PAPAL BUSTER BUSTED!!!
Anti-Catholics Caught Lying
FRANKLIN LI, the author of now busted anti-Catholic blog Papalbusters is known for intellectual dishonesty and cold-blooded mendacity. He has no qualms in lying all day long to attack the Catholic Church, the Pope and their defenders (particularly me and Rev. Fr. Abraham Arganiosa). It is expected of Franklin Li because we know who his father is (Jn. 8:44, Rev. 12:10). Caught in the web of lies of his own making, Franklin Li has no way out of it.
In an article in his now defunct blog which a fellow Catholic Faith defender emailed me (I don’t monitor Franklin Li’s blog because it’s just a waste of time considering that his readership is almost nil), Franklin Li lied through his teeth when he averred that Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I have contrasting views.
Of course, Franklin Li copied this lie from his master GERALD JOHN PARAY SOLIMAN (Gerry Soliman) who, as far as I know, cannot publicly defend his lies in a debate. I will be gratified if one day Mr. Soliman will email me and accept the debate challenge I gave to his other self Rodimus. Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman have the same style – pitting one Catholic apologist against another, you know the classic divide and conquer strategy. They have the same father and teacher, I suppose. And you know who – the father of lies and teacher of heresies. Sorry, but we won’t fall for the trap.
[Gerry Soliman’s article is here:
while the now moribund blog of Franklin Li may be excavated here:
Let’s now scrutinize the lies of Franklin Li (a second-rate trying hard copy-cat of Gerry Soliman).
In the malicious article Can Abraham Arganiosa and Atty. Marwil L. Llasos Make Up Their Minds?, Franklin Li unabashedly foisted the falsehood on his readers (if there are any) that Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I have “contrasting views” and “contradictory argument” on the Woman of Revelation 12.
The Devil is subtle and so are his minions, i.e., Franklin Li and his big-brother Gerry Soliman. So don’t be fooled by the cunning serpent and his brood.
Let’s check where the so-called contradiction lies. Here are Franklin Li’s words:
“Now this is something. We have Atty. Marwil L. Llasos saying, "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.” On the other hand, Abraham Arganiosa says, "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 contradiction exists only in the sick and malevolent minds of Franklin Li and Mr. Soliman. These liars took my words out of context. Deceived and deceiving, the duo wants to deceive the readers into believing that Fr. Arganiosa and I are discussing the same topic. There is a big problem in the reading comprehension skills of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. They are wont to distort, twist and quote out of context the words of Catholic apologists just so that they can attack us of contradiction.
Let’s expose the lying mentality of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. By juxtaposing my words and Fr. Arganiosa, the lying tandem of Li and Soliman makes it appear that we are speaking about the same thing. We don’t. Don’t fall for the lie, folks.
The truth is Rev. Fr. Arganiosa and I and talking about different matters.
This was my comment: “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.” What was I referring to? I was specifically referring to the “birth pangs” mentioned in Revelation 12:2. Mr. Soliman knows that because I was answering his question: “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.”
I am aghast by Mr. Gerry Soliman’s (and also Franklin Li’s) intellectual dishonesty. It’s hard to deal with these evangelical defenders because they take you out of context and misrepresent your position. I’d rather personally debate them in public to expose to the people their diabolical ploy.
To repeat, the portion of my statement that Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman quoted refers to the “birth pangs” mentioned in Revelation 12:2 and not the identity of the “woman” which I already answered earlier in the first part of my article and also in my previous post. [See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/07/woman-in-revelation-12-part-i.html].
Since Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman yanked my statement out of context, let me quote in full the context in which my statement appeared so that the public will see how malicious and intellectually dishonest Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman are. The readers will note the context I was discussing:
“Now let’s turn to Mr. Soliman’s question. He said: “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.”
The real concern of Mr. Soliman, based on his question, is to debunk the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Of course, we know that in Genesis 3:16, God cursed the fallen Eve with the words: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” So, Mr. Soliman’s point really is: if Mary is free from original sin, then she should be free from child-bearing pains; but, if the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, why did she cry out in pain as she was about to give birth? (Rev. 12:2).
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. In his comment in my blog article, Mr. Soliman said, “I don't interpret it literally …” to which I replied that “there are points of agreement already between his position and ours.” [See: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5249487892866557785&postID=4175179942859431188]
I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we. From this point of agreement, I shall explain why, from the Catholic view, Revelation 12:2 does not affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
We Catholics do recognize the fact that, as stated in Revelation 12:2, there are indeed “labor pains.” But what are these labor pains? Author John McHugh who sees Mary not as the primary ‘woman’ of Revelation 12 but still sees her as the woman in a secondary manner, notes: “The woman, we read was ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish’ is never once used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the apocrypha, the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of physical birth; and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the scene of a painful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhaps best be rendered as ‘going through torment or torture’, and it is therefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one recalls the radiant description of the woman in 12:1” [John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: Garden City, NY, 1975) p.411].
Indeed, Revelation 12:2 does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor pains, and if the author of the Apocalypse had wanted to say so, he would have certainly used such language. Instead, here it seems that the Seer of Patmos is speaking of a double birth. The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.
Catholic Biblical exegete Fr. Stefano Manelli, explains –
“The pains of childbirth of the “woman” seem to constitute a particular problem, if they are referred to the virginal childbirth of Mary at Bethlehem. If instead, they are referred to the childbirth of Mary on Calvary, where she is constituted “truly the mother of the members of Christ”, as St. Augustine affirms (quoted by Lumen Gentium, no. 53), then we too can understand with other exegetes, among them D. Squillaci, that to our Lady “is to be ascribed a double childbirth: one natural and virginal, by which without pain or injury of any kind, she begot the Son of God the physical Christ: the other spiritual, by means of which on Calvary, uniting her sufferings to those of the Redeemer, she begot the Mystical Body of Christ.
According to R. Laurentin, the difficulty over the pains of childbirth on the part of the “woman” of Revelation can be eliminated by a comparison:
“In Apoc. 5:6 Christ appears in heaven in the form of an immolated lamb (cf. Jn 19:36). The sufferings of the woman who also appears in heaven in Apoc 12:2, stands in relation to the immolation of the celestial Lamb. Thus, in the 12th chapter of Apocalypse, the reference is not to the childbirth at Bethlehem, but to the words of Christ on the cross: “Son, behold your Mother” (Jn 19:26). It is a question of the spiritual motherhood of Mary and of the compassion with which the Mother of Jesus shares in the sufferings of the immolated Lamb. Jn 12:9 and Apoc 12 are therefore, in strict relation to one another. In each passage Mary’s motherhood in relation to the disciples entails a context of suffering (Jn. 19:25; Apoc 12:2)” [Stefano Manelli,FFI, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford, Massachusetts: Academy of the Immaculate, 1995), pp. 356-357].
Expounding on this, a Catholic apologist explains –
“Thus, here John is speaking about a different type of suffering. Thus, for example, in Gal 4:19, Paul was in birth pains until Christ was formed within his readers. Also, Rom. 8:22 shows ‘All creation has been groaning in travail together until now.’ When speaking about Lot who was the only righteous one in Sodom and Gomorra, it says that ‘he was vexed by his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds). Thus, the suffering can be spiritual. So how does this relate to Mary? Mary gives birth to Christ, and his sufferings on Calvary. Well, there was a a prophecy given by Simeon, in Luke 2:34-35 that speaks to this very issue, as brought up in Rev. 12:2:
34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
So Mary underwent the spiritual suffering at Calvary. Her soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. There is a richness in Luke 2:34-35, which shows how Mary suffered. But not only on the cross. John McHugh notes that the traditional classical interpretation in Catholic thought is that the sword signifies the suffering felt by Mary as she stood by the cross, watching the death-agony of her son. McHugh gives a lot of evidence to say that the suffering of Mary speaks to much more than that (pages 104-112 of his book), but also in Lk. 2:35:
The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world (cf. once more the Magnificat). Yet in the course of Jesus‘ public life she had to watch the mounting opposition to her son, and knew that the leaders of Israel were thereby turning against their saviour. Her mental sufferings reached a climax on Calvary, but they had begun long before. And even at the foot of the cross, she suffered a double agony. She watched the physical torment and heard the mockery directed at Jesus, her son but in addition she had the far greater sorrow of knowing that the appointed leaders of God‘s chosen people had refused the message of salvation” [citing John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975), p. 111]. (See: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html#).
In conclusion, the online Catholic apologist states –
Thus, this directly speaks to the issue of Revelation 12. Now, we also saw in Revelation 12 that right after speaking about her suffering in v. 2, it speaks to the dragon chasing the woman and the child, seeking to devour them. Her child is caught up to the throne. Thus, it speaks to his both resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is done after the fact of her suffering. Thus, the suffering pointed to in Revelation 12:2 points exactly to the suffering that she entailed when seeing the rejection of her Son, that reached its fulfillment on the cross. In addition to this, we see her as the Spiritual mother of all of Christ’s children (Jn. 19:27, Rev. 12:17). Now, as Mary is still the only one who is Jesus’ mother, this shows a double birth, both a physical birth of Christ, and a spiritual birth, where she begets the children of Christ. That brings with it also a painful spiritual childbirth, as we have seen in other passages which show spiritual suffering (2 Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22)” (ibid).”
THERE YOU HAVE IT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. My statement, as you correctly observed, was concerned about the interpretation of the “birth pangs” in Revelation 12 and not the identity of the “woman.”
Now, let’s proceed to the statement of Fr. Abraham 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."
The objective reader will immediately know and understand that Fr. Arganiosa is discussing the identity of the “woman.” He is not discussing there the interpretation of the “birth pangs.”
Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS is answering the question asked by a reader: “[I]f we will argue that Woman is sometimes Mary, because it has similarities with Mary….” And 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.” The issue that Fr. Arganiosa responded to is the identity of the “woman.”
So here we have once again unmasked the lies of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. They should by now be ashamed of what they are doing – if they have a modicum of self-respect and personal integrity. I doubt it if they would. They are so smug and won’t bother to apologize for spreading falsehood in the Internet. “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness” (Exo. 23:1, NIV).
Now let’s see. Did Fr. Arganiosa and I contradict each other in any way regarding this issue? The answer is an obvious NO. We are on all fours when it comes to interpreting Revelation 12, but as to the identity of the “woman” and the interpretation of “birth pangs.”
On the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12: I did an exegetical work on this and listed the various interpretations of the “woman” in Revelation 12 as Mary, the Church, Israel and even Eve. Does Fr. Abraham Arganiosa oppose this interpretation? NO. This is what Fr. Arganiosa said: “Please don't confuse ISRAEL, CHURCH AND MARY the Woman Clothed with the Sun refers to them all and to each of them.” Moreover, in the portion quoted out of context by Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman, Fr. Araganiosa underscored the same point: “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.” Isn’t that clear enough? Only to the opaque minds of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman that it is unclear.
On the interpretation of “birth pangs” in Revelation 12: You can refer to my statement which I quoted extensively above. Pertinently, I quoted John Mc Hugh’s article stating in part, “The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world.” This essentially the same stand of Fr. Arganiosa:
“THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT THE TERM WOMAN ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE IS NOT ONLY REFERRING TO A PERSON BUT ALSO TO ISRAEL AND TO THE CHURCH. THE PHRASE 'A WOMAN IN LABOR' IS ALSO USED FOR ISRAEL WHO IS REFERRED TO AS THE MOTHER ZION OR THE DAUGHTER ZION.
THE WORD WOMAN IS USED FOR MARY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WHEREIN JESUS CONTINUOUSLY CALLED HER 'WOMAN' BUT GOD ALSO LIKENED THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO THAT WOMAN” (and cited Isa. 26:17 and Jer. 4:31).
Now, it’s my turn to ask: Who is contradicting who? Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman reject any Marian interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12. But would all Evangelicals agree with them? Not on your life!
I already pointed out in my blog that there are Evangelicals who admit Marian interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12. Here is what I said:
“Are there Protestants, or even Evangelicals, who share a Marian interpretation (though not exclusively) of Revelation 12? Yes, definitely – these are those with much better scholarly credentials than Mr. Gerry Soliman. I already cited Prof. Tim Perry, a published Evangelical theologian and professor. Mr. Soliman can hardly hold a candle beside him.
Speaking of the woman of Revelation 12, Prof. Perry categorically affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. Indeed, for Prof. Tim Perry, “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].
Although anti-Catholic and professed opponents of the Catholic view on Mary, the World Evangelical Fellowship looked at the Biblical data and acknowledged that the woman of Revelation 12 is indeed Mary! It 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: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92). Could the World Evangelical Fellowship be wrong and Mr. Soliman right? I’m certain that both the WEF and Mr. Soliman read the same Bible and interpret the same verses yet they arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions. They are all Evangelicals, by the way. But both of them can’t be right.”
Can Evangelicals ever make up their mind?
Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman should now hide in shame. Their credibility is by now below sea level. When they accuse us Catholics of contradicting each other, it just backfires of them. Just like the Jewish accusers of the Lord, they are the ones who are inconsistent and contradictory.