Almost three years ago Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Filipino Mariologist, posted an article refuting the argument against the Immaculate Conception written by a former Roman Catholic Priest, Anthony Pezzotta. Over six month ago, I wrote an article which pays special attention to this response of Atty. Llasos:
Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.”7 Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).
I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).
In the same article of mine, I cited three Roman Catholic apologetic websites who defend the Immaculate Conception by stating (in effect) that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless - the very argument which Atty. Llasos denies of being an official teaching (or reasoning). In fairness to Atty. Llasos, such argument may not be the official stand. However, it is nevertheless used by Roman Catholics. I asked on that article, what does Atty. Llasos have to say for his fellow Roman Catholics who argue that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on his fellow Roman Catholics' level of scholarship (if any)? For some reason, if Atty. Llasos even bothered to read my article, there was no response from him nor from his comrades.
At this point we would like to add another Roman Catholic apologist, who is a Filipino like Atty. Llasos, who made use of the said argument. And that Filipino apologist is none other than his best friend, Fr. Abraham Arganiosa:
THIS IS STUPID. JESUS WILL NOT INHERIT THE SINFUL NATURE BECAUSE HE IS GOD NOT BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A HUMAN FATHER. AND SINCE MARY IS BIOLOGICALLY THE MOTHER OF JESUS IF YOU WILL REASON THAT MARY HAS SINFUL NATURE THEN JESUS IS BIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED BY THE NATURE OF MARY BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF JESUS. THAT IS THE REASON WHY SO THAT JESUS WOULD NOT BE CONTAMINATED GOD THE FATHER DECLARED HER IN "ENMITY WITH SATAN" [Genesis 3:15] AND FILLED HER WITH DIVINE GRACE [Luke 1:28]. THAT IS THE SOLID BIBLICAL REASONS WHY JESUS WAS NOT CONTAMINATED - THE SPECIAL GRACES GIVEN BY GOD WHICH MADE MARY EXCEPTIONAL FROM ORDINARY SINCE SHE IS TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE INCARNATE GOD.
To shorten what Fr. Abe argued, Jesus is sinless because Mary was made sinless. We need to ask (again), what does Atty. Llasos have to say about Fr. Abe who argues that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on Fr. Abe's scholarship (if any)?
Of course, we may probably hear from Atty. Llasos. He may counter by saying something like, "Fr. Abe was just explaining there why Jesus would not be contaminated" or "Fr. Abe did explain that Mary was full of grace that's why she is free from sin". Such probable responses are refuted by these words:
THAT IS THE REASON WHY SO THAT JESUS WOULD NOT BE CONTAMINATED GOD THE FATHER DECLARED HER IN "ENMITY WITH SATAN" [Genesis 3:15] AND FILLED HER WITH DIVINE GRACE [Luke 1:28].
Isn't that just the same as saying that Mary needs to be sinless so as not to contaminate Christ?
I stated in my previous article that the recommended reason (by Catholic Answers) why Mary is sinless is because she was fitting to be the holy vessel to carry the incarnate God the Son. The problem with that kind of reasoning is that after the birth of Christ, it makes you wonder what further purpose is there for Mary to be sinless. God could have made her sinless for nine months only and that's it.
Going back to Atty. Llasos' challenge to Anthony Pezzotta "to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that 'Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one'", how I wish he would have guts to ask Fr. Abe as well.
Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.”7 Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).
I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).
In the same article of mine, I cited three Roman Catholic apologetic websites who defend the Immaculate Conception by stating (in effect) that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless - the very argument which Atty. Llasos denies of being an official teaching (or reasoning). In fairness to Atty. Llasos, such argument may not be the official stand. However, it is nevertheless used by Roman Catholics. I asked on that article, what does Atty. Llasos have to say for his fellow Roman Catholics who argue that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on his fellow Roman Catholics' level of scholarship (if any)? For some reason, if Atty. Llasos even bothered to read my article, there was no response from him nor from his comrades.
At this point we would like to add another Roman Catholic apologist, who is a Filipino like Atty. Llasos, who made use of the said argument. And that Filipino apologist is none other than his best friend, Fr. Abraham Arganiosa:
THIS IS STUPID. JESUS WILL NOT INHERIT THE SINFUL NATURE BECAUSE HE IS GOD NOT BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A HUMAN FATHER. AND SINCE MARY IS BIOLOGICALLY THE MOTHER OF JESUS IF YOU WILL REASON THAT MARY HAS SINFUL NATURE THEN JESUS IS BIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED BY THE NATURE OF MARY BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF JESUS. THAT IS THE REASON WHY SO THAT JESUS WOULD NOT BE CONTAMINATED GOD THE FATHER DECLARED HER IN "ENMITY WITH SATAN" [Genesis 3:15] AND FILLED HER WITH DIVINE GRACE [Luke 1:28]. THAT IS THE SOLID BIBLICAL REASONS WHY JESUS WAS NOT CONTAMINATED - THE SPECIAL GRACES GIVEN BY GOD WHICH MADE MARY EXCEPTIONAL FROM ORDINARY SINCE SHE IS TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE INCARNATE GOD.
To shorten what Fr. Abe argued, Jesus is sinless because Mary was made sinless. We need to ask (again), what does Atty. Llasos have to say about Fr. Abe who argues that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on Fr. Abe's scholarship (if any)?
Of course, we may probably hear from Atty. Llasos. He may counter by saying something like, "Fr. Abe was just explaining there why Jesus would not be contaminated" or "Fr. Abe did explain that Mary was full of grace that's why she is free from sin". Such probable responses are refuted by these words:
THAT IS THE REASON WHY SO THAT JESUS WOULD NOT BE CONTAMINATED GOD THE FATHER DECLARED HER IN "ENMITY WITH SATAN" [Genesis 3:15] AND FILLED HER WITH DIVINE GRACE [Luke 1:28].
Isn't that just the same as saying that Mary needs to be sinless so as not to contaminate Christ?
I stated in my previous article that the recommended reason (by Catholic Answers) why Mary is sinless is because she was fitting to be the holy vessel to carry the incarnate God the Son. The problem with that kind of reasoning is that after the birth of Christ, it makes you wonder what further purpose is there for Mary to be sinless. God could have made her sinless for nine months only and that's it.
Going back to Atty. Llasos' challenge to Anthony Pezzotta "to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that 'Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one'", how I wish he would have guts to ask Fr. Abe as well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment