Sunday, December 11, 2011

WHY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION? (A Reflection) BY MARWIL N. LLASOS, O.P.

Thursday, December 8, 2011


WHY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?



WHY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?
(A Reflection)

MARWIL N. LLASOS, O.P.


What is the Immaculate Conception?

      By Immaculate Conception we mean that God created Mary’s soul without any stain of original sin and preserved her from actual personal sin, and concupiscence or inclination to sin. She was created in the state of pure innocence and unspotted holiness.

In 1854, Blessed Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus –

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Blessed Pope Pius IX proclaims the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Why the Immaculate Conception?

The Immaculate Conception is predicated on the Incarnation – of God becoming man. It is demanded by no less that the supreme dignity of God, who, for us and our salvation, became man. Thus, the basis for the singular privilege of the Immaculate Conception is the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. opines that “Mary’s predestination to the divine maternity preceded her predestination to the fullness of glory and grace.”[1]

Mary would give birth to the Son of God, the Word-Made-Flesh and God Himself (Jn. 1:1, 14). Since God would take on human form in the Virgin Mary, He made her holy and immaculate because she was to be His “house” for nine months. “Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever” (Ps. 93:5). Mary was God’s living “tabernacle” when He became flesh and dwelt among us. “The Most High hath sanctified His own tabernacle” (Ps. 46:5). The Immaculate Conception was, as it were, God’s way of sanctifying His own tabernacle in whom “God dwelt in the midst thereof” (Ps. 46:6).

"Tota pulchra es, Virgo Maria"

God is holy – holiness is one of His attributes. God is a thrice-holy God (Isa. 6:2-3; Rev. 4:8). God’s name is “holy” (Isa. 57:15). Mary knows and proclaims this truth in Luke 1:49: “For He that is mighty hath done great things for me; and holy is His name.” God’s name signifies his essence; hence, God is absolute holiness.

Since God is holy, no one can stand before Him or even approach Him (1 Sam. 6:20, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, Exo. 3:5). Sin is an abomination to a holy God (cf. Hab. 1:13). The holy God demands holiness from people (Lev. 19:2, 1 Pt. 1:16), especially from priests (Exo. 3:5).

The Panagia (All Holy): Masterpiece of God's grace

Mary’s dignity as Mother of God necessitates that she must herself be holy and spotlessly pure. Since Jesus as God can make His own mother, He made her “all holy” to be a fitting vessel for Him. Scripture teaches the absolute holiness of God: “For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity” (Ps. 5:4-5).

Consequently, it may be asked: If Mary were a sinner and tainted with the slightest sin, would God dwell in her? Would God find pleasure in her? It would be unthinkable indeed for God to dwell with her. Moreover, In Isaiah 52:11 we read:

Our Immaculate Mother

“Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary did not only carry the vessels of the Lord. She was the very “vessel” that carried the Lord Himself. And more than just a vessel, she mothered Him. Therefore, the highest degree of cleanliness is required of her. Mary should not only be clean, she should be IMMACULATE.

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos: Enamored with the Immaculata 


[1] Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Mother of Our Savior and Our Interior Life (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1993) p. 20.


REFLECTIONS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION BY MARWIL N. LLASOS, O.P.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011


REFLECTIONS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION



REFLECTIONS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION


MARWIL N. LLASOS, O.P.

 Viva la Purisima Concepcion!!!

The Original Plan

            From the very beginning, God’s plan for humanity was to be “holy and blameless in His sight” (Eph. 1:4).[1] In short, it is God’s plan for us to be “immaculate.” God created our first parents in the sate of pristine innocence and holiness. God made them according to His image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27).

The Immaculate Conception

          This image of God is chiefly in our soul, which is a spirit, because God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24). God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). This breath, I believe, is the Holy Spirit – the Breath of God (cf. Jn. 20:22). With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are filled with sanctifying grace which is God’s life in us. We are thus made to participate in the very life of God. We become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).

The Original Sin

Man did not last in his intimate relationship with God. He took matters into his own hands, disobeyed his Creator, and fell from grace. The fall of man happened when he tried to be God after having been tempted by the Eivil One: “You shall be like God” (Gen. 3:5). Thus, man’s pristine innocence and holiness were lost and marred by sin in all its ugliness and hideousness. Man forfeited God’s life in him and passed on this sad condition to his children and their children, generation after generation: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5).

The Protoevangelium: The promise of a Redeemer

The First Good News

After the fall of Adam and Eve, there was at once a promise of salvation from God. In pronouncing the curse to the infernal serpent, God was actually announcing the first Good News – the Protoevangelium:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen. 3:15).[2]

In the promise of a Savior, a Woman is likewise mentioned. This Woman is none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Savior Jesus Christ. In the Catholic Church, we see in Genesis 3:15 a joint Christological and Marian reference. If Jesus Christ is the “Seed of the Woman,” then the “Woman” is the Blessed Virgin Mary, His mother.[3] Jesus made clear reference to this by addressing His mother as “Woman” in Cana at the beginning of his public ministry (Jn. 2:5) and in Calvary at its end (Jn. 19:26-27). We see once again in Revelation 12 the epic saga of the Woman, her Seed (Child) and the infernal serpent (Dragon).

Defender of the Immaculate Conception: Blessed John Duns Scotus

The promise of Redemption entailed a New Adam and a New Eve – a Man and a Woman. Since the promised Woman (Mary) is at enmity with the serpent according to Genesis 3:15, she is never under the dominion of the serpent even for a single moment. That means that Mary never experienced alienation from God. This is so because she is “full of grace” (Lk. 1:28) – or sanctifying grace, the life of God in her soul. The Lord is always with her for she has found favor (charis, grace) with God (cf. Lk. 1:28, 30). Being full of grace, Mary never for an instance fell from grace, unlike Adam and Eve. Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord and her spirit rejoices in God her Savior (Lk. 1:46-47). God, wo was to be her Son, saved her by the grace of the Immaculate Conception singularly and freely bestowed on her. Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit![4]

Blessed Pope Pius IX

    “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful” (Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).                 

Marwil N. Llasos, O.P. with Murillo's Immaculate Conception 


[1] New International Version.
[2] Douay-Rheims Bible. The footnote in Genesis 3:15 of the Douay-Rheims Bible reads: “She shall crush … Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.”

[3] Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the fruit of Mary’s womb (Lk. 1:42).
[4] Blessed John Duns Scotus’ argument based on fittingness.

ARMANDO ANG SLANDERS THE MOTHER OF GOD PART VI

Sunday, November 27, 2011


EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG PART VI


EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG
PART VI

Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.


Anti-Marian Armando Ang begrudges the honor given by Catholics to their Blessed Mother. Ang deplores that “[a]s people become more enlightened, the cult of Mary seems to grow instead of fade away.”[1] Given his warped sense of thinking, Ang sees a problem where there is none. Of course, the cult (which we mean honor) of the Blessed Virgin Mary grows. Ang himself gives the reason: because “people become more enlightened.”

The light of the Holy Spirit: "When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (Jn. 16:13)

From where (or from whom) does this enlightenment come from? From God Himself – and no one else as Sacred Scripture clearly teaches: “The eyes of your understanding being elightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.” Psalm 18:28 likewise states, “For thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness.”

Scripturally, enlightenment comes from God. And since as Ang says people become more enlightened, we know that is God who enlightens them. And it is because of the enlightenment that comes from God that the cult of Mary grows and it will not fade away because “the memory of the just is blessed but the name of the wicked shall rot” (Prov. 10:7). Mary’s memory shall remain blessed; it will be Armando Ang’s name that shall rot in infamy. And while we are being enlightened by God, Armando Ang stays in darkness because he who does evil hates the light.

Mary and the Holy Spirit

As we have already noted, Armando Ang is fond of generalization without substantiation. A clumsy writer, Ang claims that “Popes and theologians have written books and conferred on more superlative attributes than anyone on earth.”[2] But one looks in vain for Ang’s proof for that statement. The author of The Dark Side of Catholicism does not show any statistics to back up his claim. He aggravates the situation by also claiming that “[m]ystics have given her a new life to her where there was none.”[3] Does Ang bother to name who these mystics are and how they have given Mary a new life? Ang simply takes it for granted.

Without having proven anything yet, Armando Ang moves in for the kill: “From a simple woman chosen to be the mother of the Incarnate, she became a goddess with unprecedented power soon to eclipse that of her Son.”[4] Here I must cry foul!

Armando Ang denigrates Jesus' mother by regarding her merely as a simple woman contrary to what the Bible calls her as "highly favored" and "most blessed among women"

Mary was no simple woman. The Bible does not picture her that way. To regard Mary as a “simple woman” is to be not in keeping with what Sacred Scripture says about her. If Ang bothers to check what Sacred Scripture says about Jesus’ mother before he trains his guns on her, he would have easily ascertained that she is “highly favoured” (Lk. 1:28, KJV) and “most blessed among women” (Lk. 1:42, KJV). To call Mary as a “simple woman” is not being true to God’s Word in the Bible. Here it is once again demonstrated that Ang’s denigration of Mary is anti-Scriptural. Protestants, Evangelicals and all those who consider themselves “Bible Christians” have yet another reason to reject Armando Ang as their mouthpiece.

Mary, the mother of Jesus and our mother 

Evangelical writer John MacArthur says this of Mary, the mother of Jesus:

“Of all the extraordinary mothers in Scripture, one stands out above all others as the most blessed, most highly favored by God, and most universally admired women. Indeed, no woman is more truly remarkable than Mary. She was the one sovereignly chosen by God – from among all the women who have ever been born – to be the singular instrument through which He would at last bring the Messiah into the world.”[5]

The Extraordinary Mother by Jon MacArthur

Armando Ang mentions “mother of the Incarnate.”[6] Incarnate what? Why doesn’t Armando Ang say “mother of the Word Incarnate” or “mother of God Incarnate”? Is it perhaps because he would have to admit that Mary is the “Mother of God”? Ang can never get more clumsy.

Finally, Ang contends that Mary “has become a goddess with unprecedented power soon to eclipse her Son.”  Really? What is his proof? As a Catholic Mariologist, I know for a fact that the Church has never and will never ever teach that Mary is a goddess because that would mockery of the Incarnation; hence, of our salvation. Mary is a human being and will always remain so because she is the guarantor of the full humanity of her Divine Son. In the history the Church, it is established that the Catholic Church has consistently and relentlessly fought any attempt to make Mary a goddess. St. Epiphanius of Salamis fought the heresy of the Collyridians who worshipped Mary as a deity.  In his Panarioin, St. Epiphanius wrote: “According to her nature, Mary remains human and feminine. Hence, like other saints, she is unsuited for adoration, though as an elect vessel, she is glorified in a higher degree than others. In like manner, neither Elijah … nor John the Baptist … nor Thecla may be adored.”[7]

Armando Ang pierces Mary's heart by his lies and insults

On a personal note, readers of my blog will know that I have crossed swords with local heretical cults that make Mary a goddess – as some sort of an “incarnation” of the “divine feminine.” I opposed and resisted these cults with much intensity in their inane and blasphemous attempt to make Mary an additional member of the Trinity or as a quadrinity. I ran a series of articles in this blog on Mary is God Heresy.[8]

Along with the Church, I have personally waged war against the new-fangled doctrines of the New Age Movement who teach that Mary is the “divine feminine” or “mother goddess.” The Church condemns this movement that seeks to deify almost anything and everything as heretical and blasphemous.[9] The Catholic Church consistently holds and teaches that despite the many glories and privileges of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she remains to be human, a creature, and never divine. Hence, Armando Ang’s accusation holds no water.

Mary, the woman clothed with the Son

Armando Ang also alleges that Mary’s “unprecedented power” soon “eclipse[d] that of her Son.”[10] As usual, Ang does not provide the basis for his allegation. At any rate, there is nothing in Catholic doctrine and devotion that justifies Ang’s unsubstantiated claim. Catholic Marian piety views Mary as the “moon” which derives all her light and beauty from the “sun” who is Christ. Far from eclipsing the sun, Mary is the “woman clothed with the sun” (cf. Rev. 12:1). All true Marian devotion does not end with Mary but leads to her Son as Mary herself would have it: “Do whatever He tells you” (Jn. 2:5).

Armando Ang makes another claim: “Millions of men and women including popes and theologians extolled her with virtues and miracles unheard of.”[11] Where does Ang get his statistics? Again, he’s mum on it. The implication, however, is clear: only Catholics extol Mary’s virtues. Catholics do extol Mary’s virtues[12] – and these virtues, contrary to Ang’s claim, are not “unheard of.” The virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary are expressed right there in the Bible! Mary’s faith, hope, charity, humility, kindness, generosity, etc. are all mentioned in Scripture. For Ang to consider these as “unheard of” simply shows that he is not reading his Bible.

Mary's soul magnifies the Lord

We extol the virtues of Mary and of the saints. We do this because we want to imitate their virtues. And to imitate the virtues of the saints is a Biblical imperative. In the Letter to the Hebrews we are told:

“God would not be so unjust to forget all you have done, the love that you have for His name or the services you have done, and are still doing, for the saints. Our one desire is that every one of you should go on showing the same earnestness to end, to the perfect fulfillment of our hopes, never growing careless, but imitating those who have the faith and the perseverance to inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:10-12, NJB).

Mary, embodiment of the "virtuous woman": "Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies"  (Prov. 31:10)

Similarly, we venerate the prophets as the saints of the Old Testament and extol their virtues so that we can imitate them. These holy people of God are held up by the Church, like Mary, for our example and remembrance as the apostle James instructed us:

“For your example, brothers, in submitting with patience; take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord; remember it those who had the endurance that we say are the blessed ones” (James 5:10, NJB).

So, Catholics, in extolling (and imitating) the virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints are doing the Biblical thing. Armando Ang does not.

To Martin Luther Mary is more than an empress or a queen

Armando Ang seems to suggest, only Catholics are extolling the virtues of Mary. He could never be more wrong. Let him listen to Martin Luther:

“She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must … have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: ‘Here passes the woman who is raised far above all women, indeed above the whole human race.”[13]

“She was not filled with pride by this praise … this immense praise: ‘No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an empress or a queen … blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!”[14]

Reformed theologian and successor of Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger would rebuke Armando Ang saying, "to reject Mary is to be an enemy of Christ"

Ulrich Zwingli’s successor, Heinrich Bullinger, preached his Sermon on Mary defending her perpetual virginity and offered these words of praise: “In Mary, then, everything is extraordinary and even more majestic, because it has sprung from the purest faith and burning love for God.”[15] Bullinger would rebuke Armando Ang: “to reject Mary is to be an enemy of Christ.”[16]

Armando Ang's father the devil (cf. Jn. 8:44)


[1] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005) p. 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5]John MacArthur, The Extraordinary Mother (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007) p. 98.
[6] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005) p. 1.
[7] Ibid., 79:5.
[9] Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Primer on the New Age (Quezon City: Jesuit Communications Foundation, Inc., 2004).
[10] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005) p. 1. 
[11] Ibid.
[12] Virtues should of course be extolled! Why, does Armando Ang want us to extol sin? I wonder if he’d say that. 
[13] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia)  36:208.
[14] Ibid., 45:107.
[15] Heinrich Bullenger, “Die Marienpredigt,” in Walter Tappolet, Das Marienlob Der Reformatoren (Tubingen: Katzmann, 1962) pp. 274-302, quotation at 290.
[16] Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 218.

ARMANDO ANG SLANDERS THE MOTHER OF GOD PART V

Monday, November 21, 2011


EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG PART V

 

EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG
PART V

Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.



There is no stopping Armando Ang in his deceitful attacks on the Catholic Church – and Mary especially. This anti-Catholic author avers that the “[s]tatues of Mary and the saints have become objects of veneration as were the heathen gods and goddesses.”[1] Ang here confuses veneration with adoration and lumps together the statues of Mary and the saints with pagan idols.

Idolatry: The "graven image" of Armando Ang


Statues and images
                              
Armando Ang fails to make a distinction between venerating an image from adoring it. Catholics do venerate sacred images; pagans worship theirs as gods and goddesses. Without even pointing out the difference, Ang goes on to allege that “[t]hey may have been used to help the pagans replace their statues with objects of Christian saints.”[2] But what is Ang’s historical proof for this claim? As does not cite even a single historical proof to buttress his bare allegation. He does this often in his book.

Early Christian art: The "Good Shepherd" in the catacomb

There is no historical proof that early Christians replaced statues of pagan gods and goddesses with those of Christian saints.  Early Christian writer and historian Eusebius of Caesaria (260-339 A.D.) recalls in his monumental work The History of the Church[3] the statue of the Savior with the woman with the issue of blood. He mentioned about the “wonderful memorial of the benefit of the Savior conferred upon her”[4] which was still there. Eusebius saw and examined the statue and described it thus –

The History of the Church by Eusebius of Caesaria

“On a tall stone base at the gates of her house stood a bronze statue of a woman, resting on one knee and resembling a suppliant with arms outstretched. Facing this was another of the same material, an upright figure of a man with a double cloak neatly draped over his shoulders and his hand stretched out to the woman. Near his feet on the stone slab grew an exotic plant, which climbed up to the helm of the bronze cloak and served as a remedy for illnesses of every kind. This statue, which was said to resemble the features of Jesus, was still there in my own time, so that I saw it with my own eyes when I resided in the city. It is not at all surprising that Gentiles who long ago received such benefits from our Saviour should have expressed their gratitude thus, for the features of His apostles Paul and Peter, and indeed of Christ Himself, have been preserved in coloured portraits which I have examined.”[5]

Early Christian inscription of Jesus Christ

Unlike Armando Ang’s unsubstantiated allegation, this unimpeachable historical witness from Eusebius of Caesaria shows that early Christians did not substitute pagan idols with Christian statues of saints. Instead, these statues served as memorial of Gospel events, or in the very words of the early Church historian Eusebius, the Gentiles “expressed their gratitude” for the benefits received from our Savior through these portraits.

Another fact that decisively refutes Armando Ang’s hallucination that early Christians replaced pagan idols with statues of Christian saints is the presence of inscriptions in the catacombs depicting the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, saints Peter and Paul and other Christian symbols. These inscriptions of Christian images and symbols are no replacement of pagan gods which early Christians certainly abhorred. Rather, these are pictorial representation of the life of Christ and Gospel events. The presence of Christian iconography in the catacombs is a mute testimony to the faith of persecuted early Christians.

 
Ivory carving from 5th century Milan depicting the Risen Christ's appearance to Mary Magdalene


Without shame, Armando Ang desecrates the memory of the early Christians. To accuse them of being crypto-pagans for replacing pagan idols with Christian images is not only unfair and uncharitable but a grave mockery and serious insult to the early Christians who suffered persecution for the faith. As I pointed out in an earlier article –

As converts from paganism, early Christians renounced and despised the darkness, superstition and evil practices of their former faith. It is certain that they would never have carried pagan practices over into their new life in Our Lord Jesus Christ. I find it unthinkable that the martyrs who would rather die than offer incense to the image of Caesar would gladly worship Isis, Ishtar or Aphrodite in the guise of Mary. That just doesn’t make sense to me. Catholics can tell the difference between Gaia on one hand and Mary on the other.

Early Christians could tell the difference much more vividly than we can.[6]

Earliest depiction of the Madonna and Child in the catacomb of St. Priscilla

I further argued: Early Christians who lived through the centuries of persecution had Marian devotion. In the catacomb of St. Priscilla in Rome, persecuted Christians left us a graphic representation of their devotion to Mary. The catacomb of St. Priscilla derives its name from the saint who was martyred under Domitian in the year 95 A.D. In this catacomb, there is a fresco of which is probably the earliest surviving representation depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary as seated and as clasping the Christ Child to her bosom, while a young man stand before her pointing to a star overhead. The great Catholic archaeologist De Rossi assigns the date of this fresco to the reigns of Trajan or Hadrian, or at the very least to the period of Antoninus. Trajan reigned from A.D. 98 to 117, Hadrian from 117 to 138, and Antoninus from 136 to 161. When we recollect that the aged apostle St. John is believed to have survived the fierce persecution of Domitian and to have lived on into the reign of Trajan, we realize that the Christians who painted this fresco could very well have been his contemporaries.”[7]

These are facts – hard historical and archaeological facts – against Armando Ang’s baseless, idiotic and bizarre allegation. Against facts, no argument is valid Mr. Ang.

Mary is Queen because her Son is King! Get it, Mr. Armando Ang? 

Queen of Heaven

Armando Ang asserts that “[m]any names attributed to Mary have no biblical basis.”[8] He gives one such name – Queen of Heaven. According to Ang –

“One of these names is as Queen of Heaven, which seems to designate a different entity from that given in the Bible (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-18, 25).”[9]

Armando Ang moronically claims that Queen of Heaven is a name. No, it is not, Mr. Ang. It is a title. This blunder is typical of Armando Ang which he repeats numerous times in his book.

What has the Blessed Virgin Mary got to do with this obscene goddess Ishtar?

I agree with Armando Ang, however, in saying that the “Queen of Heaven” mentioned in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-18 and 25 is a different entity from the Blessed Virgin. So far, Ang at least gets something right. The Virgin Mary has nothing to do with the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah.

My research tells me that the Jeremian “Queen of Heaven” actually refers to the goddess Ishtar or Astarte, a near-Eastern goddess of fertility.[10] She was worshiped for thousands of years by so many different peoples throughout Mesopotamia:

“Ishtar’s name is etymologically identical with that of the West Semitic goddess Astarte, the South Arabian god ‘Athar, or Astar, who in Ethiopia was the god of heaven and who appears in Ugaritic or Canaanite myths as both the female Athtart and the male ‘Athar ‘Ariz. Perhaps her most significant designation is the Semitic version of Inanna, “queen of heaven.” The multifaceted and most enduring of all the powerful Sumerian goddesses. In addition, the association of Ishtar with male as well as female deities reveals an important ingredient of Mesopotamian conceptions of the divine that spilled into cultic practices.”[11]

Baal and Astarte: The Virgin Mary has nothing to do with this lecherous goddess

The Blessed Virgin Mary, I repeat, has nothing to do with Ishtar, Astarte or any goddess described above. A fourth-century heretical cult in Arabia, the Collyridians worshiped Mary by offering her a sacrifice of cakes in pretty much the same way as described in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-18 and 25. The Catholic Church vehemently condemned this heresy. In his Panarion, St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, writes –

St. Epiphanius of Salamis

“Certain women there in Arabia have introduced this absurd teaching from Thracia: how they offer up a sacrifice of bread rolls in the name of the ever-Virgin Mary, and all partake of this bread…[12] It is not right to honor the saints beyond their due …[13] Now the body of Mary was indeed holy, but it was not God; the Virgin was indeed a virgin and revered, but she was not given to us for worship, but she herself worshiped him who was born in the flesh from her … Honor Mary, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshiped, but let no one worship Mary … even though Mary is the most beautiful and holy and venerable, yet she is not to be worshiped.[14]

How I wish Armando Ang have read the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis! If only Ang were not so ignorant of early Christian literature such as the above, he would have not made the false accusation leveled against Catholics that we worship Mary. In our theology and practice, we are one with St. Epiphanius who wrote: “According to her nature, Mary remains human and feminine. Hence, like other saints, she is unsuited for adoration, though as an elect vessel, she is glorified in a higher degree than others. In like manner, neither Elijah … nor John the Baptist … nor Thecla may be adored.”[15] Did you read that, Mr. Ang? Early Christians were Catholic after all.

Jesus Christ the Pantocrator: King of Kings and Lord of Lords

So what if Catholics call Mary with the title “Queen of Heaven”? The fact that a title is improperly and erroneously applied to a pagan deity does not mean that it cannot be properly and validly applied to someone else.

Let’s take, for example, the title “King of Kings.” It was a pagan title applied to Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12. However, the same title is applied to Our Lord Jesus Christ in 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14 and 19:16. The same title of “King of Kings” was used for Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel  2:37. But of course we know that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the true King of Kings and Lord of Lord (Rev. 19:16).

Another example would be the title “Morning Star.” The title was used for Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. The angels of God are also referred to as “morning stars” in Job 38:7. But in Revelation 22:16, Jesus is called the “bright morning star.” Clearly, a title wrongly applied in one case can be used correctly and validly in the proper case.

Mary: The Woman Clothed with the Son

For Catholics, Mary is Queen of Heaven not because she is a goddess like Ishtar or Astarte. Armando Ang also does not make that claim. We do refer to Mary as Queen of Heaven because her Son is King whose kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). Mary’s Son now reigns in heaven as King and it is said of Him, “at Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir” (Ps. 45:9, NKJV). The queen is none other than the Queen Mother of the Davidic King (cf. 1 Kings 2:19). Since the ultimate King on the Davidic throne is Christ the King, the Queen Mother is therefore Mary the Queen. Mary is seen in heaven as the “woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head is a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1).

While Armando Ang denies any Marian reference to the woman of Revelation 12,[16] Evangelical theologian and scholar Tim Perry, on the other hand, sees a Marian reference there: “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary.”[17] Thus, the Evangelical professor goes on to state that “[i]n Revelation, at least in its canonical context, she retains her corporate referent and is exalted as the Queen of Heaven.”[18]

Martin Luther and his "Queen of Heaven" - Mary

Hypocritical Armando Ang is guilty of double standard. He attacks Catholics for calling Mary Queen of Heaven but keeps mum on those Protestants who do too. Of Mary’s title Queen of Heaven, Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism admits that “it is true enough name (sic) and yet does not make her a goddess.”[19] Armando Ang must write The Dark Side of Martin Luther – to be fair.



[1] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005), p. 1.
[2]  Ibid.
[3] “Eusebius' account is the only surviving historical record of the Church during its crucial first 300 years. Bishop Eusebius (c. 260-339), a learned scholar who lived most of his life in Caesaria in Palestine, broke new ground in writing the History and provided a model for all later ecclesiastical historians. In tracing the history of the Church from the time of Christ to the Great Persecution at the beginning of the fourth century and ending with the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, his aim was to show the purity and continuity of the doctrinal tradition of Christianity and its struggle against persecutors and heretics. He also supported his account with extensive quotations from original sources” [G.A. Williamson, ed., The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1965), back cover.

[4] G.A. Williamson, ed., The History of the Church (London: Penguin Books, 1965), p. 234. 
[5] Ibid.
[7]  Denis O’Shea, Mary and Joseph – Their Lives and Times (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1949) p. 87.
[8] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005), p. 1. 
[9] Ibid.
[10] Judith Ochschorn, “Ishtar and Her Cult,” The Book of the Goddess Past and Present, Carl Olson, ed. (New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1994) pp. 16-28.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Panarion 78:13.
[13] Ibid., 78:23.
[14] Ibid., 79:1, 4.
[15] Ibid., 79:5.
[16] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005), p. 12-13. 
[17] Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 112. 
[18] Ibid., p. 113. (Emphasis added).
[19] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia), 21:327.