Our Lady of Victories, pray for the triumph of the Holy Catholic Church
EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG
Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.
ARMANDO ANG is the author of the anti-Catholic book “The Dark Side of Catholicism”
which is already on its third edition. The phenomenal sales of Ang’s
Catholic-bashing book proves that indeed anti-Catholicism sells even in
our predominantly Catholic country. By the way, Ang also authored “The Dark Side of Unorthodox Protestantism” – as if there’s such a thing as “orthodox” Protestantism given the division in the Protestant world. I was looking for “The Dark Side of Islam” but
I couldn’t find one that is authored by Armando Ang. I wonder why Ang
does not write a book exposing the “dark side” of Islam. Perhaps in the
future and I am really looking forward to have a copy of that
much-awaited book.
To be fair, Armando Ang must also write “The Bright Side of Catholicism” if he is sincere and honest in what he claimed that “[i]t is incumbent on every believer to know the truth and the truth shall make us free”[1]
(citing John 8:32). But I don’t see it forthcoming for Ang to publish a
book showing the “bright” side of Catholicism. The anti-Catholic that
he is, Ang has already made up his mind that “[t]here
are many teachings of the early Catholic Church that have been
contaminated by new doctrines that serve no salvation value.”[2] Like
all anti-Catholic polemicists, Ang has already betrayed his bias and
prejudice against the Catholic Church that he would no longer consider
evidence and arguments contrary to his firmly held views.

Ang's anti-Catholic bestseller is deceiving the unwary
A friend, fellow Catholic apologist and Marian devotee sent me a copy of the 2005 updated edition of Armando Ang’s The Dark Side of Catholicism. I will refer to that book in my critique of Ang’s allegations, accusations, claims and arguments.
I
noticed that Ang’s book is a pastiche of anti-Catholic polemical
writings of Loraine Boettner, Dave Hunt, James McCarthy, James White and
of course, Jack Chick – and a host of other anti-Catholic authors. And
so what else is new?
Ang’s
book is a regurgitated thrash. It merely rehashes old, worn out and
long debunked attacks against the Catholic Church. Ang adds up his own
lies and deceptions to the growing list of false accusations against the
Church. From whom could these accusations come from if not from the “accuser of the brethren”? (Rev. 12:10). Like his father the devil (Jn. 8:44), Ang passes off his lies as Gospel truth. The Bible categorically states, “Do shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand into the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Exo. 23:1, unless otherwise indicated, the Scripture citations herein are from the King James Version, Ang’s favorite translation).
I
make it of record that I look forward to personally debating Armando
Ang. I prefer that such eyeball to eyeball confrontation be held in his
own congregation. I intend to cross-examine him on the contents of his
book. I will be glad to require him to prove each and every single
allegation of his. If what Armando Ang is saying is true, he will accept
this challenge.
For
the meantime, I will run a series of articles debunking Ang’s false
accusations and brazen lies. Since I am a Mariologist, I will
concentrate on The Dark Side of Catholicism’s first two chapters on the Virgin Mary (Chapter 1) and the Marian Cults (Chapter II). I did the same to Dr. Anthony Pezzotta’s “Truth Encounter” where I debunked his attacks on Mary in chapter 11 and 12 of his discredited book.
I wish to draw my reader’s attention to Armando Ang’s deceptive style. He employs this style countless times in his book. I will just cite one example for now.
The unscholarly style of Armando Ang
In page 13 of Armando Ang’s The Dark Side of Catholicism, one can find this assertion –
“As
early as the 5th century Pope Leo the Great (440-461) wrote that Mary
gave birth to Jesus without detriment to her virginity. Pope Alexander
III (1159-1181) reiterated it by declaring that “Mary conceived without
detriment to her virginity, gave birth to the Son without pain, and
departed hence without being subject to corruption.” (Kauffman, 38-39)
This was confirmed by the apparition at Agreda, Spain in the early
1600s that went on to explain “that the twelve stars on the crown serve
as evidence of her virtue and also refers to the twelve tribes of Israel
as revealed in the book of Revelation.” This was reiterated again by
the appearance of the apparition in 1989 at San Nicolas, Argentina.
(Ibid., 44) But in an apparition to Annie Kirkwood who wrote down the
Virgin Mary's message in her book, Mary's Message of Hope, claims that Mary told her that she “had several children in addition to Jesus.” (Steiger, 31)
The
readers will note that Armando Ang does not cite the primary sources of
his allegation. He passes on second hand information. This reveals the
level of Armando Ang’s scholarship, or the lack of it.
Armando
Ang makes it appear that he is quoting Pope Alexander III. But when you
check the citation, Ang is not quoting the exact papal document.
Instead he is quoting from Kauffman, allegedly from pages 38-39 of his
book. The problem is, we do not know which book of Kauffman is being
cited. In Ang’s References and Suggested Readings found at pages 421-424
of his book, he lists “Kauffman, Timothy F.” as his reference. However, Kauffman has two books listed, both published in 1982, Graven Bread and Quite Contrary. The reader of The Dark Side of Catholicism
will have to guess which of the two Kauffman’s books Armando Ang is
citing for his chopped quotation. Since these books are not readily
available, the reader cannot easily check the veracity of Ang’s
attribution.
The
problem is even more compounded when Armando Ang alleges that the
Pope’s declaration was “confirmed by the apparition at Agreda, Spain in
the early 1600s that went on to explain ‘that the twelve stars on the
crown serve as evidence of her virtue and also refers to the twelve
tribes of Israel as revealed in the book of Revelation.’ ” Ang certainly
does not know what he is talking about. There has been no apparition
by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Agreda, Spain. Instead, a visionary named
Mary of Agreda received locutions from the Blessed Mother and these are
published in a four-volume work “City of God” (the
owner of this blog owns Mary of Agreda’s four-volume work from TAN
Books). Ang’s statements are often inaccurate and unreliable.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Ang’s quotation does not provide any
reference to Mary of Agreda’s book. Instead, he refers his readers,
again, to Kauffman.
Armando
Ang is incorrigible. He once again cited Kauffman in claiming that the
“apparition” at Agreda was “reiterated again by the appearance of the
apparition (sic) in 1989 at San Nicolas, Argentina.” Ang’s source? Kauffman! So much for the “scholarship” of Armando Ang.

Annie Kirkwood: Ang's "prophetess" is no Catholic
Armando Ang and Annie Kirkwood
Here is the ultimate bombshell to blast whatever remains of Armando Ang’s pretense of scholarship and credibility.
Armando
Ang, after mentioning the “apparitions” where Mary underscored her
perpetual virginity, pitted these “apparitions” to another “apparition”
that claims the contrary – the “apparition” to Annie Kirkwood:

Annie Kirkwood's book: Mary's Message of Hope. I doubt it very much if Armando Ang has actually read it
But in an apparition to Annie Kirkwood who wrote down the Virgin Mary's message in her book, Mary's Message of Hope claims that Mary told her that she “had several children in addition to Jesus.” (Steiger, 31)
In
attacking the perpetual virginity of Mary, Armando Ang does not
hesitate to use questionable and disreputable sources such as Annie
Kirkwood. The purpose of Armando Ang is plain to see. He wants to make
it appear that the “apparitions” of the Blessed Virgin Mary contradict
each other when it comes to the issue of her perpetual virginity. Thus,
Ang pitted the “apparitions” at Agreda and Argentina with the
apparitions to Annie Kirkwood.
The author of The Dark Side of Catholicism is
absolutely ignorant about what he is writing about. Again, he is merely
passing off second hand information. His quote that Mary told Annie
that she had “several children in addition to Jesus” is actually taken
from Brad and Sherry Hansen Steiger’s book “Mother Mary Speaks to Us” (1996). I wonder if Armando Ang was able to read any of Annie Kirkwood’s writings in the original.

Byron Kirkwood: The husband "prophetess" and compiler of her "messages"
Contrary
to the false claim of Armando Ang, there was no apparition of the
Blessed Virgin Mary to Annie Kirkwood. Annie Kirkwood claimed that
“Mary” communicates to her “strongly” through the mind and she “hears”
internally what “Mary” says.[3]
As claimed by Annie Kirkwood herself, she received no apparitions but
mere interior locutions. Obviously, Armando Ang does not know the
difference as he keeps on mentioning “apparitions” in his book. His
intention is clear: to pit one “apparition” against the other and
discredit the perpetual virginity of Mary.
By
mentioning the “apparition” to Annie Kirkwood alongside with those at
Agreda and Argentina, Armando Ang clearly wants to portray the
“apparition” to Annie Kirkwood as Catholic. But Ang is clearly deceiving
his readers by not divulging a crucial fact: Anna Kirkwood is not Catholic![4] The messages Annie Kirkwood has been allegedly receiving from the Virgin Mary is not
accepted by the Catholic Church. Thus, it is not legitimate or proper
for Ang to pit this “apparition” from the others. The messages of the
“Mary” given to Annie Kirkwood are downrightly absurd, inane and
heretical. For a critique of Annie Kirkwood’s messages, please see:

Another book of Annie Kirkwood: Mary's Message to the World
Annie
Kirkwood’s “Mary” teaches the heresy of “indifferentism” – that all
religions are the same and it doesn’t matter what religious faith one
holds. Kirkwood’s “Mary” states that “[t]he religious and cultural differences between peoples are outer and not as important as they think.”[5] Armando Ang leaves out that fact.
The
“Jesus” of Annie Kirkwood’s “Mary” is a different Jesus. Far from being
“meek and humble,” Annie Kirkwood’s “Jesus” is described by his mother
“Mary” as “[a]lthough he seldom lost his temper, when he did, his eyes would come dark and menacing.”[6] Does Ang accept this description of Jesus? He doesn’t say.
Furthermore, Armando Ang’s Annie Kirkwood believes in UFOs. According to her, “Mary” predicted that “[t]here will be increased UFO activity.”[7] She went on to say that the “coming
storms and tremors of unheard of size will perhaps make believers of
you. The other signs of UFO activity and supernatural events will call
attentively to our plea to man.”[8] Ang for sure does not believe in UFOs – but why does he believe Anna Kirkwood’s “Mary” when she claimed to have “had several children in addition to Jesus”?
The
reason is plain and simple. Because Anne Kirkwood’s “Mary” provided Ang
with ammunition to demolish Mary’s perpetual virginity. Deceived and
deceiving, Armando Ang doesn’t have any qualm in keeping crucial
information away from his readers. Ang is definitely not concerned with
truth at all. What he wants to do is to attack the church by any means,
fair or foul.
Using
Annie Kirkwood’s messages to discredit Mary’s perpetual virginity
indicates how far Armando Ang can go to attack the dogma. What Ang does
not realize is that his reliance on Annie Kirkwood backfires on him.
As
an Evangelical, I am sure that Armando Ang believes that the so-called
“brothers and sisters” of Jesus Christ mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew
13:55-56 are His siblings. In these verses, the names of the “brothers”
of Jesus are named James, Joses (Joseph), Judas and Simon. But what does Annie Kirkwood’s “Mary” say the names of her children are? Except for James,[9] the names of the other children of “Mary” are David and Daniel,[10] Elizabeth,[11] Jacob,[12] Ruth[13] and Mary Martha.[14] What does Armando Ang say about it? Nothing.
He leaves out this relevant information because he doesn’t want his
readers to know about it. Armando Ang happily accepts Annie Kirkwood’s
Mary’s claim that she has several children in addition to Jesus. But, Armando Ang keeps
mum when this same “Mary” names her children differently from what the
Bible says. Isn’t it double standard? Isn’t that dishonesty? Isn’t that
deception? What is left of Armando Ang’s credibility? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
[1] Armando Ang, The Dark Side of Catholicism (Manila: Al Publishing, 2005) flyleaf.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Annie Kirkwood, Mary’s Message to the World (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1991) p. viii. The owner of this blog has a copy of this book.
[4] Ibid., p. ix.
[5] Ibid., p. xiii.
[6] Ibid., 65.
[7] Ibid., p. 10.
[8] Ibid., p. 32.
[9] Ibid., p. 62, 67.
[10] Ibid., p. 68.
[11] Ibid., p. 69.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., p. 70.
[14] Ibid.

.jpg)
Ayan ba yung abugado na nagquo-quote ng Evangelical na libro para suportahan ang mga doktrina tungkol kay Maria pero ecumenical pala yung Evangelical?
ReplyDeleteYES, YAN ANG ABOGADONG CATHOLIC APOLOGIST AND DEBATER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. HE ISSUED A CHALLENGE AGAINST PASTOR ANTHONY PEZZOTA OF THE BORN AGAIN AND TO ARMANDO ANG, BOTH ANTI-CATHOLIC AUTHORS BUT RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM BOTH.
ReplyDeleteHE QUOTED EVANGELICA AUTHORS BECAUSE HIS WORKS ARE SCHOLARLY AND THOSE BOOKS THAT HE QUOTED SUPPORTING CATHOLIC DOCTRINES ON MARY WERE WRITTEN BY EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS WITH DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY. UNLIKE ARMANDO ANG WHOSE WORK IS BEREFT OF SCHOLARLY CREDEBILITY.
SO WHAT IF THEY ARE ECUMENICAL? THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ECUMENICAL MEANS THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO DIALOGUE WITH OTHERS UNLIKE ARMANDO ANG AND PEZZOTA WHO ARE HIDING COWARDS.
di po ba kapag ecumenical ay gustong magkasundo ang mga katoliko at protestante at hindi makipagtalo?
ReplyDeleteAyan ba yung abugado
ReplyDelete[Talagang abogado ako kasi pumasa ako sa Bar at hindi gaya ninyo na kokonti ang pumapasa sa Bar kasi sandamakmak na bobo kayo]
na nagquo-quote ng Evangelical na libro para suportahan ang mga doktrina tungkol kay Maria
[Mahina talaga ang kokote mo at talagang mahina ang reading comprehension. Hindi namin kailangang suportahan ang mga doktrina tungkol kay Maria ng mga Evangelical sources. Kaya lang namin binabanggit namin para lamang ipakita na may mga Evangelical na ganun din ang paniniwala. Ang problema sa inyo, pag Katoliko inuupakan ninyo pero pag Evangelical hindi. Double standard.
pero ecumenical pala yung Evangelical?
[Eh ano kung ecumenical eh Evangelical pa rin yan. Pag ang Evangelical ba eh ecumenical hindi na Evangelical? Saan mo naman yan mababasa a Biblia? Aber nga letra por letra.
Diyan nagpapakita na sa pagiging Evangelical ninyo eh watak-watak kayo. Kesyo may ecumenical at hindi ecumenical. Ngayon, sino ang magsasabi kung sino ang tunay na Evangelical sa inyo?]
[di po ba kapag ecumenical ay gustong magkasundo ang mga katoliko at protestante at hindi makipagtalo?]
ReplyDeleteTAMA. AT ANG PAMAMARAAN NG ECUMENISM AY PAG-UUSAP.
ANO ANG PAG-UUSAPAN? DOCTRINA AT PANANAMPALATAYA.
KUNG GUSTO NIO NG ECUMENICAL E DI ECUMENICAL TAYO. PERO SI PEZZOTA AT SI ARMANDO ANG HINDI ECUMENICAL. NANINIRA SA AMIN. SO DAPAT NAMIN SILANG SAGUTIN AT REQUIRED KAMING PATUNAYAN NA MALI ANG KANILANG MGA KASINUNGALINGAN. KUNG AYAW NINYONG SUMAGOT KAMI WAG KAYONG MANINIRA SA AMIN.
By the way, minsan naging associate member ako ng Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ESBVM) na nakabase sa London. Ito ay samahan ng mga iba't-bang Kristiano kasama na ang mga Katoliko, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran at iba pang pangkatin ng relihiyon. Bagama't maraming hindi pinagkakasunduan sa pananampalataya, nagkakaisa naman sa sama-samang pag-aaral at pagtuklas ng katotohanan. Ang pakay ay tingnan ang mas maraming pinagkakaisahan kaysa sa mas kakaunting pinagtatalunan. Ang mga kasapi nito ay mga iskolar kaya't malaya magpahayang ng saloobin o kaisipan. Pero dapat handa pa rin na salungatin ng iba na may ibang saloobin o kaisipan. Walang masama dito. Basta may pag-galang. Sa ecumenical, ecumenical kami. Sa mga hindi, ibibigay natin ang nais nila. Sina Pezzotta at Armando Ang ay hindi lamang hindi ecumenical bagkus ay sinungaling at manloloko pa. Ang ginagawa namin ay pangbubuking sa mga manggogoyo tulad nina Pezzotta at Ang.
ReplyDelete[TAMA. AT ANG PAMAMARAAN NG ECUMENISM AY PAG-UUSAP.]
ReplyDeleteso kung ang ecumenical Evangelical ay gustong makipagsundo sa inyo, lumalabas na masobjective pa pala ang magquote sa non-ecumenical laban sa kapwa non-ecumenical?
[Eh ano kung ecumenical eh Evangelical pa rin yan.]
So kapag sinabing hotdog eh galing ito sa aso kasi may dog, ganun po ba? Wag naman po tayo magresort sa collective fallacy.
so kung ang ecumenical Evangelical ay gustong makipagsundo sa inyo
ReplyDelete[Sinong ecumenical Evangelical ang gusting makipagsundo sa amin, aber? Name names. At ano ang pinagkasunduan? Be specific].
lumalabas na masobjective pa pala ang magquote sa non-ecumenical laban sa kapwa non-ecumenical?
[Hindi ko naintindihan ang sinasabi mo. Excuse me? Ano ang ibig mong sabihin na mas objective mag-quote sa NON-ECUMENICAL laban sa kapwa NON-ECUMENICAL? Eh parehas silang NON-ECUMENICAL. Umayos ka nga. Para mo na ring sinabi na mas masarap ang TALONG sa kapwa TALONG.]
So kapag sinabing hotdog eh galing ito sa aso kasi may dog, ganun po ba?
ReplyDelete[Huwag kang magsabog ng kabobohan mo. Sino ang maysabi na porke hotdog galing sa aso? Bobo lang na tulad mo ang magsasabi niyan. Kahit maliit na bata na may muwang at unawa alam na ang hotdog ay hindi gawa sa aso. Ang layo ng sinabi ko sa pinapalabas mo.
Ang sinabi ko ay “eh ano kung ecumenical eh Evangelical pa rin yan.” Ibig sabihin, hindi na ba Evangelical na nagkataong ecumenical? Sa medaling salita, natanggal ba ang pagiging Evangelical ng tao porke ecumenical siya? Ang layo sa hotdog argument mo. Makitid ang utak mo.]
Wag naman po tayo magresort sa collective fallacy.
ReplyDelete[Wala akong fallacy na ginamit. At pwede ba hindi mo alam ang ibig sabihin ng collective fallacy kaya huwag ka magmarunong. Aber nga, kung alam mo, magbigay ka ng depinisyon at halimbawa ng collective fallacy na sinasabi mo.
Katunayan, ikaw ang may fallacy. Ang hotdog argument mo ay false analogy sapagkat napakalayo sa binanggit ko na halimbawa.]
GANYAN TALAGA ANG MGA BURN AGAIN. WALA SA KATINUAN AT AMPAW ANG LAMAN NG UTAK. NAKAKAHIYA TALAGA. KAYA NGA AYAW MAGPAKILALA KASI PATI SARILI NIYANG KATANGAHAN IKINAHIHIYA NIYA.
ReplyDeleteMalakas ang hinala ko na si Soliman ang anonymous na yan kasi masama ang loob niya at ng mga kasamahan niyang burn again sa pagbubuking ni Bro Mars sa mga panlilinlang ni Armando Ang sa paggamit ng mga may kadiyabluhang mensahe ng huwad na Maria na nagbigay daw ng mga panloob na pagpapahayag sa isang di Katolikong bisyonaryo na si Annie Kirkwood. Hoy, sa mga Katoliko lang nagbibigay ng makadiyos na pagpapahayag ang tunay na Panginoong Jesus at Inang Maria.
ReplyDeleteNa-ipost ni Bro Mars ang expose niya noong Nov 12, 2011. Kinabukasan, Nov 13, 2011, nagpost din si Soliman ng expose niya kuno sa pagquote ni Bro kay Tim Perry para magsilbing anticlimactic sa naunang expose ni Bro. Halatang halata eh. At wa epek naman expose niya. Paglipas ng dalawang araw, Nov 15, 2011, ipinost ni Anonymous ang mga comment niya sa itaas.
Pailalim ang banat ni Anonymous, marka ng kahinaang loob dahil hindi niya mapasinungalingan ang mga panlilinlang na gawain ni Armando Ang. Hinahamon ko si Soliman at si Ang na pasinungalingan nila and expose ni Bro na peke ang mga mensahe ng huwad na Maria kay Kirkwood na sinipi ni Ang para linlangin ang mga minamalas na makakabasa ng may kadiyabluhang libro niyang The Dark Side of Catholicism. Maghihintay ako.
SI RODIMUS, a.k.a., GERRY SOLIMAN IS A COWARD AND A LIAR. HE HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG AGAIN AND AGAIN. IN FACT HE APOLOGIZED TO US AFTER HE WE HAVE STABLISHED HIS LIES ON PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. PERO TALAGANG MAKAPAL ANG MUKA. HE HE HE...
ReplyDelete