel Reading as a backgrounder; a seminarian who left behind the life of his father's shame to respond to the Lord's call as interpreted in the Offertory song; and an ex-scholar Engineering student and his desperate father in a dialogue while reciting the Pater Noster. These four characters have crossed their paths in a jeepney stick-up (Agnus Dei), and in the end, soon realized that the crosses they bear were necessary and instrumental for their fates: the first became a doctor; the second remained moral in letting her child live; the fourth was seen as an engineer while her father is serving his sentence for robbery and shooting the third character, who was later ordained as a priest. Winning factor: Colorful story and a very Catholic plot.

Behind the Scene
Produced by Jose Margo Flores
Entry of the Faculty of Arts and Letters

I describe this film as more than a "pa-simpleng" instructional video on how to produce a film. As it was described, it is a "QFilm within a QFilm". Though the story is typical--adventure mixed with romance and technicalities--Flores made a twist on this by infusing the painstaking challenge of five people to make an entry to the QFilm Festival (Take note: they are making their best in only three weeks!). With all the pressure of film production, and the stirred-up emotions of the casts, the entry also unleashes its reflectional worth by telling its audiences that the self is "the producer, director, cameraman, actor, and editor of one's own life" [sic]. Behind the Scene is exceptionally above the rest because it is more than a reflection of Thomasian life: It was connected to the challenges, setbacks, and successes of pre-production, production, and post-production in making a movie. Winning factor: Perkiness of the actors and actresses, exceptionally different storyboard from the other entries and its relativity to Thomasians as far as video projects are concerned.


So, there you have it: my Top Five mini-flicks with stories depicting the Thomasian life.

Now what's yours, or as the theme says: Ano'ng kwentong UST mo?



--Shoutout to the Facebook page of the UST Q Short Film Festival for the pics. God bless you, guys, and may the best film win!

Events for January

There would be two phenomenal events that would take place this January....

First is the "grand launch" (I think?) of the Year of the Youth Celebration, as organized by the CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Youth. We all know the fact that the YOY was given a "soft launch" during the first day of the Simbang Gabi last Dec. 16, 2010. This was also the after-effect of the 5th Asian Youth Day held at the Diocese of Imus last 2009. Below is the Theme Song called "Make a Stand." The video is courtesy of Rev. Fr Louie Coronel, O.P.:

Another thing that will happen is the Grand Opening of the Quadricentennial Celebration of the University of Santo Tomas, which existed in 1611--making it the oldest University in Asia and the most prominent Catholic institution in the Philippines. There are still no concrete schedules being released, but it should not be missed just as the recent Paskuhan was not missed by most Thomasians.

So, I guess, that's it for now.... I just made this blog post to let you know that I'm willing to give you more information and food for thought....