EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG PART V by Atty. Marwil Llasos

 

EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG

PART V

Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.

(See Part IV at: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/11/exposing-lies-and-deceptions-of-armando_21.html)

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

(Source: http://www.a1publishing.com.ph/author)

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.

[6] See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2008/11/pagan-goddesses-and-mary.html.

[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.