Monday, November 21, 2011
EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG PART IV
EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG
PART IV
Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.
(See Part III at: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/11/exposing-lies-and-deceptions-of-armando_19.html)
In a relentless assault against the Blessed Virgin Mary, Armando Ang makes a sweeping generalization that Mary’s “role becomes prominent in competition with many pagan beliefs about gods and goddesses prevalent during the Roman Empire.”[1] What proof does Ang provide to support his gratuitous assertion? Nothing – and Ang is never bothered by it.
The earliest depiction of the Madonna and Child in the catacomb
Mary and pagan gods and goddesses
Armando Ang’s idea that Marian devotion is carried over from paganism and that Mary’s role competes with pagan gods and goddesses is not original. A second-rate trying hard copy-cat that he is, Armando Ang is merely passing on second-hand information from much discredited anti-Catholic writers like Alexander Hislop (author of long debunked The Two Babylons). Another anti-Catholic writer who peddles the same canard as Ang’s is Victor Buksbazen, cited by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) in The Mary of Catholicism –
“When Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire … Mary replaced the old goddesses … [S]hrines dedicated to Mary began to replace the ancient temples … Although the tree of paganism was cut down, its roots remained … and helped transform Miriam of the Gospel into Mary of popular piety – later into Mariological dogma.”[2]
No shred of evidence has ever been produced by any of the anti-Catholic writers to prove their unhistorical and illogical claim. The most that has been done by anti-Catholic writers is to “trace” Mariology and Marian devotion to pagan goddess cults by pointing to some vague external similarities but ignoring the substantial overwhelming disparities.[3] I shall make a point by point, pound for pound refutation of this in subsequent articles. Meanwhile, I shall refer the reader to my old article refuting the charge that Mariology and Marian devotion originated from paganism.[4]
The tactic of Armando Ang and his ilk of tracing Mariology and Marian devotion to pagan practices won’t hold. They are simply guilty of committing the fallacy of genetic error. Evangelical theologian and scholar Dr. Tim Perry defines the genetic error fallacy as “drawing a conclusion about the truth of a concept based on its origins.”[5] This fallacy is all there is to Armando Ang’s contention.
 |
Karl Barth's "Church Dogmatics" |
Armando Ang’s amateur attempt to discredit Mariology and Marian devotion based on the genetic error fallacy is met with formidable objection from an established Protestant dogmatician – Karl Barth. A celebrated Protestant theologian, Barth is no friend of Catholic Mariology. Nevertheless, he considered the notion that Mariology and Marian devotion originated from paganism to be utterly unfounded, thus –
“It is not to be recommended that we should base our repudiation on the assertion that there has taken place here an irruption from the heathen sphere, an adoption of the idea current in many non-Christian religions, of a more or less central and original female or mother deity. In dogmatics, you can establish everything and nothing from parallels from the history of religions.”[6]
Down to Earth: The New Protestant Vision of the Virgin Mary
Supporting Barth, another Protestant theologian John de Satgé writes: “It is not necessary to accept … the evil conjunction of Christian piety with the primeval mother-goddess.”[7] Armando Ang finds no support in these scholarly sources.
Relics
Another unfounded claim that Armando Ang makes is that the “large numbers of relics used by the pagans were soon replaced with those for Mary and the saints after Constantine the Great (c. 273-337) adopted Christianity as his own religion.”[8] Ang’s short statement is riddled with egregious errors.
First, Armando Ang fails to document that pagans used relics of their gods. What Ang fails to realize is that the religion of the heathens is a mythical one. Their gods never really existed; hence, how could they have relics? Christianity, on the other hand, is a historical religion. The great personages of our faith, Christ included, really existed in time as a historical figure. And so did His mother Mary, the apostles, the prophets and the other saints. The existence of their relics prove their historicity and of Christianity as a historical religion as opposed to the mythical religion of pagans. I regret that Armando Ang does not see it that way.
Second, Armando Ang makes a historical blunder when he claims that the relics of Mary and the saints replaced pagan relics after Constantine the Great adopted Christianity as his own religion circa 273-337 A.D. Armando Ang is several centuries too late!
The martyrdom of St. Polycarp
Armando Ang seems to have not been acquainted with early Church history. As early as 156 A.D., early Christians have been documented to value and venerated the relics of their saints, the martyrs. The account of the Polycarp’s martyrdom was written by the Smyrnaeans around that time. In chapter 18 of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, it is related:
“When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. Thus we, at last, took up his bones, more precious than precious stones, and finer than gold, and put them where it was meet. There the Lord will permit us to come together according to our power in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already contested, and for the practice and training of those whose fate it shall be.”[9]
St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna
Third. In addition to committing historical blunders, Armando Ang also shows his Scriptural blindness. The veneration of relics did not happen after Constantine adopted Christianity as his religion. No, Mr. Ang, you are dead wrong. We see the value and veneration of relics in the Bible! Any one with even the most rudimentary reading of the Bible will realize that.
The woman with the issue of blood touching the hem of Jesus' garment
In 2 Kings 13:20-21, we read: “And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.” This biblically proves that God performed a miracle through contact with the relics of a saint. But Armando Ang doesn’t want any of that!
The people of God in the Old Testament venerated the bones of God’s servants. In chapter 23 of 2 Kings, it is related how King Josiah smashed idolatrous images of pagan gods. Yet, we read from verses 17 to 18: “Then he said, What title is that that I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the sepulchre of the man of God, which came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Bethel. And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria.” The King treated with respect the bones of God’s servants, the prophets.
The Prophet Elisha
Earlier in the Old Testament, we also read about the bones of Joseph and how these bones were treated with utmost respect by God’s people. Before he died, “Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath and said, “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up from this place” (Gen. 50:25). Moses followed this and so “Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the sons of Israel swear an oath. He had said, ‘God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place’” (Exo. 13:19). The Israelites, God’s chosen people, had brought along with them the bones of Joseph as precious relics when they left Egypt until these were buried at Schechem (Josh. 24:32).
The importance of the bodies of God’s holy people as relics is underscored in Jude 9 where it is related that Michael the Archangel contended and disputed with the devil about the body of Moses. If Moses’ mortal remains (relics) were not important, why would the Archangel Michael contend with the devil about it? What say you, Mr. Armando Ang?
The Apostle Paul heals the sick and the infirm
The use of relics likewise attested in the New Testament. In Acts 19:11-12, we read how God wrought special miracles through Paul’s second class relics, handkerchiefs or aprons: “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”
However you slice Armando Ang’s assertion, it is historically inaccurate, biblically illiterate, and dead wrong.
Biblically illiterate: Anti-Catholic Armando Ang's image
(Source: http://www.a1publishing.com.ph/author)
[1] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005) p. 1.
[2]Quoted in Elliot Miller, The Mary of Catholicism, Christian Research Journal (Summer 1990) Part 2, p. 32.
[3] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005) p. 2.
[7] John de Satgé, Down to Earth, The New Protestant Vision of the Virgin Mary (Consortium, 1976) p. 80.
[8] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: A1 Publishing, 2005) p. 2.
